This internship has changed my understanding of politics by making it a more personal and intimate process. Before coming to DC, I had studied politics largely in terms of theory, data collection, and news stories. I understood the process involved in making or not making things happen in Washington, and I could identify the factors that influence government in various ways. Even though I knew who held positions in Washington, I would often analyze politicians as if they were operating as robots in a game that could be won if manipulated correctly and consistently. Meeting with speakers has helped the astonishing fact sink in—politicians aren’t superheroes and villains that run around with infinite knowledge and ability. In fact, the government is run by human beings that are definitely constrained by their own limitations as a species.
This concept became especially true to me when I went to a hearing on energy efficient retrofitting and Al Franken presided on the panel. I was astonished by how unimpressive his presence actually was- especially when he stood up and I realized he is very short and rather nonthreatening.  I am also starting to understand that Congress isn’t necessarily as interested in information gathering as one might expect.

Today I went to a Senate hearing about financing sustainable retrofits for infrastructure. The hearing took place in the Russell building, and I was very excited because the witnesses were supposed to testify to a full Senate Committee. When I got to the hearing room, I was at first surprised by imbalance of people in the room. The staff section was overflowing with people, while the panel area for Senate members only housed Al Franken. I was surprised and disappointed to realize that ‘full committee’ could possibly just mean ‘Al Franken and the unenthusiastic chairman.’

My internship has allowed me to further understand that the bureaucracy is not some evil machine that only serves to turn good policy into mush. Neither is it really under the control of the Executive or the Legislative branch, as we are lead to believe in our studies of American Politics. My time working in the bureaucracy has shown me that the bureaucracy is not ill intentioned or filled with stupid people, but rather it is filled with friendly and kind people that have personal interpretations of how laws should be implemented. Each agency bonds together and takes a certain stance on various issues despite what the President and Congress pass into law. I reality, I have always known that the bureaucracy is not filled with malicious people yet, through my academic understanding of politics, it became that in my mind.

My time in Washington has also taught me that networking is best done when it is genuine. I have always been ill-at-ease with the concept of networking because I have never enjoyed small talk. However, I have found that the closest connections I make are ones where I am appreciated for my personality as it is. I went beyond my comfort zones in some situations, but for the most part I have made close connections with people that naturally click with me. This is the closest type of network to have, and ironically it is also the easiest to acquire. My political understanding has completely changed because I am starting to understand how informal political processes become when they are not in the public limelight. Staffing, for example, seems to be almost completely about networking and whether or not a person’s personality matches the feel of the agency. From what I can tell about my internship site , they do not hire unless there is a position open, and they personally know the new employee. This hiring system is especially true for their executive positions.

Transportation Frustration, and Concert Memories

My time in Washington DC this summer has helped me realized some of the major differences between living in a big political city and Minnesota. My first couple weeks were incredibly eye-opening as I began to adapt to living with public transportation. If starting a new job and meeting a whole new set of roommates isn't hard enough, add on the difficulty of trying to grocery shop or hit up target without a car. I have never quite realized how heavy groceries are, or how annoying a transfer stop on the metro can be-- both the added time and physical effort of carrying groceries in the heat had me completely wiped out by the end of my first weekend in DC.

Luckily our housing location is ideal for many of the fantastic events that happen right outside of the Capitol. On the Fourth of July, we were lucky enough to have Adam Ironside to save us fantastic seats so that we only needed to start walking to the Fourth of July Concert at the Capitol a half hour before it started. Both the Fourth of July and Memorial day Concert, were highlights of my time in DC. There was something magical about sitting on the Capitol steps a midst throngs of decorated people waving flags. The people watching was fantastic simply because every type of person imaginable was in attendance-- citizen's, visitors, hippies, hicks, the rich, the poor, and uniforms from every branch of the government.

The Memorial Day Concert was a patriotic and emotional event that focused largely on highlighting the pain families feel when they lose a loved one to the service. My location during this concert was ill suited for viewing the screen and speakers on stage, but the emotional effect was not lost on me. Hearing an emotional voice ringing out over the crowds of people is perhaps more deeply impacting than seeing talking and seeing them one on one.

On a happier note, the Fourth of July Concert was a wonderful variety show that reminded me of my times performing oldies tunes in my high school's annual variety concert. The performers were absolutely amazing vocalists, and I enjoyed hearing the duets and oldies tunes. Most of the songs were upbeat and were American classics or had a patriotic theme to them. I particularly appreciated that they had John Williams- the composer of Star Wars, Harry Potter, and many other songs-- conducting the National Symphony Orchestra.

Bipartisan Blame: Delaying the Farm Bill During Drought

A 35-11 bipartisan vote on the House Agriculture Committees’ farm bill had a shimmer of optimism for a successful 2012 Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act, conventionally referred to as the farm bill. However after two weeks of “kicking the proverbial can down the road,” talks continue about delaying a vote on the final bill until after the November election (Thanks to POLITICO for the spot-on description of Congress’ progress). There are many problems with this possibility. The primary qualm, the current farm bill expires September 30. Secondly, if extended past the election, neither President Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney have shown any interest in the progress of the farm bill and it is highly unlikely it would be on any form of a priority list. According to POLITICO, never has a House farm bill, once out of committee, been kept on the floor past its expiration. Forecasts are not pleasant for the farm bill.

Corn and soybean farmers in the Midwest are acutely aware of forecasts these days. According to NOAA, this summer’s drought in the Midwest is the worst in 50 years. The USDA updated the state of the corn and soybean crop last week noting that only 31 percent of the corn crop was in good shape and only 34 percent of soybeans remains in good condition. This drought is comparable to the drought in 1988, when crop losses resulted in $40 billion down the unusually dry drain. While Speaker Boehner worries about the need for more cuts in the farm bill, he should also place considerable focus on the amount of money that is lost due to crop failure, especially in a changing climate. Mother Nature does not care about the status of the farm bill, she will not wait for a final bill to be passed. Agriculture will continue to be affected by an ever-warming climate and therefore considerable attention needs to be paid to the success of the farm bill and guaranteeing stability for our nation’s farmers.  

The farm bill, as well as the Midwest drought, are of significance to my work because I am in the final stages of editing a report on climate change and the affects on agriculture. My supervisor wrote the majority of the piece, but I have done considerable work in editing, finding graphics, citing sources and adding in my own sections on the effects of climate change on women and the benefits of green manure. It is one of the three major reports that will have my name attached. I am ecstatic about the opportunity to publish work with a reputable institution at such a young age. My work on the state of fisheries and aquaculture and the state of the world’s grain crops (wheat, maize, and rice) will be included in Worldwatch’s annual publication, Vital Signs. Despite my excitement in publishing work, I try to make a conscious effort to keep the issues real; trying to avoid solely thinking about climate change and agriculture at an abstract level I type about from my 8th floor office. Going back home to Minnesota will make the crisis real as I’m sure it will be impossible to ignore the drought and the insight from my climatologist father. 

Beyond the Pine Curtain: Political Understanding in the Center of the Universe

This summer has not been a simulation. It has not been a workshop. It has not been a practicum. It has been a real life, everyday immersion into THE political center of the world; a Political Science majors’ dream. It is not necessarily big events that have made me more aware of my political understanding, but rather a culmination of my day to day activities. However, this week many of my observations we’re put into words. This week’s speakers provided me with precious nuggets of wisdom that gave me a lot to reflect upon and often reflected what I witness and think about on a day-to-day basis. Between insights from our speakers and my personal experience in D.C., I can identify two general themes that I have become more aware of as a D.C. resident: there are no obvious “good” and “bad” guys in politics, and when it comes down to it, we’re all just humans.  

I have always prided myself on trying not to think of the world in black and white, as good and bad. In my naiveté, I thought I was much more open-minded. However after coming to D.C., I realized that behind the Pine Curtain I have always unconsciously thought of the political world as a divide between good guys and bad guys. Naively, I thought there were two groups of representatives, lobbyists, and policymakers: those that promoted my interests and those that obstructed my interests from becoming action. This is not always the case. And in many situations, there are many shades of grey. Dr. Shane Smith exemplified this in an anecdote that really stuck with me; Shane provided examples of the divide between rhetoric and action. To set the scene, Shane was discussing nuclear disarmament and the role our last two President’s played in reducing our stockpile of nuclear weapons. As a promoter of nuclear disarmament, in my “good” guys and “bad” guys scenario, I had President Bush pegged as the “bad” guy and President Obama as the “good” guy. However, in terms of action against nuclear disarmament, this was not the case. Shane informed us from his expert perspective, President Bush did more to reduce the nuclear stockpile than any other President, but he communicated his action very poorly with the public. On the other hand, President Obama has done little to reduce the United States nuclear stockpile but based on his speech in Prague and overall communication skills, has led the public to believe he is far more engaged than he actually is through his powerful rhetoric. This opened my eyes to see - for about the millionth time this summer - that politics is far more complicated than simply “good” and “bad.”

In a culmination of moments in my political understanding, I acknowledged big business can have non-profit goals and passion. I was invited to attend the launch of the Global Food Security Index at the National Press Club. The Index was created by the Economist Intelligence Unit, a branch of the publication The Economist, and funded by DuPont. Especially in the agriculture world, there is a definite divide between the perceived motives of big business and the best interests of small-scale farmers. However, at the conference, I acknowledged the genuine passion of DuPont to create a tool to better understand the root cause of food insecurity and develop a means by which small-scale farmers and big-business entrepreneurs can communicate about solutions to end hunger. There was a question from an audience member that addressed whether the motives of DuPont were for philanthropy or profit. This question got me thinking: Does it really matter? Shouldn’t the end product be what is evaluated? It is a question I am still pondering, but once again I was enlightened - “bad” profit-seekers can have “good” guy motives. 

Nate Freier provided me with the most insightful, “ah-ha” advice this week. Nate told us: When it comes down to it, we’re all just human. Wow. This one really hit me. Previously, I had put all policymakers, representatives, bureaucrats, judges - and in the context of Nate’s comment - military advisors, on a pedestal: more intelligent, more worldly, better decision makers, etc. This is true, or hopefully is true, in most cases. However, at the root, we all still make mistakes. We all still have no idea what we’re doing in certain situations. We’re all intimidated by the complexity of the political sphere. We’re all unaware of our paths. We’re all just humans.  

The human aspect of unpredictability was further exemplified by Ashley and Tajel’s realization that there is no one “path” to follow. I, like Ashley and Tajel, am a planner and this was terrifying to hear, especially from two very intelligent and successful women. I want a path. I want a path that directs me to take this step and then this step and then this step and then achieve happiness and success. I have to come to terms with the fact that if I intend on having a career in D.C., this is not and will not be the case. In conclusion, my experience beyond the Pine Curtain has revealed that things are not as by-the-book as academia presents. In the real world of politics, happenstance always accompanies hard work and there are no good guys and bad guys, there are only humans. 

A microscopic outlook

Before I begin this entry, I must preface that I have most recently created a new email folder titled “News” in my Microsoft Outlook and though its content is currently sparse, it is a new folder nonetheless (and I do not make folders without reason). Times are changing, as are my Microsoft Outlook Email folders. Also, I’m realizing that the content of my “Class” folder (containing countless emails from professors and drafts of papers) will expectantly fill with new content in the near future as well. Not just new content in the sense of new class e-mails, but also in the sense that my new classes will reside in new fields considering my change of majors which occurred approximately 3 days ago. Outlook gives proverbial insight into my life and also into how much this summer experience has perhaps changed what messages I will send and receive in the future (It’s all clear now – Microsoft meant for “Outlook” to actually be the proverbially way of looking out on one’s life…).

            Well, the insides of my real, everyday folders of life are currently overflowing with information, so much so that I have had to resort to these email folders I suppose. If I could imagine what I would write on the cover of these three imaginable folders inside my head, one would read “Stuff I think I kind-of understand,” another “Stuff that I don’t really understand but can get by,” and the third most worn-down folder would read “Rats.” It would not read rats just because rats seem to enter their way into my D.C. life quite frequently, but rather because I often says rats as a reaction to something that really doesn’t make sense (or literally… R.A.T.S. could be the equivalence of Really And Truly Shocking… for better or for worse).

            Would it be correct to say that as my folders have grown, I have grown as well? That is neither here nor there. Rather, what is here, is the concrete:

            I can say that I can now give insight into contemporary Cuba, which Congress members are for and which are against the end of the 53-year-old trade embargo and travel ban, and my own personal opinion regarding our U.S. policy on Cuba. When my email receives every Google alert that’s written on “Cuba” (even those regarding Cuba Gooding Jr., not to mention Cuba, Missouri), it would be an unfortunate situation had I not acquired this taste and insight on Cuba. On another work note, I have acquired a taste for Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, and other Latin American countries as well. The flavor has been quite bold, strong, consistent, and often times unfulfilling in the sense that there does not seem to be a way to make the taste less distasteful.

            Another budding flavor is the fact that I sent an email to the registrar at a ripe 3 a.m. Friday morning notifying them that I was changing my major. Although keeping my Hispanic Studies major, I am dropping my 3-year-long English major as to make room for more international relations courses. Indeed I have drank the international relations Kool-Aid, and will be drinking more into the next year. Maybe I have drunken too much too fast, especially in light of a seminar week with speakers who work in foreign policy, and it sure is an addictive taste. I will “cheers” to my new decision and only hope that I will be “cheers-ing” at the end of next year.

            The cherry on top on all of this savory food would have to be the people I’m surrounded by and how much flavor they add to each day here. I’m not just talking about the people at hearings, the professionally dressed in the streets, nor the senator living next door. Rather, I’m talking about those other 14 CSB/SJU students in this program. The ones who inspire me each day to learn more, to succeed, to follow my passion as they are all so clearly doing. I love meeting people who truly love what they do, and being around that each day when I come home from work could not bring a better environment to learn what motivates them, what they are working toward, and what they are hoping lies in store for them in their futures. These Bennies and Johnnies walking on their own paths, have shared some of it with me for the time being and have left me to discover politics like they have. This means reading, asking questions, promoting lively discussion, and then living out what they believe in each day. Talk about leaving a taste in one’s mouth (in this case one that is most tasty and conducive for growth… like a fine wine perhaps).

            So with a priceless food that touches the taste buds and the soul, possibly being thought of as cookie dough (Sometimes it makes you sick, but you eat it anyway. You only eat it when you’re very sad or very happy and never regret it. Not to get all mushy, but the care that goes into making cookie dough with loved ones really determines whether a batch is good or not), I certainly feel full at the end of a day. There are never enough folders for the amount of learning that takes place, both on the work site learning about foreign policy issues and when I come home to learn about what all these other characters learned about during their days. It is with thanks to folders, taste buds, and great people that I am able to process this D.C. world, and I cannot express more thanks. All that made this possible are very much appreciated.

            Have I grown by being here? How does one measure growth? In money, stature, laughter, or how about silence? It is in those moments of silence where I truly taste a moment that I have grown the most. Perhaps it is a silence “rats” moment. And with that, cheers to the hum of the air conditioning and more silence to come.

Tears of the Wolf Cry

Described in this prompt as “the big bad wolf of American politics,” there are many questions that come to mind while exploring the goods and/or evils of the lobby. With the word “lobby” remaining unclear for me since learning the textbook definition in eighth grade, I have been skeptical of how big and bad these wolves are or perhaps do these wolves just upset the wrong people. Surely, no one is born a big, bad wolf in my eyes; therefore, if these practices truly are bad, then what made these practices begin and why have they continued to go on for so long? This is America, and where there is a big, bad wolf, there is usually a smaller, good wolf (aka Red Riding Hood) that triumphs in the end… right?

Well, it turns out that it if these wolves are big and bad, there is not just is not just one but a plentiful amount working not only in the Washington D.C. area, but also around the United States at federal, state, and city levels. With so many wolves running around, I am therefore led to believe that there are not so many bad wolves out there as people may think. Wouldn't they have been stopped long ago if they were truly up to no good? Furthermore, by cutting out the wolves, wouldn’t that be cutting out other systems of life as well? That’s the way the ecosystem works, and although the political system can be thought of as different (for some, perhaps more artificial), it is still a system that relies on others nonetheless in playing a key part in making the political system go around each day. With all of these wolves running around, they are able to make things happen for citizens, corporations, political figures, and sometimes maybe for themselves as well.

What do the experts have to say about this breed of politics? Well, according to the four articles provided on Moodle, they all have a lot to say but of course not in an agreeable, or sometimes even understandable, manner. Their definitions are somewhat contradictory and are as follows: Victor’s article refers to lobbying as interest groups in a legislative complex; Hojnacki and Kimball as groups to convey to legislators different types of information while maintaining their organizations; Mersheimer-Walt as a loose group of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy [in terms of U.S.-Israel relations in this case); and Goldstein as actions that attempt to influence inside-the-beltway inhabitants by influencing the attitudes or behaviors of outside-the-beltway inhabitants. With perhaps the only real decided definition is that lobbying involves a “group” effort, I can take this to mean that there are many different types of wolves, both good and bad, that produce different reactions from the wider kingdom of the United States of America.

When something receives a high-level of emotion reaction from someone, it usually means they did something to deserve it, good or bad. In the real world, wolves take the action of hunters and gatherers who seem curious about the world around them and with a howl that lets one know that they mean business. It can be seen as a warning to some or as a vocal attack to others. I wouldn’t say that this is far from the mark of working lobbyists. Rather than hunting and gathering for their families, they sometimes take these risks for those that put the food on their table and the money in their pockets – large corporations or other interest groups. Sometimes, however, lobbyists could be working to benefit themselves and others like them to change policies in their favor – more of a grassroots approach. And don’t lobbyists warn and provide insight to legislators by vocalizing their ideas, or at least making noise even if our legislators refuse to listen? They are informers, listeners, messengers, and sometimes teach people a lesson in the meantime – keep in mind, they do have sharp teeth which they can use if necessary.

So, do lobbyists have a right to be called the big, bad wolves or are people just “crying wolf” to have something to cry about when things don’t go their way? Well, Mearsheimer in his article “…Explaining America’s Special Relationship with Israel” would say that lobbyists are solely wolves sticking up for wolves and not the rest of the population. He looks into the forest and sees the wolves solely looking out for their interests and getting away with it in terms of the U.S.-Israel relationship. They have power because they have the money and support to do so, whereas the average person cannot reach that sort of control by wolfing their way into the political world. It is clear that Mearsheimer believes that lobby’s activities and impacts are at fault for a “harmful” relationship between the U.S. and Israel. When lobbyists step into foreign territory, Mearsheimer would raise the important concern that lobbyists blind legislators from seeing the whole issue.

Although Mearsheimer expresses a genuine concern, wouldn’t his concern also mean that legislators weren’t able to make decisions as well? By expressing that lobbyists are shaping our foreign policy, isn’t he saying that legislators are that vulnerable that they give into this wolf pack? Would that therefore be a criticism on us, the U.S. citizens, electing these legislators to power? It seems that Mearsheimer’s real issue may be that he feels so strongly about ending the support to our current Middle Eastern friend more than he feels strongly about lobbyists in general. Something has to be made the roadblock for Mearsheimer’s opinion, and he has painted the wolves as the sole barrier, although forgetting to acknowledge all of the other forces at work –like two pretty large, powerful countries.

No doubt about it, wolves take bites out of the political system, but to what extent and degree, and are these bites justified? If they didn’t bite, who would? Clearly, I am not ready to write all wolves out as big and bad. All work for different motives as do people in all professions, and of course one rotten apple can somehow make all apples out to be rotten. While some would swear off apples in this situation, it could be thought of as a risk to never at least try another again (unless you are indeed Little Red Riding Hood).

In my case, the organization I’m interning for is neither thought of as a lobbying firm nor partisan entity yet we are often found on the Hill trying to influence policy. This is where the subjective opinion of a lobbyist has to come into play because while some would argue that we are not lobbying, aren’t we indeed influencing and advocating for legislators to agree with us? To make a change that will help our constituents by making it clear that it will help legislators’ constituents as well? It is important for us to have connections, network, have names on file that we can approach, and also be truthful. We need to keep our word, perhaps do a favor for someone that will help us get our foot in a legislator’s door in the future. One could and sometiems does see this behavior as a "big, bad wolf" scenario I suppose. However, being close to the Hill, it is almost necessary to have a wolf-like tendency because is it not more or less our obligation and responsibility as active U.S. citizens to advocate for those across the U.S. who are not in such close proximities to legislation on the Hill?

Although questions remain in the air and speculations remain afloat, it is not too arguable that lobbyists do indeed make change as active U.S. citizens. These changes may not be for the better for all, but it is neither here nor there to label our wolves as bad as it is to label the work of lobbyists as “harmful.” For what is harmful to some is beneficial for others. Besides, as a German proverb goes, “Fear makes the wolf bigger than he is.” Furthermore, don’t fear wolves or cast judgement upon them. Rather, learn about the hunt and then decide and act upon the new knowledge that is instilled.

Business cards are the paper currency

My notes on meet and greets:

One important lesson I have learned during my stay in Washington, DC is the importance of business cards. I have witnessed the exchange of hundreds of business cards each day at my internship. It's the peanut butter to the jelly for introductions. "Hello, my name is Caitlin; here is my business card." If you do not have a business card handy, the awkward one parcel trade takes place. Both sides of this event are left feeling underwhelmed, and trust me as an intern- not a good start! After the paper currency (business cards) dance has been completed the next step is to talk about your organization that you work for. This is my favorite part of meet and greets. It is during the discussions that you are able to make important connections to people. Who would have thought that nuclear disarmament can include physicians and the negative consequences of radiation on the health of people? (hat tip: Isabel Pennings) These random connections are important to explore during meet and greets. I have been able to connect to people when I explain the mission of AHRI and how legislation is an important part to our success. Now I have a stack full of business cards in my possession, with hopes that their value will pay off in the future.

My name is Caitlin Coleman (front center with blonde hair), I am a rising senior at the college of Saint Benedict. Majoring in Political Science and trying to fit in a concentration in econ. I am interning at the Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) this summer. My experiences here in Washington, DC have been extensive. One day I am on the hill, listening to committee hearings. The next day, I am writing policy memos on current legislation. Life in Washington, DC is exciting, energetic, and fun. I love every minute here and am sadly counting the days until I leave. 

Interesting World

While situations of the European debt crisis are becoming more and more serious, developing nations, such as China, are increasing its presence in the international societies. In both international conferences held in Brazil and Mexico, the expectations for these developing countries to offer financial supports to increase the liquidity of the international societies seemed really high. As the developed countries’ economic hardship which started after the US’s Lehman’s fall still continues, the international societal order has been gradually and firmly changing. Particularly, rapid growth of China both economically and militarily not only worries the East Asian and Pacific region, but also it threatens the U.S. interests in the region. As many of scholars call 21^st Century as the “Asian Year,” many incidents have happened in the region, particularly China-related issues, interests me greatly.

“China is going to subsidize $6 million to other developing countries in order to provide technologies and human resources for the prevention of desertification. Also, we will provide facilities for the prevention of forest land.” Friday June 20, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao announced this during his speech at the Rio+20 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In addition, Prime Minister Wen promised to provide 200 million yuan (about $ 31.5 million) in order to support Africa and other Least among Less Developed Countries’ climate control programs. While the amount of money is not the greatest amount, China emphasizes its support as the south-south cooperation among the other developing countries. Moreover, according to Asahi Shimbun (one of the major Japanese paper companies), Prime Minister Wen hosted an unofficial assembly with European ministers for the environment. During the assembly, Prime Minister Wen emphasized China’s position as a developing country by saying “my country cannot do anything without improving the job situations and level of living for the population of 1.3 billion.” As China often describes itself as “the biggest developing country”, China has been asking developed countries for financial and technological supports in order to improve its environmental conservation programs and continue its growth rate at the same time. Adversely, in the middle of European countries’ severe economic crisis, China has been increasing its number of supports recently.

While China, in a sense positively increases its presence in the international society, its expansion of the power generates instability in the East Asian and Pacific region. When the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and his group recently visited the region, Panetta showed his concerns in terms of U.S. interests in the region and its ally’s security issues due to China’s expanding power. This clearly shows that “the biggest developing country’s” rapid increase of its military capacity destabilizes the regional politics.

On June 24^th, Philippine authorities of countermeasures against disaster announced that Philippine fishing boat sank after it got hit by a Chinese-ship-like boat in the South China Sea. As a result of the accident, one of the crews died and four went missing. (Philippines relations with China have been really tense and strained over Chinese claims on the Spartly Islands in the South China Sea.) After Philippine authorities tried to clamp down a Chinese fishing-ship near the Spartly Island in April, the tensions between the two nations increased and there are some opinions in China to take some military operation against Philippines. Similarly, in September 2010, a Chinese fishing boat crashed into a Japanese patrol ship near the Senkaku Islands in Okinawa prefecture, territory Japan claims as its own. After the incident, on April 16 2012, Ishihara Shintaro, the governor of Tokyo, said that the Tokyo Metropolitan government is planning to buy some of the Senkaku Islands. This may cause another debate and lead to another international incident in the region.

While “the biggest developing country” rapidly increases its influence economically and militarily in the international society, the power balance which was established over the course of history in the last 50 years is gradually and firmly changing. Particularly, in terms of China’s military expansion in the region, since the U.S. has many of its allies in the East Asia and Pacific region, its foreign policy toward the region draws a lot of international attention. I am excited to continue to pay a closer attention to the region and how the region will transform itself as a result of the gradual changes.

A story for the grandkids...

Only now having finally become accustomed to the D.C culture, we get to experience a true DC heat wave. And is it ever hot, almost 104 degrees last week! 

This last week was an especially significant and what is sure to be a memorable week in American Politics, with the Supreme Court handing down one of their biggest decisions in years.

 

On Thursday June 28th, I was fortunate enough to take the morning off from work to be outside the Supreme Court as they issued their decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, (Sec. HHS).  While I was eager to see the outcome of the case, I was also excited to be a part of history, as I had studied and followed the case throughout my time in Constitutional law classes.  I was able to get a prime spot standing in front of the press corp. to await the decision. 

As one could tell from the varying news sources that once the decision was there was mass confusion as to what the almost 100 page decision actually meant. (It’s quite hard to decipher Supreme Court language in only a matter of minutes) From out of nowhere some one in the press started screaming “mandate down, mandate down”. As you can maybe guess cheers erupted from the TEA party crowds and those opposing Obamacare. However, as more news came out from the press and the internet namely SCOTUSblog, it was determined that at least from what we could find out that the mandate was upheld as a Tax. Curiously enough during oral arguments the Obama Administration had tried to argue that the penalty for not buying health insurance was not a tax.

While the final decision was a blow to the protections of the Constitution, it did help to incite the Conservative movement to elect a new president and members of Congress, especially in the Senate where votes would be crucial to repealing the ACA.

Another memorable moment from Thursday morning, after the decision was read I was standing in front of Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), in which he gave one of the most eloquent responses. Noting how depressing this verdict was he said “It is now up to the American people to decide”. I think this clearly sums up the coming election and how important it will be for people to get out and support candidates that they agree with.

            This next election cycle will be very important, in all races. Working with a state policy organization, I know that states are the fundamental battle grounds in protecting against the growth of big government. My internship site is different from others in that it acts as a legislator’s research service since most of the state legislators are part-time and have a very small staff. We do not seek to influence votes, only to provide the necessary resources and information for those state legislators in both parties that views align with the Jeffersonian values of limited governments, free markets and federalism.

Falling off the Economic Cliff

While my office deals more with state policy issues, I have been able to see some overlap between federal policy and state policy. For instance one of the most recent examples that I have seen through my internship experience is health care reform. While the federal government was busy debating and trying to pass the Affordable Care Act, many states had already set in motion there own types of health care reform, many parts of these laws would protect the states from the costly mandates and requirements of the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act.  Many states have been able to effectively limit through their own legislation the reach of the federal government into what is considered strictly state issues. This is just one example of how I have seen connections between my internship and the “real world”.

Being in D.C has given me a chance to see more sides of a policy argument as there are thousands of organizations that feature speakers, panels and write publications about these issues. This has been great to be able to gain a spectrum of knowledge about the topic from experts and those who work in the field. One of the domestic policy issues that I have seen more about lately is the issue of the growing federal deficit. More and more, I have been reading articles from organizations that have studied and analyzed the current economic situation of the US, in which many believe that if we do not change our current economic track we are sure to fall off the “fiscal cliff” or to end up in a situation very similar to Greece.

In an article from the American Enterprise Institute, policy experts agreed that if “ Congress and the president do not act together to forestall the automatic outcomes, the United States will head into recession, with growth shrinking significantly through the first half of 2013”. The Congressional Budget Office in a statement has agreed that economic policy actions must be decided on before Congressional recess unless there is a want for automatic “across the board sequestering” cuts.  This would prove such a fiscal shock to an already weak and unbalanced economy that it “would reduce taxable income, increase unemployment, depress consumption and retard growth”.

 Fortunately, there is a solution that has been endorsed by several different groups including the Simpson-Bowles Commission, the Rivlin-Domenici task force and the Gang of Six. This plan includes a “combination of phased and balanced spending cuts, including all areas of spending, and tax increases phased in to replenish the revenue base that is now the lowest as a share of the gross domestic product in nearly 60 years.” However, with the partisan stalemate occurring in Congress and between President Obama, this seems like a lofty goal, especially as almost all Republican House members have signed the Grover Norquist “No new Taxes” pledge and most Democrats would be apposed to any reform or cuts to welfare and entitlement programs.

With this deep partisan divide, there seems like little wiggle room for compromise. Without quick action a series of events could culminate which would induce an economic storm of sorts, leaving a struggle economy behind for the next president to deal with who ever that may be.  The American political class has become so entrenched that they have refused to cooperate, bickering with each other, all while the problem sits unsolved. 

We need a fresh new class of citizen legislators that are willing to go in and actually accomplish what they promised while on the campaign trail. The establishment of congress, on both sides, needs to take a stand and act before we experience another deep recession. We can not leave these problems to linger only for the future generations to have to dig themselves out of a massive economic hole.