Category: ACE Research

Pros and Cons of Right-to-work Laws
Introduction

Right-to-work laws are a set of regulations at the state level in the United States that allow workers to choose whether or not they want to pay labor dues as a condition of employment if their workplace is unionized. These laws protect workers’ rights from being obligated to pay dues to a labor union they may not wish to be affiliated with.

The Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 allowed states to enact their first right-to-work laws. The Taft-Hartley Act amended the pro-union National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), allowing individual states to adopt right-to-work laws. Currently, 26 states have right-to-work laws prohibiting union enrollment as a necessary condition for employment, with the majority of these laws passed in the 1940s and 50s. Recently, however, Michigan became the first state in over 50 years to abolish its right-to-work statute.

Arguments in favor of Right-to-Work Laws

Advocates for right-to-work laws provide a wide range of reasons for their support, including political freedom and economic advantages. There are three main, broad points in support of the right-to-work movement:
1. Freedom in the workplace
2. Promotion of more effective unions
3. Economic growth and greater job creation
Since RTW laws prohibit employers from making union enrollment mandatory as a condition of employment, proponents argue these laws protect workers’ freedom in the workplace. Advocates argue that these laws allow workers to opt out of unions without fear of job loss or retaliation, especially if they disagree with the union’s political affiliations. An important example is the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case, which was decided in 2018. This case revolved around Mark Janus, a public sector worker obligated to pay dues to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union. He contended that having to pay these fees to a union he did not politically support was a violation of his First Amendment rights. Ultimately, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Janus.

Proponents argue examples like these prove why right-to-work laws are necessary to protect workers’ rights. Many advocate for a federal law enforcing a national right-to-work policy. Recently, Senator Rand Paul reintroduced the National Right-to-Work Act, which would protect all workers’ rights to refrain from joining or paying dues to a union. The proposed law seeks to eliminate the provision allowing employers to terminate employees who refuse to pay union fees. Currently, this law has only been introduced in the Senate.

Proponents argue these laws actually benefit unions. When workers have the choice to join a union or not, unions are encouraged to become more efficient and effective in demonstrating their value to attract members. Advocates claim that increased competition can result in better unions and improved individual well-being. Proponents argue these laws are necessary to prohibit unions from abusing their power and keep unions accountable and effective.

Finally, proponents argue that right-to-work laws promote economic growth. Proponents argue states with right-to-work laws are more attractive for companies by reducing union power and creating a more attractive, business-friendly environment. Creating a business-friendly environment can attract new companies and lead to improved job growth. Proponents argue a better business environment encourages increased population growth, leading to higher employment and labor force participation. Advocates argue that a good example is the manufacturing industry, where right-to-work laws are linked to a 20% increase in employment.

Lastly, advocates argue unions hinder economic growth by limiting job creation and growth. While unions can increase wages for their members, they can also cause employers to face higher labor costs. This could limit the number of workers they can hire, leading to greater unemployment. Advocates of right-to-work laws argue that they limit unions and their power, resulting in a better economic environment for both the employer and employee.

Arguments against right-to-work laws

Critics of right-to-work laws raise three main arguments:
1. Weakens unions
2. Decrease wages and benefits
3. Compromise safety in the workforce
Critics of right-to-work laws claim that these laws diminish unions’ financial strength and bargaining influence, negatively impacting workers. Since right-to-work laws let workers benefit from unions without paying membership, opponents argue this creates an unfair free-riding effect on unions. Opponents also argue that right-to-work laws infringe on the fundamental human right to unionize and collectively bargain. Unions are stronger with more active members; otherwise, their effectiveness is compromised. Unionization rates in the US have been declining since the implementation of RTW laws, and opponents argue declining unions coincide with a 40% rise in inequality, hurting middle-class Americans the most. To combat the declining union rate, politicians like Senator Warren and Representative Sherman are advocating for the PRO Act. This legislation aims to protect the ability of workers to collectively bargain by banning right-to-work laws.

Those who oppose the implementation of RTW laws claim that they result in weakened unions, which in turn leads to reduced wages and benefits for workers. Unions are intended to increase wages and benefits for their workers, resulting in union members earning about 18% more than non-union workers. Right-to-work states, however, have 3.1% lower wages than non-RTW states. Opponents argue that this leads to greater income inequality in the long run. Moreover, weaker unions can create an unjust power imbalance between employers and employees, concentrating more authority in the hands of corporations.

Lastly, they argue RTW laws are also associated with less worker protection in the workplace. Unions are associated with increased bargaining power for workers to obtain higher earnings as well as increasing and improving working conditions. Union worksites are 19% less likely to have an OSHA violation. Furthermore, RTW states have a 54% higher fatality rate in the workforce and have less access to healthcare benefits. Opponents argue with weaker unions, workers have limited avenues for addressing safety concerns and grievances, hurting workers.

The right-to-work debate is a complicated issue that raises important questions about finding the fine line between individual freedom in the workplace and the importance of collective bargaining. Advocates argue these laws protect individual freedom in the workplace, promote effective unions, and bring economic growth. On the other hand, critics argue that right-to-work laws limit and undermine unions, decrease wages and benefits and compromise safety in the workplace. In the end, striking a balance between individual rights and safeguarding the collective rights of workers remains a tough task for policymakers. This serves as a reminder of the intricate nature of economic and global issues.
September 5, 2023
Pros and Cons of Biden’s National Cybersecurity Strategy
Background

Cyber attacks during the Biden-Harris administration pushed cybersecurity to the forefront of domestic policy. In 2021, Colonial Pipeline, a large oil pipeline that transports almost half of all fuel used on the East Coast, suffered a ransomware incident from the hacking group Darkside. After stealing 100 gigabytes of data and threatening to release it, Darkside extorted 75 bitcoins (valued around $5 billion) from Colonial Pipeline. Even up until 2023, the China-sponsored hacking group Volt Typhoon has secretly targeted U.S. critical infrastructure sectors. Strong cybersecurity has become vital, and Biden’s National Cybersecurity Strategy reflects the administration’s attempt to combat increased cyber threats.

Summary of the Strategy

Biden’s National Cybersecurity Strategy consist of five pillars:
1. Defend critical infrastructure
2. Disrupt and dismantle threat actors
3. Shape market forces to drive security and resilience
4. Invest in a resilient future
5. Forge international partnerships to pursue shared goals.
Pillar One is focused on defending U.S. critical infrastructure by increasing the number of cybersecurity regulations in critical sectors, enhancing the sharing of threat intelligence and other cybersecurity information between the public and private sector, and modernizing federal networks. Pillar Two reflects the administration’s goal to disrupt cyber adversaries capabilities and address the numerous ransomware threats the U.S. has faced. Pillar Three, one of the key goals behind the strategy, aims to shift liability for software vulnerabilities to companies by holding them responsible for security flaws and breaches of their consumers’ data. Pillar Three also calls for the possible implementation of a federal cyber insurance backstop, in order to stabilize the market in the case of a cyber incident.

Pillar Four plans to grow and strengthen the U.S. cybersecurity workforce by expanding the number of opportunities and apprenticeships available to prospective workers. It also focuses on investing in research and development in cybersecurity and on protecting the cloud-based technologies that companies are becoming increasingly reliant on. Pillar Five intends to strengthen partnerships with U.S. allies to deter cyber threats as well as secure global supply chains.

Arguments in Favor of and in Opposition to the Strategy

Biden’s National Cybersecurity Strategy has sparked a discussion between those in favor and in opposition to the strategy, and about what effective cybersecurity and cyber defense should look like. Proponents of the strategy claim that it increases company responsibility, which is necessary. The unregulated cyber market that has existed thus far has led to the development of numerous products that are not sufficiently prepared for cyber attacks. Because the strategy included that software companies can be held liable, this strategy will push them to put in more effort to protect their data. This will, in turn, reduce the risk of cybersecurity incidents. Opponents of the strategy, however, point to aspects of the policy like the possible cyber insurance backstop, which they deem complex to provide. A cyber insurance backstop would mean that if a cyber insurance company was not able to cover a major cyber issue, the government would provide funds. The problem they see with this is that it’s difficult to price cyber risk, and increased funding means higher taxes.

Those who agree with the bill also support that it focuses on the main actors of cyber attacks and espionage. This strategy calls out authoritarian states that use cyberattacks against the U.S. like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China.The general concern around China’s cyber espionage and use of cyber weapons has made this point especially popular. However, some desenters believe that the strategy’s general focus on cyber defense is insufficient and that offense is the best defense. They argue that the U.S. should also focus on increasing its use of offensive cyber operations to reduce adversaries’ abilities. They think that the U.S. should publicize its cyber capabilities and willingness to use them to discourage state actors from attacking.

Moreover, proponents of the strategy support that it prioritizes collaboration of the government with the private sector and other countries. This strategy recognizes that the government cannot unilaterally solve this problem. Therefore, it needs support from the private sector and other countries. The strategy also encourages collaboration with U.S. allies that promotes cybersecurity cooperation in those regions. However, opponents of the strategy believe that many parts of it will be not feasible to implement. Though cybersecurity is a relatively nonpartisan issue, some policy sections will be tricky to push through, such as shifting liability to software vendors. Such a regulation could only be done through congressional legislation, and it’s difficult to say whether that will happen or not. It doesn’t help that “software is still not a tangible product under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in the US,” which means it is difficult to assign liability.

Conclusion

After being released only a few months ago, Biden’s National Cybersecurity Strategy has already started to shape the administration’s response to cyber threats. Recently, the administration submitted a request to increase the budget of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to $3.1 billion (by 22%) to implement this strategy, among other initiatives. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has issued a new cybersecurity amendment to the security programs of certain airports/aircraft operators in an effort to improve their cybersecurity resilience. The strategy will undoubtedly influence the way the United States tackles cyber threats for years to come.
September 1, 2023
Food Security and Local Food Production

Background

Generally, local food production refers to systems in which food is produced, distributed, and consumed within the same area. However, there is debate within the local food movement about this definition. For example, some call for local food systems to expand distribution—to sell food outside of the boundaries of the local community—while others fear that this kind of expansion would dilute local food’s impact. The looseness of the term local food production is perhaps indicative of its relatively new growth in the American food system.

Historically, local food (at least in the way that it is generally defined today) was not a major factor in American food production. Even today, it makes up a very small portion of total U.S. agriculture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that in 2012, local food sales produced $6.1 billion, or about 1.5% of total U.S. agricultural production. This is an increase from 2008, where the USDA estimated that these sales accounted for $4.8 billion. However, the U.S. food system remains focused on globally integrated food production, where the places in which food is grown and processed and the places where it is eaten can be thousands of miles apart.

There are efforts to use local food production to address issues of food insecurity, which remains a significant issue in the U.S. The USDA reported that 10.5% of households in the United States were affected by food insecurity in 2020. The use of local food production as a means of addressing food insecurity has been contextualized differently in different national contexts. In Cuba, for example, it has been utilized as a means of bolstering the nation’s domestic food supply, particularly during times of crisis. In the context of the U.S., the focus of local food production appears to lie less on increasing the quantity of the food supply than it does on shifting the way in which the food supply is produced in order to improve food access and food system resiliency.

USDA Estimates of Local Food Sales 2008-2012, Congressional Research Service

Food Accessibility

Proponents of local food production argue that it can improve access to food. One of the main arguments is that local food production, by siting food within communities, can make healthy food more accessible to those communities. In neighborhoods where healthy food vendors are scarce, residents may need to travel outside of their neighborhood to reach healthy food; local food production is intended to bring healthy food closer to people.

Another main argument made by supporters of local food production is that it can encourage the formation of political practices, within communities, that enable people to have greater agency in their food system, and make decisions about food distribution more equitably. Access-based local food production efforts can be seen through governmental policies in the form of USDA funds that are designed to support farmers markets and urban gardens. On the nongovernmental side, there are efforts to create local food systems that link consumers, producers, processors, and distributors with institutions to support the community through local food production and food-based businesses.

There are also efforts to form local food retail sites such as farmers markets. The evidence surrounding each of these elements of accessibility is conflicting. There is some evidence that local food production can have some impact on the diets of communities. For instance, there is research suggesting that proximity to farmers markets improves diet and exercise. Additionally, there is research showing that, in general, convenient access to healthy food causes incidences of overweight and obesity to decrease, and diets to improve. As farmers markets are designed to bring food (especially produce) from local farmers directly to consumers in a community, it has been argued that farmers markets can fulfill this role of providing convenient food access. However, it has also been argued that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that increasing access to local food improves either diets or food security.

A study of 24 farmers markets in Los Angeles found that the amount of fresh produce offered in farmers markets differs based on the racial and economic composition of the communities in which they operate, which raises issues about equity. In addition, local food is often as, or more expensive than, non-local food, which casts doubt on its potential to improve access through affordability.

At the same time, there is evidence showing that expanding local food production increases employment, among a number of other positive economic outcomes. For example, a study from Iowa State University found that re-localizing the production of staple food items (such as chicken or eggs) would add 50-75 jobs in Southeast Iowa.

Evidence of local food systems fostering more equitable food distribution and increased community agency is similarly conflicting. Research suggests that while local food production can increase equity and agency, it does not always do so, and some have argued that localized food systems may actually produce issues of inclusion. However, others argue that this criticism of local food systems makes generalizations that are too broad, and call for more research on different local food initiatives.

Food Resiliency

Advocates for expanding local food production allege that it can improve food security by strengthening the resiliency of the American food system. One of the main arguments is that expansion of local food production makes production sites more geographically dispersed, and introduces diversity in production and distribution, making the system less vulnerable to shocks. It is also argued that it shortens supply chains, thereby saving on energy costs and protecting the environment.

The USDA has invested some money into the resiliency aspect of local food production, including loans specifically intended to encourage private investment into local food processing. Additionally, in an endeavor that combines both the private and governmental sectors, there is a partnership between the Southeast regional supermarket chain Lowes Foods and the Center for Environmental Farming Systems that used U.S. government funding to engage in a partnership to increase the amount of local food available at Lowes Foods.

There is some debate about whether local food systems improve food system resiliency. While local food systems shorten supply chains, because they are generally meant to keep the distribution of food within a certain area, the claim that they reduce energy costs has been challenged. For example, some research suggests that the local deliveries made by trucks performing regional food distribution are relatively less efficient than the large-scale transportation used in the mainstream food system. Some have also argued that local food production may not be the most efficient use of agricultural resources, arguing that non-local producers make better use of them.

Additionally, an article from the American Enterprise Institute argues that, though local food production has its uses, a food system that makes use of international food trade is less vulnerable to disruption than a purely local one, because the shocks to global food systems that are the most important are weather-based issues affecting yields, and usually impact individual countries more severely than they do the world system as a whole.

There is evidence supporting the use of local food production as a means of strengthening food security, and actions are being taken within the federal government, as well as outside of it, to expand it. However, an existing body of contradictory research suggests a potential need for further research on this topic, if local food production’s potential to impact food security is to be fully understood.

August 31, 2023
Pros and Cons of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a federal law that regulates the collection, distribution, and use of consumer credit information. The FCRA defines the rights and obligations related to consumer reporting data, aiming to create a dependable and precise exchange of information that benefits lenders, landlords, and employers. It achieves this by setting up privacy and transparency standards for consumer credit information. Businesses that follow the FCRA are largely immune from privacy and defamation lawsuits. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) are responsible for enforcing the FCRA, among organizations, and non compliance can lead to legal consequences.

In 1899, businessmen established the first major credit reporting agency (CRA), Retail Credit Co.. The bureau expanded and sold reports to insurers and employers, which created controversy when businesses denied services based on credit information. By the 1960s, credit agencies operated independently. There was significant corruption including incomplete and fabricated information on consumer credit reports to meet internal quota. The CRAs provided personal and inaccurate information to unauthorized entities.

Passed in 1970, the FCRA was primarily designed to target three major CRAs: Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. These agencies have data on more than 200 million Americans with a study finding that 40 million consumers had errors on their reports. Credit information is valuable and used extensively in credit card applications, loans, employment, child support, and government licenses. By protecting and accurately maintaining consumer credit information, consumers will not be wrongfully serviced.

The Pros of FCRA: Accessibility, Dispute Resolutions, and Usability Disclosures

The FCRA grants consumers numerous rights regarding their credit information with an emphasis on transparency and accuracy. The goal is to facilitate a reliable and functioning credit reporting system. The main elements of the legislation include:
1. Consumers have the right to access their credit report at any time and review it to verify its accuracy. With this accessibility, consumers can monitor their payments, detect fraudulent activity, and gain financial awareness.
2. Consumers can to dispute and resolve inaccuracies. Responsible CRAs can request an investigation to resolve the issue. CRAs must delete or correct inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information within 30 days. Consumers can initiate troubleshooting, which allows them to have more control over their information. Furthermore, the consumer may seek damages from violators. If a CRA, report user, or data provider breaches the FCRA, it could lead to a potential lawsuit in court.
3. Consumer credit information is private and protected. Sharing of credit reports is permissible under limited circumstances such as employment screening. Even then, written consent is mandatory to allow third-party viewership. Consumer notification and sign off limit fraudulent and suspicious activity.
4. Consumers are entitled to adverse action notifications. Entities must notify consumers when their credit reports influence negative decisions. For example, if a credit report causes an employment denial, consumers have the right to know the reasoning. This notification helps consumers to better understand the issue and take appropriate action to address it. This also ensures that companies do not discriminate and must provide a legitimate reason.
The Cons of FCRA: Limited Accountability, Inadequate Customer Solutions, and Burdening Small Businesses

Despite the benefits of the FCRA, concerns have been raised. First, data furnishers have limited accountability. CRAs are supervised, but furnishers have less government oversight. By regulating the furnishers, the root of the problem (data suppliers) can be addressed by ensuring accurate data was provided.

Second, some believe the consumer solutions are inadequate. The process to correct inaccuracies can be time consuming and identifying mistakes can be difficult without sufficient knowledge and resources. Another concern is the lack of enforcement by the FTC. In the past 40 years, the FTC has taken 87 enforcement actions. For comparison, customers initiated 4,531 lawsuits in 2018. Because the primary target of the FCRA and the FTC are credit agencies, furnisher organizations are not well supervised. Therefore, there is a lack of action and consumer ability to achieve personal justice is limited.

A final concern of the FCRA is that it potentially burdens small businesses. Guidelines like adverse action notice or investigations can be time consuming and costly for small businesses. Additionally, because the FCRA is lengthy and extensive, small businesses could have unintentional violations and they don’t have the same resources to ensure compliance and work through claims as large corporations.

The FCRA will continue to develop and reform proposals include:
- Easier processes for corrections and consumer appeals
- Reducing the amount of time adverse credit information can remain on the consumer credit report
August 30, 2023
Understanding the ACA in Chronic Care Debate
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the Affordable Care Act or “ACA” for short, is a healthcare reform law that was unveiled in March 2010. The primary objective of the ACA is to increase access to health insurance for a larger number of U.S. citizens. Because of this, the ACA mandates that every U.S. citizen and legal resident must have health insurance. To achieve its goal, the government is planning to expand the Medicaid program, which is the primary program for healthcare coverage serving people of lower income, to expand coverage for all adults whose income falls below 138% of the federal poverty level.

Chronic diseases, which are ongoing health conditions that have lasted at least one year, are consistently affecting growing numbers of America, and are the leading causes of death in the United States. About 45% of Americans suffer from at least one chronic illness. Thus, chronic care is currently one of the biggest costs in healthcare, which claims 90% of the $4.1 trillion of the healthcare budget for people with chronic and mental conditions. People 50 years old and older with at least one chronic disease are projected to increase by 99.5% from 2020 to 2050, totaling at 142.66 million by 2050, which might affect health insurance and health funding as a whole. People with chronic diseases need long-term care, treatment, and resources, which means that the costs of healthcare are large to begin with. Because it is predicted that people with chronic conditions will rise in the following years, it is also predicted that the costs of healthcare will continue to rise as a response. These high costs could either make health funds raise their prices or place a greater financial burden on people with chronic diseases. This is where the ACA comes into play. The ACA’s goal of expanding health insurance access for all Americans raises the question of how it would impact individuals with chronic diseases.

Advocates champion the ACA for three reasons:
1. Affordable healthcare is considered a right. One of the primary arguments put forth by ACA advocates is the belief that affordable healthcare is not merely a privilege but a fundamental right that should be accessible to all individuals. This ethical standpoint aligns with the principles of social justice, as it emphasizes the importance of ensuring healthcare access for everyone. By aiming to provide more access to health insurance and healthcare for all, the ACA plays an important role of promoting justice within health, which includes a fair distribution of healthcare resources to ensure that society flourishes as a whole. Consequently, this understanding implies that individuals with chronic diseases and illnesses should receive enhanced insurance benefits to adequately address their healthcare needs and facilitate proper care and treatment.
1. The ACA helps with preventative measures for individual conditions. It provides free preventative measures, contributing to better health outcomes and cost savings in the long run. For example, it offers a range of vaccines to both children and adults, a considerable number of screenings, including several types of cancer and chronic conditions, and behavioral screening. This ensures that individuals are able to receive immunizations and screenings which are crucial in preventing the spread of diseases and safeguarding public health. Furthermore, the ACA addresses the financial challenges associated with chronic disease management. Under the ACA, insurance plans are required to cover a wide range of prescription medication for chronic conditions, services related to chronic disease management (check-ups, consultations with healthcare providers, and therapy), and a reduction in hospitalization costs. By requiring insurance plans to cover health benefits, the ACA helps individuals with chronic conditions manage their conditions and prevent complications or exacerbations.
1. The ACA helped lower the costs of healthcare. The Patient’s Bill of Rights, which is an interim final regulation announced about six months after the Affordable Care Act, ensures that some financial barriers towards getting healthcare will be removed. A study found that 64% of the sample was satisfied with the impact of the Patient’s Bill of Rights. Supporters of the ACA believe that this Bill of Right has helped a lot of people (children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities) by protecting patients’ coverage for pre-existing conditions, protecting the choice for doctors, and ending lifetime limits on the care that a patient may receive.
Those opposing the ACA are against this for three reasons:
1. Critics of the ACA believe that mandating nation-wide coverage might not be feasible from both an organization and financial standpoint. There are multiple challenges to universal healthcare, including a heavier burden on insurance companies for providing funds for the previously uninsured or the government to provide lower costs for healthcare and physical and technological changes in the healthcare system. With chronic diseases, a growth in the demand for healthcare is inevitable, which means that as more people get insured, healthcare workers will receive more burden in their line of work as the demand for healthcare continues to grow. Moreover, the cost of healthcare will continue to increase and that burden will fall onto taxpayers. Opponents of this plan believe that it might not be the most efficient in terms of manpower and financial burdens.
1. Trust among American citizens and the government is low, leading to skepticism and disbelief in the ACA’s effectiveness. Critics of the ACA believe that the government should have minimal involvement in healthcare. The opposition’s reasoning for this is the belief that the government is doing too little to address the issues of concern for several groups, including middle-income people, retirees, rural residents, and suburbanites. Middle-income people are especially burdened because the inflation of costs associated with health insurances are increasing faster than their income. Retirees are also burdened by the rapid inflation of healthcare costs. Due to not actively earning income, they are worried that the ACA might lead to cuts in their Medicare benefits or increased costs for supplemental coverage, adding to their financial insecurity.
1. People opposing the ACA argue that healthcare should be based on personal financial responsibility. The argument is that individuals who have not made sufficient efforts to finance their own healthcare should not receive the same level of support as those who have made greater financial contributions. People against the ACA think that some individuals may not be deserving of healthcare benefits if they have not demonstrated adequate effort or responsibility in managing their own healthcare expenses. However, oppositions do make exceptions for individuals with disabilities or pre-existing conditions. They recognize that certain people face circumstances beyond their control that may prevent them from independently financing their healthcare needs, which leads to the acknowledgment that these people need social support and safety nets to ensure that they have access to the necessary healthcare services.
August 28, 2023
Understanding the TikTok Personal Device Ban Debate
The TikTok ban debate revolves around the popular video-sharing application’s owner ByteDance. While TikTok gained popularity among U.S. users, the government banned the application on federal devices, as well as government-issued devices in some states, and a nationwide TikTok ban for non-government users is potentially imminent.

What is TikTok?

TikTok is a social media platform where users can create and share short videos featuring lip-syncing, acting, or comedy sketches. TikTok has become one of the most downloaded apps worldwide with a significant user base among U.S. teenagers, particularly girls. Its unique algorithm suggests personalized content on the “For You” page tailoring the user experience to individual preferences and subcultures.

U.S. federal and state governments targeted the application because it is owned by the Chinese corporation ByteDance. This ownership raises concerns about the Chinese government potentially accessing U.S. users’ data stored within its borders. Responding to these concerns, TikTok declared that they have long stored the U.S. users’ data in its center in Virginia and its backup storage in Singapore.

Overview of the attempts to ban TikTok in the U.S.

At the federal level, the campaign to ban the application gained momentum in 2020 when the Trump Administration issued an executive order prohibiting American app stores from listing TikTok. The implication of the order is a nation-wide ban of the applications on personal devices. Simultaneously, the Trump Administration ordered ByteDance to divest its U.S. operations and user data to American-owned entities . However, the enforcement of the 2020 Order came to an end after a court decision, which found a lack of statutory authority for the President to enforce the order.

The Biden Administration, in addition to proceeding with the execution of the Divestment Order from the previous administration, issued another order in 2022 to remove TikTok from the executive agencies’ IT systems and devices.

At the state level, efforts to ban TikTok continued. More than half of the U.S. states banned TikTok on government-issued devices. In May 2023, Montana became the first state to pass legislation prohibiting app stores from making TikTok available to users residing in the state. Despite facing lawsuits, Montana’s action sets a precedent for other states, including Texas, and the federal government to enact similar legislation. Consequently, a nationwide ban of TikTok on personal devices appears to be increasingly imminent.

Key topics in the TikTok bans debate
1. National Security v. First Amendment
Proponents of the TikTok bans argue that TikTok’s data collection practices can expose classified government information and public officials’ personal data to the Chinese government that leaves individuals vulnerable to “blackmail or espionage.” They are concerned that the Chinese government could identify and exploit U.S. government employees. Further, those in favor of TikTok bans argue that the Chinese government could use TikTok’s user data to shape public opinion by moderating U.S. politics-related content on the platform, like their actions to block content related to the Hong Kong protests.

However, critics say that there is insufficient concrete evidence regarding threats to national security. Therefore, passing legislation banning TikTok is unconstitutional, similar to how a federal district court struck down the Trump Administration’s WeChat ban. They point out that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and expression, which applies to both platforms of speech, like TikTok, and their users.

Like other U.S. platforms of speech, the First Amendment protects TikTok as a “separately incorporated organization within the U.S. from being a specific target for restrictions. Banning the platform without showing greater governmental interests would likely fail the intermediate scrutiny test, making the restriction unconstitutional.

For users, critics contend the personal device ban would violate the First Amendment as it limits individuals’ right to receive information and ideas from abroad. Furthermore, the ban would hinder user’s freedom to explore professional opportunities, as highlighted by content creators in their lawsuit against the 2020 Order. Addressing the Montana legislation, which imposes a TikTok ban on personal devices, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticizes that the ban has “trampled on the free speech of hundreds of thousands of Montanans who use the app to express themselves, gather information, and run their small business.”
1. Privacy of users in the U.S.
Additionally, the TikTok ban on personal devices concerns users’ privacy in the U.S. While TikTok collects a significant amount of user data—comparable to other social media platforms—the key difference is that TikTok’s data may travel to China. China has cyber laws (such as China’s Cybersecurity Law 2017), which provide the Chinese government with access to data held by businesses within the country. Fueling these concerns, investigations suggest that the storage of U.S. user data may be within China’s geographic limits. As a result, the government and several schools and universities in the U.S. ban the application to protect the privacy of their students.

Nonetheless, critics of TikTok bans argue there may be better alternatives to banning to protect the privacy of U.S. users. Legal scholars have contested outright bans of privacy-invasive technologies since the legislation “may quickly become irrelevant with the advent of a newer technology not covered by the law.” (See e.g., this law review article at 396).

Conclusion

Moving forward, critics of the ban suggest implementing comprehensive data privacy legislation that applies to not only TikTok but all social media platforms. The legislation should regulate data brokering practices, limit cross-border data transfers, and protect data of U.S. users when exported overseas.
August 25, 2023
Understanding the School Voucher Debate

One component of the school choice movement is the implementation of school vouchers, which allow for the use of education tax dollars for tuition at private schools. Policies including K-12 tuition tax credits and educational savings accounts (ESAs) are examples of school vouchers. School voucher programs have varied across states, and several states have added, expanded, or introduced voucher policies this year.

What are school vouchers for and why are they in use?

School vouchers intend to provide families and students with more flexibility in educational content and method, and to expand access to private schools. Approximately one in ten American students attend private schools and proponents of vouchers argue that they expand access to potentially better private schools. According to the Goldwater Institute, private schools have always been an option for wealthy families. On the other hand, private education is only attainable for economically disadvantaged communities with access to vouchers.

Other arguments in favor of school vouchers focus on the unique educational content available at various private schools. Some supporters of school vouchers argue that school choice allows families a say in the values taught to their children. Although public schools must teach a curriculum set by a district, private schools may diverge from others in their educational ideologies. Some students require special educational accommodations that only exist at private schools, which is an argument emphasized by Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt this year.

Those favoring school vouchers further argue that school vouchers save governments money. Martin Lueken, a Director at the school-choice-supporting nonprofit EdChoice, contends that a voucher for a single student would cost less than the average cost per pupil taught in a public school. He adds that funding for public schools is often a formula of the local population, not the school population, and therefore vouchers would increase funding per pupil at public schools.

Why do some oppose school vouchers?

Opponents of school vouchers assert that school vouchers divert money and attention away from public schools that may already be underfunded or undervalued. Depending on the policy, the funding for school vouchers is sourced from state budgets already stretched to maintain public education. In Florida, as much as 10% of state funding has been reallocated from public schools to voucher programs.

Furthermore, those against school vouchers argue that the programs may not lead to academic improvement and do not reach those most in need. Some studies of universal voucher programs have shown evidence of learning loss following the switch to private schooling. Other studies have indicated that the precise cause of this educational slowdown is ambiguous; potential causes include a lack of oversight in private schools or simply the pressure of transferring. Regarding a voucher program’s reach, studies in Arizona indicate that more than three-quarters of voucher applicants were not enrolled in public schools at the time of their application. This means that the vouchers were used to subsidize private schooling for families already able to budget for the entire cost of private tuition.

Finally, opponents of school vouchers take issue with the religious affiliation of many private schools which accept vouchers. Private schools, unlike public schools, are not required to admit all students and may refuse to provide admission at their discretion. Historically, some voucher programs originated as a reaction to desegregation in public schools; some states, at that time, permitted private schools to deny students based on race. Opponents are also concerned that voucher programs violate the separation of church and state, as vouchers may end up providing public funding to private schools with religious affiliations.

Finally, private schools often are not subject to the same educational standards or oversight as public schools. Because of this, the quality and content of education can vary widely. Some opponents feel that it is not appropriate for state funds intended for educational institutions with state oversight to be allocated to private schools instead. They believe that part of the contact between taxpayers and government involves oversight and responsibility for use of tax dollars.

The debate around school vouchers has intensified recently in response to controversial public school policies, including the teaching of Critical Race Theory and school closures during the pandemic. State legislatures are increasingly introducing school voucher programs to debate. Ten state legislatures have introduced universal school voucher bills, and at least five states have already implemented a universal program in some capacity. Federally, the Educational Choice for Children Act was introduced in the Senate and the House in 2022 and includes a $10 billion school voucher program.

Conclusion

Many arguments around school vouchers hinge on whether to prioritize the concerns of parents or public schools. Research continues to evaluate academic performance and opportunities following the implementation of school voucher programs.

August 24, 2023
Introduction to NATO Peacekeeping in Kosovo
Kosovo is a highly contested area between Serbians and Albanians,who both view Kosovo as ancestral land. Control of Kosovo passed between the Ottoman Empire, Serbia, and Yugoslavia throughout the 1800’s to 1900’s, and Kosovo declared formal independence from Serbia in February of 2008.

Key Dates
- 1946: Kosovo is absorbed into Yugoslavia.
- 1974: Kosovo is given autonomous status within Yugoslavia.
- 1990: Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic removes autonomous status, putting Kosovo under Serbian rule. Protests begin.
- 1996: Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) increases attacks, followed by a crackdown by the Serbian government.
- 1999: NATO begins aerial attacks on Serbian targets, Yugoslav and Serbian forces begin a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. Eventually a peace agreement is signed and a UN administration takes over.
- 2008: Kosovo declares independence.
Crisis and Ethnic Conflict

Ethnic conflict in Kosovo largely stems from historic systemic grievances between ethnic Serbs and Albanians. Authoritarian leadership, especially under the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary capitalized on tensions between the two groups, often favoring one above the other for political reasons. Furthermore, both Kosovar Serbian and Albanian political factions perceived the situation in Kosovo as an irredentist conflict. This implies that both groups assert their right to unite Kosovo with other territories inhabited by their respective ethnic majorities, such as Serbia or a ‘Greater Albania‘. In such cases, diplomatic solutions are difficult to achieve.

The state of the conflict in Yugoslavia in 1998 concerned leadership in NATO, the UN, and the international community. As Yugoslavia broke apart, the budding nation-states often disputed territory and rights as ethnic groups struggled to determine the shape of the new governments. Conflict in Kosovo further destabilized the Balkans during the late 1990’s. Despite an established cease-fire, ongoing violence prompted NATO leadership to opt for military intervention. Prior to the intervention, indicators of ethnic cleansing included actions like widespread displacements and confiscation of identification and property documents. By the time peace terms were reached, numerous governments and organizations estimated the death toll to be in the thousands.

NATO Intervention

Before NATO’s intervention, numerous efforts were made by the international community to negotiate and establish cease-fires. In January 1999, six nations (France, Italy, Germany, Russia, UK, and US) convened for international mediation in the conflict. However, their attempts to secure an agreement between Kosovar Serbs and Albanians proved unsuccessful. Concurrently, NATO had issued a warning to the parties that the organization was prepared to carry out air strikes if the violence persisted.

In March 1999, NATO initiated air strikes as part of Operation Allied Force. These strikes were carried out without a UN resolution, sparking debates about the operation’s legitimacy. The air strikes primarily targeted Serbian military strategic targets such as weapons, communication and supply lines, as well as oil sources. During this period, significant humanitarian aid was provided to the refugees alongside these efforts. President Milosevic eventually opted for peace negotiations in early June 1999 upon recognizing the campaign’s failure. Despite his regime’s focus on asserting Serbian dominance, the incurred losses were substantial. Since then, NATO peacekeeping troops have continued their presence. However, tensions escalated in 2023 due to Serbian protests against elected ethnic Albanians in local government, leading to clashes between demonstrators and NATO peacekeeping forces.

US Interests and Reaction

The United States is a strong ally of Kosovo, having supported the NATO intervention in 1999. The recent rise in tensions has raised concerns among the majority of Congress about potential instability in the heart of Europe. Additionally, the US made substantial investments in providing aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo.

While the US aims to support Kosovo and maintain its role as a mediator alongside Russia, recent use of force is viewed unfavorably by policymakers as it intensified tensions. Decisionmakers are likely concerned about the potential for a second front of destabilization in Europe, especially with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

International Reactions

In 1999, public opinion in Europe regarding the airstrikes was varied. While many countries saw the Balkan conflict as a threat to European security and favored some form of action, there were differing stances. For instance, France withheld support due to the absence of a UN mandate. Meanwhile, neighboring nations like Greece, while not endorsing military intervention, provided medical assistance and peacekeeping troops to NATO, believing that military force wouldn’t resolve the dispute.

Countries in the region, such as Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Albania, often responded based on their strongest domestic ethnic affiliations. Even if they didn’t have the political will to participate in the airstrikes, neighboring states still assisted through humanitarian aid, accepting refugees, granting NATO airspace access, or supporting diplomatic resolutions. Russia strongly criticized the NATO air strikes, and public opinion largely favored Serbia, given their deep historical, cultural, and political connections. Moscow leadership was unsure about the extent of their influence in neighboring countries post-Soviet Union dissolution. As air strikes persisted and talk of a ground invasion arose, Russian leadership, led by Boris Yeltsin, became worried about the potential economic repercussions of the conflict on Russia’s relations with the West. Under Russia’s influence, Milosevic eventually halted the campaign against Kosovar Albanians.
August 23, 2023
Pros and Cons of a Residential Tax Credit for Clean Energy

Introduction

The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, contained many provisions designed to curb the impact of climate change while also addressing economic issues. The main approach to achieving this involves offering residential tax credits for clean energy. These credits enable Americans to get back up to 30% of their expenditure on clean energy upgrades for their homes as a tax credit. This credit applies specifically to the cost of new clean energy equipment, such as solar panels and solar water heaters. Originally part of the Build Back Better Act, these tax credits were incorporated into the Inflation Reduction Act after the former failed to become law.

Renewable energy is better for both the environment and human health than the continued use of fossil fuels, which have a destructive impact. According to the United Nations, “more than 13 million deaths around the world each year are due to avoidable environmental causes, including air pollution. In 2018, air pollution from fossil fuels caused $2.9 trillion in health and economic costs, about $8 billion a day.” Transitioning to renewable energy will not only improve air quality by reducing pollution but also yield positive economic benefits by reducing the costs associated with pollution.

However, the process of switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is expensive and labor-intensive. It is estimated that the cost of moving the US power grid from fossil fuels to renewable energy will be approximately $4.5 trillion. The residential tax credits for clean energy create a strong incentive for consumers and businesses to invest in renewable energy technology like solar panels. However, environmentalists and policymakers disagree about whether a tax credit is the best way to bring about widespread use of renewable energy.

Arguments in Favor

Advocates of the policy highlight the benefits of renewable energy as a rationale for introducing residential tax credits. A cost benefit analysis shows that the benefits of reduced CO2 emissions and air pollution far outweigh the monetary cost of the tax credit. In the time since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, more businesses and consumers have made use of it than originally anticipated, showing it works as an effective incentive. In other words, this tax credit will bring Americans the numerous benefits of reduced fossil fuel use.

The tax credit is also predicted to lead to economic development, in line with the goals of the Inflation Reduction Act. The residential tax credit for clean energy is projected to save American households around $5 billion per year by 2024. This credit not only reduces the initial expense of transitioning to renewable energy but also leads to lower electricity expenses because electricity from renewable sources is lower than that of electricity from fossil fuels. Moreover, the growing demand for renewable energy equipment like solar panels will encourage investments and innovation in the renewable energy sector. This, in turn, will stimulate job creation as workers will be required to construct the necessary infrastructure for expanded renewable energy usage.

Arguments in Opposition

Opponents of the tax credit argue that the policy could result in economic challenges rather than benefits. A key concern is that a tax credit would incur government expenses, leading to higher spending and an increased deficit, potentially undermining economic stability during an inflation crisis. Additionally, if the tax credit successfully boosts renewable energy adoption, its cost would likely rise—indeed, the current cost has exceeded initial projections. Some also contend that while proponents claim the tax credit will drive economic growth and innovation in the renewable energy sector, the effects of a market-distorting subsidy like a tax credit are often uncertain. It might even discourage innovation among renewable energy companies, as the tax credit alone could create sufficient demand for their products.

Another criticism is that tax credits are an inequitable way to achieve the goal of a faster transition to renewable energy. A study from the University of Chicago found that tax credits for clean energy have historically disproportionately aided high-income Americans, as “the bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits [since 2006], while the top quintile has received about 60%.” This is because a lot of Americans don’t have sufficient tax obligations to fully utilize a tax credit. Consequently, many who oppose the tax credit propose a more equitable alternative: residential direct pay. This approach enables beneficiaries to receive a payment equivalent to the tax credit they would have qualified for.

Looking Forward

Both positive and negative future developments are expected to come from the residential tax credit for clean energy. Its efficacy in increasing clean energy usage is likely to spur economic development and reduce the costs of renewable energy as demand goes up, thus also leading to a beneficial environmental impact. However, this increased demand will also likely increase American dependence on foreign manufacturing, as solar cells do not need to be American-made in order to qualify for the tax credit, and the majority of the world’s solar cells are currently made in China. Increased demand for solar panels will lead to US consumers buying more solar cells imported from China.

The residential tax credit for clean energy is anticipated to bring about both positive and negative outcomes in the future. Its effectiveness in promoting clean energy adoption is expected to drive economic growth and lower renewable energy costs through increased demand, yielding positive environmental effects. Nevertheless, this heightened demand may also lead to greater reliance on foreign manufacturing, particularly from China, since solar cells are not required to be American-made to qualify for the tax credit. As a result, the surge in solar panel demand could lead to increased purchases of imported solar cells from China by American consumers.

While most policymakers agree that switching to renewable energy will be beneficial for Americans in the long run, there remains debate about whether subsidizing renewable energy with a tax credit is the best way to bring about this switch as opposed to alternatives like residential direct pay or simply allowing market forces to work uninterrupted.

August 22, 2023
Successes and Failures of the Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP)
Background

Humanitarian efforts have evolved in the 21st century, largely driven by the goal of aid organizations to optimize their impact and reduce costs. One significant change is the rise in the use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) programs, which now constitute a larger portion of aid initiatives. CVA involves giving recipients direct cash or electronic funds as humanitarian aid, different from in-kind support that provides specific items like food and water. The shift towards more CVA and less in-kind aid reflects a shift towards a rights-based approach to humanitarian assistance, replacing the traditional charity-based model. This change in approach has also led nations like the United States to focus more on the humanitarian system.

CVA’s expansion as a humanitarian aid approach has largely been driven by the Cash Learning Partnership (CALP) since 2005. CALP works to amplify CVA programs carried out by various humanitarian agencies. American government bodies responsible for U.S. aid programs, like USAID and the Department of State, collaborate with CALP directly, incorporating their guidance into the implementation of CVA. CALP has outlined its five main roles as follows:
1. Capacity Building – Provide individual humanitarian organizations with training and workshops that will enhance their ability to deliver quality CVA programming.
2. Coordination – Connect carriers of CVA programming and humanitarian organizations in order to improve the consistency and quality of cash aid provisions as well as solidify coordination mechanisms between actors.
3. Knowledge Management – Establish a forum for CVA actors to exchange knowledge and experience about cash-based aid programming and solidify coordination efforts in information.
4. Research – Conduct research regarding CVA and build an evidence base in order to provide the best policy recommendations and improve the quality of CVA programs.
5. Policy – Generate policy recommendations with a primary focus on improving the efficacy and efficiency of CVA worldwide. Builds structured policy through conventions and debates between a diverse set of voices, much of which is highlighted in the State of the World’s Cash Report.
Positive Attributes of CVA

CVA offers beneficiaries more flexibility compared to in-kind aid. This reduces their vulnerability, as they can obtain needed resources faster. CALP studies show that recipients prefer cash because it provides choice and control, allowing them to buy what they need locally. In-kind aid may not always match their requirements, leading to less efficient humanitarian efforts as beneficiaries seek alternative means for necessary funds. CVA has been found to be effective across humanitarian aid types, including general and reproductive health, nutrition, poverty, gender, and labor market.

Corruption and Misuse in CVA Aid Channels

Opponents argue that CVA is uniquely susceptible to corruption. Corruption exists in regular aid distribution channels, but intermediary officials are more capable of siphoning liquid cash compared to physical resources. This problem is more pronounced in countries with higher corruption rates, which often require more assistance.

Flexibility offers choice but also raises the potential for recipients to mismanage funds. Critics contend that people in need are more likely to misuse cash compared to in-kind aid. While opponents acknowledge that aid misuse exists in both CVA and in-kind aid, they assert that cash, being less controlled and more versatile, provides greater opportunities for recipients to mishandle resources compared to physical goods and services.

Inflation Caused by CVA

Some economists opposing the growth of CVA also highlight that increased flow of cash in local economies where CVA programs are prominent inflates the prices of popular commodities, thus countering the intended effect by making needed resources less accessible to low income residents. A study on CVA programs in the Philippines found that the cash inflow caused by CVA has a larger direct impact on the market and prices, creating negative spillover for non-beneficiary households.

An alternative to CVA is Universal Ultra Basic Income (UUBI), which suggests providing reduced financial support to populations in remote or impoverished regions to avoid inflation. Instead, UUBI targets the poorest households, aiming to enhance economic conditions through targeted cash assistance.

Efficiency of CVA

CALP’s research underscores the current inefficiencies in implementing CVA programs. A primary cause is the lack of coordination among organizations involved in CVA and humanitarian aid as a whole. The current network for cash-based aid includes duplications and parallel projects, resulting in higher costs and wastage compared to in-kind aid. CALP acts as a bridge between humanitarian groups, working to streamline this network through agreements and improved communication among partners. This has enhanced the global efficiency, scalability, and sustainability of CVA as a form of aid. In the United States, despite some skepticism, government departments responsible for humanitarian aid, such as the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration in the Department of State (DOS), have shown support for CALP’s goals of more efficient and widespread CVA programming.

Recent research is focusing on the cost-effectiveness of CVA, especially electronic CVA. Since aid distribution often occurs in-region, the electronic infrastructure may not be sufficiently advanced to manage the complex cash and large transactions required by certain CVA programs. To mitigate the cost inefficiencies resulting from inadequate technology, CALP suggests collaborating with local agencies prior to developing CVA frameworks to address regional variations. Therefore, there is a suggested connection between improving program efficiency and reducing costs by enhancing coordination and communication among organizations, which is in line with CALP’s operational priorities.

Specific choices in CVA programming might affect the impact on beneficiaries. One area of contention is whether attaching conditions to cash assistance (called conditional CVA) is more effective than providing cash without conditions (known as unconditional CVA). A study of Mexico’s PROGRESA/Oportunidades, a well-established CVA program, challenges the notion that conditional CVA leads to significant economic growth. It points out that wealthier families, who are less in need but can meet the aid requirements, tend to benefit more than low and middle-income families who are in greater need. However, some critics argue that more precisely targeted conditional CVA programs could address this issue highlighted by the study.
August 21, 2023