Oil & Gas Lobbying

Of the many lobbying organizations in this country, the oil lobby is most certainty one of the most influential. As oil is one of the main sources of energy in America, and across the world, the corporations that drill oil have considerable influence with nations and governments. Each year, lobbyists for different oil companies spend millions in capital cities, from London to Washington DC, promoting the interests of the company they represent. Because of such lobbying, laws and legislation can be passed by federal and state governments that are "favorable" to the industry. Oil companies have the most influence in states where oil drilling makes up a large percentage of that nation's economy. In Texas, about 37,204 new oil wells were constructed in 2009 alone. In states such as Texas, the state's majority party, the Republican party, is pressured by lobbyist to voice their interests in Washington. A common stereotype is that the Republican Party is mainly influenced by the industry, since many come from oil-drilling states, though in reality, this is true for both Democrats and Republicans. In the event of oil spills, the companies responsible will lobby hard to convince the government and citizens that it is a reliable corporation. The recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the damage control campaign launched by BP is the most recent example of this.

 An emerging lobbying arm in Washington is the drilling of natural gases in the United States. The use of natural gas has come recently amidst widespread concerns that the country is becoming too dependent on foreign oil. Natural gas seems to many to be an appealing replacement from oil. However, the natural gas industry has also gathered immense influence and power in the lobbying world of Washington. More and more natural gas companies employ lobbying firms to promote themselves in federal and state governments. As viewed in the documentary Gasland, natural gas drilling sites number by the thousands across the nation. Drilling of natural gas also has hazardous risks, with the likelihood of pollution if released into the atmosphere. Though it is similar to the oil industry in that regard, the public at large, because of the industry's promotion as being more "green" friendly, views the natural gas industry more positively than oil.

Sources include:
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-politics-political-parties/15195985-1.html

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/84123-natural-gas-lobby-steps-up-to-challenge-coal

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/19/news/economy/oil_money/

http://greenanswers.com/q/182523/energy-fuels/fossil-fuels/oil-petroleum/what-state-has-most-new-oil-wells-drilled-every-yea

Questions for Josh Fox

1. Why did you decide to film your receiving the letter asking you to lease your land?

2. Did you already have a documentary in mind before receiving the letter?

3. Do you know what the situation with the families you interviewed is now?

4. What are some of your future projects?

5. Will you do any more documentaries on hydraulic fracturing?

The Electoral College

The Electoral College is the institution responsible for electing the President of the United States of America. Presidential elections in America are not direct popular votes, but rather work through the electoral college. The College originates in the United States Constitution, placed there by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the common masses would not have too much influence in selecting the President. Though suffrage has now been extended to all ethnicities and genders, the voting process still is controlled by the electoral college.

The system is comprised of delegates from each state, who vote for a Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidate on Election Day(November 4)  every four years. Delegate numbers are based on the number of Congressmen in the House of Representatives from an individual state and the two senators from that state. The process for choosing delegates varies depending on states. Most states employ a popular vote or a "winner take all", which means that if a candidate receives a majority of of the popular vote, that state's delegates go to that candidate. The main exceptions are Maine and Nebraska who choose delegates based on the popular vote and the popular vote based in each congressional district.

The candidate who is the first to receive 270 electoral votes wins the presidential election. In certain elections, there have been cases where the candidate who won the electoral vote did not necessarily win the popular vote. John Quincy Adams in 1824 was the first president to be elected without winning the popular vote. Including Adams, four presidents have won the election with only the electoral vote, the most recently being George W. Bush in 2000. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the election is decided in the House of Representatives, who cast their votes for a candidate.

Since its foundation, the electoral college has received both praise and criticism. Supporters say that the college is democratic in a number of ways. The delegates chosen allow states to be represented according to population, allowing more populated states to have a greater say than less populated ones. Opponents argue that the system is actually undemocratic for exactly the same reasons. They also claim that the college hampers voter turnout, as voters feel that they have no say in electing a president. I would say that, despite its clear flaws, the electoral college is not fundamentally wrong as opponents make it out to be. The flaws in the system do not happen so spontaneously as opponents claim, and actually runs pretty well. Replacing the system, indeed would only make the election process more complicated and would hurt American democracy instead of progressing it.

Sources include:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html

How to Bring Balance to the Budget

An assignment given in class today required us to visit a link entitled Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget from The New York Times website. In this activity, we had to decide whether we wished to cut spending for a particular government program or policy or to follow an initiative which would raise taxes in a specific area. The ultimate goal of this activity was, of course, to have "successfully" solved the deficit problem.

Below are my final results after I had managed to solve our country's deficit problem, starting with tax cuts


Tax Cuts
Regarding tax cuts, I took aim at what I saw as wasteful spending. Earmarks were the first to go. Although they only make up a small proportion of the deficit, they are synonomous with wasterful spending in Washington. Farm subsidies also went becasue it is pointless for the government to fund farms that continue  to fail and not produce results. Since the federal bureaucracy is large enough, I also cut jobs in the federal workforce, as well as government contractors.  In the military, nuclear warheads and some weapon programs were scrapped. I also pushed for the reduction of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by 2015. Beside that, I made no major cuts in military spending, recognizing that the country is currently engaged in warfare and cannot afford serious slashes to the military budget.  In medicare, one of the greatest cuts I made to the deficit was from capping Medicare growth in 2013. I also pushed for reform in medical malpractice and tightened eligibility requirements. If my budget balancing doesn't take off, I'll at least be remebered for advocating medical reform in America.

1) Eliminated earmarks - $14 billion

2) Eliminated farm subsidies - $14 billion

3) Reduce the federal workforce by 10% - $12 billion to $15 billion

4) Cut 250,000 government contractors - $17 billion

5) Other cuts to the federal government - $30 billion

6) Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending - $19 billion to $38 billion

7) Cancelled or delayed some weapon programs - $18 billion to $19 billion

8) Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015 - $51 billion to $149 billion

9) Enact medical malpractice reform - $8 billion to $13 billion

10) Cap Medicare Growth starting in 2013- $29 billion to $562 billion

11) Tighten eligibility for disability - $9 billion to $17 billion

Tax Hikes
I only enacted a few taxes, half of which followed the Obama administration mode. Since I no longer wanted to make any more tax cuts, I would have to resort to some high taxes to fully defeat the deficit. The Obama intiatives were agressive enought to combat the problem(though in real life, I wouldn't be as enthusiastic).  A major tax was on persons  with an income over $1 million. It wouldn't be a popular move among the affluent, but it is a large souce of revenue for the federal government.  I also eliminated tax loopholes for tax breaks on corporations but kept the taxes high. For similar reasons similar to taxing millionaires, as it is also a good source of income.

1) President Obama's Proposal (Modifying Estate Taxes) - $24 billion to $45 billion

2) President Obama's Proposal (Investment Taxes) - $10 billion to $24 billion

3) Millionaire's Tax on Income above $1 million - $50 billion to $95 billion

4) Eliminate Loopholes but keep taxes slightly higher - $136 billion to $315 billion

Ratio between Taxes and Cuts


Savings from Tax increases - 39%

Savings from spending cuts - 61%

"Lisa Murkowski reelected by write-ins"

Lisa Murkowski

Incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has won reelection this Wednesday through a write-in campaign. Murkowski, who ran as an Independent, defeated her two opponents, Republican and Tea Party favorite Joe Miller and Democrat Scott McAdams, for the Senate seat. Ever since the Mid-term elections two weeks ago, the ballots for the Alaska Senate race were still being counted. Recent counts showed that Murkowski had a 10,000 vote lead over her closest opponent Joe Miller. The Associated Press then declared this afternoon that Murkowski had won reelection. According to the Alaska Division of Elections, the final count showed Murkowski with 92,715 write-in votes, with Miller following with 90,448 votes. An additional 8,153 votes counted for Murkowski have been challenged by the Miller campaign. However, due to the senator's substantial lead already, it is unlikely that those ballots will make any difference. Though ballots are still being counted, Murkowski flew from Washington D.C. to Anchorage, Alaska to prepare for her victory celebration. Miller has not, however, conceded the race to Murkowski yet. In a statement, Miller said his campaign was prepared to review the vote records in "select precincts" Thursday and possibly Saturday, which Miller could then ask for a state wide recount. Despite Miller's delaying, the state Republican party seems ready to accept Murkowski's win and appear to be unwilling to offer Miller any more support. Murkowski had previously been a Republican but lost the Republican nomination to Miller. Undeterred, Murkowski stated that she intended to run as an Independent candidate. Since she had no endorsement of a major political party, Murkowski's campaign decided she would be write-in candidate. Being a write-in candidate meant that Murkowski would be only get votes if supporters wrote her name on the ballots in the write-in section. Polls had shown that the race between Murkowski and Miller would be close, with Murkowski holding a slight lead.


The link to the Politico article is below
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45290.html

"Red Over Blue" Summary & Analysis

In an excerpt from James Ceaser and Andrew Busch's political book "Red Over Blue", the authors attempt to clear common misconceptions about political divisions in the United States. The title derives its name from the two colors associated with the main political parties in America: Red for the  Republicans and Blue for the Democrats. The original background of these colors came from an illustration on the cover of The New York Times when it showed the results of the 2000 presidential election. Ceaser and Busch go on to explain how this image helped compound a misrepresentation about political life in America. Though Red states may appear to be overwhelmingly Republican, it actually has its fair share of Democrats as New England has its own Republicans. The meat of the passage concerns the 2004 election between Democrat John Kerry and incumbent Republican George Bush. In this election, the Republican Party not only held on to the presidency but also made solidified its majorities in Congress through gains in the House and Senate. Ceaser and Busch explain the issues that defined those elections and how "moral values" polled as the most important issue, actually were misread due to polling questions. A political analyst, Walter Dean Burnham, had earlier created a "realignment" theory which stated that a massive political shift would occur in the American political landscape because of a catastrophic or major event, and that such a shift occurred every fifteen years. Ceaser and Busch explain how this theory is untrue, since no severe events, including September 11, did not have an overall effect on political ideologies.  
 
This article is rather interesting in expunging long held beliefs held about politics. The illustration on the cover of The New York Times, the authors declare, is responsible for misleading the public about the divide between conservatives and liberals in America. The illustration cast the impression that political beliefs were limited to geographic regions. Other misconceptions were that the Republican sweep in 2004 was an actual political shift. As we know now, two years later in 2006, the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress and later the presidency in 2008. That in turn led to predictions that the Democrats were the new dominant party. As of two week ago, we know that also to be false. This article shows how the political landscape of America is both fickle and traditional: what may seem different is only a cycle that repeats itself through every decade and will continue to do so. 

"The Rise of Southern Republicans" A Summary & Analysis

In the passage from "The Rise of Southern Republicans" authors Earl and Merle Black examine in great detail the history concerning the emergence of the Republican party in the South. In the 1850s before the Civil War,  the Republican party in the 1850s  had a presence in every region of the country except for the South. The essential reason for this was the Republican's staunch stance against the expansion of slavery, a position deeply opposed by the slave-owning south. After the Civil War, the Republican Party became viewed as a  hated "enemy" by Southerners, and as a result few Republicans were elected to Congress from Southern states or held positions in Southern legislatures. The Democratic Party dominated what was called "the Solid South" by appealing to racist sentiments held by Southerners against newly freed blacks. The political tradition remained in place for the rest of the 19th century and well into the mid-20th century. By the 1960s, two factors began to shift political loyalties in the South. Lyndon Johnson, a southern Democrat and proponent of civil rights, ascended to the presidency in 1963, and Barry Goldwater, a conservative Republican from Arizona, won the Republican Presidential nomination in 1964. Johnson's passage of civil rights legislation angered conservative southerners. Goldwater's conservative stances on social issues isolated traditional African American support for the Republican party. Feeling abandoned by the Democrats, conservative southerners threw their support to Republican's who promised to slow down the pace of social change. Since the 1980s, the South has given its electoral vote to the Republican candidate in every presidential election.

The passage is very intriguing in its relating of the history of party loyalties in the South. When you think of the image of the Republican Party today, the White Southern stereotype is what usually comes to mind. Seldom do many people remember that the Solid South used to overwhelming vote Democratic. This proves that geography of a region does not matter as much as the ideologies that are abundant in that region. Because both party's catered to the beliefs held by many Southerners, they were able to secure their loyalties in the elections. This perhaps raises an interesting question for the future: if such a dramatic political shift can occur in one region, can it possibly happen in another? The Northeastern states tend to vote for liberal Democrats, with the exceptions of New Hampshire and Vermont. If a ideological crisis among liberalism were to occur, could a political shift occur in New England? Though conservatives remain in the minority, there is still a large amount of support for conservative policies. These questions may come to revelation in the near or distant future, depending on the issues that conflict  the United States at that time.

Cory Booker vs. Sharpe James part II

We finished watching the documentary Street Fight today in class after starting it Friday and posting a blog on the positive/negative/neutral tactics used by both campaigns. As the campaign for mayor of Newark reached election day, the campaign tactics used started to become incredibly ugly

"Street Fight" DVD cover

The Booker campaign had struggled throughout the election to raise sufficient funds to keep in the running. The Booker campaign stated that it had been able to raise $3 million thus far. However, Mayor James began to claim in public that Booker had been able to raise $10 million. Using this supposed estimate, James stated that the Booker campaign was attempting to "buy" the election. In other bizarre attacks by the James campaign, Booker was accused of "conspiring with Jews" to take over the mayor's office. The mayor accused Booker of having contacts and support from conservative Republicans. This claim in particular made many citizens wonder whether Booker was a Democrat at all or if he even shared the values of inner city black residents. The Booker campaign retaliated to these accusations with attack ads which smeared the mayor for his alleged excesses. However, Booker had to be careful with personal attacks on Sharpe James, who might spin the attacks to be on the city of Newark itself. Come election day, despite monitoring by the New Jersey District Attorney's office, James campaign workers were seen in various acts of sabotage against Booker, including tearing down Booker signs in defiance of a court ruling.

In what may seem more postive or neutral, each side attempted to win the black vote. To do this, international black leaders and figures were courted by both campaigns. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both supported Sharpe James, who even attempted to get Bill Clinton to endores him.

Cory Booker vs. Sharpe James

The documentary Street Fight follows the mayoral race in Newark, NJ between city councilman Corey Booker and incumbent mayor Sharpe James. Both campaigns engaged in a bitter election fight to ensure victory for their candidate. By doing so, they employed tactics which can be viewed either as positive, negative, or neutral.

Cory Booker

Both campaigns tried to focus on the positive aspects of their candidates. James ran on experience as a city council-member and in the mayor's office. His campaign touted the progress Newark had experienced under his administration. James had enacted reforms which replaced low income housing in the city, a sign of progress in the desperately poor city. Booker, on the other hand, campaigned as a new, fresher face in Newark politics compared to the long serving mayor. As mayor, Booker  promised he would bring real reform and change. His campaign style involved personally going from door to door of multiple neighborhoods in Newark to gather support.

Sharpe James

The negative side of the campaign overwhelmingly came from the James campaign. The James campaign used the police force to harass supporters of Booker, from threatening to shut down the business' of Booker supporters to taping the phones at the Booker campaign headquarters. During a rally for James, security intimidated the documentary camera man and evicted him from the event by claiming he didn't have permit. When a police raid on a strip club caught the Booker campaigns chief of staff outside the building, the info was leaked to the press by the James campaign, who called it disgraceful. The race also turned ugly personally when Booker was accused by James of being a "white Republican" which mainly implied that Cory was not "black enough" to connect with the city's black population. The Cory campaign struggled greatly as a result of these corrupt tactics by Mayor James. For its part, the Booker campaign at one point used an allegation that Mayor James had frequented that same strip club.

Despite the negativity of the campaign, both sides also used more neutral tactics in the election. Traditional rallies were held, as well as fund raising events. Both campaigns followed a policy of "If you feed 'em then you can lead them". This essentially means legal bribery of voters by hosting events which "gifts", mostly food. were given to people.