Obama Issues Executive Order on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

On Thursday, March 19, 2015, President Obama issued an executive order pertaining to new goals for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions of the federal agencies. This new order mandates that federal agencies must cut their emissions by 40%  over the next ten years. Moreover, the directive orders that the agencies must increase their usage of renewable resources by at least 30. This executive order is reflective  of the  global warming agreement Obama made with China in November. The agreement Obama promised that the United States would reduce its carbon emissions by about 27% below the nation’s emissions in 2005, by 2025. Furthermore, the president’s order does not come as a shock, as it is an elaboration on Obama’s 2008 executive order that mandated that the government cut their carbon emissions by 28% by 2020. Moreover, Obama’s decision to issue this executive agreement seems  to be in line with his new style as Chief Legislature. To illustrate, as of late, the president has been using an “expansive interpretation” of his presidential powers in order to push legislation through a gridlocked Republican Congress.

However,  in reality, Obama’s executive decision may be more of just a gesture that America is willing to lead the world by example, as the order itself is unlikely to have a big impact on America’s carbon emissions. To illustrate, the federal government is responsible for less than 1% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, since the agencies are the biggest consumers of energy in the United States, there is hope that by reducing the federal government’s usage of nonrenewable resources, other large industries will be inspired to reduce their own carbon emissions.

Furthermore, in addition to the directive, the White House has released a “score card” that permits federal suppliers to keep track of their reductions and disclose their emissions. As a result of this new order, several companies (including I.B.M, G.E.,  and Honeywell) have declared that they will set their own greenhouse gas reduction goals as well. The executive order not only will help hinder global warming, but will also benefit the taxpayers as well as the economy. To demonstrate,  by cutting down on the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions, it is estimated that the government could save up to $18 billion over the next decade. In addition, senior White House aide, Brian Desse, has pointed out that, “If [the agencies] can consume less energy or they can consume renewable energy that is cheaper, more reliable or more sustainable, then they can achieve their environmental goals while they are saving money.”

What do you think of Obama’s executive order? Do you think that the directive was justified or that Obama is abusing his powers as president by trying to act unilaterally to bring about climate change? Furthermore, do you believe that the executive order will actually inspire American companies and the American people in general to reduce their carbon emissions? Energy interest groups, like Koch Industries, are key supporters of the GOP, donating millions of dollars to the Republican Party; how do you think Republicans will respond to this executive order? Will there be any political consequences for the president?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/us/politics/obama-order-to-cut-federal-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/19/obama-issue-executive-order-cutting-federal-govern/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/19/obama-to-cut-federal-governments-carbon-emissions/

Clinton Makes Another Comeback

After an awkward and embarrassing drama involving Hilary Clinton's private e-mail and its contents, Clinton seems to be back on her feet. The incident did not seem to to have much of an impact on Clinton in the eyes of the public, as a CNN poll recently showed that she was "miles ahead of any potential Democratic challenger, and would beat all potential Republican candidates by at least 10 points." Clinton's approval ratings seem to be around 53%, and while this is the result of a slight decline, the timing coincides with her re-entry to partisan politics. This shows that the e-mail issue may not have altered the public's opinion of Clinton very much at all.

The poll also showed that only 1% of those who participated in the poll had never heard of Clinton. This is a testament to her visibility and exposure to the public, which at this point seems to be helping her where it could be potentially harming her. Her large voter population seems disinterested in stories such as the email scandal but more interested on Clinton's campaign and stance on more pertinent issues such as student loans. Young voters who may not remember past scandals in the Clinton family, and who supported Obama in past elections will be present as continual support for Clinton as well. Her loyal voters and great exposure seem to working hand in hand in Clinton's effort to move past the email scandal and focus on the future.

On the contrary, many republicans believe that the issue of the email makes Clinton look secretive and apt to blur the rules. I personally think that Clinton's ability to move past the scandal and not allow it to threaten or worry her to a great extent shows her perseverance and poise in the political light. While it may not have helped her, I believe it shows voters her focus and ambition to accomplish as much as possible as opposed to letting personal scandals get in the way and slow her down. What do you think? Will the email scandal harm Clinton's chances at a future election? Will it have a significant impact on her voters opinions of her? If so why?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/hillary-clinton-election-2016-emails/index.html

Republican Budget Plan to Cut Obamacare

The ten year blueprint for taxes and spending the House Republicans have proposed could balance the federal budget, even promising a surplus by 2024. Without relying on tax increases, the budget writers were forced to balance the budget while increasing military spending. Nearly $40 billion in “emergency” war funding was added to the defense budget for next year, raising military spending without breaking caps set by the 2011 Budget Control Act. The budget will also make “the Pell Grant program permanently sustainable.” 

But it comes at a price: the budget demands the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, including the tax increases to finance it. Spending on Medicaid may fall $913 billion over ten years once the health program is turned to block grants to the states, but as House Republicans put it, “Our budget realigns the relationship the federal government has with states and local communities by respecting and restoring the principle of federalism.” Billions would also be cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps. Domestic programs would be cut $519 billion below the already restrictive caps set in 2011. White House officials estimated that 37 million people would lose health insurance between the Affordable Care Act repeal and Medicaid cuts; this more than doubles the ranks of the uninsured.

“What we’re seeing right now is a failure to invest in education, infrastructure, research and national defense. All the things that we need to grow, need to create jobs, to stay at the forefront of innovation and to keep our country safe,” President Obama commented.

I believe that a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act would benefit the Americans more than a raise in military spending. In addition, I am uncertain that the budget will be balanced in such a short amount of time, and that it would require more than ten years to do so. What do you think? How do you feel about the changes in the budget? How will the American citizens be affected by these changes?

Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/politics/house-republican-budget-overhauls-medicare-and-repeals-the-health-law.html

The CIA Accidentally Funded Al Qaeda

A number of letters between Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda officials were unearthed in the recent Brooklyn trial of Abid Naseer, a man convicted of plotting to bomb a British shopping mall. Not surprisingly many of these documents discussed the United States. What was shocking, however, was what one correspondence between Bin Laden and a top Al Qaeda commander, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, revealed to be US contributions to Al Qaeda. 

In 2010, Afghan officials negotiated a $5 million dollar release of an Afghan diplomat held hostage by the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. Afghan security officials struggled to pay the steep price on their own, so they drew from money that they had saved from a secret fund. This treasury was, according to Afghan officials, financed by monthly cash payments from the CIA to Kabul’s presidential palace. Over the course of several years, Afghan officials had “squirreled away” nearly $1 million from the fund, and in 2010 handed that money to Al Qaeda in exchange for their diplomat.

            Al Qaeda has since used this $1 million in CIA money, as well as the $4 million drawn from other countries, to replenish its resources. Unfortunately, this money undermined the CIA’s efforts to deplete the organization’s treasury, namely their relentless campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan. In fact, had Al Qaeda not received such funding, they would have suffered immensely from the decimation of the upper military ranks. However, since “God blessed [them] with a good amount of money,” according to al-Rahman, they were able to stockpile weapons and fund other operational needs.

            Now what is possibly most disturbing about this whole situation is that the CIA didn’t know it was happening. Although Osama Bin Laden, who was alive at the time, feared that “there [was] a possibility…that the Americans [were] aware of the money delivery…and that they accepted the arrangement of the payment on the basis that the money [would] be moving under air surveillance,” the United States was relatively ignorant. In fact, the CIA continued dropping off cash amounts, which ranged from a few hundred thousand dollars to more than $1 million, at the presidential palace in Kabul until last year. They stopped when President Hamid Karzai stepped down.

            Since news of the event has broken, the CIA has declined to comment.

            Now, this story raises quite a few questions, the most obvious being how could the CIA have been unaware that American dollars were being used to fund terrorist organizations? Perhaps it is more important, however, to ask why the CIA was even delivering these secret funds to Afghanistan in the first place. According to the NYT, the money was used to buy the loyalty of warlords, legislators, and other Afghans and to create a patronage network that secured President Karzai’s power base. One Afghan official commented that there are little to no American constraints on such contributions and “once [the cash is] at the palace, [the CIA] can’t do a thing about how it gets spent.”

            Personally, I’m furious to learn that not only has the CIA inadvertently been funding Al Qaeda but also that they are so willingly to give money that they do not even enforce guidelines on how it must be spent. They are so concerned with buying loyalty that they fail to read the fine print of their arrangements. But, what do you think about this situation; what does the CIA’s accidental contributions to Al Qaeda say about the American government? Should the CIA be held accountable for their actions? Moreover, should we reassess how we attempt to influence Middle Eastern policies because, at least based on the evidence of the past few years, our efforts seem to be doing more harm than good?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/asia/cia-funds-found-their-way-into-al-qaeda-coffers.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/14/nyt-cia-paid-ransom-to-osama-bin-laden/24772485/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/karzais-afghan-legacy-rests-on-fragile-unity-1411945500

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/nyregion/abid-naseer-terror-suspect-found-guilty-on-all-counts-in-2009-bomb-plot.html

Clinton's Emails Could Be Recovered

Over the past week, the latest controversy has been revolving around Hillary Clinton and emails which were sent from her personal account. She has not disclosed these emails to Congress which has caused many issues, and lead to a few people attempting to make progress in recovering some of these documents. House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz is planning on sending the State Department a letter requesting these emails, and could subpoena them if necessary. Even though Clinton has come forth stating that these emails are personal, the committee retains the authority to do so if necessary. 

Chaffetz is not the only one trying to have these emails disclosed. Marcus Rogers, of Purdue University's Cyber Forensics and Security Program, commented on the issue, stating that emails are incredibly difficult to erase completely. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House committee investigating the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, said Wednesday that he wanted an independent review of the server. If the server, which these emails were sent from, was obtained, then the process of getting these files would be much more convenient. But, Clinton argued that she will not turn over the server that housed her personal email under any circumstances. 

What makes this controversy even more suspicious than refusing to give out these emails, is that she deleted about half the 60,000 emails sent through her personal account and the rest, deemed to be official, were sent to the State Department. She also has begun to contradict herself by saying that she chose not to keep her personal emails, but in Silicon Valley about two weeks ago, she said, "I don't throw anything away, I'm like two steps short of a hoarder." 

In my opinion, I believe that there are emails that she sent regarding the Benghazi scandal, or other governmental work, which is obviously not allowed. If she honestly did not have any emails that regarded any governmental work on her personal account, I don't understand why she just will not hand over the server to keep the good graces with the government. An issue like this hurts her chances for potentially running in 2016, and she should do whatever she needs to to keep her reputation clean. What do you think? Does Hillary have the right to keep these emails to herself? What move would be best for her public image? 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/11/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-jason-chaffetz-subpoena/index.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clintons-emails-could-be-recovered-experts-believe-2015-03-12

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/unanswered-questioned-hillary-clinton-emails

Mitch McConnell Tells States to Ignore the EPA

Yesterday, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and majority leader, is urging governors to defy President Obama by refusing to implement the administration’s global warming regulations.

The Obama administration is working on an aggressive climate change agenda to reduce the number of green house gas emissions that are coming out of our nation. He is working towards making the country a greener place, even if it means cutting some of the energy sources in our nation. The Keystone XL Pipeline is one piece of legislation in the news today that is working against Obama’s climate change agenda. Obama is working with the EPA and creating rules, which should be finalized in the summer, requiring each state to submit a plan detailing how it would cut coal-fired power plant pollution. Once implemented, the plans could lead to the closing of hundreds of coal plants. This would then lead to what the administration says, “a transformation of the nation’s energy economy away from fossil fuels and toward sources like wind and solar.” This sounds like a great idea for many environmentalists because it would decrease the nation’s largest source of planet-warming pollution, but many states and production plants are wary of this plan.

States like Kentucky, the state McConnell represents, that rely heavily on coal production or coal-fired electricity are worried that this legislation could ultimately freeze demand for coal. Republicans are also saying that Mr. Obama’s climate change policies are  an example of government overreach that could threaten jobs in the coal industry and many more. Already, 12 states, including McConnell’s home state Kentucky, have filed lawsuits opposing the plan and at least a dozen more are expected to file similar suits.

          Mr. McConnell told the press that he wants the states to not listen to ignore the EPA. He is out right telling states to violate what could be federal law if they listen to him. Mr. McConnell urged governors to fight the regulations by simply refusing to submit their state plans to the federal government. McConnell has made clear that he intends to use all legal, legislative and political means available to fight Mr. Obama’s climate agenda. This will be easier for him now that Republicans have majority power in Congress.

 

          What do you guys think about this climate agenda war that has been going on between the Republicans and Obama administration? Do you think the states should accept or reject this new EPA legislation? Is Obama doing the right think while pushing for a greener state with all of these hurdles and energy plans? In my opinion, I support the Obama administration and their endeavors. We only have one nation I think we should keep it clean and safe. I understand now there are some pretty serious decisions to be made, but looking back I think we will be glad to know we decreased our pollution and sought out more sustainable forms of energy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/politics/mcconnell-urges-states-to-defy-us-plan-to-cut-greenhouse-gas.html?ref=politics&_r=0
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mitch-mcconnells-message-states-ignore-the-epa
http://www.bna.com/mcconnell-pushes-say-n17179923648/

Controversy over Obamacare in the Supreme Court Again

This past Wednesday the Supreme Court argued for over an hour over the meaning of a specific four word clause in the Affordable Care Act. The contention was over the meaning of the phrase "established by the states" and whether or not only individuals living in the 16 states that had already set up state funded exchanges, as opposed to the other 34 states that have federally facilitated exchanges. If the Court rules against the Obama administration in this particular argument, it could mean that 5 million individuals will no longer qualify for the subsidies.

Liberal justices claim that the text should considered in its full form, and not scrutinized for four words taken out of context. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questions why the four words were seemingly hidden in the body of the text and not more prominently featured. She says it was like hiding a "huge in thing in a mouse trap." Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., supports the IRS in saying that the challengers argument "revokes the promise of affordable care for millions of Americans -- that cannot be the statute that Congress intended." 

On the other side, the argument was challenged by Antonin Scalia, saying that while it might not be what congress intended, it was what was written and therefore how it should be interpreted. The main concern of the Republican party seems to be if that Court ruled in favor of the Obama administration, it could open the door to abundant additional government spending. The final decision will most likely be announced by May or June of this year. 


In my opinion it is quite clear that the law was set up to include as many people as possible to receive the benefits that the act provides. I feel as though the four word clause that is causing so much controversy was written to include both state and federally facilitated exchanges, as Verrilli noted in court. What do you think? What was Congress's intention when writing this particular part of the act, and regardless of the intent, how do you think it should be interpreted? 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/obamacare-supreme-court-oral-arguments/index.html