Possible Policy Solutions for the WRD Act of 2013

There are some different opinions and resolutions overlooking the Water Resources Development Act of 2013 as the Senate decided to pass the bill recently.  There was some swaying between decisions when the bill first entered the Senate, but a surprising and overwhelming lopsided pole showed how desirable this act may be for our nation's livelihood.  Some policy solutions were discussed inside and outside of the hearings by several stakeholders.  The main opinion, held by the federal government, had complex views of course considering the two parties involved and the different objectives set in order.  An equilibrium was maintained however as both parties agree that this bill provides plenty of economic support as well as necessary maintenance.  The split Senate has more momentum in favor of the bill and to fund the program.  They will tackle on about sixty five percent of the finances that will be contributed into the operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement costs for flood gates, pumping stations, and infrastructure going towards storm repair in coastal and inland waterways (http://www.taxpayer.net).  Policy standards remain the same for them as they are waiting on the House's vote on passing the bill on.  Enactment is still considerably low, but the overwhelming 83-14 majority vote in the Senate is picking up federal support as other stakeholders are applauding their progress (http://www.joc.com/) .  The policy solution is as presented on the bill.  The feds will do all they can as long as all officials of the federal government comes on agreement to pass the bill along. 

One major stakeholder, The US Corps of Engineers, is a group that would be known as the laborers for this proposed bill.  Under the federal level, the Corps receives work from state and local governments as well, depending on the location and demand for work on the waterways.  Some projects of theirs are aimed at making ports more accessible, as well as completing the Panama Canal widening in 2015.  They would ensure that the user fee financed, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, would be directed to harbor improvements, and they will set up programs for levee safety and inland waterway projects, completing all unfinished work (http://www.joc.com/).  They would not be mending any of their own policy solutions other than what is organized for them.  No inside vote would deter a difference in opinion.  The Waterways Council Inc. is another major stakeholder, a part of the interest groups that declares they will take on a proportional load of responsibility in restoring some of the waterways.  These interest groups utilize the criteria of utilizing any job opportunity as well as promoting the idea of the bill.  The Waterways Council Inc. only suggests that provisions of a RIVER Act which is modernizing inland waterways infrastructure, should be installed.  The WRD bill would only benefit both acts financially, making the Waterways Council Inc. excited for the navigation projects and revamping project delivery processes (http://www.joc.com/).  If this industry could kill two birds with one stone, they would take advantage of that opportunity, and not only abide by most policy standards made by the bill, but advocate it.  These two groups are highlighted as highly influential groups below the governments' supports.  Their say sways to approval, and no other mechanisms are practiced in objection.  The other smaller stakeholders, like businesses that transport products through waterways, and individuals with investments along harbors and bays, have the power to only weigh interest.  Though power in interest can possibly sway popular vote in some assemblies, the House of the federal government is the controller of the bill.  Their criteria will mostly contain budgets within the federal, state, and local governments which is understood at this point.  It is conclusive to say that every stakeholder, in exception of the rest of the federal government, wants a cooperative responsibility, has the right mentality, and current or future financial stability to desire these endeavors the Water Resources Development Act of 2013 proposes.

http://www.joc.com/regulation-policy/transportation-policy/us-transportation-policy/us-senate-passes-water-resources-development-act_20130515.html
http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/analysis-of-selected-sections-of-s.-601-water-resources-development-act-of
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s601/text
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/ProjectPlanning.aspx
http://waterwayscouncil.org/key-issues/improve-system-reliability-through-infrastructure-maintenance/
http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/051713SenateWRDA.aspx

Outline for Week of 6/10

Immigration Policy

This reading goes into the depths of immigration policy issues and how they are most commonly discussed in industrialized countries.  There are positive and negative reasons in which immigration happens.  In some cases, families attempt to reunite with family members, and in other cases you'll see illegal immigration or humanitarian immigration which may include refugees or felons.  Push and pull factors add up as a country's appeal to immigrants.  The pull factors are the aspects like job opportunities in which makes a country desirable, and push factors depicts how undesirable a country may be, like high crime rates.  Often times these industrialized nations have options in which they weigh in order to see who is allowed in and who may not be.  The options rely on economic and political dynamics in which the immigrants will directly effect by however they contribute to the nation's society.  Each country has their own uniquely shaped policy on immigration as each country has its own political and economic systems.  The different types of policy discussed starts with common international policy, to US policy, to German, French, Japanese, Italian, and United Kingdom policies.  Under each country's section describes the economic and political explanations to their immigration policy, making this a very useful tool for immigration policy research.

Social Policy

Unlike immigration policy, social policy gets into other interesting factors involving benefits or initiatives for possible unfortunate citizens.  Topics in which are explained here are pension programs, unemployment help, disability benefits, subsidies to families with dependent children, and assistance to families and independents with low incomes.  Each one of these benefits are positioned in a society to give leverage to individuals less fortunate, and are separated from welfare debate.  Social policies in industrialized nations are often centered around four main groups of people; the elderly, children, the infirm, and the recently unemployed for obvious reasons.  Governments try to align social policies so that poverty wouldn't happen so easily for the common person.  It is sometimes hard to realize and understand who may apply for social benefits, and that's when policies see discrepancy and countries go in evaluation.  The reading continues in the same format as the first one, where it goes into vast detail about different policies laid out by different countries.  It goes through top industrialized nations like the USA, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, and the UK.  If anyone was studying social policy and how it may compare internationally, this reading could be utilized as a fascinating tool.

Stakeholders Involved in WRD Act of 2013

The challenges that proceed proposed bills are often adverse and sometimes non-existent.  The weight of the decision making ultimately lies on the Congressmen and women and president to agree on the bills' terms.  This group otherwise known as our nation's federal government, is in fact just one fraction to the equation.  When we lie our plans down to survey the big scheme it would seem as though all stakeholders involved on the issue would become equally satisfied beneficiaries.  For a couple decades now the federal government would not pass the bill because of the requested aid for such projects, development, and research required.  It is clear that the federal government has had their priorities focused elsewhere for the time being, and found another reason to neglect the environment.  Nonetheless plenty of other stakeholders such as state governments, local governments, the US Army Corps of Engineers, interest groups, businesses, and individuals show support and recognition.  The federal government does have to worry about the recently collapsed markets, I can agree that top priorities do lie there.  Their reluctant efforts in environmental protection and advancement though, troubles me, because we have been putting off efforts for so long.

The most willing stakeholders on the Water Resources Development Act of 2013 are businesses, interest groups, and the US Army Corps of Engineers.  Though these groups are dependent on federal funding for initiating restoration, they need the improvements and labor.  Collectively their power is still slightly less than what the federal government possesses.  One business like Waterways Council Inc. seem eager to carry immense responsibility in carrying out restoration, as they are in supports of increasing their budget for operation and maintenance by $100 million for sustainable infrastructure on rivers, as well as supporting appropriate dredging, and proportional costs based on the project.  The US Army Corps of Engineers have experts in everything that has to do with water resources and much more.  The laborers here are not only fully resourced in what they do, but once given the green light, these will be the main contributors to the operations.  These groups among other interest groups that gives support in water resources development have only the best intentions in expanding America's land and development.  The interest groups may be more liberal, but everything here is done in moderation for a better America.

State and local governments are just a little less willing than the first group because of a couple limitations they have with their power.  The resources they can provide are plentiful as the laborers are as well.  States and cities that need restoration the most on their harbors, dams, and further infrastructure are the most willing of governments here.  New York City is one of several other cities looking for renovation, and areas much like the Raritan River Water Basin, here in New Jersey, is on the list of targets for the bill.  Cities and townships have as much power as the governor allows them to have.  On the state level, the governor has the power in which the state is granted by then the federal government.  As you see, bureaucracy reigns here as the federal government is still the lead bearer of power for the execution of this bill.  The bill underlines that there is about fifty-seven percent of the locks and dams on the nation’s inland waterways system have exceeded their economic design life expectancy.  While some states have different agenda settings, I'm sure a good portion of these inland states desire development as they want to continue commerce by waterways.    

Individual American citizens may have the least bit of power and resources to pull off significant contributions if this bill is enacted, but this doesn't measure the heart some people may have.  A passionate person like myself desires drastic environmental endeavors, scoping a new outlook and mindset for the country's future.  America has always been a leader, so why wouldn't I want my nation to once again pioneer a passion of mine.  This isn't a selfish want either, but one that will assist the American economy.  I'm sure all individuals that know a thing about the economy and the environment would support the passing of the WRD bill.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s601
http://www.ideaggroup.com/news/10951087/water-resources-development-act-bill-passes
http://waterwayscouncil.org/key-issues/improve-system-reliability-through-infrastructure-maintenance/
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/ProjectPlanning.aspx

Inside Job

In this insightful film on our financial crisis, narrated by Matt Damon, several factors went into our historic collapse.  It initiated in the housing market where people were investing in homes that were much bigger than what they can truly afford.  The mortgages labeled on these houses however were managed through a process that led to groups of investors on Wall Street.  Prices looked manageable to the common homeowner because prices were worked down their price ranges by the banks and investment banks involved, like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Bear Stearns.  These investment banks bundled mortgages with other loans and debts into collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which were sold to investors.  The CDOs are given rates, with AAA being the best, and most of them were passed on with that high rating, saying that these were good investments for the investment groups interested.  Many homeowners realized after settling on a mortgage that they ended up in mortgage loans that they could never repay in full.  Speculators within the investment banks could bet against their own CDOs they were selling to the investors if they had suspicion of the investment panning out.  Goldman Sachs sold more than $3 billion CDOs in early 2006, and they betted against the low-valued CDOs telling investors they were of high quality.  The three largest rating agencies did not speculate and contributed to the financial letdown.  Soon after the market for CDOs collapsed and the investment banks involved were left with hundreds of billions of dollars in loans, CDOs and real estate they could not discharge.  Expenses were distributed in other activity that executives of these banks like to disclose, were leaked to general knowledge. The banks went under fire, and in some cases, these men came out with their earnings, but then resigning from their positions.  The biggest mechanism utilized here was fraud and the manipulation of the public mind.  These banks and executives gave faulty information towards the investors and homeowners on the investments and CDOs made, even when they were not good deals.  The perception that resonated with the banks towards the public was a nice, rich, comforting feel.  We are all suckers to association today, and since prices seemed good, us American citizens got suckered into deals that couldn’t come through.  Lies were documented as homeowners tried financing their families saw mortgages were nearly unmanageable with their livelihood.  So perception played a huge role in this financial crisis as the general public was blinded controversial activity done by these shifty and power-hungry executives.  Today perception is still widely acknowledged as an investment factor as we continue to investigate our current financial decisions, and as we deal with our national deficit, going forward.

Outline for Week of 6/3

“Ok, You Fix the Budget” by David Leonhardt

This article covers the current economic deficit and the multiple dilemmas we have as a nation keeping us from excelling economically.  David adds ideas as to what may be cut from our spending, and highlights that only a third of the deficit would be cured in result.  The deficit that we’re in will certainly be of discussion for years to come no matter how we may want to slice the cake and weigh our options between tax cuts and/or government spending.  He hints that both options should be in consideration as both political parties involved should elect a constructive rebuilding plan for our economy.  Finances will have to be reevaluated and decision making for these next couple terms will become very critical.

CRS Budget Process Reform

This paper highlights the budget making process and the changes that were made to it in 2011 on Capitol Hill.  After passing through the senate and house, Congress left it to the president to either sign or veto the budget plan.  Provisions were not used by the president at this time, so Obama’s approval was not as necessary as Congress’ approval, though it passed.  The paper continues discussing the actions taken place in 2012 used for the budget process.  The Legally Binding Budget Act of 2011 was highlighted in the congressional resolution, and this act enforced the idea that the budget resolution will be a joint effort between the president and congress as it was sent to office for signature.  The Expedited Legislative Line-item Veto and Recession Act of 2011 listed, allows for Congress to initiate legislative recession that may then revoke budget authority, which may result in a recession called by the president if congress then enacts upon the decision in the following 45 days.  This is viewed for appropriations in the 2012 budget process.  The Baseline Reform Act lays out a plan for future federal spending and revenue levels according to current law.  The ProGrowth Budgeting Act revises a previous budget act of 1974, to ask the Congressional Budget Office to report on house and senate committee decisions through the use of a macroeconomic impact analysis.  The final act discussed in the paper, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, which is held responsible for modifying the Credit Reform Act, and it compensates the Credit Reform Act and while alternating the budgetary treatment for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  All of these listed acts were put into perspective for the budget process form.

“Explain This: The Illusion of Political Understanding” by Tania Lombrozo

In the political system we all want our voices heard and want to be a part of the process in one way or another.  I enjoy how Lombrozo clarifies how on a general sense we all over-estimate how much we really know about the political issues that circulate in our news today.  We are a very “media-influenced” nation with radical opinions thrown left and right over the internet and television.  We often read or hear shortened opinions whereas we feel confident in political positions, but we don’t know all of the analysis behind each statement or decision made.  Our economic crisis does conceal a fair amount of information and we hardly know the processes made in these critically acclaimed political decisions. 

“I’m Right! (For Some Reason)” by Steven Sloman and Philip M. Fernbach

           

Here’s another article depicting the knowledge the general public lacks towards to political policies and decision making.  Like the title of the article, the public does have a general and somewhat right comprehension of our political and economic systems.  These authors though wanted to really expand the mind of the general American citizen.  They go on to ask individuals to inquire all positions of a political issue instead of blindly following a political figure.  The objective was to ask how and why to every political comment made to expand political enlightenment.  As a nation we do have to question our policies, mechanisms, and appointed officials.  We’re obviously doing something somewhat incorrectly with the issues we have today, so adding critical thinking towards our political and economic systems are necessary.  This article was nicely thought out as a reminder of how little I may know as well.

“Budget Puzzle, You Fix the Budget”

This article is actually a fun exercise allowing readers like myself to simulate economic decision making while fixing the budget plan.  Every action allowed to the reader affects the 2015 and 2030 budget plans, while testing the deficit.

The Citizens Solution Guide: The Federal Budget

           

Here is an article that simplifies the country’s federal budget and how it operates.  The finances of the federal government are clarified in vast detail as well as our current deficit, its impact, and how devastating it is to our economy.  It gets into more detail with the deficit as the article lists approaches in which readers may want to keep in mind for how to address the deficit.  Each approach is backed up in detail of its pros and cons if it is implemented into our economic plan.  The first approach suggests in making long term investments opposed to short term investments, to raise revenue for covering costs.  This follows by the second approach, which proposes that we should focus on future benefits like Social Security and Medicare.  The third approach states that we must consider low taxes and reduce the size of our government, so that we can all individually thrive.   

The Citizens Solution Guide: Jobs and the Economy

This guide, like the previous one, enlightens readers with approaches towards the job market, and how it has been managed in the last century of American history.  It discusses about the recession we recently hit and how the job market fluctuated heavily in the time period.  The guide lists the number of jobs lost in this period while portraying how well the economy has to be in order to pre-recession levels with job creation and maintenance. This of course, explained in the guide, would take several long years to fully accomplish as we’re still struggling to create jobs.  The list it entails includes the first approach, which suggests that you need to spend money to make money.  The second approach asks to allow private sectors to operate freely, which would lead to competition and possible job openings and creation.  The third approach suggests in favoring and strengthening the middle class workers to help recreate the middle class.  All of these approaches are analyzed by the positive and negative aspects if they are implemented as stated.

Policy Memo Proposal: Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2013

In American society today we live in a very rich oil-based economy, and it doesn’t end on domestic land.  The trade and conflicts with the Middle East and the rest of the world mostly involves oil and energy resources for the products we make today.  “Yes, oil is all around us,” an economist may argue.  They might also argue that we need oil to thrive economically; to hold an upper-hand against China.  I can concur with this, but only if the environment and nonrenewable resources of energy are taken into better thoughts of consideration.  Asking to completely reverse our lifestyles, I know would be detrimental, and that’s why no bill requesting for that is anywhere close to being enacted by popular vote.  Proposing the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act is a nice start when you’re considering the imposing threat of peak oil and dangers to our environment, as well as advancing our transportation systems.  The roads of America today are filled with high-end traffic with idling cars, bumper to bumper, and among these drivers are insufficient, large gas-guzzling SUVs.  The bill proposes that we hone in and inspect every aspect that is put into our automotive and oil industries, so that we have winners and negotiations among all participating stakeholders.  These affected stakeholders of course include the owners of the automotive and oil industries, as well as the sponsor of the bill, Michigan’s Democratic Senator, Debbie Stabenow, and the committee members of the Energy and Natural Resources committee, who are reading the bill over.  Other prospective stakeholders of this proposition may include the House, Senate, President, and then smaller tiers of government like state and local involvements if research and development make it to those levels of enactment.  Though I have highlighted oil as the major contributor to building a larger understanding of automotive technologies, the bill covers a vaster array of notions we should inquire.  Sleeker designs with more aerodynamic proportions and alternate sources of energy may then intrigue individuals into at least pass this bill and continue our researches, because why would we leave energy-insufficient cars on the road? 

The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act/bill was introduced March 7^th, 2013 to committee.  The bill sits with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and has been read over twice since its introduction.  It is waiting on a report by the committee so it can seek action in the House, Senate, and so on.  According to govtrack.us, the bill is at a 52% chance of getting passed through committee, which is a decent percentage.  They say that it has a 5% chance of being enacted, which scares me though.  Why would it be so low, and why wouldn’t we want this bill to pass as a country or as government?  Every objective listed on the proposed bill holds legitimate allocation for research and development that we should tackle as a government and nation.  If we don’t up our research on automotive technologies we may be stuck with incredibly insufficient vehicles for much longer than we need to.  We would see more worn down cars on the road, still idling and breaking down the same way, while oil companies will still gain benefits and we just complain.  Our fight for oil may only get worse if we don’t look into our alternatives.  If we can make fuel in other ways, why wouldn’t we attempt that today?    Just imagine if we continued to stall on this issue and prolonged the inevitable future of automotive technologies.  American cars would remain a second-tier option to Japanese and German made automobiles, and that would impose a threat to our economy.  We can seek vast amounts of environmental concerns if oil-based decisions don’t amend in our outlook, and some international parties may also construe a stubborn perspective on us Americans if we pass up on advancing technologies that could better the country and/or world.  So please federal government, let’s do what we can and allow this bill become a law.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s488#overview

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.488:

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/488

Introducing the Water Resources Development Act of 2013

History shows that America's exponential growth in the economy, as well as its rapid growth on land and water with little environmental consideration has caused trouble in the waterways, stirring up plenty of attention today.  As trade and transportation grew, our rivers saw more action with the boats and bridges delivered and constructed.  Everything was done in an economic sense, so development was a larger concern, and we hardly knew what was happening to our waterways.  River banks have corroded in result of a couple projects when rivers weren't deep enough for some vessels of cargo, creating sediment and downstream pollution.  This is seen in Oregon's Columbia River twenty year dredging project that just completed in 2010.  The coastal and inland coal mining we do also affects our oceans and rivers severely with the airborne and eventual waterborne pollutants mercury and other metals give off in the process.  Agriculturally we as a nation grow our crops in rapid rates with large amounts of pesticides and chemicals that leach into our waters through winds and a trickling through soil.  Bottom line, we as a nation have seen a lot of mishaps in the use of our aquatic resources even while through indirect involvement. 

The US Army Corps of Engineers, created with the start of this nation, is the group that has regulated and maintained most technological projects that has lifted a lot of America's infrastructure and military advancements.  They were called on for the dredging in Oregon, hydropowering projects for irrigation when it was necessary for agriculture, and for dam construction.  This high-in-demand group of engineers are desired again, but for better utilization of our water resources than previously requested.  Everything before demanded for advancement and now they are asked that they bring restoration, maintenance, and hope, that we can see better environmental assistance within our rivers, lakes, and harbors.  The Water Resource Development Act was first established in 1986, signifying a probable shift in the country's attitude towards water resource planning.  Legislation stated that non-federal sanctions should shoulder the load, but by law, federal government displayed three quarters of the estimated $16.23 billion they predicted water projects would cost.  In result, 377 water projects were authorized to the Corps of Engineers for research or construction.  The bill in 1986 was however not fulfilled completely because the federal government's stubbornness with its budget.  They insisted that the water projects are better handled by private sanctions, state, and local legislature.  This bill has been proposed now for a twelfth time this year, with there being modifications each new year it was addressed.  It is estimated that the government would have to spend $12.2 billion in the fiscal period of 2014-2023, though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) feels as though it could be significantly more expensive.  Though the inflation is somewhat unprecedented, I'm pretty sure the government has seen worse investments.  Could the American Government just not be ready for this expenditure, and is this environmental endeavor just too expensive?  I don't think this is of much risk.  I mean, I don't understand why haven't passed this bill yet.