14 Bills at Ionia, pt. 2

Bill No. 3: Bridging the Wage Gap

• Overview (Need). The Bill addresses the disparity between wages for men and women. As the bill notes, this was first addressed in 1964, and since then the wage gap has decreased. But there still is a gap. In through a variety of mechanisms women are not yet earning the same as their male counterparts.
• Instrumentality. There are a couple of loose words here, most notably in Sec 2.A, "should be adhered to more strictly," which is more of a statement of hope than of policy. Concretely, the bill gives redress to to the woman. A key question to raise on instrumentality regards the meaning of "monetary" in Sec. 2: many wages are provided in a variety of other forms (bonuses, benefits, opportunity) that are not especially monetary. Does the bill's author mean wages? Or total compensation? A good suggested amendment would be to substitute monetary with total, as in "total compensation." Also on enforcement, recent court cases have limited the use of general or class action cases in favor of those who can demonstrate a direct harm. No harm, no case. This judicial roadblock may be the real nut to crack here.
• Aff. This side faces two challenges. That of direct, intended discrimination, and that of the status quo. For the former, one can argue philosophy quite cogently: equal work deserves equal pay. The right to pay your workers what you want does not mean that you may treat them unfairly. Example to use would be women in the military: for the same tasks, the same pay. The status quo question -- that things are ok as they are -- will take more work. Note how much we are losing in women's skills. There is plenty of material out there about wage gaps.
• Neg. They have an easier time. Although you will be tempted to simply argue that the bill is redundant, that would mean leaving behind a collection of very substantive issues worth your time. You may want to speak to women's progress over time, especially the number of women at the university -- this suggests there is no discrimination. You can also point to recent studies that African American males are the ones really falling behind (here) -- that is are we looking at the complaints of well-off women over against the real lack of opportunity for minorities? Lastly, there is the question of enforcement -- it may be that the bill actually does too little, since it only applies to women who can show they have been discriminated against.

Bill NO. 4: Foreign Born Presidents

• Overview/Need. This is a Constitutional Amendment masquerading as a bill (See Sec. 3). The United States unnecessarily shuts itself off from top talent by limiting the office of the Presidency to those born within the boundaries of the nation. The principle is that we want people who have an attachment to our country, so even if you were born overseas but grew up here, you would have that attachment. Why shouldn't you be President?
• Instrumentality. As noted this is a Constitutional Amendment. Passage requires a 2/3 majority. You will also want to amend Sec. 6 to bring it into line with the US Constitution. "This bill shall take effect as the XX Amendment, upon passage by 2/3 of the states on or before [date goes here, say 7 years]"
• Aff. This is a bill about who is an American. Use Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm as a case in point: she can govern a state, run as a US Senator, can even be a judge, but because she was born in Canada she somehow doesn't make the cut for the presidency? We are cutting off a skill set we need. A second argument would be the nature of changing world, where people move much more freely and rapidly now than in the 18th C. Place is not the barrier.
• Neg. Why change what isn't broken? The need for this amendment is not especially established. Be ready to counter the examples. Suggest that there does not seem to be a lack of people willing and able to be President, so therefore no reason to change.

Bill No. 5. Independence for FEMA

• Overview/Need. We've been over this before. The bill removes FEMA from DHS and makes it a direct report to the President (i.e. "cabinet level"). Need is established in Sec. 2. Indirect reporting coupled with support for the fight on terrorism means that FEMA's focus is compromised, and so left vulnerable to responding to emergencies (i.e. Hurricane Katrina). It need institutional independence.
• Instrumentality. The bill is vague here on how or what the impact of the move would be. Unlike Christina's bill that called for professional competence nothing is provided for, here. A useful amendment would be to insert a Section 2 A adopting some of Christina's personnel reforms.
• Aff. FEMA is a story of incompetence and cronyism. This is a direct result of making it a creature of the political appointee at DHS. The disaster that is Katrina (play this up, you can always add to the "harm" aspect) is not over. The cure for FEMA is to insist on greater public accountability. Therefore it should be free-standing, and not hiding within another department. The prevention of natural disaster is too great.
• Neg. Against Katrina, bring up the California fires. FEMA did ok there. The problem is not where it falls on the organizational chart but how competent its administration is; this is a problem of cronyism and the bill does nothing to resolve. Read up on political appointees in the present administration -- there is a lot out there for the Dem. For the GOP-minded, you can explore the possibility that the next disaster may not be "natural" but terrorist-made. In that case linking FEMA with DHS makes abundant sense. Explore consequences of possible terrorist attacks (lil' nukes).

Bill No. 6. Single Sex Schools

• Overview/Need. This is a bit of a resolution -- note opening words, "There should be...." That said, the need has been documented that at some grade levels (middle school in particular) a single sex class room can be more productive to learning. However, understanding of 14th Amendment and of Civil Rights law prohibits what looks like "separate but equal." The bill poses the basic clash between the push for equality of treatment and the pursuit of excellence; it is a classic principle/pragmatic split. Focus on this rather than the instrumental issues (below).
• Instrumentality. There is a confusion in the bill about what exactly the Department of Education funds, so as written the bill makes the federal DoE the manager of the program. A classic 10th Amendment problem. A second issue would be that of the numbers: 50 -- given the number of children in schools, this is probably too low. A third issue is the question of "randomly selected," again, seeming to take power from the states who would otherwise oversee the program. In short, this is probably not actionable as written -- it is too specific. Two amendments may fix this:
• Sec. 2 "this process should begin with the creation of 50 single sex schools to be sited in different cities throughout this country" and delete the rest of the Section.
• Sec. 3 Keep it looser. Write an amendment where funding comes from a series of grants at the DoE, which will be required in turn to assess the quality of the curriculum and provide an annual public report.
• Aff. This is all about pragmatism. What can we do to improve public schools? Again there is plenty of evidence that boys and girls may learn differently -- so why not take advantage of this? Emphasize tales of empowerment. Emphasize the need for better skills, better engagement (bring up the study that black males are falling behind -- the need role models, safe places to grow, etc. ).
• Neg. This is a matter of principle. Men and women should be treated equally. Asking women to be treated differently only hides from them what the requirements are in real life. Two classes of schools invites students to be treated academically different. A second attack would be that of States rights -- education and its delivery is predominantly a state issue. (Note, these two neg arguments are deeply opposed to one another, since equality argues for more federal control, and states rights less. )

Bill No. 7 Student Athlete Drug Testing Bill

• Overview/Need. There are perhaps two issues underway here: that of the illegal drugs, and that of performance enhancing drugs, e.g. steroids. The bill appears to be focused on the latter with the DoE being the chief enforcer. On this, there is plenty of evidence that young athletes are tempted to boost performance with drugs, and that use of these drugs in a young and growing body can have serious health consequences for the athlete later in life (e.g. stunted growth from steroid use). The medical consequences are becoming clear, and so too is the pressure for the use of these drugs.
• Instrumentality. There is a clumsy wording in Sec 2 about "removal from the team" -- leaving the question, if you test positive for cross-country, does that mean you can participate on football, instead? A more important issue is that of the word "all" -- that's a lot of students (and a lot of drug tests). It is certainly worth exploring when this drug testing takes place. In the doctor's office? Last, you may want to consider the question of what happens if a doctor presents false tests (say of the star quarterback) -- this is not spelled out in the present bill.
• Amendment. You may want to charge an appropriate department (HHS, FDA) to draw up a set of banned drugs to be tested.
• Aff. Emphasize the need for athletes to be safe. This is not about substance abuse but abuse of the body. These "performance" enhancing drugs are also life-threatening. And in the same way we regulate collegiate sports, we should do the same for high school sports.
• Neg. Talk money. A good way to go would be to find out how many students participate in sports say in Michigan then apply a cost for the drug test. Can we afford it? Does the cost simply outweigh any advantage. And of course, there is our old favorite the 10th Amendment, arguing that matters like these are not really a national concern but a state concern.