Novi Bill Analysis -- Super Session

Bill No. 2 -- A Bill to Change the Voting Day (Ritsema, City)

• Overview. The Bill is straightforward, efficient. It would move the date of all federal elections to Saturday. It can be seen as a way of stepping away from Tradition in order to gain efficiency and greater participation in elections.
  
  
• Instrumental. The principal issue is that of accommodating those who worship on Saturday (e.g. Orthodox Jews). This bill would apparently bar them from voting. Suggested Amendment: "that States must provide absentee ballots to all who assert an objection to voting on Saturday for reason of religion or conscience." Second Issue: Does it work? The move to Saturday is asserted for pragmatic reasons, but will these take place? How do we know that Saturday's are that much better?
  
  
• Clash. Issue One. Improved Turnout. If the need is to have more people voting, is this the best way? What about education? more absentee voting? What is the value of turning out in one place to vote, if any? Issue Two: Tradition. It is said that tradition means giving a vote to our ancestors. What is the weight of force of habit? We are constantly in a struggle with doing new things and trying to preserve something of the old. What do we give up here? What do we gain?

Bill No 4 -- The What's Your Number? Bill (Le, City)

• Overview. Fat continues to cling to American bodies, in part because of our indulgence in fatty foods. The bill would mandate including a glycemic index (fat content) on all nutrition labels. As with calories, fat content, the information would result in more knowledgeable consumers, and so help combat the wave of obesity.
  
  
• Instrumental. A tight bill, well focused. There is some ambiguity, however, in the first lines regarding the applicctio of the glycemic index to "every food". Does this include the food at the Farmer's Market? Or the food found in a restaurant? Potentially one could go off track defining food. Suggested Amendment: require every nutrition label to include the specified glycemic information. This keeps the bill focused and lets the FDA do its job.
  
  
• Clash. Two possible issues suggest themselves for more in-depth debate. Issue One: Efficacy. Does listing the information do any good? Are these labels more for the conscience than for action? Do labels alter behavior? Or do they only protect the labeler? (Think of cigarettes). Issue Two: The Role of the Informed Consumer. Related to Issue One, is the question of how we safeguard our public health. Is it best done by empowering Consumers (and so warning labels), or is it better done by direct government action (prohibiting ingredients, say)? These are two strong perspectives.

Bill No. 5 -- A Bill to Fund Parthogenisis (Israel, Novi)
Overview. There is some clumsy wording here that interferes with the basic thrust of the bill. Both "Parthogenisis" and "Parthenogenisis" are not the proper term; "pluripotent" is. There was an interesting bill (HR 322) advanced in Congress earlier this year advocating some of the same themes. The underlying issue is well-known, the conflict between the promise of embryonic stem cells, and the source for the same. The recent announcement that scientists have successfully created these pluripotent cells from skin is the starting point.
Instrumental. Two related problems show up in Section 2. The first is the definition of Stem Cell Research. The field is obviously bigger than that of embryonic stem cells. In the published budgets most of the money goes to research into adult stem cells. However the title of the bill suggests that the focus should be on a subset of this, embryonic stem cells. These are two very different budgets (roughly $500 m and $25 m see this report.). As a general rule, the use of percentages should be shunned. Why ten percent and not fifteen? or seven? Random levels end up with either funding too much or too little. Consider -- what happens if you put too much money in the system? Can you have too much money?
Clash. Again, two issues vie for attention. Issue One: Benefits and Losses. The funding mechanism is only a way to get around the principal barrier of embryonic stem cell research. There is a deep moral divide here between the potential benefits and the manner of acquisition. This alternate holds out the possibility of a way out of this dilemma. Issue Two: Picking Winners. What the bill does is to pick one winner, one path. After all we know this works. But behind this is the larger issue of whether the government should pick scientific or industrial winners. How directly involved should the federal government get in science? This will be a continuing issue for all of us.

Bill No. 10 -- A Bill to Increase Funding to Anti-Terror Military Groups (Borgren, Portage Central)
Overview
Instrumental
Clash


Bill No. 12 -- Response to North Korean Atrocities Bill (Luo, Portage Central)
Overview
Instrumental
Clash