In his first address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, President Donald Trump spoke for an hour about healing, unity, and, most uncharacteristically, America’s current greatness. The speech was a departure from past addresses in tone and demeanor–there was no “American carnage” to be found–but its content hardly tread new ground. Trump attacked Obamacare, promised to reform the tax code, and floated other ideas–some that skewed closer to Republican orthodoxy, and others that were closer to the left’s policy doctrine.

He began by denouncing bigotry and hatred, two things his opponents often accuse him of espousing: “Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City,” he said, “remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.”

In contrast to his dire Inaugural Address, or his smattering of grim remarks throughout the presidential campaign, Trump pointedly spoke to all Americans, not just the slice of the electorate that supported him. “We are one people, with one destiny,” he said. “The time for small thinking is over. The time for trivial fights is behind us. We just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts.” It was unclear if Trump’s mention of “trivial fights” was referring to the skirmishes he incites–he called House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi “incompetent” a few hours earlier–or is he was simply condemning his detractors.

Before addressing his ideas and governing vision, Trump indulged in his election victory, and the movement he ignited, which he called a “rebellion,” and an “earthquake.” His supporters, he said, “were all united by one very simple, but crucial demand, that America must put its own citizens first, because only then can we truly make America great again.”

To do that, Trump said, evoking the vision that shaped his campaign promises, the military would be built-up, manufacturing would make a comeback, and infrastructure would be a top priority. Trump also discussed, at length, his plans for immigration. “My job is not to represent the world,” he said. “My job is to represent the United States of America.”

He said he is open to immigration reform, as long as it would “improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security, and to restore respect for our laws.” He added: “If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens, then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.”

Earlier in the day, Trump gave a speech to TV anchors at the White House, where he floated immigration ideas that contrasted his usual sentiments. In mostly improvised remarks, he said he is open to a path to legalization for immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. He also posited the idea that children brought to the country illegally by their parents–so-called Dreamers–could attain citizenship.

But his speech to Congress made no mention of the potential changes in his thinking on immigration. Instead, he applauded the work immigration agents are doing to remove “gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our very innocent citizens.” He also asked a pointed question to those in Congress who take a softer stance on immigration: “What would you say to the American family that loses their jobs, their income or their loved one, because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?”

Toward the end of the address, Trump commemorated William “Ryan” Owens, the Navy SEAL who was killed during a raid in Yemen in January. Trump was criticized–by lawmakers and Owens’s father–for approving the raid, and has since placed blame on “the generals” and on the Obama Administration. On Tuesday night, Carryn Owens, the fallen soldier’s widow, sat in First Lady Melania Trump’s box. To a raucous standing ovation, Trump looked at Owens and said: “Ryan’s legacy is etched into eternity.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Adopts New Tone, Same Ideas, in Congressional Address appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, nearly 200,000 Californians were asked to evacuate their homes after workers at the Oroville Dam noticed the emergency spillway was severely damaged. The spillway was activated in response to rapidly rising water levels in the Oroville reservoir. While the dam was never in danger of collapsing, the failure of a vital failsafe and the subsequent mass evacuation serves as a reminder of the dire state of American infrastructure.

In its 2013 Report Card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s infrastructure a D+, citing “a significant backlog of overdue maintenance across our infrastructure systems” and “a pressing need for modernization.” While both Democrats and Republicans recognize the need to improve the nation’s infrastructure, there is debate on how these public works projects should be carried out. Any comprehensive infrastructure program must work to consider and shape long term environmental conditions.

The Oroville Dam overflow is demonstrative of how existing infrastructure is unsuited to changing climatic conditions. Since 2011, the state of California has been battling an intense drought and Oroville was not immune. However, snow melt and heavy rainfall over the past week caused water levels in the Oroville Reservoir to rise rapidly.

https://twitter.com/erbrod/status/831151275387531265

There is indisputable causal evidence linking climate change, drought conditions, and floods. According to the Climate Reality Project, as global temperatures rise, the atmosphere is able to hold more moisture at a given time. This leads to less regular but more intense downpours. Infrequent rain leads to more frequent droughts. When downpours finally occur over drought stricken land, the unsaturated soil is unable to absorb the deluge, meaning much of the water simply runs off into streams, rivers, lakes and oceans.

The Oroville Dam incident is just one example of how climate change is expected to exacerbate weather conditions. The Department of Transportation has released a number of reports in which it identifies climate change as a major threat to infrastructure. The country’s crumbling infrastructure is incapable of withstanding extreme weather conditions and future projects must acknowledge these climatic realities. Furthermore, the prioritization of certain infrastructural policies over others could either ease or worsen the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

President Donald Trump’s infrastructure plan promises $1 trillion worth of investment, places an emphasis on mass transit and high speed rail projects, and includes a plan for a modest increase in green energy investment. Nonetheless, the president might struggle to get congressional approval for his plan as it will likely not sit well with some of his fellow Republicans. The Republican establishment has traditionally called for smaller infrastructural spending packages and has resisted the expansion of public transport and green energy projects. Even if Trump’s infrastructure plan gets the green light, any gains made in public transport and green energy are likely to be offset by his overt hostility toward the environment and environmentalist work. The Untied States’ aging infrastructure is unequipped to deal with climate change, and the president refuses to admit climate change is an issue.

While it can be easily ignored, infrastructure shapes everything from socioeconomics to environmental conditions. The Oroville Dam incident reminds us that while investment in infrastructure is a necessity, new projects must not only by equipped to tolerate extreme climatic conditions, but should also work as tools that mitigate anthropogenic environmental impacts.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oroville Dam Overflow: The Environment and Failing Infrastructure appeared first on Law Street.

The death toll from the recent 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Nepal has surpassed 7,000, with at least 14,000. Recovery efforts have been underway for the last week. As people attempt to repair the damage and their lives, we should reflect on the implications of this disaster.

The bulk of the damage, casualties, and relief efforts are centered around the capital city of Kathmandu. Thousands of people have been left homeless and are forced to sleep and wait outdoors, as open spaces seem to be the only places that are safe from aftershocks. Because relief organizations are short on tents by the hundreds of thousands, they are exposed to the rain, cold air, and other elements. Furthermore, hospitals are not designed to accommodate for the scale of injuries. A 120-year-old hospital building was forced to relocate its patients elsewhere for operations.

Another long-term concern is Nepal’s economy. Many temples and historic sites have collapsed from the quake, which not only is spiritually disheartening for the nation’s religious population, but those sites have served as attractions for tourists in the city. In addition, the 2015 climbing season at Mount Everest is over, as climbers died in earthquake-induced deadly avalanches. At least 17 people died there, with dozens more injured and missing. While some climbers have been rescued by helicopter, others were trapped too high on the mountain, beyond the reach of air rescue. Yet they were hard pressed to descend on their own because the avalanches and quakes restricted access to their normal climb and descent routes.

Ongoing aftershocks continue to jar rocks and snow from the mountain, making rescue efforts difficult and dangerous. This disaster has already surpassed last year’s avalanche that killed 16 people as the single deadliest event on Everest, and it is expected to continue to worsen. Furthermore, it is unclear at what point climbing will resume and what form it will take; the damage from the quake and avalanches may have altered the topography of the mountain, which would force a readdressing of climbing routes, number of climbers that can be accommodated, and other details of this nature. Climbing Everest is one of the primary sources of tourism and income for the nation.

Most of the modern structures in the city of Kathmandu, while damaged, remained intact; on the other hand, most of the damage inflicted was on the old, poorly constructed brick buildings in the urban area. The city, region, and nation are generally hampered by poverty and have undergone substantial increases in population, experience poor coordination in building, and often do not adhere to building codes. These things make the region much more vulnerable when disasters of this caliber occur. It is quite similar to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. That one was also quite large in strength, registering at a 7.0 on the Richter Scale, but the death toll is estimated as high as 220,000. This catastrophic figure is due to the extreme poverty, poor building, and insufficient infrastructure that is rampant in Port-au-Prince. Conversely, the strongest earthquake on record, the 1960 9.5 tremor in Chile, resulted in approximately 2,000-3,000 deaths. The difference, journalist Jerry Thompson argues, resulted largely from more sophisticated building techniques, more preparedness on the part of the populace, and better organized rescue services in this more economically developed nation.

Poor quality building in Kathmandu. Courtesy of Oliphant via Flickr.

Thompson has also written about a massive subduction zone fault line near the North American Pacific Northwest coast. He suggests it is overdue for a massive quake, which would induce an enormous tsunami that could cause untold devastation in the area. We might say that Nepal is fortunate to be landlocked; in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, most of the deaths occurred as a result of the latter disaster rather than the former. The Fukushima nuclear meltdown was also spurred by the tsunami and not the quake itself. Understanding the functions of the natural world and that these two events may go hand in hand may lead to more foresighted planning.

There may be additional non-human damages that result from such problems. For example, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake did not cause as much damage as the fire that followed, which nearly gutted the entire city. The fire sprung up in many areas at once, largely due to a combination of broken and leaking gas pipes interacting with sparking downed power lines, and proceeded to devour the largely wooden buildings. It became clear even to the people at the time that the damage and deaths were due to poor planning on their part; nature was not to blame. Yet nature suffered nonetheless. The poorly built water supply system failed, and a beautiful valley in Yosemite National Park drowned as dams were built to meet the city’s water needs.

We must come to understand that we are a part of the Earth, not occupiers of it. Natural disasters will occur, and there will be fatalities. But they do not need to be as horrific as they are. The massive inequalities in wealth, technology, and living standards throughout the world have reared their ugly heads during disasters like this. It is encouraging to see so many other nations and organizations rallying to assist and support, but addressing the underlying problems that are ever present would be productive for societies’ lived experiences year round as well as in times of crisis. The tragedy in Nepal reminds us of the lesson that we have failed to grasp: since these forces are too powerful for us to control, and to an extent–since tectonic activity is vital to all life and the planet itself–should not be controlled, we must learn to live with them safely and intelligently.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Some Cities Survive Natural Disasters Better Than Others For This Reason appeared first on Law Street.

If you liked the debt ceiling debacle and the government shutdown, you are going to love Congress’s fight over funding the construction and maintenance of our roads and highways. Congress has until the end of August 2014 to find a way to fix the billion dollar shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund or they risk the loss of thousands of construction jobs. Here is everything you need to know about the latest battle in Washington that could have direct consequences for the economy and your commute.

What is the Highway Trust Fund?

The Highway Trust Fund was created in 1956 to fund the building and maintenance of the country’s roads and bridges. The fund currently has three separate accounts: Highway Account, Mass Transit Account, and Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.

How is it funded?

The Highway Trust Fund is currently funded by a federal fuel tax on gasoline. When it was created by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, it was funded by a three cent per gallon tax on gasoline. The tax was raised to four cents per gallon in 1959 to keep the fund from going bankrupt. In January of 1983, President Ronald Reagan raised the tax to nine cents. President George H.W. Bush raised it to 14 cents in 1990, but diverted some of the funds to deficit reduction. President Clinton raised the gas tax to its current level, 18.4 cents per gallon, in 1993, but diverted all of the new revenue to deficit reduction. An act of Congress reverted the tax revenue to the Highway Trust Fund in 1997. It has remained at this level ever since. There is also a diesel tax, which is 24.4 cents per gallon.

This video provides a great visualization of how the gas tax works:

Why is the fund going bankrupt?

The gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and it is not indexed to inflation. This means that no matter how high the price of gas rises to, the tax will always remain at 18.4 cents per gallon. So, while the gas tax brings in $34 billion per year, it is paying for projects that total close to $50 billion this year. Also, as car companies are starting to comply with President Obama’s MPG requirement, Americans are driving more fuel efficient cars and purchasing less gas. Couple both of those problems with an American public that is driving less (and therefore buying less gas) and you have a recipe for a shortfall. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT), the fund is on track to run out of money by late August or early September 2014. States have already reacted by canceling future projects or pausing projects currently in progress. For example, the Arkansas State Highway Commission has said they might halt work on the Broadway Bridge and that the state is projected to lose 20,000 jobs as a result. Here’s a report from a local news station in Hawaii about how the shortfall will hurt them:

According to Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx, 700,000 jobs are at risk of being lost nationwide. To put that number in perspective, the United States only added 217,000 jobs to the economy last month. And that was a good month.

Why don’t we just raise the gas tax?

Political observers all agree that there is little to no chance of raising the gas tax in this political climate. The UPDATE Act, a bill that would raise the gas tax, was introduced by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) this year. It currently has zero co-sponsors and is stuck in committee. Since taking over the House of Representatives in 2010, Republicans have been aiming to cut taxes, not raise them, and neither party wants to raise taxes right before the midterm elections this November.

It does not help that the media will pounce on anyone that argues for an increase in the tax. Watch Fox News’ Neil Cavuto berate Blumenauer for nine and a half minutes over his proposed 15 cent increase of the gas tax:

If the gas tax does not work, what are other possible solutions?

Whenever the fund has reached insolvency in the past, Congress has usually just diverted money from the General Fund of the US Treasury to make up the difference. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congress has transferred $41 billion to the fund this way since 2008. In fact, that is what Senate Democrats have suggested doing this year. However, House Republicans have a different idea. They are pushing a proposal that would make the fund solvent by making changes to the US Postal Service, including eliminating Saturday mail delivery. Senate Democrats are not fans of this plan, so it looks like it is time to gear up for another Congressional fight that will last until the final hour.

However, these are not the only two options available to Congress. While Congress only seems to be considering temporary solutions, there are other policy long term options that would fix the Highway Trust Fund permanently.

Tax Reform

President Obama and Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) have both proposed using the benefits of tax reform to fix the shortfall. Obama wants to use the revenue from “pro-growth business tax reform to address the funding crisis.” Camp, as House Ways and Means Chairman, believes we should use the revenue from a simplification of the corporate and individual tax codes to increase transportation funding for the next eight years.

Obama’s tax plan, as outlined in his FY 2015 budget proposal, has the following attributes in regards to transportation reform:

• Reduces the amount that the wealthy can save on itemized deductions in their taxes and establishes the Buffet Rule

• Proposes a future cut of the corporate tax rate to 28 percent and to 25 percent for manufacturing.

• Dedicates $150 billion to the Highway Trust Fund

• Increases investment in the fund by $90 billion for the next four years

• Works with Congress to possibly create a National Infrastructure Bank to attract private investment.

Camp’s tax plan is different, with less of a focus on getting the wealthy to pay more taxes and more of a focus on getting everyone to pay a lower tax rate:

• Lowers the corporate tax rate to 25 percent

• Gets rid of the current individual tax brackets and replaces them with two brackets: 10 percent and 25 percent.

• Repeals 220 sections of the tax code

• Puts $126.5 billion in the Highway Trust Fund.

As is clear, both of these plans are polarizing; few things get politicians more worked up than changes to the tax code, and the midterm elections will probably prevent any action on these proposals.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Tax

Congress could replace the gas tax with a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax. Instead of taxing drivers at the pump, this tax would be based on how far each driver travels. The government would install tracking devices in every car and those who add more wear and tear to the nation’s roads would be responsible for paying more. Remember that problem about fuel-efficient cars generating less revenue? This would fix that. Even if a driver uses a car with a high MPG rating, they would still pay more in taxes if they drove long distances.

Here’s our old friend Blumenauer advocating for a VMT tax on the House floor in 2012:

This tax has been given a seal of approval from the CBO, so, in theory, the plan should work. Oregon recently passed their own version of the law after a successful pilot program, so policy makers can watch them to see how effective this plan is in practice.

There are some downsides to the tax. Commuters probably would not be big fans of paying a plurality of the tax just so they can get to work every day. Critics are also angry that truckers and people who drive for a living might suffer as a result of this tax. Watch Cavuto, who we already know is not a fan of the gas tax, criticize the costs of a VMT tax with Representative George Price (R-GA).

Privacy advocates are upset because the plan involves tracking every American’s driving with an in-car device. While supporters insist that the government would only keep track of miles traveled and not the location of every driver, the Snowden scandal has ensured that Americans won’t trust the government with any more information about them for quite some time. There’s so much concern over this issue that this Fox & Friends segment described the VMT tax as “Big Brother In Your Backseat.”

Instead of installing trackers in every car, the government could send inspectors to check odometers at the end of each year, but that would require hiring enough inspectors to look at every single American car.

Wholesale Excise Tax

Congress could also decide to just switch the target of the gas tax. Instead of taxing consumers when they buy gasoline, the tax could be placed on sellers of oil. As proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), a wholesale excise tax would take revenue from the oil refineries that sell gasoline to gas stations. This proposal does not have the implementation problems associated with a VMT tax, and, as opposed to the gas tax, it would keep up with inflation. Since, also unlike the gas tax, it is not a user fee, it should be popular with the public. Raising the gas tax is unpopular because it results in the average American spending more money. Taxes on corporations, especially oil companies, are preferable.

This plan also has drawbacks. Since gas prices are so unpredictable, the amount of revenue collected from this tax would be difficult to calculate. It would be tough to know how much money is available for future projects. It also could be used as an excuse by oil companies to raise the price of gasoline. This would not be the first time that federal policy had that effect.

Conclusion

While all of these plans would solve the crisis, none are likely to be passed in the next two months. Congress has to come up with a quick solution to the latest cliff before they can tackle a long-term funding system that is better than the current gas tax. Otherwise, you can look forward to a bumpier ride to work, if you still even have a job.

Resources

Primary 

DOT: Highway Trust Fund Ticker

House FY 2014 Omnibus: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations

Senate: FY 2015 THUD Subcommittee Markup Bill Summary

Department of Transportation: Secretary Anthony Foxx’s testimony before the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee

Additional

Des Moines Register: Let’s Keep the Highway Fund Strong 

Washington Post: Congress Detours from Common Sense

NPR: 700,000 Jobs Are At Stake If The Highway Trust Fund Goes Broke

Planetizen: Boxer Proposes Wholesale Oil Tax to Replace Fed. Gas Tax

Contra Costa Times: Mileage tax for California drivers proposed in state Senate

Next City: Oregon Phases in Country’s First Pay-Per-Mile Program

Open Congress: Track the bill that would raise the gas tax

CATO Institute: Abolish Federal Gasoline Taxes

CNS News: Former DOT Secretary LaHood: ‘Let’s Raise the Gas Tax’

Forbes: Raise The Federal Gasoline Tax, Yes, But Don’t Then Spend The Cash On The Roads

Wall Street Journal: House GOP Leaders Weigh Tying Highway Trust Fund to Mail-Service Cuts

AHTD: Highway Trust Fund Impasse Could Delay Broadway Bridge Project

Hill: Boxer: Replace gas tax with a wholesale tax on oil to pay for transportation projects

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress’ Next Battle: Financing America’s Dwindling Highway Trust Fund appeared first on Law Street.