States Warn of Budget Crunch as a Result of Republican Tax Plan

States Warn of Budget Crunch Under Republican Tax Plan, by Rapperport Allan, focuses on crunch Tax Plans and the concerns surrounding this move by the Trump Administration. Allan continues by demonstrating current economic recovery following the effects of the recession, which has resulted in more employment, high housing values, and migration to Oregon State. Nonetheless, there is widespread concern that the Republican' Tax Cut in Congress may stifle economic growth in several American states. Policymakers and lawmakers, on the other hand, have justified the tax plan on the grounds that it will strengthen and stimulate the economy. On the contrary, States officials have argued that the bill could render an adverse effect which will make it hard to afford to house as well as squeezing local and state budgets.

The article also exhibits concerns arising from other states like California, New York, and New Jersey. Local and state officials from these states have warned that the tax cut could strain state budget, negatively affect the real estate markets which will prompt residents to flee to areas with lower taxes. According to Allan, the major concern is the Senate’s plan to squash the local and state tax deduction which facilitates people who itemized their tax deductions. Allan shows that the elimination of tax deductions has been an objective for the majority of Republican lawmakers who perceive tax deductions as subsidies used by poor red states give to rich blue states which heavily spend on government services.

The major effect of tax cuts is that it will lead to an increase in income tax with respect to the Oregon revenue office. In response, states are more likely to lower their taxes which could extend the recession hangover. Additionally, lowering taxes will add more pressure after Trumps administration has put more responsibilities on states like Medicaid and Medicare.

Allan’s article does differentiate various facts and opinions in the ongoing debate on the effect of tax cuts. Allan show’s that it is undeniable that tax cuts would have a significant impact on the economy and the people’s welfare. The increase in federal tax would require states to lower tax which will undercut government spending on various economic development projects. Additionally, economist has shown that, through tax cutting, real estate markets will be adversely affected since people will not manage to lease or purchase houses. On the other hand, the Republicans have the opinion that tax cuts will facilitate growth an expansion of the economy. Notably, the Republican argument is ideologically is politically biased since they believe Democrats benefit from the wealthy taxpayers.

The issue of tax cuttings is of great relevance to the public. Most importantly, citizens are deducted tax by the government to ensure that it provides a comfortable living environment, politically, economically and socially. Additionally, the factor that the public is vulnerable to the adverse effects of tax cuts makes it more important for citizens to fathom tax cuts effects. It is more likely that tax cuts are more likely to lead to and states with the rich and the poor since the middle class will relocate to cheaper areas. Therefore the issue of tax cut plans is of great relevance to every one America.

From a personal perspective, I second Allan’s position and arguments regarding the tax cuts. Evidently, it has been a short duration of the recession and most states has not yet fully recovered from it. Despite the economic growth witnessed, tax cutting will more likely have an impact on the states. Therefore, the Republicans should acknowledge that despite the factor that they feel tax cuts benefit Democrats, they should also understand that has also aided in helping improve the welfare of American citizens.

It’s been a year since California banned single-use plastic bags. The world did not end

The editorial article, it’s been a year since California banned single-use plastic bags. The world did not end’ focuses on the California ban on single used plastic bags, its effects and as well as evaluating the effect of predicted outcomes. The article shows that, despite the ban on single-use plastic bags, everything seems to be going on in the normal manner. That is, consumers are still purchasing products and have not rebelled against the move in spite of the 10% increase in cost for a thicker reusable bag.

In the first year of the ban, 13 billion plastic bags were eradicated. Although consumers grumbled regarding the inconvenience, they eventually adjusted since it was evident that there was a great drawback with plastic bags floating in oceans, hanging from the trees and some caught up in rain drains. Therefore, insist that the fight against the plastic ban is not yet done since California only banned single-use bangs. However, the ban on remaining plastic bags is a motion expected to get introduced in the Senate. The article emphasized on the need to act quickly since the use of plastic gas is a great threat to the society. Nonetheless, I cautioned that I wouldn't be easy to bring an end to the use of plastic bags, due to the factor that, plastic bag industries are well established and willing to part with large amounts of money to protect their businesses. Nonetheless, citizens from California fathom the adverse effects of plastic bags hence have shown support to legislators willing to tackle this hard matter.

The article vividly points out the facts and opinion regarding the topic. First, it makes it vivid that, eradication of plastic bags is a tough fight. Illustratively, the article shows that, after banning plastic bags, a significant percentage of plastic bags is was collected at seashores including the single used bags. Additionally, the article shows that the ban did not have a great impact on consumer habits nor did consumers rebel against the move. Moreover, the article shows the fact, plastic bags are a great threat to the environment, and human health hence needs to be completely banned. The arguments presented to hinder the ban of plastics may be political since plastic bang industries would lobby politicians with money to protect the organization.

The banning of plastics is of great relevance to the entire Californian community. Plastic bags not only degrade the environment but also pose a risk to marine life, animals, and human health. The article has demonstrated that there is evidence of plastic consumption by human beings. Therefore, the use of plastic bags reduces the safety of human health which makes an important issue to the Californian Republic.

Personally, the banning of the plastic bags is a major step to achieving a safe environment. Therefore, as proposed by the article, there is need to ban plastic bangs despite the predicted challenges completely. By doing this, the California government shall protect its citizens from the hazardous effects of using plastic bags.

Legalize Street Vendors

The editorial article in Los Angeles Times, Legalize Street Vendors, presents different reasons the Los Angeles state government should legalize street vendors in Los Angeles. The article shows the recent praises by Mayor Garcetti on the sidewalk selling claiming that portrays the hard-working nature of vendors an efforts to earn a living honestly. However, the article questions the City Council’s intention in creating a law that would illegitimate street trade. The law seems to protect mortar and brick businesses by banning vendors from sidewalks outside stores.

The article proposes that, if the council wants to create opportunities for vendors, they have to establish fair and reasonable laws. Currently, the City Council objects at illegitimatizing the trade which is perceived as a move to destroy the underground economy. A major argument defending the illegalization of the trade states is that vendors are feared to clutter sideways and litter sideways with trash as well as create unfair competitions for individuals owning shops.

To avoid the political issues between vendors and business owners, the council should develop a general law that hinders vendors from establishing their shops in front of major businesses they are direct competitors. The article also critics the council’s efforts to provide vendor zones and restrict them from various parts. However, vendors have been banned from accessing various sidewalks which leaves them with less than enough sidewalks to conduct their businesses. The article emphasizes that there is still space for vendors and it had to make use of the uncontrolled and widespread sidewalk industry by making use of a regulated system that improves servicing Angelenos.

The article distinctively differentiates between facts and opinions regarding street vendors. To start with, it points out the fact that street vendors are hardworking citizens whose aim is honestly earning a living. Moreover, it makes it vivid that, the council’s efforts to illegitimate vendors in the city or restrict them to particular areas will suppress and hinder the expansion of the underground industry. The article challenges the development of law based the opinion that legitimizing vendors will increase competition with business owners. Such a law would lead to extortion of vendors by business people. Creation of laws hindering or restricting vendor accessing sidewalks is politically biased since it only favors business owners at the risk of vendors.

The issue of legalizing street vendors is of great relevance to the Los Angeles public. Notably, vendors are individuals who aim at making a livelihood from their small business. Hence, legitimating the trade or restriction would lead to increase in poverty as well as crime concerns since the government would have burred its citizens from working hard to earn a living. Additionally, consumers are also interested in purchasing vendors’ products since they are unique and cheap. Therefore, eradicating vendors will hinder the realization of the underground economy and the benefits of its contribution to the national and state economy.

From a personal perspective, the article's arguments are valid and of great magnitude in legitimating street vendors. It is undeniable that, a suitable law would protect a lead to the expansion of the underground economy. By developing a fair law, the council will have a declined rate of unemployment an improved welfare among citizens.