Stuff YOU Should Know
A Vote on the Green New Deal
Last week, Election Central brought you details of the proposed Green New Deal, an ambitious plan to fight climate change introduced by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (MA). In a nutshell, the plan is a nonbinding resolution that would require a complete overhaul of U.S. energy systems, encourage land preservation, and promote environmental sustainability–all within the next ten years. While many Democrats and environmental advocates have praised the plan, most Republicans and other critics claim it is unrealistic and could damage the U.S. economy.
You might expect that congressional Republicans would do their best to sweep this controversial proposal under the rug, but they are taking the opposite approach: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) has announced that he is eager for the Senate to vote on the bill as-is, without taking time for discussion, debate, or to hear any expert testimony. This is not because he thinks the bill will pass, but because he wants to force Senate Democrats to take a stand for or against it.
He, along with other Republicans, hopes that this will create a rift between the more moderate and more liberal factions of the Democratic Party. While many prominent Democrats have come out in support of the Green New Deal (including several 2020 presidential candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand), others–such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (CA)–are reluctant to commit to one specific environmental plan. As a result, forcing a vote on the Deal this early could create exactly the kind of division that Republicans are hoping for.
What Do You Think? Imagine that you are a senator. Would you vote for or against the Green New Deal? Why?
Butterflies vs. the Wall
You’ve probably been hearing a lot lately about Trump’s border wall, its economic expense, and what it will mean for immigration reform. But another factor to consider is the wall’s environmental impact. For the past year, the North American Butterfly Association has been involved in a lawsuit with the federal government because the construction of the wall will cut right through the National Butterfly Center, a hundred-acre sanctuary located along the Rio Grande River. In fact, if the wall is completed as planned, as much as 70 percent of the preserve will be located on the opposite side of the wall. Meanwhile, according to the lawsuit, the federal government has already essentially taken over the center. They continually drive heavy construction trucks over the land, cut down trees, set up cameras, and install their own locks on the Center’s gates.
So is this legal? According to the government, yes. A federal court ruled last week that the administration can ignore environmental laws in favor of border security. But other experts argue that the government can’t just start seizing property, especially when there is no actual border crisis to defend against. In the meantime, the National Butterfly Center is asking the courts to stop allowing the federal government onto their land while a decision on the original 2017 lawsuit is reached.
What Do You Think? You can find the Fourth and Fifth amendments to the United States Constitution here. Summarize both amendments in your own words. Based on what you’ve read, do you think the federal government has the right to seize the National Butterfly Center’s land to build a border wall? Explain.
Fairfax Accused of Assault
February has been a terrible month for Virginia Democrats.
First, it was revealed that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s 1984 medical school yearbook contained pictures of him appearing in blackface. In the wake of this scandal, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring confessed that he too had appeared in blackface, as part of a costume in 1980. Then, last week, Virginia’s lieutenant governor, Justin Fairfax, was accused of sexual assault by two women. According to the women–Vanessa Tyson and Meredith Watson–the assaults happened years ago, before he became lieutenant governor. Fairfax continues to deny the accusations. Like Northam and Herring, Fairfax has refused to step down from his position, despite widespread calls (even from within the Democratic Party) for them to resign. He has also stated that he would consider pressing charges against the women for allegedly making false claims against him.
The international law firm where Fairfax works full-time has placed him on a leave of absence for an indefinite period of time. It has also hired independent investigators to look further into the claims. Two of Fairfax’s staff members have resigned in response to the accusations, as well as two members of a political action committee with which he is associated.
What Do You Think? From Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court hearings to these latest accusations against Virginia Democrats, in the past year, many public figures have had to account for their questionable pasts. In your opinion, should politicians be held responsible for things they did years or even decades before they took office? Why or why not? Please remember to be sensitive with your response.
Sweden’s Great Experiment
PayPal, Venmo, Square, and credit cards . . . it seems like no one uses cash to pay for things anymore. In Sweden, which has a small, tech-savvy population, even fewer people use cash for transactions than here in the U.S. As a result, their country is quickly going cashless.
Why? For one thing, cash isn’t convenient. Coins are heavy, and paper money can be messy and dirty. A credit card is much easier to handle and carry. It’s also quicker for merchants to swipe a card than to take the time to count out cash. And think about how much safer it is, too: if someone steals your credit card, you can call the bank and cancel it immediately, while stolen cash simply disappears.
But there are many people in Sweden who are concerned about the change (pun intended), particularly how quickly it’s happening. While there are some advantages to doing away with cash, there are also many potential drawbacks to consider. For one thing, digital transactions can be tricky for some people, especially the elderly, people with disabilities, or people who have only recently arrived in the country. Also, when banks stop accepting or distributing cash, it limits peoples’ access to their money. For example, have you ever had a credit card lost or stolen? It can take several days to receive a new card, and in the meantime, what would people use to get by if their banks won’t let them take out any cash? The other concern is security. If all financial transactions become digital, then people can more easily be tracked, making their personal information more vulnerable to potential cyberattacks.
Some experts have suggested that Sweden try a slower approach, such as charging a small fee for using cash, to make the transition less of a shock. In the meantime, even the Swedish government seems aware that going completely no-cash could be risky. Last year, it put out a flyer suggesting that everyone hang onto some cash, just in case of a war or other national crisis.