Respond to Post #1: Due Friday 1/20
Please respond to a classmate's post on post 1. Pick someone who wrote a different Cabinet position than the one that you wrote about. Use at least 1 additional source.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 10:32 AM
AP US Government & Politics
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
AP US Government & Politics
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Blog Post #1: The Cabinet
- Post-election analysis
- Post 5!! Do not post until after Tuesday!
- Response to Post 4 - Due on 11/4
- Post 4: Due 10/28
- Response to Post 3
- Post 3: Due October 7th
- Debate Transcript
- Post 2 - Due 9/30
- Respond to Post 1
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
48 Comments:
I am responding to Katie Frias post. Mike Pompeo is the nominee for the director of the C.I.A. As I have seen on the news he also doesn’t always agree with President Elect Trump, even though they are both Republicans. I also think that he will be a good director. And I also can’t wait to see him handle the national security issues, whether in real life or online. He is experienced with him being a Congressman already.
http://pompeo.house.gov/biography/
The post that I am responding to dealt with Ben Carson. Carson is Trump's nominee for Secretary of Housing of Urban Development. According to the New York times:Carson, lived in poverty when he was a child(1). Furthermore, Carson was also a neurosurgeon, and he had a brief career as a politican when he ran for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2016(1). The person I responded to said that"Trump has nominated Carson for this position because of his urban background and as a favor to Carson"(2). However, I believe that Trump nominated Carson, because Carson has been a neurosurgeon, a failed political candidate, and an author. As a result, Trump probably feels that since Carson has been in so many careers, he should easily fit in this role. Finally, I also feel that Trump selected Carson, because Carson represents the trophy black guy in Trumps adminstration.
Sources
1:https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/ben-carson-housing-urban-development-trump.html
2: http://apusgopo.blogspot.com/2017/01/blog-post-1-cabinet.html?showComment=1484286582951#c9042553033853173995
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am responding to posts that focused on Scott Pruitt for the Administrator of the EPA. I honestly believe that his leadership will be a complete disaster, but it makes sense for why Trump picked him for the position. Although he has a law degree and experience in state governments, I do not believe he is qualified to lead the EPA. It seems that the only experience he has associated to environmental protection are his 14 lawsuits against the EPA trying to reverse or block air and water regulations (1). He says he is an activist for state’s rights, and is against federal overreach regarding environmental regulations. But, individual states working independently aren’t going to solve a changing global climate. If any change is going to take place, it must be on a national scale, which obviously will not happen with Pruitt as the leader of the EPA. Pruitt, like Trump, doesn’t believe in climate change, and thinks that it is a hoax in order to harm big business. With his plan to essentially dismantle the EPA, one can only hope that some semblance of the EPA exists at the end of Trump’s term in office and that there hasn’t been any irreversible damage done to the environment.
(1):https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/scott-pruitt-testifying-to-lead-epa-criticizes-environmental-rules.html
In response to Ian's post, I agree, for the most part, with what he has said. If approved, Betsy DeVos, President Elect Trump's pick for Secretary of Education, will undoubtedly change the public education system drastically. DeVos is a strong believer in less governmental interference in the education system, and will for sure make it one of her main priorities. For example, DeVos had previously tried pushing for less regulation over charter schools in Michigan, but ultimately, it failed. As Secretary of Education, DeVos would have a position of greater power and will be able to make more drastic and effective changes towards public education.
Like Ian said, DeVos seems pleasing to Republicans at a glance because of her stance on issues involving government regulation within education and her dissent towards the Common Core standards. However, I believe that after DeVos' disastrous hearing last night, Republican incumbents may be a bit wary about approving her as the Secretary of Education. When questioned by Democratic Senators like Franken and Warren, DeVos was literally at a loss for words and could not come up with actual answers for the questions asked. For example, when asked about testing scores correlating with proficiency and growth, DeVos mixed up the definitions of the two (1). Her hearing really showed her lack of knowledge as a politician, and also showed that she was just a generous donor with conservative values (1). If the Republican Senators just took a minute to actually evaluate DeVos, they would realize that there are so many more qualified candidates that would hold the same conservative values as well as actual political experience. It is highly possible that by way the Democrats played out their questions to portray DeVos during her hearing, Republican senators will be more hesitant to approve DeVos. However, at the same time, with the Republican majority, there is still a very high chance that DeVos will be approved.
(1) http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-01-18/betsy-devos-confirmation-hearing-devolves-into-partisan-brawl-on-education-policy
I am responding to Charlie’s post on Scott Pruitt, President Elect Trump’s nominee for the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I wholeheartedly agree with him, I am extremely worried about the appointment of someone to an agency dealing specifically with the environment who says that he doesn’t believe in climate change. According to the New York Times, Pruitt fought against the EPA as the attorney general of Oklahoma, and Trump’s nomination of him to the very agency he tried to eliminate is a mocking of the danger of climate change. I’m worried about all of Trump’s cabinet nominations, but Pruitt, soon to be in charge of the agency protecting our world, is one of the most alarming.
(1).https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/scott-pruitt-testifying-to-lead-epa-criticizes-environmental-rules.html
I am responding to the many posts about Betsy DeVos, the secretary of education appointee. It seemed that she was not very qualified. Since then she has her hearing at the senate. From this it seems that not only is she not qualified but horribly uninformed about the department she might run. She said that guns might be needed in some schools, assuming bears are nearby of course, and that she would stand by Trump in his quest to get rid of gun-free school zones (1). Another notable mistake was when asked is she would enforce IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law that makes public schools give free and good education to those with disabilities, she said that it should be up to the states to enforce it or not. When she was later informed that it was a federal law she said that she “must have confused it” (1). As well as mixing up terms in a common debate within the school system, it seems that if she gets the appointment there will be quite a learning curve.
(1)https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/18/six-astonishing-things-betsy-devos-said-and-refused-to-say-at-her-confirmation-hearing/?utm_term=.8742dc6b735d
I am responding to Anussa’s post about Trump’s pick for Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin. For one thing, I agree that Mnuchin’s roots in Wall Street and history in hedge fund management lend him certain qualifications for the position (1). I also completely agree that another large contributor to Mnuchin’s selection is his close affiliations with Trump’s campaign; namely, Mnuchin was Trump’s campaign finance chairman (1). I think Trump is in part paying Mnuchin back for his work and loyalty on the campaign trail.
While I think that Mnuchin definitely has some background and skills that could potentially make him a successful Secretary of the Treasury, I am reasonably wary about the realistic outcome of Mnuchin’s time in the position. My main cause for concern is the recent news that Mnuchin failed to include $100 million of real estate assets in his report to the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday (2). Not only this, Mnuchin also failed to reveal his held title of director of an investment fund in the “tax haven” of the Cayman Islands (2)(3). Although Mnuchin called these exclusions simple mistakes amongst a complex paperwork load, many are questioning Mnuchin’s business ethics, citing his tax evasion. While I believe that it is possible that these specific pieces of withheld information were simply the result of a slip up in paperwork, the event still troubles me looking at the future of the Treasury. If Mnuchin’s actions are truly an act of shady ethics and sneaky tax evasion, then the Treasury certainly should not be under his leadership. However, on the opposite end of the spectrum, I don’t feel completely comfortable handing the Treasury over to a man who accidently leaves out $100 million dollars of assets in his paperwork or unwittingly withholds his key position in his business. While these recent events have certainly brought up the questionability of Mnuchin’s selection, only time will tell the exact effects he will have on the future of the Treasury.
(1)https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/business/dealbook/steven-mnuchin-trump-treasury-hedge-funds.html
(2)http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-treasury-secretary-pick-steven-mnuchin-defends-role/story?id=44886015
(3)https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/steven-mnuchin-treasury-secretary-nominee-assets-confirmation.html
I am responding to Charlie’s post about one of Trump’s picks; Scott Pruitt for the Administrator of the EPA. I agree with him that this pick is indeed concerning when it comes the environment, and why Trump picked him. On the source I checked, I can also confirm that he leads as an advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda. He will most likely slow progress, something many republicans will be doing during Trump’s term. I think he will try to create more jobs that he believed were “destroyed by taxpayer dollars”, and focus on keeping air and water lean for Americans. Trump believes that Pruitt will be a powerful advocate for the mission to promote jobs and opportunity. Pruitt obviously believes that certain EPA regulations are wasteful, and disagrees with climate change. Time will only tell to see how republicans truly affect the changing environment right before our eyes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa/?utm_term=.a006d71b3340
(in response to Mandi’s post)
President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Rick Perry to be his Secretary of Energy. I definitely agree with Mandi’s assessment of the nomination. She felt that Perry in the position of the Secretary of Energy would “heighten paranoia” and create tension with surrounding countries. Another fact Mandi pointed out that less than six years ago Perry was in favor of abolishing the Department of Energy. While this is very alarming to me, I do understand that people’s opinions can change. What is even more concerning to me is that Rick Perry has no experience in the field he will be in charge of, though this is not surprising to me as it has been a theme with most of Trump’s nominations. The past three secretaries of energy have had extensive knowledge of energy [1]. I am sure that I am not the only person who is troubled by the thought of someone without a lot of experience in the field to be running it.
1:http://www.businessinsider.com/energy-secretaries-before-rick-perry-2016-12/#2001-2005-spencer-abraham-10
(in response to Marley Lund’s post)
Wilbur Ross could have also been chosen by President-elect Trump due to their similar stances regarding unfair trading practices used by China and other countries. Both believe in enforcing tariffs and both are skeptical of existing trade agreements (1). He also could have been nominated because of his ability to turn failing situations into profitable situations. He has a reputation known as the “King of Bankruptcies” due to him buying countless failing companies and selling them for billions of dollars of profit (2). He has experience in negotiations and disputes, but his strategies he uses for bankrupt companies really shouldn’t be applied to countries. Strong foreign leaders won't be swayed by Ross’s business techniques, so he has a challenge ahead of him.
1 - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-learned-and-didnt-about-wilbur-ross-at-his-confirmation-hearing/
2 - http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/11/30/wilbur-ross-king-bankruptcy-face-american-business/94674990/
I'm responding to Hayley Dickinson's analysis of President Trump's pick of Scott Pruitt as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I agree with her statement saying that Trump likely picked Pruitt because of his stance on climate change, which is similar to Trump's. Pruitt, a climate change denier, will have a large impact as head of the Environmental Protection Agency as he'll likely scale back many of the environmental protections that were in place under President Obama (1). I agree with Hayley's analysis in that with Pruitt as its administrator, the EPA will be much smaller and have less of an impact than it did before (1). In fact, Pruitt has filed 14 lawsuits against the EPA that allege it has overstepped its boundaries (1).
(1) http://www.thisisinsider.com/trump-epa-pick-scott-pruitt-2017-1
I am responding to a post by Hayley Dickinson who wrote about the EPA nominee, Scott Pruitt, and I completely agree with what she has to say. His skepticism of climate change is evident and this along with his criticism of federal rules protecting air and water show why Trump thought of him for this position. He preaches state’s sovereignty and wants to allocate environment regulations to the states (1). Their similarities stretch to other policy beliefs as well. For example, Pruitt has stood steadfastly and publicly against Obama’s work. He has led Oklahoma’s legal challenges to Obamacare and executive actions on illegal immigrants (2).
I agree with Hayley that Pruitt’s work will likely slow the progress of the EPA, especially with Trump wanting to dismantle it altogether. Pruitt has already played a leading role in 27 lawsuits against Obama’s Clean Power Plan which curbs pollution from coal fired power plants which in turn diminishes planet warming (1). I think that this shows how some of his stances could conflict with what is obviously a growing problem. His opening statements on climate change during his hearing essentially said human activity does affect climate change, but the question of to what extent is up for discussion. Although straight up facts will tell him exactly how far human activity extends to - greenhouse gases cause changes in the atmosphere. “The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels” (3).I really think that with him in the cabinet progress of the EPA will slow, and the parts of the environment that greatly need protection won’t receive it.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/scott-pruitt-testifying-to-lead-epa-criticizes-environmental-rules.html
(2) http://scottpruitt.com/meet-scott/
(3) http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/faq/how-do-human-activities-contribute-to-climate-change-and-how-do-they-compare-with-natural-influences
My post is in response to Lauren and Jillayne, who both analyzed President-elect Trump’s nominee for the position of Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. I think both did well in explaining his background as a Republican in Congress and his long-standing views on health care (which stem from his own medical background). Furthermore, I agree that his opposition to the Affordable Care Act will be evident once he is confirmed (which he will due to the Republican majority), and this will very much affect the 22 million Americans who have received health insurance through the ACA. However, what neither of the two mentioned was his views on Medicare and Medicaid, which are programs seeking to aid elderly and low-income individuals receive health care. When cross-examined by Senator Elizabeth Warren, Mr. Price was revealed to have proposed cuts in both programs by a total of $1 trillion. Donald Trump, as Senator Warren noted, promised to cut not a single dollar from either program. Mr. Price was asked if he would uphold this position by President-elect Trump as secretary, but Mr. Price could not answer in a simple “yes” or “no,” and instead complained about the “metric” (federal dollars) presented by Senator Warren (1). With the aging of America well-documented as a demographic trend, it is concerning that Mr. Price is in favor of cutting so much money from programs like Medicare that will help senior citizens live long, healthy lives into retirement (2).
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX5JuIc3RUw&t=168s
(2) https://aoa.acl.gov/Aging_Statistics/Index.aspx
Rick Perry, the former Dancing with the Stars participant and governor of Texas, has been nominated to be the Secretary of Energy. Mandii pointed out that President-elect Trump’s reason for nominating Perry was because of similar values about energy. As Secretary of Energy Perry is in charge of the department that designs and safeguards America’s nuclear weapon supply. What is interesting about Perry’s new role as the head of the department is that he was for disbanding the department all together in 2011, and in 2015 he called out Trump for being a “cancer to conservatism (1).” I am personally not sure how well I trust Perry to run the department, especially since our last two Secretaries were award winning scientists and Perry previously did not believe in the work of the department. How he handles his new role and deals with what comes in the next four years will be interesting to say the least.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trump-cabinet-tracker/510527/
The blog post I am responding to is Morgan’s post about the nomination of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. Overall, I share similar opinions and concerns as Morgan and other classmates who originally wrote about DeVos and her nomination for Secretary of Education. If her nomination is approved by the Senate, I definitely believe that the government will shift away from Common Core standards and that government funding will be invested into more private and charter schools to reflect conservative and republican views held by DeVos and Trump. However, I agree with Morgan that DeVos and her goal of providing government vouchers for religious private schools does pose problems surrounding the separation of church and state. I also think it is important to consider the implications and potential consequences of DeVos’s goals on racial and religious minorities within communities.
With the confirmation process underway, I feel that new concerns regarding the nomination of DeVos have surfaced since the original blog post was written. During her confirmation hearing, DeVos stated that guns should be allowed in in schools and backed her opinion with an example of a Wyoming school that needs a gun to protect against grizzly bears (1). Additionally, DeVos lacked the ability to understand the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and distinguish differences between measurements of proficiency and growth in standardized testing, both essential to education policies affecting all schools across the United States (1).
(1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/18/six-astonishing-things-betsy-devos-said-and-refused-to-say-at-her-confirmation-hearing/?utm_term=.0843c72869c9
I am responding to Morgan's post about Trump's selection of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. I agree with her when she states that she feels as if her action in the cabinet will lead to increased privatization of schools across the country. DeVos not only has no experience whatsoever with education, but her main goal is to increase numbers of charter and private schools to boost funds. This is extremely alarming and upsetting. A Secretary of Education should ensure that every child receives a quality education, despite their income. This, however, may be difficult under DeVos. (1.) Her and her husband's massive campaign donations to the Republican party (almost $3 millions) have practically purchased her a spot in the cabinet. DeVos and her organizations have spent well over $33 million in efforts to privatize schools, funds that could be going to ensuring that low-income students receive a sufficient education. Betsy DeVos's position as Secretary of Education is just another example of how screwed America will be under Trump's reign.
(1). http://neatoday.org/2017/01/11/betsy-devos-dangerous-for-public-education/
I am responding to Willas post on Betsy DeVos, Trumps nominee for secretary of Education. I agree with Willa that this nomination is one that leaves me worried, her campaign to legalize public funding of religious schools puts the separation of church and state in great danger. In this past week DeVos had her senators confirmation hearing, in this hearing it was made clear the DeVos was not the most appropriate person for this job. DeVos was asked a question by our own Senator Franken on how students progress should be measured. DeVos, left speechless, could not answer this question that has been an ongoing debate in the education community. When asked by Senator Chris Murphy as to if guns should be allowed in schools, she could not agree that schools are no place for guns and that one may be necessary to protect against grizzly bears. DeVos showed once again a lack of understanding when Senator Hassan asked if the states should be allowed to decide to enforce the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. She seemed to be unaware of the fact that IDEA is a federal law, and said it was up to the states to enforce it. Then when asked if all schools receiving federal funding should be held to equal standards by Senator Kaine, she refused to agree and would only respond with “I support equal accountability”. DeVos has an extreme lack of knowledge when it comes to even the most basic, education fundamentals. It seems as though the only thing that got her to this position was the $200 million her family has donated to the Republican party over the years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/18/six-astonishing-things-betsy-devos-said-and-refused-to-say-at-her-confirmation-hearing/?utm_term=.01c1e6f48469
The person I decided to respond to is Henry Weismann, In his response he talked about Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson. I agree with Henry’s comment that, Rex Tillerson would make a good Secretary of State. Rex Tillerson is well connected throughout the world, all thanks to his job as CEO of Exxonmobil. Rex Tillerson also knows the government. (1) “Dealing with governments is an integral part of running a major oil company.” He has an understanding of the government to a large extent, all because of his job. I also agree that there will be stronger relations with Russia. (1) “Russia is an enormous oil producer. Doing business in Russia, … requires having good relationships with key players, especially Vladimir Putin.” This will help America in the long run, having key relations with Russia. Not only Russia, but other countries will be affected by the appointment of Rex Tillerson. His job has made him well rounded individual. In the end only affecting America in a good way.
http://theweek.com/articles/667299/why-rex-tillerson-great-pick-secretary-state
I responded to Charlie and Lily’s post on Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. I would certainly agree with both posts that Trump’s selection for this post (and many other posts) are concerning, and that Trump seems intent on reversing many of the changes made by the Obama administration. Both his lack of experience, as brought up by Lily, and his reluctance to confirm any specific actions or changes the EPA would make under his bureaucracy are extremely unnerving. He has expressed his desire to decentralize the EPA’s power, and to make the decisions mostly from the state level. He has also expressed his concern that the previous EPA overstepped their assigned powers, and in doing so hindered economic growth in several regions. This concern also expresses itself in the 14 lawsuits he has filed against the EPA to prevent the passage of air and water pollution regulations. All of these actions and positions, undertaken by a Secretary of Environment nominee, are certainly not something to take lightly.
However, there does seem to be a method to his madness. First, Mr. Pruitt is not a climate change denier. In his hearing, he acknowledged that humans have had an impact of the global change we have seen over the past decades. He has also said he will not challenge the landmark 2009 case which establishes that carbon emissions pose a threat to human and environmental health, thus giving the EPA jurisdiction over regulating carbon emissions. As Pruitt said, “there is nothing I would know that would cause it to be reviewed.” For Trump, the environment is obviously not a pressing issue, whereas stimulating the economy and creating jobs is. It does make sense that he would appoint a nominee with a history of trying to keep the EPA “in their lane” and block regulations that “ignore the economic costs of regulations in favor of the environmental and health costs” (both quotes from the hearing). So far, Trump’s appointees appear hand crafted to aid Trump in cutting through red tape during his presidency. Additionally, the ideological uniformity makeup of his Cabinet makes executive orders potentially a very powerful tool during Trump’s term. The posts I responded to made Pruitt’s appointment out to be an illogical, desperate, and maybe selfish move. I respectfully disagree, but my views of Trump’s motives to me are equally as concerning as theirs. I believe that Scott Pruitt seems to be the ideal man to make the EPA do exactly what Trump wants it to do: stay out of his way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/scott-pruitt-testifying-to-lead-epa-criticizes-environmental-rules.html
http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/at-scott-pruitts-confirmation-hearing-a-nominee-to-leash-the-epa/
I responded to Cheri Wang's post about Scott Pruitt, the Attorney General of Oklahoma, being nominated as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. I generally agree with what she has said. Pruitt has taken a very hostile stance towards the EPA and has been quoted as describing climate change as "far from settled." Pruitt has also received more than 300,000 dollars from the fossil fuel industry since 2002, an industry that has generally not been very positive towards the EPA. Despite these somewhat lacking characteristics from the head of the EPA, it makes sense why Trump picked him. Trump has also called climate change a lie. Claiming it was "created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."[1] Trump has even called to get rid of the agency.[2] Pruitt will most likely make decisions that will limit the reach of his agency and cut Environmental regulations. Because of this conservative and oil centered approach to the environment, many Democrats in the Senate have promised to try to prevent him from being confirmed. Overall I strongly agree with Cheri's view of Scott Pruitt's effect on the EPA.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/trump-picks-scott-pruitt-to-head-epa/
[2] http://time.com/4594238/donald-trump-scott-pruitt-epa/
I am responding to Charlie’s post on the nomination of Scott Pruitt as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I find this to be one of the most concerning nominations that Trump has made. Pruitt is a has close ties with the fossil fuel industry and this appears to be a signal that confirms Trump’s determination to reverse Obama’s environmental policy and decrease the power and size of the EPA in general [1]. I agree with Charlie’s analysis of this nomination. It means major changes for environmental policy and programs if this appointment is approved. Having someone in charge of an agency who doesn’t believe in what it stands for and is trying to achieve seems illogical and damaging. Trump has famously voiced his disbelief in climate change, claiming it is a hoax, but also wants to get rid of the Paris Accord and the Clean Power Plan that was a part of Obama’s policy [1]. Pruitt has already been involved in the legal battle against this policy. It can be assumed that his actions in this position will follow suit. In Pruitt, Trump found someone with environmental conservation and protection ideas that are much like his own, or rather a common lack of confident support for environmental preservation efforts.
Source:
[1]:https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html
Many peers chose Rick Perry for their first response. He was Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Energy. His education does not correlate with what he was chosen for like many of Trump’s picks. He recieved a bachelor’s degree in animal science from Texas A&M (1). Trump has had a huge focus on creating jobs on U.S. soil, so he most likely picked Rick Perry because he has created jobs in the energy field in Texas, as well as lowered the cost of energy (2). Rick Perry is an advocate of fossil fuels, and will probably push to continue to work on the Dakota Access Pipeline (3). Rick Perry is a controversial pick mostly because he did not know a lot about the the Department of Energy when he accepted the job, he even said that it should be eliminated. After he was briefed, he took back those words and realized how important it is in his hearing with the senate. His opening statements were taking back his view that climate change is not real, and he admitted that it is but did not express that it was all becuase of humans, only “parts” of it was from humans. (4).
1.https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/rick-perry-energy-secretary-trump.html?_r=0
2.http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/13/politics/rick-perry-energy-secretary/
3.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/energy-pick-rick-perry-resigns-dakota-access-pipeline-boards-article-1.2944288
4.http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/rick-perry-doe-nominee-says-he-regrets-calling-for-departments-elimination/
In response to Ian's post about Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, I would have to say I am mostly in agreement with him. The issue she is most well known for it definitely supporting school vouchers for religious and private schools (1). Instead of trying to fix public schools, she is going to let them fall further apart. I agree with others that the support for religious school choice definitely toes the line of separation of Church and State. I also agree with Ian that DeVos lacks national political experience. The most experience she has in this field is donating lots of money to national campaigns or holding events at her house (2). Just like Ben Carson, this small amount of national experience does not make her qualified to become the Secretary of anything. Her experienced definitely qualifies her as an activist, but not a politician. Throughout her career, she has also worked hard to break up teacher unions, and believes that they are in part to blame for the failing public school system (3). She has worked long and hard to try and change the school system in Detroit, with many students now attending charter or private schools. I am seriously afraid for the future of education in America with Betsy DeVos in charge. It's not okay to give up on public education in one state, let alone in all of America.
(1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/trump-picks-billionaire-betsy-devos-school-voucher-advocate-as-education-secretary/2016/11/23/c3d66b94-af96-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html?utm_term=.204a62477e92
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos#Political_activity
(3) https://www.romper.com/p/does-betsy-devos-think-public-school-teachers-are-overpaid-shes-a-school-choice-activist-23728
I took a look at Daniela's post about Scott Pruitt. The essence of her post was that Scott Pruitt doesn't really have the education to justify being the head of the EPA (which is true), that he wants to dismantle the EPA (true again), and that he opposed environmental regulations from Obama (yep) (1). However, while I agree with Daniela that Pruitt isn't really qualified to be the head of the EPA especially considering his ties to the fossil fuel industry, I disagree on her notion that greenhouse gases are as huge an issue as she seemed to explain. I am of the opinion that the current climate change is part of a cycle that occurs naturally. Considering how "on record" when referring to the new record high temperatures worldwide is only taking into account the past 200 or so years where we have been able to even measure the climate in any meaningful way. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and life have existed on it for at least 3.5 billions years, somehow I find it hard to believe that at some point there wouldn't be some equilibrium being drifted over when it comes to the environment. Our current icecaps have expanded and contracted based upon shifts in the climate and while greenhouse gases are truly important to monitor at least for air quality maintenance, the impact of humans on the atmosphere is only high when you ignore such eras as the carboniferous period. The carboniferous period is called such because of the high amount of coal formed from that era. The reason for this is because there was a huge amount of plant life at the time, this could only have been possible if there was somewhat more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than today. Yet somehow, the Earth managed to cool down as the huge amount of plant life converted that carbon dioxide into oxygen which isn't much of a greenhouse gas. The point is, while it is important to watch the environment and regulate anything related to it, it is important not to overstate the effects of humans on it.
(1) https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-learned-and-didnt-about-scott-pruitt-at-his-confirmation-hearing/
I'm responding to Matthew Steigauf's post about the Secretary of Defense nomination, General James Mattis. After doing some research, I agree that this is one of Trump's better decisions for heads of departments. Eliot Cohen, an expert that was called on by the Senate has stated that "Mattis would be a stabilizing and moderating force preventing wildly stupid, dangerous, or illegal things from happening, and over time, helping to steer American foreign and security policy in a sound and sensible direction” (2). I agree that he looks like a very solid candidate for the position, as he was a 4-star general, and on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq. He knows how the military works and would be a smart and sensible Secretary of Defense.
1) http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/01/no-mad-dog
I agree with Ian's post about Trump's pick for Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. She is a troubling choice for the position. Ian brought up that she is a strong proponent of school vouchers which I believe is not a good thing for the education system. But I think her nomination as only become more troubling after her confirmation hearing before the Senate Educational Committee. There is a whole litany of worrisome things she said before the committee so I will only mention a couple of highlights. When asked whether or not guns should be allowed in school DeVos responded that they might be necessary to prevent a grizzly bear attack citing one school in Wyoming [1]. Moving beyond the general absurdity of this statement there are a couple things to note: since 1830 there is no documented case of a bear attack taking place on school grounds and also, grizzly bears are only located in four states in the nation so the chance of one attacking a school is minuscule [2]. Additionally, the Daily Show called the school in Wyoming that DeVos was referring to and they said they had no guns on the school property instead using a fence and bear spray to repel bears [3]. Also, at the confirmation DeVos was asked by Senator Franken to give the committee her thoughts on using tests to measure proficiency and growth, a relatively big debate among educators. When asked DeVos appeared to be unaware of the debate at all [4]. Here DeVos demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the cabinet she is being nominated to run which is very troubling. To really see what DeVos might do one can look to Michigan where she was a big supporter of education reform [5]. In Michigan charter schools across the State have abysmal academic performance [6]. Finally, I also believe that Senator Sanders brought up a good point when he asked DeVos if she thought she would be here if her family had not given millions to the republican party.
I posted the same comment twice because the first time I was logged in under the wrong account
I am responding to the post written by Emily, and for the most part I agree with the statements she wrote about the nominee for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. Although Tillerson does not have any political background, his business background gives him experience with working with other countries and making negotiations. As Emily mentioned in her blog post, many are concerned about Tillerson’s close ties with Russia and what this could mean as the Secretary of State. It is hard to know where this relationship with the leaders of Russia could leave, but it’s possible that Tillerson was only keeping close with them to help his company succeed(1). Another area that could cause tensions between the United States and other countries with Tillerson as Secretary of State is an argument with China about a proposed gas project. As leader of ExxonMobil, Tillerson had been pushing a gas project in an area near Vietnam and China. With disputes over this, the former State department was able to soothe both sides and help stop riots and military conflict over the project(2). With Tillerson as Secretary of State, it is possible tensions in this area, and many others that businesses such as ExxonMobil hope to expand, could rise again. Emily had said she believes that Tillerson will bring a “unique set of experiences to the table” if he is approved, and I agree with this. He has background of being a major player in the global market and it is possible he could completely change how the State Department is run. Overall, where Tillerson lacks in political experience he makes up for in successful contact and business ventures in many foreign countries. Although obviously picked for his similar views and background to Trump, it could prove to be an interesting change for our government. I also agree with Emily when she mentions that it is difficult to predict the actions of a person who has no political experience, so we will have to wait and see how Tillerson manages being the Secretary of State if approved by the Senate.
(1)http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/315255-tillerson-running-state-dept-like-exxon-mobil-is-good-for
(2)https://qz.com/887819/rex-tillerson-as-us-diplomat-could-confront-beijing-over-south-china-sea-natural-gas-projects-he-oversaw-as-exxonmobil-xom-ceo/
I agree with many of the posts regarding Trump's pick for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson. He definitely has the experience required for dealing with foreign affairs, even if it may not be conventional political experience. He has spent decades dealing with world political and business leaders on issues of trade and commerce (1). Although he makes some contradictions to Trump, they are both very similar. They both have a lot of business experience, and not a lot of political experience. They have also both been accused of getting a little too cozy with Putin. It should be interesting to see how Trump and Tillerson deal with foreign affairs, given their backgrounds in global business.
Source 1: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/315255-tillerson-running-state-dept-like-exxon-mobil-is-good-for
I’m responding to Jocelyn’s post about Ben Carson as the nominee for the secretary of housing and urban development. I think she did a good job explaining all of the things that Carson has done in his life as a physician, and what led to him attempting to run for president. I agree with Jocelyn that Trump mainly nominated him for this position as a favor to Carson. I think it’s sort of strange that Trump nominated him for this role just because of the fact he used to live in an urban area, despite the fact he is not an expert in that field in any way. I think that Carson has done a lot of things that have surprised people such as running for president, and because he was so successful as a neurosurgeon, I think he could have some success in this position. That being said Trump had better options for this position, but it was not the worst choice he made. According to an article on the washington post Carson will enforce the fair housing law, which is something that Democrats support, however he also holds a lot of traditional conservative views. His conservative views won’t support social programs that I think a lot of urban areas are in need of, which could be a problem. Overall Ben Carson isn’t the best pick Trump could have made, but he also has the potential to do some good things for the HUD. I’m interested to see what happens with this department, and what Carson does.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/carson-talks-columbo-and-neurons-at-hud-confirmation-hearing/2017/01/12/19b3bd80-d8fc-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.b6ce43306cde
I am responding to Cheri Wang's post about Scott Pruitt, Trump's nominee for Administer of the Environmental Protection Agency. I agree with most of what she said. In summary, Pruitt has never believed that the EPA should exist; he has argued that it should be gotten rid of. He also says that the EPA is taking up too much of our budget. He has recently sued the EPA 14 times, which brings into question why he is getting this job. From his congressional hearing, we know that he spoke about how he agrees that humans are contributing to climate change in some manner, but there should be more debate about this before we regulate human activity (1). He also wants to put more power in the hand of the states in regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Part of this plan is to get groups of states working together to address pollution problems by region (1). Finally, he has assured Congress that he will find a proper balance with industry and the environment. He did not elaborate on this position or explain what the proper balance is, but there is still hope that he may not scrap everything the Obama administration has worked so hard to start.
(1) https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-learned-and-didnt-about-scott-pruitt-at-his-confirmation-hearing/
I have chosen to respond to Jocelyn's post on Donald Trump's nominee for the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Ben Carson. She did an excellent job of summarizing Carson's background in his field. I agree with her predictions of a growing private industry in home mortgages, based on Carson's statements during his Congressional hearing. [1] I also agree with her statement that Trump nominated him as a favor, as Carson has only mediocre experience in this category. I say mediocre because Carson's so-called experience comes from the fact that he lived in subsidized housing as a child. [2] I don't believe that this is strong enough qualifications to run an agency of this magnitude, but Carson seems to be taking the job seriously, and has even been appealing to opponents on the Democratic side. For example, he opposed getting rid of government-sponsored health-care programs without "major safety nets," [3] something that is important to Democrats in the face of Trump's presidency. Overall, I disagree with Carson's nomination for this position, but he is much better than Trump's other nominees.
1) http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-carson-hud-20170112-story.html
2)http://www.npr.org/2016/12/05/504421433/what-qualifies-ben-carson-to-run-hud-his-life-says-longtime-adviser
3)https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/carson-talks-columbo-and-neurons-at-hud-confirmation-hearing/2017/01/12/19b3bd80-d8fc-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.0edec8e2bfe7
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am responding to Morgan Limmer's post regarding Betsy DeVos, Trump's Secretary of Education nominee. Morgan touched on topics such as DeVos's stances on issues and why she was chosen, but one that that really stands out to me that she did not mention is Betsy DeVos's lack of experience in this field. She was heavily questioned by the Senate in her confirmation hearing and failed to answer many of the questions in a satisfactory manner (1). For example, she could not comprehend Senator Al Franken's question on the debate between proficiency and growth, which is a key issue in the education community right now (1). She also said that guns should be allowed in schools so children can be protected from wild grizzly bears (1). I wholeheartedly agree with Morgan that as Secretary of Education, DeVos will change the department and the nation as a whole, and I also agree that it is not necessarily changing in the right direction.
1-https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/18/six-astonishing-things-betsy-devos-said-and-refused-to-say-at-her-confirmation-hearing/?utm_term=.30953579485f
I am responding to Rebeka's post on General James Mattis, Trumps pick for Secretary of Defense. I do agree with what she said about General Mattis. He is one of Trumps cabinet picks, one of the only ones actually, that I think is a good choice for our country. As Rebecka did say, he did come out of the confirmation hearing with lots of support. I agree with her as well that he disagrees about Russia and NATO with Trump. I think this is good, as he will keep our country sound from a defense side of things, and will keep us in NATO, and hopefully out of a Russian war. I think him being a former general will be good, as he has the experience to do the job well. The senate confirmation hearing agrees, as he was sworn in as the secretary of defense, with a vote of 98-1. (1) I do believe just like Rebecca that Mattis will be a good Secretary of Defense. I just hope other cabinet positions will have the same results.
(1):http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/mad-dog-mattis-confirmed-as-defense-secretary-first-trump-cabinet-member-to-be-approved.html
I agree with Nathan about how Rex Tillerson may do his job. He has worrying relationships with Russia, including his massive dependence on Russia for oil. In 2011, ExxonMobil, the company that Tillerson is head of, and Rosneft, a Russian oil company, made a deal. The companies were going to work together to drill oil out of the Arctic Ocean, where many believe there is a motherlode of undiscovered oil. This relationship with Russia will give him a critical conflict of interest. If we let Tillerson become the Secretary of State, he will be an important diplomat to a country that controls a good portion of his business interests.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/rex-tillerson-exxon-putin-russia-ties-friend-214515
I am responding to Ian's post about Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. According to Ian, she would be better defined as an activist in regards to politics, rather than someone who has held administrative positions. I agree with Ian because she has done more things regarding politics such as reform more than being an actual politician. She is more of a lobbyist and does not have the experience needed to be qualified for this cabinet position. DeVos is a former Republican Party chairwoman in Michigan and chair of the pro-school-choice advocacy group American Federation for Children(1). DeVos is also a part of the movement to privatize public education by working on getting laws that would require the use of public funds to pay for private school tuition(1). She is not as well informed about Education as some politicians would be. In addition, I agree with Ian that if her policy positions were enacted, they would have dramatic implications for the future of the public school system in America as a result. I also agree that her nomination is a little surprising. In my opinion, she would not be the first choice for Secretary of Education. Finally, I agree with Ian that there are low chances that she will not be picked because of Republican control in Congress.
(1)https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/08/a-sobering-look-at-what-betsy-devos-did-to-education-in-michigan-and-what-she-might-do-as-secretary-of-education/?utm_term=.20eaa6df11e7
I'm responding to Nathan Noma's post on Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. Nathan said that Rex may not be very good at his job, which I agree with, but he said it would be because of Trumps abrasive nature. While this is true, I believe there will be more of a problem with a conflict of interest see as Rex had major ties to Russia because of his affiliation with his company Exxonmobil (1). The problem is that Russia has become more and more of a problem in the past few years and if he’s too chummy with them, he won’t be effective. Another Interesting thing about Rex is that he disagrees with Trump on many issues (2). This might be a good thing to some because it could prevent either from really pushing their agenda. LAstly, Rex does not have any great qualifications. Only ever working in the private sector, he has no foreign policy experience. The only real good thing he has is the fact that he was a deal maker as a CEO (3). Regardless, he really isn't a good pick and I hope he is not appointed to his position.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mccain-graham-rex-tillerson_us_5884b428e4b096b4a2325993
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/what-rex-tillerson-said-about-conflicting-opinions-trump-administration
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/01/12/rex-tillerson-unqualified-secretary-state/Xgs6mOgOUmYBXcjWm1nohI/story.html
I reviewed the post by Joslyn James on Donald Trump’s nomination of Ben Carson as the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I am not really sure what we are supposed to answer here so I am going to compare and contrasts my opinions on this decision. I personally think that the only reason the Ben Carson is the white man’s black man. Before you start judging me on this statement, let me explain. Ben Carson says that he had a very rough and violent past. He has said that he would attack people with rocks, hammers, and nearly stabbing someone. This is what a racist man (in my opinion Trump and some of the Republican politicians) sees as a normal blackman. Then Carson says that he was saved by God and christianity. This is how a Racist white person will see a good black person, a crazy person who goes around attacking people and hurting them, but then turning to god becomes a good black person. They don’t think that a black man can be a good person without having a rough life then turning to god. I hope that makes sense. This makes me feel like that he is only getting the job because of the type of person he is. I think that he won’t do the greatest job because of his lack of experience and that he had to kiss some butts to get where he is today.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/25/politics/ben-carson-violent-past-donald-trump/
I'm responding to Willa Countryman post about Trumps nominee for the Department of Education, Betsy DeVos. I wholeheartedly agree with Willa, in the regard that DeVos' nomination is worrying. Her support of breaching the separation of church and state, and the fact that her family has given millions of dollars to anti-LGBT organizations. Not to mention the fact that she seems to be unwilling to express what her ideologies are, even in her appointment hearing[1], even going so far as to imply that schools would be safer if they had guns [2]. I'm hoping that her refusal to clarify her beliefs, as well as her conflicts of interest, will mean that she wont be confirmed, though I honestly highly doubt that, if that were to happen, his next nominee would be any better
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/18/six-astonishing-things-betsy-devos-said-and-refused-to-say-at-her-confirmation-hearing/?utm_term=.5aae492abd94
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/01/17/do-guns-belong-in-schools-trumps-education-pick-declines-to-take-a-stand/?utm_term=.2d56dd8279c5
In response to Isaac Hanson's post regarding Rick Perry's placement as the nominee for the secretary of energy, I agree with some of his statement, and disagree with other parts of his post. Coming into this, I had a fairly negative opinion on Rick Perry's appointment for the job, but Isaac's comments on his governorship and the energy which travels through Texas. I believe that this experience gives him the necessary qualifications for running this department. Even his comment about abolishing the department can be refuted by the secretary of energy under George Bush, who had also called for the abolishment of the department before his appointment who said: "There’s a lot of elements to the department that people don’t necessarily know about until you get there, you find yourself surprised by what it really entails." For example, about 60 percent of the department of energy's budget is given to the National Nuclear Security Administration (1). Further, while it is certainly helpful to be a scientist or other major qualification for this job, that's what the scientists employed by the department are for.
(1)https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/rick-perry-energy-secretary-trump.html
I am responding to Matt Leitgen's post about Betsy DeVos for nomination of Secretary of Education. I definitely agree with Matt's stance on her lack thereof qualifications. She will most likely use her money to impact the system but she does not know what is needed to run the education system appropriately.
Betsy DeVos is currently a bit under fire from civil rights education groups as well. Her lack of experience stands out against the rest of past secretaries of education, and so has her upbringing of never being affiliated with public schools or even attending one when she was young (1).
(1)https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/30/betsy-devos-blasted-by-civil-rights-education-groups/21703540/
I am responding to Mandii Braun's analysis of Rick Perry's nomination to be the Energy Secretary. The analysis is apt in pointing out that Perry does not have a history in the managing of nuclear weapons. It also seems that Perry would not have had a desire in leading the department of energy due the fact that he did indeed argue for it to be dismantled in 2011 (1). In my own analysis I would not agree with Mandii that he was picked because he supports nuclear proliferation, only because I am unable to find evidence of that stance. It seems, upon first look, that Trump's nominee was picked for no strategic reason at all. I would venture (but cannot prove) that Trump made the nomination based off of a personal favor, which could have detrimental effects for society. Any number of hasty decisions by Perry could result in security threats to the nation, from leaving the US defenseless to instigating nuclear warfare. I would urge Trump to find a more qualified and less radical Department head.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/rick-perry-energy-secretary-trump.html
I am responding to Marley’s post. She posted about Trump’s choice for Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross. Something that really stuck out to me in her post was that Ross had previously donated significant funds to Democratic organizations. I agree with Marley and her opinions on Trump’s reasoning for the nomination. The men have similar backgrounds in business and both of them take risks in order to gain large profits. I also found it interesting the Marley believes that Ross must sell many of his personal businesses in order to avoid conflict with his governmental duties. This is not something I would normally think about, but I think it makes a lot of sense. According to CNN, Ross has actually consented to this because he signed an ethics agreement, indicating that he will give up his company Invesco (1). Overall, I agree with Marley’s thoughts in her post, and I am anxious to see the work that Ross does in the next few months.
(1) http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/17/investing/wilbur-ross-ethics-agreement-trump-commerce/
I mainly agree with Jill's post on Tom Price, however I believe that Price wasn’t simply selected as Secretary of Health and Human services for his agreeance with Trump on issues and for his medical background. While yes, both of those things certainly are important while selecting the Department of Health and Human Services, any president would be likely to choose a secretary for any department that has background qualification and aligns with their beliefs. Price, however, has something extra.
Price isn’t just the government or just an orthopedic surgeon – he’s a businessman.
According to House records, Price purchased $1,001-$15,000 in Zimmer Biomet, a medical company. It isn’t atypical for anyone to be buying, selling, and holding stock, however less than a week after Price purchased the stock, he proposed an act that would postpone a regulation until 2018 that would have severely hurt Zimmer Biomet (1). Despite whether or not these events were related, it’s clear that Price is looking to protect private business and it still raises the question of if he’s too privy to insider information that could be used for his own benefit. Similarly, during Trump’s election the same question was raised as to the legality of having that knowledge and holding related private businesses. I believe Price is appealing to Trump for the reasons Jill mentioned of his medical qualifications and political views, however I think his business knowledge and ability to skirt the rules was even more appealing to Trump.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/tom-price-bill-aiding-company/
Overall I completely agree with Cheri's stance on Scott Pruitt, the current head of the EPA. He has absolutely no meaningful experience in the environmental science/protection field and will most certainly push for counterproductive measures to take down Obama's previous regulations. In the past, Pruitt has sent letters to federal agencies that object to EPA standards, and it was revealed that these were mainly drafted by gas and oil corporations. (1) Cher's prediction that deregulation will occur has already been fulfilled, as the EPA's budget is projected to lose 24% of its income in the near future and lose 20% of its staff. (2) Overall my prediction is concurrent with Cheri's and I fear for the environmental safety of some parts of our country in which the state government does not take action.
(1)http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/04/opinions/can-scott-pruitts-epa-do-its-job-cruden-shenkman/
(2)https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-senate.html
In response to Hayley Dickinson's post on Scott Pruitt, I would say I am in complete agreement. Trump and Pruitt's views on environmental regulations and climate change line up well. These views indicate that many regulations will be removed or lessened as Pruitt believes that the EPA was furthering an "anti-energy" agenda that was leeching taxpayer dollars unnecessarily (1). With this statement alone, it seems to me that Pruitt is highly unqualified to run the agency, as he seems to confuse clean energy and reduction of fossil fuel usage as an "anti-energy" agenda. In addition, clean energy is more financially efficient in the long run, raising more questions about his claim that clean energy was unnecessary spending.
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home