State -- Super Session Analysis

A few words up front:

Be aware that Super Sessions will generally cover two or three bills. While you can guess which three will be picked up, you will be well advised to cover at least 4 of the 6 bills; being ready to speak on five or all six is recommended.

Again, remember the rule of Cross-ex: it's always better if they ask you. If you speak, be sure to answer in complete sentences. The longer you talk the less time there is for any one else. If you are the one questioning, try framing your answer as a straight "yes or no" question; and state it explicitly. "Yes or no, do you think...."

Resolution -- Recognize Taiwan (Sen. Gomes Novi)

• Overview. At the close of the civil war in China in 1949, the Nationalist government fled to the island of Taiwan. The Communists, having taken over the capital and mainland China considered Taiwan as also part of their territory. The Nationalists, not surprising, also thought of the Communists in Beijing as rebels. With the rise of China's economic and military power, this two-China situation was more or less resolved into recognition of China, and with Taiwan in an international no-man's line. However, mainland China continues to see the island as rightfully part of the nation, and so any move to recognize the legitimacy of Taiwan is seen as an afront to national dignity. The size and scale of the Chinese economy only adds to the difficulties. This resolution seeks to carve out a separate identity for Taiwan.
  
  
• Instrumentality. Wisely, this is in form of a resolution. Treaty making is a function of the Executive, and the Senate can only ratify. It may be objected that explanatory clauses of the Therefore do not follow from the earlier justifications -- weapon sales seem out of place, a derivative of recognition rather than a core element. One may eliminate the clause "continue sales..." with little effect to the whole.
  
  
• Clash. The big issue is not that of weapon sales, but of the relations with China. Clash One would concern the role of US PRC relationship. Should it be hostile? what are the consequences of hostility? Clash Two, what about morality? Can we do something because it is right? or do the forces of commerce oblige us to act in certain ways (against ROC)? Clash Three, to what extent has our economic shortfalls limited our foreign policy options. The problem with Taiwan is only a symptom of something much deeper and more troubling in US policy. (Here is a great place to bring in all sorts of economic arguments).

Resolution -- Support Student Maternal Leave (Sen. Boehme, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. According to the Guttmacher Institute, social stress on pregnant women is a leading driver for abortions. This would be especially true for young, high school-aged women. The Resolution attacks the question of these unplanned pregnancies by asking schools to make it possible for young women to be excused for maternity leave. The presumed benefit is twofold: fewer abortions, and fewer women dropping out; or to look at it another way: more live births into stabler, better-prepared homes.
  
  
• Instrumental. One can push on this several ways. First there will be a challenge as to whether such a nation-wide epidemic exists. This will be your read on the data -- does it suggest a growing problem or not? (If the problem does not seem to be large enough, then the the Resolution loses its urgency.) A second area to ponder is the question of time -- how much time is being considered? Does it mean time away from school (in which case, the young mother falls behind her peers)? Does it mean, she brings the child to school -- so day care at the school? These sort of implementing ideas are well worth exploring. If you like the bill, at least suggest how it could be made more specific by amendment or in translation into actual policy.
  
  
• Clash. Behind the Resolution lies a notion of the school as a provider of social services. Is that its role? Or is it the responsibility of other agencies in the community? Do we put too much emphasis on our schools to solve society's problems? Related to this is speaking about the nature of the school as an academic institution -- can it be indifferent to the parenting (and sexual) choice of its students? Last, another clash can be engaged on the role of individual responsibility: how do we take charge of our lives? What is the role of the individual? What happens when we make mistakes? At its largest, there is the question of second (and third) chance. This is not a societal issue per se, but it is one of moral life. What are the right ways to give a hand up (and not a hand out)?

Bill -- Banning School Use of Internet Profiles (Sen. McGinnis, South Lyon)

• Overview. In the information-sharing rich world of Web 2.0 (Facebook, FlickR, etc.), what is the relationship of material posted on the web for sharing, and the school? Can a school bar a student because of something she or he has posted? The Bill would prohibit school action, deferring any action to those of other parties, with first priority being given to the parents. The bill clearly wants to give guidance to schools about how to handle today's info-rich web, as well as empower parents to be the primary gatekeepers for online behavior. Of course, this sets up one of the perennial confrontations between technology and family (and school).
  
  
• Instrumental. If the issue has multiple interesting aspects, the bill itself is more problematic. Left unspecified is how the US Government enters into what is essentially local decision making. This is more a sign of a young or relatively inexperienced bill writer: too much emphasis on process or punishment. Second area: what is being funded? Money is being raised (Sec. 3) but to what end? The actual program aspects are not specified. Third, one may want to discuss the actual content of the web sites -- must all content be sent first to the parents and law enforcement? What might be consequences of such actions? Is this a well thought-out procedure? Consider an amendment that schools preserve the right to intervene and discipline should they determine that the safety of the schools, the students and/or personnel is at risk.
  
  
• Clash. The first major issue is that of responsibility, hinted at in Section 2.E. -- students need to be educated to handle these new tools responsibly. This bill can be considered either as an invitation to more nanny government (through education), or an abandonment of educational duty (the equivalent, say, of letting the kids have a party at the house, while keeping the liquor cabinet unlocked). A second clash, is that of the nature of digital information. Do the same rules apply here, as in public? (Defamation, etc) What kinds of social controls (if any) are appropriate. I suspect that in many ways, this bill (if debated) will be seen as a battle over the nature of information -- can the adults control it? should they?

Bill -- Encourage Bio-Fuels (Sen. Lindsay, Rochester Adams)

• Overview. An old favorite shows up. The measure uses tax policy to promote fuels. It raises taxes on pure gasoline products while offering increased tax incentives to farmers. The use of tax policy is a nice touch, however one may wish to question if the problem really is with the farmer side, or is it with the refinery? This would certainly be an item to clarify.
  
  
• Instrumental. Generally, fairly sharp. Questions may be raised regarding the "50% tax": fifty percent of what? Or is it meant 50 cents (a fixed amount). Percentages raise a number of problems, depending on what the underlying cost basis is. Likewise the tax deduction could use more definition. What are the exact taxes being reduced? Clarify this in cross-ex. The missing refineries are probably the biggest omission.
  
  
• Clash. The Bio-Fuel issue has a number of now well-understood clash points. First, Bio-Fuels are not necessarily net (or poor net) energy efficient, that is it may actually take more fuel to produce than energy we receive. Go figure. Over against that are the mechanisms of reducing US reliance on overseas energy sources. Second, the use of crops, means that these same crops cannot be used for food production. This may be good for farmers, but it does function as an upward pressure on food prices generally. So the clash is a more stable agriculture sector v. increased prices for food. The larger issues remain, how do we manage our fossil fuel consumption? Do we continue the current way, with better technology (so bio-fuels), or do we look to restructure? How do we make the decisions? The Bio-Fuels can be seen as a first step to environmental awareness, or as a roadblock to the real steps that need to be taken. Which way is it? The choice is yours.

Bill -- Global Roaming (Sen. Le, Grand Rapids City)

• Overview. The bill seeks to bring cellular phones in the US up to international standards. At present, different cellular companies employ different standards. While the different standards preserve company profits, they also inhibit technical development. A common standard my have the impact of rendering a number of phones obsolete, thereby impacting especially the poor. Further the enforced obsolescence of the present phones could meet a fair amount of consumer headwind, and potentially impact present cellular contracts. It will take some thinking to determine who benefits the most, the smaller phone companies, or the giants (AT&T, Verizon).
  
  
• Instrumental. Costs of the shift are not provided -- particularly those associated with the change from systems. The difficulty will be managing the "grandfathered" phones -- how long do these remain in service? One amendment to consider would be to end all non-compliant contracts after some date (january 1 2011, say). This would provide time for a transition.
  
  
• Clash. A key clash will turn on the involvement of government in specifying standards: to what extent does this represent a picking of favorites or of winners? One of the consequences of the bill will be that some telephone companies will be at a disadvantage, since they will not have sufficient spectrum available to support the new standards. Second will be the issue of costs: the more expensive phones will impact consumers, and penalize those who use the phones the least -- who should regulation favor? The mass market (and relatively down-scale) consumer, or the techno-savvy? And this brings the last area: who is better at determining standards? Is it really the government? Or can the companies and the market take care of it? What is the nature of the partnership between technology companies and government? As I note, this is a fairly technical sort of bill, so I would expect it to be one of the last bills to be opened (if at all).