As heat waves sweep the east coast, the RNC and DNC want to make one thing clear: our focus is solely on the safety of the American people. This crisis is a human issue, not a political issue. Now more than ever is the time for bipartisanship, and the RNC and DNC would like to express the importance of unity at this time. At the core of our national identity is our sense of community, and as Americans it is our duty to support each other during these trying times. Both the DNC and RNC pledge to enact measures that will provide immediate relief for and ensure the safety of the American people.

Data and privacy is something that is undercooked at and not taken seriously. Terms and conditions are always posted in small fonts and come off as hidden from the public. The people do not know what they are involving themselves in. There needs to be a transparency. As the DNC, we need to allow people to have a clear picture of what they are signing themselves up for? Why hide from the people? We are taking away the right of their own privacy. There needs to be a clear depiction for the people to understand and protect their own privacy and make sure their data is not being spread to the public. We need to protect our youth and our public. We are putting the youth out in the public with no protection or security to help prevent their lives. Do we really want our future generation to constantly be in a fear where privacy is not a thing anymore. We need there to be transparency for people to know the data they are inputting in websites.  

When faced with a crisis, the DNC has one priority: helping all. American people Bipartisan cooperation is essential to the preservation of the American people. Taking this understanding into consideration, the DNC extended an amicable invitation of collaboration to the RNC. Upon arrival, the DNC was immediately rejected by their counterparts. With the lives of the American people at stake, the RNC chose to cower behind the sorry excuse of economic loss. The DNC shared mutual understandings presented the previous night during a contentious debate. Both parties stated that they had believed in the science of climate change and the importance of maintaining the health of the American people. The RNC then responded that they “changed their minds” and “didn’t care about the lives of the American people.” The DNC wants an undivided America, but the RNC stands in their way. As the crisis progresses, will the RNC put aside their petty excuses and work with the DNC? 

Our mission as a nation is to use our resources such as facilities and houses around each community for a safe house for low income and families that cannot afford air conditioning and low temperature machines. This might be a short term problem and can pass in a matter of time, we now need to focus on the main and long term issue of climate change. Converting to green energy such as renewable energy will give us the ability to take steps for a brighter future. Producing a lower amount of C02 emissions will lower the risk of major crisis like this. But right now, our focus is on the American people and for communities that aren’t involved with the crisis, to step in to take initiative and help solve the problem. 

Clearly, the issue of climate change is very pressing and needs to be addressed immediately. At this moment, millions of Americans are beginning to sweat and suffer without relief. Beyond that, hundreds of thousands are beginning to wonder and worry about how they are going to afford to survive this crisis. What will they do without that paycheck, or how will they pay the utility bills raised? the American people should not have to choose or even fathom choosing between saving themselves and their families from the heat or making ends meet for this month. Thus, it is integral that we employ all aid and resources required by our people. We should be presently sending water, fans, air conditioning units and whatever else is needed to ensure the comfort and safety of those who have been affected. 

On February 24th, the DNC and RNC entered into a debate in the West Wing. One of the topics covered in this debate was income inequality. Fellow Americans, the White House is proposing an absurd and outrageous plan that will strip our labor force of their privileges and rights. The DNC, who has historically backed the wealth tax, have suddenly decided to back out of this plan and now they want to overreach. They are promoting a plan to create more labor unions as the White House, however, this is just an example of them abusing their powers. The U.S Department of Labor defines labor unions as “a group of two or more employees who join together to advance common interests.” As the government, we are here to support workers, but not create unions. This is not the way to combat income inequality. The RNC is the party of the working class. Here at the RNC, we are looking to build off of taxes already in place. By placing protections on estate and gift taxes, we can build a more prosperous economy, support the lower income class, and create equality for all.

Sources cite a surprising back and forth between the White House and the National Security Council. Yesterday, February 24th, the White House went to protest the National Security Council, but were met with a resolution from the NSC that stunned Americans. In their previous protest, the White House pushed the NSC to reform climate and labor policies, but in their next protest, they were met with the serious consequences of their push. The NSC, in response to the Democrats, created a resolution to 

• Sell Alaska back to Russia

• Cause child labor to become legal

• Tax the bottom 50% economic bracket 20% more

The Democrats caused their terrible consequences, and the Republican National Committee expressed their disapproval of this by protesting against the aggressive Democrats. As White White House and Republican National Committee continue to face off, we hope their future policies and laws caused by the Democrats are constitutional, safe, and align with the principles of the United States people and government. 

The american promise is based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what happens once you get sick? You can lose your job, be saddled with medical debt, and fall down a pit that you may never recover from. Does that sound very american to you? Every single other OECD nation provides free, high quality healthcare to their citizens, why should we be any different? Healthcare fundamentally helps every single person in the US economy. From the workers who can now work harder with no fear, to the healthcare workers who will have consistent consumers, all of whom can actually pay their medical bills, to the businesses who won’t lose employees the second they get sick. Considering in american society, businesses already pay for employee healthcare, why should we not shift that to be public healthcare? All of the jobs would stay the same, and all of the healthcare would become cheaper and higher quality, as there wouldn’t be any corporate greed involved. By expanding the public option to cover all ESI, we are producing a better american society for tomorrow. 

In our current media ecosphere and political climate, the public learns about legislation solely once it either passes or fails. Unfortunately, this understanding of the legislative process omits the in-between; compromises are made in committee, amendments are added, and debate is had, yet all of this remains relatively unknown. Thus, for the sake of transparency, I will explain the story of the “Compromise of Percent Act.”

The bill was birthed after a contentious day of committee. After multiple speeches debating the amount of funding for-profit colleges should receive from the government vis-a-vis operating based on their profit, Republicans and Democrats could not draft a passable piece of legislation. Initially, Democrats supported a 95/5 model while republicans favored an 85/15 proposal. After some cooperation, original forms of the funding bill started with a 90 percent federal and 10 percent profit proposal, however, that bill did not pass the committee and therefore never became law. 

Hopeful representatives, determined to make a headwind on this issue, remained persistent. Entering the next unmoderated caucus, they compromised further leading to the creation of this Compromise Act. 

Co-author of the bill, Republican representative Russ Fulcher (ID-1) praised both his committee and the formal legislative process for allowing this newly formed compromise. “The unmoderated  caucuses allowed us to collaborate and then the modern caucuses allowed us to justify this solution.”  

As debate on the bill progressed, he was hopeful about its passage. “Our committee is actually having trouble passing a lot of these bills, just because so many of them are partisan,” he said. “I really feel like this one can succeed because it really has all voices taken into account.”

Democrat Joe Morelle (NY-25) both supported the bill and felt confident about its passage, stressing the need for immediate congressional action. “These for-profit schools operate under the guise of being funded solely from their own profit, yet they simultaneously receive copious amounts of money from the government.”

Morelle underscored the compromises he has made to move forward on holding for-profit colleges accountable. “I, as a Democrat, have had to make hard compromises and let go of issues that I feel are important but for the sake of bipartisanship. I really hope we can finally move forward.” 

Despite passionate legislators’ attempts to progress the issue into action and change, when voting procedures commenced, the compromise bill failed once again, destroying the chance of any progress being made on the issue as the committee had to shift focus to a new issue. 

Today, the story of the “Compromise of Percent Act” is not isolated. Few bills appear to ever pass both houses of congress, let alone make it to the president's desk. According to govtrack, the 177th congress passed a mere two percent of legislation. “If the percentage of bills being passed is that small, there are going to be some really good bipartisan bills that aren’t passing,” Michael Minta, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota said. 

The Compromise Act was also heavily bipartisan. With increased polarization, it is unlikely that a committee will ever pass a strictly democratic or republican piece of legislation, as partisanship remains so strict politicians are not interested in collaborating to both represent their constituents and resolve some of the most pressing concerns of the 21st century. 

This past year, we have witnessed how, in times of crisis, congress can unite. Whether it be gun control following the mass shooting at Uvalde, responding to the poor economic conditions of the covid pandemic with the “American Rescue Plan,” or competing with China with the CHIPS Act. But, these instances should not be this sparse. 

Congresspeople themselves are frustrated at their inability to serve their constituents. “We worked for hours trying to craft a bill,” Morelle said. “And still so many of my colleagues refused to take action on a well-supported and bipartisan bill, it's just so frustrating.”

Upon failure of the second for-profit college reform bill, the Education and Labor Committee gave up, moving their attention to the topic of vocational schooling. This conclusion occurs far too often. They attempt to address an issue for some time, spend time debating it, and propose ideas, yet no legislation is passed, and the American people are unaware congress attempted. In fact, less than 20 percent of Americans approve of congress’ performance, according to a Gallup Poll.

The good news is that Americans and congress can do better. From amending congressional rules to eliminate the filibuster, expanding the congressional calendar, and promoting civility between the parties. There exist opportunities to encourage greater efficiency from our legislators.

First, the filibuster. Due to the Democratic party's slim majority in the Senate, Republicans can currently use the filibuster to delay important legislation. Although the filibuster has been thought of as a safeguard against despotism in the Senate, the practice is really just a way to slow bureaucracy and make it difficult to accomplish any kind of significant and vital legislation for the American people. 

At the moment, the only method to stop a filibuster is to use cloture, which calls for a supermajority of 60 votes to end the discussion and hold a vote. Although the filibuster, in theory, encourages bipartisanship, it is a process that is frequently abused in our contemporary divided society. We have seen how the filibuster has been exclusively utilized as a tool in modern politics. Its elimination will allow congress to deliver for the American People.

Second, Congress works way less than the rest of the American people. As reported by Thought.Co, the House has averaged 146.7 “legislative days” per year since 2001 while the senate averaged 165. These numbers average about one day of work every two and a half days.

These disappointing statistics are a result of members of congress spending a few days in Washington as they must return to their district to campaign for reelection. However, the best way to campaign is to legitimately deliver for your constituents. So, members of congress, I urge you to spend a little more time legislating. 

Lastly, The American people have a role in expediting this process: hold your congresspeople accountable. Call your congressional office, write letters, and express your dissatisfaction with the state of the country. Urge the people you voted for to take action, and if they don’t, elect a new congressperson who represents your interests. 

Congressional stalemate can create indignation about the legislative process, but it has worked in times of crisis, and we must encourage our lawmakers to try harder.

The proposals by the Democratic Party to do a rapid transition to renewable energy is not only alarmist but unrealistic. Not only does it threaten the job security of hardworking Americans who are the spine of the country.Not only did the cost of taxation of Americans for federal renewable subsidies was 6.5 billion dollars. It is the core for the continuation of an unethical exploitation. For context, two thirds of the mineral commodities that the US deems critical to its economy and national defense come from the African continent. These raw materials like lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, palladium and others are key elements for renewable energy production. As it has been in the past and present, a rapid  transition to renewable energy as the Democrats advertise, relies and the systemic extraction of these raw materials from countries in the global south through means of exploitation including child labor, as reported by Amnesty International and the US Department of State. These means of exploitation would grow if we mindlessly adapt these Democratic renewable policies, as it has been in the past with the colonial history of the country and the history of exploitation. Democrats love advertising themselves as the party of love, peace, morals, and shared humanity and turn a blind eye to this serious environment and human rights violations. A clear absence of shared humanity. 

As of now, the Democratic Party haven’t proposed a clear solution to separate the transition to renewable energy and the exploitation that comes with it. As of now, both don’t coexist. It is up to us to decide policies that are better for as many people right now. Republicans stand with that fighting climate change should be done with the realistic steps, and that doesn’t come from immediately phasing out of our abundance of fossil fuels. When deciding who we want to lead the country in 2024, we must ask ourselves, do we really want to elect a Democratic party that try desperately to appeal to the humanity of the American voter, but then try to hide their policies when they are inhumane?

It’s no secret that we have an immigration problem. However, it’s not just drugs and human trafficking that we have to worry about. We have stripped the humanity out of the process of becoming a citizen in this beautiful country. We need drastic legal reforms, and that starts with ICE, lawyers, and efficiency with the courts. You hear people say that parents would do anything for their kids, so why are we casting stones on immigrants doing the same? We need to improve border security to target criminals, not families. We should not be keeping people in cages like they’re sub-human. We have to protect the natural rights that every human is born with, and that starts with ending the human rights abuses by ICE at the border. We need to have a more humane approach with our immigration problem, because we are a country founded by immigrants. We need to embrace immigrants with open arms, while reforming the process of becoming a citizen and working to end the smuggling of drugs and human trafficking across the border.

The American system is fundamentally based around political participation of the people, to create a government by the people, for the people. However, our current political system doesn’t allow for this, whether it’s Super PACS, Lobbyists or whatever other mechanism the wealthy use, it’s their opinions that end up being discussed in politics. Because of this reality, many more marginalized Americans are silenced on the political stage. However, unions help fight against this. By collectivizing workers together, based on location, common interest, and community, unions allow for poorer Americans to be represented on the national scale. However, the onset of right to work laws are decreasing unionization around the whole country, and the RNC is only supporting these. A vote for the DNC is a vote for understanding the voices of the working class, and allowing the federal government to truly represent the people.

For far too long, voting rights have been under attack. Republican efforts to curtail voter fraud areuprooting the very concept of democracy in the United States. By creating barriers to registration and voting, strict voting laws are repressing the voices of countless Americans who deserve to have their voices heard. Government investigations continue to find that actual instances of voter fraud in widespread elections falls between 0.0003 and 0.0025%. The data then raises the question, do Republican efforts to counter voter fraud serve to save our elections, or rather do they serve to strip voting rights? Suppression efforts such as limiting early voting and limiting curbside voting disproportionately affect disabled, elderly, impoverished, and POC Americans. Democrats must preserve the rights to vote and fight for the American people. The DNC wants to make sure all voices are unequivocally heard.

The debate between the Democratic National Convention and the Republican Convention shed light on fundamental differences between the two parties on immigration, paid leave, income inequality, climate, and voting rights. However, it is essential to understand the numerous bipartisan agreements that the discussion encountered. Both parties do not endorse a wealth tax. The Democratic National Convention, however, wants to take steps to distribute wealth instead of shielding the rich through a prevention of unions. Both parties believe in a reforming of the immigration process. The DNC, however, strives to open the United States to others in a safe, efficient, and ethical way instead of preventing immigration altogether. Both parties agree that democracy in America is sacred. The DNC, however, believes democracy is only preservable if all are able to vote. Both parties agree that science suggests that climate change is real. The DNC, however, wants to take steps to solve climate change using scientists’ recommendations. Both parties want the economy to prosper. The DNC, however, wants citizens to be able to have children or fall ill without losing their jobs. In conclusion, the DNC provided tangible steps to solve pressing issues in this country while the RNC covered behind the guise of fighting for the economy.

Fellow Americans, the White House Democratic National Committee is currently proposing a wealth tax, which is not only aggressive but ineffective. The RNC has a goal to combat income inequality, but we shouldn’t be taxing the rich. In 2020 data from the IRS, the top 25% of earners paid nearly 89% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% only owed 23% of the national share. 

Furthermore, about half of Americans don’t even pay income taxes. We have also seen this wealth try and fall. In the 1990s, a dozen European countries had a wealth tax, but most abandoned it because it was ineffective. Now, the European countries who continue this tax have the highest tax at 2.5%, which is much lower than Biden’s proposed rates. 

Harvard Law Professor Thomas J. Brennan decided to speak on this problem. He said, “When a normal investor considers a stock, they think, ‘I know what hte value is. I can buy it. I can sell it.’ But if, for example, Jeff Bezos sold all his Amazon stock tomorrow, it seems likely that something bad might happen to the stock price. His position in Amazon is not the same as a position you or I might have as a retail investor… All this calls into question whether you’re taxing the right amount by using the current stock price.” Here at the Republican National Committee, we urge all Americans to unite against this unjust and nonfunctional plan to tax hard working and higher earning Americans. We need to think of new solutions to income inequality because the wealth tax will damage all. 

 On behalf of the RNC, I Julia Landau, believe the Democrats have made a total mess of the border. Just last year, 2.76 million illegal immigrants travel to the United States. Democrats have encourage illegal immigrants to dangerously cross the border, and when they get to the United States must live in the shadows, unprotected by the law. For example, they often don't call the police and they don't get the employment to which workers are entitled – they are exploited by the democrats. However, have no fear because the Republicans are here. Our policy will use government funds to reform ICE and improve conduct at the border. We want to encourage lawmakers to shorten the amount of time it takes to get a green card and thus encourage legal migration to the United States, where all will be protected by the law. In this way, we will better the lives of migrants and make the process of immigration a fair system. 

The Yemeni people are suffering, not just from their own civil war, but even more so from the Saudi blockade that prevents them from getting food. A bill-- one with both bipartisan support and authorship-- that closely made it out of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee was slaughtered by the Senate in full session. A bill that only wanted to stop giving Saudi Arabia the weapons with which they could create their blockade, with which they could starve the 33 million people in Yemen, was defeated in an even narrower vote than the one that brought it to the floor in the first place.

Still, I’ve always tried to stay optimistic about America. People say that our country is the most divided it’s been since the Civil War. I say that it’s a vocal few. A notable firebrand representative suggests that the best solution to America’s problems is a split between the red and blue states (however that would logically happen). I say that we can’t heal our wounds until we let them out into the open. But still, they can be healed.

I’ve always been hopeful that we have the capacity, if not to lend a friendly ear to some politician who will never understand what it’s like to be you, then to reach a friendly hand to the person that needs it. And if we can’t do that, then maybe we at least have the restraint not to steal the coat off the homeless man’s back.

It’s getting harder, though, to see our country like this. It’s getting harder to look into the future in this way without ignoring the present. I don’t want to say that America is beyond morality, or that it is beyond recovery. But the America that once was, the so-called protectors of freedom or beacon of hope and torch of liberty, is all but unrecognizable.

America, now, is only a domineering penthouse in which the residents love to point down to the streets below and laugh at the chaos of the lives of everyone else that aren’t quite so privileged. I watched our noble senators in their saintly white faux-Athenian mansion strike down a bill-- a bill that was condemnable only in its delicacy-- on account that it went too far. I watched Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), one of these demigods on their hill they liken to Mount Olympus, argue that a few cents extra on our gas prices is far more worrisome than tens of millions of starving people. If six percent of our gas comes from Saudi Arabia, and if we hypothetically automatically lost that six percent of gas simply for gingerly setting our foot down in a step so dainty that Saudi Arabia has a full month to end their blockade before any action is even taken, by what standard is that loss more substantial than what the Yemeni people face now?

“America First” is a mindset that can really only be applied when the plights in question are somewhat comparable. “America First” cannot rationally or morally value the penny above a foreign life only by the fact of that life being foreign. “America First” lacks any validity when wielded without regard to who or what it puts last. The SASS Act asked our knights only to stop giving another country the strength to violate the most basic of human rights (Can such a condemnation be much more passive?), but I suppose the chance that America suffer any kind of pin-prick, no matter how small, ephemeral, or irrelevant, would be too much for the most powerful country on Earth to bear.

The fall of the SASS Act before the full Senate was not from a vacuum-- America is falling too. Our country riding that high holy horse could not agree to just stop giving a country the means of perpetuating one of the greatest humanitarian crises of the twenty-first century. One would think that this would be the bare minimum for a country with a reputation built on goodwill. One would think that the chief concern for this people might not be the lining of their own pockets when that lining costs the lives of millions. All we had to do was just stop selling Saudi Arabia the weapons they use to starve the Yemeni people with their blockade, but we couldn’t even do that. I don’t know where the America from the fables has gone, or if it was ever more than myth, but I know surely that it is not here now when so many really only need its ghost.

In quotidian life we discuss voting as if it is a right afforded to every American citizen; however, that is not the case. In the United States, 2.19 million incarcerated people are unable to participate in elections. Changing our discourse around voting is a first step in working to enfranchise millions of Americans who are victims of an unjust carceral state.

As I observed a committee session yesterday evening, I became aware of the problem. Each congressperson would stand up in front of the committee, reinforcing the sanctity of the right to vote. Yet, this monolithic and sweeping rhetoric omits an entire population for which voting is not a right, and rather a privilege that has been taken away. Continuing to allow our elected officials to pretend that all Americans have the right to vote will only perpetuate the problem and limit our ability to ameliorate it.

We must acknowledge that due to systemic racism and the lack of opportunities afforded to minority communities as a result of decades of political, social, and cultural messaging, the notions of criminality and minorities have become deeply interwoven. 400,000 are imprisoned with drug convictions and Black people make up 38 percent of the U.S. prison population, despite making up a mere 12 percent of the general population.The system of mass incarceration is a system that is broken, as many people are over sentenced or placed in prison for minor drug offenses, yet we continue to use it as justification to deny millions of the right to vote. 

Further, prison gerrymandering adds another layer to the discussion of felon voting rights, as the bodies of incarcerated people are counted in the way we build our political infrastructure, but their voices are not. Since 1790, the federal government has counted incarcerated people as part of the geographic population where they are being held, rather than at the address of their last residence. This means that predominantly white towns in rural areas throughout the country have their population numbers artificially inflated because of the bodies of the people who are incarcerated there. Brent Staples, writer for the New York Times, states that there are many ways to hijack political power. One of them is to draw state or city legislative districts around large prisons and pretend that inmates are legitimate constituents. 

If we want to truly live up to our assertions and transform voting into a right, we must act to enfranchise both the millions currently incarcerated, but also repeal the unjust state laws that continue to disenfranchise those who have completed their sentences. Whether it be an outstanding fine or a felony, conviction of either should not serve as a reason someone cannot cast a ballot. 

Voting also plays a positive role in keeping prisoners connected to the outside world, and will be a transformative rehabilitative measure. When incarcerated people remain connected to the community and their civic responsibilities, they have a better chance at facing the obstacles that come with re-entry. Those incarcerated already face substantial barriers to re-entering society, and keeping them connected to the outside world and their civic identity is a profound tool to ensure successful re-entry into communities they do not feel alienated or isolated from. That feeling of being isolated after being released leads to recidivism and is easily solvable through proper measures in education, rehabilitation, and not removing the prisoners civic identity or political autonomy from them.

Maintaining one’s civic duties in prison, such as preserving one’s ability to vote, is deeply important for rehabilitation, a notion exemplified by Joseph Jackson, who got involved in politics behind bars. He petitioned lawmakers on prison reform, founded a chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and cast ballots–something he could only do because Maine is one of two states that allows incarcerated people to vote. The opportunity Jackson had to cultivate a political consciousness in prison, put him on a path for life after prison. Released in 2013, he earned a master's degree and works on behalf of inmates and their families with the Maine Prisoner Advocacy Coalition. Jackson serves as an example that rehabilitation starts when we not only maintain incarcerated people's political and civic autonomy, but champion them. This starts with a dialogue adjustment.