Phoenix Policy Institute Blog

On June 28th, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States overruled the Chevron doctrine, a landmark decision made in 1984 that gave power to federal agencies to interpret the laws they oversee and determined that courts should use their own judgment when faced with ambiguous laws (Howe, 2024). What does this mean for federal agencies, the Supreme Court and American lobbyists and how does this threaten liberal democracy? This blog post will explore the consequences of this ruling, how opposing political parties are reacting to it and the potential harm it could cause to liberal democracy in the United States.  

The Supreme Court first created Chevron deference in the 1980s. Since then, it has been cited by federal courts over 18,000 times, setting a legal precedent for federal agencies by giving them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to ambiguity within law (Howe, 2024). The case that overturned the decades-old Chevron doctrine is known as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.  

Until Chevron deference was overturned, courts were required to “defer to ‘permissible’ agency interpretations” from federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (Supreme Court of the United States, 2024). This means that courts must allow government agencies to interpret laws if their interpretation is reasonable. Because Chevron deference has now been overruled, federal agencies have been stripped of their autonomy and cannot know if their interpretations of the law are correct any longer (Woods et. al, 2024).  
(more…)

The coiled rattlesnake poised to strike on the front of the vivid yellow ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flag flies high, echoing its roots in the American Revolutionary War. Today, it has become a right-wing symbol in the 21st century often associated with conservative values. The “don’t tread on me” motto resonated with many conservatives as a rallying cry for independence and limited government, directly reflecting the core beliefs of American conservatism. In 2018, Congressman Mike Johnson, now Speaker of the House, distilled these values into a summary of seven central beliefs of American conservatives, with individual freedom and limited government intervention standing out as foundational pillars. (HOR, 2024)

Conservatism, as a political and social philosophy, emphasizes the preservation of traditional values, institutions, and societal norms. It is often associated with the Republican Party, though it’s important to distinguish between the broader ideological spectrum of conservatism and the specific political agendas of the Republican Party. To understand the modern conservative, it’s helpful to examine how the core principles of individual freedom and limited government have looked over time. 

Periods of rapid historical change often provoke a reaction from conservative beliefs, which serve as a counterforce. The origins of conservatism can be traced back to the aftermath of the French Revolution. To challenge the established social hierarchies brough by the revolution, conservative thinkers and politicians sought to defend and restore traditional power structures, such as the monarchy and aristocracy. Later, during the Industrial Revolution, conservatism once again emerged as a counterbalance to rapid social and economic changes. As industrialization transformed societies, conservatives argued for the importance of maintaining social stability and traditional values in the face of new challenges and disruptions. This historical context shows that conservatism has often adapted to preserve tradition rooted in Christian Values and stability during times of significant change. (Grove, 2024). 
(more…)

Pick your top five, go! While this may seem strange, according to some experts, it is the new way forward and should be how voting in elections is now conducted. Although this concept may be foreign to some and a silly way of administering an election, it is a vital part of democracy and could be the way of the future. Choosing one person to represent you and only one person often makes many feel as if their vote doesn’t count or it doesn’t matter as much. But what if there was a way to change that? What if every vote, regardless of the first choice, could carry influence and power, making every voter feel significant and empowered? 

A recent poll conducted in 2020 by Ipsos, a global market research firm, looked at the 2020 election and voter output. The election of 2020 was one of the most highly anticipated events for the year, where candidates former Vice President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump went head to head for the race to the White House. Even though this race was very anticipated, it also brought the highest voter turnout in over 120 years. The study conducted by Ipsos was focused on why people don’t vote because although this was the highest voter turnout in over 120 years, only 67% of the 80 million registered voters came out to the polls. Although extremely high, this number means that almost one-third of registered voters still need to show up to practice essential civil liberty.  
(more…)

The 2024 U.S. presidential election has brought one of the most dramatic gender divides among youth voters. As young voters turn out to vote, gender-based political preferences could be an important defining factor for the elections. Even though, historically, youth voters are known for a lower voter turnout, this has started to change in recent years. For these elections Generation Z could be an important defining group.

Recent polling data shows a gender-based divide within youth voters. The Democratic Party leads the Republican Party among young women by 33 points, however, amongst young men the Democratic Party is 6 points below the Republican Party. This significant gap suggests that there are strong gender-based dynamics that are influencing the political opinion of this demographic. Even though there is a gap, and young women tend to lean more towards the liberal side, it seems that it might not necessarily be as big. A yearly survey had shown that there was a five to ten point difference between young women and men that identify as liberal. However, the data point from 2022 is a huge outlier, and pulled the data upwards, turning this gap into a 30-point gap. The 2022 data point appears unusually high, suggesting a potential error. As a result, the discrepancy may not be as significant as it seems.
(more…)

Many iconic American books are currently at risk of being removed from the shelves of schools and local libraries or placed under restricted access. Where the Wild Things Are, The Lorax, The Giver, and The Giving Tree, beloved children’s books, are among the casualties of this alarming trend.

The rate of book banning has surged by 65% since 2022, with a staggering 4,240 books banned in 2024 alone across all 50 states (NPR). Book bannings aren’t new; the United States has a long history of banning books; with the first book ban in 1673, the Puritan Massachusetts government banned the New English Canaan because of its critique of Puritan customs and power structures (Gurman Library, Harvard). Additionally, book bannings were popular during the McCarthy Era, an era of book banning that focused on censoring books that encouraged communism or socialism, banning books such as Huckleberry Finn, The Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, and The Canterbury Tales (National Geographic). The practice of banning books because of their critiques of the government has continued today. However, the reason for book banning has become more varied and far-reaching. Some of the various reasons are sexual content, offensive language, religious viewpoints, “anti-family content,” political viewpoints, and more (First Amendment Museum).

Similar to the McCarthy Era, states have continued implementing book bans and creating harsh guidelines for what can be taken off the shelves or restricted. Some states create book-banning guidelines that are “intentionally vague” in order to control what students are reading in classrooms (ASCD). For example, South Carolina has implemented what has been called “One of the nation’s most restrictive book bans” (The Guardian), taking effect on June 25, 2024, regulation R. 43-170, allows parents with a child enrolled in a K-12 public school to challenge up to 5 books a month that mention a description of sexual conduct these books can then be restricted or taken off the shelves entirely. In Alabama, the state board adopted a new policy allowing funding to be tied to book restrictions and bans, stating that libraries that do not restrict access to books deemed sexually inappropriate by the Alabama Public Library Service Board could lose state funding (Alabama Reflector). Librarians and teachers who are fighting against book bans are also facing consequences. Suzette Baker, a librarian in Llano County, Texas, lost her job after refusing to put Critical Race Theory behind the counter, only checking it out if patrons specifically asked for a copy (PBS News).

While many believe that book banning practices are far-fetched and overreaching, there are logical reasons why parents might want to take on a more active role in their child’s education. Parents should have the right to choose what materials their children can access while they are at school within reason, as a parent knows their child best. It is reasonable for parents not to want their children to be exposed to drug use, sex, violence, or other explicit topics at a young age without their supervision or guidance, and book banning is a way to ensure that their children have no access to such topics. Additionally, while book banning takes books away from children in schools and, in some cases, in libraries, it does not prohibit authors from writing and selling their works, only limiting a small population of people who can access them.

According to Pen America, a non-profit that focuses on raising awareness for the protection of free expression, in 2022 alone, over 54 bills were proposed in 22 states that aimed to ban or restrict books in the classroom or library, and by the end of 2022, 36 states proposed 137 books to be restricted (PEN America). People throughout all states have begun taking action against book-banning practices. NPR and Ipsos polling found that 64% of Americans oppose book bans enacted by state lawmakers and would instead have parents make those decisions. Many civil rights groups, librarians, parents, students, and even publishing companies are actively fighting to stop the book bans, calling the bans a violation of people’s First Amendment right to freedom of information and an overreach of government oversight. Groups such as The Authors Guild and The American Library Association post scripts on getting involved and putting an end to book banning practices and legislation. Activist groups stress the importance of writing or calling your city/town school board and requesting an end to book bans, writing op-eds in local newspapers about the dangers of censorship, and providing scripts to send to state representatives asking for the practice to end (The Authors Guild, American Library Association).

While book banning is generally opposed in the United States, a healthy middle ground can be found for both advocates and opponents. It’s reasonable for parents to have a say in what their children are reading in schools. However, allowing one parent to dictate the access to books for all students is unreasonable. Allowing parents to opt their children out of reading specific books and teachers providing alternate assignments is just one of the ways book bannings can be avoided; parents who deem certain topics to be inappropriate for their children are able to shield them, and parents who might not have the same perspective are happy as well. This model has worked well and is already in practice, parents are able to opt their children out of sex education in thirty-four states and the District of Columbia (The Scranton Times-Tribune). While book banning continues to be on the rise, there is a healthy middle ground that can keep parents and educators happy.


Sources:

For four decades tips and tipped income have been taxed, but that may all change with our next president elect. The Tax Equity and Fiscal responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) mandates that “all tips received are income and are subject to federal income tax.” Anyone who is an “employee” as defined by the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA) who earns more than $30 a month in tips must pay federal income tax on their tips. The 2024 Election may result in bringing an end to this long-standing policy.

 Eliminating taxes on tips has become a hot button topic for both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump who have each made promises to exempt tip income from federal income and payroll taxes when they get into office. Opposing parties, as well as the candidates representing those parties, rarely hold the same position on any issue during a presidential election. This is an unusual bipartisan occurrence in such polarized times and invites analysis as to how similar the plans are and whether the proposal to eliminate taxes on tips is just pandering for votes from a target population.

According to the Yale Budget Labs, the current landscape of tipped employees is approximately 4 million workers or about 2.5% of all employment. This study specifically identifies servers, bartenders, and delivery drivers, but does not address other tip earning employees such as hotel staff, personal shoppers, hair stylists and barbers, gas station employees, personal care workers, clergy, and more. The Covid-19 pandemic brought about a surge in people doing other people’s grocery shopping and food delivery services as well as mobile pet grooming, and even car detailing services that come to your door. While the target audience for this appealing proposal may find it tantalizing, economists argues that policy proposals from both candidates miss the mark in what really matters to Americans in these jobs: income and wage inequality.

(more…)

Going to college is something that most kids dream about, specifically to broaden their horizons, put themselves in new experiences, and meet people they would never have met otherwise. In modern media, attending college is romanticized by partying or joining organizations like sororities and fraternities. What these movies and TV shows fail to show to society is the darker side of joining one of those organizations, hazing. Although hazing is not usually talked about by members and is supposed to be completely confidential, there are always cases that end in tragedy. Hazing is something not talked about publicly. However, it is important to delegate time to inform and educate incoming students on the possibility of these events occurring before they join an organization. 

Throughout my college career, hazing is something that had seemingly been removed from Elon’s campus but is extremely prevalent at bigger schools, such as the University of Maryland or Ohio State University. According to a study done to collect statistics regarding hazing on college campuses, the Hazing Prevention Network concluded that 47% of students come to college having already experienced hazing, and once in college, 55% of college students involved in clubs, teams, and organizations experience hazing. This number is increasingly higher than is promoted by universities and institutions. Elon University specifies hazing as, “any activity expected of someone who is joining a group (or who is trying to maintain full status in a group) that humiliates, degrades, or risks harming that person financially, emotionally, or physically, regardless of the person’s willingness to participate.” Although this is an extremely broad definition, it highlights the key meaning behind hazing, asserting power over others in a group or club setting. 
(more…)

South Korea’s declining birth rate is a major concern that puts pressure on the country . South Korea is currently facing a critical moment in its history due to the significant decline in birth rates, which is leading to profound demographic changes. These changes are concerning because they have implications for the country’s economic future. With fewer births, there will be fewer people entering the workforce in the future, which could lead to a shortage of labor workers and a strain on the economy. Additionally, an aging population arising from the declining birth rates can put stress on social welfare systems. South Korea must manage these demographic challenges to secure its long-term economic stability and societal well-being. South Korea stands at a crossroads, wrestling with significant demographic changes that not only raise concerns for its economic future but also pose serious long-term challenges. 

South Korea is currently facing challenges with its declining birth rate and fertility rate. According to NPR, South Korea has held the record of the country with the lowest fertility rate since 2013 with the average number of children being born a woman being 0.78 (fertility rate) which is the average number of children born to a woman in her reproductive years. Fertility rates are the Cynthia Kim and Jihoon Lee predict that South Korea’s fertility will likely fall from its current rate to 0.68 in 2024. The predicted lowering of the fertility rate for South Korea presents a challenge for their economic future.  
(more…)