Search Results

Picture this: You are a United States Marine currently stationed in Okinawa, Japan. The child of parents who illegally entered the United States two years before your birth, you grew up knowing that there was always a chance that your family would find themselves facing deportation. Despite this fear, your childhood was a happy one, your parents worked multiple jobs and made sure that you had everything you needed. You did well in school and your parents encouraged you to embrace the American culture. While you learned Spanish from them, your parents were strict about your use of English outside of your home. When you met with your recruiter for the first time, you did so without the knowledge of your parents, not because you feared they would not approve, but because you feared that your recruiter might report your parents to immigration services. Thankfully your concerns proved to be unnecessary as your recruiter welcomed your parents as members of his own family and made sure they understood the process that you would be going through as you earned the title of United States Marine. You remember the tearful goodbyes on the day you left for bootcamp and the disappointment you had at graduation because your parents could not be there. Instead, it was your recruiter who was there in their stead, iPhone in hand, Facetiming with your family so that they could watch from home. US Citizen children are only able to sponsor their parents for a green card once they hit the age of 21, and even then, their parents must meet a very high bar of character requirements to be granted a green card. Your parents’ absence from your graduation was not because of a lack of desire or money, instead it was because of their status as undocumented immigrants. They could not risk traveling to southern California, much less entering a federal military base, because they could get arrested and deported. You know your parents are proud of you, and they are so happy that you are traveling the world, seeing, and experiencing things that they never could. Today, though, your life has been rocked to its core and being in a different country only makes the news you just received that much harder to stomach. Today you got a phone call from your baby sister: your dad was stopped by state troopers on his way home from work because of a broken tail light, instead of giving him a fix-it-ticket like every other American citizen, your father was arrested and was currently waiting in jail, and will be deported as soon as the government can process him, something that could be as quick as tomorrow and as long as several years. The nation that you are serving is going to rip your family apart, simply because your father is undocumented and didn’t know his taillight was broken. This is a scenario that has a great deal of reality behind it, the fact of the matter is that scenarios just like it play out on a daily basis. The problem is that it is all too easy to overlook the human element of the issues involving immigration. The human element is what we as Americans must remember when we are discussing such divisive issues like immigration. One part of the human element of US Immigration Policy centers around something that many Americans take for granted: birth right citizenship. Undocumented parents of children born in the United States are still subject to detain and deport policies. The United States is one of 35 nations that grant citizenship to all people born within its borders regardless of parental citizenship. Citizenship by birth is a pro-immigration policy that has been the general law of the land for most nations in the America’s since the days of colonization. Recently, this policy has come under scrutiny as immigration opponents point to what they term “anchor babies” as evidence of abuse of US Immigration law by undocumented immigrants to gain access to the United States. The term originally showed up in print in 1996 but did not become mainstream until the mid 2000’s. Based on the idea that parents intentionally planned their migration to the United States to coincide with the birth of their child, ensuring their child was born on US soil and increasing the time by which an undocumented immigrant could remain in the US and not be deported. This idea has no basis in legal fact, an undocumented parent of a child born in the United States is still subject to detain and deport policies and such actions have taken place with an estimated 500,000 US Citizen children under the age of 18 experiencing the deportation of at least one undocumented parent between 2011 and 2013. An estimated 500,000 US Citizen children under the age of 18 experiencing the deportation of at least one undocumented parent between 2011 and 2013. US Citizen children are only able to sponsor their parents for a green card once they hit the age of 21, and even then, their parents must meet a very high bar of character requirements to be granted a green card. Tying in the opening scenario for this article, a US Citizen can enlist in the United States military as young as 17 meaning that the Marine we followed would have likely not been old enough to have sponsored their father for a green card despite being old enough to serve. As of 2018, roughly 4.4 million US Citizen children under the age of 18 lived with at least one undocumented parent, with 6.1 million US Citizen children under the age of 18 living in the same household as an undocumented immigrant family member. With census data indicating that 21% of households with undocumented family members currently live below the poverty level, the loss of even one parent to deportation can be truly detrimental to the US citizen child or children living in that home. Let me clarify: removing just one family member from a home in which all members are needed in order to contribute to the financial stability of the family unit is far more likely to have negative second and third order effects both on the child/children as well as American society as a whole. There are alternatives to birthright citizenship, and many opponents to the policy make arguments that eliminating guaranteed citizenship for all children born on US soil would alleviate the issues posed above. The primary solution or alteration to the birthright citizenship policy would be to adopt a policy of “jus sanguinis” or citizenship that is based on the lineage of the child. Essentially, instead of being guaranteed citizenship on account of being born here in the United States, a child could only become a citizen if one or both parents were citizens. On its face, this seems like a perfect alternative, especially given that every other nation besides the group of thirty five that the United States is part of today, adheres to a variation of the “jus sanguines” policy. The problem arises when discussing how to enact such a change. Do we simply back date the change and declare that anyone who does not have a clear family lineage as not a citizen, or do we set an arbitrary date by which birth right citizenship would simply cease to be the law of the land for the United States. What would happen to children born to undocumented immigrants here in the United States? How would such an action affect infant and maternal mortality rates for undocumented immigrants? The human element does not simply disappear with a change of policy. No matter what side of the aisle you land on, the issue of immigration is a human issue, and as such the human element needs to be considered. The biggest question that we should all consider when discussing changes to policy that has existed as long as the United States has been a nation, a policy that was cemented into our legal system following the adoption of the 14th amendment, is why. Why do we need to change our policy? Is the issue really about the false notion that “anchor babies” are used to prevent undocumented immigrants from being deported? Is the need for change driven by something more in tune with the reality of the story of US Immigration Policy? Perhaps there is a xenophobic element tied to the desire to make it harder to become a citizen of the “shining city on a hill.” Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share this article, and keep an eye out for the next installment on the Crayon Box Politics deep dive into the issue of immigration. Got something to add to the conversation, please comment below and lets continue to color outside the political lines together.

The deadlock in Congress has revealed the need for rethinking who the Speaker of the House should be. Historically the Speaker has been chosen from the sitting representatives in the House, historically the Speaker has been chosen by the majority party, these precedents have worked historically, that is, until they haven’t. The last twenty years have seen a rise in political maneuvers that can best be described as tit-for-tat politics. Each time either party wrests control of the House from the other, that party enacts policies that purposely reduce the ability of the minority party to have a legitimate seat at the proverbial table. Tit-for-tat politics has led to an increasingly polarized political landscape in Congress, with neither side willing to reach across the aisle our legislative processes have stalled and, as in previous articles posted here at Crayon Box Politics, forced the Executive and Judicial branches of our federal government to step into the void left by the crippled Legislative branch. The Current State of Congress As of the writing of this article, the US House of Representatives still does not have a Speaker, a situation that was created when Representative Matt Gaetz called for the removal of former Speaker McCarthy. While the ensuing chaos has revealed significant fractures in the Republican caucus, it has also revealed the weaknesses inherent with the American two-party political process. The extreme polarization of the parties has led to a situation in which the minority party, in this case the Democrats, have the ability to reach across the aisle and help to med wounds by siding with mainstream Republicans against their more extreme colleagues. Unfortunately, instead, the Democrats are content to sit back and watch the Republican caucus tear itself apart in the hopes that they can turn this into electoral wins in 2024, allowing them to regain control of the house. There is no thought to the implications that a leaderless House has on the functioning of the government, much less the health of the nation, instead the focus is on party loyalty. The Need for Rethinking the Speaker of the House This brings me back to my assertion that the deadlock in Congress has revealed the need to rethink how the Speaker of the House is chosen. While the best, most expedient, and less extreme action would be for the moderate members of each caucus to put their heads together and elect a Speaker that is amenable to both sides of the aisle. This solution is not one that I can see as a viable action given the polarization in the House. Democrats don’t trust the Republican caucus after a majority of the caucus hopped on the “Big Lie” bandwagon. Republicans don’t trust the Democrat caucus because of the Democrat’s attacks on former President Trump while he was in office as well as their current willingness to allow the Republican caucus to implode when they could easily provide support to the mainstream section of the caucus. The more radical solution is one that House members like Representative Marjory Taylor Greene hit on while loudly promoting the idea of electing former President Trump to the position. No, I am not promoting the idea that the former president be placed in the position, however, I am promoting the idea of selecting an outsider to preside over the House. Representative Greene was not wrong in her assertions that an outsider could fill the role, in fact, the constitution merely states that the House must appoint a Speaker but does not go further in defining additional requirements. To that end, I think that there is one outsider that would be the ideal candidate for the position: former House Representative Liz Cheney. Liz Cheney: The Ideal Candidate for Speaker As a Republican, Miss Cheney has the conservative pedigree to be hailed as a champion for conservative ideals. Her congressional background makes her someone that any member of the extreme wing of the Republican caucus would be hard pressed to define as anything but a staunch conservative. A vote in favor of a Cheney speakership by mainstream members of the Republican caucus would be seen less as a betrayal of conservatism and party and more as a vote in favor of the nation. As a politician, Miss Cheney has demonstrated a willingness to reach across the aisle to get things done. Made famous by her willingness to toss her political career to the side to stand by her principles, Miss Cheney has demonstrated herself as someone that members of the Democratic caucus can work with. With a trusted agent in the position of Speaker, Democrats would have greater freedom of movement to work across the aisle and get legislation passed without concern for the extreme wing of the Republican caucus stepping in to derail efforts to accomplish the constitutional duties of the House. Historical Significance of a Cheney Speakership Liz Cheney is the perfect candidate because she provides political benefits to both sides of the aisle, while at the same time, neither side will be totally happy with her as the speaker. The perfect compromise, a Cheney Speakership would be historic for two very important reasons: It will be a historic first, a departure from precedent and an important signal to the American people that they have been heard. A Cheney Speakership would prove to the American people that their representatives understand the reason for such a closely split House: The American people want compromise and an end to the political tit-for-tat. Given her position is the result of bipartisan support, Miss Cheney would not be restricted to party loyalty, as an outsider, Miss Cheney would not represent any specific district and would be free to act as an honest broker for all Americans. This would move the position of Speaker of the House from a political placement to a role of mediator, something our legislature is in dire need of. As a realist, I completely understand that such a speakership is likely not in the realm of possible, but the thought experiment is a nice one to have. Regardless, we, the American people need to step up and demand more from our representatives. Our voice must be clear: no more political tit-for-tat, no more news conferences in which the underlying argument is “they started it first.”

The current state of the Republican party is a prime example of why America no longer needs a two-party system. At the beginning of its inaugural session, the 118th Congress was racked with divisions that have not been problematic in past sessions. Instead of partisan bickering, the Republican caucus of the US House of Representatives spent days battling itself, taking 15 votes to confirm Representative McCarty as the Speaker of the House. In doing so it catered to its extreme minority and allowed for division within its own ranks to destroy the institution it had been charged with leading. Such is the problem with a two-party political system: loyalty to party quite often supersedes loyalty to country. Instead of working as the unifier for the House, Speaker McCarthy spent his tenure in office as the public whipping boy for his caucus. Unable to reach across the aisle for fear of losing his job, speaker McCarthy instead held to the extreme demands coming from the extreme minority. He destroyed any trust that the Democratic caucus may have had in him by double dealing, making promises to members of the Democratic caucus while categorically denying and breaking those promises in dealing with his own caucus. All this finally came to blows when the former Speaker had to reach across the aisle and make a deal that would keep the government running temporarily while a budget deal could be struck that could be passed by both houses of Congress and get signed by the President. Speaker McCarthy paid a heavy price for such an act of patriotism. The extreme minority of his caucus publicly labeled him a traitor, lambasted him for betraying his promises to them and then called for and subsequently ousted him on the basis that McCarthy was unfit to lead the House, let alone his caucus. Such an act brought the House to a complete standstill, preventing any legislative actions from being taken until a new Speaker could be elected. Initially it looked like the Republican caucus would be able to replace the Speaker with relative speed, having identified two candidates: Representative Steve Scalise, and Representative Jim Jordan. In their first internal vote, Representative Scalise looked to be the clear winner with 104 votes to Jim Jordan’s 99 votes. In past sessions, the caucus would have naturally fell in line and supported Representative Scalise, and in true form, this session, the tables moved so quickly that, seeing the writing on the wall, Representative Scalise pulled his name from the nomination before a formal vote could be taken. It is telling that Democrat Representative Hakeem Jeffries, received more votes for Speaker than Representative Jordan did. Again, in past sessions the caucus would have likely then fallen in line and support Representative Jordan, that turned out to be too much to ask as well. Mainline members of the Republican caucus declined to support Representative Jordan on account of their desire to not allow a member of the extreme minority to take a leadership role within the caucus, much less be third in the line of succession. Representative Jordan continues to move forward with his bid to become Speaker despite the lack of support. The Democratic caucus could have easily prevented this situation entirely by voting to preserve Speaker McCarthy. Going so far as to blatantly state that the Republican caucus has no desire to create a coalition government with the Democratic caucus, Representative Jordan has begun a pressure campaign on those of his caucus that refuse to support him. Members of the Republican caucus not supportive of Representative Jordan have reported receiving numerous calls from their constituents encouraging them to support Representative Jordan, and others have reported being threatened with being "primaried" when it comes time for them to get re-elected. The Republican caucus is in chaos, without a leader, the House will be unable to tackle the myriad of tasks set before it, most important of which is the requirement for the House to draft and pass a budget for the current fiscal year. From where I sit, there does not seem to be a desire to lead, only a desire of the more extreme members of the caucus to speak loudly and throw a temper tantrum whenever they don’t get their way. I define leadership as the ability to understand when to lead and when to follow, the ability to understand when a hill should be ceded and when one should stand their ground, when a hill is worth “dying on.” Leadership is the ability to compromise, and the ability to set aside the personal when the needs of the group require it. It is telling that Democrat Representative Hakeem Jeffries, received more votes for speaker than Representative Jordan did. It is telling that the reason the 22 Republican representatives that did not vote for Representative Jordan, did not vote for Representative Jefferies is not because they simply didn’t like either person. Instead, it is purely because Representative Jeffries is aligned with the wrong party. This is not to say that the Democratic caucus is without fault, my focus on the Republican focus is purely due to their current status as the majority party in the House. The Democratic caucus could have easily prevented this situation entirely by voting to preserve Speaker McCarthy. In doing so, the caucus would have signaled to the extreme members of the Republican party that they held solidarity with their mainstream Republican colleagues. Instead, a combination of party politics and distrust led to the Democrats sitting back and watching the Republicans rip themselves asunder. Failing to take account of the fact that their inability to reach across the aisle will contribute to the pending budget crisis just as much, if not more that the Republican infighting. Such is the problem with a two-party political system: loyalty to party quite often supersedes loyalty to country. What we need is to eliminate the two parties, we need to establish candidates who run based on their values, not their party. We need candidates who will vote the way that we, their constituents, want them to vote, not the way their party wants them to vote. If we were to completely remove party affiliation as a factor in many of the policy discussions being had by our elected leadership, I would wager that more would be accomplished and our national, state, and local governments would be much more efficient.

Over the past three decades, our nation has seen an alarming rise in polarization. Rather than seeing ourselves as Americans first, followed by our party affiliations, we’ve increasingly prioritized our political parties over our country. Each party holds its unique vision for the future of the United States, often reluctant to entertain alternative ideas. Regrettably, our elected leaders often find themselves gridlocked in political brinkmanship. Moreover, both parties tend to seek vengeance against each other once they gain power. In the last ten years, this growing polarization has led to the labeling of members from opposing parties as “enemies” rather than colleagues. Both major parties have systematically manipulated our electoral process. This includes traditional gerrymandering, applying pressure on officials responsible for electoral security, and more recently, encouraging the public to question the legitimacy of elections when their party faces defeat. Despite these tactics and manipulations, a remarkable phenomenon has emerged: neither party has garnered a substantial enough majority in either chamber to govern effectively without compromise. Unfortunately, the polarized nature of American politics has resulted in a stalemate in Congress with neither group willing to compromise. This has resulted in the need for the other branches to step in and govern where Congress is unable to: Presidents now resort to governing via executive orders, knowing these orders can be overturned by their successors. This has tarnished our reputation on the global stage, making us appear unreliable at best and easily influenced at worst. The Supreme Court of the United States now finds itself in the position of making legal decisions by interpreting existing laws, often not directly related to the specific cases at hand. Consequently, it has become entangled in the same partisan politics that have eroded public trust and confidence in Congress. The 118th Congress has been presented with a unique opportunity to address the shortcomings of previous sessions. This time, a minority of the Republican caucus’s more extreme members have paralyzed the caucus itself. Their actions have forced concessions and further hindered the processes that the caucus should uphold, given its majority status. It is in this fractured political landscape that I propose a different path. Instead of sitting back and watching the Republican Caucus tear itself apart in an effort to replace a Speaker who was constrained by the extreme minority of his caucus, Democrats should be reaching across the aisle. They should seek to build a coalition against the extremes and elect a Speaker who will genuinely represent all members of Congress.

Picture this: You are a resident of the state of Montana, your state has experienced a massive crisis in the form of major fires that have burned nearly ninety percent of the state and show no signs of stopping. These fires didn’t start in Montana, they have already burned down from Canada and are devastating every state from Oregon to North Dakota. The Federal Government has established FEMA camps in the southern most states in an effort to accommodate the mass migration of millions of Americans fleeing the fires as they devastate their homes. You and your family only barely escaped a firestorm that destroyed your home, and everything you owned leaving you with only the clothes on your back, and you only have the cash in your pocket because major financial institutions have failed and the FDIC has stopped accepting claims in order to stop the rising inflation caused by opportunists that are raising prices to take advantage of the migrant Americans. You have heard rumors about Texas having closed its borders to what they call “smokies”, but you never believed that Americans could turn away other Americans. You have managed to get a ride for you and your family to the closest FEMA camp in the Texas Panhandle and as your ride approaches the Texas state border, you are filled with hope because you know the the end of your horrible ordeal is near. Then your vehicle gets stopped, when the officer approaches the driver’s side window, he announces himself as a Texas Ranger and begins to ask questions about where everyone in the car is headed. You have heard rumors about Texas having closed its borders to what they call “smokies”, but you never believed that Americans could turn away other Americans. As the driver and the Texas Ranger talk, you begin to realize that the rumors were true. Finally, the ranger addresses everyone in your vehicle, “You all have two options, either I arrest you here and now and you all go to prison camps for illegally entering the state of Texas, or you turn this car around and head back the way you came.” As the vehicle turns around, the driver tells you that she can’t believe that Texans have turned their backs on their fellow Americans, labeling “smokies” as inferior to Texans. Accusing the influx of “smokies” for the rising crime in their cities, the inflation gripping their economy and lack of available jobs. This story seems outlandish, there is no possible way that such a thing could occur in our nation. Or could it? There was a time in our nation when a natural phenomenon did, in fact, drive people from their homes. That natural phenomenon occurred during one of the lowest points in our nation’s economic history, the Great Depression. Jobs were scarce and then the Midwest suffered an extreme drought, creating what history refers to as the Dust Bowl. This combination of disaster and economic collapse, resulted in midwestern families losing their homes, their farms, and their livelihoods. Driven from the Midwest, these economic and climate refugees sought hope, and a chance to regain some semblance of dignity in places like California. They were painted as scapegoats for problems bigger than any one group could shoulder. Given the nickname “Okie,” these ordinary Americans, just like you and me, were met with hate and rejection. Looked down on as nothing but riffraff destined to become a plague on local and state economies in California, a Los Angeles Sheriff created the Bum Blockade to prevent the migration of these “Okies” into the state. Instead of helping their fellow Americans, this band of deputized bigots arrested, assaulted, and terrorized them. History has shown us that people on the move, whether they’re “Okies”, “smokies”, or immigrants, are often just looking for a better life. Where our “smokies” are a fictional group of Americans on the run from disaster, hoping for a warm welcome, the Okies are a real group of Americans looking for that very thing only to find nothing but hate, scorn, and violence instead. They were painted as scapegoats for problems bigger than any one group could shoulder. Heard that story before? Yeah, me too. Fast forward to today. We’re knee-deep in a national debate on immigration. There’s a familiar refrain: ‘They’re taking our jobs, they’re causing crime, they’re not one of us.’ But here’s the thing: history has shown us that people on the move, whether they’re “Okies”, “smokies”, or immigrants, are often just looking for a better life. As we grapple with the immigration question today, let’s remember the Okies. And let’s remember that most of us, if we look back far enough, are descended from folks who came here from somewhere else. So, as we roll up our sleeves and dive into this debate, let’s do it with understanding, with empathy, and, most importantly, with a memory that stretches beyond the present. After all, we’re all in this American experiment together. So, grab your crayon box, hit that subscribe button and get ready to color outside the lines as we examine the issue of American Immigration Policy.

In the last installment, we delved into a hypothetical scenario illustrating the challenges faced by immigrants during times of political upheaval. We drew parallels between the fictional narrative and the historical context of the "Okies" during the Great Depression. Now, let's embark on a new journey. Up Front: Throughout its robust history, US Immigration policy has become entwined with intricately woven threads of exclusion, prejudice, and security. From the Chinese exclusion act to the Immigration Act of 1990, the United States has navigated the complicated issue of immigration through trial and error. Imagine this: You are a Chinese immigrant residing in California in the year 1882. Earlier this year, Congress passed a new law known as the "Chinese Exclusion Act," effectively banning any new Chinese labor immigrants. You're relieved that you made it to California before this ban took effect, but you're aware that it may forever alter the course of your life. Your wife and children, whom you left behind while you settled in the United States, may never join you due to the ban. Returning to visit them in China poses a risk – you might not be allowed back into California, where you've found a lucrative job as the owner of a general store in the small mining town of Marysville. Rumors of a second law loom on the horizon: an act imposing a 50-cent tax per person for all immigrants. Even with your well-paying job, you can't afford to reunite your family and cover the hefty $3 tax for your wife and five children. Your general store has been ransacked, and you fear leaving it for extended periods, dreading the possibility of losing your livelihood and ownership due to your ethnicity alone. You wonder how long it will be before your presence alone is insufficient proof of your ownership, and you lose everything, all because of the nation of your birth. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 marked a significant turning point in U.S. immigration policy. Born out of anti-Chinese sentiments, the act aimed to address concerns that Chinese immigrants were driving down wages and taking jobs from American workers. That same year, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1882, which imposed further restrictions. This act made it illegal to immigrate to the United States if an individual was deemed an "idiot," "lunatic," "convict," or likely to become a "public charge." It also established a 50-cent head tax per person. These combined restrictions effectively outlawed Chinese immigration, fostering the perception that all Americans of Asian descent were in the nation illegally. Until the Chinese Exclusion and subsequent general Immigration Acts of 1882, the United States was relatively open to immigration, in fact, many Americans actively encouraged immigration, but xenophobic tendencies began impacting public opinion and shaped federal immigration law in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Chinese immigration ban was extended under the Geary Act of 1892 and was made permanent shortly thereafter. Adding further insult to injury, the Geary act mandated that all Chinese immigrants obtain documentation to prove residency and to carry them at all times or risk arrest and deportation. The National Origins Act of 1924 changed immigration law by establishing the 1890 Census as the baseline to determine how many immigrants from each nation would be allowed to enter the United States. Under the National Origins act, the limit was set at 2% of the total population of each nationality already living in the United States at the time of the census. Unfortunately for Chinese immigrants, the ban remained in effect until China became a member of the allied nations in 1943. The US lifted all immigration bans during WWII, though, the nation kept annual immigration quotas, with the limit for Chinese immigrants set at 105 per year. The national origins policy lasted another 25 years until Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1965. The new policy set a limit of 170,000 immigrants from outside the Western hemisphere, and then only allowing a maximum of 20,000 from each nation. In addition to these numeric limits, the Immigration Act of 1965 limited immigration to those with verifiable need for political asylum as well as skills deemed necessary for national progress. This meant that the skilled workers and those fleeing communism held priority over those unskilled laborers from lesser developed countries like China. Another 25 years passed, and in 1990, Congress passed a new immigration policy from geographic and nationality-based immigration limits, to what was touted as a more flexible worldwide immigration cap system that took established family-based, employment-based, and diversity immigrant visas. In the new policy, Congress also set a limit of 7% per foreign state of the total available visas in each year. As we trace the path of immigration legislation, from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to our current policies, we witness the evolving identity of our nation as a land of opportunity. These threads of exclusion, prejudice, and security concerns have become intricately woven together, shaping our present immigration landscape. Today’s national debate still grapples with these same threads. Therefore, as we revisit our past, it’s crucial to remember that our nation’s strength has always been rooted in embracing diversity and using it as a catalyst for progress. So, stay tuned, subscribe, follow, and share, as we explore our history and continue to color outside the political lines together.

Here at Crayon Box Politics we put all of our efforts into researching difficult, hot button issues and finding the common ground between all sides. We take pride in all the time and research we put into every subject that we tackle. With that being said, there is one thing here that we agree on wholeheartedly and that is when it comes to human and civil rights issues there is no room for compromise and we will not back down from our position on this. Also, with that being said I’m not going to waste my time and energy on giving you facts from hours of research, because this is more so about me and my life. That and we and others have already done so countless times and many have failed to even consider how they view things as being wrong in any way. When our founder tasked me with writing my own “opinion” piece it was challenging to say the least. Why was it so challenging you may ask. Well for one it’s over my life and the life of many people that I care about and for two that would be not only opening up to personal attacks to our founder and myself, but to our families as well. After much thought and even a few debates, I have chosen to go ahead and move forward with this piece. Since everyone here doesn’t know me, let me start off by introducing myself on a first name basis. My name is Avery and I am a 100% disabled Afghanistan Veteran. I spent eight years in the Army before getting out. I have an amazing wife of almost nine years and an almost eleven year old daughter on the spectrum. Carl and I have been good friends for many years and this isn’t our first project we have worked on and won’t be our last either. I know many of you right now are like well that’s all fine and good, what’s the big deal with that? Well let me fill you in on what only my close friends and family know. I’m transgender. I have been for as long as I can remember, even before coming out as a lesbian in college I knew something else was going on, but because I knew no one else like me I had no idea who I really was. I only knew that my brain and body did not match up. When I was asked to think back on my life and pinpoint exactly when I knew I wasn’t like everyone else, including just being a lesbian, I would have to say in early childhood. We all grow up day dreaming of who we are, who we want to be, who we want to marry, what we want to wear, and all of those things are normal for kids, but for me it was different. I didn’t day dream or even dream of boys, dresses, dolls, or even about myself in the body I was born with. You see for as far back as I can remember, my brain always cast me out as being a boy and I was going to grow up and get married to an amazing and beautiful wife. The only problem with all that though was I was a biological girl and girls aren’t supposed to do or think these things. I did what most of us in the community do at first. We push these thoughts and feelings away and try our damnedest to blend in. The only issue with that is I began to truly hate myself and my family for that. I tried so hard to date “the boy next door” and tried to wear those dresses. It got so bad that I ran off to a college hours away from my family and my boyfriend's family. We, of course, broke up and I began to drink heavily. I came out as a lesbian and hated myself a little less, but still did not understand what was going on between my brain and my body. I still saw myself as just different. Then I learned that what I was going through and experiencing was what is called being transgender. We hear about it often now but back then growing up I had never heard of that term before. It took hearing and learning about that term to realize that’s exactly who I was. I was halfway through my enlistment in the military and decided I was going to start transitioning and that’s exactly what I did. I started out going about it all the wrong way and may have caused myself more harm in the long run. What makes me so mad about all of this is if I had known about myself sooner and received gender affirming care sooner I wouldn’t have had a drinking problem in college, I wouldn’t have had to hide myself for so long, I wouldn’t have wanted to end my life, and I wouldn’t have hated myself to the point of wanting to be just that…dead. The main arguments that I keep hearing over and over and over again are about people having regrets and how parents are pushing what they want on their children. I can’t speak for everyone but the ones I have talked to and myself regret very few things when it comes to transitioning. Mainly, it’s the lack of care we are given, the cost of it all, and how little we learned about ourselves growing up. No one wants to teach kids anything for fear of pushing them one way or the other. Here’s a well known fact that’s not a secret…we are born this way. No one can decide to be gay anymore than deciding they are straight. It’s just who you are. Sure you will find someone every once in a while who tries to fit in and go one way or the other, but that also comes back to it being none of your business who someone loves. Trust me when I say no one WANTS to be gay anymore than they WANT to be transgender. If those who argue against the LGBTQIA honestly believe that we want to live our lives hated taunted by hate speech covering all sorts of topics up to and including that we would be better off dead then maybe they should seek the mental help that we already forced to seek out because dealing with you all is traumatic. This brings me to the other argument and I will start by saying that I love my child and will love them unconditionally no matter who they are or who they love. With that being said, my wife and I don’t show PDA in front of her. We never have and probably never will. We want her to decide for herself who she is, but we also teach her to treat everyone equally. We pass as a straight couple. If you walked into me you would think I’m like every other white cisgendered male out there. We still don’t do pda and don’t let anyone else gay or straight do so either. If it's out in public then it becomes a it is what it is type of thing. Do we take her to pride? Yes and will continue to do so. Do we take her to drag shows? Yes, if it is family friendly. When she was born she was surrounded by drag queens and kings. Many of us in the LGBTQ community are so used to being outcasts that we don’t turn anyone away nor do we seek out to hurt anyone. With all of that being said, we have hoped and prayed that our child grows up straight. Why do we wish that? Well I have a couple different reasons. The main reason, I don’t want her to put up with or go through the hell that her mother and I have had to go through in our lives. The other reason is that she is already going through so much being developmentally challenged, that I do not want one more than going against her in her life. She is so innocent and kind and she doesn’t need anyone making her life any more difficult than it already is. Lastly, I want to end this piece by saying to those who are in the LGBTQIA community, you are seen and heard by us here at CBP . We will keep supporting and sticking up for you in any way we can. If you need to talk to anyone send us an email and we will get back to you as soon as we can. If you are struggling and need help please reach out to someone and get the help that you need. NEVER GIVE UP HOPE! The world will change, we just need you around Long enough for you to see those changes. I want to leave my favorite quote here with you. It’s one that has stayed with me since high school and when things get hard I remind myself of it and I hope that maybe it will help you during the times of doubt and feeling like the world is crashing in on you. OUR DEEPEST FEAR By Marianne Williamson Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves,“Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?” Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we're liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

The debt ceiling is the limit the US government can borrow to pay for its operations. The debt ceiling was instituted to make it easier for the Treasury to borrow money to pay for budgeted items, but Congress often overspends, forcing the Treasury to borrow more. The government has been spending well above its means for decades, forcing it to borrow money through the issuance of bonds. Political brinkmanship often comes into play during debt ceiling negotiations, putting the nation's ability to pay its bills at risk. Requiring a balanced budget instead of the debt ceiling could fix the runaway deficit spending that makes up Congress’ budgetary process and return the power of the purse to Congress. A Four-Star Meal You Can't Afford: Imagine this: you have a credit-building credit card. You control how much credit you have based on the amount of money you put into it. Now imagine that you went to a restaurant and ordered an amazing four-star meal. It's time to pay your bill, but your credit-building credit card has a limit that is much lower than the amount you owe. You could add money to the card and increase your credit limit, or you could choose not to pay your bill and risk ruining your reputation. If you don't pay, you'll still have to pay the bill with interest, which means you'll end up paying more than the original bill. Yes, there is a hole in that scenario: if you have the money to add to your card, why not pay your bill with the cash you have instead of borrowing more and putting yourself into further debt? It is a valid argument. For the sake of this discussion, let's accept that paying with your own money is not an option. You can either increase the amount you can borrow, or you don't pay your bill. The Debt Ceiling: America’s Credit limit: The debt ceiling is the limit the United States Government can borrow to pay for the cost of running a nation. The problem is that our government has been spending well above its means for decades. The revenue it brings in from taxes doesn't come close to being able to pay bills. So, in order to cover all the costs, our government borrows money through the issuance of bonds. These bonds are set with specific time frames and are purchased by everyone from everyday Americans to countries all over the world. The government has been borrowing money at such a rate that it frequently hits the limit it can borrow that has been set by Congress, and only Congress can authorize an increase in that limit. The scenario I opened with is similar, albeit oversimplified, to the current situation with the debt ceiling fight that occurs every year or so in Washington, D.C. Depending on who is in charge at the time defines how the debt ceiling gets raised. Sometimes Congress adds money to their credit-building credit card and allows the US to easily pay its bills. Other times, Congress acts against its own best interest and uses the need for a debt ceiling hike as a political tool, holding our nation's ability to pay its bills hostage to exact a political win from the opposing party. What Happens When the US Defaults on Its National Debt? The bill that needs to be paid is the national debt, or money that has already been spent or promised in return for a service. In the scenario, the service is the four-star meal. If the government doesn't raise the borrowing limit, it will not be able to raise more money to pay the bill. In a worst-case scenario, defaulting on the national debt means that the United States will cease to be seen as a trustworthy investment. Interest rates on the national debt will increase, and the nations of the world will seek a more stable economy to invest in. At home, prices will skyrocket, the stock market will crash, businesses will fail, and thousands of Americans will lose their jobs, their retirement, and their homes because of the default. The Debt Ceiling: History and Misconceptions: So why do we have a debt ceiling? Who in their right mind would place a limit on the amount of money the government can borrow, knowing that if the government doesn't borrow, it will be unable to pay its bills? I will start with what the debt ceiling is not: It is not a tool to control and limit spending. Quite the contrary, it was set in place to make it easier for the Treasury to borrow money to pay for the things that have been budgeted for by Congress. The issue here is that Congress tends to not consider the income when they make their budget, forcing the Treasury to borrow money. It is not a partisan issue. Even though Republicans are vocal about not wanting to raise the debt ceiling this time, the party opposing the debt limit is usually determined by who is serving as the President. When a Republican is in the Oval Office, Democrats denounce raising the debt limit, and when a Democrat is in office, well, you get the picture. Hitting the debt ceiling would not be as bad as the media is making it seem. Unfortunately, the reality is that, despite the worst-case scenario I mentioned above, no one really knows entirely what will happen if the debt ceiling is breached. What is known is that paychecks to those on social security and veteran's benefits will be significantly delayed. The cost of borrowing money will significantly increase, meaning that coupled together with the constant overspending by Congress, the deficit will continue to increase. According to an article from Time, the debt ceiling was instituted as a means of giving the US Treasury the ability to borrow money without requiring a constant need to go to Congress for approval every time the Treasury needed to borrow money. It was intended to be a solution to a problem, specifically to allow the United States to quickly respond to the need to fund its involvement in World War I. I could bore you with the details and history, but suffice it to say: the debt ceiling has been raised by Congress as needed in order to ensure funding for governmental operations, except for 1946 when it was decreased following World War II and military costs associated with the war dropped off and the following eight years, during which the federal government ran a surplus for three years in a row. Deficit Spending and Political Brinkmanship: The Root Causes of US Debt Ceiling Crises According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the United States government operated on a balanced budget and successfully managed to have a budget surplus each year from 1997 to 2002. During that time, there was no need to increase the limit. However, the government returned to deficit spending and increased the debt limit to $6.4 billion in June of 2002. The Time article I mentioned earlier found that the federal government has spent roughly $1 trillion more every year from 2002 to present than it was taking in from tax revenue. In 2011, the government neared a point at which it was set to hit the debt ceiling, which had by then reached $14.3 trillion. The fight between a Republican-dominated Congress and a Democrat Executive branch brought the nation to the brink of default by two days. As a result, the United States perfect credit rating was downgraded from AAA to AA+. Today, the debt ceiling is set at $31.4 trillion, and that ceiling is expected to be breached sometime in early June 2023. If this happens, as I have stated above, no one truly knows exactly what will happen. What is known is that the default will likely trigger a full government shutdown. This is different from the partial shutdowns we have experienced in the past, largely because partial shutdowns are the result of Congress not being able to pass a budget. In a partial shutdown, important known budgetary items, like the military, social security, and veterans' benefits, continue to be funded, while items requiring discretionary funding like government contract workers and government employees will lose funding and will not be functional. In a full shutdown, everything gets turned off because there is no funding left for the Treasury to spend. Political Brinkmanship: Playing a Game of Chicken with America’s future: I have worked hard to avoid mentioning the elephant in the Congressional building, but the fact of the matter is that we are on the brink of a default because of political brinkmanship. It is because neither side is truly willing to sit down and talk that our nation is staring into the unknown. In the last two decades, Republicans and Democrats have both increased the partisan divide. Each side exacting revenge on the other as soon as they have the power to do so. If the limit is raised in time, and if our nation continues to become more and more politically polarized, this will happen again, and we will go over the cliff. Political brinkmanship, the need to exact political gains over something that the government truly needs, will destroy this nation from the inside out. This is why Crayon Box Politics exists, this is why Americans need to take more notice of what is going on in our government. If our politicians are not truly held accountable, they will continue to act and vote in their own best interest. They will continue to gamble with the future of our nation just to keep their jobs and gain political, and fiscal, advantage. Balanced Budget Instead of Debt Ceiling: A Call for Fiscal Responsibility in Congress It is my belief that Congress needs to replace the debt ceiling with a requirement for a balanced budget. If the American people can't spend outside their means, then their government should not be allowed to either. This move would likely result in an increase in taxation among many other unknown consequences. However, a balanced budget approach would fix the runaway deficit spending that makes up Congress’ budgetary process. We would go back to the days in which the Treasury department would have to gain Congressional approval each time it needed to borrow money and would truly return the power of the purse to Congress where it belongs. In the end, the only true way to fix the system is to have both parties sit down and negotiate through open, honest, and respectful communication.

Partisan gerrymandering is a problem in American politics, with Republican-controlled states being more effective at increasing their hold on power than Democrats. Court-ordered changes to electoral maps have helped to reduce the bias, but it still exists. Gerrymandering in North Carolina has led to an overrepresentation of Republicans and disenfranchisement of voters. The imbalance in representation in Congress does not correlate with the actual voter population broken down by party affiliation. Gerrymandering poses a threat to American democracy by disenfranchising voters and destroying trust in the electoral system. While both parties have orchestrated gerrymandering efforts, actions taken by Republican-controlled states following the 2010 census have proven to be far more effective at increasing their hold on power than those of the Democrats. According to a report from the Brennan Center for Justice, Republicans derived a net benefit of 16-17 congressional seats in the 26 states that account for 85 percent of the congressional districts between 2012 and 2018. Court-ordered changes to electoral maps drawn in states where districts were drawn under sole Republican control have helped to reduce the bias, though it has not eliminated it. A Case Study of Gerrymandering in North Carolina The North Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled that its previous decision that the partisan gerrymandered map was unconstitutional was a mistake and that they had no standing to place restrictions on how the state's electoral map is drawn. This ruling opens the door for the US Supreme Court to throw out the case currently pending at its level and allows for the North Carolina map to be drawn in a manner that will potentially give Republicans three more seats in the US House of Representatives. The extent to which gerrymandering has become a problem can be seen clearly in how the representation falls out along party lines in the state of North Carolina. As of 2022, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by 5% or 351,210 voters. Contrasting this difference is the fact that in the US House of Representatives, of the 13 seats allocated to the state of North Carolina, 62% or 8 seats belong to Republicans while 38% or 5 seats belong to Democrats. With the new ruling from that state’s supreme court, that number will likely change in 2024, placing 85% or 11 seats in Republican control and the remaining 15% or 2 seats in Democrat control. This overrepresentation of Republicans disenfranchises the voters of the state of North Carolina and leads to a situation in which the true interests of the voters of North Carolina will not be represented. The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering on Representation in Congress This is a fact that exists nationwide thanks to the partisan gerrymandering of electoral maps in nearly every state. According to the website World Population Review, the population of registered voters in the United States is 215,534,588. Of that, approximately 58% or 127,553,192 reside in states that report on numbers of registered voters by party. The other 41% reside in states that do not require voters to report party affiliation when registering to vote. These numbers are important in determining the voter population by party affiliation, unfortunately we cannot account for the 41% of voters whose affiliation is unreported by their states, however, the picture that the 58% of voters whose affiliation is reported demonstrates that nationwide. Republican voters account for 29% of the known population of voters with reported party affiliation, Democrats account for 38% and other affiliations account for 33%. Taking that information and combining it with the party affiliation of Congress: House of Representatives: 51% Republican and 49% Democrat; Senate: 49% Republican, 48% Democrat, and 3% Independent. We can clearly see that the representation in the legislative branch does not correlate with the actual voter population broken down by party. The Threat of Partisan Gerrymandering to American Democracy Now, I understand that the numbers above are not all encompassing and not every American votes based on party affiliation, I am one of those people. However, the imbalance is much higher than it would be if gerrymandering was not present in the American electoral system. Although the Republican party has proven to be far more adept at using it, gerrymandering is a tool both parties have used historically to subvert the American democratic process and ensure a firm grip on power regardless of the actual make-up of the American voting population. It is a tool that poses a very real threat to American democracy by disenfranchising large swaths of American voters and destroying American trust in the electoral system.

To Long Didn't Read Summary: - Efforts to pass laws that make it harder for certain groups to vote are disguised as fraud prevention measures. - Voter ID laws are a widespread effort, with 36 states enforcing some form of voter ID requirement. - Critics argue that voter ID laws may negatively impact minority groups, despite high ownership rates for government-issued IDs among African American and White voters. - Efforts to limit access to early voting and mail-in voting may also disproportionately impact minority groups and low wage-earning voters. - Claims of widespread voter fraud are not supported by the numbers, and any further attempts to restrict voting access will infringe on the fundamental right of American citizens to participate in the democratic process. In recent years, there have been concerns about efforts by some Republicans to pass laws that may make it more difficult for certain groups to cast their vote. These efforts have been framed as a means of preventing voter fraud, but there is little statistical evidence to support this claim. Some argue that these laws may have the unintended effect of suppressing voter turnout, particularly among minority groups. The Controversial Impact of Voter ID Laws on Minority Voter Turnout in US Elections One of the most widespread efforts by Republican law makers centers around voter ID laws. Voter ID laws require voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to cast their ballot, and as of 2021, 36 states have passed and are currently enforcing some form of voter ID requirement for voting. Of these, 17 states have strict laws that require a government-issued ID, 5 have a lenient ID requirement, and 14 have variations of lenient and strict laws with varying degrees of requirements and exceptions. While a 2014 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that ownership rates for government-issued IDs were high among both African American and White voters, critics argue that voter ID laws may still negatively impact minority groups. A 2012 study of voter turnout in Kansas and Tennessee found no significant change in overall turnout, but a 2017 analysis by the Washington Post of voter turnout for elections between 2006 and 2016 found that in states with strict voter ID laws, the turnout gap between white and minority voters ranged from 5.1% to 13.2% during general elections and 11.6% to 18.8% during primaries. The difference in results between the GAO and Washington Post regarding voter turnout is likely attributed to the way both conducted their research. The GAO conducted its analysis of turnout in one state based on comparison with other states during one election cycle. The Washington Post analyzed turnout data covering a span of ten years. This means that although a snapshot in time reveals what appears to be no major impact on voter turnout, a historical analysis demonstrates that there is a very real impact on voter turnout for minority groups in states that have strict voter turnout laws. Efforts to Limit Early Voting Could Disproportionately Impact Minorities and Low-Income Voters in US Elections Over the years, lawmakers have made efforts to ensure that voters have ample opportunity to make their voices heard, including through the introduction of early voting. However, in 2021, following the outcome of the 2020 general elections, fivethirtyeight.com reported that 24 bills were introduced with the intention of limiting access to early voting. States like Florida and Montana passed laws that not only reduced the length of time for early voting but also limited the number of locations where voters could submit their ballots. Similarly, Georgia, Iowa, Texas, and Kansas passed laws that reduced the amount of time available for early voting. As of now, 106 bills have been introduced in 28 states regarding early voting, many of which are still pending action by their respective legislative bodies. Currently there are 46 states with no excuse early voting, which ensures that voters can get to their polling place and cast their vote. Efforts to reduce the window, limit the number of early voting locations, or restrict who can take part in early voting are likely to have an adverse impact on minority and low wage-earning voters. Mail-In Voting Under Siege as Fraud Claims Clash with the Hard Facts in US Elections Mail-in voting, also known as absentee voting, was originally established during the Civil War to allow American troops to participate in elections. Since then, it has expanded to the general population, with the state of Vermont leading the way in 1936. Today, 45 states and the District of Columbia offer some form of voting by mail. Six states have all-mail voting systems, and twenty states do not require an excuse for voters to request a mail-in ballot. California joined this group most recently in 2021. In the 2020 elections, mail-in voting accounted for 45% of all votes cast. However, members of the conservative party launched a campaign to restrict access to mail-in voting, claiming it was more prone to voter fraud. From 2021 to 2023, Republican legislators introduced 552 bills across the country that aimed to limit mail-in voting access, with 45 of those bills being enacted into law. Opponents of expanded mail-in voting argue that it is more vulnerable to voter fraud. However, according to the Heritage Foundation, only six voter fraud cases were prosecuted following the 2020 election cycle, with just two related to mail-in ballots. Given that over 25 million mail-in ballots were returned, these cases of fraud accounted for a mere 0.000007% of total votes cast by mail. While allegations of voter fraud may have some validity, the numbers do not support claims of widespread fraud. Therefore, there is no objective justification for further restricting mail-in voting. Such restrictions would infringe on the right of American voters to cast their ballots and would decrease overall turnout. Data from the 2022 elections shows that any restrictions to mail-in voting would disproportionately affect non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black voters over the age of 41. The Bottom Line Republican voter suppression tactics disguised as fraud prevention are a real threat to US elections and democracy. Voter ID laws, limitations on early voting, and restrictions on mail-in voting all have the potential to disproportionately impact minority groups and limit their ability to participate in elections. Despite claims of preventing voter fraud, there is little evidence to support such claims, and the actual incidence of fraud is minuscule. Any further attempts to restrict voting access will be an infringement on the fundamental right of American citizens to participate in the democratic process. It is imperative that lawmakers take steps to ensure that all citizens have equal and unfettered access to the ballot box.

Summary: Electric cars are the cars of the future. They are better for the environment and can save you money in the long run. The United States relies too much on oil, which is bad for the environment and can be expensive. We need to switch to electric cars to reduce our dependence on oil and help the environment. Electric cars can save you money on gas and maintenance costs. They can be more expensive to buy, but tax credits and other incentives can help make them more affordable. The government should provide more support to help make electric cars cheaper and more accessible to everyone. One of the challenges with electric cars is that they have a limited range and need to be charged more often than gas cars need to be refueled. However, technology is improving, and electric cars are becoming more efficient. Charging infrastructure is also improving, which will make it easier to charge your car on the go. Switching to electric cars can also create jobs and stimulate the economy. The electric car industry is growing, and there are many opportunities for people to work in manufacturing, engineering, and construction. It's important to support the transition to electric cars by choosing to buy electric cars and advocating for policies that promote clean energy. By doing so, we can help reduce our dependence on oil, protect the environment, and create a more sustainable future for ourselves and future generations. Electric vehicles are the future, there I said it. The fact of the matter is that the United States is tied to an energy economy that it has no control over, none. Even given the argument that if we open our national parks, allow for the industrialization of our coastline and destroy the natural features we love across our nation, we will never be able to wrestle the oil-based energy economy away from the OPEC conglomerate. Separating the issue from discussions of climate change, it is crucial that we, as Americans, unite behind the electrification of our automobile industry. Switching to electric will have so many positive effects, from bolstering our economy, to domestic job creation. In 2018, the United States surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest producer of oil. While this is a significant achievement because it signals the US's growing energy independence, it doesn't necessarily translate to dominance in the global market. This is because there is an organization made up of 13 nations, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), that currently produce 44% of the world's oil combined. OPEC's production levels are so high that even with the US holding the title of the largest oil producer, it would be difficult for the US to exceed the level of production coming from the combined OPEC nations. Despite being the world's largest oil producer, the United States still imports more oil than it exports. This is because the US is the world's largest oil consumer, accounting for 20% of global oil consumption and importing approximately half of that, or 9%, from the global oil market. Taking all this information into account, it's clear that the United States will not achieve true energy independence if we are dependent on fossil fuels to power our economy. Beyond achieving energy independence, transitioning to cleaner energy sources like renewable energy and electric vehicles is important for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change. According to the United States Energy Information Agency, the transportation industry, including personal cars, makes up 32% of the total American fossil fuel consumption. The remaining 68% is used for energy production. By reducing our reliance on petroleum-based energy in the transportation sector, we can make significant progress towards reducing our overall energy consumption and achieving greater energy independence. $9,282, that is the average amount that Americans spend on their car every year according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. That total includes gas: $1,968 per year, maintenance: $1,186 per year, insurance premiums: $1,134 per year, and other related expenses to include depreciation: $4,994. Naturally, that total cost will vary depending on where a person lives, however even at the low end of that average: $6,354, the cost is still quite high when viewed from an annual lens. Comparatively, $8,439 is the average amount that an American who owns an electric vehicle will pay per year with the low end coming to roughly $3,673 per year according to the Consumer Federation of America. Again, prices will vary depending on location and type of vehicle. While the initial cost of an electric vehicle is currently higher than that of traditional vehicles, the long-term cost savings can be significant, particularly when factoring in the potential for lower maintenance costs and the availability of tax credits and other incentives. According to Kelley Blue Book, the average cost of a new electric vehicle is right around $55,000. The most expensive is $131,190 and the least expensive is $31,620. Contrarily, the average cost of traditional combustion engine vehicles is $40,000. The high end comes out at $110,850 and the lowest is $14,930. While the upfront cost of electric vehicles may be higher than that of traditional vehicles, tax credits and other incentives can help make them more affordable for some consumers. However, it's important to acknowledge that these incentives may not be enough to make electric vehicles accessible to everyone, particularly those on lower incomes. As such, reducing the cost of electric vehicles and making them more accessible to a wider range of consumers will require a multifaceted approach that includes government policies, private sector investment, and technological advancements. According to the Environment and Energy Study Institute, the United States provided over $20 billion in subsidies to the oil industry per year from 2019 to 2023. That same industry netted $1.3 trillion between 2021 and 2022. Meanwhile, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) reported that the electric vehicle industry has received a mere $13.4 billion for research, development and deployment since 2009 TOTAL. Just by the numbers, more could be done by the federal government to aid in the development and cost reduction of the electric vehicle industry. According to an article by Synapse Energy Economics, eliminating subsidies to the American oil industry could lead to a small spike in fuel prices nationwide. However, this spike could be offset with an increase in funding to renewable energies and electric vehicle research and production. It's difficult to estimate the exact impact of a $20 billion per year subsidy on the price of electric vehicles, as it would depend on various factors such as the current market conditions, the level of competition, and the cost structure of the electric vehicle industry. However, a subsidy of this magnitude could potentially reduce the price of electric vehicles by several thousand dollars per vehicle, making them more affordable for consumers. It's important to note that the reduction in price may not be immediate and could take some time to materialize. Additionally, there may be other ways in which the subsidy could be used to support the electric vehicle industry, such as incentivizing research and development to improve efficiency and reduce production costs. Besides the cost, another main issue impacting the adoption of electric vehicles deals with range. Today the average range of a gas-powered vehicle is between 300-400 miles on one tank of gas while an electric vehicle typically sees a range of approximately 200-300 miles on a charge. On a normal day, the average American drives around 29 miles, at this distance, the ability to recharge at home is a significant benefit over gas powered vehicles. The problem arises when Americans travel beyond their local area, on average, according to the American Automobile Association, Americans travel 568 miles round trip on an average road trip. This means that at some point in the trip it becomes necessary to refuel or recharge depending on the vehicle being driven. The benefit of a gas-powered vehicle is that a refueling stop can take approximately 5 minutes to refuel completely, contrarily, with a high-speed DC fast charger, it can take up to 30 minutes to recharge a car battery to 80%. While a thirty-minute stop can make a long road trip longer, this situation can also prove to be a boon for local economies that have invested in recharging infrastructure. In areas with recharging infrastructure, a thriving tourism industry could spring up, resulting in job creation and a return to local markets centered on taking advantage of the increased charging time for electric vehicles. Embracing electric vehicles could potentially lead to an economic boom on Main Street as well as on Wall Street. According to a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the development of a robust charging infrastructure for electric vehicles could create over 100,000 jobs in the United States by 2030. These jobs would be created in a variety of industries, including construction, manufacturing, and engineering. Furthermore, a study by the Center for American Progress found that investments in electric vehicle infrastructure could stimulate local economies by attracting new businesses and increasing property values. In addition to the potential benefits for local economies, the adoption of electric vehicles could also lead to a surge in investments on Wall Street. According to a report by BloombergNEF, the electric vehicle market is expected to grow to $500 billion by 2040, which could lead to significant investment opportunities for corporations and emerging companies that are involved in the industry. Tesla, for example, has seen a surge in investments in recent years due to its involvement in the electric vehicle industry, with its market capitalization exceeding that of Ford and General Motors combined. Overall, the adoption of electric vehicles could lead to a greater spread of financial investments across the national economic spectrum, with potential benefits for both Main Street and Wall Street. Changing the American dynamic when it comes to travel would be another major barrier that would need to be overcome in order to aid in the mass adoption of electric vehicles. According to a survey conducted by AAA, range anxiety and the need for frequent recharging were cited as two of the main reasons why Americans are hesitant to purchase electric vehicles. Furthermore, a study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that the lack of fast charging infrastructure was a significant barrier to the adoption of electric vehicles in the United States. The "get to where I'm going as soon as possible" mentality is deeply ingrained in American culture, and any extra time added to a trip could result in resistance to electric vehicle adoption. According to a study by the University of California, Davis, the perceived inconvenience of charging and the fear of running out of charge were cited as major concerns for potential electric vehicle owners. Additionally, a survey by Consumer Reports found that around 20% of respondents said they would not consider purchasing an electric vehicle because of concerns about range and charging time. Electric vehicle makers are working to resolve issues centered on range anxiety by developing their vehicles with technology and software that takes account of the range of the vehicle and pre-programs stops to shorten the time period at each location. For example, Tesla's navigation system includes a feature called "trip planner" that calculates the most efficient route based on the vehicle's range and available charging stations, and provides recommendations for where to stop and how long to charge. Other electric vehicle manufacturers, such as Ford and General Motors, are also incorporating similar features into their vehicles to help drivers plan their trips and reduce range anxiety. According to a report by BloombergNEF, the development of these features is helping to reduce range anxiety and increase the appeal of electric vehicles to consumers. The report found that the average range of electric vehicles has increased by 10% in the past year, and that the availability of fast charging infrastructure has also improved. Furthermore, a study by the International Council on Clean Transportation found that the range of electric vehicles is sufficient for the daily driving needs of the majority of Americans, with 87% of all trips being less than 40 miles. Overall, while range anxiety remains a significant barrier to the mass adoption of electric vehicles, the development of technology and software that takes account of the range of the vehicle and pre-programs stops is helping to reduce this issue and increase the appeal of electric vehicles to consumers. Transitioning to electric vehicles in the United States is essential for achieving greater energy independence, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and increasing the use of renewable energy sources. While there are some challenges to the mass adoption of electric vehicles, such as range anxiety and the need for fast charging infrastructure, the potential benefits are significant. Electric vehicles are more energy-efficient than traditional combustion engine vehicles, which can help to reduce energy consumption in the transportation sector. Moreover, the adoption of electric vehicles could lead to a greater spread of financial investments across the national economic spectrum, with potential benefits for both Main Street and Wall Street. As consumers, we have the power to drive demand for electric vehicles and to support policies and initiatives that promote the adoption of clean energy solutions. By choosing electric vehicles and encouraging others to do the same, we can help to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable energy sources. Additionally, we can help to create a more prosperous future for ourselves and future generations. We hope this article has provided valuable insights into the benefits and challenges of transitioning to electric vehicles in the United States, and that it has inspired you to take action towards a more sustainable and prosperous future.

Gun violence in the United States is a highly emotional and divisive issue. In recent years, gun violence has become a major public health crisis in the United States. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were over 40,000 gun-related deaths in the United States in 2019, including homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. These numbers represent a significant increase in gun violence compared to other high-income countries. Regardless of whether you believe in the Second Amendment or support gun control measures, the high number of deaths related to gun violence in the United States calls for action to address the issue. Addressing this issue requires a nuanced and evidence-based approach that considers the perspectives of all stakeholders. When it comes to addressing gun violence in America, the conversation often revolves around one key topic: gun control. In America, unlike other western nations, the right to own guns is enshrined in the Constitution, specifically the second amendment. Opponents to gun control point to the second amendment’s “shall not be infringed” clause as proof that gun ownership is an absolute right and that any attempt to regulate gun ownership is a direct infringement on the second amendment. Proponents to gun control, myself included, look to the “well-regulated militia” clause as evidence that the right to own firearms in the United States is not an absolute right and that any laws governing control of weapon ownership in the United States must be regulatory in nature and designed to ensure a well-regulated militia. To that end, the requirement of such things as background checks and waiting periods for the purchase of a weapon are necessary to ensure that gun owners are demonstrated to be responsible members of the “well-regulated militia” our founding fathers referenced when writing the second amendment of the constitution. The simple argument here is that responsible gun owners make for a responsible militia. Statistically it has been demonstrated that regulatory actions such as universal background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases have significantly impacted rates of gun violence in those states that have implemented them. The Annals of Internal Medicine found that of the eleven states and the District of Columbia that have implemented mandatory wait periods during gun sales, seven are listed in the top ten for lowest gun death rates in the country. Rand Corporation conducted a study in January of 2023 that resulted in findings providing evidence that background checks help in reducing the overall gun related homicide rate. Proponents to banning all or even certain types of guns argue that statistics show a significant decrease in levels of gun violence once access to guns is restricted or cut off completely. Proponents of bans point to the United Kingdom and Australia as perfect models of what happens when nationwide bans are implemented. Both nations have established bans on certain types of guns and have seen decreases in gun related homicides and suicides, notedly one main counter argument is that there is no evidence that the bans are directly related to the decrease. Despite the varying opinions on gun ownership, every American understands that there is a need to address the problem of gun violence in America. A common issue for gun rights proponents to point to is the issue of mental illness. This is primarily because the first thing that news agencies ask following a gun related incident is related to the shooter’s history with one or more mental conditions. The reality is that understanding the role of mental health in all gun-related incidents beyond suicide is difficult. According to a 2021 study by the Rand Corporation, 65% of adults who had experienced a major depressive episode in the past year received treatment for depression in 2018. However, of adults with any mental illness, only 43% received treatment, and of those with serious mental health issues, only 64% received treatment. The point here is that in many cases there is no clinical diagnosis of mental health issues prior to most gun related incidents making connection of gun violence to mental health problematic. Often the only way to identify mental health issues with the shooter is through post incident diagnoses. This means that shooters would be able to legally purchase weapons without flagging on the background check. Despite popular belief, mental health issues are not a major contributing factor to gun violence. In fact, individuals with mental health problems are more likely to be victims of gun violence than perpetrators. The Rand Corporation notes that there are mental conditions that are more prone to gun-related violence. For example, a 2015 study of 951 patients released from a psychiatric facility found that 2% were later implicated in gun violence in which the victim was known to the shooter, while only 1% were implicated in incidents in which the victim was a stranger. However, it is important to note that more context is needed for this study - for example, who conducted it, what kind of psychiatric facility was involved, etc. In another study cited by Rand, it was found that there are some mental health diagnoses that tend to be more prone to committing homicide than those with no diagnosis of mental health disorders. For example, in the study, schizophrenia was identified as having a .3% risk of committing a homicide compared to .2% of those with no diagnosis. However, more analysis is needed to understand why individuals with schizophrenia might be more likely to commit homicide. In the case of mass shootings, Rand Corporation cites another study that found that research into mental health can be separated between those that include non-professional diagnoses and professional diagnoses. In those that include non-professional diagnoses it was found that mental health was a factor in 30-60 percent of the incidents studied, contrarily, in those that included only professional diagnoses the rate was much lower: 13-15 percent. However, more context is needed for this study - for example, who conducted the study, what criteria were used for "non-professional" diagnoses, etc. Given the documented reality that screening for mental health issues prior to purchasing a gun, mental health should not be used as a major factor in the sales of firearms. Nor should we require that everyone get a mental health screening prior to the purchase of a firearm. Utilizing mental health as a major factor in background checks for gun purchases could have negative impacts, specifically the stigmatization of mental health to a point that it results in people resisting or avoiding treatment out of fear of not being able to purchase a gun. Mental health should only be a factor when other risk factors are flagged, these include factors like a history of violent behavior or involuntary admission to a psychiatric facility. A positive outcome of eliminating the voluntary treatment for mental health issues could lead to more individuals being less concerned of potential issues that may be associated with such care. A requirement for mental health screenings would have the same stigma effect that placing an emphasis on mental health in background checks does. Any effort to eliminate actions that discourage voluntary mental healthcare should be avoided. Beyond the stigmatism such an act would have, the logistics of such an effort would require a massive manpower and resource lift that would inevitably create delays in the purchasing process and be viewed as a punishment for crimes, by law-abiding gun owners who are responsible and would likely never be perpetrators in gun related incidents. Finally, compounding the issue of logistics is the question of privacy, requiring mental health screenings would add to the amount of information that is already severely at risk of being used in the event of privacy violations. All in all, gun violence and the associated discussion on gun control is highly nuanced and complex and quite often discussions on the topic end in emotionally fueled and heated debates with no solution being found. Regulatory actions such as background checks and waiting periods have demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing gun violence while not infringing on the second amendment of the American Constitution. Additionally, while mental health is an important factor to consider, it should not be a major factor in background checks for gun purchases due to the potential negative consequences. Moving forward it is important for lawmakers to work together to employ a balanced and well researched approach to developing laws that will effectively utilize an objective viewpoint approach to reducing gun violence while at the same time respecting the rights of every American under the Second Amendment of the American Constitution.