The following are each of our Policy Advisory papers.
Meta party
Better Choices for a Better World
Liana Martin
Mr. Wilson
American Government
Policy Advisory
Dear Madam President,
In order to keep the United States public healthy, save innocent lives, and put the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights into action, there should be healthcare for all. Nearly 27.5 million American citizens do not have access to healthcare, and out of that number over 45,000 people die because they can not get access to the care they need, or simply because of their financial status or age (“Health Insurance Coverage in the United States”). Though this will cost the United States government around $30 trillion, this is surprisingly not over the budget. By doing this, many lives could be saved, the United States’ general public will be healthier, and fulfill an Internationally recognized human right.
As stated previously, giving everyone access to healthcare will save lives. With the death roll of American citizens not having healthcare at 45,000, this could easily be eliminated by giving everyone access. This could also help people to live longer and increase the life expectancy for American citizens (“Should all Americans have the Right to Healthcare?”). The current life expectancy for an American citizen is around 78 years old (“A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US”). By giving everyone healthcare benefits, the life expectancy can be increased.
With healthcare for all, the United States general public will be much healthier. For example, homeless people are more likely to catch contagious illnesses on the streets and public cities. They do not have access to proper hygiene, medical treatment, or social distancing. This is one reason why COVID-19 has spread easily (“Should all Americans have the Right to Healthcare?”). With access to healthcare, sicknesses can be more quickly eliminated and the death toll will be reduced. Simply by everyone having access to vaccines, simple medical equipment such as masks and hand sanitizer, or being able to obtain over-the-counter medications will help greatly in keeping everyone healthy and other deadly diseases at bay (“Health is a Fundamental Human Right”).
27.5 million Americans do not have healthcare. This can be because of numerous reasons, but most commonly it is because the families do not have enough money. Someone should not die simply because they do not enough money (“Health is a Fundamental Human Right”). On December 10th, 1948, the United States and 47 other countries signed what is called the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It states that, “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including… medical care.” Others may say that the Declaration of Independence mentions giving everyone healthcare, implying when it says, “promote the general welfare,” it is implying that everyone should have access to it. The United States is the only nation in the OECD that does not provide universal healthcare to their citizens (“Should all Americans have Access to Healthcare?”).
In conclusion, by providing universal healthcare, the United States will benefit rather than be negatively impacted. Not only this, but it has been proven that the United States budget will not go over their maximum limit if healthcare for everyone is paid for (“Pros & Cons”). Now, our government will become a just and fair society with everyone having a fundamental human right. By giving everyone healthcare, we will save lives, create a healthy general public, and fulfill an Internationally recognized human right which will continue to steer us towards a better America.
Works Cited
“A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US.” PNHP, 17 Apr. 2018,
pnhp.org/a-brief-history-universal-health-care-efforts-in-the-us/.
Gibson, Harold. “Pros and Cons of Universal Healthcare Aka Medicare for All.” Medical
Billing Service Provider, www.m-scribe.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-universalhealthcare-aka-medicare-for-all.
“Health Is a Fundamental Human Right.” World Health Organization, World Health
Organization, 12 Dec. 2017, www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/fundamental-
human-right/en/.
Mackay, Taylor. “Should the U.S. Have Free Universal Healthcare? Pro.” The
Telescope,1 Mar. 2018, www.palomar.edu/telescope/2018/02/28/should-the-u-s-have-free-universal-healthcare/.
“Pros & Cons - ProCon.org.” Right to Health Care, 5 June 2020, healthcare.procon.org/.
“Timeline: History of Reform in the US.” Kff.org, Kaiser Family Foundation, www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/5-02-13-history-of-health-reform.pdf.
Better Choices for a Better World
Liana Martin
Mr. Wilson
American Government
Policy Advisory
Dear Madam President,
In order to keep the United States public healthy, save innocent lives, and put the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights into action, there should be healthcare for all. Nearly 27.5 million American citizens do not have access to healthcare, and out of that number over 45,000 people die because they can not get access to the care they need, or simply because of their financial status or age (“Health Insurance Coverage in the United States”). Though this will cost the United States government around $30 trillion, this is surprisingly not over the budget. By doing this, many lives could be saved, the United States’ general public will be healthier, and fulfill an Internationally recognized human right.
As stated previously, giving everyone access to healthcare will save lives. With the death roll of American citizens not having healthcare at 45,000, this could easily be eliminated by giving everyone access. This could also help people to live longer and increase the life expectancy for American citizens (“Should all Americans have the Right to Healthcare?”). The current life expectancy for an American citizen is around 78 years old (“A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US”). By giving everyone healthcare benefits, the life expectancy can be increased.
With healthcare for all, the United States general public will be much healthier. For example, homeless people are more likely to catch contagious illnesses on the streets and public cities. They do not have access to proper hygiene, medical treatment, or social distancing. This is one reason why COVID-19 has spread easily (“Should all Americans have the Right to Healthcare?”). With access to healthcare, sicknesses can be more quickly eliminated and the death toll will be reduced. Simply by everyone having access to vaccines, simple medical equipment such as masks and hand sanitizer, or being able to obtain over-the-counter medications will help greatly in keeping everyone healthy and other deadly diseases at bay (“Health is a Fundamental Human Right”).
27.5 million Americans do not have healthcare. This can be because of numerous reasons, but most commonly it is because the families do not have enough money. Someone should not die simply because they do not enough money (“Health is a Fundamental Human Right”). On December 10th, 1948, the United States and 47 other countries signed what is called the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It states that, “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including… medical care.” Others may say that the Declaration of Independence mentions giving everyone healthcare, implying when it says, “promote the general welfare,” it is implying that everyone should have access to it. The United States is the only nation in the OECD that does not provide universal healthcare to their citizens (“Should all Americans have Access to Healthcare?”).
In conclusion, by providing universal healthcare, the United States will benefit rather than be negatively impacted. Not only this, but it has been proven that the United States budget will not go over their maximum limit if healthcare for everyone is paid for (“Pros & Cons”). Now, our government will become a just and fair society with everyone having a fundamental human right. By giving everyone healthcare, we will save lives, create a healthy general public, and fulfill an Internationally recognized human right which will continue to steer us towards a better America.
Works Cited
“A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US.” PNHP, 17 Apr. 2018,
pnhp.org/a-brief-history-universal-health-care-efforts-in-the-us/.
Gibson, Harold. “Pros and Cons of Universal Healthcare Aka Medicare for All.” Medical
Billing Service Provider, www.m-scribe.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-universalhealthcare-aka-medicare-for-all.
“Health Is a Fundamental Human Right.” World Health Organization, World Health
Organization, 12 Dec. 2017, www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/fundamental-
human-right/en/.
Mackay, Taylor. “Should the U.S. Have Free Universal Healthcare? Pro.” The
Telescope,1 Mar. 2018, www.palomar.edu/telescope/2018/02/28/should-the-u-s-have-free-universal-healthcare/.
“Pros & Cons - ProCon.org.” Right to Health Care, 5 June 2020, healthcare.procon.org/.
“Timeline: History of Reform in the US.” Kff.org, Kaiser Family Foundation, www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/5-02-13-history-of-health-reform.pdf.
Meta party
Better Choices for a Better World
Mac Burchett
Mr. Wilson
American Government
Policy Advisory
Dear Madam President,
As you are aware, the Coronavirus has greatly impacted the daily lives of people all around the globe. According to The New York Times, the US alone has had over 12.4 million COVID cases with 257,549 deaths since the end of January, as of November 23 (Almukhtar et al., 2020). Things are only seeming to worsen in the US. We need to take action as soon as possible in an effort to flatten the increasing curve of the Coronavirus. In regards to the COVID-19 pandemic, I believe the United States should keep the economy open as much as possible, locally increase restrictions when necessary, work on more efficient testing, and focus on creating a vaccine and finding other drugs that help with COVID. The federal government, specifically the executive branch, would be in charge of the vaccines. State and local governments would be in charge of restrictions and administering testing.
There are many different approaches and strategies that could be taken to handle COVID, but I believe this is the best method. Some may argue that we should lockdown the whole country to flatten the curve, but I think that response would have some disastrous consequences. We already witnessed the many negative impacts caused by a full economic shutdown. One negative impact being that the unemployment rate reached 14.7 percent, the highest it has been since the great depression (Hauck et al., 2020). In addition to this, the economy lost 20.5 million jobs in April, which is another record high (Hauck et al., 2020). These alarmingly high numbers resulted in a $2 trillion stimulus package that was signed by President Trump in an effort to support those who were in financial need (Ravelo, & J. 2020). The economy was greatly damaged and the stimulus was very costly. The shutdown created these issues, plus many more.
We could avoid these facing these lockdown consequences again by creating restrictions and regulations at state or local levels. Increasing restrictions locally would enable each state or region to take the precautions that fit them best. This would allow states that are having less issues with COVID to remain open with less restrictions, while struggling states have more restrictions in order to help decrease COVID numbers. Keep in mind, locally controlled restrictions could still result in a lockdown if necessary, but it should still be avoided if possible. In doing this, the economy should face fewer drawbacks and if another stimulus package is signed, it should be less costly if more people are able to continue working.
Focusing on creating more efficient testing would have many benefits and would hopefully help slow the spread of COVID. More efficient testing would ideally enable tests to be completed from home. This would also ideally include quicker results, in minutes, and more easily accessible tests. Having efficient testing that could be completed from home would help prevent the spread of the virus by enabling quicker results and more testing. This would allow those who test positive to self-quarantine faster and notify people they’ve been in contact with quicker. In order to have more efficient testing, the government would need to continue to fund COVID testing and work to find more efficient testing methods.
In addition to funding for testing, the government should be providing more funding for vaccines and drug testing. We should be focusing on creating, studying, and testing potential vaccines as well as testing currently existing drugs. The advantage for using currently existing drugs is that they already have prior research and knowledge, which could make the research and testing processes much easier and quicker. In addition, finding drugs that help with COVID would be good because they would likely be in use quickly since they’ve already been produced before. The drugs remdesivir and dexamethasone have shown promising results for helping with COVID and could potentially be put into use. The common steroid drug dexamethasone was shown to reduce deaths by a third in the sickest patients with COVID. Researchers say this is the first time that a drug has been able to effectively reduce COVID deaths. (Muccari, C., & M., 2020). In addition to this, analysis from Moderna’s phase 3 trial shows their COVID vaccine with a 94.5 percent success rate (Talmazan & E., 2020). Successful vaccines and drugs like these should have a priority in research and funding.
Although my policy may not be super unique or flawless, it is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, there is no one clear solution to COVID, so we may have to do some trial and error to see what method is most successful. Based on our experiences with the first US Coronavirus lockdown, I believe it would be best to keep the economy open and create restrictions locally. In addition to this, we should focus on funding for COVID testing and funding for drugs and vaccines. It is likely going to take a lot of time and effort to fix this issue, but it’ll be easier if we all work together and combine our ideas.
Works Cited
Almukhtar, S., Aufrichtig, A., Barnard, A., Bloch, M., Cai, W., Calderone, J.,… Virgilio, B. (November 23, 2020). Covid in
the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html
Hauck, G., Gelles, K., Bravo, V., & Thorson, M. (June 23, 2020). Five months in: A timeline of how COVID-19 has unfolded in the US. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/in -depth/news/nation/2020/04/21/coronavirus-updates-how-covid-19-unfolded-u-s-timeline/2990956001/
Muccari, R., Chow, D., & Murphy, J. (July 8, 2020). Coronavirus timeline: Tracking the critical moments of COVID-19. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/coronavirus-timeline-tracking- critical-moments-covid-19-n1154341
Ravelo, L. J., & Jerving, S. (November 16, 2020). COVID-19- a timeline of the coronavirus outbreak. Devex. Retrieved from https://www.devex.com/news/covid-19-a-timeline-of-the-coronavirus-outbreak-96396
Talmazan, Y., Edwards, E. (November 16, 2020). ‘Truly Striking’: Covid-19 vaccine candidate 94.5 percent effective, Moderna says. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-vaccine-candidate-94-5-percent-effective-moderna-says-n1247888
303-467-3534
1340 Pine Lane Parker, CO 80138
[email protected]
Better Choices for a Better World
Mac Burchett
Mr. Wilson
American Government
Policy Advisory
Dear Madam President,
As you are aware, the Coronavirus has greatly impacted the daily lives of people all around the globe. According to The New York Times, the US alone has had over 12.4 million COVID cases with 257,549 deaths since the end of January, as of November 23 (Almukhtar et al., 2020). Things are only seeming to worsen in the US. We need to take action as soon as possible in an effort to flatten the increasing curve of the Coronavirus. In regards to the COVID-19 pandemic, I believe the United States should keep the economy open as much as possible, locally increase restrictions when necessary, work on more efficient testing, and focus on creating a vaccine and finding other drugs that help with COVID. The federal government, specifically the executive branch, would be in charge of the vaccines. State and local governments would be in charge of restrictions and administering testing.
There are many different approaches and strategies that could be taken to handle COVID, but I believe this is the best method. Some may argue that we should lockdown the whole country to flatten the curve, but I think that response would have some disastrous consequences. We already witnessed the many negative impacts caused by a full economic shutdown. One negative impact being that the unemployment rate reached 14.7 percent, the highest it has been since the great depression (Hauck et al., 2020). In addition to this, the economy lost 20.5 million jobs in April, which is another record high (Hauck et al., 2020). These alarmingly high numbers resulted in a $2 trillion stimulus package that was signed by President Trump in an effort to support those who were in financial need (Ravelo, & J. 2020). The economy was greatly damaged and the stimulus was very costly. The shutdown created these issues, plus many more.
We could avoid these facing these lockdown consequences again by creating restrictions and regulations at state or local levels. Increasing restrictions locally would enable each state or region to take the precautions that fit them best. This would allow states that are having less issues with COVID to remain open with less restrictions, while struggling states have more restrictions in order to help decrease COVID numbers. Keep in mind, locally controlled restrictions could still result in a lockdown if necessary, but it should still be avoided if possible. In doing this, the economy should face fewer drawbacks and if another stimulus package is signed, it should be less costly if more people are able to continue working.
Focusing on creating more efficient testing would have many benefits and would hopefully help slow the spread of COVID. More efficient testing would ideally enable tests to be completed from home. This would also ideally include quicker results, in minutes, and more easily accessible tests. Having efficient testing that could be completed from home would help prevent the spread of the virus by enabling quicker results and more testing. This would allow those who test positive to self-quarantine faster and notify people they’ve been in contact with quicker. In order to have more efficient testing, the government would need to continue to fund COVID testing and work to find more efficient testing methods.
In addition to funding for testing, the government should be providing more funding for vaccines and drug testing. We should be focusing on creating, studying, and testing potential vaccines as well as testing currently existing drugs. The advantage for using currently existing drugs is that they already have prior research and knowledge, which could make the research and testing processes much easier and quicker. In addition, finding drugs that help with COVID would be good because they would likely be in use quickly since they’ve already been produced before. The drugs remdesivir and dexamethasone have shown promising results for helping with COVID and could potentially be put into use. The common steroid drug dexamethasone was shown to reduce deaths by a third in the sickest patients with COVID. Researchers say this is the first time that a drug has been able to effectively reduce COVID deaths. (Muccari, C., & M., 2020). In addition to this, analysis from Moderna’s phase 3 trial shows their COVID vaccine with a 94.5 percent success rate (Talmazan & E., 2020). Successful vaccines and drugs like these should have a priority in research and funding.
Although my policy may not be super unique or flawless, it is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, there is no one clear solution to COVID, so we may have to do some trial and error to see what method is most successful. Based on our experiences with the first US Coronavirus lockdown, I believe it would be best to keep the economy open and create restrictions locally. In addition to this, we should focus on funding for COVID testing and funding for drugs and vaccines. It is likely going to take a lot of time and effort to fix this issue, but it’ll be easier if we all work together and combine our ideas.
Works Cited
Almukhtar, S., Aufrichtig, A., Barnard, A., Bloch, M., Cai, W., Calderone, J.,… Virgilio, B. (November 23, 2020). Covid in
the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html
Hauck, G., Gelles, K., Bravo, V., & Thorson, M. (June 23, 2020). Five months in: A timeline of how COVID-19 has unfolded in the US. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/in -depth/news/nation/2020/04/21/coronavirus-updates-how-covid-19-unfolded-u-s-timeline/2990956001/
Muccari, R., Chow, D., & Murphy, J. (July 8, 2020). Coronavirus timeline: Tracking the critical moments of COVID-19. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/coronavirus-timeline-tracking- critical-moments-covid-19-n1154341
Ravelo, L. J., & Jerving, S. (November 16, 2020). COVID-19- a timeline of the coronavirus outbreak. Devex. Retrieved from https://www.devex.com/news/covid-19-a-timeline-of-the-coronavirus-outbreak-96396
Talmazan, Y., Edwards, E. (November 16, 2020). ‘Truly Striking’: Covid-19 vaccine candidate 94.5 percent effective, Moderna says. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-vaccine-candidate-94-5-percent-effective-moderna-says-n1247888
303-467-3534
1340 Pine Lane Parker, CO 80138
[email protected]
Meta party
Better Choices for a Better World
Leah Cornelsen
Mr. Wilson
American Government
Policy Advisory
Dear Madam President,
This country needs to reprioritize the national parks but instead of simply proclaiming more land as national parks we need to reevaluate who is in custody and care them. Currently National Parks, as you know, are property of the federal government not the state that the land resides on. This has caused several concerns through the years on whether or not hit land is being wasted and should be returned and cultivated by the individual states.
American National forests are protected by the National Forest act created in 1960 which says that as soon as a Forest has been deemed a national forest logging, hunting, mining, and camping must be approved by the forest’s land owners (usually the state the forest is on) owners and the Government in which it is attached.
This act has been supported and upheld because:
• Wildlife needs a dedicated space all their own - Many animals lose their habitats every year or are over hunted so these dedicated plots of land help the fight against species extinction.
• These areas are home to large amounts of fresh water that is put back into the water cycle and used by American citizens daily without their knowing.
• These National parks create tourism in every state – Tourism is a huge profit for each state, if done right possibly even more profitable than if they had sold the trees and natural resources in a one and done deal.
• Preserve historical sites that would have been lost in the building process.
• Preserves tribes and cultures- Many National Parks/ forests are also home to many different Native American tribes or the homes of their history and so it protects their culture and people.
• An easy way to house exchange students who come to America - Once exchange students are no longer in their school years but still want to come to American, the national parks give them a place to work and board. These exchange students also fill a dying profession of being a National Park Ranger.
• Biodiversity (the variety of our native species and the ecosystems they form)- This is the central purpose of protected areas. High levels of biodiversity keep ecosystems healthy and resilient, which means that they continue providing vital ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, climate regulation, air and water purification and pollination.
However, in recent year these parks have been threatened for the following concerns:
• The land could have been used for new housing- it’s no secret that our population is rising and therefore we need more and more places to house our citizens particularly places that are easily inhabitable such as the land preserved by National Parks.
• The more national forests there are the more forest there is the be burned- While yes, the forests are kept under tight “supervision” the forests give fires a large swath of land that could spread to the neighboring residents.
• The timber could have been used- we are a community based largely around wood and these National Parks and forests have an abundance of it.
• The land could have been used for agriculture- Our society also needs food instantly and namely, meat. However, meat needs a large portion of land that could have been the National Forests.
• Scope creep- National government may continue to use more and more of the state and therefore their land which could have made revenue for the state itself.
Madam President, a solution to be considered is that excess resources could be used by lumber companies on a contract basis. If national parks were given the authority to allow lumber companies to annually come in and gather fallen lumber not only would the resources be used to the advantage of locals but the National Parks would have a great amount of help in maintaining the forest especially if they allowed the trees to be taken for free. This policy would need to be passed by the federal government and is passed it would not only protect the forest floor but from becoming a fire hazard but it would also give national parks the states they reside in more freedom in the way that they run. However this would not be the only solution another way to protect the forest and people nearby may be to burn the forest before it burns itself controlled burns are when under extremely monitored controlled circumstances firefighters set fire to designated parts of the forest the benefits of doing this are described by the National Geographic's “By reading a forest of dead leaves trees tree limbs and other debris a prescribed burn can help prevent a destructive wildfire controlled burn can also reduce insect populations and destroy invasive plants in addition fire can be rejuvenating and returns nutrients to the soil in the Ashes of vegetation that could otherwise take years to decompose and after a fire the additional sunlight in open space in a forest can help young trees and other plants start to grow.” If these two ideas were to be combined the large fallen and dead trees could be collected on a regular basis by neighboring timber companies In remaining kindling in debris could be burned in a contained way while yes this would leave the parks closed for extended periods of time it would be the thing that brought the forests to life in a new way and take care of later visitors and nearby residents.
303-467-3534
1340 Pine Lane Parker, CO 80138
[email protected]
Better Choices for a Better World
Leah Cornelsen
Mr. Wilson
American Government
Policy Advisory
Dear Madam President,
This country needs to reprioritize the national parks but instead of simply proclaiming more land as national parks we need to reevaluate who is in custody and care them. Currently National Parks, as you know, are property of the federal government not the state that the land resides on. This has caused several concerns through the years on whether or not hit land is being wasted and should be returned and cultivated by the individual states.
American National forests are protected by the National Forest act created in 1960 which says that as soon as a Forest has been deemed a national forest logging, hunting, mining, and camping must be approved by the forest’s land owners (usually the state the forest is on) owners and the Government in which it is attached.
This act has been supported and upheld because:
• Wildlife needs a dedicated space all their own - Many animals lose their habitats every year or are over hunted so these dedicated plots of land help the fight against species extinction.
• These areas are home to large amounts of fresh water that is put back into the water cycle and used by American citizens daily without their knowing.
• These National parks create tourism in every state – Tourism is a huge profit for each state, if done right possibly even more profitable than if they had sold the trees and natural resources in a one and done deal.
• Preserve historical sites that would have been lost in the building process.
• Preserves tribes and cultures- Many National Parks/ forests are also home to many different Native American tribes or the homes of their history and so it protects their culture and people.
• An easy way to house exchange students who come to America - Once exchange students are no longer in their school years but still want to come to American, the national parks give them a place to work and board. These exchange students also fill a dying profession of being a National Park Ranger.
• Biodiversity (the variety of our native species and the ecosystems they form)- This is the central purpose of protected areas. High levels of biodiversity keep ecosystems healthy and resilient, which means that they continue providing vital ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, climate regulation, air and water purification and pollination.
However, in recent year these parks have been threatened for the following concerns:
• The land could have been used for new housing- it’s no secret that our population is rising and therefore we need more and more places to house our citizens particularly places that are easily inhabitable such as the land preserved by National Parks.
• The more national forests there are the more forest there is the be burned- While yes, the forests are kept under tight “supervision” the forests give fires a large swath of land that could spread to the neighboring residents.
• The timber could have been used- we are a community based largely around wood and these National Parks and forests have an abundance of it.
• The land could have been used for agriculture- Our society also needs food instantly and namely, meat. However, meat needs a large portion of land that could have been the National Forests.
• Scope creep- National government may continue to use more and more of the state and therefore their land which could have made revenue for the state itself.
Madam President, a solution to be considered is that excess resources could be used by lumber companies on a contract basis. If national parks were given the authority to allow lumber companies to annually come in and gather fallen lumber not only would the resources be used to the advantage of locals but the National Parks would have a great amount of help in maintaining the forest especially if they allowed the trees to be taken for free. This policy would need to be passed by the federal government and is passed it would not only protect the forest floor but from becoming a fire hazard but it would also give national parks the states they reside in more freedom in the way that they run. However this would not be the only solution another way to protect the forest and people nearby may be to burn the forest before it burns itself controlled burns are when under extremely monitored controlled circumstances firefighters set fire to designated parts of the forest the benefits of doing this are described by the National Geographic's “By reading a forest of dead leaves trees tree limbs and other debris a prescribed burn can help prevent a destructive wildfire controlled burn can also reduce insect populations and destroy invasive plants in addition fire can be rejuvenating and returns nutrients to the soil in the Ashes of vegetation that could otherwise take years to decompose and after a fire the additional sunlight in open space in a forest can help young trees and other plants start to grow.” If these two ideas were to be combined the large fallen and dead trees could be collected on a regular basis by neighboring timber companies In remaining kindling in debris could be burned in a contained way while yes this would leave the parks closed for extended periods of time it would be the thing that brought the forests to life in a new way and take care of later visitors and nearby residents.
303-467-3534
1340 Pine Lane Parker, CO 80138
[email protected]
Meta party
Better Choices for a Better World
Jordan McDonald
Mr. Wilson
American Government
Policy Advisory
Dear Madam President,
Regarding gun control on behalf of Liana Martin we believe a crucial step in becoming a safer country is to restrict or at the very least limit accesses to guns. This will help with the cost of gun violence and medical bills. This will make it so there is less access to guns for people with bad intentions. And we think that modern day guns are not what was intended when talking about the second amendment.
This is important to do so because in the United States because it has by far the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among developed countries. And will help be prevented by restricting access to guns this will help because More handguns in circulation equals more opportunity for violent gun related crime. Owning a handgun increases a person's risk of being killed by gun caused accidents. Taking guns away from criminals reduces violent crime because it will make it easier to catch someone with bad intentions.
One of the other reasons to get rid of them is the total cost of everything. The annual cost of gun violence in America exceeds $229 billion, according to a study done by Mother Jones who worked with researchers at Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. It also creates many problems with the Victims of gun violence making them deal with lost wages, new medical bills, and often the cost of a new lifestyle. With at least 750,000 people were injured by gunshots over the last decade. 320,000 people (or the equivalent of about half the population of Wyoming) were killed.
Another reason is because we do not need ARs or any other heavy guns to protect ourselves. In the constitution when talking about the second amendment it talks about muskets not modern-day guns. You can see a example of this when the supreme court decided to ban sawed off shot guns saying that it did not violate the second amendment to ban them because it was excessive force. And because of this we think we should ban all ARs because they are an unneeded force.
In conclusion we should ban most if not all guns because of theproblems it causes. It makes crime easier to accomplish, including murder and robbery. It costs people their money for medical bills. and in a lot of cases, it has cost many people their lives their lives.
Works Cited
Follman, Mark, et al. “The True Cost of Gun Violence in America.” CVR Repository, DSpace software, 2018, www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america
Skelton, Chris. “United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).” Justia Law, supreme justia, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.
303-467-3534
1340 Pine Lane Parker, CO 80138
[email protected]
Better Choices for a Better World
Jordan McDonald
Mr. Wilson
American Government
Policy Advisory
Dear Madam President,
Regarding gun control on behalf of Liana Martin we believe a crucial step in becoming a safer country is to restrict or at the very least limit accesses to guns. This will help with the cost of gun violence and medical bills. This will make it so there is less access to guns for people with bad intentions. And we think that modern day guns are not what was intended when talking about the second amendment.
This is important to do so because in the United States because it has by far the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among developed countries. And will help be prevented by restricting access to guns this will help because More handguns in circulation equals more opportunity for violent gun related crime. Owning a handgun increases a person's risk of being killed by gun caused accidents. Taking guns away from criminals reduces violent crime because it will make it easier to catch someone with bad intentions.
One of the other reasons to get rid of them is the total cost of everything. The annual cost of gun violence in America exceeds $229 billion, according to a study done by Mother Jones who worked with researchers at Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. It also creates many problems with the Victims of gun violence making them deal with lost wages, new medical bills, and often the cost of a new lifestyle. With at least 750,000 people were injured by gunshots over the last decade. 320,000 people (or the equivalent of about half the population of Wyoming) were killed.
Another reason is because we do not need ARs or any other heavy guns to protect ourselves. In the constitution when talking about the second amendment it talks about muskets not modern-day guns. You can see a example of this when the supreme court decided to ban sawed off shot guns saying that it did not violate the second amendment to ban them because it was excessive force. And because of this we think we should ban all ARs because they are an unneeded force.
In conclusion we should ban most if not all guns because of theproblems it causes. It makes crime easier to accomplish, including murder and robbery. It costs people their money for medical bills. and in a lot of cases, it has cost many people their lives their lives.
Works Cited
Follman, Mark, et al. “The True Cost of Gun Violence in America.” CVR Repository, DSpace software, 2018, www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america
Skelton, Chris. “United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).” Justia Law, supreme justia, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.
303-467-3534
1340 Pine Lane Parker, CO 80138
[email protected]
Meta party
Better Choices for a Better World
Sage NeRoy
Mr. Wilson
American Government
Policy Advisory
Dear Madam President,
The amount of people being underpaid in America is truly appalling. Many people cannot afford to pay for necessities such as food or shelter, and the reason for this is the low minimum wage of our country. Currently minimum wage is $7.25 nationwide, which means that in some states a full-time minimum wage job brings in $15,080 a year. The median amount of money needed to live comfortably in America is $67,690. Clearly this is a problem.
People making minimum wage amounts of money are at a higher risk for homelessness because the amount of money they make per year is a fraction of the amount needed to live in America. Often minimum wage jobs are the only jobs available to those without a college education, and obviously if a minimum wage employee is struggling to put food on the table they can't afford to pay for college. This means that there is an endless cycle of people who want to raise themselves up out of poverty but can't because of the lack of money.
Because of the negative effects of low minimum wage, I suggest that we raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. Changing minimum wage to $15 an hour makes a full-time job on minimum wage bring in $31,200 a year. Well this still isn't the amount of money needed to have a comfortable secure life in America, in many situations there will be more than one person making money for the household, and if both working do people make minimum wage their yearly income becomes $62,400. This is much closer to the median income of Americans, and undoubtedly better than only making $15,080 a year.
You may be wondering how we would raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. It's actually quite simple. All that needs to be done is passing a law that makes it illegal to pay employees less than $15 an hour. The only foreseeable downside of raising minimum wage is that in order to budget for a higher minimum wage some people may be laid off. Not to worry, though. Socio-economic safety nets will be put into place so that anyone who loses their job as a result of a higher minimum wage will be able to keep themselves and their families in a financially healthy place.
To conclude everything I've said here, minimum wage in America is far too low to survive off of. If we raised it to $15 an hour many people would finally be in a financially healthy situation and we would see a decrease in poverty. I urge you to consider what I have said in the last few paragraphs as I truly believe that this is the way to make America a country where all people can survive and thrive.
Works Cited
Borden, T., & Davis, D. (2020). How much money you need to make to live comfortably in every state in America. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/living-wage-income-to-live-comfortably-in-every-us-state
What are the annual earnings for a full-time minimum wage worker? - Center for Poverty and Inequality Research. Retrieved from https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full-time-minimum-wage-worker#:~:text=The%20annual%20earnings%20for%20a%20full%2Dtime%20minimum%2Dwage%20worker,is%2040%20hours%20each%20week.
303-467-3534
1340 Pine Lane Parker, CO 80138
[email protected]
Better Choices for a Better World
Sage NeRoy
Mr. Wilson
American Government
Policy Advisory
Dear Madam President,
The amount of people being underpaid in America is truly appalling. Many people cannot afford to pay for necessities such as food or shelter, and the reason for this is the low minimum wage of our country. Currently minimum wage is $7.25 nationwide, which means that in some states a full-time minimum wage job brings in $15,080 a year. The median amount of money needed to live comfortably in America is $67,690. Clearly this is a problem.
People making minimum wage amounts of money are at a higher risk for homelessness because the amount of money they make per year is a fraction of the amount needed to live in America. Often minimum wage jobs are the only jobs available to those without a college education, and obviously if a minimum wage employee is struggling to put food on the table they can't afford to pay for college. This means that there is an endless cycle of people who want to raise themselves up out of poverty but can't because of the lack of money.
Because of the negative effects of low minimum wage, I suggest that we raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. Changing minimum wage to $15 an hour makes a full-time job on minimum wage bring in $31,200 a year. Well this still isn't the amount of money needed to have a comfortable secure life in America, in many situations there will be more than one person making money for the household, and if both working do people make minimum wage their yearly income becomes $62,400. This is much closer to the median income of Americans, and undoubtedly better than only making $15,080 a year.
You may be wondering how we would raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. It's actually quite simple. All that needs to be done is passing a law that makes it illegal to pay employees less than $15 an hour. The only foreseeable downside of raising minimum wage is that in order to budget for a higher minimum wage some people may be laid off. Not to worry, though. Socio-economic safety nets will be put into place so that anyone who loses their job as a result of a higher minimum wage will be able to keep themselves and their families in a financially healthy place.
To conclude everything I've said here, minimum wage in America is far too low to survive off of. If we raised it to $15 an hour many people would finally be in a financially healthy situation and we would see a decrease in poverty. I urge you to consider what I have said in the last few paragraphs as I truly believe that this is the way to make America a country where all people can survive and thrive.
Works Cited
Borden, T., & Davis, D. (2020). How much money you need to make to live comfortably in every state in America. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/living-wage-income-to-live-comfortably-in-every-us-state
What are the annual earnings for a full-time minimum wage worker? - Center for Poverty and Inequality Research. Retrieved from https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full-time-minimum-wage-worker#:~:text=The%20annual%20earnings%20for%20a%20full%2Dtime%20minimum%2Dwage%20worker,is%2040%20hours%20each%20week.
303-467-3534
1340 Pine Lane Parker, CO 80138
[email protected]
