Opinion: We’ve Got a ‘Oui’ Problem

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the Sanford Journal of Public Policy.

The decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement befuddled many experts, precisely because we know the factors that did not inspire the decision. Trump did not pledge to leave the deal because Trump-voting states no longer want to participate. The majority of residents in every state support the Paris deal. Some of Trump’s high-profile advisors and cabinet members came out against the decision, including Gary D. Cohn, Director of the National Economic Council, and Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State. Even Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, opposed the decision to withdraw.

Despite pulling the country out of the Paris Agreement, Trump does not believe America is better off without a seat at “la table” (the French word for table). Trump made it clear he intends to negotiate a new climate agreement that allows America to get more and pay less: The Art of the Deal before our very eyes. Trump has made his (unsubstantiated) billions using this methodology. Buy low, sell high; buy one, get one free. Trump is always looking for a bigger, “better” deal.

Source: Peace Palace Library (2016)

Here’s how Trump’s deal making works: Let’s say I was a billionaire business tycoon (an unrealistic fantasy) with untamed hair (my daily reality). I have something you want, and you have something I want. But you need me more than I need you, so I feign disinterest until finally, in desperation, you come to me with a better offer. Transactional relationships are quite frequently fueled by an uneven power dynamic, and often result in the dominant player coming out ahead. Shoot, I hope I didn’t spoil the ending of Marx’s Capital for you.

But a globalized economic system is a lot more complicated than a two-person transaction. Trump’s constituents are already undermining his refusal to participate in the Paris deal. Individuals, corporations, and municipal and state leaders, including North Carolina’s Governor, Roy Cooper, are pledging their commitment to the Paris Accord. Michael Bloomberg pledged $15 million to the UN’s fight against climate change. $15 million barely scratches the surface of America’s commitment to the Paris Agreement, but indicates, in Bloomberg’s words, that Americans are “forging ahead.”Consumers want to buy green, and companies and governments are responding. Companies are more profitable if they promote and engage in sustainable initiatives. The public has spoken! They want those silly little light bulbs with the curly glass tubes.

Trump’s decision was nothing more than political stubbornness. I have faith in corporate America’s pursuit of profit (is anything more reliable?), and I believe economic incentives will continue to inspire a shift toward renewable energy and sustainability. But if exiting the Paris Agreement leads to a decline in cooperation between America and the rest of the world, then Trump’s “American Exceptionalism” will become “American Isolationism.” If relations with other countries sour, as nearly happened with Mexico, American consumers, particularly low-income Americans, will feel the burden of this artless negotiation.

Annie Krabbenschmidt is a second-year Master of Public Policy candidate interested in social psychology and organizational behavior.

Trump’s “compassionate” budget to endanger millions threatened by famines

In response to widespread criticism of President Trump’s recent budget, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney defended massive cuts to government programs, saying “it’s probably one of the most compassionate things we can do.” Mulvaney was directly defending the choice to eliminate funding for domestic programs like Meals on Wheels and afterschool programs for low-income children. But his ridiculous comment reveals the Trump administration’s general lack of sympathy and support for low-income populations.

The President’s blatant apathy towards the plight of the poor demands our attention both as people in an increasingly globalized world. The reality is that the proposed cuts in the budget, if endorsed by Congress, are likely to have devastating and potentially deadly consequences for vulnerable groups both in this country and around the world.

Continue reading

Demystifying President Trumps Proposed Budget

Source: Washington Post

Quoted in the Washington Post, former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy has referred to President Trump’s budget as “a scorched earth budget that represents an all out assault on clean air, water, and land.” She continued to state that “You can’t put ‘America First’ when you put the health of its people and its country last.”

Earlier this month, President Trump released his Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. As it was speculated, the budget contains drastic cuts to several departments, and eliminates funding for nineteen agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suffers the largest percentage cut at 31%, followed closely by the State Department at 29%.  The State Department cut translates to decreased funding of $10.9 Billion. Cuts to climate change efforts, foreign aid, and cultural exchange programs demonstrate a shift from an international focus to an “America First” perspective.

Continue reading

Countering Violent Extremism at Home: Treating Communities as Partners, Not Targets

A superior strategy for countering of violent extremism demands an overhaul of the Federal Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) approach. The US government can better mitigate extremist violence by supporting local and communal initiatives with financing and resources, de-policing CVE strategy, and divorcing violent extremism from the notion that it’s solely a “Muslim” issue.

President Obama’s Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States argued that “protecting American communities from al-Qa’ida’s hateful ideology is not the work of government alone. Communities—especially Muslim American…are often best positioned to take the lead because they know their communities best”. Current Federal CVE strategy includes (1) enhancing federal engagement with ‘at-risk’ local communities, (2) continuing to build up government and policing expertise for preventing violent extremism, and (3) countering violent extremism propaganda while promoting our own ideals. Continue reading

Consumer Choice in Health Insurance Markets Under the Affordable Care Act

If you’ve never had to shop for health insurance, consider yourself lucky. Between searching for affordable premiums, making sense of co-pays and coinsurance, and finding a plan with your favorite doctor, choosing a good health plan can be a daunting task. As a health policy student, I tried my hand last month at choosing a plan on the North Carolina exchange. Despite being well-versed in insurance concepts, I too struggled to figure out which plan would be best for me among the many options.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been successful in its goals of increasing access to health insurance while preserving choice and competition in health insurance markets. It brought nearly 11 million people into the individual market who previously didn’t have insurance, and it offered them a variety of health insurance options to choose from. Despite achieving such historic milestones, however, it remains to be seen what the future might hold for the ACA. Until then, policymakers must continue working to make the process of buying insurance easier for the average American. Continue reading

Why Planned Parenthood funding is more important than you think

1 in 5 women has visited Planned Parenthood at least once in her life.

1 in 5 women has visited Planned Parenthood at least once in her life.

Donations to Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas tripled after Election Day. Many donors fear that a Trump presidency will strip Planned Parenthood of funding and limit the provision of reproductive health services to women. People are quick to equate Planned Parenthood with abortion, but the conversation should be much broader. Family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood provide affordable services for women that improve a wide-range of maternal health outcomes.

Maternal mortality – defined as the death of a women while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy – is an important indicator of women’s health outcomes in a country. The US is one of the few countries worldwide that experienced an increase in maternal mortality between 2000 and 2015. Because family planning clinics provide prenatal services to women that reduce the risks of pregnancy, they are important combatants of these negative trends. Continue reading