James Inhofe: Genius or Master Tactician?

“…my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of peopleto think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in theclimate is to me outrageous”,  states Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the new chairmen of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I kid you not, that is exactly what he said in a Senate meeting in February. Guess what else he did? He brought a snowball, yes a snowball, with him to the meeting.

“…do you know what this is? It’s a snowball just from outside here. So it’s very, very cold out. Very unseasonable.”        - James Inhofe 2015.

Why is this guy spewing nonsense when scientific facts show contrary to his beliefs? I’ll take a wild guess and say he knows how to play the game of politics. Between 2009 and 2014, Inhofe received over $450,000 from the Oil & Gas industries and over $250,000 from retirees. Politicians do whatever it takes to stay in office. This includes turning a blind eye to scientific evidence to please their constituents and campaign donors. The fact that nearly 50% of Americans do not believe in anthropogenic climate change does not help our cause.

Inhofe is surely not an idiot and has to know what he’s saying. He's 80 years old and has been in the Senate since 1994. As long as the fossil fuel industry continues to invest into politicians, there will always be climate change deniers and an ideological difference within Congress. 38 Senators deny climate change.Together, they have received over $27 million in donations from the coal, oil and gas industries. The other 62, the ones that haven't denied science, have taken just $11 million. The numbers tell it all.

Check No on Mandatory Voting

At a town hall style event in Cleveland, Ohio, President Obama suggested that America adopt a mandatory voting system similar to that of Australia and other nations. Obama mentioned that “it would be transformative if everybody voted – that would counteract money more than anything.” However, what Obama fails to mention is that one of the unintended consequences of a mandatory voting system with current restrictions on campaign finance will likely result in more money in politics rather than the opposite. Moreover, it would create a range of consequences resulting in an expansion of government power, and the violation of civil liberties.

First of all, voting is a right that allows us to show our support to candidates, their proposals, and other legislative issues. “Making voting mandatory means voting is no longer a right but an obligation.” Furthermore, choosing not to vote doesn’t express apathy, but sometimes demonstrates a form of protest against policies and politicians.

In regards to campaigning, a mandatory voting system will likely make the race cheaper only for incumbent politicians. After all, in a system which everyone is going to vote, how much would challengers likely need to spend to counter the natural advantages of incumbents? After all, incumbents have years of experience, and public coverage, that will force any challenger to dedicate more of their money and time to compete against them.

We have to also consider that Australia’s parliamentary system is wholly different from America’s governmental system. They have a proportional voting system, not a “winner takes all” system, and voters rank candidates by preference.

Furthermore, we have to also consider that since both parties work toward restricting third parties, mandatory voting will still result in two party dominated elections.

In consideration of these factors, the US must never consider adopting a mandatory voting system. Instead, we must look toward the source of the expansion of campaign financing in the past decades; which can be traced to the enormous size and responsibilities of the federal government. As a result, large donors respond with supporting candidates and proposals that they believe will benefit them, but ultimately hurt us all. Thus, the federal government must be reduced in size to decrease campaign financing, and create equal opportunities for all Americans. However, if everyone was required to vote, politicians would increase their promises of ambitious programs that would directly increase campaign spending and continue to hurt our prosperity.

Governor Wolf's Budget Would Decrease Economic Growth and Hurt the Future of Pennsylvania

Governor Tom Wolf’s proposal for $4.7 billion in increased taxes for the fiscal year that starts July 1 to support increased state spending from $29 billion to $33.7 billion – an increase of 16 percent, will hurt Pennsylvanians and spiral Pennsylvania’s debt and deficit into unsustainable levels. Governor Wolf ran on political campaign that called for increased taxes and spending to “create jobs that pay, schools that teach, and government that works. That is what this budget achieves”. However, Pennsylvanians must question the consequences of this commitment if it means tighter budgets, smaller savings, and lower overall economic growth.

           

In particular, the plan calls for several tax increases:

“-Increase the state personal income tax by 20.5 percent, raising it from 3.07 percent of income to 3.7 percent on July 1, 2015.
- Increase the sales tax by 10 percent, raising it from 6 percent to 6.6 percent starting Jan. 1 2016.
- Provide $3.8 billion in property tax relief in Oct. 2016, eliminating property taxes for 270,000 seniors.
- Increase the cigarette tax by $1 per pack.
- Start taxing all other tobacco products, including e-cigarettes effective Oct. 1, 2015.”

           

All of these taxes ignore that Pennsylvania already faces the tenth-highest tax burden in the nation, hurting residents and encouraging emigration. Furthermore, income taxes increases will drive investment out of the state, and actually lead to lower income tax revenue overtime than the $2.4 billion Wolf expects. In addition, the increase in sales taxes to 6.6%, and increases in cigarette and tobacco taxes, will hurt poorer Pennsylvanians who are already forced to pay a high “sin tax”, and a high sales tax of 6%. Also, higher property and sales taxes to reduce the burden of school property taxes by $3.8 billion will negate the benefits of decreased property taxes through hurting Pennsylvanians in the long run.

             

More significantly, these tax increases will support a nearsighted spending plan that will expand funding for public schools of up to $2 billion over four years, a job growth plan that will cost $1.75 billion, and spending for social services. Instead, Pennsylvania should follow a different course; addressing the public pension crisis through increasing the percentage of a teacher’s income paid toward pensions, privatizing the Liquor Control Board, and other ways of reducing spending and taxes, to promote larger tax revenue and growth for Pennsylvania, and ensure a sustainable future.

Hidden Under the Radar: Food Waste

According to the Food and Agriculture of the United Nations, wasted food from the world’s most developed countries would be MORE than enough to feed the 870 million starving people around the world. In the U.S. alone $162 billion worth of food is dumped into landfills where it decomposes into methane, a greenhouse gas. Food waste alone contributes about 7% to the total greenhouse gas emissions.

According to NatGeo, “… a lot of food rots in fields, or is lost as a result of poor transportation networks, or spoils in markets that lack proper preservation techniques.”  In a country where food is plentiful, it is hard to notice wasteful expenditures and their effects. We need to advocate better storage throughout the chain of transportation.  Monitor temperatures and bacteria levels. Install truck-trailer refrigeration or, on the local level, the award winning “Micro Cold Storage” invented by students of CalTech in 2012.

Innovative technology is only one half of the solution. The other half comes from consumers actively caring for the food they buy, store and consume. Don’t buy in excess or wastefully throw out good quality food. A banana may look bad on the outside but may still be perfectly delicious once you peel its skin off. Is it a moral obligation to care about food waste? Yes. Is it economically healthy? Yes. Like anything else that’s difficult, it will take time. It will take time for people to appreciate the food on their dinner table and to be thankful they aren’t one of hundreds of millions of people around the world that starve every night.