Lee H. Hamilton, a former congressman in the House of Representatives, wrote, The Case for Congress, to share some of the criticisms he has heard over the years and to explain the effects of such opinions. Hamilton speaks of three main criticisms: “Congress is run by lobbyists and special interests”, “Congress almost seems to promote total gridlock”, and “There’s too much money in Politics” (Hamilton 2004). For each of these criticisms, Hamilton explains these thoughts and his opinion on the matter. The strongest point of Hamilton’s argument was in defending the lobbyists in Congress. Hamilton (2004) said the public opinion of lobbyists is that “Congress is manipulated by powerful wheel-dealers who put pressure on legislators and buy votes through extensive campaigns and other favors” (p. 83).
Rachele Liba Professor Whitehead POSC 100 22 July 2016 Placing a Price on a Green Nation Having lived a nomadic lifestyle across the United States, I have had the opportunity to witness the wonders of our flourishing society and the everyday turmoils that we face. Rigorous innovation has helped Americans fulfill countless dreams, however with every gift there is a usually a price-tag or opportunity cost. Now in the midst of the general presidential election, platforms that represent our beliefs can undergo much needed reform to address the opportunity costs that were surpassed in the process of success. Among the various problems found in our society, a key movement that has raised necessary controversy has to do with environmental policy.
It’s important for the United States to produce and export oil because if we don’t, the Middle East and Russia will capitalize on the product and they will become stronger and richer countries. One of the ways that the United States can be an economically strong country is to reopen the Keystone pipeline and also allow states to have the power to generate their own oil. The opposition believes that pipelines have posed a huge risk to wildlife and the surrounding environment. The Key Stone pipeline has too many hurdles to go through; therefore, wildlife activists are against this project.
(Mayhew p. 129). The individual politician is incentivized through this method to focus only on issues that will benefit themselves, and ultimately their
Samuel Sierzega 10/7/2015 BUSN 118 Lobbyists: Kings of the Hill The United States ' political system has been abused by years of corruption. This corruption is not hidden by cover ups or even conspiracy theories composed by nuts wearing tin foil hats, it is in plain sight. Corporations, lobbyists and congress have been engaging in a vicious cycle of corruption. Congress has abused their power of public servants by accepting this legal bribery. An amendment to the constitution needs to be added so money can be taken out of politics to provide fair elections to elect congressmen that stand for the people, and not special interest groups.
Politicians who avoided taking strong positions on whether they were pro or anti-trust were seen as cowards who would rather cater to big business than ensure the welfare of citizens. However, politicians were also reluctant to take action because they were being influenced by these corporations. A political illustration that arose at this time titled “The Bosses of the Senate”, demonstrates the ease at which monopolists were able to influence political decisions - or lack thereof (Document 3). The illustration depicts several industries-copper, steel, oil, iron, and coal- as bags of money hovering over senators at their desks. During this era, monopolists were able to buy state legislatures, which directly appointed senators to congress, and controlled which senators were in office through bribery, intimidation, and threats.
An example is Monsanto. Instead of lobbying to stop GMO labeling, it can support GMO labeling and continue its marketing of the benefits of GMO products while at the same time eliminating the ones that show evidence of environmental harms. As a result, it satisfies consumers and Vermont, supports farmers and the environment, and protects shareholders. References Drutman, L. (2016, April 20). How corporate lobbyists conquered American democracy.
Bill McKibben and Derrick Jensen were born in 1960 in the U.S.A., and both have accomplished successful academic backgrounds. McKibben graduated from Harvard University in 1982, and Derrick Jensen graduated from the Colorado School of Mines with a degree in Mineral engineering in 1983. Both are environmental activists and have written many articles and books. Two of their articles “Waste Not, Want Not” by Bill McKibben and “Forget Shorter Showers” by Jensen are published in the Bedford Reader book (557-567). When we analyze these articles both authors agree on consumers contribution to environmental pollution, but they have different points of views concerning whether individuals or industrialists cause more environmental pollution.
Throughout the past century, there has been a constant battle with whether the government should allow fracking or not. Stopping the process of fracking is the voice of the people. Fracking brings many groups of people together that are either for it or against it. However, the government has the power to continue to allow fracking or ban it. Even though the government has power, the people have the power to use their voice to stop fracking.
Environmental protection is a major issue America is facing. Many destructive aspects, such as deforestation, pollution, and the emissions of greenhouse gases, are all working together to destroy our once flourishing environment. Although it’s natural for the environment to slowly degrade and revive, modern technology and uses of resources has sped this process to an overly rapid pace, making it difficult for the restoration process to occur. Due to this environmental dilemma, there has been major opposition in who should be playing a larger role, the government or corporations? Corporations are in part responsible for the destruction of the environment due to the amount of pollutants they release and use when manufacturing their products.
Are environmental regulations intrusive, protective, and/or harmful? https://www.quora.com/Politics-of-the-United-States-of-America-Are-environmental-regulations-intrusive-protective-and-or-harmful Most environmental regulations started with good intentions. Somebody saw or perceived a problem or consequence from some activity or practice and then asked an agency to regulate the practice to mitigate or prevent the problem.
The protection of environment is crucial to the wellbeing of this planet. The job of government is to protect and preserve the land on which its people live. However, there is a bill being considered that completely goes against this, one that calls for the eradication of the Environmental Protection Agency, a government program created to protect human and environmental wellbeing through their regulation of laws. I urge you to oppose bill H.R. 861 - the termination of the Environmental Protection Agency - because of the ways that the EPA protects air, water, and land.
Imagine having so much pesticides in use that people and animals were actually dying from it. In the 1950’s the overuse of pesticides was a serious problem. Rachel Carson was an activist who was against the use and overuse for these pesticides. She wanted to address this problem to the government and the public and warn about the harmful effects pesticides have on the environment and the people. In “A Fable For Tomorrow”, Rachel Carson utilizes ethos, logos and pathos in order to bring awareness to the overuse of pesticides.
In today’s world, there are many people creating new chemical substances that has negative effect to our world. Rachel Carson, in her article "The Obligation to Endure" argues that the pesticides and other chemicals we use are harmful to more than just the environment. I agree with Carson in her article, in that we should reduce most of the harmful chemical use and instead use technological inventions. Carson is a person who seems very passionate about the environment and is very concerned of its inhabitants. It is hard to believe that intelligent human beings would use bad chemicals substances that would affect the environment and themselves negatively.
A Case Study on Polluter’s Dilemma I. Background/Point of View On a small plastic manufacturing, Jonica Gunson works as an environmental compliance manager. The company where she is working with is now facing a serious situation that needs to have a fast and decisive decision, decision whether to invest or not to invest money on new technology that will help decrease or as possible eliminate the level of toxic in the water which is flowing from the back of the factory up to lake. Though the company is compliant with the levels of emissions set by the Environmental Management board, the manager sees that environmental procedures for this specific toxic are sheathing behind logical evidence, particularly that there is a protest from a certain scientist that is publish in the newspaper.
