WMLDL in GR -- Notes and Bill Analysis

We have five bills to date, and one more coming from Otsego. They are all interesting, each showing an increasing sophistication in the bill writers.

Our meet Wednesday will have 40+ students, so obviously we will meet in two chambers.

The other aspect will be a new ballot for judging. We will give up some of the finer points for ease of scoring. More on this tomorrow.

And now for the Bills.

Bill No. 1 -- Taxing Bottled Water (Sen. Boehme, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. Bottled water is not only convenient, but also poses several problems: the bottles stack up as extra trash; the water that is extracted from aquifers and springs often leaves the watershed from where it was drawn; and that the water sometimes little more than simply repackaged city water. Obviously, by taxing water the intent is for there to be less use -- or is it to be simply an easy way to nick consumers for the Federal Budget? There is definitely an issue or issues here. The question most immediately would be whether this is to be considered a federal one. Control of bottled water flows from exercise of the commerce clause -- presumably with this bill no other state regulation could supercede it.
  
  
• Instrumental. The bill enforces a sales tax to be paid by the manufacturer/importer, so presumably at the wholesale level. A fair question may be whether the money raised should go back to the general fund (and so reduce deficit spending), or should it go to some designated program (e.g. helping with water conservation). This is worth exploring.
  
  
• Clash. Much depends on where the money goes. If it is going to the general fund, then we are nicking some consumers for the benefit of all. Issue # 1: Is it better to have some pay a tax, or all? That is, what makes a tax just or fair? Issue # 2: When does something become a federal problem? What is the best level for addressing social problems? The general rule is to have the lowest level of government possible address the issue (i.e. local first, then state, finally fed). How does that rule play out here? Perhaps the nature of the problem is such that it requires a large, national focus. Or maybe not.

Bil No. 2 -- A Bill to Mandate Ethanol be Added to Gasoline (Sen. Cross, Jackson Western)

• Overview. Ethanol additive has been one of the keep measures for weaning the country away from its oil dependence. The program has certainly been embraced by farmers, however others note that the net energy savings may be close to nothing, given that we still have to expend energy in the harvesting of the corn and other plants. There are important articles today in the New York Times on the use of ethanol, and the unintended impact. The bill basically taps into the concern for energy independence and support for American agriculture. The downside of ethanol is well established, and offers plenty of opportunity to bring forward the science and implications of its use (e.g. higher prices on all other uses of corn, including meat, milk, beer and foreign aid). Is it worth it? That depends on what problem you see ethanol solving.
  
  
• Instrumental. As was pointed out in discussion, the first Article is very confused. Who exactly is being regulated? Is it the retail environment? Or is it the supplier/refiner? The altter would be eaiser to regulate. In any case, this needs clarification. Adding to the confusion is what the 30% in Article I refers to -- presumably, the bill seeks to mandate that 30 percent of available gasoline be e85. Suggested Amendment -- modify Article I to bring into line with intentions of Senator Cross.
  
  
• Clash. There are several large issues just under the surface here. Nominally, the bill is about energy independence. Issue #1 Behind lies the issue of how we reduce carbon footprints. Is this the best way? Rather than focus on independence think of this as a bill on how to be more economical with our use of carbon. Are there other ways that we can decrease our reliance on carbon-based fuels? Issue #2 Take the issue of independence. What does that mean in this globalized world? Can the United States be independent? Or, can we afford not to be independent? What is the best path for our country? Here, "ethanol" is a stand in for all those other issues.

Bill No. 3 -- Bill to Assure Birth Control Access (Helmer, Weitzel, Ionia)

• Overview. The heart of this bill touches on a fairly controversial topic: should insurance companies be required to provide birth control pills as part of their coverage? As the bill points out, hormone-based birth control can have other beneficial effects. It is important to keep in mind that drugs used for male conditions (see Viagra) are generally covered in these plans. Here is an account of a recent court case. The question of birth control also touches on abortion -- some opponents believe hormone-based birth control can prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, and thus the drugs act as an abortifacent. The Catholic Church has also condemned the use of artificial birth control, and so some very observant Catholics hold that mandating birth control coverage is an impermissible infringement on religion. This debate may get very hot.
  
  
• Instrumental. Generally tight. Section 4 however allows Health Insurance companies to increase premiums by 10 percent to cover women. What if birth control pills are cheaper? Then the ten percent cap simply becomes added profit for the firm. A case of unintended consequence. Section 4 could be deleted with little harm.
  
  
• Clash. Section 4 is one of the areas to keep an eye on. If the federal government can mandate a profit margin for birth control, then why can't it simply set the price for health care generally? Should the federal government be intervening at all in the setting of prices? You may want to ask if we shouldn't just leave it to the market. So Issue #1 will be that of regulation vs. the market. Good arguments on both sides. Issue #2 is that of feminism: how are women to be treated equitably? This bill can be read as an assertion of human rights. For women, birth control is matter of freedom. So then you may argue for it as a matter of freedom. Issue # 3, as noted above will be about the regulation of morality. For a significant portion of the population, birth control involves some deeply held moral beliefs (not least, that the provision of birth control works against the family). This is very controversial -- it will challenge you to understand the other side while arguing for (or against) conviction).

Bill No. 4 -- Firearm Permits for Qualified Classroom Teachers (Miliman, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. Guns in the classroom -- this will seem very odd to many. But the instance of the armed guard at the Colorado church stopping a would be shooter does seem to justify some right to carry arms. States across the country have different standards about carrying concealed weapons. Some allow it anywhere unless prohibited; others (like Michigan) prohibit it in certain places like schools, churches. In the past few years we have seen a definites loosening of standards. The bill at hand permits teachers to carry a weapon, but only if they are fully trained. Teachers have to absorb the cost of their own training. There is no unfunded mandate here.
  
  
• Instrumental. The teachers duties are clearly spelled out in Article 2. The one problem left unaddressed is how one specifies where this bill applies. Article 1 speaks of "districts deemed at high risk of gun violence." But just what or where are they? A second area to explore in the early part of the debate would be who exactly enforces this law? There is no superintending agency specified -- though presumably it would be through the Department of Justice, or through the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in the Department of Treasury.
  
  
• Clash. While you may simply want to talk about teachers with guns (are the kids safe -- note that this is for secondary schools, only), larger questions loom. Issue #1: is this really a federal issue? Of course, you can focus on the requirements and who enforces, but behind this is a larger issue, namely that of the states to regulate their own conduct. This seems to intrude the federal government into local schools. Wouldn't this be better for the local government? Issue #2: where does the freedom to bear firearms (2nd Amendment) infringe on the general perception of safety? Don't we arm the police because we don't want citizens running around armed? And take it deeper. Issue # 3 What makes for safety? How do we make safe schools? Will this do it? Or are there other ways we should pursue?

Bill No. 5 -- The Cool Less-Global Warming Car Bill (Le, City)

• Overview. The bill raises the CAFE standards (overall mileage requirements) for cars, light trucks and trucks. It is similar to recent legislation which just passed in Congress, only with higher standards, and it includes trucks. Raising the mileage requirements will pit the cause of the environment (and global warming) against the jobs to be lost as we move away from producing oversize vehicles.
  
• Instrumental. The most controversial aspect will simply be the actual numbers themselves. Are these considered to be achievable? This is especially a concern for trucks. What is especially nice about the bill is its use of existing standards to define the problem. This is how it should be.
  
  
• Clash. As above, the issue is that of environmental concerns versus clear economic impacts. Some good philosophical thnking can take place here. A second related issue is the role of the federal government in deciding what a manufacturer shall make. In requiring more mileage, does the federal government end up intruding where the market is best left to operate? Why not let car companies simply sell what they can? Can the government require something for our own good? Or, why if it is good, don't we all do it? (In economics, this is a problem of what they term "externalities") As you go more philosophical, remember to keep backing up your arguments with data and citations.

Bill No. 6 -- A Bill to Provide Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research (Cramer, Otsego)

• Overview. Stem cells are becoming something of a regular item. Here the bill would provide money ($40 million) and permit use of excess fertilized embryos from from fertility clinics. Use of embryos would be at the discretion of the parent(s). The bill wants to go in two different ways; the money in Section 1 suggests a modest expansion of existing stem cell programs (see Instrumental, below), while Section 2 clearly expands the scope of current research. In opening the use of other embryo-generated stem cells, the bill obviously opens the door to a more direct confrontation between the possibilities of stem cells and the moral objections (see Clash).
  
  
• Instrumental. The mischief here takes place when you put the funding requirements in the context of current funding. Under present NIH grants, $20o+ million is budgeted for non-embryo research, $37 million for embryo. Total stem cell (human non-human) is in excess of $600 million. $40 million seems to be in line with current spending. Does Sen. Cramer mean to increase funding? or restrict it? This is unclear, and will need to be clarified in the authorship speech.
  
  
• Clash. The core battle will be between the promise of stem cells (no cures yet) and the violation of conscience. Going deeper, you may want to think about what and where do we lay aside our conscience. On a more political base, there is a sure argument to be had with the role of the government and minority moral positions. Present policy arises from concerns that are held by a minority. Does the majority get to over-ride the minority on anything? When and how do we determine that we cannot lay aside our moral scruples. The mischievous side of me starts thinking in terms of other areas where we may ask the public to lay aside its scruples -- war time issues come to mind. As a rule, try to look at the Constitutional or political here rather than getting stuck in the moral swamp. Seek clarity for policy purposes. What other issues might also involve a similar clash? Go ahead, bring them up.