Michael Mann, distinguished professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, spoke to the crowd Saturday, April 22, 2017. Here is a video clip from WashingtonPost.com:
Mann was also quoted in stories on Nature.com, The Associated Press, Business Insider, The Guardian, ABC News, Wired.com and many other news outlets.
Will history give Trump a thumbs-up for his first 100 days? (AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez)
The federal government is currently being funded by a continuing resolution that expires on April 28, 2017 – which also happens to be the 99th day of Donald Trump’s presidency. 
Robert Speel
If Congress fails to approve a new spending deal before then, Trump’s 100th day as president will begin with a federal government shutdown.
The last government shutdown took place under President Obama and lasted for more than two weeks in 2013. Hundreds of thousands of federal government employees were furloughed. The Smithsonian museums and National Park Service sites were closed, including the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall in Philadelphia and the Washington monuments and memorials.
With current fights in Congress over spending on the military, the border wall and sanctuary cities, it’s certainly possible that no new continuing resolution will be passed in time.
That would make Trump’s 100th day in office an unusual anniversary, but the truth is not all recent presidents have much to brag about when it comes to the impact of their first months in office.
The idea of using a president’s first 100 days in office as a way to evaluate him began in 1933 with Franklin D. Roosevelt – although FDR actually had in mind measuring the New Deal achievements of the first 100 days of a special congressional session that year. In a July 24 Fireside Chat, FDR referred to “the crowding events of the 100 days which had been devoted to the starting of the wheels of the New Deal.” Journalists, historians and political scientists continued the practice of looking for accomplishments in the early months of a presidency.
Vice President John Nance Garner (left) affectionately pats the head of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. (AP Photo)
During those 100 days, FDR got many major bills through Congress to battle the economic crisis of the Great Depression. These bills created the Public Works Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps to provide job opportunities, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to insure bank deposits and the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide rural electricity. This flurry of activity became the standard by which future presidents would be judged – often coming up short.
In a 2001 study, political scientists John Frendreis, Raymond Tatalovich and Jon Schaff determined that the presidents who followed FDR have not come close to his success levels in seeing proposed bills pass into law so early in their administrations. The authors attributed that to changes in Congress that have slowed down the lawmaking process.
Let’s consider how the presidents have done.
Following FDR’s death, Harry Truman’s first 100 days were focused on the closing battles of World War II, with Germany’s surrender occurring less than one month after Truman took office.
Dwight Eisenhower’s first 100 days were similarly dominated by foreign policy, including the death of Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin and negotiations to end the Korean War.
John Kennedy entered office with an ambitious agenda, which included the creation of the Peace Corps, but his first 100 days are probably best remembered for the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
Lyndon Johnson’s first 100 days were most consumed by coping with the aftermath of Kennedy’s assassination, but LBJ also used the period and Kennedy’s legacy to begin the groundwork to pass major civil rights and war on poverty legislation.
While Richard Nixon also promoted an ambitious domestic agenda in the White House, his first 100 days contained no major visible achievements at the time. Nixon told reporters: “I don’t count either the days or the hours, really. I never thought in those terms. I plan for a long term.” Later, it was revealed that he had ordered a secret bombing of Cambodia during the period.
Gerald Ford’s first 100 days are best remembered for his swearing-in ceremony following Nixon’s resignation, when he announced that “our long national nightmare is over.” He then pardoned Nixon one month later for any crimes the former president had committed in office.
Jimmy Carter also had an inauspicious start. Possibly due to his inexperience in Washington, he asked Congress to pursue several different domestic policy goals, many of which never passed into law. Perhaps best remembered from Carter’s early months is his speech from the White House to declare that energy policy and efforts to end American dependence on oil were the “moral equivalent of war.”
Ronald Reagan’s administration drew the lesson from his immediate predecessor that it was best to focus on one or two domestic issues during the first 100 days. Reagan spent his first months as president promoting an agenda of tax and spending cuts, though those did not pass into law until August 1981, four months later. Reagan’s first 100 days as president were also notable for the assassination attempt made against him, which limited his political efforts for part of the time period.
George H.W. Bush’s first 100 days as president were largely a continuation of the policies of the Reagan presidency. They were noted at the time for being relatively uneventful, with a congressional battle over a secretary of defense nominee and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska dominating the political news.
The biggest political news story during Bill Clinton’s first 100 days was probably the failure of his stimulus package of domestic spending increases to get past a Republican filibuster in the Senate, though the eventual budget that resulted helped steer the United States toward budget surpluses later in the decade. Clinton’s first month also included his signing of the Family and Medical Leave Act into law, the start of a debate about service of gays in the military and the creation of a task force on national health care reform, chaired by Hillary Clinton.
George W. Bush took office in January 2001 after a disputed electoral outcome in Florida led to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that essentially made him president. In a politically divided country, Bush’s strategy seemed to be to avoid controversy and build his political capital, with his major legislative proposals in the time period involving tax cuts and education reform.
Due to the economic crisis that began during Bush’s final months as president, Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office were dominated by the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a package of economic stimulus investments that by some measures was even larger than those passed in FDR’s 100 days in 1933. During a CBS “60 Minutes” interview in November 2008, Obama even said he was reading about FDR’s 100 days as an example.
Which brings us back to Donald Trump.
Trump’s main political success so far has been the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. His promised repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act failed to get support in Congress. His attempted travel entry bans of citizens of certain Islamic countries into the U.S. and attempted suspension of refugee entry have so far led to massive protests and have been blocked by federal judges.
The Trump administration has also taken military action in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan, approved the construction of oil pipelines through North Dakota and sent out a request for contract bids to build a border wall with Mexico. It’s not clear yet which of these events will be well-remembered a year – or 10 – from now.
One thing is sure. If the Liberty Bell or the Lincoln Memorial is closed to tourists on Trump’s 100th day as president, it’s likely that government malfunction will be what is remembered about Trump’s first few months in office.
Robert Speel, Associate Professor of Political Science, Erie campus, Pennsylvania State University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
There’s still a lot of the U.S. waiting to be wired up. asharkyu/Shutterstock.com
A promise to restore America’s crumbling infrastructure was a key part of President Donald Trump’s campaign speeches. He pledged to rebuild America’s roads and bridges, ports and highways, which are undoubtedly in need of repair. Less clear in his speeches – and in these early days of his administration – is what importance he gives broadband internet, an equally essential infrastructure in our 21st-century information economy. A quarter of Americans still have no broadband, and 12 percent live in places where they can get service from only one provider or none at all. 
Krishna Jayakar
Very broadly, governments have two tools to change any particular industry: funding and regulation. Trump’s budget blueprint released on March 16 leaves no doubt that the president’s focus is on beefing up America’s defense and security capabilities. To fund his significant increases for defense, homeland security, veterans affairs and law enforcement, Trump proposes cuts across the rest of the federal government.
Several agencies that directly or indirectly fund broadband service may have less money to spend, despite the benefits high-speed internet access can bring to individuals, businesses and their communities. My own research at the Institute for Information Policy at Penn State, and that of many others, has shown that broadband penetration can have multiplier effects on jobs creation, small business startups, wages and incomes, property values and community renewal. Even modest investments can have lasting benefits.
Beyond the potential for spending cuts, Trump’s early regulatory moves suggest he is not making broadband access a priority. If he harms broadband service, President Trump risks missing an opportunity to invest in a proven economic engine for the country.
One group whose federal funds are slated for total elimination is the Appalachian Regional Commission, which (among other functions) helps people and communities pay for broadband service in some of the most economically depressed regions of the country. It supports remote access to doctors, small business connections to larger markets, and job training and education programs from teachers and experts elsewhere – all brought into rural areas via the internet.
Another federal agency destined for the chopping block, the Institute for Museum and Library Services, coordinates various efforts to provide internet service to communities through their local libraries and museums.
Wider funding cuts for executive departments, even if they don’t directly target specific agencies or programs, are also likely to affect broadband funding. For example, the Housing and Urban Development department, targeted for a 13 percent cut, offers several programs, including Neighborhood Networks, which provide computer and internet access and online job training to people who live in public housing. Whether that and other internet-related programs across the government survive will become clearer only in the days and weeks to come, as the budget proposal is formalized and then works its way through Congress.
A few government programs’ budgets may see an increase: Trump’s blueprint modestly increases funding for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s projects developing better ways to provide high-speed wireless internet services. Current wireless networks are under significant pressure from the explosion of demand for mobile broadband service. Transmissions from wireless devices – items like wireless speakers, alarm systems and refrigerators – as well as autonomous cars will only increase the need to better manage radio frequencies.
Another piece of potentially good news is that lots of the money for expanding broadband service across America comes from other sources than the federal budget. American broadband companies continue to invest heavily in their networks. A telecommunications trade group reports that the industry has invested US$250 billion in broadband infrastructure since 1996, including $90 billion in the last seven years.
Still, the broadband industry, which took in $131 billion in revenue in 2016, remains highly profitable. President Trump has met with broadband company CEOs to encourage them to invest more. In late March he cited a $25 billion investment pledge from Charter Communications as evidence of his success – though critics quickly pointed out that Charter’s decision had been years in the making.
But private investments can’t meet all the need, especially in markets that are not considered economically viable. To fill the gap, government-mandated programs subsidize low-income customers, rural health clinics, schools and libraries, and rural areas with poor connectivity. Funding for these programs comes from the Universal Service Fund, through a fee assessed on telecommunications providers based on how much their subscribers pay for service. Most companies charge their customers to recover this cost, making it another form of public funding of broadband expansion. This fee, established as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is raised and spent outside the regular federal budget process, so it may not be affected by Trump administration policies.
Beyond spending or distributing money, the federal government can affect broadband investments with regulations. These are also outside the budget itself, but regulatory requirements can work in conjunction with spending plans. Many regulations are obscure and highly technical. They govern the nitty-gritty mechanics of the telecommunications industry, such as prices telecom companies charge each other to connect networks, where physical wires run, and which radio frequencies are used for television channels and which for mobile broadhand. When well-crafted, these rules can encourage competition, which boosts speeds and service quality while decreasing prices.
So far, though, the Trump administration’s regulators are taking a hands-off approach to broadband service. In March, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman, Ajit Pai, withdrew authorization from some telecom companies previously approved to participate in the Lifeline program, which subsidizes broadband access to low-income customers. That may mean fewer companies offering Lifeline service, less money spent letting potential customers know about the program and fewer low-income people getting online.
Another regulatory move that’s widely expected is FCC action to reverse the Open Internet Order, protecting what is also called “net neutrality.” Under those rules, formalized in 2015, internet service providers are required to deliver all online content to their customers at equal speeds, without slowing down traffic from any sites or charging some services for faster connections. Supporters say the rules help keep the internet open for innovation, while critics say it is too much regulation that hurts broadband providers.
Both Pai and President Trump have vowed to undo net neutrality. How that will affect the market is unclear. It may spur broadband providers to increase their investments to take advantage of being able to charge content companies for faster delivery of their traffic. But it might slow innovation if new startups find it difficult to reach customers through the ISPs’ bottlenecks.
President Trump came to office promising to create jobs, enhance American economic competitiveness and renew communities. He could take advantage of the proven power of broadband investments to help achieve all those goals. But at present, he appears to be moving away from that path, not using taxpayer dollars, agency regulations or the power of the presidential bully pulpit to push industry players to expand broadband to every American.
Krishna Jayakar, Co-Director, Institute for Information Policy and Associate Professor of Telecommunications, Pennsylvania State University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.