Author: The American Partnership

by

New York Joins States in Suing EPA

by Zachary Coppick

Widener University Political Science Major

Last Tuesday New York joined a growing number of states that are suing the EPA. This law suit is over the EPA’s lack of regulation on wood burning heating systems. In 2010 all outdoor wood burners were ordered to cut emissions by 90 percent by New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation. However, the EPA has not followed suit by mandating the same change for the entire country. New York and other states are saying that the EPA’s 25 year old emission limits on wood burners are outdated and need to be revised by the federal agency.

Due to the nature of wood burning pollutants this is a large problem for New York.  Wood smoke has been linked to having pollutants that can cause asthma attacks, heart attacks, and premature death. Sounds a little harsh but that information was published by the attorney general’s office in 2008.  Also the EPA has stated that wood heaters soot contributes 13 percent to the soot pollution in the country. This would be a very good reason to have them regulated better. Since 1988 the EPA was supposed to review and revise the wood burning regulations ever eight years, but as we can see that didn’t happen. These regulations and policy were outlined in the Clean Air Act which is the state’s main point. An estimated 14,500 outdoor wood burners have been sold in New York since 2000 which is cause to have them regulated properly. The EPA has made no comment on this so far and this does not come at a surprise because due to the government shut down they are no longer working.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2013/10/09/new-york-joins-states-in-suing-epa-over-wood-boilers/2953193/

by

California Bill Raises Community College Tuition

by Jessica Dembeck

Widener University American Government Student

Finally, it sounds like at least one state has the accessibility for all students that universities across the nation claim to have, and now legislators have debuted a pilot program, which in essence takes away that accessibility from students. Paul Fain comments on this controversial bill that was recently passed in California in his article entitled “Two-Tiered Tuition is Back ”. According to Fain’s article, six eligible colleges will now be able to charge students the going rate for nonresident students, “which are more than three times the $46 per-credit rate that local students pay.”

That hike in tuition is supposed to channel a third of the revenue from these classes back as a resource for financial aid for low income students. Well, that sounds great in theory, but the bill itself does not offer much supervision for this trial. The California community college system seemed to have it all together prior to the passing of this bill. Compare the tuition of the Community College of Philadelphia  with those of California community colleges, and Philadelphians are looking at a technology fee that is more than half of what Californians were paying for a single credit hour.

Why are legislators in California trying to fix what wasn’t broken? On the California community colleges website , they have a bunch of statistics, but three of them stood out the most. 1) For every $1 California invests in students who graduate from college, it will receive a net return on investment of $4.50. 2) Californians with a college degree will earn $1,340,000 more than their peers with only a high school diploma. Students who earn a degree or certificate from a California community college nearly double their earnings within three years. 3)Funding for California Community Colleges has been cut by $1.5 billion since 2007-08. With all of that said, why wouldn’t the government invest in the community colleges of California instead of making the students pay three times as much?

 

by

Learn Now, Pay Later! NJ’s New Approach to Higher Ed Payment?

by Marie Herb 

Rather than just talking about the many problems in society today, the State of New Jersey is trying to solve one. On the topic of higher education, many young adults are struggling to pay back enormous debts as a result of seeking higher education. New Jersey is proposing that students attending a public institution will be able to go to college for “free.” Then, for the next twenty-four years they will pay back three percent of their income to those institutions for going to school.

The proposed idea is not perfect. This system could easily be abused. After graduation, a student could intentionally not seek a job; therefore, not having to pay off their part of the debt. Also, there are problems if a student cannot find a job. Also, after graduating college some students will pay more than others. Perhaps, rather than basing payment solely on income, a total amount to repay is set, and students have to continue to pay that back based on their income. For example, a student would have to pay back $50,000 in debt. And a student out of college is making $50,000 per year. Therefore, paying back about 5% of their income per year, it would take around 20 years to pay back. In this case, every student would pay the same amount back, but would just take different times for different students based on the amount of money they were making.

Overall, this idea is something new, it has some issues that would need to be figured out, but with the state of Oregon piloting At least New Jersey is trying something new rather than the old system. Perhaps by trying something new, struggling students will be able to help get the education that they have been striving towards for so long.

by

In California: Wine Over Everything… Especially Fracking

by Wade Dickey

Widener University Political Science Major

California relies heavily on their agricultural industry. They are known for their production of wine  and other crops like almonds and pistachios. If they didn’t put regulations on fracking in their state it would have affected the state harsher than most, because a lot of people in the state rely on their crops as a source of income. And the wastewater fracking produces could quite possibly destroy many farming sites across the state.That’s why when Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill SB-4 into law it was a very good thing because it put in place the strictest regulations in the country on the fracking companies setting up drills in California. I think that it is good that they were able to put strict regulations on fracking, but I think that due to the amount of people that rely on agricultural production as a source of income, it is a bad thing to let fracking in the state at all. That is why members of the of the food and wine industry have come out and opposed this bill to keep their environment safe from the wastewater pollution. These people have come out and asked the governor to put fracking on waiting period, this is because the group says that the oil companies are after California’s Monterey Shale. This specific shale is important because it is a 1,750-square-mile area that may contain as much as 15 billion barrels of crude oil. It also happens to rest below a sizable portion of California farmland. So clearly even though there are strict restrictions on fracking in California due to the new law SB-4 people are still up in arms to stop fracking to keep the farmland safe in this state.

As California Begins Regulating Fracking, Agricultural Concerns Arise

 

by

Parents in Philly Fed Up with Public Education

By Zeynep Ozdener

Recently Philadelphia has been under national scrutiny. Unfortunately, this white hot spotlight has centered around the education policies of the state of Pennsylvania. As public funding for education decreases, public schools in Philadelphia are suffering.

In light of these budget cuts, many Philadelphian parents have taken to writing complaint letters to Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Education. In fact, over 250 such letters have been sent in just the last week, and another 100 are expected to be formally filed within the next seven days. While around 43 percent of public education funding usually comes from the state nationwide, in Pennsylvania, it is only around 35 percent.

Overall, Pennsylvania is tenth on the list of least state-funded schools in America. This has caused a shortage of necessary school guidance counselors, arts programs, and even language programs for immigrant students. Indeed, over 3,000 public school employees were let go before the 2013-2014 school year began.

In my opinion, parents have every right to be outraged, and it is a solid, if small, first step that they are complaining to the proper authorities. However, as far as options go, Pennsylvania does not have many. In order to add almost 50 extra million dollars to the public education budget, the City Council has just today approved of a plan to purchase vacant properties from Philadelphia’s school district. However, Mayor Nutter has expressed disapproval, stating that the idea has many failings.

Whether or not he is actually right (Lord knows he has been wrong about many things in the past), $50 million has been allocated to the public school system, and already some of the laid-off employees have been re-employed. Hopefully, Philadelphia and Pennsylvania as a whole will be able to crawl out of this education-funding rut they have recently been in.

 

by

Clean up the Gowanus Canal!!

by Elisabeth Powell

Widener University Environmental Politics and Policy Student

It should be a major priority to clean up superfund sites. It is ridiculous that it has taken this long for something to get done with the Gowanus Canal. This canal is very old and dumping by factories and untreated sewage by the city drains caused most of the pollution. It seems like it was a free for all dumping ground for Brooklyn. Benson metal has to pay $85,000 because they were dropping metal into the canal; Petroleum Tank Cleaners on Butler Street has been fined $32,500 for a spill and other violations. Surprisingly, a bus company has been fined over $500,000 for oil spills and other illegal dumping.

People just do not respect the waterway in this city, while the city is trying to clean it up, more people are trying to cut corners to save a buck. There are hazardous metals in the water such as mercury, lead, and an elixir of industrial chemicals and traces of pesticides. The combination of cutting corners and saving money for big business, the clean up is going to be 8-10 years and maintenance will go on forever. Was it really worth it? The contamination in some parts goes 100 feet deep! Not only is that a lot of man power to clean this canal up, it is going to take a lot of energy to do so; which costs the environment in another sense. And when the clean up is all said and done, how long is it going to stay clean? There should be a register list for businesses that illegally dump, like the sex offender list but dumping violators. Heavy fines should be put in place for life for these violators.