The PPP Loan Program was created by the CARES Act and carried out by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide support to small businesses in maintaining their payroll during the Coronavirus pandemic. This program was approved for $350 billion, but this amount was expanded by an additional $320 billion to meet the demand by struggling businesses, since initial funding was exhausted under two weeks.<br/><br/>Significant controversy surrounds the program. In December 2020, the Department of Justice reported 90 individuals were charged for fraudulent use of funds, totaling $250 million. The loans, which were intended for small business, were actually approved for 450 public companies. Furthermore, the methods of approval are<br/>shrouded in mystery. In an effort to be transparent, the SBA has released information about loan recipients. Conveniently, the SBA has released information of all recipients. Detailed information was released for 661,218 recipients who have received a PPP loan in excess of $150,000. These recipients are the central point of this research.<br/><br/>This research sought to answer two primary questions: how did the SBA determine which loans, and therefore which industries are approved, and did the industries most affected by the pandemic receive the most in PPP loans, as intended by Congress? It was determined that, generally, PPP Loans were approved on the basis of employment percentages relative to the individual state. Furthermore, in general, the loans approved were approved fairly, with respect to the size of the industry. The loans, when adjusted for GDP and Employment factors, yielded a clear ranking that prioritized vulnerable industries first.<br/><br/>However, significant questions remain. The effectiveness of the PPP has been hindered by unclear incentives and negative outcomes, characterized by a government program that has essentially been rushed into service. Furthermore, limitations of available data to regress and compare the SBA's approved loans are not representative of small business.

Over the years from 2009 to 2017, the people of Arizona witnessed the state consistently defunding the schools, its students academically underperforming, and as a result, the poverty achievement gap widening. Even with the efforts in recent years to re-invest in education, Arizona’s education funding falls below its level at 2008 and the national average. Among Arizona’s funding sources is the Public School Tax Credit, a unique legislation for the state that allows for taxpayers to donate money to certain programs at Arizona public schools and reduce their state income tax liability dollar-for-dollar. Because of the already severe achievement gap in Arizona, this funding source which relies on surrounding neighborhoods’ income raises the concern that, instead of helping Arizona students, it is exacerbating the existing achievement gap. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between income and donations received by schools to determine the validity of this concern. To ensure a comprehensive examination of the relationship between income and donations received, regression tests are run on both the aggregate level and individual level. The tests find that, although income does have a statistically significant correlation with the donations received, it is only positive for the effect of total income on total donations, negative for the effect of average income per return on average donation per donor, and negative for average income per return on total donations. The results imply that to garner high donations, it matters less to be located in a high-earning neighborhood and more important to be located in a moderate-earning neighborhood with a lot of people donating using this credit. Therefore, the concern of income’s effect on donations is valid, but perhaps not in the straightforward way that we would expect.

With 2016 marking the 100th Anniversary of the National Park Service (NPS), important discussions regarding the future of America's beloved parks and respective government funding must take place. Imagine all the money, including tax revenue, flowing through America's national parks system, and where is that money destined for in the future? National park funding will factor greatly into determining the future of America's NPS and individual parks. Therefore, it is imperative to investigate where and how government funding, for the present and future, is distributed throughout the parks protected under the NPS. Through personal experiences as a child, national parks consistently provide a unique exposure to and an education of the natural world, which are rare finds when growing up in suburban or metropolitan regions. Narrowing down, this analysis will focus on government disbursements to Yellowstone National Park (Yellowstone) and Isle Royale National Park (Isle Royale) with specifics on two budgeted projects crucial to park survival. Yellowstone and Isle Royale each request funding for a project crucial to the park's ecosystem and a project intended to improve guest services for visitors. Closing comments will provide recommendations for Yellowstone, Isle Royale and the NPS, including effects of President Trump's 2018 Government Proposed Budget, in an attempt to offer forward thinking about national parks. The projects and respective funding as detailed in this analysis have a forward-thinking focus as other projects included in the NPS requested funding budgets consider as well. Current actions and efforts are crucial to the long-term life and of this country's national parks for future generations to come.

The relationship between the European Union and Britain has been long and contentious. It has been dominated by Britain's skepticism towards the EU and a hesitation to participate in an integrated Europe. This paper outlines the costs and benefits of Britain's membership in three areas: trade and foreign direct investment, financial contributions, and immigration. In addition to analyzing the effect of a British exit in these three areas, alternatives are also discussed.