SFCalifornia Politics Over the past ten years, there has been a continual increase in the obesity of Americans. The high levels of sugar and preservatives found in our food/drinks have led to serious medical concerns across the nation. Several organizations have been advocating for the implementation of healthier foods. In fall 2018 Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that will require restaurants in California to make milk or juices made without artificial sweeteners the default option on kids meals. Although this is a step in the right direction, enforcing a change in the promotion of healthier kids meal drinks is not enough to reform the declining health in the United States.
With the California statistic of 40.7% of children or adolescents being overweight in 2016, it’s important to realize that changing the way children eat is the first step in putting our country on a healthier path. According to MomsRising, 40,000 annual deaths in the United States are attributed to heart problems associated with the consumption of sugary drinks. The consumption of sugary drinks has been linked to a variety of other health concerns aside from the increase in obesity; it is also linked to Diabetes, Heart disease, Gout, decrease in bone health, and risk of early death from cancer. When considering how this really affects the day-to-day lives of families in the United States, you may think it isn’t all that important. To put this into perspective, McDonald’s is one of the most iconic fast food chains in the world and, in the United States alone, McDonald’s will sell 602,000 Happy Meals in one day. In the past 20 years, some of the most prominent soft drink companies received backlash over the chemicals found in their drinks. Although some of those companies have since changed the recipes of their drinks, a few controversial ingredients have remained. These ingredients include, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Citric Acid, and Sodium Benzoate. Many of these drinks are packaged in cans containing Bisphenol A; more commonly known as BPA. Bisphenol A has been banned from infant’s plastic cups due to the harmful chemicals, so why hasn’t it been banned from cans that children and adults both drink from? In a study conducted by three professors at Princeton University, the authors concluded that the consumption of sugar can lead to behavioral and psychological changes that are similar to the symptoms of substance abuse (Avena et al). One of the most concerning problems associated with soft drinks is the combination of Citric Acid and Sodium Benzoate. Citric Acid is used as a preservative that can lead to erosion of your teeth, it is common in most carbonated beverages. Sodium Benzoate is another common preservative that is found in most processed foods we consume. However, under the right conditions, Citric Acid and Sodium Benzoate can turn in to Benzene, which is also a natural part of crude oil, gasoline and cigarette smoke (cdc.gov). Benzene is used to make lubricants, rubbers, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides, and it is has linked to cause cancer in humans (cdc.gov). Based on this information, should we do more to reform the manufacturing and sales of these products? Although this bill will have a positive impact on the health of children in the state of California, we have a national crisis that has yet to be addressed. We need to educate parents and children on the dangers of consuming these chemicals and excessive amounts of sugar in our drinks. In addition, we need to start promoting better health so that the media and other elected officials can realize the importance of our health. Aside from the health concerns, beverages with artificial sweeteners have no nutritional value. As of June 2018, the California state legislature banned any new local soda taxes until 2031. However, if alcohol and cigarettes, which also have no nutritional value get taxed, then why shouldn’t soda? The California Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Initiative was proposed for the 2020 ballot but, as of March 22, 2019, the Secretary of State’s office announced that the initiative failed due to a lack of signatures. The California Senate Bill (SB 1192) enforcing the advertisement of healthy kids meal drinks was passed in September 2018 and went into effect on January 1, 2019. Senator Bill Monning (SD-17) authored the bill, which was co-sponsored by the American Heart Association, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, MomsRising, Public Health Advocates, and YMCA. The bill specifies that the default option for a children’s meal drink must be water, sparkling water, flavored water, or unflavored milk. However, a restaurant still has the ability to sell an alternative beverage should a customer request it. The first violation would be subject to a notice of violation, whereas second and third violations will be punishable by fines. Unfortunately, this will not stop customers from ordering the popular sodas or juices that are full of preservatives and artificial sweeteners. If people were aware of the dangers associated with consuming unhealthy food and drinks, it would increase the chances of longer and healthier lives.
0 Comments
Junior at CSUSAmerican Governments In the United States, sexual education is inconsistent and generally lacking, depending on what state, neighborhood, or school district you live in. While there have been efforts to make sex ed more inclusive, informative, and standardized, there have also been attempts to make it even more restrictive and uninformative to young students. In the US, programs like the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program seek to teach everyone what they need to know about sex, STIs, and prevention of unwanted pregnancies. However, sex ed has not been a priority for most politicians because of its taboo nature, and in fact, many policy makers support an abstinence-only approach to teaching sex ed. These people generally believe that informing youth about sex will cause them to have sex more. They believe that teaching people that abstaining from sex is their only option, and that they do not need to know anything else. However, this opinion is ignorant and naïve; if young people do not learn about sex, they will still be sexually active- they just won’t know how to properly protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and STIs. In fact, one study found that students who received comprehensive sex ed were 50% less likely to become pregnant than those who received abstinence-only sex education (Kohler, et al. Abstinence-only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42 (4): 344-351). Adopting the stick-your-head-in-the-sand-and-hope-the-problem-goes-away-mindset is irresponsible to the youth in this country and can have dire consequences for many young people and their families.
Truly comprehensive sex ed is not just about sex. It is about healthy relationships, consent, respect, and how to keep your body healthy and free from unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. It aims to include every student, whether they identify as straight, gay, transgender, or anything else, and to answer any question about these topics. It covers all kinds of consensual sexual activity, risks of being sexually active, and ways to protect against these risks. It covers different kinds of birth control, including male and female condoms, pills, intrauterine devices (both hormonal and non-hormonal), implants, shots, etc. because not every option works for every person, and these options can be overwhelming and complicated without being taught about them. Making sure people are safe while being sexually active should be our number one priority, not shaming teens for being interested in sex. Sex education is an issue that is rarely talked about during elections, but elections still have very clear impacts on sex ed. This is because conservatives tend to favor an abstinence-only approach, while liberals tend to favor comprehensive sex ed. For example, President Trump and his administration have attempted to shut down funding for comprehensive sexual education programs, namely the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) program, “a national, evidence-based program that funds diverse organizations working to prevent teen pregnancy across the United States” (HHS.gov). This program is a diverse, inclusive sex education initiative which targets youth ages 10-19 with the goal of reducing teen pregnancy and birth rates through empirical research and implementation. The attempts to defund this program have failed so far, but the futures of the TPP and programs like it remain unclear. Sex education requires funding, standardized guidelines for consistency, and training for qualified professionals to teach the material. The material has always been inconsistent, as certain school districts do not have the resources, private (usually religious) schools often have very little to no sex education, and many states do not prioritize it or have any standards for sex ed in their schools. While teaching sex ed, the material needs to be adapted for the appropriate age groups, as children in elementary school should be learning different information from students in junior high and high school. At a young age, students should learn what “inappropriate touching” is, and how to tell an adult if it ever happens. Over time, and especially in junior high when these students start going through puberty, they should be taught about the biological processes of puberty, sex, pregnancy, and labor, while also introducing the idea of sexually transmitted infections. These lessons should discourage sexual activity at such a young age and emphasize that abstinence is the only way to completely avoid the risks of unwanted pregnancy and STIs, but explain that there are other options as well. During this time, boys and girls should be allowed to ask questions in a safe environment. Often, the girls and boys are separated, and the girls are given a female instructor while the boys are given a male instructor. This is done to encourage students to feel comfortable asking questions and get the information they need. In high school, when sexual activity increases greatly (the average age that people lose their virginity is around 17 years old), truly comprehensive sex ed is extremely important. These young people need to know about all of their options in order to make safe, healthy, and informed decisions. Having learned about these topics in junior high would be helpful for those who decide to engage in sexual activity earlier than most of their peers, and emphasizing consent throughout all of these lessons could help greatly reduce incidents of sexual assault. Learning about all of this information would help young people avoid any life-changing consequences, especially unwanted pregnancies and incurable STIs, like herpes (HSV), human papillomavirus (HPV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Every person, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, income level, etc. has a right to express themselves sexually and know how to protect themselves from these possible consequences. With comprehensive sexual education, the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies and STIs could be greatly reduced, and that is something everyone should support. Ventus 26American Governments At some point you’ve probably heard the term “global warming” thrown around on television or the internet. But what does this phrase mean, and why does it matter? Global warming is an important issue worthy of attention because, if unchecked, its lasting effects include: more extreme temperatures, both hot and cold; increased weather catastrophes, such as tropical cyclones and hurricanes; more instances of debilitating drought; and rising sea levels that could contaminate drinking water and harm coastal environments. Clearly, these scenarios are something we want to avoid, but in order to fight global warming we must first understand what it is and how it is caused.
Global warming is the gradual increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and surface due to the greenhouse effect caused by high levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), and other pollutants in the air. The picture below does a nice job of illustrating the greenhouse effect , if you are unfamiliar with the term: The greenhouse effect is essential for understanding global warming, because greenhouse gas molecules act as a blanket around the earth that trap heat near its surface. The more molecules that accumulate in the air, the more heat gets trapped and the more the surface temperature rises. And the majority of climate scientists agree that the main cause of greenhouse gas emissions–and, in turn, the current global warming trend – is human activity. Over the last century, humans have primarily generated energy by burning either coal or oil. This can occur on an industrial scale at a coal-fired power plant, or on an individual scale by using gasoline to power automobiles. But the burning of these fossil fuels has the side effect of releasing carbon dioxide molecules into the air, which gather in the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect. CFC’s, on the other hand, are becoming less common since more is known about their harmful side-effects, but they are used in the manufacture of aerosol sprays (like hairspray) and as refrigerants. While many believe that there are no consequences to the burning of coal or the use of products like hairspray, the evidence suggests otherwise. Global surface temperatures have been rising steadily since 1901, and over the past 30 years the rate has accelerated dramatically (“Climate”). Right now, there is still time to take action against global warming and reduce its effects, but there will come a point where it becomes irreversible and could forever change life as we know it. Election Impact Global warming is a very topical subject discussed at nearly all levels of government, both state and national. At the state level, California has made several positive moves towards combating global warming, including passing the California Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006. By requiring a substantial reduction of greenhouse gas emissions throughout the state, this act “was the first program in the country to take a comprehensive, long-term approach to addressing climate change” (California). While it is excellent that the California legislature acknowledges that global warming is a serious threat and has taken significant action, the largest impact on the fight against global warming comes at the national level, since national elections and legislation direct the course of action the entire country will take. The recent 2016 presidential election had many repercussions for this fight, and it is where the efforts to reverse global warming need improvement. While not the main issue addressed, global warming was a topic of discussion during the 2016 presidential race. The frontrunners were Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, and according to a 2016 Yale report, 92% of Clinton’s supporters believed global warming is happening, while only 56% of Trump’s supporters shared that belief. In addition, 76% of Clinton supporters believed that global warming is caused by human activity, compared to 55% for Trump supporters (Leiserowitz et al.). The divide in these statistics mirror the differing views of the candidates, which is why the inauguration of President Trump had several negative consequences on the effort to stop global warming. Trump and his administration have maintained a stance that global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese, and that it is certainly not caused by human activity. He often tweets about winter storms, using them as evidence that global warming doesn’t exist (which highlights a common misconception that weather is the same as climate). Because of his unyielding beliefs, Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, an agreement signed by every other nation in the world that pledged to undertake efforts to combat climate change. In addition, he reversed a climate policy established by President Obama that aimed to expedite the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions. Trump instead introduced a proposal that would allow states to establish their own emissions standards for coal-fired power plants, prolonging our nation’s substantial contribution to the greenhouse effect. Finally, Trump’s most recent nominee to take over the EPA – the agency charged with protecting the environment – stated in his confirmation hearing that he “would not call [global warming] the greatest crisis” (Ebbs), essentially confirming that he would not make combating the causes of global warming a priority. The results of the 2016 presidential election will have many negative long -term effects on the effort to stop global warming, and the actions taken by the president’s administration will help propel the climate towards the point of no return. However, many Americans are becoming more aware that global warming is a current issue–not just an abstract event in the future– that affects everyone regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum. It is because of this that the issue of global warming will most likely take a more prominent position in the upcoming 2020 election, hopefully producing candidates who are committed to reducing human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. And a s long as we don’t give up on fighting against global warming, hope remains that we can avoid a world on fire. SJAmerican Government In 1973, the landmark ruling for women’s rights in U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion. Ever since, individual states have adopted and changed the ruling to fit their agendas, especially Texas. However, the decision in Roe v. Wade didn’t set clear cut rules, which has allowed debate to consume the nation ever since. Rather than establishing a legal ruling of what life is, or is not, the Supreme Court has remained silent on the issue. Without the agreement determining when life begins, the court has allowed state legislators the authority to shape a state’s policy on abortion. Meaning, across the nation, all states can bring legislation and input severe limitations on when and how a pregnancy may be terminated. Since then, in recent years state lawmakers have passed some of the toughest anti-abortion measures in the country, essentially making the procedure almost inaccessible for many Texas women.
2013 marked the closure of many reproductive centers across Texas and resulted in the topic of accessible abortions being a heated discussion for many state citizens. Within that year, a new state law has brought on many abortion restrictions resulting in lowering women’s reproductive rights due to decreasing access to abortion care (Al-Arian). The House bill, HB2, set forth provisions that would result in the closure of most abortion clinics in the state of Texas. State legislature, both passed HB, 3994 as a law after receiving Governor Abbott signature. This law complicated access to abortion services for many minors and for those who do not possess a Texas identification card. In HB 3994, it had four requirements of the bill that would explicitly hinder minors. The first provision, the bill will make it harder for a minor to demonstrate that she needs a judge to approve her for an abortion because the level of evidence that the minor must acquire is much more encompassing. Secondly, it revises the requirement that a judge’s rule must be made immediately, expanding the decision time from two days to five which prolongs the process (planned parenthood). The third provision withdrawals the requirement that in the case the judge cannot make an immediate rule, then the minor’s case was automatically granted. This third provision along with the extension of the ruling time, could lead to a number of rules not being made and to the possibility of the minor’s application being denied. Fourthly, the new bill brings limits on who can have their appeals heard. With both Republican representative in the State Senate and the State House, this bill has become increasingly hard to overturn resulting in women being denied access to center in over a 100 miles radius. This included the Texas abortion provider, Whole Woman's Health, which ran a clinic in Beaumont until 2014. This center was the only place to get an abortion between Houston, Texas and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Racheal Jones and Jenna Jerman, author of “Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health” recorded that “In 2014, some 96% of Texas counties had no clinics that provided abortions, and 43% of Texas women lived in those counties”. This number shows a 29% decline compared to the numbers of clinics available in 2012. Additionally, in 2017, Texas lawmakers have filed at least 17 “religious refusal” bills that would permit discrimination against LGBT in many factors in their life such as healthcare, welfare services, and employment. In healthcare, Senate bill 17 allows “health care providers to use their religious beliefs as reason to deny any medical treatment to LGBT people and others included within that community” (Guttmacher Institute). Providers are also able to deny family planning services such as birth control, counseling, miscarriage management and abortion care to patients because of their sexuality and gender identification. This is an issue on many different citizen’s minds, especially those who live in the state of Texas. The new laws are forcing many women to have to cross state lines in order to receive an abortion and medical care. This includes woman who needs abortions due to preexisting medical conditions and those who are carrying fetuses which are diseased and are expected not to be born as healthy babies (Planned Parenthood). The Texas Governor Rick Perry and Senator Ted Cruz are leading the fight for the abortion laws to become permanent, laws that are considered the strictest abortion laws that this country has ever seen. Overall, this debate has divided many Texas citizens into two categories, prolife and prochoice. Pro-life supports the idea that every child has a right to live. Meanwhile, prochoice believes in the right to privacy and the idea women should have the choice to do what she pleases with her own body. With a strong pro-life presence in the Texas state government, it will remain difficult for the overturn of these policies and the reopening of many abortion clinics within the state. Proud VetAmerican Governments While California has one of the world’s strongest economies and is a desired destination to visit and or live, veterans do not receive their dues in the golden state. California has a veteran population of over two million people. There are states in the union with far less veterans that go above and beyond that of California in efforts to support our nation’s heroes. States like Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina all take care of their veterans way better than the nation’s most populous and prosperous state, California. California has too high of standards for certain benefits such as disability license plates from the DMV, as well as lowered DMV fees for those who have received a Purple Heart. The housing crisis in California is well known, yet when it comes to veterans it is magnified significantly. Texas has many housing incentives to entice veterans to take up residency in the lone star state. California is so expensive that even those coming home from war cannot afford an entry level starter home. Another issue that plagues California is the homeless problem. Many of our Vietnam and desert storm vets along with OIF and OEF vets are living on the streets because our state government has failed them. The young men and women transitioning from military life bring many skills and needed attributes to the workforce and communities at large. The law makers and decision makers of the great state of California need to do their duty and ensure these veterans have a leg up on civilian assimilation and have every available resource at their fingertips in order to continue pursuing their American dream.
According to an article found on smartasset.com, titled “The Best States for Veterans”, California is the second worst state for our nation’s veterans. California has the third highest veteran unemployment rate in the country and ranks the tenth worst in VA facilities per 10,000 veterans. Calvet.ca.gov claims that 1.8 million US veterans reside in California, making up eight percent of all veterans. It is also stated the every year over 30,000 additional vets will call California home upon leaving the military. With all these veterans within the borders of California it is essential that they are taken care of and legislation needs to be in place to ensure they do not fall in to the cracks of bureaucracy and political nonsense. The last state mid-term election did not have any significant initiatives or propositions in place to address the current status of California’s veterans. In fact, the only election of recent times that has even addressed the issue our nations vets has been that of President Trump during his 2016 campaign. But that hasn’t trickled down to California’s political radar. Even though California is well known for its liberal political stance we can all agree that these young men and women put their lives on the line for the very country that owes them a chance to give back to society. No matter what the color the state is. Since this is a state issue, the 2020 election will have little to no effect on the state of veterans living in California. Other states have shown us the way, just as California has demonstrated what not to do. Purple Heart recipients should be able to get specialized license plates and have their DMV fees reduced, for life. The VA home loan is simply not enough and California can afford to wave fees and set aside grants and or land for troops returning home from combat. Texas has special parking spots for veterans. This simple yet honoring gesture goes a long way both to the veteran and the community as a whole. Hunting, fishing, and parks fees should come to a discount for those who served. Besides they were the ones defending this nation to begin with. The homeless issue is no short task but with all the great minds and capitol, California is long overdue in tackling this issue. Just visit any large city in California and there are thousands of vets living in worse conditions than that of their time at war. Let that sink in. California is a worldwide destination that has an economy that rivals any developed nation on the planet. From the beautiful beaches to the enormous redwoods, or the snowcapped mountains of the Sierra Nevadas to world famous Yosemite, California has something for everyone and with all the taxes being funneled into Sacramento it is hard to imagine that the ones who need it most continue to go without. The small things add up and goes along way. Our nations veterans don’t want a hand out, rather an equitable chance from the state with most to give. We all value the California lifestyle, it’s time California values our vets. Jimmy McGregorAmerican Politics Are state and local governments correct in banning flavored e-cigarettes for advertising to children or did the e-cigarette industry do its due diligence in preventing the teen vaping epidemic? To preface this, Juul is one of the most common vaping instruments used in the US today and is valued at 38 billion dollars. Juul is an alternative to traditional cigarettes and doesn’t have the harmful tar that is known for causing cancer, but instead vaporizes a nicotine concentrate that has proven to be easier on the lungs. The idea behind Juul and other vapes was to help cigarette smokers break their addiction with an alternative that is not as bad for you. Vapes still contain nicotine which is known to be an addictive substance but is not known to cause cancer, however, there are still harmful aspects to inhaling hot vapor. Today, Juul is being accredited with causing a new wave of nicotine users among America’s youth and as many as 1 in 5 youths have seen a Juul being used in school. Scott Gottlieb, the Commissioner of the FDA, declared youth vaping an "epidemic" and said he would declare a ban on all flavored e-cigarettes if those companies did not prove they were doing enough to keep them out of the hands of minors. Since then Juul has banned the selling of their flavored pods to all brick and mortar shops to ensure that people buying their products were the proper age. Since then there has been 180 state and localities that have legally banned or cracked down on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes juices. (4) Have Juul and other e-cigarette companies been responsible for an e-cigarette epidemic? Teen vaping is actually down in recent years from 24.1% of teens using in the past 30 days in 2015 to 20.8% in 2017 according to the CDC. (3) While these numbers are high, the use of cigarettes over the past 25 years have decreased, peaking at around 25% of high schoolers having used cigarettes in the past 30 days in 1995. (1) It would appear that teen smoking is staying at around a similar rate, however the products used are changing. So was Juul right in removing their vape flavors from the market. It would appear that teens are switching to a safer alternative that’s trendier.
While teen smoking is a serious issue there have been allegations made that Juul has been marketing specifically to children through social media. Juul recently has deleted many of their social media posts that allegedly appealed to younger crowds after gaining the attention of the FDA. In late 2018 the FDA conducted a surprise inspection on Juul’s headquarters in San Francisco seizing over 1000 documents that were related to Juul advertising to minors. While this number seems staggering the CEO of Juul stated that they had already given the FDA 50,000 documents for their inquiry into the teen smoking epidemic. In even more recent news, the CDC Director has been pressured to resign for being invested in big tobacco. This raises the question, was the government cracking down on Juul to prevent teens from using nicotine, an already common occurrence, or was the government being directed by the lobbying of big tobacco companies like Altria? Since the inspection and public callout of Juul by the Stocks of some of the world largest tobacco companies have seen a bump. Allegations have also been made that the CDC Director called out big tobacco at their own behest to encourage a sense of rebelliousness in underage smokers by making the product look “cooler.” There is also a correlation between smoking and using e-cigarettes. A study by The Truth Initiative found that roughly 60% of e-cigarette users also used smoked cigarettes. (6) With that being said, there is also a correlation between quitting smoking and using vaping products. Those who use vaping as an alternative to smoking cigarettes have seen a higher success rate than those who have used alternatives like nicotine gum or the patch. Recent Election Results: Scott Gottlieb was nominated as director of the FDA by president trump and has made it one of his main goals to end the teen vaping epidemic. He originally proposed the ban on all flavored e-cigarettes and was head of the FDA when the surprise inspection happened at Juul headquarters. Since then there has also been a wave of state and local governments putting restrictions on the use and flavoring e-cigarettes. In the 2018 midterm elections indoor vaping was banned in the state of Florida and the state of Montana narrowly shot down a law increasing the price of nicotine products. Massachusetts has seen heavy bans and restriction on vaping, which has been passed in 140 localities across the state. California has the second most regulation on e-cigarettes with flavor bans and restriction in 25 localities. There is also a recently implemented plan to used one’s ID when purchasing a pack of flavored e-cigarettes to prevent the spread of vaping to teens. This would cut off anyone who is of age supplying e-cigarette pods to minors by being able to hold them accountable if the minor is caught. 1. https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-development/substance-use/drugs/tobacco/trends/index.html 2. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/09/juul-to-stop-selling-mango-other-e-cigarette-flavors-in-stores.html 3. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm 4. https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0398.pdf 5. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/health/juul-ecigarettes-fda-raid.html 6. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/can-vaping-help-you-quit-smoking-2019022716086 GDAmerican Governments As a state, California is a large contributor to the American economy. Central California provides agriculture while Silicon Valley dominates the technology industry. The state generates wealth through various other means, too, but the cost of living places its residents at risk for homelessness. Continuums of Care reported an estimated 129,972 California residents were homeless as of January 2018 to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To serve as a point of reference for comparison, 91,897 New York residents experienced homelessness during this same period. This report revealed the impacted groups as, “Of that Total, 6,702 were family households, 10,836 were Veterans, 12,396 were unaccompanied young adults (aged 18-24), and 34,332 were individuals experiencing chronic homelessness.” Historically, minimum wage was meant to comply with the cost of living but the working class cannot compete with competitive buyers brought in by growing industries.
Measures that can be taken to prevent homelessness is to create affordable housing and prioritize living wages state-wide. Although this post addresses California specifically, affordable housing is a nationwide concern being tackled in Washington, D.C. Congress has been in the process of reintroducing the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act and on February 13th, 2019, the House Financial Services Committee assembled a hearing for the committee to focus on ending homelessness. Many agreed that addressing housing affordability would serve as a “prevention tool” for the crisis—confirming the chain reaction of increased costs of living leading to homelessness with wages remaining idle. Both Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Suzan DelBene demonstrated support for the Housing Credit in connection to affordable rental housing. Housing is a basic human right that puts Americans at risk for homelessness without the support of the institutions meant to support and advocate for them. The Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act places responsibility at a federal level for states to upkeep with the Federal Housing Administration, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, and Housing Trust Funds established by cities, counties, and state governments that receive public funding for the preservation of affordable housing. California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, promised California he would prioritize the housing crisis by building “3.5 million units over the next seven years (an unprecedented rate), jacking up state subsidies for housing reserved for lower-income Californians, and easing regulations so it would be easier to build all types of new housing” (CALmatters). After his election, Californians awaited the reveal of his governor’s budget where the details of his housing proposals would be shared. It showed great priority for housing and homelessness with the budget breakdown, provided by CALmatters, as follows:
Governor Gavin Newsom’s solution removes a common obstacle for housing plans by adjusting the policy so that homeless shelters have the ability to avoid prolonged environmental reviews. He’s created 500 million dollar award incentives for regions meeting new, short-term housing goals. To punish cities not following longer-term housing goals, Newsom also proposed reducing their transportation funding. State-wide, cities have expressed dissatisfaction with Newsom’s goals and incentives by claiming developments out of their control. Many also criticize Newsom’s original proposal of 3.5 million new homes for the state as unrealistic. This also raises questions of a living wage to pair with developments, and rent-control to protect tenants. Gavin Newsom has expressed that he is not currently committing to any propositions, in particular, so California Residents are still awaiting actions towards securing rent-control. Voters last fall rejected Proposition 10, which would have allowed cities to greatly expand rent control by repealing the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. The state’s rental housing law prevents cities from putting a cap on rents for apartments built since 1995. It exempts condos and single-family homes from any rent control. The most recent proposition addressing the issue had the majority of voters opposing it, according to CALmatters: “Voters last fall rejected Proposition 10, which would have allowed cities to greatly expand rent control by repealing the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. The state’s rental housing law prevents cities from putting a cap on rents for apartments built since 1995. It exempts condos and single-family homes from any rent control. Apartment associations and real estate groups contributed tens of millions of dollars to defeat the initiative last year, saying it would stymie new construction and make the state’s affordable housing crisis worse. Newsom did not support Prop 10, but said in his State of the State address in January that he wants to find a compromise to stabilize rents without putting small landlords out of business.” This same report from Tuesday, March 26th, 2019, provides a statement from developers on the funding issue left at bay: “Also at Tuesday’s event, Tyrone Roderick Williams, director of development for the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, said he’s confident that Newsom will help boost affordable housing in the Capital and beyond. `As an agency, we are well-equipped to take on the challenge," Williams said. As developers in the city, they're well-equipped to build housing. Our most challenging effort is funding.'" JGAmerican Governments In 2014, approximately 37% of the homeless population consisted of families rather than individuals (Donley et al, 2017). In 2008, 81% of adults in homeless families were women (Welch-Lazoritz et al, 2015). Why is this a gendered issue? One might speculate on the unequal societal expectations placed on women as caretakers. In more measurable terms, studies have shown that 50% of homeless mothers are fleeing domestic violence (Guo et al. 2016). After fleeing, many women face prohibitive housing costs and a lack of social housing programs. This is especially true in expensive major cities. For example, in 2013, New York City and Los Angeles recorded the highest numbers nationally, at approximately 39,600 and 6,600 individuals in homeless families, respectively (Biel et al, 2014). The concentrated population of homeless families in these cities is evidence that although this is a national issue, the impact is localized. The most obvious infrastructural solutions to overall homelessness (like affordable housing) are likely to be addressed on a city or state level. However, economic assistance that is particularly beneficial to single mothers can also be found at the federal level.
How can individual cities address this issue? A common method is the implementation of emergency shelters for temporary assistance. Unfortunately, lack of access to laundry, bathing facilities, recreational spaces, and basic privacy along with lack of sufficient training for shelter employees can make emergency shelters unsuitable to the demands of childcare (Biel et al, 2014). Additionally, homeless mothers often struggle with substance use disorders, parenting, and physical and mental health problems (Guo et al. 2016). These issues greatly increase the difficulty in attaining economic security. A temporary emergency shelter may not provide the stability needed to overcome this obstacle. That isn’t to say that emergency shelters are totally ineffective, or that they should be done away with. Certainly, they have been a crucial safety net for many individuals and families in a transitory state of homelessness. But what measures can be taken to decrease family homelessness in the first place? Any sort of financial downturn can quickly result in the inability to afford housing for a family without savings. Reducing instances of family homelessness must involve alleviating the financial burdens for parents. This could be related to increasing overall state wages or providing affordable childcare. The clearest and most direct step, however, would be affordable housing. The Affordable Care Act provides some insight into the financial significance of federal programs for single mothers. For example, unmarried women experienced a 20% relative increase in private insurance coverage for childbirth under the ACA (Sofer, 2018). Of course, social welfare and federal tax increases are met with significant opposition. Additionally, some might see homelessness among veterans as a more pressing issue. Statistics for homelessness among veterans are dismal and deserve urgent attention. Luckily, many forms of assistance, like affordable housing, can be beneficial to multiple groups. As for support of federal welfare programs, opinions seem to be largely political. In an era of hyper-partisanship, it is important that we learn to investigate the impact of policies based on facts and data. The well-being of homeless women and children does not involve political affiliation. Election Impact: Although housing costs were a major issue in the recent elections in California, the narrative tended to highlight veterans and people with mental health issues rather than homeless mothers. For example, Proposition 2 was passed to allow California’s mental health funds to be allocated towards housing for the homeless. This will likely have a positive impact on homeless mothers, since many have mental health issues. However, a more focused campaign to provide, assistance for homeless women and children may result in more direct legislation. For example, social housing programs that prioritize homeless mothers could be a next step. Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg has proposed a $40.5 million plan to fund shelters with a total of 781 beds, including a 54-bed shelter for women and children (Clift, 2019). This shows Steinberg’s awareness of homeless families and is an appropriate form of short-term assistance. It is unclear at this point whether Steinberg’s proposal will have support of the City Council. California Governor Gavin Newsom focused on the high cost of living during his 2018 campaign. During his term, the minimum wage is expected to continue to steadily increase to 15. He also campaigned on affordable housing and childcare, which are core issues for family homelessness. Federal funding for programs in California is less promising with a conservative President and Senate who are not likely to make accommodations for the liberal government in California. However, the 2018 midterm elections resulted in a new majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. This is especially significant because the House is responsible for the passage of appropriation bills, which regulate government spending. This may work to limit punitive legislation from less California-friendly parts of the federal government. Many of the Democratic candidates for the 2020 Presidential election support Medicare for all. Like the ACA, this may provide a social safety net with a positive impact on single mothers. JEAmerican Governments Within the last ten years, California’s cost of living has vastly increased. This is apparent within the Bay Area and Central Valley housing market. With home and rent pricing exceeding the national average, thousands of Bay Area residents are being forced out. The increases in the housing market has left various communities within the Bay Area vulnerable. A community that is directly affected by these changes is the veteran community. With the rising cost, some veterans are not able to live in their current homes. By providing the necessary legislation, tools and community support California can remain the homes to thousands of veterans.
In California's 2018 state election proposition 1 was passed. This proposition authorized “$4 billion in general obligation funds for housing projects and housing loans for veterans”. Since the bill passed there would be an increase in the repayment of state bonds over the following 35 years and every year it would cost California’s $170 million. Democrats like Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and U.S Representative Maxine Waters were some of the political officials endorsing proposition 1. The passing of proposition 1 is a beneficial factor for veterans looking for affordable housing, but it does affect every Californian. According to the Legislative Analyst Office, the bonds that are borrowed would be repaid by California’s general tax revenue. Out of the $4 billion dollars in bonds, $1 billion dollars would be directly allocated for Californian state veterans. For those veterans choosing to participate in the loan program “they would make monthly payments to the state which in turn would pay for the bonds” (Legislative). Proponents against Prop 1 argue that this bill would only serve as a supplement to housing construction and would not benefit Californians in the long run. As a result, the passing of this legislation increases the burden upon tax payers by increasing the amount of debt they still need to pay. According to the California 2018 voter guide, those who are in-favor the bill believes that it “...will help more than 55,000 people meet their housing cost” (Mitric). Proposition 1 does not just benefit veterans it also looks to aid all types of low-income residents. According to the Voter Guide of California, it supports “new emergency housing for homeless children and families, as well as building multi-family homes for working families” (California). By having these tools at the community’s disposal veterans and low-income families may think twice before packing their bags and relocating. Currently, the implication of affordable housing for veterans specifically is accessible in two Californian cities. The California Department of Veteran Affairs list two CalVet REN communities as Sylmar and Santa Clarita with Jurupa Valley and Palmdale coming soon (CalVet). The average four-bedroom house in Santa Clarita and Sylmar ranges between $330,000 to around $360,000. However, the CAL Vet REN (Residential Enriched Neighborhood) sells these homes in these areas from $266,000 to $286,000. The implementation of Proposition 1 also impacts the communities these veterans will live in. When comparing the prices of CAL Vet REN homes to the national average price of homes sold in 2015 the data is astonishing. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Lewis listed the average house in the United States sold for approximately “$378,900” (FRED). The average home is $100,000 dollars more expensive than the cheapest house being sold in Sylmar, California. It is important to note that there are still inexpensive options for that are below the national average. So California veterans are spending more on assisted housing compared to those in other states. The issues of affordable housing for veterans impacts every single American and especially those who are registered to vote. Many of our veterans willingly join the military and sacrifice their lives in order to preserve the liberties and freedoms of the American people. I am hoping to reinvigorate the American voter who does not care about politics, but those who care about preserving their freedoms and liberties. A vote from the people represents a thank you to those who risk their lives. The target demographic that would have an increased impact would be the younger voters age 18 to 29. Having support from younger ensures that our veterans are not being overlooked. McguireCalifornia Politics Countless qualified scientific research efforts have determined that our environment is changing. Worldwide atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen rapidly and drastically since the 1950s. This spike in carbon dioxide marks the highest measured atmospheric levels in over 400,000 years. Rising levels of carbon dioxide result in rising global temperatures, which have been on the rise since 1884. Researchers estimate that the current warming trend is a direct result of human activity with a probability of over 95%. 18 of the 19 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001, with the 19th hottest year recorded in 1998. Humanity has polluted the atmosphere with an excess of carbon dioxide, which has in turn led to hotter global temperatures. The consequences of these circumstances are far-reaching and complex. As such, for the sake of this climate critique, direct results of manmade climate change will come second to exploring California’s legislative and political climate regarding the climate of Earth.
While climate change affects all living things on the planet, California’s role in climate reform is pinnacle in that it tends to be at the forefront of environmental regulation and policy. Since the passage of Assembly Bill 4420 in September of 1988, California has passed 28 climate-related bills, mostly aimed at regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Many of these bills are responsible for establishing a timeline by which the California legislature must enact GHG emission limits. For example, AB 1493, and SB 1383 require the state to establish GHG emission reduction targets, in addition to setting a deadline for necessary follow-up legislation aimed at meeting those targets. AB 32 and SB 32 could be considered follow-up legislation to the preceding bills; for both AB 32 and SB 32 set hard limits and deadlines where actual reductions in GHG emissions are required. In addition to the passage of bills directly related to the reduction of GHG emissions, many of the 28 climate bills address transportation. According to the California Air Resources Board, 41% of all statewide emissions come from vehicles. If California seeks to cut back on GHG emissions, then setting goals and restrictions on traditional vehicles are a logical next step. AB 8 provides funding for research for alternative methods of transportation that are eco-friendly by means of funding electric vehicle and zero emissions public transportation projects. AB 1092 mandates a minimum number of electric vehicle charging stations in newly constructed buildings and sites in order to accommodate an increasing amount of electric vehicles on the road. In an effort to understand and combat climate change, many of California’s successful climate bills address not only GHG emissions, but also renewable resources, cap-and-trade, and other programs. Given rising carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures, Californians are hoping legislators can rise to climate change’s challenges. The 2018 midterm election saw five districts elect representatives who campaigned on the importance of climate change. All freshman representatives from this election are members of the Democratic party, and each replaced Republican representatives. Among the newly elected are Congressman Mike Levin, an environmental activist endorsed by the California League of Conservation Voters, and Assemblyman Robert Rivas, who helped enact a county-wide fracking ban in San Benito county. Congressman-elect Harley Rouda has published statements showing his concern for climate, including the promotion of green energy over fossil fuels. Assemblyman-elect Katie Hill has made California air and water quality one of her priorities, and she is “willing to do whatever it takes to reverse the damage done to our environment.” Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi was reelected; and as an advocate for climate reform, he believes “climate change [to be] perhaps the greatest challenge facing planet Earth.” The 2018 Midterms also saw Californians cast their votes for climate-conscious Gavin Newsom and Eleni Kounalakis for governor and lieutenant governor respectively. Gavin Newsom pledged to carry out his predecessor’s goals for reducing GHG emissions, and has stated that “the impacts of climate change are already being felt.” Eleni Kounalakis promotes climate change awareness and believes “we must continue to push for smart policies that combat climate change.” While Californians are electing state officials who seem to be concerned with climate, the 2016 Presidential Election proved many Americans feel otherwise. President Donald Trump has been very adamant that climate change is neither a man-made phenomenon, nor a problem. He has been particularly vocal about his skepticism on Twitter, where he once tweeted “global warming is an expensive hoax.” Since becoming elected, President Trump has proposed budget cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and other climate change programs. He promotes the use of fossil fuels, which are proven to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere via vehicular transportation. Additionally, President Trump has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords, installed fossil fuel supporter Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and buried a report on the current dangers of climate change. Despite President Trump's lack of belief in climate change, many of his election opponents like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein, and Gary Johnson at least acknowledged that climate change as an issue that needs to be addressed. Although the president-elect refuses to acknowledge the existence of climate change, other popular campaigns of the 2016 Presidential Election prove that climate reform is on the minds of many Americans. Is climate change real? Yes. Do Americans and Californians alike want climate reform? Yes. Is the current administration pushing reforms to combat the consequences of climate change? No. Are Californian legislators pushing reforms to combat the consequences of climate change? Yes. The state of California and the Trump Administration have been at war with one another regarding climate change resulting in criticism from California legislators, and even legal action. Regardless of political opinion, Earth's climate will continue to change for worse if humanity cannot implement limitations on our carbon dioxide emissions. The planet won’t wait for politicians to decide whether they want to take action, or even what kind of action they wish to take. As California's political climate changes, so does the climate of Earth. |
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
|