Laws Regulating Federal Lobbyists

Laws Regulating Federal Lobbyists In public opinion polls, lobbyists rank somewhere between pond scum and nuclear waste. In every election, politicians vow never to be â€Å"bought out† by lobbyists, but often do. Briefly, lobbyists get paid by businesses or special interest groups to win the votes and support of members of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures.   Indeed, to many people, lobbyists and what they do represent the main cause of corruption in federal government. But while lobbyists and their influence in Congress sometimes seem to be out of control, they really do have to follow laws. In fact, lots of them.   Background: The Laws of Lobbying While each state legislature has created its own set of laws regulating lobbyists, there are two specific federal laws regulating the actions of lobbyists targeting the U.S. Congress.   Recognizing the need to make the lobbying process more transparent and accountable to the American people, Congress enacted the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995. Under this law, all lobbyists dealing with the U.S. Congress are required to register with both the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. Within 45 days of becoming employed or retained to lobby on behalf of a new client, the lobbyist must register his or her agreement with that client with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. As of 2015, more than 16,000 federal lobbyists were registered under the LDA. However, merely registering with Congress was not enough to prevent some lobbyists from abusing the system to the point of triggering total disgust for their profession. Jack Abramoff Lobbying Scandal Spurred New, Tougher Law Public hatred for lobbyists and lobbying reached its peak in 2006 when Jack Abramoff, working as a lobbyist for the rapidly growing Indian casino industry, pleaded guilty to charges of bribing members of Congress, some of whom also ended up in prison as a result of the scandal. In the aftermath of the Abramoff scandal, Congress in 2007 passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) fundamentally changing the ways in which lobbyists were allowed to interact with members of Congress. As a result of HLOGA, lobbyists are prohibited from â€Å"treating† Congress members or their staff to things like meals, travel, or entertainment events. Under HLOGA, lobbyists must file Lobbying Disclosure (LD) reports during each year revealing all contributions they made to campaign events for members of Congress or other expenditures of efforts they make that might in any way personally benefit a member of Congress. Specifically, the required reports are: The LD-2 report showing all lobbying activities for each organization they are registered to represent must be filed quarterly; andThe LD-203 report disclosing certain political â€Å"contributions† to politicians must be filed twice a year. What Can Lobbyists ‘Contribute’ to Politicians? Lobbyists are allowed to contribute money to federal politicians under the same campaign contribution limits placed on individuals. During the current (2016) federal election cycle, lobbyists cannot give more than $2,700 to any candidate and $5,000 to any Political Action Committees (PAC) in each election. Of course, the most coveted â€Å"contributions† lobbyists make to politicians are the money and votes of the members of the industries and organizations they work for. In 2015 for example, the nearly 5 million members of the National Rifle Association gave a combined $3.6 million to federal politicians opposed to tighter gun control policy. In addition, lobbyist must file quarterly reports listing their clients, the fees they received from each client and the issues on which they lobbied for each client. Lobbyists who fail to comply with these laws face could face both civil and criminal penalties as determined by the Office of the U.S. Attorney. Penalties for Violation of the Lobbying Laws The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, along with U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) are responsible for ensuring that lobbyists comply with the LDA activity disclosure law. Should they detect a failure to comply, the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House notifies the lobbyist in writing. Should the lobbyist fail to provide an adequate response, the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House refers the case to the USAO. The USAO researches these referrals and sends additional noncompliance notices to the lobbyist, requesting that they file reports or terminate their registration. If USAO does not receive a response after 60 days, it decides whether to pursue a civil or criminal case against the lobbyist. A civil judgment could lead to penalties up to $200,000 for each violation, while a criminal conviction - usually pursued when a lobbyist’s noncompliance is found to be knowing and corrupt- could lead to a maximum of 5 years in prison. So yes, there are laws for lobbyists, but how many of those lobbyists are really doing the â€Å"right thing† by complying with the disclosure laws? GAO Reports on Lobbyists’ Compliance with the Law In an audit released on March 24, 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that during 2015, â€Å"most† registered federal lobbyists did file disclosure reports that included key data required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA). According to the GAO’s audit, 88% of lobbyists properly filed initial LD-2 reports as required by the LDA. Of those properly filed reports, 93% included adequate documentation on income and expenses. About 85% of lobbyists properly filed their required year-end LD-203 reports disclosing campaign contributions. During 2015, federal lobbyists filed 45,565 LD-2 disclosure reports with $5,000 or more in lobbying activity, and 29,189 LD-203 reports of federal political campaign contributions. The GAO did find that, as in years past, some lobbyists continued to properly disclose payments for certain â€Å"covered positions,† as paid congressional internships or certain executive agency positions provided as part of the lobbyists’ â€Å"contributions† to lawmakers. GAO’s audit estimated that about 21% of all LD-2 reports filed by lobbyists in 2015 failed to disclose payments for at least one such covered position, despite the fact that most lobbyists told the GAO that they found the rules regarding reporting covered positions as being â€Å"very easy† or   Ã¢â‚¬Å"somewhat easy† to understand.

Organised Crime and Terrorism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Organised Crime and Terrorism - Essay Example It was not long ago that airliners were not allowing people on board who carried toothpaste with them because of the fear that some explosive elements might be contained therein. The same case applies to other ordinary things like clothing. Today there are mandatory strip searches at airports to sniff out even the most hidden explosive or weapon before it gets into the plane. Even shoes and other ordinary things, considering the Reid case, have been used in an attempt to cause terror. Of course in this case it was a shoe bomb. As the terrorists have become adept with their clandestine activities, so have countries and especially security agencies. They have introduced sweeping measures like surveillance on suspicious targets, wiretapping of mobile phones belonging to suspects among other measures. In general, the focus of governments has moved from its previous reactive state to a more pro-active state where the gathering of intelligence is the new battleground between these two foes . These and many others shall be the focus of this paper. There shall be a special focus on the U.K and the legislative options that have been introduced to sniff out this new threat (Campbell 2013). There has been wide ranging legislation that has been introduced in the United kingdom to curb terrorism and organized crime, both of which are very much evolving situations. The rate at which such legislation has been introduced, not only tells of the severity of these crimes but also the extent to which the government is ready to go to ensure that the citizens are safe. Since the Blair premiership the laws that have been introduced include the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Counter- Terrorism Act 2008. This flood of legislation is a reflection of the speed at which this threat is evolving (Hanman 2013). Governments have had to put in place, at times controversial measures to ensure that no terrorist slips through the dragnet. One of these controversial measures is wiretapping. Basically, the police are allowed to listen in on conversations of people that they suspect to have intentions of causing ter ror or any other harm on great scale (Barrett 2013). There has been an assessment of the role and effectiveness of wiretapping in the wake of several terror related activities. This form of intelligence gathering has been found to be very effective. There are several ‘wanna-be’ terrorists in the U.K. Most of them are Muslims of Pakistani origin. Several of them make multiple trips to their native countries to receive training mostly offered by Al-Qaeda, the Taliban among other groups. The credentials of wiretapping therefore are not what is under debate here. There are much more serious issues (The Guardian 19th march 2009). As a case officer, I would recommend wiretapping so as to obtain even more information about these terrorist sympathizers and their intentions. We already have the mobile number (07097911156) of Hector from the from Tinkers mobile phone. Wiretapping is allowed under the anti-terrorism laws as a last ditch measure to ensure national security. The onl y grey area as pertains its use is the fact that until very recently, information obtained thus was not admissible in court (The Guardian 6th February 2008). By listening in on conversations by Hector there is a great likelihood that we shall get even

President Polk War Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

President Polk War - Research Paper Example However, the president was not planning to go to war until his efforts to persuade Mexican authorities to sell the disputed territories failed. Polk decided to draft a war message and send it to the Congress because he was growing tired of waiting and all the negotiations had proved futile. Yet, on May 9. 1846 Polk received the news about the attack by Mexican soldiers on US troops stationed in the disputed territory On May11, 1846, the president to address the Congress with a special message for a declaration of war (DeLay 247). Polk claimed that: As war exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon, by every consideration of duty and patriotism, to vindicate, with decision, the honor, the  rights, and the interests of our country† (Polk). Despite the fact that Congress passed the war resolution, the war was not universally supported. Polk’s opponents claimed that the President and his party initiated the conflict with a weaker neighbor state not to protect the US citizens against the foreign aggression. In the opponents’ view, the true purpose of the war did not deal with national pride or improvement of trade relations in the region. Those who opposed the war claimed that Polk and congressmen representing southern state started the war in order to expand slavery to new territories. As a northern congressman Joshua Giddings underlined: â€Å"apprehend that much blood and much treasure will be expended before   the people of   New Mexico will be compelled to unite with slave-holding Texas. Those Mexicans love freedom. They have abolished slavery

Privacy Right of Freedom of Information Research Paper

Privacy Right of Freedom of Information - Research Paper Example It goes without saying that the idea of a free and hassle free exchange of information does have its benefits and advantages. Yet, again, the notion of regarding the privacy of the individuals, groups and organizations to be protected and sanctimonious also sounds to be a valid and just proposal. Isn’t it considered to be a common ethical behavior on the part of doctors to maintain the confidentiality of the health records of their patients at all costs? A commonsensical approach towards life amply corroborates the fact that nobody in the right mind would ever like to put up with a society, where the details pertaining to one’s personal, professional and social life are unscrupulously open to public scrutiny and access. As is often said, the extreme of anything is bad. So it is human to expect the state and fellow citizens and the organizations managed by them to respect one’s personal life and privacy. However, an optimal level of efficiency and transparency in the society necessitates a level of free exchange of information and facts. ... nsidered to be a fundamental and innate need of humanity that is to a great extent is essential and a must for individual and social growth in an environment governed by a measure of dignity (Inness 3). However, this very concept of privacy could also be interpreted in a relativistic context, subject to individual preferences and views and the nature of the situations that breach privacy (Francis 91). In a psychological context, a sense of privacy is a necessary safety valve against any fear of losing control or context (Etzioni 187). Thus, it goes without saying that grappling with, limiting and defining the concept of privacy is utterly unwieldy and difficult, as the idea of privacy is subject to multiple dimensions and facets. In a simplistic attempt, privacy may be considered to be the right of the individuals, groups and institutions to control and determine as to what information about them is communicated to others, how and in what manner it is communicated and when and at wha t time it is communicated (Scoglio 24). In an individualistic context, privacy may be taken as the prerogative of an individual to determine as to what happens to the personal information associated with one (Scoglio 24). May sound surprising, but the concept of privacy could also be interpreted in the context of individual and collective freedom. In that context privacy could be taken to be a control over one’s interactions with the society that maximizes freedom and autonomy and minimizes vulnerability and possible threats to individual or group integrity. In other words (Boling 85). Privacy is an attempt on the part of individuals, groups and organizations to mark their respective boundaries (Boling 85). It goes without saying that the contemporary age of information has added many new

The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business Schools Essay Example for Free

The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business Schools Essay Case analysis on The buck stops (and starts) at business school It’s really strange that on one hand, most people who were laid off in 2009 after the crisis went into the business schools. On the other hand, medias were seriously criticizing the damage business school graduate brought to the financial crisis. Does business schools need to change? Or they’re just the scapegoats? In Joel Podolny’s view, business schools definitely should be blamed and should be reinvented. He believed that historically, business schools have largely ignored the teaching of values and ethics because those aren’t subjects of inquiry for traditional business school academic disciplines. Also, those leadership and ethics courses that are taught are flawed since attention to detail and taking responsibilities were not emphasized. Furthermore, case teaching method alone doesn’t enable students to learn that being consistent in various situations and continually paying the right amount of attention to detail are among the most challenging aspects of leadership. Podolny also put forward several suggestions about how business schools can change to win back the trust from the society. I think foster greater integration and encourage qualitative makes most sense among the five recommendations. I vote for these two because I simply think the other three just don’t work. In Fisher, we are doing â€Å"appointing teaching teams† right now. But as a student, or the subject of this way of teaching, my feeling is that we don’t like this way. When we see the ethics teachers come in, we naturally feel a kind of reluctance since no one subconsciously or consciously admits that their ethic need to be â€Å"taught†. We either think we’re really good people or we think it’s all BS and making money is always the most important thing. But I feel the most compelling lesson of ethics I learned was actually from an International Business class professor who almost â€Å"unwarily† lead the discussion about a manage r facing whether or not firing a disabled worker who has contributed a lot to the success of the company in one case. It’s so natural that the class did not even take it as an â€Å"ethics class† but really took a great lesson unguardedly through the extremely heated discussion and the concluding succinct but thought provoking words from the professor. That will be my own suggestion for teaching ethics. Stop competing on ranking is a dream. To me it’s just like asking companies to stop competing on net income and EPS. That will never happen though companies can pay more attention to social benefits. Similarly, we can expect business schools to pay more attention or at least act like they pay more attention to candidate’s moral aspect. Withdraw degrees for violating codes of conduct sounds powerful but it’s just so hard to really enforce. Just look at doctors and lawyers in our society now and one can see if it really works. Ethics is still a huge issue in many of the hospitals and courts. What’s more, withdraw the degree for lawyer and doctors can forbid them to continue work as a doctor or lawyer, but in the business world, as long as you have a pretty good experience in your resume, you can always find a job regardless of the degree. Business schools might really need to transform but another question is, should they be responsible for the recent financial crisis as all those business graduates are selling CDS and telling ignorant people to leverage more on mortgages? I don’t think Business schools are largely culpable for the global economic crisis of 2008-2012, at least not largely. First of all, my understanding of the 2008 financial crisis is that we call it sub-prime crisis but sub-prime is just the blasting fuse of it. On one hand, most people are so accustomed to living on credit with zero savings or little savings. On the other hand, Greenspan has planted the seed for all this in his monetary policy and the burst of the bubble is more of an inevitable result of the false prosperous real estate market than wicked business school students cheating people around. It’s very easy to treat innocent civilians as victims and find someone making money on that as chief criminals. But don’t forget that it’s the illusion that one can live a pretty good life without working hard and enjoy your life today as much as possible that really destroyed many of the families. The strong dollar and the world’s trust in dollar had brought US people so much benefits that most people just took that for granted and dreamed that could last forever. The repeated cycles of financial crisis or the ups and downs of economy itself is a manifestation of uncontrollable greed insides human beings that has nothing to do whether one has graduated from a business school or not. To put it another way, if Wall Street does not hire a single business school graduate, the situation will be roughly the same. So attributing the bane of financial crisis mostly to the business schools is more of finding a scapegoat in my view. That said, does that mean business schools had no wrong doings? Definitely no. The pressure from the job market really puts the business schools at a place that they have to pay much more attention to the placement after graduation. Rankings, whether you care about it or not, are out there closely starred at by most of the applicants. These seem to be perfect excuses why business schools pay extreme little attention to ethics and responsibilities. But as a school, it should always take the essence of education as the guideline, which is to teach people to become better people, not to become better financial modeling makers. We can have various training classes that teach the sophisticated technics of Excel but we can never learn about how to make the world better in business skill training classes. So business schools should be blamed for not having planted the seeds of ethics and responsibilities in students. Can business schools teach more about ethics and how to make a better world? Well, it depends. It depends not because the schools can or cannot set up more ethics course and have more ethics teachers. I say it depends because I believe ethics and responsibilities are not taught by ethics teachers but by every single teacher in the classroom even if he teaches financial modeling. I believe ethics are best taught and accepted when the students really feel the leadership inside the professor and genuinely want to follow him or her instead of through simulation case discussions. Do most of the professors in most schools have such leadership and such deep embedded understanding of ethics and responsibility? I seriously doubt about it.

The Healthcare Industry of America; An investigative look at HMOs Essa

The Healthcare Industry of America: An investigative look at HMO's It's no secret that Health Maintenance Organizations, known as HMO's, have made healthcare affordable for many Americans, but at what risks? Most employers offer some type of health care plan that is an HMO. Let's face it, given the choice among insurance coverage through your employer, in which he pays half the costs, or acquiring private insurance coverage outside your employer, most Americans choose to go with employer-provided HMO's. Why then, has there been so much controversy with HMO's? An HMO is an organization whereby the subscriber, or patient, is allowed to choose a medical provider from a list of doctors within a certain medical group. Each physician has signed a contract to see patients at a reduced rate. This type of plan does not allow the patient freedom to see just any doctor. All referrals to a doctor, other than the patient's primary care physician, must be approved by both that physician, and the insurance company. Most physicians add HMO's as a supplement to their practices. With HMO's, the patient has little or no co-payment depending on how the plan is set up. Most HMO co-payments range between $5 to $15 dollars per office visit. The doctor, may receive half or less than half of his normal fee from the insurance companies. HMO's are characterized with the tendency to over or under treat patients. HMO's put limitations not only on the income of the provider, but also on the type of treatment that may be done. If a patient is in need of a specialist fo r a specific ailment, the insurance company has to review and approve a referral and deem it necessary. The process involves the patient going to his or her general practitioner, also re... ...he pros. It helps immensely if you have the support of your primary care physician. If you have a hearing, find out how many people will be there and make up a folder for each one. a). Contact local lawmakers, senators, representatives. b). Contact your State Insurance Commission in writing about your complaint. Send copies of correspondence between you and your HMO. Let the HMO know you are contacting your State Insurance Commission. Works Cited Evans, M. Stanton. "If you're in an HMO, here's why." Consumers' Research Magazine, Dec. 1997 p10(6). Sherrid, Pamela. "Mismanaged Care." U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 24, 1997 p57(3). Lowenberg, Stanley C. "Hard Path to HMO reform." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 2, 1998 pB(4) col. 1. Figueroa, Liz. "State Regulations of Healthcare Reform." Los Angeles Times, March 4, 1998 pB(6) col. 4. The Healthcare Industry of America; An investigative look at HMO's Essa The Healthcare Industry of America: An investigative look at HMO's It's no secret that Health Maintenance Organizations, known as HMO's, have made healthcare affordable for many Americans, but at what risks? Most employers offer some type of health care plan that is an HMO. Let's face it, given the choice among insurance coverage through your employer, in which he pays half the costs, or acquiring private insurance coverage outside your employer, most Americans choose to go with employer-provided HMO's. Why then, has there been so much controversy with HMO's? An HMO is an organization whereby the subscriber, or patient, is allowed to choose a medical provider from a list of doctors within a certain medical group. Each physician has signed a contract to see patients at a reduced rate. This type of plan does not allow the patient freedom to see just any doctor. All referrals to a doctor, other than the patient's primary care physician, must be approved by both that physician, and the insurance company. Most physicians add HMO's as a supplement to their practices. With HMO's, the patient has little or no co-payment depending on how the plan is set up. Most HMO co-payments range between $5 to $15 dollars per office visit. The doctor, may receive half or less than half of his normal fee from the insurance companies. HMO's are characterized with the tendency to over or under treat patients. HMO's put limitations not only on the income of the provider, but also on the type of treatment that may be done. If a patient is in need of a specialist fo r a specific ailment, the insurance company has to review and approve a referral and deem it necessary. The process involves the patient going to his or her general practitioner, also re... ...he pros. It helps immensely if you have the support of your primary care physician. If you have a hearing, find out how many people will be there and make up a folder for each one. a). Contact local lawmakers, senators, representatives. b). Contact your State Insurance Commission in writing about your complaint. Send copies of correspondence between you and your HMO. Let the HMO know you are contacting your State Insurance Commission. Works Cited Evans, M. Stanton. "If you're in an HMO, here's why." Consumers' Research Magazine, Dec. 1997 p10(6). Sherrid, Pamela. "Mismanaged Care." U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 24, 1997 p57(3). Lowenberg, Stanley C. "Hard Path to HMO reform." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 2, 1998 pB(4) col. 1. Figueroa, Liz. "State Regulations of Healthcare Reform." Los Angeles Times, March 4, 1998 pB(6) col. 4.

Raising the Driving Age

For at least the last ten years, the issue of whether or not to raise the driving age to 18 years old has been a touchy subject on every level of the spectrum; from State Highway Safety Association to teenagers and everybody in between. Although everyone has some degree of approval that raising the driving age would be a good idea no one has really put forth the effort to actually have it come to pass. This has lead to the ongoing debate of whether it should even be a consideration anymore.There are several reasons that establishing the driving age at 18 is a legitimate idea. First, by having the driving age moved to the minimum of 18 this can be both environmentally and economically commendable. Also, teenagers under the age of 18 are more mentally underdeveloped when it comes to making sound decisions on the road, which then leads teenagers to having one of the highest fatality rates involving automobiles. Global warming has become key issue all over the world, especially in more o ver-crowded counties and cities, due to higher volume of emissions being released into the air.In the year 2000, the Carbon Emissions that are released into the air by cars in the United States is 302 Million Metric tons (MMTc) (Environmental). In that same year, there were 190 million licensed drivers in the United States, and 9,743,000 were drivers under the age of 19 (U. S), that’s five percent of the population. I know it doesn’t seem like that much but when you take in consideration the total emissions being released into the air and multiply it by the number of teenage drivers, that will reduce the amount of emissions by 15. MMTc. People are desperate to help stop global warming; one way we can do this is to reduce the amount of drivers on the roads and create a more accessible public transportation in rural areas. Increasing the age for driving would also be beneficial to parents of teen drivers due to the fact that insuring a teen driver is very expensive. A re cent study, in 2009-2010 for a one-car family to insure their teen-driver would raise their premium 42 percent, 58 percent for a two-car family and 62 percent for a three-car family (Schultz).An average of $620 dollars a year is what parents pay to add their child to their insurance (Bradford). That is one child, I come from a family of five and eleven years ago, when I turned sixteen my parents already had two teen drivers on their auto insurance and we were living off two teacher salaries. By the year 2000 the average teacher in Texas was making 37,576 (IES); that would leave them with a combined income of just over 75 thousand a year.Paying an average of $620 dollars per teen driver wouldn’t have gone over well with living expenses, so needless to say, I got my divers license but I wasn’t able to drive until I was 18. There are always two sides to an argument, Parents grow weary of driving their kids for one place to the next; interrupting their own busy schedules t o drive their teen to their next social event. Bill Van Tassel, AAA’s National manager for driving training programs says â€Å"We have parents who are pretty much tired of chauffeuring their kids around, and just want them to be able to drive† (Davis).This is completely understandable, with today’s busy world no one has time for anything but does it really merit putting a population of underdeveloped minds behind the wheel for our own convenience? Which brings me to my next point; are teens mentally mature enough to be granted with the responsibility of driving a car? In 2005, new findings in brain research at the National Institutes of Health explain why efforts to protect teen drivers usually fail. The scientists at the NIH in Bethesda, Md. have found that a part of the brain that weighs risks, makes judgments and controls impulse behavior which is referred to as â€Å"the executive branch† is still developing in teenage years and isn’t fully ma tured until the age of 25 (Davis). These findings should be proof alone that teens are too immature to handle the responsibilities that come with driving a car. Teens are already emotional and compulsive more so then most adults, giving them keys to a vehicle could be potentially one of the worse ideas in history.Teens don’t process consequences the same way adults do, they rely more on the emotional part of their brains to make their decisions. Which is why when a teen is driving 15 to 20 miles over the speed limit the part of their brain that processes thrill is working brilliantly; But the part that cautions of negative consequences, is all but useless, explains Jay Giedd, chief of brain imaging in the child psychiatric unit at the National Institute of Mental Health (Davis). Parents see their newly licensed teen river as additional help for running errands and taking younger siblings to events and practices, but when it comes to handling issues that may arise on the road to and from their destination; teenagers just don’t have the mental maturity to consider the consequences of risky behavior. When I was still in high school two friends of mine were bragging one morning of their reckless and very dangerous excursion across town in the pouring rain without their windshield wipers on, just because they wanted to see how far they could go.I would advocate this as a true example, that teenagers are indeed too immature and reckless to be given the responsibilities of driving. Of course one would argue that not all teenagers are as immature and irresponsible as most, in fact there are some parents that would make their teen a poster-child for safe driving; but there are always exceptions to the rules. Adolescent drivers no matter how responsible they prove themselves to be don’t have the mental development to properly react to hazardous situations that arise on the road.The research above leads to my next topic, Due to their inability to ass es dangers that come up while driving, a teen driver is more likely to be involved in or the cause of an automobile accident. In 2009, about 3,000 teens in the United States aged 15–19 were killed and  more than 350,000 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor-vehicle crashes (CDC). With this information, one would wonder why the driving age has yet to be raised.Yet, despite the increasing number of teens dying in automotive accidents, there has yet to be a successful bill passed to raise the driving age. In September of 2008, lawmakers in Delaware, Florida, Georgia and Massachusetts introduced a bill to raise their driving age to 17; they all failed (Rubin). Some people are lead to believe that raising the driving age will not prevent teen deaths, rather just delay them, because maturity has no weight on teen driving, it’s all down to experience; It is this rational that is keeping teen drivers behind the wheel.Most states have a probatio nary period where teen must follow guidelines such as: * Night driving is prohibited for the first six months unless he/ she are accompanied by a licensed driver. * A passenger limitation of only one passenger under the age of 20 for the first six months unless a parent or guardian is present. * During the second six months only three passengers under 20 (Pabst) These restrictions have had only modest success, but with the judgment center of the teen brain not fully developed there remains a struggle to instill decision making skills in immature drivers (Davis).Most of these restrictions are left to the parents to enforce and these poorly enforced restrictions don’t seem to be helping stop the high volume of deaths due to irresponsible teenager’s being given the right to drive. In 2006, my father was killed in accident involving a teenage driver, who neglected to follow the speed limit, and disregarded the stopped school bus with its lights on, and plowed right into th e back of the vehicle behind my father causing it to hit my father on his motorcycle. I don’t know what she was doing to completely miss the big yellow stopped school bus, and the car right next to it, but it cost my father his life.The only argument against the high rate of death and injury cause by the sober mind of a teenager, are the high number of deaths caused by intoxicated driver. In 2003, 10 percent of the 16-year-old deaths in automobile accidents had a blood alcohol level of 0. 10 or higher compared to the 43 percent of 20- 49 year-olds drivers, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Davis). The government has made it illegal to drive intoxicated to protect the lives of their people, so why can’t they raise the driving age to save even more lives?Raising the driving age is something that should be taken with the highest regard, but there are people who don’t quite understand the severity of this particular situation and would simply argue that driving there teen around is an inconvenience to them and a frustration for their teen. In actuality by having the driving age moved to the minimum for 18 can be both environmentally and economically commendable. Also, teenagers under the age of 18 are more mentally immature when it comes to making sound decisions on the road, which then leads teenagers to having one of the highest fatality rates involving automobiles.Having an understanding of the matter is very important; people shouldn’t ignore this topic just because it doesn’t fit into today’s busy and ever growing world.