The Keystone Pipeline bill failed to pass the Senate yesterday by 1 vote. Listen to this NPR segment and read this BBC article on the pipeline and answer the following questions.
1. How would you have voted on the Keystone pipeline? Explain why you would have voted for or against it.
2. Who were the main opponents to the pipeline? What were the main reasons for the Senators that voted against the Keystone pipeline? Do you agree with these Senators? Why or why not?
3. How do you think this will affect the runoff election in Louisiana? Explain your reasoning.
4. What are the three main points of supporters of the project? Do you think they make valid points? Why or why not?
5. Identify at least three key concepts from unit 3 that this story illustrates? Explain HOW each of the concepts is illustrated in this story.
15 comments:
1. I would have voted for the Keystone pipeline because it would have helped our economy create more jobs. We would be a more independent country as we would not have to rely on other countries to supply oil.
2. Democrats and environmentalists were the main opponents to the pipeline. The main reasons for the Senators that voted against the Keystone pipeline are the pipeline will add to carbon emissions and contribute to global warming. No, I do not agree with the Senators because global warming is a theory and is not factual true.
3. Yes, because Louisiana is an oil state and getting Keystone pipeline would increase their economy and jobs in the state.
4. Supporters of the project believe it will create more jobs, a decreased dependency on the Middle Eastern market, and lower the price for consumers. I will they make valid points because the pipeline would require jobs to build it and more oil would been low gas prices and less dependence on the Middle East.
5. Incumbent is illustrated through “Louisiana Representative Bill Cassidy, is facing a run-off election against incumbent Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu for her seat.” Bill is illustrated through how they just voted on the bill yet it was not passed in Congress so it will not go on the president’s desk. Veto is being illustrated through the president’s power of vetoing a bill being mentioned in the article. This could affect the way Congress votes because if it is not going to be passed by the president why vote yes for the bill.
1. I would have voted against the Keystone bill. I personally do not feel that such a major expansion of 'unclean' energy should be pursued even if jobs are created, especially as the world is moving towards more renewable forms of energy.
2. A majority of Democrats were against the bill, including Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Tom Harkin. The primary reason for voting against the pipeline was the opinion that working against climate change was more important than supporting a fellow Democrat. I agree with this line of thinking because the well-being of the planet in the future is more important than a current political game.
3. I feel like the vote will help Senator Landrieu win the runoff in Louisiana. As the NPR segment stated, it is difficult to gain support in Lousiana without being a proponent of 'big oil.' Since Senator Landrieu took the initiative to get this bill to the voting stage, I think it will help her in the runoff.
4. (a) The pipeline would create "thousands" of new jobs, (b) the new pipeline takes a more 'direct route' than the old pipeline, and (c) Democratic Senators such as Tom Carper said the results of the election showed that Democrats needed to cross the aisle. I think (b) and (c) are somewhat valid points because they are backed by facts and the democrats do not want to be seen as uncompromising in the next election. (a) is weaker because construction jobs are temporary and will provide no sustained, tangible boost to the economy.
5. Incumbency advantage due to position taking - Landrieu's stance on the pipeline is well known because she heavily supported the bill, and will likely make it easier for her in the runoff.
President's role as chief legislator - Even though there has been a protracted struggle within congress about the passage of this bill, President Obama still has the final say and there is a strong possibility that he will veto the bill.
Cabinet department as a bureaucratic agency - The Department of State, a cabinet department (which is a type of bureaucratic agency) was involved because the pipeline crosses an international border.
1.I would have voted no for the pipeline because building such a pipeline would promote the use of oil and fossil fuels in general as a resource, which is extremely harmful to the environment and would increase global warming.
2.The main opponents were all democrats, since all the republicans in the Senate voted in favor for the bill. Their main reasons were that it would promote use of fossil fuels and global warming. I agree with the Senators, because the long term health of the planet is more important than temporary jobs for some people.
3. I think it would help incumbent Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu get more votes in the runoff election because Louisiana is really big on oil, and getting a bill like this on the Senate floor is favored by the people of Louisiana.
4.It creates more jobs, it is a more direct route to the refineries and a wider diameter, and it is privately financed so that the government would not have to spend money on it. I think the point about creating jobs is not valid because they are only temporary.
5. The concept of Congress is used, since the Keystone Pipeline bill was debated in the Senate, which is a part of Congress. The concept of veto is used, as Obama could veto the bill in the case that the bill did pass through the Senate since it already passed through the House. A third concept in this story is incumbent, since Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu is an Incumbent to Louisiana, which gives her an advantage in the runoff elections.
1. I would have voted for the Keystone Pipeline because it would be great thing to enhance America and make us less reliable for oil from other parts of the world. Also if it would create more jobs for the American people, it shouldn’t be an issue. Major environmentalists are stating that there are no major environmental issues with the project so it is safe for the environment.
2. The main opponents in the pipeline debate were the democrats. The main reason that they voted down the pipeline is due to reliance on fossil fuels and contributing to global warming. I can see where they are coming from with the fossil fuels and wanting to move away from the usage of them but not the global warming. I am not a firm believer on global warming.
3. I think that it would help incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu because she was the one who proposed a major oil pipeline and Louisiana is all about the oil companies because they are on the Gulf of Mexico.
4. The construction of the pipeline would create more jobs, it is a direct route to the refineries and a wider diameter to carry more oil and it is privately financed so tax payer’s dollars are not paying for it. I think that these points are good valid points to start off with but they need some depth to them like how this would impact America or how the direct route would be better than the original pipeline that is already laid down.
5. The incumbent advantage is used because the Louisiana senator is getting her name out there due to position taking and letting the state of Louisiana know what her political views are. The use on congress and knowing that the senate used to be democratically ruled but now is a majority of republicans and that there needs to be at least 60 votes to have something passed. The other concept that was used is veto, even if the bill got passed in congress, they would still have to worry about president Obama and see whether he would approve it because he knows that the majority of America wants this or veto it because he wants to stick with his political views.
1. I would have voted in support of the pipeline because of the chance to create many temporary jobs in many areas that have been hurt by the recession. In addition this could decrease our reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
2. The main opponents of the pipeline were Democrats and environmental groups who said that this pipeline would increase our dependence on fossil fuels and hurt the environment. While I agree that we need to work towards environmentally friendly energy, in the short term, to help many communities hurt by the recession this is a good option.
3. I think this will hurt Landrieu’s chances as her challenger can point to her party as being the cause of the bills failure. By tying her to the democratic opposition to the bill, even though she supported it, she will be hurt in the election.
4.Supporters say that the pipeline will create thousands of new jobs, will carry more than 830,000 barrels of oil, and will reduce oil prices while reducing dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. I think these are mostly valid points as it will be beneficial to the economy of many of these states to gain the construction jobs. However these jobs will mostly be gone following the construction of the pipeline. At the same time the prospect of lower oil prices and less dependence on sometimes unreliable middle eastern oil is a strong positive.
5. Bicameralism which is the legislative branch being made up of two houses is shown here in that the Senate still had to pass a bill which had already been voted on by the house. Because it failed to pass the bill overall fails. Credit Claiming was shown with Mary Landrieu attempting to get the keystone oil pipeline to pass the senate in order to show her voters that she is working to produce jobs. The presidential veto was discussed as it was expected that if the pipeline did pass the senate Obama would veto it.
1. I would have said yes to the Keystone pipeline because the bill would have helped create new construction jobs for people who lost their jobs, but it would also strengthen the economy because of the current job loss.
2.In my opinion, I think the Democrats were the main opponents to the pipeline, especially Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Tom Harkin. The main reasons why the Senators voted against the pipeline is that the current Senate is controlled by the Democratic Party, and most of the Democrats voted against the bill, so majority rules. Also, another reason why the Senators voted against it is because many of the Democrats feared that the "pipeline will add to carbon emissions and contribute to global warming," as stated in the "US Senate narrowly fails to pass Keystone XL pipeline bill" BBC News article. Since the Senate is currently controlled by the Democratic Party and the party fears it will contribute to global warming, their was no way the Republicans were going to be able to win this.
3.I think this will affect the runoff election in Louisiana because Democrat Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu wanted this vote in order for her to keep and hold on her to her seat in the run-off election. All the Republicans were on-board with the bill, but she still needed the Democrats support, even though 14 out of the 15 that she needed voted. Since the Democrats voted against it, I think it will affect Landrieu's chance considering the fact that she's a Democrat and since Louisiana is a "big oil" state, she might be blamed for why the bill wasn't passed.
4.The three main points of the supporters of the project was 1) It would create thousands of new construction jobs, 2)The pipeline will carry 830,000 barrels of oil from Canada all the way to Nebraska and 3) It will help strengthen the economy and reduce the job loss. I think to a certain extent, the supporters do make valid points, but I don't think they are strong enough points where they can get many people to rally behind. The only valid point behind this project would be creating new construction jobs because our economy is dwindling and is suffering from a huge job loss. So, if the pipeline bill were to be passed, I think that the positive aspect about it is that it would create new jobs, which will not only reduce the job loss, but it will also strengthen our economy and stabilize it.
5.Three key concepts that this story illustrates is pork barrel (incumbent advantages), position-taking (incumbent advantages) and bill. Pork barrel is illustrated in this story because it is a mighty list of federal projects, grants, and contracts available to cities, business, colleges, and institutions. In this story, the Keystone pipeline is a project that many Republicans wanted voted for, which is an advantage an incumbent has because they are able to serve their constituents. It also illustrates position-taking, which is another incumbency advantage because Dem.Senator Mary Landrieu was one of the few Democrats in the Senate who supported this bill and was firm on this issue. She did everything she could as a Senator and an incumbent to try and rally people behind her, but also to keep her seat in the runoff election. It also illustrates the concept of a bill because it a bill is a proposed law, and the Keystone pipeline was a bill that was proposed to Congress in order to create new construction jobs for our economy. A bill needs to be passed in order for it to be implemented, but in this case, it was vetoed because the bill "fell short of one Democrat" in order to pass the project, according to NPR "1 Vote Keeps Keystone XL Pipeline From Senate Passage".
(1B)
1)I would have voted for the Keystone Pipeline bill. I would have voted for it for numerous reasons such as and easier, faster, and more economical approach for receiving oil in the United States. And it would allow the U.S. to break ties from places like the Middle East because the oil would be right here in our own continent, which means less money for things like transportation. Which is what the U.S. needs, spending less money. Also in increase in jobs in the U.S. could and would be a life changer for many families.
2)The main opponents of the pipeline bill were the Democrats and more or less those senators who are in support of the environment, environmentalists. The reason they voted against this bill was for the mere fact that it would be causing hurt to the environment because it is a fossil fuel which many believe has contributed to global warming. I do not agree with the senators because we are still using oil right now, so why not save money get it closer to home?
3)I think it will help the republican incumbent because she was for a pipeline bill in her own home state, and will hurt the democratic challenger, first from the fact of being democratic and the democrats seemed not to support the bill. So that will hurt the challenger.
4)Three main points of supporters of the project are: the creation of more jobs, reduction of oil prices, and more space and area to carry oil. I do think they make valid points, especially about jobs because that is one thing the U.S. always needs. They bring out all the positives of this bill and make it promising.
5)Three concepts from unit three discussed in the article are: legislative majority vote, incumbency, and presidential veto. As seen in the result the senate needed 60 votes, the majority vote, for the pipeline bill to pass. Incumbency we saw in the Louisiana race and their perspectives on the bill. And, presidential veto was discussed as a side note to discuss what Obama could have done if the bill passed and he disagreed.
1. I think I would have probably voted against it because of the negative effect on the environment and based on the fact that it is not necessary at the moment.
2. The main opponents to the pipeline were democrats who did so because of the carbon emissions and the extra contribution to global warming. I do agree because we should not be deliberately adding to the extra carbon emissions unless it is a pressing issue.
3. I think that the state of Louisiana, as an oil state, would support Landrieu because it is beneficial to their state personally.
4.Three main points of supporters of the project are new jobs in construction, self-sufficiency, and lower prices for consumers. I disagree with the points because in the long-run it will be bad but currently I can see the benefits.
5.Incumbent advantage because Landrieu got her power to bring the bill to the senate floor from her incumbency. Majority vote in both house and senate is demonstrated along with the president's veto power.
1. I would have voted on the pipeline bill because more jobs will be created and as a result, our country will become more independent.
2. The opponents were the democrats. The reason why the senators voted down the pipeline bill was to prevent the reliance on fossil fuels and global warming. I personally agree with the senators because it is more important to keep our bodies safe environmentally than getting a whole bunch of jobs.
3. I think that the vote will help the senator in the runoff election due to the mere fact that she is a big proponent of oil and all of Louisiana is also in support of the oil bill.
4. It creates more jobs, lowering of oil prices, and a wider space to carry oil. I believe that these are all valid points. This bill will not only bring more jobs to America, but it will also improve the economy and stabilize it.
5. The incumbency advantage is definitely used with Senator Landrieu’s bill being well known in her state. The concept of presidential veto is also used in that president Obama has the power to veto the bill with it already going through the house and senate. Finally, the legislative majority vote was also noted in the senate in which the majority of the senators (60) voted on the bill.
1. I would of voted against the Keystone Pipeline because America should be moving toward using and producing renewable forms of energy instead of expanding the fossil fuel industry.
2. The main opponents were Democrats, senator Barbara Boxer from California and Tom Harkin of Iowa. I agree with these senators because America needs to start producing renewable forms of energy in order to benefit the environment and not further damage the ozone layer.
3. I think it help Senator Landrieu win the election because she supported "big oil." She showed that even through she is a Democrat she is not extreme in environmental protection and is interested in the people's interest and just wanting to provide them with job opportunities.
4. Supporters of the project think it will create jobs, help America be less dependent on Middle Eastern oil and lower the cost of oil for American consumers, and the route carries oil a shorter distance. They are valid points because they bring up employing people, lowering prices, and current routes of oil transportation and oil regulation.
5. Majority Party- In the House it is Republicans and Senate it's the Democrats. This prevented the bill from being passed. Once the Senate has the Republican party as the majority party the bill will be able to be passed.
Legislative Veto- The Republican party is now ready to override the president's veto when they take majority party office in the Senate in January.
Regulation- The government is regulating oil transportation from another country, which is being financed by a private sector.
1. I would have voted for the pipeline mainly because there is already one in existence. I feel like since they currently already have an active pipeline installed, then it is already effecting the environment. If the pipeline was going to have a major effect on the environment then it should have been brought up and addressed then.
2. The main opponents were the democrats. In the NPR clip it specifically brought up Tom Harkin, a Democrat who wanted to help pass it, but decided the risk was too large. They said that they wanted to move away from fossil fuels and onto something that would hurt our environment less. The pipeline would give off "carbon emissions" and "contribute to global warming. No I do not. I think that if the pipeline was going to affect the environment so much then they should have realized that before they created the first one. This new addition to the pipeline will not change the amount of "carbon emissions" that are already there.
3. I think it will help Mary Landrieu in her run, because she showed that she was able to step-up and make things happen. Even though she wasn't able to get it passed, she got close. The fact that she received 14 Republicans votes is a win within itself. The people of Louisiana will understand that she did the best she could, and she is still doing what is in there best interest.
4. Three main points for the supporters of the project are it will create more jobs, it will create a shorter distance to carry more oil, and the reduction of oil prices. Yes, I think these are all valid points. Gas is always high, so anyway that it can be lowered is a plus. The fact that more jobs would created is a bonus as well, because we can never have too many jobs.
5. Incumbency is showed through here with Mary Landrieu rerunning for office. She is showing that she knows the people she is representing by pressing for bills that are related to oil, something that is big in Louisiana. The presidential veto is another concept that was discussed. The president has the power to veto bills that are passed in Congress if he doesn't agree with them. Sometimes presidents will negotiate with Congress and work out a way to pass something that both parties want to pass. The presidential may have vetoed the Pipeline project if it had gotten the votes that they needed. A bill is also talked about in both the article and the video. They explain that in order for the bill to even be considered by the president then Congress has to pass it by at least 60 votes.
1. Personally, I would have voted in favor of the Keystone Pipeline due to the fact that it would bring about more job opportunities. Also we currently rely heavily on other countries for oil so if the bill was to have passed, it would have helped eliminate this.
2. A majority of the Democrats as well as extreme environmentalist opposed this bill because they were concerned with the environmental issues it would bring about; climate change, carbon emissions. I don't agree with their opinions because though the pipeline would create some issues, it wouldn't be that big of a deal in the large scheme of things.
3.I think it would help incumbent Democratic Senator Landrieu raise more votes because Louisiana is a huge oil state and because he tried to get this bill passed, he will gain popularity.
4. The construction of the pipeline would create more jobs, a decreased dependency on outside countries for oil, a more "direct route" than the existing pipeline and lower prices for oil. Theses points are all highly valid and beneficiary.
5. Some concepts from unit three that were discussed in the article were presidential veto, legislative majority vote and incumbency. Legislative majority is used because the senate needed 60 votes for the pipeline bill to pass and only got 59, one democratic vote short. Incumbency was shown by Landrieu's stance on the pipeline; she heavily supported the bill which will help her. And, presidential veto was discussed by mentioning that Obama could have vetoed the bill if it got to the white house.
1. I would have voted no for the Keystone Pipeline because it would be terrible for the environment. It would provide more jobs, but it would also put more people in harm.
2. The main opponents were the Democrats, because they are the ones who tried to get the Keystone pipeline approved. The senators voted against it because of the contributions it would make to global warming. I agree with the Senators because it has many risk factors.
3. Incumbent Mary Landrieu would've gotten more votes if more people contributed to the idea and understood it.
4. The pipeline would create more jobs,would carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, to the US state of Nebraska where it joins pipes running to Texas, and makes more refined oils. I think they make valid points, especially getting more jobs.
5. The incumbent advantage is used due to the senator in Louisiana. The idea and process of getting a law passed was also used and the idea of how the president plays a big role in what is best for America.
1. I would have voted yes for the Keystone pipeline because it would bring more jobs to people, which would then help our economy.
2. The environmentalists were the main opponents. They didn't want these pipelines to affect global warming and the well being of the people that live in that area.
3. Senator Landrieu would help the vote since she has informed people of why Louisiana needs the vote.
4. The pipelines are supposed to create more jobs, get ideas through faster, and would help cross internationally. I think these are valid points because it get the job done better with more help and less time.
5. Incumbents and their influence was studied in this unit, along with president Obama's role in the way the bill passed and vetoing because the president decided to veto the bill.
I would say yes to the Keystone Pipeline because if it passes then it would create many more jobs and it would help the economy
The democratic party were the main opponents to the Keystone pipeline because it was a republican bill and the democrats did not want to support it
It will help the incumbent because she is for the pipeline and the state of Louisiana is a big oil state, also if it passes it will create many jobs in the state
It will create a whole bunch of jobs, the government will not have to fund it because it is privately funded, also if we get more oil we will not have to rely on countries in the middle east for oil
Incumbents and how they have a better chance of winning because they have more experience in office, Veto - the president can stop the bill from passing Obama might do this because he is a democrat and does not want a republican bill from passing, also the majority vote- it takes 60% of the vote for the bill to pass
Post a Comment