JJAmerican Governments If you’ve been keeping up with current events, you may or may not have run into the issue of immigration. President Donald Trump has made it very clear that illegal immigrants are not welcomed in the US. With that being said, he’s come out with a new policy that restricts immigrants who are first time DACA applicants from being able to apply. The only type of submissions allowed will be for renewals. This is an issue because it will not only hurt the economy of the US but it will also affect those who are Dreamers receiving an education.
What is DACA and why is it important? In 2012, President Barack Obama created this policy, DACA, for those who came to the US as children. DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This policy allows them to stay in the US without the risk of deportation. To add on, it allows the recipients to get a hold of a workers permit, permission to study while in the US, and a state ID and/or Driver’s License. Besides what is mentioned above, DACA is important because it enriches the culture in the United States. For example, diversity can help society by being able to create new innovations like jobs and technology. This is also helps improve the nation’s economy. This is shown mostly through locally owned businesses. Not only does it add to the culture, but it also helps create jobs for others. Who are Dreamers? Now that we have addressed DACA, let’s talk about the recipients, also known as Dreamers. Dreamers are those who are under the age of 31 as of June of 2012 when the policy first was created and have consistently lived in the US before the age of 16. Most Dreamers are from Mexico, El Salvador, and other countries from Central America. They are most likely to live in the states of “California, Texas, Florida and New York” (Joanna Walters 2017). Why can President Trump’s policy change be seen as an issue? President Trump’s policy change can be seen as an issue because it affects students who are under DACA, especially those who are pursuing higher education. By ending DACA, Dreamers will be threatened of deportation and be sent back to their home countries once their permits expire. Like mentioned before, most dreamers came to the United States before they were 16 which can mean many don’t know much or remember what their home country is. To add on, this will cost Dreamers to pay out-of-state tuition for public colleges. Finally, it will also strip away the right to have a workers permit and ID/driver’s license which will make it harder on students to pay for college. How did the election of 2016 impact this issue? The impact the last election had on this issue was the conversation of ending DACA. During the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton (D) was asked what she would do to help Dreamers become permanent residents. Her response was to do whatever it would take to keep them in “schools, [working], and becoming productive members of society” (BallotPedia). Much like Clinton, Jill Stein (G) also worked towards keeping Dreamers protected. To add, Gary Johnson (L) also agreed with Obama’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions. He said, “I think that what Obama has done is what needs to happen…” (BallotPedia). On the other hand, President Donald Trump (R) was against Obama and believed that illegal immigrants had to go. During his campaign he stated that he would “immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties” (Joanna Walters 2017).He believed that those under DACA were stealing jobs from “hard working Americans.” Will the 2020 election focus on your issue? Yes. Immigration is one of the most controversial topics talked about in politics. It is one of the main factors that divides the political parties. With that said, one might begin to start asking questions about what is next. For example, both parties may ask how DACA can stay alive and protect Dreamers while compromising on strickening immigration laws. Another question that may spark in 2020 may be, how will candidates work on either helping Dreamers with their permanent residency or how candidates will help get rid of those who entered illegally faster. Finally, a question that may come up due to recent events with the detention centers is how will parties help keep families together? This was big news because several children were seperated from families for long periods of time. Not to mention, while in the processes of transferring them to the centers, there were reports of missing children and abuse. In conclusion, there are a lot of unanswered questions regarding DACA and Dreamers. In the upcoming election, it’ll be a hot topic to debate over. Regardless of the outcome, it affects millions of people in the United States.
0 Comments
LIAmerican Governments In the recent election of 2016, Donald Trump made headlines for his rhetoric in regards to choice of vocabulary and outlandish opinions that not many previous presidential elections have seen in the United States of America. This election had discussed more issues regarding the bathroom bill that discriminated the trans experience due to the personal beliefs of the state and in general, America. Trans rights became a major topic of discussion in America when the North Carolina governor signed a controversial transgender bill that discriminated the trans individuals in choosing bathrooms on the gender- they identified with. This alone demonstrates the direction trans right has become a part of in American politics- especially with the recent supreme court decision on January 22nd, 2019 regarding the trans military ban.
Previously, Barack Obama had repealed a known transgender ban in the military, however, the Trump Administration would be known to reverse that with the supreme court decision with 5 to 4 in counting. On July 2017, Donald Trump took to twitter to take on his own personal opinions regarding trans in the military backed up with a “consultation” with his generals and military experts. In these tweets, Trump discusses the importance of a stable mindset in war and irritates that trans folk’s expenses for medical costs and their transition would be too much and almost burdensome. The Department of Defence discussed the importance of being mentally and physically stable in a high risk setting and deemed that the trans individuals would be unfit in this particular situation. This ban on the trans individuals being able to serve in the military represents a divide in America regarding personal opinions and human rights. It’s been known that since the Obama’s administration's repeal on the transgender military ban- they’ve been able to openly serve publicly in all branches of the United States militar. This is important to note because trans folk have participated actively in combat zones and the government up to this day has had no evidence whatsoever regarding harms or effectiveness trans have had in the military. About 17,000 trans individuals have participated in protecting the nation’s security in active duty and with this ban stops those Americans from their patriotic rights. The LGBTQ community have tooken part of this discussion constantly in military policies- especially when the Clinton Administration instituted a bill on February 28, 1984 known as the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” or DADT. DADT is known as a discriminatory policy of the United States government and military prohibiting open lesbian, gay, and bisexuals from serving in the military. In 2011, the Obama administration had repealed the DADT bill, however, anyone's experiencing “transvestism” or have abnormalities in their gentilitia were medically disqualified. Trans individuals have been a constant forefront in the fight for LGBT rights yet they’re often the last to even be in consideration for those rights. Ash Carter announced on June 30th, 2016 that the silence and secrecy for trans serving in the military have been cut and now they’re allowed to serve openly. Overall, it’s estimated that there are about 134,000 American veterans who identify as trans and about 15,000 active in duty. The numbers of trans in the military is never truly set because it hasn’t only been since recently that trans where allowed to serve openly instead of hiding in secrecy. Although, discrimination is still rampant with trans individuals receiving the same benefits as their cis-gendered (same-sex assigned at birth is their identified gender) counterparts. These benefits include the VA courage of medical needs and procedures such as any forms of body modifications surgeries. History repeats itself from 1993 to 2019 in the LGBT community with the military policies in American government. Secrecy becomes a constant theme in this particular communities’ discussion on serving their country without noting their own personal orientation or gender. The DADT received many backlash for forcing its lesbian, gay, bisexuals and trans to serve in secrecy and silence. The 2020 election leaves room for an impression on a recent supreme court decision on the transgender military ban. Democrats have been known to be the more liberal of the two parties and recently the democratic presidential candidates participated in a forum of LGBT policies. One of the first openly gay politicians to run for president know as Pete Buttigieg mayor of South Bend is expected to participate in this particular forum. In 2017, literally a day after President Trump’s tweet regarding trans military ban, Buttigieg took to his own accord to discuss his opinions on the topic. He spoke highly of anyone being able to serve as long as their able to do the job. He’s expected to be one of the more interesting candidate to partake in LGBT discussions especially previously serving in the military. With a lot of democratic presidential candidates- it is expected that this topic would be a forefront in discussion with the public. HokageAmerican Governments Healthcare has been and is a widespread issue all over the world, providing citizens with care that is required by law. Healthcare has been a widely debated issue across the United States as individuals have held different opinions regarding the meaning of having access to affordable healthcare. Obamacare, also known as the Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA), was signed and passed by President Barack Obama in March 2010 which aimed to provide individuals who are financially unstable to have medical treatment without having to worry about the expenses. It has particularly been an area of interest in the United States, raising controversial issues as to its effectiveness in government.
Long ago, many people in the U.S. did not have access to healthcare, leaving individuals, especially low-income families, with little to no help in all areas relating to physical and mental health. Before Obamacare, most states did not give health coverage to adults without children, no matter how poor they were (5 Ways the Affordable Care Act is Helping Real People, 2017). Moreover, most states only covered parents if they had extremely low incomes. Now, Obamacare has expanded health coverage to low-income families through the Medicaid program. It aimed to reduce the amount of uncompensated care the average U.S. family pays for by requiring everyone to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty (5 Ways the Affordable Care Act is Helping Real People, 2017). As a result, Obamacare has affected those who were low-income adults, families with children, seniors, persons with disabilities, pregnant women, children in foster care, and former foster youth up to age 26 (5 Ways the Affordable Care Act is Helping Real People, 2017). It improved the quality of healthcare while simultaneously controlling rapidly rising costs. As a result, millions of Americans were able to get the health insurance coverage they needed. It allowed for a broad range of health care involving other important issues in government, protecting people with pre-existing conditions from being denied health insurance. Furthermore, it gave a lifelong guarantee that health insurers could not discriminate against them based on pre-existing health conditions (5 Ways the Affordable Care Act is Helping Real People, 2017). Healthcare needs to be accessible by all U.S. individuals because it is a necessity and right in life. When individuals are denied the right to healthcare, there is an absence of freedom and is dehumanizing mankind. Society functions when individuals are healthy in order to work and gain income for their families. As a result, mortality rates would decrease. There has been many debatable perspective and opinions as to whether or not Obamacare is beneficial to all citizens. One common viewpoint that many have held that all Americans have benefited from Obamacare guaranteeing access to coverage to everyone regardless of pre-existing health conditions and coverage for mental health and substance use disorder services. In contrast, another viewpoint has been held that Obamacare only benefitted low income families (Amadeo, 2019) . Indeed, one of the most important provisions of the Affordable Care Act is the expansion of health coverage to low-income families through the Medicaid program, offering sustainable pursuit towards an accessible healthcare. Finally, a third perspective on Obamacare supports that it has been ineffective; therefore, it should be thrown out. Research has shown that three to five million people lost their employment-based health insurance with increased coverage raised (Amadeo, 2019). In consideration of all the viewpoints made by US individuals, it can be inferred many impose strong opinions as to how Obamacare has affected their lives, financially and emotionally. Obamacare was discussed by both of the presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 elections. Clinton supported Obamacare in hopes to to build on its features, such as offering a tax credit up to $5000, a platform for “public opinions” on the healthcare system, supporting the elderly by letting them buy into medicare at the age of 55, and increasing funding for community health centers. In contrast, Donald Trump wanted to repeal and replace the Obamacare with a brand new version healthcare that includes, insurance tax deductible, consumers are able to import drugs from authenticated countries, promoting on a tax-free health savings account, and turning Medicaid into a block grant program (Kodjak, 2016). Due to the negativity of cost on Obamacare at the time, people wanted a cheaper alternative. Therefore, many states, such as Kentucky where they declined on the uninsured rate due to the expenses of the Obamacare, and were more interested in a new Healthcare Act that could potentially cost less, and voted for Donald Trump (Kliff, 2016). During the 2016 election, President Trump vowed to repeal and replace the ACA once he became president. On President Trump’s first day of office, he made an executive order to “minimize the unwarranted document and regulatory burdens” (Rovner, 2018). Moreover, he tried to make dues on his promises, enabling him to successfully partially repeal and replace the ACA with a new Health Care Act called American Health Care Act passed by the House, though it was not supported by the Senate (Rovner, 2018). Currently, Obamacare has not yet been repealed and there are still new consumers who purchased and seeked coverage through the ACA instead. In 2018, “The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reports that about 11.8 million people bought 2018 coverage on the ACA’s federal and state-based exchanges during the shortened open enrollment period, and 27 percent of them were considered new consumers” (Rovner, 2018). There has been many questions as to if Obamacare will be repealed in the future and how it will affect millions of citizens who are insured with ACA. In regards to the 2020 Presidential election is coming up, Obamacare could potentially be repealed if an Republican candidate wins the race. DDeguzmanAmerican Governments Many women within the United States are worried about the availability of birth control and emergency contraceptives coming in the near future. There are many ways a woman can gain access to birth control: this includes going to your primary care provider, a clinic such as Planned Parenthood, or your local drug store. However, with the laws wanting to be passed by the Trump Administration, the access to birth control and emergency contraceptives, may become very limited.
Based on the data shown on National Center for Health Statistics website, the United States have shown a significant amount of improvement with the decreasing rates of teen pregnancy between the ages 15-19. However, our current elected officials want to put a stop to this. Non-profit organization or small businesses that help provide birth control for the community such as Planned Parenthood systems, are weakening due to the lack of support by our elected officials, especially with funding. Although birth rates have significantly decreased throughout the years of 2005-2015, because of the decisions that are being made by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services and the guidance of the Trump Administration, these rates can escalate quickly. In general, health related topics have always been relevant during elections throughout the years, including birth control. During the current term of President Trump, he has been working towards limiting the access and insurance coverage for birth control. During 2018, Trump Administration finalized two rules that were issued by the U.S Department of Human and Health Services that generally exempts non-profit organizations and small businesses from complete access and coverage to birth control. Additionally during the midterm election, Trump provoked the rule created during Obama’s term on employers having to pay for female birth controls. Total Birth per 1,000 Females (Age 15-19) 2005 2015 17.9 - 34.9 21 States 9.4 - 19.3 20 States 35.2 42.4 10 States 19.4 - 25 11 States 42.5 - 61.6 20 States 25.3 - 38 20 States Figure 1. Teen Pregnancy Rates (source CDC.gov) From the presidency of George Bush to Barack Obama, we can entail that the teen pregnancy rates have significantly decreased. The data information on Figure 1 was derived from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention website. As we can see from Figure 1, when comparing the time of presidency during Bush and Obama, we can recognize the significant decrease within teen pregnancy. This data table can offer valid evidence of teen pregnancy rates within the span of 10 years under two different presidencies. During my research, I found an article with the headline, “FDA Commissioner Crawford, No More Stalling! Plan B belongs on Drugstore Shelves!” (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2005). This article was written during the term of President George Bush and former FDA Commissioner, Lester Crawford. Based on the title of this article, we can already assume where President Bush stands towards birth control and emergency contraceptive accessibility. The article explains how the FDA has failed to make Plan B available without a prescription for plenty of years, which explains why the rates from Figure 1 are so high during 2005 compared to 2015. We would have hoped for the future presidency to improve on this issue with President Bush making it hard for us women to be able to attain birth control or emergency contraceptive. As President Barack Obama became president, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) lessened the worries for those who needed birth control and/or emergency contraceptives. The ACA required employer private health insurance plans to cover birth control. Teens were positively affected with this ruling, due to the fact that many teens are usually under their parent or guardian’s health insurance plan. Countless teens rely on birth control access hence the fact that they are still young, under the roofs of their parent or guardian, and unable to provide for a child. Trump’s Administration are trying to make it difficult for women to gain access to birth control and emergency contraceptives. As I’ve mentioned before, many people were protesting against Former FDA Commissioner Crawford, who wanted to keep Plan B as a prescription only status. Similarly, Trump’s Administration wants to apply restrictions on birth control/Plan B by defunding clinics that provide these sexual services and/or medications and also wanting to limit the coverage from public and private insurances, such as employer’s insurance. Teen pregnancy is affected within this issue since most teens are still covered under their parent or guardian’s insurance. However, as stated on the official New York Times website, “A federal court issued a nationwide injunction on Monday that prevents the Trump administration from interfering with women’s access to free birth control guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act,” (Pear, 2019). With the similarities of Bush’s aspects and Trump’s aspects towards the access of birth control, we can anticipate teen pregnancy rates to increase. Since the Trump Administration wanted to restrict and limit the access women have for birth control and emergency contraceptives but didn’t succeed, we can only hope the best for the 2020 midterm elections regarding this issue. Many women would want the next president to keep the ideas and morals of the Affordable Care Act in regards to sexual health services and/or medications. JBAmerican Governments With two hundred thousand cases per year in the U.S., the opioid crisis is at epidemic level and continues to affect the lives of not only overdose victims, but also their people around them. “Opioids are a class of drugs that include illegal drug heroin, synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, and pain relievers available legally by prescription, such as Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, codeine, morphine and many others” (National Institute on Drug Abuse, n.d.). Fentanyl is the leading killer of Americans among opioids and more often than not, addiction begins with a prescription. The number of Americans addicted to opioids continues to increase and will continue unless a solution is found. “More than 115 people in America die every day due to accidental misuse or abuse of opioids—that’s one person every 12 minutes” (National Institute on Drug Abuse, n.d.), so at a minimum, there are 41,975 deaths a year due to the opioid epidemic in America.
An interesting question about this epidemic is how did it begin? In the 1990’s a large amount of pharmaceutical companies were marketing for their new opioid pills. A few of which promoted their pills as non-addictive, such as OxyContin. What these companies didn’t market was the fast that their drugs were chemically similar to heroin, which is one of the most addictive substances on Earth. “And during that 1999-2016 timeframe, overdose deaths from heroin increased 7 times. And deaths from synthetic opioids like Fentanyl increased almost 21 times” (National Institute on Drug Abuse, n.d.). These drugs have steadily been affecting the country in higher and higher rates each year as is spreads from the Midwest to now the east stated Mathew Kiang, ScD, of the Stanford University School of Medicine. “Eight states—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, and Ohio – had opioid-related mortality rates that at least doubled every 3 years” and “Florida and Pennsylvania – had opioid-related mortality rates that at least doubled every 2 years”; the mortality rates in the east are mostly caused by synthetic opioids like Fentanyl (George, 2019). In the last midterm election 58 bills were passed by law makers which added new funding to treatment and more payment options for addicts. Love him or hate him, president Donald Trump helped fight the epidemic by signing a package of bills nick named the Support for Patients and Communities Act. “The Support for Patients and Communities Act is a big breakthrough that will boost access to addiction treatment and many other interventions to mitigate the opioid epidemic, from law enforcement efforts against illicit drugs to combating the over prescription of opioids” (Lopez, 2018). “Importantly, this bill will increase access to long-term treatment and recovery while also helping the flow of deadly synthetic drugs like fentanyl from being shipped into the Unites States throughout own Postal Service” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) after the Senate vote. Many of the bills will make a difference in prevention of addiction, limiting illegal opioid distribution and rehabilitation. In the fight for prevention, one bill gives seniors more education on the different options they have when it comes to prescriptions so that they can be informed about the opiate and no-opiate painkiller options they have. To fight illegal distribution, another bill gives more power to the Postal Service in an effort to prevent drug trafficking through international mail. For rehabilitation, another bill added new recovery centers and treatment programs but aside from bills, congress also directed the National Institute of Health to develop new non-addictive painkilling drugs to prescribe to people instead of prescribed opiates. Congress even passed a bill that “would put a patient’s addiction history on their medical records” which it’s authors argue that “it will prevent relapses by giving doctors more information about their patient’s history” (Carberry, n.d.). Some other significant things that the Support for Patients and Communities Act does are it “lifts restrictions on medications for opioid addiction, allowing more types of health care practitioners to prescribe the drugs, expands an existing program that attempts to get more first responders, such as police and firefighters, to carry and use naloxone, a medication that reverses opioid overdoses, allows federal agencies to pursue more research projects related to addiction and pain, attempts to improve coordination between different federal agencies to stop illicit drugs like fentanyl at the border, and increases penalties for drug manufacturers and distributor related to the overprescribing of opioids”. However, though these are positive bills in the fight against the opioid epidemic, the government is not actually providing “a significant increase in spending at all. Even though it authorizes some relatively small grant programs, the actual funding for those will be decided later on by congress’s appropriation process” (Lopez, 2018). Without a doubt, the opioid epidemic will certainly be a big topic in the 2020 election. JBAmerican Governments California State University: Sacramento sent out a survey in 2017 to look at their students’ experiences and to assess student knowledge of the campus’ health and counseling services. The survey revealed that about 60% of their students had experienced overwhelming anxiety or depression within the previous 12 months. The CSUS survey also showed that students were either not aware of the services available to them or not utilizing them if they were aware of the services. To help bridge the gap between their students and available services, CSUS has put in time to bulk up their services and focus on outreach and student engagement. Being aware and an active part of CSUS’ Student Health and Counseling Services, viewing theseresults caused me to wonder what other California universities are doing to ensure their students have access to adequate mental and physical health services, food assistance, and substance use education. Upon looking into this, I found that the national prevalence of college students’ anxiety is 41.6% and prevalence is 36.4% for depression (American Psychological Association, 2013). I began to wonder how many universities offered a specified amount of student services and what the quality of those services looks and feels like to those who access them. When beginning my research, I found that public universities are required to provide a specified amount of services to their students living with disabilities, but there is little expectation and almost nothing written as a concrete requirement for the kind of services I feel are vital to student success. I have had the unique opportunity to service the California Youth Crisis Line and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Through this work, I have heard from many students who are experiencing extreme stress and anxiety over their grades and overall school life and the expectations that follow. Here in California, we have a housing crisis, and this is something I hear about from many of the students with whom I speak. I began to wonder, is this too being addressed by our schools?
I chose to look at three Northern California public universities to compare services. Looking at Sacramento State, San Jose State, and UC Davis, I found that all three of these health centers are accredited by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, the highest accreditation available for health care centers. I found that all three universities offer wellness education, immunizations, STI screening, CalFresh on campus, pharmacy services, some kind of emergency funding, physical therapy, career counseling, individual counseling, group sessions, alcohol and substance use education and resource referral, case management, safe rides, and some sort of food pantry. Each of these campuses also have instated a smoke or tobacco free policy. However, when looking further into these services, I found that the amount of assistance provided within each of these sections of care varied greatly at each university. For instance, CSUS offers 14 groups and SJSU offers 13, but UCD only offers three. In another instance, all three universities provide emergency funding, but UCD’s is an emergency loan that must be paid back within 30 days, SJSU’s is $500 and cannot be used for housing--a disheartening fact considering that San Jose is now the most expensive city to live in in the United States, and CSUS’ emergency fund amounts to $1500, can be used on housing, and does not have to be paid back. I also found that CSUS is the only campus of the three that offers emergency housing on site and UCD is the only campus that offers laboratory work in their primary care. In the coming weeks, I plan to connect with students about their experiences at UC and CSU campuses and complete the compilation of the remaining research to be done on the rest of these campus’services. I am happy to see that many of these services are offered and these all look great on paper, but am curious to learn the actual experiences of these students. What are the waiting times, how were they treated once obtaining services, what would they change if given the opportunity? From there, it is my goal to advocate for student services to have a minimum standard, frequent feedback from their students, and to take the voices of their students to heart and make the necessary changes. Throughout many of the recent elections and in our political conversations, universities and higher education have been a topic of interest. However, most of these conversations surround the cost of higher education without discussing the quality of the universities or student experiences once they have entered these universities. I agree that something needs to be doneabout the astronomical cost of being a student in today’s world and the crippling debt thatfollows these students once they move their tassel from the right to the left, but I am concerned with the helpfulness of change agents currently on these campuses. Again, going back to the cost of attendance, student health fees are included at these universities and it is time to ensure students are getting what they are paying for and receiving the necessary help along the way. GastaxmanCalifornia Politics There is a long history of gas taxes dating back about 100 years that most people in the state do not know they are paying. It all started in 1923, The Motor Vehicle Fuel License Tax Law imposed a license tax known as a Gas Tax for anyone who pumped gas at a gas station anywhere in California. This gas tax was put in place because of a need for revenue to meet the increasing of highway cost (caltrans.ca.gov). Making this a state bill in 1923, state lawmakers made it so that two cents per gallon would be added of taxes to the cost of gas for every gallon pumped in the state (caltrans.ca.gov).
Then in 1927, it was raised one more cent a gallon for the state construction funds to pay for new roads. 20 years later, in 1947, because of the Collier Burns Act both gas and fuel increase to four and half cents per gallon on taxes (caltrans.ca.gov). From the gas tax revenues, the counties received 5.4 million dollars and one and three eighths cents per gallon from the four and a half cents the state was charging. The state would get two and a half cents and the cities would receive five eights cents per gallon. Temporarily in 1953, the gas tax was raised from four and a half to six cents per gallon to help restoration and repairs roads and freeways from the damage the storms left that year. Within the 10 year span from 1953 to 1963 another cent was added to the gas tax making it 7 cents per gallon (caltrans.ca.gov). They switched how the distribution of gas tax was going so the counties got 1.625 cents, cities received .725 cents, and cities and counties got 1.04 cents. The remaining 3.61 cents went to the state highways funds. The state lawmakers boosted excised tax to 9 cents per gallon in 1983. After came proposition 111 in 1990, which voters supported and raised the excised tax to 14 cents a gallon and where it would go up a penny every year until 1994 where it would reach 18 cents a gallon (caltrans.ca.gov). In 2010 the sale tax on gas reduced, but excised was at 36 cent per gallon (Richards, Gary). Going up another 3.5 cent in 2013 now the state gas tax was at 39.5 per gallon (Richards, Gary). Last we had the fuel tax increases and vehicle fees increase in 2017 basically from the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 that increased the gas tax to where is is now. This gas tax was so controversial. Proposition 6 was introduced in the 2018 elections as a repeal on the gas tax because some people felt it was too much on what Californians were already paying. The gas tax was an increase on taxes in gasoline, diesel, and registration fees. It’s a state law called SB-1 transportation funding that helps fund for the state highway system, the local street, and road system. This affects the people in California that are in the mid-lower to lower class, especially like cities in the bay area that are expensive to live in. The tax on gasoline increased by 12 cents per gallon and for diesel it increased 20 cents per gallon (Baldassari, Erin). Also, registration for vehicles went up between $25 and $175 depending on the value of the car (Baldassari, Erin). For those who have a zero- emission vehicle, they will have to pay $100 on registration fees by 2020 (Baldassari, Erin). With these raises on these new taxes and fees it’s expected to generate $5.4 billion annually (Baldassari, Erin). About two-thirds of the money from the higher taxes and fees is split between state highway repairs and money for cities and counties to maintain local streets. The next-largest share goes to transit, which receives about 14 percent of the funds (Baldassari, Erin). Eventually during the 2018 election, Prop 6 was rejected by the voters of California. In the governor's race, Gavin Newsom was against it and John Cox was in favor of the proposition. These governor candidates had a big debate that was highly publicized during their campaign. This shows it was an important issue for both of them. There is correlation between the winner of the governor's race, which was Gavin Newsom, and his stance on Prop 6. Jeff Denham supported Prop 6 and lost his election for U.S house district 10 (ballotpedia.org). Steven Bailey supported prop 6 and eventually lost to Xavier Becerra for Attorney General (ballotpedia.org). There seems to be a small connection between the winners of the 2018 elections and their stance on Prop 6. However not everyone in different districts who supported Governor Newsom were against the gas tax. Some district were in favor of proposition 6 because in some counties, the people who lived there are lower class people. That means that they were going to have to pay more in gas tax. Which if that they will have to spend more on gas and it was going to affect their livelihoods more than a more well off person. JMCSCalifornia Politics Despite the existing programs for health care in California, many residents are still left without adequate health care coverage. It is important for each family to have a necessary health care plan because of the costly charges of medical bills. Without adequate coverage plans, an unexpected life event can put a family in the face of financial debts or even bankruptcy. Though most employers will offer plans in regards toward health care for their employees, some workers may find that these plans are not affordable to each individual, ultimately leaving them in deprivation of the right health care that they or their family needs. California does have health care plans available such as Medi-Cal and Coverage California for those who cannot afford the plans offered by employers; however, there are still individuals who still find these programs unaffordable and are left without any health insurance coverages. According to the June 2017 report from the CDC, there are 6.8% of the population in California that are uninsured (Myers, 2018).
In the last recent election of 2018, there were numerous propositions aimed to help those who are still not covered with health insurance. Health care has been a reoccurring issue in the United States and California is just one of those states where many of its residents are still hoping for affordable health care prices. One proposition was SB 562 also known as The Healthy California Act. This bill proposed a single-payer health care system where the funding for all health care finances would come from the federal government. This bill promised universal health care for all of California residents with reduced and affordable costs and better patient care made primarily by health care professionals such as doctors and nurses instead of insurance agencies. This act will be beneficial because California residents won’t have to worry about expensive health care costs or worry that their insurance would not be able to cover medical procedures needed in order to save a life. Unfortunately, SB 562, The Healthy California Act was placed on hold and did not pass during the recent election in 2018 due to the issues of financing. One supporter of the act was a democratic candidate, Gavin Newsom. Another proposition that was brought up during the last election in 2018 in regard to health care was SB 974 also known as the Health4All Elders act. This bill was proposed by Lara. The Health4All Elders act ensures that all undocumented, low income elderly residents in California who are 65 years of age or older be eligible for Medi-Cal. This prop goes to support universal coverage. Not only would they be eligible for Medi-Cal coverages, the undocumented elders would be covered through emergency services, primary and any other preventative care as needed. This act will ensure that elderly undocumented California residents receive the best care instead of living with fear of costly medical bills and being ill. Unfortunately, this prop, SB 974 was also failed in the election of 2018. The act AB 2965, also known as Health4All Young Adults was proposed by Arambula. This was also a proposition that was brought up in regard to California health care during the 2018 elections. Health4All Young Adults act ensured that undocumented young adults living in California within the ages of 19 to 25 be eligible for Medi-Cal coverages. Similar to the Health4All Elders act, this proposition ensures the same coverage for undocumented residents but aimed towards younger adults who were ineligible to qualify for health insurance due to their immigration status. It is another step towards universal coverage for the state of California and its residents. Unfortunately, like the other bill, the proposition Health4All Young Adults was also a failure in the 2018 elections. These propositions were all denied due to California’s budget. California is a state of many cultures and diversity. Amongst the residents, there are still many who are undocumented immigrants. Due to the failure of these proposals, those that are impacted the most are the undocumented residents in California. Another group that are impacted are those who do not make enough to afford health care. Without affordable prices, individuals are still left without health care coverage in California. Residents who don’t qualify for health services such as Medi-Cal, are living in fear of becoming ill or injured in hopes to avoid any financial situations. Propositions in the matter of health care coverage will always be an upcoming issue in the United States as long as there are still residents that are left uncovered. California is just one of the states where its residents are living without proper health care coverage or are over paying for coverage without getting the proper care that is needed. As long as there is no change with the policies in California’s health system, those who are affected will continue to propose acts to change the future in ensuring that all of California will have access to health care. BrandonisokCalifornia Politics Topic: Proposition 47 is a 2014 ballot initiative that sought to reduce non-violent, non-serious crimes from misdemeanors to felonies. From the Legislative Analyst Office website: (lao.ca.gov) on average the burden on the state taxpayer to house one inmate for a year is $81,203.
Prop 47 is an overt plan to reduce this tax burden on the people by reducing the seriousness of crimes. Officers were now given liberty to “cite and release” for applicable offenses rather than arrest which would free up valuable real estate and time in courts, jails and prisons. A caveat is that the defendant could not have prior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certain gun crimes. (ballotpedia.org) The proposition also allowed the restructuring of sentencing for current inmates housed for applicable crimes with the intent on reducing the number of people imprisoned. Lenore Anderson, a former prosecutor and Executive Director of Californians for Safety and Justice, said as many as 10,000 inmates would be eligible to petition for resentencing if the initiative passes. (sfappeal.com) The initiative passed. The state has now freed up a bunch of money ($150-$250 million annually, on average) previously set aside to house criminals. What do we now do with the extra money? The fallout money was used to create a Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund. Something interesting here is that the initiative didn’t seek to lower taxes and give the money back to the taxpayer, rather it was designed to redistribute the money to other places where funding experienced a deficit. This “extra” money could be proportionately used for good. The money was chopped up and the distribution looks like this: 25 percent to the Department of Education, 10 percent to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, and 65 percent to the Board of State and Community Correction (ballotpedia.org). Why do the Board of State and Community Correction get such a large chunk? I would think Department of Education would get the lion’s share. Educated people with real, viable, economic opportunities tend to commit less crime. Bob Wise, former Governor of West Virginia was quoted in an article for the Alliance for Excellent Education’s website: “Improving the nation’s high schools and engaging students will not only save the nation dollars... it will save students’ futures.” My point is, allocating all of this money for correction rather than education seems to be pruning the “crime tree” at the branch rather than fixing it at the root–by funding education. When pruned properly, a tree–in our case, crime–grows exponentially whereas when attacked at the root, a tree dies. This is an analogy of course, but I find it applicable. The allotted space for this blog post isn’t big enough to fully dissect the allocation of funding issue here. However, it will be approached in detail for the final project. Why do we care about this proposition? Let’s examine it from three different perspectives: the criminal, law-enforcement, and the layman taxpayer that may shine some light on the proposition and could help form an opinion. At the end of each post I will tell you if I think the respective group wins or loses. The Criminal: “Criminal” is a broad term. Perhaps all of us are guilty of a crime (even convicted! I admit, I have been found guilty of breaking a traffic law before–speeding–and ordered to pay a fine) at least once in our life. Let’s narrow our definition of criminal. Looking at the intent of prop 47, whom does the relaxation of punishment really affect? From the California General Election and Voter Guide and ballotpedia.org, the measure required misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for the following crimes: • Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950 • Grand theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950 • Receiving stolen property, where the value of the property does not exceed $950 • Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950 • Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950 • Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950 • Personal use of most illegal drugs Interesting things to note here: Grand theft is defined by theft where the value exceeds $1000, therefore the measure seems to contradict itself here. Also, we’ll really expand upon the concept of personal use of most illicit drugs. That concept has had the most impact on how law enforcement has/had to treat criminals. Let’s talk about law enforcement... Result: Win. Law Enforcement: I think a concept that the general public, certainly myself, find themselves sometimes guilty of is that we seek to blame police officers for writing or interpreting laws with the intent to punish people for them. We have to remember that officers that we would deal with on a day to day basis job is to “serve and protect” and to enforce laws written by legislators as representatives of the “people.” I think we find ourselves in a pitfall sometimes when we look at officers as more than simple enforcers of the laws and protectors of the people. For the intent of prop 47 it seems to me it would be a win as they simply would not have to arrest suspects and could cite and release for crimes which would free up valuable time. Result: Win. The Taxpayer: Remember when I said it costs taxpayers $81,203 to house one person in prison for a year? Man, that’s a lot of bread. According to the Pubic Policy Institute of California the poverty line for a California family of 4 is $24,300 annually. Roughly 14% of Californian’s live below this. Do we agree the idea that a prisoner lives roughly 4 times higher than the poverty line (for a family of 4!) is ridiculous? Proposition addresses this and seeks to relieve this stress on the taxpayer. Result: Win. DOWOCalifornia Politics Free tampons and pads should be accessible to students at schools and also youth centers. I believe that if men can get free condoms at schools to promote healthy, safe sex and to prevent teenage pregnancy, then women should get free pads and tampons in schools and youth centers to promote periods and clean vaginal health. I also think that this should be not only for women in schools, but it should also apply to homeless women as well. We should make feminine products available in community centers, firehouses, police stations, and most importantly women’s shelters and homeless shelters. It is every woman's right to have access to these products because we can not help having a period. It’s a natural thing that happens and we really should not be spending so much money on it every year. Unlike men who can control the urge to have sex by abstaining, women don’t have a choice because we can’t control our periods. Periods usually come every month for about 5-7 days, so the amount of money that women have to spend per year is ridiculous. If women have access to feminine products in schools, then the amount of money they can save is huge.
During the recent election, our current president, Donald Trump, sparked an a major outrage because he accused Fox News host, Megyn Kelly of giving him harder to answer interview questions because she was on her “time of the month.” Because of his comment, women all over the world started to talk about menstruation and even started a hashtag called #periodsarenotaninsult. Former President Obama didn’t even know that tampons were being taxed as a luxury item until it was brought up in an interview in 2016. President Obama also agrees that it is an issue and said that he doesn’t understand why it’s being taxes as a luxury item and said “I suspect it's because men were making the laws when those taxes were passed.” What Trump said at the time really shocked the entire country and women from all over the country started rebelling and participating more in women’s marches. Personally as a fellow woman, it’s inspiring to see all these women with different backgrounds come together for the same goal. I believe these supplies should be provided by the local government and sponsored by big name companies that sell feminine products like Always, O.B, and Kotex. It does not cost these companies that much money to make these products, so why are they charging women such high prices? Even the United Nations declared menstrual hygiene a global, public-health, gender-equality and human rights issue so why aren’t we providing free feminine products? I’m not saying that women should have access to free feminine products all their lives, but I believe that it should be available for them from middle school through college. I think that this time period is important for young women in particular because their bodies are going through changes and they feel the most uncomfortable. This period can be kind of awkward so having free feminine products at school would avoid unwanted accidents. Another reason why I think that feminine products should be accessible to teens and young adults is because it also saves the parents a lot of money. Think about it, parents are saving up for their children’s college tuition so not paying money for feminine products would really help them save up. According to Statistica, in 2016, Tampax Pearl generated nearly 289 million dollars in sales alone. These numbers are from one company alone talking about their tampon sales. Imagine how much it would be if other companies like Always, O.B, and Kotex were added in. After what Trump said in the recent election, topics like free feminine products as well as the tampon tax have been more talked about. In a way, I’m glad that Trump sparked that outrage because it became such a huge topic when it wasn’t before. In conclusion, I believe that feminine products should be free and available to all women in schools and colleges, as well as homeless shelters and women’s shelters. If these products were accessible to women, I believe that women would achieve much greater things in life as well as become more confident to do things. It would also bring comfort to young women all around and give them more self confidence. In the upcoming elections, more and more women are running for office and these women who are running are so inspirational because they aren’t afraid of speaking their minds or “letting the man do the job.” The future is female so let’s give these young women some inspiration. |
AuthorUndergraduate student generated content. Blog posting and updating done by Kristina Flores Victor, Assistant Professor of Political Science at CSUS Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|