Category: State of the Union (SWA#3)

Domestic Agenda	Foreign Agenda
Budget for Congress	Developing Countries: Women Business Development
Increased Border Security Funding	U.S.M.C.A for N.A.F.T.A
Infrastructure Bill	Reciprocal Trade Act
Lower pharmaceutical costs	Curtail Presence in the Middle East
Prohibit Late-Term Abortion
Childhood Cancer research funding

II.

The speech given by president Trump had a plethora of words that affirmed his willingness and optimism for compromise within the current divided congress. His opening statements asserted a desire to govern as “one nation” not “two parties”. There were three key issues that the President specifically catered his speech towards compromise and collaboration. The obvious and principle one being on illegal immigration legislation, and the two subsequent being the infrastructure bill and late term abortions.

When talking about the duties of Congress relative to this issue, he says that “We have a moral duty to create an immigration system that protects the lives and jobs of our citizens”. This specific line is preceded by action that the President took in order to increase border security, without the direct consent of Congress. He built urgency before this phrase by explicating the reasons for his actions, and then turns to congress and speaks in the first person plural to address that all of the legislators in the room should feel the same urgency to act as he did. This particular issue, is more of an issue of collaboration than it is compromise. To elaborate, Trump specifically talked about the benefits of walls in decreasing illegal immigration, and further described specifics of the wall itself, and other necessary security precautions that he wishes Congress to take into consideration. His rhetoric in talking about these issues does not give off a sense of compromise, but rather the need for Congress to act in accordance with pressing security concerns. President Trump explained an issue, proposed his solutions for them, and then admonished Congress with the use of a single word: “We…”. He is aware of his inability to act in the scale that is necessary without them, and is more calling for cooperative action than compromise.

The two subsequent issues were more oriented towards compromise that border security was. When touching on his desire to better the infrastructure within the United States, President Trump said “This is not an option. This is a necessity”.  Before stating this, he noted that “I am willing to work with you on legislation that will deliver important infrastructure development…”. This leans towards compromise more so than border security because he didn’t propose much of a solution on his own, other then that the bill should support “cutting edge industries of the future.” This gives Congress more freedom by omission of specific infrastructural goals. The mention of late term abortion was a nice blend between the two. President Trump laid out the travesty of the bills passed in New York and Virginia that allow late term and post-birth abortion practices. He was clear on his position about the sanctity of lives, both “born and unborn”. After doing so, he asked Congress to “prohibit late term abortion who can feel pain in the mother’s womb”. This in and of itself is a kind of compromise. Upon recent scrutiny that the Republican party wants to repeal Roe v. Wade, this clarification for the prohibition of late term abortions where the baby can feel pain is a few steps lower then some more common party opinions on the subject. Within all three cases, President Trump’s rhetoric does show that he is optimistic to work with congress, and compromise if necessary.

President Trump definitely believes in a more powerful executive branch relative to the foundations laid out in the Constitution. He didn’t wait for Congress to give him permission to send troops to the southern border to protect it from the incoming caravan. His rhetoric showed no concern of if he overstepped his bounds. This is rather problematic because he constantly addresses the need for Congress to work with him, and believes that they are a powerful branch as well that can act as an impediment to the strong executive branch that he believes in. In terms of Congressional oversight, his strong position on the powers vested in both branches didn’t show a quarrel with Congress being too overreaching or powerful. While not in the speech, it is obvious that Trump has believed in a strong executive branch that can step around Congress if need be. His administration has utilized executive orders on many occasions and as such demonstrate his view of the role of the executive branch.

Lastly, the Democratic response to the S.O.T.U was surprisingly negative and barley touched on anything that the President actually talked about. The first complaint from Mrs. Abrams was the Presidents frail response to children going through active shooter drills in school. Education or school shootings were not mentioned in the address and it seems to drum up preliminary animosity to fuel the more rational critiques given later. Stacey Abrams said nothing about any of the good things that the economy has done for women or any of the minority groups that Trump substantiated in his address. She mentioned farmers and lower income families that rely on community and family and friends and the overall generosity of their immediate vicinity, which somehow coalesced into the idea that it should be the government’s job to fix these particular deficiencies in American life. This lead to a critique of the government shut down, which accused Trump of being the puppet master with no real substantiation as to why. It stretched from here to critiquing his border and immigration policies by repeating things that Trump said in his own speech. The only notable difference is that President Trump said “Legal Immigrants” enrich our communities and Mrs. Abrams said “Immigrants”. This shows a fundamental disagreement on what is good for the country and from the response given my Mrs. Abrams, there is little room to compromise on border security because there is no agreement on terms. If a policy, like Arizona’s SB 1070, aims to redress legitimate concerns on illegal immigration, then according to the rhetoric by Mrs. Abrams, this is discriminatory against immigrants. There seems to be little hope for compromise here. It is important to note that there was no response about MS 13 or the sex and drug trafficking that the President claimed would decrease with border security. Immigration was the principal issue of discontentment, and, at least in terms of rhetoric, shows little hope for compromise. Fortunately there was one important issue that makes compromise look possible. Both Trump’s address and Stacey Abram’s rebuttal voiced a desire to lower the cost and expand the availability of the pharmaceutical industry and general medical practice at large. This, unfortunately, is torn across a ideological line. Stacey Abrams argued that the way to do so is through the expansion of government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, while Trump encourages transparency and market incentivisation. Luckily, this ideological divide can bring about compromise. Both “solutions” are not mutually exclusive and it seems feasible to be able to utilize a little give and take in order to help combine these two methodologies of solving the same issue .

There are two commonalities between the Alaska state legislative agenda and Trump’s address: Criminals and the Middle Class. Trump passed the First Steps Act that freed Matthew Charles is a step in criminal justice reform. The Governor of Alaska, Mike Dunleavy, said in his inaugural address that he wanted a war on criminals. One way he has done this is through reforming Alaska Senate Bill 91, which deals with sexual assault, drug sentencing times, and judicial discretion. While in some cases he has strengthened drug offence laws, there have been similar sized relaxation for first and minor offences. The second similarity is the rise of the middle class. During the first two years of Trump’s presidency, there have been 600,000 more manufacturing jobs created. Majority of these jobs are for middle America. The state of Alaska has the impetus for such success as well, but it has yet to be achieved. Alaska is in a mild recession. Mike Dunleavy plans to lower taxes and reduce government spending in order to both balance the budget and incentivise the market to bring jobs back into the state.

 

Devon Hopkins

Coral

Intro to US Natl Politics

02/11/19

State of the Union Address Assignment

 

Foreign Policy	Domestic Policy
New MCA (Mexico, Canada, America) which will replace NAFTA US Reciprocal Trade Act	Fairness and price transparency for Americans $500 mill over next 10 years for cancer

 

1.         From the begging of the President’s State of the Union Address the President did not stray away from the idea of working with the House Democratic majority. He rarely addressed individual parties and continued to make the point that in order for his plans to be successful all parties would have to work together. President Trump rarely mentioned specific ways he would compromise, but he used a lot of general statements that gave a good idea to the kind of work he wants to get done. Some of the issues Trump addresses include tax reduction, employment issues, and energy conservation (specifically oil and natural gas). He also doesn’t mention too many specific legislative proposals, but he mentions general topics he would focus on improving in the future. Some topics discussed by Trump on foreign policy include illegal immigration (a common sense proposal to end the crisis on the Southern border), trade relations, equal tariff prices with other countries, and an infrastructure investment. Topics brought up by Trump involving domestic policy include lower health care and prescription drugs (as well as protecting patients with pre-existing conditions), fairness and price transparency, school choice for American children, and prohibiting late-term abortion of children.
2.        Trump rarely addresses or hints at the views he has on the executive branch. Most mentions of other members of congress as a whole stated that he was willing to work with everyone in regards to making improvements for the country. His language suggests that he will exert his Presidency to his full power in order to make sure his goals are achieved such as his willingness to build a wall at the southern border. His language did not give much insight on how he feels about checks and balances or his views of Congressional oversight of the executive branch. In regards to Congress as a co-equal branch his language suggests his is willing to work with all members equally as long as it is in terms of supporting his short and long term goals.

III.         Following the SOTUA came the democratic response delivered by Stacey Abrams. In this she brings up issues such as federal workers not receiving their paychecks in weeks, education prices increasing, gun safety, the republican tax bill, voters rights, and healthcare. The more obvious issues Abrams refers to include the government shutdown and Trump’s attempt to build a wall at the southern border. There is room for compromise on certain issues such as health control which both parties have mentioned needs to be improved as long as they can work together. Similarly to Trump, the one thing Abrams states is that both parties would have to work together and negotiate in order for any improvements to be made.

IIII.        The legislative agenda outlined during the SOTUA doesn’t necessarily represent the agenda outlined in my own state legislature and this is most probably because my state representative for district 1 in Illinois is a democrat. They don’t necessarily go along the same lines because one agenda is for the country as a whole while the other is more focused on a specific surrounding area. However there were a couple of similar issues to be dealt with on both agendas which both include improving health care as well as improving education. These are both nation-wide issues and as long as negotiations can be made and all parties can work together and compromise it will hopefully lead to better results in the future.

         

As the President neared the close of the State of the Union Address this past Tuesday, he vehemently asserted the powerful words: “the state of the union is strong;” standing as an objectively controversial statement in the midst of deep-set partisanship among America’s legislators and people. The President’s agenda setting was comprised of legislation surrounding infrastructure, healthcare, immigration, and trade. Before addressing the specifics, however, the President remarked that these legislative ideas would ideally be met among a cooperative Congress. He maintained that “many of us [U.S. politicians] campaigned on the same core promises,” including a string of abstract policies that have been the subject of intense debate across the country for a number of years. As he dialed in upon each facet of the agenda, he continuously pointed remarks at the expected gridlock within the U.S. House of Representatives, hoping to preempt the imminent struggle among legislators. Justifying these comments, the President charged partisanship with being responsible for inefficiency and derailing economic growth within America. Within these remarks, the President labeled partisanship as “pointless destruction” of what he believes to be an evident avenue to progress within the U.S. Tension filled rhetoric was peppered in throughout the address, as the President pushed for coalition building within Congress, while simultaneously failing to revise or compromise on the highly contested policies found within his political platform, including, most notably, his proposal of a wall on the Southern border. The President urged the Senate to put partisanship aside and to confirm the vast body of nominees that have left positions within the Executive Branch empty for some time. Despite this isolated call, it appeared that instead of infusing his speech with a sense of harmony among the–now partially divided–Executive and Legislative Branches, he focused his efforts on the division across the bodies of Congress. The President then set out the agenda he was interested in pursuing throughout his tenure:

Domestic Policy Agenda	Foreign Policy Agenda
-Ending “illegal” immigration, namely by implementing stricter immigration policies and by pursing the wall on the Southern Border	-Tightening trade policies that favor America more -U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement in replacement of NAFTA -combat “global free loading” -pursue “economic empowerment for women in developing countries”
-Investing in infrastructure throughout the country
-Lowering the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs on the market	-Make market “fairer” in regard to prescription drugs internationally
-Combating childhood cancer
-Implementing paid family leave
-Legislating on late-term abortion
-Investing in and bolstering the U.S. Military	-Push for military alliances to accept more                of financial burden

In her rebuttal Stacey Abrams challenged the President not entirely on the types of issues he addressed, but rather on his approach to such issues. Reflecting on the recent governmental shutdown, Abrams cited the demonstration as a political maneuver that disregarded the very real impact on American lives. She remarked that immigration policy should be crafted with “compassion,” and showed understandable disdain for the current administration’s actions within this policy sector. Finally, Abrams argued that healthcare needed an expansion across the country to protect the lives of Americans. Within her own proposals she touched on the issue of education, calling for legislation to address the immense financial burdens incurred by students pursuing post-secondary schooling. Furthermore, Abrams highlighted the issue of gun violence and the need for gun control in the context of schools within America. She highlighted how despite the assertion of wage growth, wages are still not growing in parallel with the increasing cost of living. To conclude she spoke to the core of democracy, calling for a look into voter suppression across the U.S.

In comparison to my state legislator, I did recognize some discrepancies within the actual issues being addressed. Evidently, the federal government must legislate on issues beyond the scope of state policy, however some issues should have found overlap within the President’s address. The most prominent issue that was left unaddressed was education. Within my state government, it is impossible to find a politician without education on their platform, understandably so, as this issue is so central to the lives of most Americans. However, the president neglected education all together which displays either a disregard for the issue or a view that the issue was not a necessary topic of concern at the current state. However, there was some overlap among issues such as healthcare. Regardless it is clear that my own state legislature may have differing viewpoints and policy initiatives then the current administration.

Section 1:
Foreign policies:
Making of the wall- law enforcement at the border humanitarian assistance, law enforcement, drug detection, and loop holes to end child smuggling
Imposing tariffs on china (making a new trade deal) – protect American jobs, reduce chronic trade deficit, and end unfair trade practices
Reciprocal trade act- charging other countries the same amount for the same product
NATO- increase in defense spending

Domestic policies:
USMCA- bring back manufacturing jobs
Lower costs of health care and prescription drugs
Global freeloading giving- price transparency for American patients
School choice for American children- help parents pay for school
Paid leave for parents
Prohibit the late term abortion

Section 2:
The government division was something that was prominent throughout the State of the Union address; more specifically, when Trump was referring to the benefits of building the wall. Most, if not all, of the democrats were sitting down and there was a clear distinction between what the republicans believe and what the democrats believe. There was not a hint of compromise because he ended his statement on immigration by stating that no matter what the wall will get built. There was no hint of letting others factor into his decision and he is set on constructing the wall. Although, it is something that he has been promising to make, yet it has been two years where he has promised that Mexico will pay for the completion of it, but it hasn’t happened. He knows the negative implications that it would cause, and he still promises to make it. The way that Trump is trying to portray the United States and the power that he has is overwhelming. He repeatedly spoke about the very “little” impact that other countries have on the United States. For example, when he was speaking about the NATO contract and how he demanded an increase in defense tariffs, he claimed that many believed it could not happen. It demonstrates how he holds himself to very high standards and thinks he can do things others can’t do. There is a small mention about having both parties work with each other to help pass this legislation. For a decision that impacts the United States heavily, it is important that both parties agree or disagree with this because it could potentially change a lot the way that other countries view the United States.
In the democratic response, Stacey Abrams explains that building a wall only causes disturbance and how the United States thrives from having immigrants. She also states the disagreement toward the abortion right in the case of Roe v. Wade, which he is trying to change. Stacey Abrams also speaks on the differing opinion on how there are still groups that are marginalized, such as the LGBTQ community. The fact that there is a huge discontent on the side of the democrats is concerning because it demonstrates that Trump really doesn’t take into consideration everything that is happening and the way that they feel towards some of these topics. By trying to portray himself as an educated leader, he is causing a division between the U.S citizens and creating more racial tension.

Section 3:
The agendas for Puerto Rico and the United States are very different. In comparison, the United States seems to be more focused in fixing international affairs and doing things to establish itself as the strongest power. On the other hand, it seems like Puerto Rico is only focusing in trying to fix the issues that it faces. For example, it is trying to fix problems that are centered in environmental well-being and problems that are impacting the community. It seems that Trump does not care about what half of congress believes by trying to institute things that go against something that they advocate strongly against, such as the wall.

 

Foreign Policy	Domestic Policy
US-China Trade	Border Security
NATO Allies	Tax Cuts
Crisis in Venezuela	Cuts to Regulation
Eliminating ISIS	Deregulation
Anti-Semitic Incidents	Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Immigration	Criminal Justice Reform (First Step Act)
Tariffs	Strengthened Military
Building the wall	Energy and Infrastructure
	Health Care
	Education
	Funding for HIV and Childhood Cancer
	Prescription Drug Pricing
	Abortion Restrictions

 

The table above is of either legislation or specific issues that Donald Trump mentioned in his State of the Union Address.  He touched on some of these briefly and others he proposed and plans to follow up by signing legislation on the issue.  Several of these topics, he is absolutely correct in saying there is work to be done, even if his view does not necessarily reflect that of the entire country.  Some of the proposals he made in his SOTU (State of the Union) Address, can truly be passed.  Some of these include Health Care issues, such as funding for HIV and childhood cancer, which he spoke of in the address.  With this proposal, he is attempting to reach a goal of his administration’s, “eliminating HIV in the United States by 2030” (Vox.com Dylan Scott).  He states, “My budget will ask Democrats and Republicans to make the needed commitment to eliminate the HIV epidemic in the United States within 10 years. Together, we will defeat AIDS in America”.  Here, he is specifically talking about both sides, Democrats and Republicans, working together in order to defeat HIV in America.  To persuade viewers and listeners of the good this would do, despite the sum of $500 million a year, he explains that the ten-year program would be funding “critical lifesaving research”.  Some issues he touched on would be quite difficult for him to pass, but it would not be too unlikely.  An example of this would be his huge infrastructure bill.  He says, “This is not an option.  This is a necessity”, and “many of the newly elected House Democrats from swing districts are (perhaps naively) optimistic about trying to get an infrastructure bill passed”, from the Vox article.  (Vox Scott).  Prescription drug pricing is also an area that Trump has stressed some importance, but it is an issue that even Democrats agree needs to be fixed.  The only issue is that “there is not yet a consensus within the party about the best way to tackle high drug costs” (Vox Scott).

Concerning Executive Power, Donald Trump certainly has a different view than other presidents have had.  A particular quote from the address had some people bothered.  He said, “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation”.  Nancy Pelosi, a Representative from California, saw this statement as a threat.  She stated, “The president should not bring threats to the floor of the House,” Pelosi said. “He said he wasn’t going to cooperate unless we didn’t exercise our constitutional responsibility to oversight” (Roll Call Lindsey McPherson).  Trump stated a lot of things about having to cooperate and compromise for the common good, wanting bipartisan unity in the divided Congress, but his past actions and the ideals of the Democratic members prove it may be difficult to achieve that status.

The Democratic response to the address was given by former Minority Leader of the Georgia House of Representatives, Stacey Abrams.  She stressed several things in her speech.  She especially emphasized issues with gender and race prevalent in the United States, but she also touched on topics such as voting rights and equality, compromise between parties, and education.  She spotlighted the fact that children should be educated from “cradle to career”.  Regarding voting rights, she stated, “This is the next battle for our democracy, one where all eligible citizens can have their say about the vision we want for our country. We must reject the cynicism that says allowing every eligible vote to be cast and counter is a ‘power grab’”.  She also mentioned, “In this time of division and crisis, we must come together and stand for, and with, one another. America has stumbled time and again on its quest towards justice and equality; but with each generation, we have revisited our fundamental truths, and where we falter, we make amends”.

The legislative agenda outlined in the State of the Union Address had many similarities to the agenda outlined for my state legislature of Pennsylvania.  Some issues and topics that occurred in both were, education, health care, infrastructure, and voting reform.  Voting reform and education were more so talked about in the response to the Address, because Abrams stressed these things in her response, whereas Trump may have just touched on these issues briefly.  Issues and legislation on infrastructure and health care were talked about in Trump’s address, especially infrastructure, as he is pushing for legislation on this topic.  Some points outlined in my state legislature that were not talked about or barely talked about in Trump’s address were housing issues, criminal justice and gun violence, as well as energy and environment.

 

State of the Union Address analysis

Domestic proposals	Foreign proposals
·         Trump nominees in the Senate to be confirmed/recognized ·         $500 billion (10 years) to help HIV and cancer patients ·         Upgrading infrastructure ·         Health Care/Pharmacy price transparency ·         Restrictions on abortion ·         First Step Act: allow cooperative inmates to re-enter society as law-abiding citizens: reform sentencing injustice	·         Border wall ·         Imposed tariffs (matching tariff price between countries on same goods)

 

Cross-branch power dynamics:

According to several news networks, specifically CNBC here, states in that President Trump is more than willing to work and compromise with the Speaker and her House majority. In his SOTUA Trump claims that his agenda is not associated with any party, that it is the agenda of the American people and it will be governed as a nation. The President and the House majority agree on many proposals, some of which attempted to pass under democrats before the shutdown. From what I can gather, it seems both parties are on the same side regarding domestic remedies. These domestic proposals, listed in the table above, represent the welfare of all American citizens and do not discriminate to any ascriptive group. The House majority and Trump may have a harder time agreeing on foreign/immigration issues. The only foreign/commerce proposal that may pass through the House is to impose tariffs to other countries. If a country pins an unfair or high tariff on an American import, the government would then have the authority to match that same tariff price on the same or similar goods when exporting to that country. Immigration policies may force a compromise soon, hopefully before another shutdown. Trump proposed a new funding bill for the wall that is still pending approval; slated hopefully for mid-February. However, the President might have to compromise more than the House on this issue considering the Speaker won the shutdown debate, forcing Trump to rethink his wall agenda.

Executive Power:

While reading through the SOTUA transcript, no language or phrases stuck out to me that suggested reference to Trump’s executive power. However, I did some reading on the subject from USA Today here about the current state of power in the oval office. The main pitch of this article is that Trump’s executive power is out-of-check, but the greater executive power today stems from the office not the President. Today’s extreme use of executive power is a product of past presidencies, according to USA Today. Starting with FDR all the way up to G.W. Bush, the American people have increased their demands of action towards any holder of the oval office. Yes, I agree that Trump is going beyond his position’s power. Increasingly troubling is his mentioning of congressional oversight towards misused executive power. His actions, however, are at least attempts to answer demands of many citizens.

 

Democratic Response:

I am a bit confused on Stacey Abram’s rebuttal (this may be because I’m not very political and still have a lot to learn). Essentially, in my opinion, her rebuttal was set on stating how she is disappointed in the current administration because it is lying to its people regarding the state of the nation. She gave examples, some about how jobs are being lost and more and more families are living by paycheck. She states that the government shutdown was unethical and that although parties share different perspectives, both wings share the desire to protect and support its citizens. I agree with this, some people liked the shutdown. I didn’t see the point of it, unwillingness of both parties to compromise equally. What I don’t understand why Abrams stated Trump’s administration is failing on issues that the President had just suggested proposals for that same night. Mainly on domestic issues (see table), the President seems very ready to compromise and resolve those issues. The only issues that are creating partisan politics and debate is with immigration policies.  Some of Trump’s statements about his proposals are more or less accurate. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been added since January and (from CNN transcript) almost 5 million people are now working and off food stamps. To me, that seems like the economy is growing stronger and unemployment rates are lower for all races. Despite Trump delivering one of his better speeches, he did choose to omit controversial details regarding the unnecessary shutdown of our government and who it affected (unpaid government employees).

Comparing National and State Legislature agendas

Generally, I believe most domestic proposals are in the interest of the people and are not partisan. The only two proposals that are similar (categorically) between Michigan’s agenda and our nation’s is reforming health care affordability/research and revitalization of infrastructure.