Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Senator Barbara Boxer’s levee bill, titled the “Water Resources Development Act,” passed the Senate on Wednesday with overwhelming bipartisan support. The bill would authorize the Natomas Levee Improvement Program and several projects headed by the Army Corp. of Engineers nationwide to prevent floods and protect citizens from storms.

Only fourteen senators voted against Boxer’s bill. As politically polarizing as Congress has been over the last couple of legislative sessions, it is impressive to see Democrats and Republicans come together to support a bill.

However, not everyone is happy with the current language of the bill. Boxer wrote the Water Resources Development Act specifically to appeal to Republicans and many environmentalists are not satisfied with the way it turned out.

If passed, the bill will streamline the environmental review process. Lawmakers who want to cut down on costs whenever the opportunity presents itself argue the current review process inevitably leads to delays and additional costs.

In order to gain support from enough fiscal conservatives, the language of the bill cuts down on any potential cost increases for these water resource projects. The bill already comes with a $12.5 billion price tag, which may seem relatively small when compared to the overall federal budget, but is something many Republicans would be reluctant to support when the discussion turns to the possibility of additional costs.

Environmental and wildlife organizations are concerned that expediting the environmental review process will inevitably lead to inadequate, misleading, or incomplete analysis of the impact a water resources project will have on the surrounding ecosystem.

“Unfortunately, language in this bill undermines the bedrock environmental principle that the federal government should look before it leaps,” Larry Schweiger said in a statement. Schweiger is the president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation.

The Water Resources Development Act now moves on to the U.S. House of Representatives. Though it is likely to face more resistance in the House, it is unclear whether or not House Republican will share the same willingness to support the bill as many Senate Republicans.

Shawn M. GriffithsThe Neutral Zone - "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." - Thomas Jefferson

Mark Van Scyoc / Shutterstock.com

A Gallup Poll released Tuesday examined the attitudes of over 1,500 voters residing in all 50 states and Washington D.C. by asking the question, “In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?”

Only 24 percent of Americans reported being satisfied, while 22 percent of independents responded similarly.

Since the poll began in 1979, overall satisfaction was at its highest point (most recently) in 2000 at 6. Since then, favorable responses trended downward considerably until reaching the lowest point, 7 percent, at the height of the economic recession in late 2008.

Looking closer, recent monthly fluctuations were attributed to a number of events currently in the news cycle. From Gallup:

“The Boston Marathon bombings — which occurred after the April measure of U.S. satisfaction — and their aftermath, the ongoing Benghazi investigation, and other recent events may have contributed to a slight decline in U.S. satisfaction in May. Still, from a broad perspective, the yearly average to date of 25% is on par with the 2012 yearly average of 26%.”

When considering partisan affiliation, a significant disparity in attitudes can be seen. More Democrats are satisfied with the country’s direction than Republicans and independents combined. Interestingly, independents appear to split the difference between Democrats and Republicans in recent months.

When compared to the 2012 average, satisfaction in the first five months of 2013 has declined only slightly — dropping from 26 percent to 25 percent.

Positivity towards the country’s direction under President Obama reached its highest point in 2009. After peaking at 36 percent shortly after taking office, public sentiment nearly matched 2009 levels during last year’s election season.

Alex GauthierThe Neutral Zone - "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." - Thomas Jefferson

Credit: zagasi.com

The Water Resources Development Act, authored by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), would fund efforts to improve flood control, navigation, and storm recovery projects like the Natomas Levee Improvement Program in Sacramento, California. The bill has bipartisan support and passed with a unanimous vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee back in March.

However, some Republicans in the Senate want to expand the focus from being about flood prevention and storm protection to include another issue: guns.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) introduced two amendments on Wednesday that deal with the subject of guns in relation to the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers (USACE).

The first amendment would allow civilians to carry firearms on USACE property. The other amendment would require federal agencies and organizations, including USACE, to report firearms they own, including lost and stolen firearms.

The latter amendment includes a national security exceptions for the Pentagon and the CIA as long as they can convince Congress they have a good reason for not disclosing the information.

Boxer’s bill was initially scheduled to be brought before the Senate floor on Tuesday, but some of the language in the bill’s more controversial provisions was perceived as ambiguous. Boxer intentionally wrote the bill to appeal to Republicans and so far has been very successful, which is the closest thing to a miracle considering the polarization in Congress.

Despite broad support from members of both parties in the Senate, analysts expect that if it does pass the chamber, it will have a tougher time in the U.S. House. The effect Coburn’s amendments will have on the bill’s success in the House among Republicans and Democrats — some of whom were already skeptical of the bill — remains to be seen.

Shawn M. GriffithsThe Neutral Zone - "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." - Thomas Jefferson

mikeledray / Shutterstock.com

According to an article from Bloomberg, the impact federal sequestration has on California may result in bigger problems for the state than many previously realized. California is currently in the middle of a worse-than-usual wildfire season and the California National Guard’s ability to fight these fires could soon be hindered significantly.

Challenges are certain to arise when 20 percent of the state National Guard’s roughly 2,000 full-time technicians are furloughed, especially since most of these technicians work on the aerial vehicles that play a pivotal role in snuffing out potentially devastating wildfires. The guard recently received notice from the Pentagon that the furloughs are necessary to meet automatic spending cuts.

“It reduces our availability time by 20 percent, which during the fire season can be decisive,” Major General David Baldwin told Bloomberg. “If those furloughs go through, it will have a direct and immediate impact.”

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) is the first line of defense against wildfires in the state, but its resources are limited and if a fire gets too out of control, the department calls on the guard for help. In other words, the most devastating wildfires — the ones that cause millions of dollars in property damage and displace hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of California residents — always require involvement from the guard.

Matters become a little more complicated when considering the 2011 state budget cuts that reduced the Cal Fire crew size. Less engines available to respond to fires means the department is more likely to call on the state’s National Guard for assistance. When asked if the state is willing to increase Cal Fire staffing, Governor Jerry Brown said he will not go back to an “era of make-believe” and will stand by the budget cuts.

Shawn M. GriffithsThe Neutral Zone - "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." - Thomas Jefferson

Earlier this year, the American public was polled on the president’s proposals for new gun legislation. People were given a list of initiatives and asked if they would vote for the measures or not. When asked about universal background checks, 91 percent of Americans said they would vote in favor of the proposal.

Despite the national popularity of the gun reform, it did not pass the Senate. While the percentage of Americans who support universal background checks has declined, according to Gallup, a decisive majority of Americans believe it should have passed the Senate.

A Gallup poll, conducted between April 22-25, surveyed over 2,000 adults with the question: “Do you think the Senate should or should not have passed the measure to expand background checks for gun purchases?” Sixty-five percent of respondents answered the Senate should have passed it while twenty-nine percent agreed with the Senate’s decision.

Credit: Gallup

While sixty-five percent believe the Senate should have passed a background check expansion, eighty-three percent said they would vote for the measure if given the opportunity to do so on Election Day.

Furthermore, more opponents of the Senate bill cited the Second Amendment as the reason for their opinion on the subject over everything else. Forty percent of respondents who support the final Senate vote said expanding background checks violates the right people have to own a gun. The second most popular reason — at 23 percent — was the belief that the government should increase enforcement of current laws before adding new ones.

Most of the responses given by those who said the Senate should not pass a measure on the issue had more to do with the effectiveness of the bill rather than the content of it. This is an important factor to keep in mind when breaking down the poll results

Interestingly enough, Gallup reveals that most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, would rather vote on background check expansion than support the passage of a bill in the Senate.

While fifty percent of Republicans said the Senate should not have passed the bill, seventy-three percent said they would vote for the proposal as a ballot referendum. Eighty percent of independents said the same thing.

Credit: Gallup

The results are a bit puzzling, even for the people at Gallup. Ultimately, most Americans agree with the fundamental concept of background checks for all gun transfers, but people would rather vote on it than have Congress pass a law.

The questions this poll raises would likely be answered in the reasons opponents of the Senate bill gave for opposing the legislation. In theory, Americans believe that expanding gun background checks to private sales is the right thing, but the results differ when talking about the practical applications of a new law.

Shawn M. GriffithsThe Neutral Zone - "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." - Thomas Jefferson

Mark R / Shutterstock.com

Five congressional Democrats have called for the resignation of Jerry Meral, the deputy director of California’s National Resources Agency, for comments he allegedly made about the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Reps. George Miller (D-Martinez), Anna Eshoo (D-Palo Alto), Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento), Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton), and Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) issued a joint statement condemning Meral for comments he allegedly made to officials that not only was the Bay Delta Conservation Plan never about preserving the delta, but the delta could not be saved.

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is an estimated $23 billion initiative by California Governor Jerry Brown to build three pumping stations along the Sacramento River to divert water into two massive tunnels. The tunnels would then send water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Southern California.

According to Gov. Brown, the project would restore the delta while preserving the local ecosystem and improve California’s water infrastructure. He recently called on the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Commerce to quickly release an environmental impact statement and Federal Register notice on the project.

The governor’s goal is to complete the approval process by the end of the year, but there are reports that indicate approval from state and federal agencies may not be finalized until 2014 or 2015.

From the beginning, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan has been immersed in controversy. Many Republicans and Democrats from Central California have spoken out against it, arguing it would risk the water supply in the region to benefit residents in the South. Concerns have also been raised over the large price tag attached to the project and the potential negative impact it could have on the region’s environment.

The reason Jerry Meral’s alleged comments are so controversial is because they would contradict statements and efforts made by the governor to get the project moving. It would imply Gov. Brown has willfully lied to state and federal officials, not to mention California residents.

“Director Meral’s comments suggest the Brown administration has violated the public trust,” Rep. Miller said in the statement. “The administration needs to be forthcoming as to whether they intend to honor their stated goal to restore the region’s already struggling habitat or whether this is simply a water grab which will drive the Bay-Delta to ruin.”

According to Natural Resources Agency spokesman Richard Stapler, Brown’s administration “remains deeply committed to maintaining a healthy Delta ecosystem,” and said the conservation plan invests $7.5 billion for the restoration and preservation of the region.

Shawn M. GriffithsThe Neutral Zone - "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." - Thomas Jefferson

On Thursday, all five living presidents, major U.S. political figures, world leaders, and spectators gathered to celebrate the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, TX. While his presidency was marred by periods of intense political division, politicians were able to put their differences aside for at least one day.

The George W. Bush Presidential Center is the third presidential library and museum to be erected in the state of Texas, following Lyndon B. Johnson and George H.W. Bush. Texas has the most presidential libraries of any state in the U.S. –  followed by California with two.

Presidential libraries are not libraries in the traditional sense. You cannot go to the George W. Bush Presidential Library and check out a book. They are facilities that archive and preserve documents and artifacts of a president and his administration. What is preserved at a presidential library is available to the public to see and study because presidential libraries and museums are public property and belong to the American people.

Here are some important facts about the history of presidential libraries in the United States:

Where It All Began…

Franklin D. Roosevelt believed that presidential documents were an important part of the nation’s heritage and spearheaded efforts to preserve evidence of the presidency for future generations. Up until that point, presidential papers were destroyed, sold for profit, ruined by poor storage conditions, or were simply lost to history.

President Roosevelt donated his personal and presidential papers to the federal government in 1939, during his second term in office. He also donated a portion of his estate in Hyde Park, NY, where his library and museum would be built. This began a tradition that would carry on with every president that followed.

Evolution of Law

In 1955, Congress passed the “Presidential Libraries Act,” which established a system where presidential libraries would be privately erected, but federally maintained. The bill encouraged — not required — presidents to donate documents during their time in office to be archived and preserved for public access.

Up until 1978, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) persuaded the president to donate private and official records for preservation. It was the belief of presidents, scholars, and legal professionals that records created by the president and his staff were the property of the president and his to take with him when he left office.

However, the Presidential Records Act of 1978 established that official records that chronicle the constitutional, statutory, and ceremonial duties of the president during his tenure in the Oval Office are the property of the U.S. government. Now, when a president leaves office the Archivist of the United States — the head of NARA — assumes custody of these documents. Presidential libraries were allowed to continue as the repository for presidential records.

Additional changes were made in 1986 with a revision to the Presidential Libraries Act. Private endowments linked to the size of the library are now required and are used to offset a portion of the cost of maintenance for the facility.

Did you know?

The George W. Bush Presidential Center is the thirteenth presidential library and fourteenth museum to be established in the U.S. However, since FDR began the tradition there have been twelve presidents — counting FDR, but not counting President Barack Obama — who have passed through the White House.

So, why are there thirteen libraries and fourteen museums? One reason is because Richard Nixon has two locations. Nixon has a library and museum in College Park, Maryland and Yorba Linda, California. Also, Herbert Hoover, who was in office before FDR, has a presidential center dedicated to him as well.

Shawn M. GriffithsThe Neutral Zone - "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." - Thomas Jefferson

On Tuesday, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), reported that California will end the month of April $4 billion ahead of initial estimates. However, Governor Jerry Brown was quick to caution people to exercise restraint since the increase in revenue may not be as much as it appears.

Gov. Brown turned attention to California Proposition 98, which requires a minimum percentage of the state budget to be allocated to K-14 education. Also known as the Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act, Prop. 98 was approved by voters in 1988.

The governor responded to a reporter’s suggestion that he must be happy with the additional revenue. Gov. Brown waved this off:

“The revenues, guys, wait ’til the May revise,” he told reporters. “We have a very complicated mechanism called Prop. 98, and depending upon how the money flows, it may … not be as available as many people are now thinking.”

Under Prop. 98. a minimum of 40 percent of California’s general fund spending is required to be spent on education. The actual percentage of the general fund spent on education is somewhere between 52-55 percent. The proposition uses specific tests to determine how much funding should be allocated to public education.

In years of economic growth, Prop. 98 requires spending on education to equal the amount of the previous years plus per capita growth and student enrollment adjustment. In years of weak economic growth, it not only guarantees the same level of spending as the previous year, but increases spending for any change in per capital general fund revenues or an increase by 0.5 percent in state general funds.

According to the LAO, most, if not all, of the revenue gains may be required to be allocated to k-12 public education and community colleges. As a result, “this fiscal year’s strong revenue performance may have little, if any, positive effect for the state’s financial bottom line.”

Shawn M. GriffithsThe Neutral Zone - "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." - Thomas Jefferson

Annette Shaff / Shutterstock.com

The United States Senate is expected to approve a bill that, if signed into law, will give states the authority to tax online sales. A procedural vote for the “Marketplace Fairness Act” is scheduled for Monday evening.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), one of the sponsors of the legislation, argues the bill is something everyone can benefit from.

“The Marketplace Fairness Act is a bill whose time has come in Congress and one that is long overdue for states, local governments and small businesses,” Sen. Durbin said in an statement.

Last month, the Senate passed a non-binding resolution amendment in support of states passing their own Internet sales tax laws, 75-24. The broad support for the measure did not have any legal implications, but it was a good indicator of how well the Marketplace Fairness Act would do.

Several major retailers nationwide support an online sales tax because they believe it would level the playing field. The National Retail Federation and Retail Industry Leaders Association, an organization that represents many brick-and-mortar stores like Best Buy, Wal-Mart, and Target, argues online stores have an unfair advantage in the retail market.

Under current law, states can only collect sales taxes on online stores that have a physical presence in the state. The Marketplace Fairness Act would give states a broader authority to tax Internet sales, but would exempt small businesses that make less than $1 million in out-of-state sales.

Opponents of the bill argue from the position of states’ rights, specifically a state’s right not to have a sales tax. Senators Max Baucus (MT), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Ron Wyden (R-OR) are among the opposition and represent states that do not have a sales tax.

“This is a clear infringement on states’ rights that we cannot stand for,” Sen. Baucus stated.

Sen. Mike Enzi, along with other supporters of the Marketplace Fairness Act, counter this argument by saying the bill actually protects states’ rights since states are not required to impose an online sales tax and if they do, they can lower the rates of other state taxes.

For some, the focus is on the potential revenue increase for state and local governments if states should choose to implement an online sales tax. According to Sen. Enzi, states collectively lose approximately $23 billion a year because they do not tax online purchases.

While the Marketplace Fairness Act is expected to sail through the Senate, it will likely have a tougher time in the U.S. House. Some Republicans in the House have expressed concern that the bill could open the door for states to tax and regulate beyond their boarders.

Shawn M. GriffithsThe Neutral Zone - "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." - Thomas Jefferson

stephen mulcahey / Shutterstock.com

On Thursday, the California Legislature approved the allocation of $24 million to speedup the process of rounding up guns from owners who have been convicted of criminal activity or because of mental illness. The bill, SB 140, passed the Assembly with bipartisan support, 57-10.

SB 140 commits $24 million to the Armed Prohibited Persons Program, headed by the California Department of Justice. The purpose of the program is to compare databases of gun buyers in the state to those of convicted criminals who are now ineligible to own firearms

Many lawmakers, including the bill’s author, Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), believe there is an urgent need for additional special agents to respond to the estimated 20,000 people who were once able to purchase guns legally, but are now disqualified because of violent criminal convictions.

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” Sen. Leno said in a statement.

“However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day. This legislation makes a significant reinvestment in our state’s unique tracking system to help eliminate this troubling backlog of illegal weapons and protect public safety in our communities.”

Opponents of the bill argue it amounts to an unconstitutional tax because it uses a surplus of fees on gun buyers that is meant to fund background checks to provide additional funding for the seizure program.

“This fee is not for this purpose,” said Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee), who was one of the ten Assembly members who voted against SB 140. “It’s an illegal law. This bill will be tied up in court for years.”

The bill, which requires a two-thirds vote, was approved unanimously by the Senate last month. It will return to the chamber for concurrence on amendments before it can move on to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk.

Shawn M. GriffithsThe Neutral Zone - "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." - Thomas Jefferson