Issue 4 - Where the Money Goes

Review the horace mann

Domestic - International - Features - Economics - Science & Technology

W he

s e o re the Money G

Issue

4

FROM THE EDITOR

Review The Horace Mann

A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, and Social Issues

Rebecca Segall Editor-in-Chief

Andre Manuel Mathieu Rolfo

Creative Executive Editor

Seth Arar Andrew Stier

Senior Production Supervisor

Alexander Daniel Emily Feldstein

Editorial Executive Editor

Harrison Manin

Senior Editor - Domestic

Zoe Rubin

aspa

The Purse Strings of Government

T

here is no question that government spending has dominated Western political discourse since the economic recession of 2008. As headlines draw attention to unemployment rates and corporate law this political season, American and European citizens have more of a stake in their governments’ purse strings than ever. Concern over government spending—both its volume and its uses—has precipitated at least two major organized forms of political expression in the U.S. since 2008: the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements. Why should we feel so affected by where our government’s money goes?

One of the most powerful things a government can do is distribute funds.

While it may be impossible to relate to the 10-digit numbers our politicians work into their platforms, the quality inspection of our food and homes, the salaries of our teachers, the scope of our health care, the upkeep of our roads, and our standard of living as senior citizens are tied to government spending, for better or for worse. Its influence on the private sector also impacts the availability and quality of our jobs, a major charac-

2

ter on the American political stage. Now, as the European Union faces financial catastrophe, its members, as well as our own representatives in the U.S., must seriously reevaluate the way money is spent. This month, Review writers give us their best guess. Is it in stimulus plans to reinvigorate the markets? The education system, to provide for long-term growth? There is no one answer to the question of government funding, but our writers explore the issues at hand and attempt to make sense of governmental priorities.

We hope you enjoy this issue’s treatment of this topic, as well as other current events that are shaping our world.

The Review is always open to new writers wishing to explore the events that interest to them and their relevance to us as students and citizens.

Sincerely,

Senior Editor - International

Dorin Azerad

Senior Editor - Features

Jordan Berman

Senior Editor - Economics

Katherine Wyatt

Senior Editor - Science & Technology

Aramael Pena-Alcantara Jessica Bernheim Production Consultant

Senior Contributor

Spencer Cohen Benjamin Davidoff Treshauxn Dennis-Brown Daniel Elkind Maurice Farber Jacob Gladysz-Morawski Nicholas McCombe Stephen Paduano Alexander Posner Nathan Raab Elizabeth Rosenblatt Charles Scherr Junior Editor

Philip Perl Ryan Thier David Zask

Junior Contributor

Max Bernstein Tianhao Chen Vivianna Lin Samantha Rahmin Associate Editor

Gregory Donadio Faculty Advisor

Rebecca Segall Editor-in-Chief Volume XXI

The Horace Mann Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School. Please contact The Review for information at thereview@horacemann.org.

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

r

rvisor

eim

or

in

ia ic ss ard eg.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Domestic Super-PACs: Corrupting Washington

Nathan Tillinghast-Raby

4

Why We Need Lockout

Ryan Thier

6

Race to the White House 2.0

Jay Rappaport

8

Jessica Bernheim

11 12

The Perpetrators...How We Should React to Them Benjamin Green

16

SAT Cheating

Diane Lee

18

China’s Declining Economy

Mihika Kapoor

19

Barrier to Freedom

Isaiah Newman

20

Will Change Come?

Thomas Meerschwam

22

Dire Straits

William Ellison

24

U-S-A

Spencer Cohen & Jonathan Slifkin

28

The Light at the End of the Tunnel

Edmund Bannister

32

Equities in the Long Run

Mitchell Troyanovsky

34

The UK’s Declining Position in the EU

Vivianna Lin

36

Burning Down the House

Jonah Wexler

38

Recovery? Not So Fast

Adam Resheff

40

A Failing Education System

Lauren Futter

42

Andrew Cuomo’s Tax Cuts

Catherine Engelmann

44

To Be or Not to Be: An Assessment of the Occupy Movement Hannah Davidoff

Mormon in America

International

Features

Economics Science and Technology Was Einstein Wrong?

Alexander Posner

46

Apple is in the Station

Kelvin Rhee

49

Crucial Censorship

Samantha Rahmin

50

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

3

Domestic

Domestic

addictinginfo.org

Super-PACs: Corrupting Washington

“P

nathan tillinghast-raby

olitics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.” This quote from Will Rogers, an actor who lived during the turn of the 20th century, is unfortunately just as applicable today. Political candidates need campaign donations more than ever. This year’s presidential election promises to be the most expensive in American history, even more than the $5.3 billion that was spent in the 2008 elections. How is this possible?

The answer lies in the rulings of two court cases: Citizens United vs. the FEC, which made it all the way up to the Supreme Court, and Speechnow vs. the FEC, which was decided in the D.C. Circuit Court. They effectively got rid of donation limits, which allowed for the birth of the Super-PAC. A Super-PAC allows political candidates to receive unlimited donations from people, corpora-

4

tions and other organizations, so long as the Super-PAC doesn’t coordinate with the candidate’s campaign. Super-PACS are required to disclose their donors, but there are long delays between when they receive donations and when they have to disclose the donors. They are allowed almost free reign in the political landscape so long as they comply with these basic rules, as the FEC has yet establish rules concerning Super-PACS. Partly because of their current freedom, and partly because of their nature, Super-PACS have corrupted Washington D.C. even more than it was before. Candidates for political office, in order to gain name recognition and get their message out, and thus win, generally must spend more than their opponents. Before the deregulation of campaign finance, there were very strict limits on how much people and organizations could donate, both directly and indirectly, to a campaign, limiting the power of the wealthy. Nowa-

days, because there are no limits on donations to candidates, organizations and people can get into what are essentially bidding wars over who gets the best seat at the table if that candidate is elected.

And because candidates need the money that these organizations can give, they are forced to pander to corporate titans, Wall Street bankers, union leaders and the like.

The result of these unlimited contributions is deadlock in Washington. In order to appeal to their potential donors, candidates must act more ideologically.

Because more ideological candidates are being elected, they are less likely to cooperate with the opposite party. Even if they were inclined to compromise with the opposite party, the threat of being ostracized by their own party is enough to keep them in line. Furthermore, there is always the worry that if they are seen as not being a “real” member of their own party, their big donors will pull out.

All of this, of course, goes against

Washington Independant

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Domestic

articles.boston.com

Often, Super-PACS’ advertisements are easily accessible on the Internet, television, and mail. This is achieved despite the fact that Super PACS are not allowed to communicate with the recipient of advertisement support.

Above: Restore our Future PAC, a super PAC supporting former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has been leading the barrage of advertising seeking to point out weaknesses in Newt Gingrich.

Below: Restore our Future once again attacks a Romney oppponent, in what was its first negative mail circulation.

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

the very spirit of democracy: that everyone should have an equal say in his or her government. Now obviously this is never going to be a perfect system. Candidates for office will always need money, and wealthy people and organizations are able to provide such funding. But the removal of donation limits is simply an invitation for trouble. In 2012 we will witness the most expensive election ever in America, and there isn’t a real reason for it. The only reason there are such massive sums of money being thrown around is that eternal problem with politics: if your opponent spends more money than you, you will most likely lose. So, you have to spend more money than your opponent, no matter what the cost. In a way it was inevitable that it wound up like this.

Of course, the more money that is flung around, the more wealthy backers you need in order to succeed. But in return, they’re going to want more say in the government that they’re paying for.

As a result, the average American, who makes $50,000 a year and thus can ill afford to make serious donations, gets completely squeezed out of the equation.

That is definitely not the meaning of democracy.

The worst part about this system of campaign contributions is that it is nearly impossible to get rid of. Every politician comes to Washington with a variation on the same message, “Kick the bums out!” while carefully ignoring their own corporate donations. There isn’t another way to get into Washington, and in the process you become heavily indebted to people whose only interest is themselves and their profits. Barack Obama’s message of “Change” was heavily financed by organizations such as Goldman Sachs, Google and Citigroup, along with numerous Super-PACS. The solution here is obvious, but the execution, less so: restore the limits on campaign contributions and get rid of Super-PACS. Corporations are not people, the entities who are concerned with their own profit rather than the good of the average American. Politicians should realize this and try to break the cycle they’re in before American democracy becomes an ideal rather than a reality. HMR

pendant

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

5

Domestic

Why We Need ryan thier

in the sport fan vocabulary, ‘lockout’ is one of the – if not the – most universally feared and hated words. Sports fans hate lockouts on multiple levels. Obviously, first and foremost fans hate lockouts because they potentially mean lost games and even seasons. However, sports fans also abhor lockouts on a deeper level. They hate lockouts because they see them as a manifestation of the greed on the sides of both the owners and players. Fans hate that the players and owners’ greed gets in the way of their beloved Monday Night Football and Saturday afternoons at the ballpark. But what irks them even more is that all the owners and players are not happy making more money than most fans could even dream of. Despite the deep, multi-layered animosity sports fans feel towards lockouts, lockouts are an incredibly important and necessary part of pro-sports in America.

Of the four major American professional sports (Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Hockey League and National Basketball Associa-

some seventy years earlier. From the MLB’s inception the owners had nearly all the power while the players had next to none. The MLB is incredibly unusual in that it is in fact a trust. Even thought trusts are illegal in America, the Supreme Court ruled in Federal Baseball Club v.

National League (1922) that baseball was an exception and that anti-trust laws did not apply to the MLB. And although the players were only able to get the owners to agree to implement the process of salary arbitration and to add $500,000 to

“Despite the deep, multi-layered animosity sports fans feel towards lockouts, lockouts are an incredibly important and necessary part of pro-sports in America.” tion) the MLB was the first to experience a lockout, or work stoppage. That first baseball lockout took place in April of 1972. A total of 86 regular season games were lost as a result of the lockout. Even though games were lost, that lockout was a long time coming and needed to happen. In retrospect, the baseball lockout of 1972 probably should have occurred

6

player pension fund payments, it was an important milestone for the players and the first step in making the balance of power more equitable. Later MLB lockouts helped further the players’ quest for equal power. Without lockouts it would have been too difficult to ensure a balance of power in baseball - as well as in other sports - that is agreeable and fair to both

the players and the owners. Lockouts are a necessary evil.

Another crucial aspect about lockouts is that they are cyclical and for the most part swing just like a pendulum.

Once a lockout is finished and the owners and players have reached an agreement, a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is put into place. However, collective bargaining agreements only last for a certain of number of years. After the most recent CBA expires, the players and owners must agree upon terms for a new CBA, and if they cannot agree by certain deadlines, games are lost. That is incredibly important because if one side (either the players or owners) is heavily favored in a CBA, the other side will get a chance to reverse that inequality.

The history of lockouts in North American sports clearly demonstrates that if a lockout yields a CBA that heavily favors one side, the pendulum of the next CBA swings in the other direction. It is cyclical. This example holds true in football. The NFL had a lockout in 1982 of which the end result was an outcome that was widely considered favorable to the players. Then in 1987 there was another lockout, which led to a CBA that heavily

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Domestic

“Lockouts are a necessary evil.” favored the owners.

The NHL experienced the exact same pendulum swing, only it endured far uglier lockouts - one of which cost the NHL a season - than did the NFL. The 19941995 NHL lockout caused 468 games to be lost and the final agreement was thought to be in favor of the players, as the owners did not get the salary cap they desired. As expected, when that CBA expired in 2004 the owners were dead-set on swinging the pendulum back in their favor. They ultimately were “successful” in doing that and got their precious sal-

ary cap. However, it was not a true success because that agreement came at the cost of the 2004-2005 season. The loss of the entire ’04-’05 season was the first time a major North American sport lost an entire season due to a lockout.

Despite the enormous price the NHL paid, we still see leagues fighting over the swing of the pendulum. The NBA owners and players were entrenched in a lockout up until a month ago. Just as in the case of the NHL, the owners were looking to get the CBA back in their favor as the CBA from the 1999 NBA lockout that heavily

favored the players. Though games were lost, owners won. The lockout allowed implementation of a more stringent salary cap.

Fans will almost certainly continue to hate lockouts and the loss of games that come with it. However, lockouts are far too important to be eliminated or even marginalized. Lockouts are sports’ system of checks and balances that keeps both the owners and players in check as well as the pendulum swinging. Even if we, as sport fans, hate lookouts, we need them. HMR

deviantart

Clockwise from top left, these political cartoons illustrate the major lockouts of the past two decades. In fall

2011, the NBA lockout delayed the season by more than two months; the NHL lockout in 2004-05 resulted in a full cancellation of the season; summer of 2011’s NFL lockout stopped football for four months; MLB’s lockout in 1994 cancelled the entire playoffs.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

7

Domestic

I

jay rappaport

Race To The White H

t was a sunny day. There was some wind. The air was still, and not a cloud in the sky. The scene is early June on a farm in Stratham, New Hampshire. We are in Little Rock, Arkansas, in early October, at the Old State House. A former Governor and his blonde wife ascend to the podium. A then-current Governor and a blond wife take the stage. After a short introduction, almost twenty years apart, the different men begin to speak. The first one started: “Thank you for coming. And I want to thank Doug and Stella Scamman for hosting us on their beautiful farm… This country we love is in peril. And that, my friends, is why we are here today.” His 1992 counterpart started with: “Thank you all for being here today, for your friendship and support, for giving me the opportunity to serve as your Governor for 11 years, for filling my life full of blessings beyond anything I ever deserved…I refuse to be part of a generation that celebrates the death of Communism abroad with the loss of the American Dream at home. I refuse to be part of a generation that fails to compete in the global economy and so condemns hard-working Americans to a life of struggle without reward or security. That is why I stand here today…”

Back at the farm, the man ends his speech with, “I’m Mitt Romney. I believe in America. And I’m running for President of the United States.” Back in 1991, in the middle of his speech, Bill Clinton said: “…I believe we need a new kind of leadership, leadership committed to change…

Proven leadership that knows how to reinvent government to help solve the real problem of real people. That is why today I am declaring my candidacy for President of the United States.”

A lot of presidential candidacy announcements are similar, but we see greater parallels between not only Romney and Clinton, but between the 2012 and 1992 presidential elections as wholes. Both elections played stage to incumbents with impressive foreign policy records but who have received flack for their economic policies. Both elections hold challengers trying to make the debates revolve around the economy, and Clinton has different reddogreport .com

8

comparable traits to different of the 2012 Republican candidates. There are differences between the two elections, but what is remarkable how similar the 2012 election and the 1992 election are.

Although members of different parties, the Barack Obama of 2012 has much in common with the George H.W. Bush of 1992. Both are launching or launched campaigns for their reelection. They both enjoyed much foreign policy success in their first term. In Obama’s three years in office he has ordered the successful killing of Osama bin Laden, orchestrated and participated in a successful and relatively short NATO-led intervention in Libya, and announced the end of the almost 9-year long war in Iraq on December 15th. Obama is not alone in this respect, however. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 tested Bush to determine what the U.S.’s role in the world would be. The most significant part of Bush’s foreign policy was that he took control of a world that needed a new order.

Like Obama, H.W. Bush’s foreign policy promoted internationalism, using international organizations such as NATO and the United Nations. Bush did unilaterally intervene in Panama in 1989 to stop the drug trade, and bring their leader, General Manuel Noriega, to the United States

to be tried on drug selling charges when he tried to stop Panama’s democratic elections.

This does show Bush’s foreign policy as being one that put the United States first in a very uncertain world; Obama has tried to do the same. Bush’s most famous foreign policy accomplishment, however, was the First Gulf War or Operation Desert Storm.

President Bush led a coalition of 36 countries into Iraq on January 17, 1991. Bush stopped the invasion before the troops would have arrived in Baghdad, but the victory for the U.S. was clear. Obama tried to implement a similar intervention in Libya: a short course of action, but a clear victory.

When we look at the bigger picture, we see that both President H.W. Bush and Obama

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

e House 2.0

The Elections of 1992 and 2012

experienced success abroad in their terms.

However in a democratic society, more important than what the leaders do is how the people perceive them. The day after Osama bin Laden was killed, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll Obama’s approval rating was at 56%. Just over a month later, in early June 2011, his approval rating had dropped to 47%. On November 3rd, six days after NATO force had removed force from Libya, Obama’s approval rating was at 44%. According to a Gallup poll, at the end of February 1991, after Operation Desert Storm, Bush’s approval rating was at 89%, much higher than Obama’s after any of his foreign policies victories.

Although Obama’s deficit in the polls af-

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

ter foreign policy achievements compared to Bush results from other factors as well, it seems that Bush did enjoy more success in the voter’s minds after his foreign policy victories than Obama has. However, a poll conducted by Gallup in the November before Bush’s reelection bid showed his approval rating to be at 56%, which is closer to Obama’s 44% at the same time in relation to the upcoming election, but Bush is still far ahead. Obama did experience a surge in approval ratings in December as he brought the troops home from Iraq and the payroll tax debacle engulfed capital hill and demonized House Republicans. According to another Washington Post-ABC poll, Obama’s approval rating reached 49% in December. In the December before Bush’s reelection year, his approval rating was at 50%, so Obama and Bush are now deadlocked, but Obama’s approval ratings have been on the rise (up six points since September) while Bush’s were falling (down six points in a month, since November.)

The third criterion to examine when comparing Bush and Obama is the domestic economy. For every year Bush was in office, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annual growth decreased from 9.9% in 1989 to 2.3% in 1992. Also accord-

Domestic ing to the U.S. Department of Commerce BEA from 2009 to 2010, under Obama, U.S. annual GDP growth decreased from 5.5% in 2009 to 2.2% in 2010. Obama obviously has much less time in which annual GDP growths can be compared to Bush’s, but the downward trend is similar. Perhaps more important is how their opposition for the presidency has tried to paint their economic track records. Current contenders for the GOP nomination continually try to make President Obama appear to have hurt the economy and attack him on that subject. In the 1992 campaign, Clinton too attacked President Bush on his economic policies. In March of that year Clinton said, “President Bush yesterday summed up his economic policy in two words: Do nothing.” Obama and Bush’s terms mirror each other in experiencing foreign policy success, seeing downward trends in annual GDP growth, and receiving criticism on the economy from their opposition.

The opposition to Bush and Obama are also quite similar. The 1992 candidacy of Bill Clinton has strong similarities to many of the 2012 Republican candidates.

Should the front-runner Romney receive the nomination, both the 1992 and 2012 challenger to the incumbent will be from their party’s atypical region. In contemporary politics, Democrats have been associated with the Northeast and the coasts, but as the governor of Arkansas, Clinton was a Southern Democrat, which contradicts the generalization of his party’s location.

Romney would do the same as a northern Republican because he was the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007 while recently Republicans have been associated with the South and Midwest. Originally, both seemed likely to appeal to the center of America’s political spectrum, but Clinton played it up beautifully during his campaign while Romney has been focusing on courting conservatives and pandering to the far right more than accentuating this.

If the Republican Party nominates Newt Gingrich, then the significant parallel to Clinton is that the two worked together when Clinton was President. Gingrich was the House Minority Whip when Clinton entered office until the 1994 mid-term elections, after which Gingrich became the Speaker of the House until 1999. Gingrich was the face of the House of Representatives during Clinton’s presidency.

If someone else, like Rick Santorum or farm1.static.flickr.com Rick Perry, receives the nomination, then

9

Domestic perhaps the Republican challenger to the incumbent will less resemble Bill Clinton.

Whom the Republicans nominate in 2012 will impact how this election compares to the 1992 election.

So does 1992 election paint the fate for the 2012 election? There are great similarities but also some key differences between the two.

The first difference goes by the name Ross Perot. Perot ran as an independent in the 1992 election and bashed Bush frequently and in great magnitude during the campaign. Although Perot did not receive any electoral votes, he did win just under 19% of the popular vote. Bush probably had a good chance of winning these votes, so without Perot in the race Bush may have been able to take states that he had lost closely to Clinton if he had won the Perot supporters. There could certainly be a 2012 Ross Perot; maybe libertarian leaning, Congressman Ron Paul is the man if he does not receive the Republican nomination. Paul’s goal in his campaign seems to be more about his message than about his candidacy, but is it so inconceivable to see his launching an Independent campaign bashing the incumbent, in this case, Obama?

Also in 1992, Clinton ran on the idea of change—change from twelve years of Republican rule (four from Bush and eight from Ronald Reagan before him.) It will be interesting to see how 2012 Republicans use the idea of change in their campaign; they have certainly criticized Obama and want change from him, but “change” as a buzzword has not taken hold of them yet.

Another key difference between the two elections is the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of Obama’s Health Care system, his major legislative accomplishment in his first term.

The decision is expected to be made in June, at the heart of the campaign season. If the court rules in Obama’s favor, it could mean a big boost for him in the form of quelling the Republican candidates’ complaints of unconstitutionality. Should the decision rule Obamacare unconstitutional, Republican claims against it would be legally legitimate and it may be tough for Obama to recover from that blow.

What the economy does between now and Election Day 2012 will obviously have a great impact on the election. A recent New York Times Magazine article about the 2012 election ran four simulations of the election with either 0% or 4% GDP growth in 2012 and with either Romney or Perry as the nominee. Economic growth was the deciding factor every time. In both cases of 4% GDP growth facing either Romney or Perry, Obama won, while when there was 0% growth, Obama lost against both Republican foes. The Wall Street Journal polled economists in October and they predicted a 2.3% GDP growth in 2012, which is actually the same growth as in 1992. Predictions are only educated guesses, but the movement of the economy will definitely have a big effect on the election.

The last difference between this election and 1992’s is what made Obama “Obama” in 2008. I am definitely biased as the 2008 campaign was then the only election I had followed closely in my life, but the Democrat from Chicago seemed to have a unique ability to mobilize people: energizing the youth and getting the support of elders whose first time voting would be in 2008, receiving endorsements at the right time and from the right people, making great speeches, and getting people to believe in his message. He defied preconceived notions and I believe his 2008 campaign showed us the best of America. With

family scattered from Kansas to Kenya, he seemed to make the American Dream a reality. We have to realize that Obama accomplished so much simply by taking the oath to be the 44th President of the United States as he became the first black president in our nation’s history. We will see if Obama is able to capture some of the same magic that propelled him four years ago in 2012. If so, that could significantly separate him from Bush and the two elections from each other.

The music is different. The headlines are different. Talk of terrorism is certainly different. Despite the resemblance in color, the Hillary Clinton of 1992 and the Ann Romney of 2011 wear their hair very differently. So much has changed in this country since that October day in Little Rock’s Old State House. There is no equal sign between America in 2012 and America in 1992. Great differences exist between the 1992 and 2012 elections, but there are also great similarities. Barack Obama may not look or sound like George H.W. Bush, but their presidencies have given the country similar results. Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich would probably not care to admit how similar they are to Bill Clinton. The incumbents and candidates compared may differ on the issues, but when compared to their peers in their own era, the cross-generational common threads are apparent.

At the moment, we cannot say if what happened in 1992 will correlate with what happens in 2012. There is no secret in this article; I can’t tell you who’s going to win or even who will get the nomination. What I can tell you, however, is what makes the elections different, but also what makes them so similar. And if you hear about Ron Paul entering the race as an Independent anytime soon, Ross Perot must be smiling somewhere. HMR

Washingyton Independant

10

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

To Be Or Not To Be

Domestic

An Assessment of the Occupy Movement

U

hannah davidoff

ntil recently, protestors have invaded the streets of New York ‘Occupying Wall Street.’ Occupy Wall Street is a movement protesting the growing disparity og wealth between classes. The slogan for the movement is ‘we are the 99%’ which expresses the anger they have in today’s economy. My views on this vary; I see many pros and cons about Occupy Wall Street. The purpose of Occupy Wall Street is to protest against the tax cuts for the rich and the few jobs there are for the young and the poor. The main problem with the protestors is the disorganization, the unclear goal that they want to achieve, and the fact that the protestors are protesting jobs, like the ones on Wall Street, that have no affect on the lack of jobs in America. Occupy Wall Street has good aspects and bad ones but in the end the cons outweigh the pros.

I agree with Occupy Wall Street’s protest that we need to fix our country. Our country currently has a lack of available jobs and a frightening increase in unemployment, and we need to do something about that. Bush’s taxes followed the teachings of the ‘trickle down effect,’ which teaches that the rich get tax cuts and end up paying less taxes than the poor in hopes that the rich will give money to the poor and money will ‘trickle down.’ Also, Bush’s tax cuts say that all money made off of investments are not to be taxed. Currently in America the rich are getting richer and the poor are getter poorer, which is what the Occupy Wall Street protestors are protest-

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

ing against. I also agree with the protestors on the aspect that we need to change the economy in America. Occupy Wall Street is needed because it puts these opinions in front of the government and tells them that we need change. Awareness is a key start in change and that is what Occupy Wall Street is allowing everyone to do. People are becoming aware of the lack of jobs and the high taxes, and as more people join the movement, awareness grows. Occupy Wall Street is correct in its assessment that we

should have more open jobs in America and I think it’s a good movement in that it helps raise awareness.

The Occupy Wall Street protestors have a good idea but the idea is not organized nor is it correctly directed. The Occupy Wall Street protestors are simply protesting against the people who work on Wall Street.

The people who work on Wall Street may be disproportionally richer than the average American, but the lack of jobs is not their fault. It is the government’s fault that there

is a lack of jobs and that taxes help people who work on Wall Street more than they help the common man. Another problem is the objective of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is unclear. They are protesting about the economy; how will that change it? Their goals are not very realistic.

They want the economy to change but how will protesting change it? The Occupy Wall Street protestors also do not have a unified organization. They do not have one unified complaint and because of this chaos, the protestors lose the legitimate parts of their argument. Because of this, Occupy Wall Street protestors are seen as unruly, lazy, and have even fueled rumors of rape cases.

The negatives of Occupy Wall Street mean that their point will not be spread further, which will affect them badly. If the protestors want to form a serious movement, they should be cleaned up, reorganized, and restructured. The cons of Occupy Wall Street are the ones that are damaging their campaign.

Occupy Wall Street is a protest movement that has its ups and its downs. Occupy Wall Street had a brilliant start but does not have a well thought out end goal.

Though they know what they are fighting for, they do not know how they want to achieve it. They are attacking the wrong people and are disorganized, but at the same time they are raising awareness for an important topic. Occupy Wall Street needs adjustments but it has a good idea. It should be exciting to see what becomes of it in the future. HMR

11

“

Domestic

MORMON IN AMERICA

I

Mormon.org

JESSICA BERNHEIM n this country, we profess to have a separation of church and state.

But ultimately that objective of civil and political thought existing without the infiltration of religious ideals does not exist. Some political leaders hold certain views due to a religious ideology or explain the rationales for their opinions with their religious beliefs. Understandably, when a politician is a religious Catholic and is discussing the issue of abortion, his views will most likely stem from his spiritual beliefs – or rather his rationale, the justification for his beliefs, will be a political manifestation of his religious beliefs. The separation of church and state has significance in many realms of politics, but given the upcoming election, the issue of religion and its interplay with politics has again become a central concern. Article Six of the constitution states that “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualifica-

12

tion to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” which means that legally no candidate can be required to be of a certain faith in order to ascend to public office. But even with that constitutional mandate, the voters are judging the candidates’ religious affiliation and using their determinations as one factor in their

knowledging that despite a constitutional prohibition of a religious test, individuals still consider religious convictions as a factor, we as a constituency have to be cognizant of the difference between refusal to vote for someone because of the candidate’s religious faith and refusal to vote for a candidate because his or her

“It is unrealistic to expect that the religious beliefs of a candidate do not play a role in the voters’ decisions.” decision making process. And frankly, it is unrealistic to expect that the religious beliefs of a candidate do not play a role in the voters’ decisions at the ballot, as ultimately spiritual beliefs do contribute significantly to social thought. But even ac-

religious convictions have manifested themselves in certain beliefs in the specific candidate. With two Mormons, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, vying for the Republican candidacy, Article Six has a renewed significance not seen since the The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

“

“

Domestic

If there is concern about Mormon candidates running for president then we have a responsibility to learn more about Mormonism

1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. It can be difficult to have a conversation about something that is politically incorrect without worrying that the comments you make will be misconstrued or used to lampoon or slander you later on, but when concerns exist that affect our judgment and the decisions we make than it becomes necessary to have a frank, respectful and honest discussion about the issues at hand. If religion is serving as a factor in individuals’ votes, then it is time we talk about the religious beliefs of the candidates and whether or not they play a role in the political convictions of those running for president.

John F. Kennedy once said, “I believe in an America… where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.” I believe in that America too. But I also believe in the America where freedom of speech is lauded – where we can have a discussion addressing our concerns without judgment, a discussion that is both respectful and honest, where opinions can be shared and questioned, and where participants can leave with strengthened or changed convictions.

Of the six major candidates, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons, Ron Paul is a Baptist, Rick Perry is an evangelical Christian, and Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are Roman Catholics (Gingrich converted to Roman Catholicism after his marriage to his current wife Callista Bisek).

Of all the religious convictions held by the candidates, Romney and Huntsman’s Mormonism is causing the greatest pause.

A Pew Research Center poll determined that 25% of those polled indicted that “they would be less likely to support a Mormon [candidate].” Similarly, a poll conducted by MSNBC found that 21% of all adults polled do not feel comfortable with Mitt Romney’s Mormonism (albeit this poll is regarding a The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

specific candidate while the previous poll was addressing Mormonism in reference to a non-specified candidate). Nonetheless, the polls indicate that a significant number of people do not support a Mormon candidate – and though those polls don’t address the reasons for which these opinions exist – I think that it is a fair assumption to make that a lot of people who are expressing concern over Mormon candidates but not over Catholic or Protestant candidates do not actually know much about Mormonism or the social views of Mormon adherents. And the reason I make such a statement is because most of the views regarding social issues that would be addressed or influenced by religious belief are the same when held by a religious Mormon or a religious Christian but concern is only being voiced over the Mormon candidates vying for presidency.

If there is concern about Mormon candidates running for president then we have a responsibility to learn more about Mormonism to ensure that concern is not just a manifestation of ignorance. Mormonism was founded in the 1820s by Joseph Smith Jr. who underwent a revelation, whereupon

he saw two figures, that of God and his son Jesus. The Mormon Church considers itself a sect within Christianity, though several of their religious philosophies differ from those of other Christians. Mormons believe that God and Jesus exist as two separate entities, differing from the Christian belief of the Holy Trinity, which is composed of God, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, which are indistinguishable from one another and make up each other. Mormons believe human life was created when God offered a choice to independent spirits termed “intelligences” to descend to earth and assume human forms whereupon they would commit wrongs but in the process would have the opportunity to move forward on the a spiritual path like God itself. One third of the intelligences rejected God’s offer and followed Lucifer, the devil. This creation of life differs from the tale in Genesis whereby God made Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Mormons believe in eternal life and resurrection. Mormons believe that Jesus atones for all sins but that atonement can only be received through religious observation, various ordinances, and by living a “Christ-like” life. Mormons believe that Je-

Mormon.org

13

Domestic sus’ atonement from sin commenced in the garden of Gethsemane and concluded with his crucifixion contrary to the Christian belief that crucifixion was the sole point of atonement. Mormons also believe in three degrees of glory – three locations for the afterlife, the celestial kingdom, terrestrial kingdom, and telestial kingdom. Within the afterlife there is a spirit world, which contains a temporary spirit prison for those who are not Mormon or who have rejected Mormonism.

The Latter Day Saints Church is the Mormon Church to which the majority of Mormons including the two republican candidates are a part. Mormon fundamentalism is made up of other Mormon denominations that separated over the issue of plural marriage, which the LDS church rejects. The 2010 statistical report put out by the LDS Church stated that total membership of the LDS Church numbers at approximately 14 million. At the close of 2010, there are over 52,000 missionaries volunteering and work-

ing in various communities around the world. Missionaries are typically men and women between 19 and 21 and retired singles or couples who adhere to a strict schedule of prayer, work and activity. The purpose of the mission is to convert – and the LDS

At the close of 2010, there were over 52,000 missionaries. church counts 272,814 baptisms of converted individuals in 2010. Mitt Romney voyaged to Le Havre, France for his mission, while Jon Huntsman traveled to Taiwan for his mission.

The LDS Church like many other religious institutions holds certain views on various issues of social con-

!

ON OR M M

ppe

do

ut

ON! RM MO

Dro

cern. The opinions held by the LDS church align most closely with a conservative political outlook; for example, the Mormon Church opposes gay marriage and elective abortion. Candidates who adhere to a conservative party platform would hold many of the same views as the candidates whose Mormonism influences them towards certain social beliefs. Furthermore, many of those candidates who adhere to the conservative party platform not only adhere to the same social beliefs but do so according to a religious rationale – not one guided

by Mormon beliefs (except perhaps in the case of Jon Huntsman) but by other similar religious beliefs. Perhaps, the only way in which religious views could be entirely separated from political views would be by electing those who were not of a religious faith or by electing those who were able to hold views that defied their spiritual beliefs. And frankly, such an individual would probably

CNN

14

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Domestic incur much hardship for either being not religious (as the vast majority of the America population is religious) or for not remaining steadfast to a set of beliefs that the candidate had claimed to hold, as such it is impractical to wish for a total separation of church and state given the importance religion plays in social thought and political discourse. However, even without a total separation of church and state, the constitution and our forefathers writings on religion have emphasized the importance of some degree of separation of church and state – one that does not allow the government to impose a religion on its subjects and one that does not allow religion to serve as an impediment or catalyst for the ascension to presidency. I understand the concerns about the way in which the candidates’ religious beliefs might influence their political views, but it is critical that we do not bear prejudice against one religion, and disre-

gard all others in our political inquiry. We have the right to question our candidates to ensure that they hold views not dependent on the doctrine of their religion or a special interest group of which they are a part – but

The opinions held by the LDS church align most closely with a conservative political outlook we do not have the right to single out one religion as suspect and question the allegiance of that candidate due to his religious convictions and not pay regard to the religious convictions of all the candidates. John F.

Kennedy famously said, “I am not the Catholic candidate for president.

I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are not the Mormon candidates for president, but candidates for president who are Mormon. Let us ask that our president put his duties before his religious obligations. Let us ask that our president serve the United States without a prejudicial allegiance to one special interest.

But let us not allow ourselves to discriminate against the religious beliefs of those who wish to represent their country by stigmatizing one religion and its adherents. In so doing, we would be withholding the opportunity for American citizens to justly prosper in their ambitions in what we believe to be, a country of liberty for all. HMR

Ev

an

ge

lic

al

Many voters allow the candidates’ religious views to inform their voting decisions without understanding the regligions themselves

Ba

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

pt

ist

Catholic

15

Domestic

Jerry Sandusky

hdw.eweb4.com

atoast2wealth.com

The Perpetrators...

ispstadiumseating.com

16

Bernie Fine

tsminteractive.com

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

4.com

ve.com

Domestic

...How We Should React to Them

H

benjamin greene

is name has become synonymous to the lowest kind of person alive. His case has captured the scores of national media all yearning for answers. His crimes have tainted and tarnished the face of Penn State University and the once-considered coach of the generation, Joe Paterno. But most importantly, his disgusting actions have forever harmed and affected the lives of innocent young children. In the wake of unimaginable allegations against former Penn State University Football Defensive Coordinator Jerry Sandusky, along with former Syracuse University Basketball Assistant Coach Bernie Fine, arises the gigantic problem of protecting our children from horrific acts of abuse.

What makes these cases so alarming is the chilling fact that these accused men are coaches, schoolteachers; people whose lives involve working with kids everyday.

People who are surrounded by kids on a day-to-day basis must be entrusted with the fundamental rules of setting good examples, determining right from wrong, but most importantly these educators must ensure the safety of our children.

These horrific alleged crimes that have seized the national media must not veer away from the brutal truths of these allegations: that kids were being sexually assaulted and Sandusky along with the neglectful officials must pay a hefty price.

Blatantly put, these allegations are not a matter of Penn State or Syracuse, they are a matter of sick individuals who endanger helpless children and horrifically use their power or sway to violate poor adolescent individuals. The pride and honor of these universities should under no circumstance supersede the The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

safety of our children. Officials and other coaches who covered up Sandusky’s and Fine’s acts should be dealt with in any possible legal capacity as they wrongly made the choice to protect the image of their respective schools instead of the lives of innocent children. For crimes of this magnitude to have happened for such a long period of time, we all should realize that there are massive amounts of work to be done in undoubtedly providing safe environments for young chil-

“Those responsible must undeniably be prosecuted and convicted of the maximum sentence but let’s leave that job to the legal system, our lawyers, judges, and jury. Not our media.” dren. Sandusky and Fine’s crimes signify a failure: a failure on so many levels in our schools that an evaluation in how we deal with children must be undergone. There was most obviously an utter failure in the minds and understanding of these individuals who committed these unfathomable acts; there was an unacceptable failure in the officials of the university who failed to report the crimes; there were unfortunate failures in the voices of the victims who waited way too long to speak of the horrific acts probably due to their fear and emotional scaring; and there was a failure in us, in the American’s peoples inability to guarantee a safe place for our children to grow and live freely. It was clearly a perfect storm, a perfect storm that slipped through the cracks on so many levels and everyone must be held accountable. I repeat everyone.

cleveland.com

Those responsible must undeniably be prosecuted and convicted of the maximum sentence but let’s leave that job to the legal system, our lawyers, judges, and jury. Not our media. The main concern of the public and media should not be the sentencing of Sandusky, Fine, and any other officials responsible. Yes, they should all be severely punished but the attention of the public should now shift to solutions in maintaining the safety of our children. The media must focus on ways to prevent child abuse in the future and the public should now more than ever be on the look out for signs of child abuse and report any information to authorities. Americans must remember that the lives of our future generation, children, are more important than the reputation of universities. Children eat, grow, breath, and live, universities don’t. Now is the time to grow from our mistakes as a country, to grow from our inability in guaranteeing the safety for children, not the time to put our media and undivided attention to the courts. Let the legal system do that.

The alleged crimes against Jerry Sandusky of Penn State and Bernie Fine of Syracuse have stunned and shocked our nation. But now isn’t the time to stand in shock. The acts of these men were horrific but now is the time to grow and spend all the time possible in guaranteeing and insuring the safety of our children, especially in schools amongst our teachers, coaches, and national role models. We as a unified nation must come together and make changes. We must not point fingers, those we deserve punishment will get what they deserve. The consequences of a couple sick human beings fall on all of us. HMR

17

Domestic

Ch

eat

SA T ing aacriminallaw

Who is to blame for SAT’s most recent cheating scandals?

E diane lee

very ambitious, collegebound high school student deals with the strenuous and climatic task of composing his or her college admission application. From near perfect SAT scores, expressive admissions essays, and various extracurricular activities, the road to an internationally acclaimed school is long and stressful.

However, the fifteen students from Nassau County in Long Island, who paid a sum anywhere from $500 to $3600 to five others to take the SAT’s for them, have gone too far to win acceptances to schools.

As approximately two million students take the SAT’s annually, the possibility that cheating scandals have happened somewhere else are very likely. The scandal at Great Neck High School may have been merely an example that represents as a microcosm of a widespread tactic students secretly have been using all along. The scandal has been a shock to society, and a solution must be found.

It appears that the students are to blame for this issue; in part, they are. However, the matter of twenty students deceiving authority is part of a larger conflict, which lies in

18

the hands of parents, educators, and test administrators. The underlying desire for success stands as a strong motivation for not only the students from Nassau County, but from the national level to cheat. The strong significance of tangible success has been conveyed to this generation in our day and age. As such, society in general must reflect.

This theme of tangible success may be what is, according to more than seventyfive percent of American students inspired to believe that cheating is nothing more than a casual act of increasing their test scores. This statistic is terrifying. The values society upholds have become more ammoral; people now only believe what they see.

This is what ultimately thrusts naïve young adults with motivated parents into the black hole of cheating. In order to reach the perceivable “prizes” in life such as acceptance to these prestigious colleges, students have gone beyond what morals allow because of the pressures they face at home and in society. They believe that what others -- such as parents, counselors, and maybe even most importantly, colleges -- see is more significant than how it was obtained.

Although bringing out the best in students and molding them to become well-

rounded people is what the role of parenting is, the focus of parents needs to be on doing one’s personal best, and not on the highest percentile. The opportunity to learn is much greater if a student realizes his or her abilities. However, not every child’s abilities are the same, and not every parent can have the same expectations. Rather than expecting a 4.0 GPA or a 2400 SAT score, a parent should expect the fullest potential brought out of the child according to his or her abilities.

We as a society need to sit ourselves down and think again about why we want to even invest in the laborious effort to get into these prestigious schools. For some, it may be the continuation of a family legacy. For others, it may be the start of one.

Whichever one it may be, these schools were established to nurture future leaders to become well-rounded, ideal humans.

Yet if students are cheating just to get there, then society is faced with an interesting paradox. One step to recovery is to initiate and teach a new standard. Not a standard of competition and 2400-or-bust, but a standard of acceptance and appreciation of one’s personal best. HMR

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

nallaw

s?

International

International

China’s

F

mihika kapoor

or the first time since 2009, China’s economy is losing some of its momentum and its manufacturing sector is shrinking.

Its stock markets are going through a greater fall than they have in over 4 months. A sinking property market has contributed to a 9.1% economic expansion in the third quarter of 2011, the slowest in two years. Furthermore, with America and Europe immersed in debt, China has lost a large amount of consumers willing to buy their products. Everything threatens the nation’s social stability. Since we now live in a world, which is a global economy, a drop in the economy of any prominent country is enough to bring some of the fastest growing nations down. China relies on its manufacturing sector, and therefore its economy depends on the consumers of other countries.

The country needs to work on increasing its domestic manufacturing industry and its dependency on its own people.

China’s exports have been declining each month due to the awful condition of Europe’s economy and America’s debt. If the strength of the Eurozone continues to decline and if America enters into another recession, China will not be able to export enough goods to live up to its economic plans. Premier Wen Jiabo said, “the shrinking external market has run smack into rising overall business costs.” According to the Ministry of Commerce, China’s trade surplus is expected to fall to $150 billion this year, as compared to the $180 billion from 2010. Chinese leaders have said that in order for China to stay strong, the nation has to have a minimum of 8% annual growth.

Export rates dropped to 13.8% in November, due to a decline in manufacturing. The manufacturing sector made up 58% of activity in 2010 and so it heavily reflects the state of China’s economy.

The current downturn in China’s econ-

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

Declining omy is further delineated by its reduction of reserve requirements for banks, for the first time since 2008. Reserve requirements are central bank regulations, normally in cash, which indicate the minimal amount of customer balances and deposits each commercial bank must carry. Cutting the requirements and banks’ savings will therefore increase the amount of money circulating through the economy, thus giving it a slight boost. As of December 5th, reserve ratios are to have been reduced by 50 basis points, a decision which may potentially add 350 billion yuan to the financial system. Many economists, such as Ken Peng from BNP Paribas SA believe that without reduced reserve ratio requirements, China will go through a liquidity crunch in 2012. Barclays Capital predicts three more reserve ratio cuts by mid-2012.

China’s currency is undervalued and in part that is due to the large amount of dollar reserve. Dollar inflows are decelerating, decreasing extra liquidity. The country’s inflation is now somewhat receding as consumer prices rose by 4.2% in November, as opposed from its peak in the summer at 6.5%. Fortunately, it is clear that China’s economy will not experience a drastic crash, as Europe’s did. America and Europe will continue to rely on the country’s cheap labor, even if to a lesser extent. Although China may be impeded by the faltering economies of those countries, its inexpensive production rates will ensure these nations’ lasting dependency on China. As the country is still the second most powerful nation to America, we can see its economy is only gradually slowing down.

However, the fact that the economy is only deteriorating at a very slow pace is no

Economy reason to ignore it. Therefore, China must work on strengthening its domestic stability. President Hu Jintao has said that in the coming years China will work to increase imports, while stabilizing exports. It must work to shift some of the circulation of its products into the domestic area. As the country already has a dominant manufacturing sector, it has to work on not only producing goods that appeal overseas populations, but also to its own citizens.

One possible area to focus on is green energy, which is continuously gaining more prominence and importance in today’s day and age. China could divert its attentions to manufacturing solar photovoltaic cells and modules, which are currently high in demand in the country. If China ceased to concentrate so heavily on exports and instead gave more attention to creating a domestic solar power industry, it may make the country more self-reliant. With more emphasis on such scientifically advanced sectors, China may find itself able to retain and stabilize its own stance through such troubled times for other countries.

Overall, it is crucial that China begins to focus more on domestic imports, so as to create more internal stability in the country.

With large nations deteriorating all over the globe, China’s strong manufacturing industry must begin to cater to its own people, so the country can stand strong even in these rough situations. HMR

19

International

M O D E E R F R E I R R BA TO

org_info cryptome.

O

WH

ISAIAH NEWMAN n February 11, 2011, Hosni Mubarak was ousted from his position as the president of Egypt by the Egyptian people. He had been in power for almost 30 years, during which he had presided over a largely autocratic and overbearing governmen-

20

W O N R E W O P E D E C T S U M Y R A T I Y EGYPT’S MIL

tal regime, before being removed from office as the result of days of protests by Egyptians. In the immediate aftermath of this major shift in Egyptian politics, the military took power as the interim government, and many Egyptians rejoiced in the apparent success of the protests.

Almost a year later, the eventual outcome of these protests is far from certain, and the new government that their

participants were advocating for has yet to be established or even fully defined and put into writing. While elections have begun for a parliament that will hopefully draft a new democratic constitution, the military retains control of the Egyptian government and appears unlikely to relinquish this power any time soon.

As a result, many Egyptians have begun to protest yet again, in the hopes The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

International

wac.emirates247.com

Egyptians have given life and limb to establish a democratic government.

To deny them the power to structure that government themselves would be to deny the Egyptian people their basic freedoms and right to self-determination. that the military will fully yield power to the newly forming government. However, it does not appear that this second round of protests is having any effect on the military leaders currently in power, who continue to stress both their refusal to fully yield power to the parliament that is currently being elected and their intent to at least partially direct the new Egyptian constitution which that parliament will draft. In fact, in this crusade against the rights that the Egyptian people fought for early in 2011, the Egyptian military has even resorted to gratuitously brutalizing protesters, as well as many of those administering parliamentary elections, thus compromising the electoral results.

These actions are absolutely unacceptable, and mark yet another example of an abuse of power by a tyrannical regime in the Middle East. The Egyptian military’s refusal to cede power to the new government that is forming has no The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

logical basis, and is merely a violation of the trust of the Egyptian people and a self-interested political move in order to gain more power over Egypt.

Some military leaders that currently hold office in Egypt have tried to justify their desire to continue unjustly ruling over their country and to control the formation of the new government by stating that they don’t want the government of Egypt to fall into the hands of Islamic radicals, which could lead to a trampling of the rights of certain Egyptians, as well as an unfriendly international backlash. However, it is unfair to the Egyptian people to deny them the formation of a new government, regardless of the possible outcomes. Egyptians have given life and limb in order to establish a new, democratic government for themselves, and as such they should rightfully be given the power to decide who will comprise it and how it will be structured. For the military to abridge this right through refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the government that will be formed is to deny a basic freedom to the Egyptian people and to make all of their struggle for naught. Such action thereby makes the current military government of Egypt itself illegitimate and demands the immediate removal of the military from power, and the transfer of their authority to the newly elected Egyptian parliament.

It seems unlikely, however, that this will occur in the near future. Nonetheless, it is still necessary for the Egyptian people to continue protesting the military’s tyrannical actions, so as to continue to pressure action. Furthermore,

in order to help make the Egyptian protests fully successful, it is necessary for the international community to also put pressure on the Egyptian military to cede power and to acknowledge the abuses that are taking place. The Egyptian people deserve as much, and only once they have gotten such support will it be fully possible for the protesters’ goals to be realized and for them to be the masters of their own national identity. HMR

chamorrobible.org

21

International

THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING WHAT THEY CALL THE FRAUDULENT ELECTION OF VLADIMIR PUTIN.

WILL CHANGE COME? THOMAS MEERSCHWAM

S

ince his election to the presidency in 2000, Vladimir Putin has installed a harsh (almost authoritarian) yet effective regime in the Russian Federation. He has controlled political instability, installed a substitute President when term limits were up, boosted a troubled economy, and restored some of Russia’s international prestige. These acts and many more accounted for his initial widespread approval. However, it is now 2012, and Mr. Putin seeks again to sit upon his authoritarian throne and to dominate Russian politics, returning to the Presidency of Russia after two consecutive terms, and to the post of Prime Minster since 2008. However, this time the people are not wholly behind him. In fact the situation is quite to the contrary.

They appear ready for change.

In recent weeks, there has been a development of revolutionary scale within Russia. For the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, thousands of Russian citizens have crowded the central squares of Moscow, armed with anti-government posters, slogans,

blogspot.com

22

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

International and chants. They demanded a recount of the voting for the December Duma parliamentary elections, as they believe that the voting count was rigged. In contrast to this, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin claims that the protests are “nothing unusual” and has rejected a poll review despite the mass demonstrations. The protests show, however, that the iron wall of government has shown cracks as many people are tired of the authoritarianism of the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin that has dominated and lasted over a decade.

Tensions are high, especially with the emergence of a wealthy outsider, billionaire business tycoon Mikhail Prokhorov, who has entered the political arena as a challenger to Mr. Putin. Now, both the protesters and the government anxiously await each other’s actions.

The sheer scale of the “protester” body is sending a nostalgic sense of democratic westernization thundering through many veins. After so many years of political domination by a single man, the prospect of a new and more democratic Russia now seems more within reach than ever before. As a matter of fact, the Kremlin is now faced with a tough question, as the crowds still present a possible danger; should the protesters be suppressed or not? Furthermore, could disaffected voters possibly cause more protests and disruptions and even rally around Mr. Prokhorov?

The issue seems particularly relevant to Russia since crowds of protesters have affected the course of Russian history significantly. Their motives have been viewed at times as either sinister or liberating depending on one’s perspective.

The crowds that rebelled against the early Russian Tsars were fiercely put down, while the Russian revolution of 1905 was seen as a liberating quest for freedom.

Similarly, crowds supported Boris Yeltsin against the army plotters who attempted a coup in the waning hours of the Soviet Union. Those same crowds enabled the peaceful break-up of the USSR following Mr. Gorbachev’s failed modernization of the USSR. This time the role of the “crowds” may again be critical in Russia especially since the social composition of the crowds seems broad and its members

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

are drawn from all social sectors. For example, many of them come from the capital’s media and business elite, while others are part of the ever-present swarm of (mainly) middle class professionals and lower class workers. For many Russians, regardless of social class, now is the time for new hope, in a new Russia, with new leadership.

Returning to the fundamental question regarding the future actions of the Kremlin, they remain nebulous. Very little information is released by the Russian media regarding how the Kremlin specifically wants to deal with this issue. We do know that in recent days, the Kremlin has presented these protests as lawful and even necessary events, yet at the same time local Russian police forces are acting with increasing stringency

towards the bellowing masses. It will be highly interesting to see how these large protests will be dealt with, as well as to what extent they will be successful. Still, the safest bet for predicting developments in Moscow may be found in the words of Sir Winston Churchill in 1939: “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” And it is important to remember that while Russian national interests may not necessarily be opposed to those of the US, it will require certain diplomatic efforts on both parts to align them. However, if indeed the popular protest would signify a turn to a deepening of democracy in Russia, such long-term diplomatic efforts would likely be helped, not hindered. HMR

www.boston.com

Russian people call the recent election of Vladimir Putin fraudulent and demand his departure from power in mass protests throughout Russia.

23

International

Dire Straits The United States’ Fraying Relationship with Iran

A

outlookseries.com

WILLIAM ELLISON lthough there can be dangerous consequences from extensive surveillance of Iran, it is a precaution that the U.S. and other countries must take in order to preserve their national security in the face of Iran’s increasingly active nuclear program, especially given Iran’s recent provocations.

American experts and other foreign officials confirmed that the stealth C.I.A. RQ-170 Sentinel drone that crashed in Iran in early December was a key component of what used to be a tremendously clandestine effort to survey Iranian nuclear activities. This surveillance program includes frequently deploying this type of Ameri-

can drone, that is the most difficult U.S. drone to detect. This crash unfortunately blew the cover of the high-altitude flights of American drones from American bases in Afghanistan into Iran, which were some of the most covert missions of U.S. intelligence efforts against Iran.

The most frightening consequence of this crash is that the Iranians may share

United States. This would be extremely serious because the drone is a new piece of American technology, especially its complicated and very sophisticated array of sensors. In fact, Iranian semiofficial Mehr News reported that Chinese and Russian officials had already asked Iran for authorization to inspect the drone. Some fear that Iran could even somehow reverseengineer the technology or redeploy the drone against the U.S., although this is unlikely, according to Dennis M. Gormley, a missile and drone specialist at the University of Pittsburgh.

The drone was probably searching for tunnels, underground facilities or other locations where Iranians could be building nuclear

“Although there can be dangerous consequences from extensive surveillance of Iran, it is a precaution that the U.S. and other countries must take in order to preserve their national security in the face of Iran’s increasingly active nuclear program, especially given Iran’s recent provocations.”

24

the drone and its technology with China, Russia or countries hostile towards the

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

s

n

International devices. The United States is one of many countries, including France, Great Britain and Israel, closely observing Iran’s actions. While an orbiting surveillance satellite can scrutinize a facility for only a handful of minutes at a time, a drone can stay in observation for hours, transmitting a video feed about not only a facility but also the “pattern of life” of people in the facility. This can provide critical clues about the nature of the work, the equipment involved and the amount of people working in the facility. Some experts state that the drone has communication intercept equipment and sensors that can perceive even miniscule amounts of radioactive isotopes and other chemicals involved with nuclear reactions. It can hover 50,000 feet above the ground.

Iranian officials claim that the drone could not have been an Afghanistanbased U.S. drone that malfunctioned and crashed since it crashed 140 miles within the Iranian border. An American-led In-

ternational Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan said that the drone was an “unarmed reconnaissance aircraft” that was adrift while “flying a mission over western Afghanistan.” However, this type of drone is not typically used in western Afghanistan because the Taliban don’t have the ability to detect drones using radar, the only way that this extremely surreptitious drone can be detected. Iranian officials asserted that the drone was shot

tion, lost control and somehow ended up on Iranian land.

The Iranians celebrated capturing the drone and transformed into a propaganda object in its campaign against the West. The drone was displayed publicly on Iranian national television on a platform that was undoubtedly created for propaganda purposes, with photos of ayatollahs of Iran’s revolution and destroyed American flags behind it. It is suspicious that in the videos shown of it, the drone seems to have very minor damage, even after it supposedly crashed in Iran. But, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajiadeh of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard claimed that the drone “was brought down by Iran’s military systems with the minimum damage possible.” However, American military specialists have rejected Iran’s claims, explaining that the drone has the ability to avoid radar detection. According to Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institutde,

Most experts agree that the Iranians are using nuclear technology to build a weapon, not to generate electricity or to supply fuel for medical reactors as the Iranian government claims. down or crashed because its control systems were hacked by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps collaborating with its army to perform a “sophisticated electronic attack.” American officials declared that the drone was actually captured because it began to malfunc-

es.com

cbsnews

“Shutting the strait for Iran’s armed forces is really easy - or as we say [in Iran] easier than drinking a glass of water,” said Admiral Habibollah Sayyari in reference to Straits of Hormuz Conflict.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

25

International “it would be almost impossible for Iran to shoot down an RQ-170 because it is stealthy, therefore, the Iranian air defenses can’t see it. Partly for the same reason, it is exceedingly unlikely that they used a cyberattack to bring down the aircraft.”

Iran is also stepping up its bluffs to incite a global brawl with the West. In the last few days of 2011, the Iranians began making threats to occupy the Strait of Hormuz, the most critical passage for oil in the entire world through which one third of the world’s oil travels; this would prevent oil from reaching the rest of the world from the Middle East and possibly raise the price of a barrel of oil up to $40, which is already at around $100 a barrel. Furthermore, this scheme would remarkably hurt Iran as

well, which means that Iran is clearly not thinking its plans through as a result of its extremism or desperation. Iran relies upon the Strait of Hormuz for oil transport as well, and as a result of a blockade it would suffer along with the rest of the oil-dependent world if it closed the strait. Should Iran actually begin to oc-

last week of December. “This is an economic lifeline for countries in the Gulf region, to include Iran.

As tensions are rising, it is important to recall what is at stake when dealing with Iran. The United Nations issued a report on November 8, 2011 that explained that there was a good chance Iran was working on making a nuclear weapon and an accompanying missile delivery system. However, Iran claims that the report is an excuse for Western economic sanctions and even military intervention. Iranian leaders point to the captured U.S. drone as proof of American hostility and its military intentions towards Iran and its nuclear program: this has only heightened tensions. Although Iran claims its nuclear research and activities are for peaceful purposes, many

“If the time comes, the United States, Israel, France, Great Britain or another Western democratic country must attack Iran in order to protect themselves from Iran’s nuclear weapons.”

26

cupy the strait, the U.S. has declared that it will retaliate, most probably with military involvement, perhaps with the U.S. Navy. “Any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz will not be tolerated,” declared Pentagon spokesman George Little in the

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

International

rnw.nl

Western governments believe that they are intended to create a weapon. Most experts agree that the Iranians are using nuclear technology to build a weapon, not to generate electricity or to supply fuel for medical reactors like the Iranian government claims.

Recently, President Barack Obama as well as many other Western leaders has been moving towards establishing and enforcing strong new sanctions against Iran’s central bank and commercial banks to sever Iran’s connections to the international financial system. They are doing this as a response to Iran’s nuclear program and to demonstrate the West’s disapproval of it. The U.S. also recently impressed sanctions on companies participating in Iran’s nuclear industry, its petrochemical industry and its oil industry, which are all intended to weaken the Iranian government and deny Iran access to oil refinery or petroleum industries.

Israel, meanwhile, is also on heightened alert as a result of Iran’s increased The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

nuclear activity and Iran’s repeated threats to obliterate Israel. Israel had public debates in early December regarding if and when there should be a military strike by its armed forces to decelerate Iran’s progress in building a nuclear weapon. Israel is rightfully worried that Iran will use nuclear weapons once they are developed to attack Israel first and meets its stated goal of wiping Israel off the map.

Surveillance efforts in Iran should continue and even increase despite the risk of serious consequences, including the capture of American technology.

There is an extremely high level of danger when dealing with Iran and a viable threat to the U.S. and other nations, especially since there is now tangible proof of Iran’s continuing and increasingly advanced nuclear programs. With Iran trying to provoke the West by having their Navy hover next to the Strait of Hormuz, preparing to occupy it, the West should even be more concerned and suspicious

of the Iranians. Fortunately, the U.S. and its military seem to be using all of its capabilities in its inspection of Iran, especially since there is proof that it has deployed at least one of its most advanced drones in Iran, the RQ-170. In a speech in December at the Brookings Institution, President Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, stated, “We will work aggressively to detect any new nuclear-related efforts by Iran. We will expose them and force Iran to place them under international inspections.”

Hopefully that will continue to be true, and other countries, if they are not already, will help to control and neutralize the emerging and ever-growing danger coming from Iran. If the time comes, the United States, Israel, France, Great Britain or another western democratic country must attack Iran in order to protect themselves from Iran’s nuclear weapons. HMR

27

Gu

id

e

to

th e

Co

sm

os

an im

al

di sc

ov e

ry

ch an ne l

International

28

U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A P

SPENCER COHEN AND JONATHAN SLIFKIN atriotism in the United States is on the decline.

According to a November 2011 Pew Research Poll, only 49 percent of Americans agree with the statement that “our people are not perfect but our culture is superior to others,� down from 60 percent in 2002. Indeed, declamations against our crass commercialism, our materialism, our cultural imperialism, our Coca-colonization of foreign cultures, or even a lack of an American culture altogether have long been heard in political discourse, in the media, and in conversation. Such flippant arguments display astonishing ignorance, lack of perspective, bitterness, and, often when voiced by foreigners, petty jealousy. In truth, the US has been one of the most important contributors among nations to art, music, litThe Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

W

International erature, drama, film, and all other major fields since its inception—the State Department provides “the writings of Emerson and Thoreau, of Hemingway and Fitzgerald; the music of Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, and John Coltrane; the paintings of Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, and Robert Motherwell; the choreography of Martha Graham, Merce Cunningham, and Paul Taylor; the films of Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese” as a few examples. The spread of American customs, brands, media, and language all over the world demonstrate not any overbearing imperialism on our part but rather the powerful attractiveness of American culture to others. The promotion of international solidarity through cultural diplomacy has proven to be one of the most sustainable paths to peace

the US does allow limited restrictions on speech, such as “fighting words” or speech that poses a “clear and present danger,” expressions of opinion, no matter how hateful or distasteful they may seem to the rest of us, are consistently protected, most recently in the notable Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps).

Canada, Denmark, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and a number of other nations also prohibit hate speech.

Greece prohibits blasphemy against God and insults against the Greek Orthodox Church. France has outlawed the wearing of Muslim headscarves in public as well as yarmulkes and large crosses in schools. Switzerland’s constitution bans the construction of minarets. And with regards to social tolerance, France

ican influence is obvious in terms of the reach of US law, the position of the US in ICANN (the governing body of the Internet), the Motion Picture Association of America, the International Intellectual Property Alliance, the World Bank, et cetera. David Ellwood of the University of Bologna has noted that “[c]ultural power is the ‘virtual empire’ of signs or myths, it is modalities—the airline system, credit cards, car hire, retail chains, fast food, multiplexes, film genres, internet browsers, Google.” It is particularly noteworthy that this Americanization of the globe has taken place voluntarily, by the choice of the people—to such an extent that many foreign countries have resorted to economic protectionism in attempts to “save” their local cultures.

France, for example, has placed special

We Should All Feel Very Honored to Call Ourselves Americans

and freedom for all people.

A major part of American culture is its focus on the protection of human rights and liberties, such as the freedoms of speech, the press, and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. At the risk of sounding clichéd, we stress that these freedoms should not be taken for granted; after all, most of the (supposedly more liberal) industrialized nations do not uphold the freedoms of speech, the press, or religion. The UK is well known for its hate speech laws, prohibiting “incitement to racial hatred” and “incitement to religious hatred” in the forms of speeches, party literature, websites, and even spreading rumors. (Note that although The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

and Italy’s expulsion of the Roma from their borders perhaps does not set the best example. The United States, despite great failures in the past, is very unusual among nations, and among cultures, in its long-standing commitment to basic freedoms. It is a testament to this commitment that partisan differences disappear when politicians are confronted with issues concerning these basic freedoms. For example, the SPEECH Act of 2010, which made foreign libel laws that violate free speech unenforceable in US courts, passed unanimously in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Domestic policy aside, it is often the spread of American culture overseas that attracts the most public attention. Amer-

taxes and quotas on film imports and screen time, with the result that American films hold only 60 percent of the French film market, compared to 80 percent for the rest of Europe. Another comical example is the Chinese government’s removal of Avatar, the most successful film ever in China, from theaters so as to prevent competition with the state-backed biopic Confucius. (It is a somewhat odd double standard too, that the spread of American culture overseas is derided as “imperialism,” while the spread of foreign cultures to the US is lauded as “multiculturalism” and “pluralism.” In fact, it would seem to us that, if anything, it is this double standard that betrays an imperialistic mindset. It im-

29

International plicitly contains the idea that American culture is powerful and successful, so its expansion is threatening, whereas other cultures are merely convenient conveyors for ethnic food and English loanwords, so their expansion is positive).

And this cultural influence can serve as a potent diplomatic tool, or even as a weapon. During the Cold War, the US government sponsored cultural outreach efforts such as Radio Free Europe, founded in 1949 to broadcast free American media to the Communist countries of Eastern Europe, and Louis Armstrong’s goodwill tours of Africa, Europe, and Asia. Scholar Rajan Menon has stated that “[f]ew Americans appreciate the degree to which knowledge about American culture, whether acquired by participating in our exchange programs, attending our cultural presentations, or simply listening to the Voice of America, contributed to the death of communism.” This same influence

could serve us well today in our war of ideas against Islamic extremism. Diplomat Helena Finn has written that “the youth of the Muslim world, deeply confused about their identity and critical of their own corrupt and autocratic rulers, seek refuge in another extreme ideology that promises a better and more dignified life. The United States, heeding its past successes, must offer a more compelling alternative.” Renowned scholar Joseph Nye, who developed the neoliberal theory of international relations and coined the term “soft power,” has also argued that “American soft power remains strong in most parts of the world, even if it takes more subtle forms than in the days of the Cold War,” such as through non-governmental organizations.

American cultural power has also manifested itself through the spread of the English language. The dominant position of the US in international affairs and organizations has propelled English

to become the new lingua franca, allowing people of different backgrounds to communicate in a common tongue and greatly enhancing the efficiency of international business, communications, science, media, and diplomacy. Barbara Seidlhofer of the University of Vienna explains that English “is a ‘contact language’ between persons who share neither a common native tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language of communication.” Again, the best quality of the globalization of English is its voluntary nature. English enjoys no official status in either the US or the UK, yet has spread quickly over the entire world, whereas other countries (most notably France) are engaged in rigorous attempts to keep their languages alive and pure, with limited success. Although English is only the second or third most widely spoken language (depending on estimates), a mere one in four speakers of

tsteinkolk.com

30

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

International

WashingtonMemo.org

English are native speakers. This linguistic expansion would seem to be the most obvious example of American influence, and it exposes worries about the rise of other countries like China to be vastly overblown. For example, a recent Newsweek article reported that many Americans feel that Chinese is an important language to learn, and that “a child who learns Mandarin starting at 5 increases her brain capacity and is exposed to the culture of the future through language.”

Well, if Chinese culture is the culture of the future, then why are all 200 million Chinese schoolchildren required to learn English?

Another major criticism of American culture is its supposed degeneracy.

For example, Peggy Noonan, in a piece in the Wall Street Journal, lamented the physical and moral “deterioration” of our culture exhibited in our popular media. But while many aspects of modern American popular culture may not sit well with the social conservatives, we all must recognize that the very existence of a popular culture at all represents, again, our country’s devotion to personal freeThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

dom and to a democratic society, and should not be taken for granted. The Guide to United States Popular Culture describes popular culture as “the voice of the people – their practices, likes, and dislikes – the lifeblood of their daily existence, a way of life. The popular culture is the voice of democracy, speaking and acting, the seedbed in which democracy grows.” Pop culture represents nothing other than the expression of the people’s wishes and preferences, a highly democratic concept. Moreover, the importance of pop culture’s role as a medium for political criticism and social commentary should not be underestimated.

However, an even more pressing and contentious concern about American influence—both within the US and abroad—has been that of international peacekeeping. The United States has intervened with substantial force in a number of conflicts— Korea and Afghanistan, for example. The historian John Fosouk argues that such intervention was the result of achieving the position of a global leader at the end of World War II. Such greatness, Fosouk states,

led to a “global responsibility.” The basis of this role as “policeman of the world” exists in the Truman Doctrine, which proclaimed in 1947 that “it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” America rose to a position of greatness, and within that position of power used its influence to help needy and subjugated peoples (with examples ranging from the Marshall Plan to the recent intervention in Libya).

American culture has long employed itself in the furtherance of world peace and prosperity.

In short, American culture, along with its deep and irremovable impression on the rest of humanity, forms our most reliable tactic of international outreach and our proudest national heritage. Regardless of weapons stockpiles or GDP statistics, the United States of America, the world’s lone remaining superpower, will continue to be a powerful force for good on this planet, and we should all feel very honored to call ourselves Americans. HMR

31

Features

Features

The Light at the End of the Tunnel

I

EDMUND BANNISTER

The European Debt Crisis and What We Can Do To Address It 32

taly is in deep financial trouble. In 2010 Italy’s debt was 116% of its GDP, a number second only to Greece’s 128%. What this means is that the value of all the goods and services produced by Italy’s economy in an entire year is less than the value of the government’s debt. This almost unimaginable sum can be attributed to the largely socialist economic policies that the Italian government has put in place. Not only are these policies wasteful, but they also result in decreased productivity; this factor, perhaps even more than cost of Italy’s massive social entitlement programs, makes for a perfect storm of government debt.

This crushing debt burden incases the chance that the Italian government will default on its sovereign debt, causing the rapid devaluation of the euro and the rapid collapse of the Italian economy. If these two things were to occur, the economic The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features contagion would spread throughout the E.U. and then, possibly, the global economy. As such, the Euro Zone countries are in danger of being dragged down as countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain come in danger of defaulting on their skyrocketing government debt. Italy is particularly important because its economy is larger and has a larger amount of debt than the economy of Greece. Italy’s annual GDP is 2.05 trillion dollars and it’s debt makes up 18% of the collective government debt of the entire Eurozone. Greece’s GDP is only 304.87 billion dollars and it’s government debt makes up only 3% of total Eurozone debt. The irresponsible handling of the economies of these countries, especially Italy is inexcusable and dangerous.

“It is easier to get rid of my wife than to fire an employee,” said the President of the Italian construction company Condotte. He is right. Italy has 2,700 pages of tangled, impossible to navigate labor laws. Due to the lack of clarity, many cases of dismissal end up in the inefficient court system; most of the time the employees are reinstated into the company. Equally troubling is the fact that employee wages and labor contracts are negotiated on a national level by the unions, instead of between a company and its workers. This creates a system where workers can’t be fired, even if they fail to do their job, and a worker that does an excellent job can’t receive a raise greater than that of his or her peers.

Moreover, companies cannot innovate with new equipment and technology because they can’t fire employees that aren’t qualified for the new techniques and can’t hire employees that are. Not surprisingly, Italy was ranked by the World Economic Forum as 123rd out of 142 countries in labor market efficiency.

Strikes are also a huge problem for Italian productivity. National labor strikes, which occur once a month, are always conveniently planed on a Monday or a Friday to guarantee a comfortable long weekend. The European Industrial Relations Observatory has reported that on average Italian workers strike six times as much as their counterparts in Germany. Further still, the average American worker produces 60 U.S. dollars worth of

real GDP an hour, while the average Italian worker produces 45. This means that American workers are 33% more productive.

In addition, the Italian labor laws contribute to the national debt in the form of reduced tax revenue due to slowed GDP growth and tax evasion. These strict labor laws make it unattractive for Italian business owners to expand; over 95% of Italian businesses have fewer than 10 employees because of these burdensome regulations. In addition, these measures hamper growth of promising businesses and, as a result, reduce government revenue. Even worse is the fact that many businesses, in an effort to avoid these laws, do not register with the government or pay taxes. Italy’s National Institute for Statistics reports that 4 million Italian

without also changing the laws that make it necessary for the crackdown to occur.

It is imperative that the Italian labor laws, all 2,700 pages of them, be reviewed and rewritten. The restrictions and requirements that force Italian businesses and their owners underground should be either dramatically reduced or completely eliminated. Unions should no longer be allowed to cripple productivity with excessive strikes, and bad employees should be able to be fired. But at the same time, there should be a fair, even balance between workers’ rights and productivity, both of which are critical in assuring a successful Italy. If these austerity measures and reforms are not enough, then the European Central Bank should take immediate action to bailout the Italian government. These steps would be extremely helpful and should also be adopted by the entire European Union as well as the United States, which may soon find itself in the same position.

We in the United States as well as every country around the world should be deeply concerned with the economic crisis in Europe. The modern economy is now globalized, meaning that all of the major world economies are inexorably linked. If Italy and the other debtor nations collapsed, all of the other Euro nations, including powerhouse economies like Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, would collapse as well. This domino effect would spread like wildfire; consumer confidence would evaporate, banks would stop giving out loans, and the stock market would crash.

The world economy, which is still emerging from the great recession, would be dragged down into another recession or perhaps a major depression. It is essential to the security and the prosperity of the global economy that the Italians turn their government and economy. Until they do the global economy will continue to flounder. Once it does the United States, the Euro zone, and the World in general will be able to fully recover from the Great Recession and move into a brighter and more prosperous future.

HMR

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

workers work in these unregistered, taxevading businesses.

In short, the Italian government has a serious crisis on its hands. The laws currently in place and the restrictions created by the unions have made the Italian economy the epitome of inefficiency.

Further still, the lack of productivity and uncollected tax revenue, combined with massive government spending and waste, have pushed the Italian government to the brink of default, and the Italian economy to the brink of collapse. As a result of Italy’s negligence, the E.U. and the entire global economy are on the brink of catastrophe..

Italy has already taken promising steps to avoid default. Italy’s new Prime Minister, Mario Monti, has already implemented a set of austerity measures, including higher pension ages for seniors and a crackdown on tax evasion. However it will not be enough to crack down

33

BOOTSNAIL

“It is essential to the security and the prosperity of the global economy that the Italians change their government and economy.

Until they do the global economy will continue to flounder.”

Features

Equities in the Long Run

D

mitchell troyanovsky

espite what you hear pessimistic people saying these days and all the doom and gloom we hear about the stock market, stocks are still the best investment in the financial markets.

America has had long-term economic growth for more than a century now.

The main factor of long-term economic growth is increased productivity. Productivity increases for different reasons, but the most important is advances in technology. From the industrial revolution to the present day, work is becoming more efficient and we are producing more then ever be-

34

fore. This is the past and it is also the future. We are and we will continue to produce, invent and innovate for centuries to come. The new technology used in factories and manufacturing areas is developed by corporations.

Products can now be made faster, with higher quality, and in greater numbers for corporations. This produces higher revenue and greater incomes. That is why companies been valued higher and higher throughout the last hundred years. It is no secret that stock market performance is mainly tied to long-term economic growth. That is why since 1900 the Dow Jones has seen more than a 1000% gain (adjusted for

inflation.) and the real GDP per capita has grown by approximately 600% in the same time frame. The best way to capitalize on this economic growth is by investing in the equity markets.

The reason stocks are the best choice in the financial markets is because they offer the best way to benefit from economic prosperity. There are reasons people don’t invest in stocks. One of the major reasons is because they can be very volatile and fluctuate constanly. The stock market goes down during a recession and during points of small contractions of the economy. But as long as we create, innovate, and produce, the economy The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features with the stock market will always get back on its feet. There have been 42 market corrections in the last hundred years, yet our economy and the stock market is doing better then in the past.

People who do fear of the stock market might put their money into bonds. The primary advantage of bonds is that when a company goes bankrupt the courts first allocate any money left to bond holders and then to equity holders if there is any left.

Treasury bonds however don’t even have that safe haven because a government could become insolvent and be unable to pay interest, though that is highly unlikely. The problem with bonds is that buying them makes you miss the glorious opportunities in the stock market, because once you buy the bond you get returns with the interest rate you bought it at for the duration of the time you bought it for.

This interest rate stays the same for the pre-determined time. Also, if you put all your money in a thirty-year bond then you can’t put that money into investments such as stocks that can actually grow because of the economy. You won’t be profiting from economic growth. In fact, interest rates on a 30-year U.S. treasury bill are only 2.89% as of December 31st,bearing in mind that the 30-year bonds tend to have the highest interest rate.

Therefore the highest yield you can get from a U.S. treasury yield is 2.89%.

The Dow Jones has an average annual return of 5.37% and their current average dividend is 3%.

That alone is higher than the 30 year treasury bond. Though if you account for taxes as well then U.S. treasury bond holders who are citezins do get a small tax break on their capital gains tax. This is done to attract investors, but doesn’t make up the gap between the gains you get from U.S. treasury bonds and the much bigger capiThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

tal gains you could be getting from stocks. This tax break also applies only to U.S. treasury bonds; corporate bond holders don’t get this perk. Also the bond interest rate I’ve been using as an example force you to commit to thirty years; that is a huge opportunity cost because that money could be going to other investments or even consumer spending. You won’t be seeing that money again for thirty years and if you want to commit to less time the interest rates only go down in almost all cases.

Another option is to just deal in cash. This is foolish because for years in the past and for years to come we will have inflation; most economists agree that a steady and controlled inflation is good for the economy. Though gradual and controlled, inflation is still inflation and your

money could become less and less valuable. A dollar in 1900 could buy the same amount that you could buy with 25 dollars today.

Therefore keeping cash just stored in a bank receiving maybe a .5% interest rate does not capitalize on a successful economy. The best way to profit from the thriving economy is to invest in stocks. They’ve proven and will keep proving to be the best investment for the long term in the financial markets.

The current recession we are coming out of is just part of the business cycle that has to happen. It’s happened before and it will happen again. Reccessions happen all the time (look at 1998, 2001, and 2005); this is no reason to fear volatility. If an investor can stomach the bad times, I guarantee that he or she will be seeing returns in the good times that not only make up his loss but also put him far into the

black. Whenever investors start selling during a reccesson, that just drives the stock market down further. But if you’re smart and keep your holdings then when the economy gets better, other investors will feel so optimistic about the prospects of stocks that they will drive your holdings to levels previously unseen. The main point is that stocks go down and they go up, but in the long run the up’s always outnumber the down’s. HMR

“ The best way to capitalize on economic growth is by investing in the equity markets.”

Yahoo.com

35

Features

VIVIANNA LIN The brutal repercussions of the crippling economic crisis that has spread throughout Europe have been felt all over the world. The European Union has recently signed a treaty that will forge a more integrated coalition among European nations. The treaty, which calls for stricter regulation of regional government spending, was signed by every member of the European Union except for Great Britain, thus failing Germany’s desire for unanimity among the 27 members. The 17 Eurozone members, along with six member states with Euroaspirations and Hungary, Sweden, and the Czech Republic, all signed the treaty, leaving Britain isolated.

The treaty’s passing was a clear victory for German Chancellor Angela Merkel and a defeat for Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, according to an American outlook. Throughout the European Union talks in Brussels, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Merkel grew increasingly more frustrated with Britain’s refusal to join the Eurozone and Cameron’s staunch display of “Euroskepticism” and intransigence. In spite of the drama, Europe will be moving on to a stronger union, with or without Brit-

ain.

Even some of the British acknowledge this; “It’s been made clear that France and Germany can do whatever the hell they like and Britain can say yes or no, but it doesn’t matter, since they’ll do it anyway,” according to Steven Fielding, director of the Center for British Politics at the University of Nottingham.

British mistrust of the rest of Europe had been present long before the current Euro crisis. The British Channel has always served as a wall of separation, and the English were always wary of foreign influence. Essentially different to that of the rest of Europe, Britain’s disparate culture only serves to widen the gap. Britain’s “bull-dog spirit” remains, and many conservative “Euroskeptics” have lauded Cameron’s veto of the treaty. Cameron maintained that he wanted to eschew the induction of German fiscal policies and “protect our own national interest,” as there was no guarantee of the safeguarding of London’s financial services. Meanwhile, the rest of the world believes his veto symbolizes the sacrifice of Britain’s place and influence as a European power in order to protect the City of London, London’s primary business district, akin to New York’s Wall Street.

Meanwhile in the United States, the media has overblown Britain’s “decline.” Television and news outlets make Cameron’s performance sound like a great debacle. The British themselves view Cameron’s actions as a victory,

and would much prefer to be bystanders to the impending doom surrounding the Euro. British public opinion has consistently opposed Britain’s becoming a member of the Eurozone, and both the economic recession in Britain and the fall in value of the Pound have not contributed to a change in this opinion. A poll conducted in early May 2009 showed increased opposition, with 75% of respondents pledging to vote against joining the Eurozone. By August 2011 the percentage of people wish such an opinionopposed to joining the Eurozone reached a new high of 85% of respondents. “Euroskepticism,” the general distrust and opposition to the European Union, has played a significant role in British politics since the inception of the European Economic Community, the European Union’s predecessor, in 1993.

Numerous parties, including the United Kingdom Independence Party and the British National Party, advocate complete withdrawal from the European Union, let alone entering the Eurozone.

Britain’s possible exit from the European Union is a prospect that many British Conservatives find positively alluring.

“There is also an exciting sense that we are at the beginning of a very profound change in which our tortured relationship with Europe will be redefined, at long last,” said British periodical The

Vs

anothermccain

36

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features

The United Kingdom’s Declining Position in the European Union Daily Mail.

Britain’s strategy towards the European Union has worked well so far for two reasons. First, it gets full benefits from a common market that provides free movement of people, goods and services. Second, it kept in place the British Pound and, therefore, full control of English monetary policy. The United Kingdom has the flexibility of managing its own domestic economy far better than most of the members of the European Union. Countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland will be forced to endure deep economic contractions to stay in the club. If the Euro falls, won’t Britain theoretically go down with the rest of Europe? We can’t say it won’t be affected, but the effects would certainly be lessened because Great Britain is a Euro-bystander rather than an active participant. Should the Euro fall, the entire world will feel the ripples, including Britain.

The British have every right to be skeptical of the European Union. Americans seem to believe Britain is becoming increasingly isolated from its European neighbors and is slowly digging itself into a pit by not joining the Eurozone, but to assume that the Euro community’s safe future is a sure bet could not be more deluded. From the start, the European Union has been a coalition of dis-

V s.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

similar elements, where nothing forced weak members to get squared away or kept them from leeching off the strong.

Even now, the newly tightened union and proposed policies do not guarantee a solution to this problem. Such a conglomerate of sovereign nations will never get the power to force freeloaders like Greece to carry their own weight.

Assuming such exploitative countries will do the right thing from some moral sense is both naïve and overly optimistic. To the British, overcoming dissimilarities in outlook, history, and customs so that they can simply be tied down to weaker countries is too large a price to pay for a future probably not much better of than their current one. The Euro crisis may have come as a surprise to some, but the “Euroskeptics” predicted precisely the mess that would result from the implementation of the Euro more than a decade ago. That’s why Britain

refused to join the Eurozone in the first place. The British want neither their laws written in Brussels, nor their fiscal policy decided in Stuttgart.

People criticize Britain because it does not want to give up a large degree of sovereignty, nor does it want to be the most negatively impacted state by the taxes on the financial industry, all so that it can help save a currency it is not a part of. In a recent op-ed for the New York Times deploring England’s exceptionalistanomalous approach to the crisis, Roger Cohen wrote, “Self-delusion is a lingering attribute of former imperial nations adjusting to a lesser reality.” But what if it is the European Union that is truly deluded? HMR

37

Features

Burning Down the House: America’s Fiscal Crisis

A

123RF

jonah wexler

merica faces a significant and burdensome annual deficit. It is not being addressed by political leaders, and it is creating a serious budgetary problem that is both an economic anchor and a security threat. The Congress and the President have irresponsibly spent more than the revenue collected, and have created massive national debt in an amount greater than the total GDP. As the government has grown, annual deficits (over one-trillion dollars per year), have reached approximately onethird of the annual federal budget, and the accumulated debt totals fifteen trillion dollars. Government growth through tax revenue moves productive resources from the private sector to the unproduc-

38

tive public sector. If interest rates rise to the levels averaged over the last ten years, such borrowing would negatively impact the economic well being of the country.

Moreover, much of the money funding the deficit is burrowed from foreign entities, which are not always friendly to the United States. Owing significant money to foreign competitors may create security issues and handcuff diplomatic efforts.

For both national security and economic reasons, government growth should be checked and overall borrowing should be minimized.

Congress and the President have not fulfilled one of their basic constitutional requirements, to pass an annual budget, for approximately the past three years.

Last spring, the Republican-dominated

Congress passed a budget which has been held up in committee in the Senate. Other proposals, from the House, to cut spending or otherwise deal with the budget issue have also been shut down in the Senate.

Addressing the budget deficit will not be easy. But if we are to bring our spending under control, there are a number of issues that will need to be addressed.

TAX REFORM The U.S. tax system is based upon two basic concepts: progressive taxation of income, and tax benefits, called loopholes, for certain economic activities. In 2011, the tax rate for couples ranged from 10% to 35%, depending on the amount of income earned. Approximately half of the The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

3RF

Features workers in the U.S. pay no federal taxes either because they earn too little or because of tax refunds. In the 2009 tax year, the top 1% of income earners paid 36% of all federal income taxes, and the top 10% paid 70% of federal income taxes paid. There is an inherent conflict in a democracy when half or more of the population pays no taxes yet can vote to tax the minority and determine how revenues are spent.

In addition, the granting of tax benefits or loopholes creates favored industries and activities, along with a whole industry of lobbyists who seek to use the Congress to gain advantages for their businesses A popular loophole is the mortgage interest deduction used by homeowners and favored by the construction industry. These tax benefits favor certain companies and industries over others, create artificial markets, boost prices, and reduce tax revenues in ways that are costly for taxpayers.

Many think tanks and politicians believe a flatter tax with no loopholes would drive the economy and reduce government interference in the public markets.

The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles’ National Commission of Fiscal Responsibility and Reform proposed closing most loopholes and tax rates ranging from 12%-28%. Corporate tax rates would also be decreased, making U.S. rates competitive with foreign rates.

ENTITLEMENTS REFORM Any reform to the federal budget must include changes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as they represent 43% of overall federal spending. When Social Security was originally created, the benefits began at the age of 65 while the average life expectancy was only 64. There were 16 workers for every person in the program. Now life expectancies are fourteen years longer and there are only three workers paying into the program for every person in the program. This is simply unsustainable because social security will be paying out more than it is taking in. Two easy fixes would be to extend the retirement age and to “means� test benefits, meaning benefits are not paid to higher income people.

Healthcare is a more complicated issue. If we are to stay financially solvent, we need to have a conversation about the magnitude of benefits we can afford The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

to give and would be willing to pay for.

Whether the government is a better provider of healthcare than private industry remains to be seen; it may be that some combination of private competition, personal choice, and government subsidies for those in poverty is the best solution.

SHRINKING GOVERNMENT The U.S. government wastes an absurd amount of money. At a time when private industry has become more efficient because of economic pressures, and personal incomes have stabilized or shrunk, only the federal government has expanded. In 2008, the federal budget for the U.S. government was 2.9 trillion dollars, and the deficit was about 400 billion dollars.

Now the budget has increased while the deficit, at 1.3 trillion dollars, is more than three times as large. Clearly Washington is incapable of living within its means.

As such, all federal programs should be evaluated on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness. There are certain departments that should be substantially cut back or removed. The Department of Energy was created in the late 1970s because oil embargos from the Middle East created shortages, which needed to be addressed domestically. But today, every function of the Department of Energy can be consolidated into other government entities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is another example of a department that spends a lot of money with good intentions, but has limited success. HUD and its programs should be evaluated and discontinued if they cannot prove their effectiveness. These are only two examples of government programs or departments that can be cut back or discontinued.

There is general consensus that the U.S. budget and deficit should be addressed immediately. While Standard & Poors has already downgraded U.S. debt from AAA to AA+, the other rating agencies are warning that they will follow suit unless America learns to live within its means. A combination of pro-growth tax policies, entitlements reform, and shrinking government should put America on a path to prosperity. HMR

US National Debt

$15, 247, 901, 279, 674, 312.

39

Economics

Economics

Recovery?

Not So Fas t

“With millions still unemployed with little hope of employment within the near future, and hundreds of thousands of workers giving up on finding a job, we can’t support the claim that the economy is stabilized, as the “8.6%” masks the hidden disparities intact in the U.S.”

40

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Economics

A

adam resheff

t first glance, it might look like America’s long awaited economic recovery has finally begun; last November, according to the Bureau of Labor statistics, the U.S. unemployment rate dropped to 8.6%, its lowest rate in two and a half years. The U.S. economy created 120,000 jobs in November, after five months of generating 100,000 jobs or more for the first time since 2006, and jobless benefits claims dropped to a nine-month low. But even with optimistic job reports, as well as a rise in retail and auto sales, we must not assume that the economy is on its way back to strength, as many of these statistics may be misleading as to the state of the economy, and pending economic dilemmas threaten the economy’s stability down the road.

Along with the 120,000 people that found jobs, 315,000 people left the labor force in November, either retiring or giving up on finding work, which would remove them from the category of “unemployed” and lower the unemployment rate. The labor reports show growth in the private sector but decline in the public sector. The public sector lost 20,000 workerswin November and 500,000 within the past year. And even with this overall growth in employment, 13.3 million Americans remain without jobs, with many struggling to find work because businesses won’t except applications from the unemployed, as the average interval of unemployment reached a record 40.9 weeks and the amount of people unem-

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

ployed for 27 weeks or more hit 43%. So regardless of the unemployment facts and figures that would indicate growth in our economy, with millions still unemployed with little hope of employment within the near future, and hundreds of thousands of workers giving up on finding a job, we can’t support the claim that the economy is stabilized, as the “8.6%” masks the hidden disparities intact in the U.S. Taking heed of what lies ahead for the U.S. economy, external financial concerns and internal political indecision could further deteriorate the impact of the lowered unemployment rate and threaten its sustainability. Economic crisis in Europe could have consequences in the U.S., as a recession could slow U.S. exports and hurt financial markets overseas, taking away the confidence and curbing the profits of U.S. businesses. The prospect of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance benefits ending could potentially harm the economy down the road. The payroll tax cut saves 160 million U.S. families $1000 each, and is estimated to create 600,000 to 1,000,000 jobs in 2012. Although both Democrats and Republicans seek to extend the measure, their opinions have differed on how to pay for the tax cut. Bills have passed the Republican-controlled House of Reps., who support payment freezes for government employees and child tax credits for illegal immigrants, while the Democratcontrolled Senate opposes the House proposals, as Democrats seek a tax surcharge for Americans that earn over $1 million annually. If this impasse can’t be

overcome before Jan. 1st, the tax cut will automatically end and hit the wallets of many U.S. families. Long-term unemployment insurance benefits are also set to end, which will leave 5 million people without them. The unemployment benefits are a ploy to stimulate the economy, as the people who receive the benefits are likely to spend it quickly, flowing money into the economy. Congress has been unable to reach a bipartisan decision on this legislation as well, as both sides conflict over amount of payment and length. The economic forecast is shaping itself similarly to the end of last year, when growth in the economy was hindered by a spike in oil prices, the earthquake in Japan, and the chaos of the debt limit, which left many economists predicting a doubledib recession. Economist Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics estimated that the economy would grow 2.5% in the last three months of 2011 but then decline to 1.5% growth because of the debt crisis in Europe and the anticipation of both the tax and benefits legislation failing to pass.

The 8.6% unemployment rate should be viewed as an improvement and confidence in the private sector, but people should be cautious to assume the economy is on its way back to strength. With financial uncertainty in the U.S. and abroad, and nearly 1 in every 12 Americans out of work, even though we’ve come great lengths to make it through financial turmoil, there is a ways to go before we can truly feel secure about the strengthening of our economy. HMR

41

Economics

A Failing Education System

A

lauren futter

mericans have always believed that through education they can better themselves and become whoever they want to be. It is ironic, then, that the government is making cuts in education with the goal of encouraging certain professions over others. Recently, Congress made severe cuts in funding for the Department of Education. In budget cuts endorsed by President Obama, $22 million dollars were cut from its budget.

Previously, the National Endowment on the Humanities and for the Arts used the funds to issue grants for arts education.

In addition, New York State cut its arts education budget by ten percent. This reduction of funds represents an attempt by the government to become more competitive with other countries around the world in terms of mathematics and science education. Currently, the United States ranks 25th and 17th respectively in math and science worldwide. Despite this fact, it is also important to continue to endorse the humanities and the arts, which encourage ingenuity and creativity. To truly succeed in the global, 21st century economy, the United States should focus on optimizing talents for humanities and the arts that its citizens already possess instead of suppressing them. While science and math education are equally important their emphasis should not detract from the emphasis on the arts. These cuts reflect an inability to see the long-term relevance of this type of education, and if these cuts persist, Americans will not

42

be as well rounded for lack of humanities and art education, which will make Americans less competitive in the global economy, despite the intentions of the cuts.

At present the largest percent of the U.S. budget (20%) goes towards social security while education consists of one of the smallest portions (2.7%). These cuts represent an oversight in the United State’s mission for the future. Instead of investing the largest percentage of funds in social security, the United States should invest more of this money in education.

By lessening the gap between social security funding and education, the United States will honor the past while emphasizing the importance of preparing for the future. Another cut that is endorsed by the GOP encourages cutting the maximum Pell Grant, a fund that loans money to poor students, by $845 million. The current maximum allowance for the Pell Grant is $5,500. With the price of a college education soaring, it is vital to insure that funds such as the Pell Grant remain operational, and it is important to insure that the government looks forward and not backwards when deciding what they will and will not cut in order to keep the United States competitive.

Despite making large cuts to education, Congress has planned on putting $1.4 billion towards improving dis-

trict performance, meaning higher scores on state exams. wxxi.org However, questions such as, “what does this entail?” and “how will they use the money to improve?” remain. To enhance performance, local governments usually allocate more money to hiring better teachers, buying better textbooks, and creating better facilities. Before schools start buying and hiring, though, it is vital to question the validity of these tests. These tests cannot measure creativity, ingenuity, and valuable social skills

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Economics

children will need to succeed in world.

As a result, this nation comes to a crossroad. Will we be the society that raises children to take tests or the society that teaches children to succeed in life? If the second option is chosen, then allowing such a large sum of money to be allotted towards “improving standards” without fully understanding the implications cannot be allowed. It does not matter how much the government spends and cuts so long as they are reflect change in programs available to schools.

In addition to the federal governments’ cuts on education, state governments, which contribute the largest sum of money to schools in their states, are making

cuts in funding and in the number of teachers. States such as New York had previously attempted to negotiate with labor unions over teacher salaries on merit-based systems; however, talks soon collapsed despite efforts on both sides. The local government has favored an approach of giving teachers a salary based on merit while labor unions support a system based on seniority. In consequence, numerous schools in New York were closed due to low performance and the states inability to make necessary changes do to the interferences of labor

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

unions. The closing of low performing schools has caused children in these schools to move to other schools, which has caused overcrowding in classrooms, and a futile effort by teachers to give necessary attention to each student due to a large student to teacher ratio. Consequently, a paradox is formed: state governments want merit based systems for teachers, but labor union refuse causing the closing and subsequent over crowding of schools, so remaining teachers have too many students to successfully give address, which leads to poor performance in schools.

Overall, the United States’ future rests in its willingness to invest in education. By doing this, the United States will prove that it understands the implications education has on society and the future economy. The government can no longer have the mentality that children’s mere presence in America will allow them to receive the education they deserve. With a ranking of 27th and 17th in math and science, politicians cannot afford to think that way. In embracing creativity as well as emphasizing better science and math education, the United States recognizes the importance of a well rounded education, which will allow students to succeed in the future. Complacency is not an option, changes must be made, the implications of cuts must be understood, and reevaluation and reallocation of money in the government’s budget must be made. HMR

Education Comparison According to: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Science

Mathematics

1st Finland

1st Hong Kong

2nd Japan

2nd Finland

3rd Hong Kong

3rd South Korea

4th South Korea

4th Netherlands

5th 5th Liechtenstein Liechtenstein 25th 17th United States United States

43

Economics

Andrew Cuomo’s Tax Cuts:

How and why they help New York

44

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Economics

G

catherine engelmann

overnor Andrew Cuomo recently passed a reform of New York’s tax code, raising taxes for the wealthy, and cutting them for the middle class. The millionaire’s tax is about to expire at the end of this year, and so the state needs to find a new, effective policy to take its place. Cuomo is experimenting with a more progressive tax plan that will tax upper class individuals at a higher rate than taxpayers expected, but he will eradicate the surcharge on people reigning in incomes over $200,000. Overall the proposed tax reform is a much fairer system for the people eligible to pay taxes, as the wealthy will pay taxes at a lower rate than in the past, but will not be exempt from paying taxes on money earned from investments. While this new plan benefits the middle and laboring working

budget, but it is the fairest thing to do.

Governor Cuomo sympathizes with New Yorkers because of the state’s history of high taxes, but in the end, we need money to subsidize all of the social programs we have. Liberals are pleased by the new tax reform because middle-class earners will benefit from paying a lower tax-rate than in the past. High-income earners, although they will be taxed at a higher rate than they expected, are paying less than they did under the millionaire’s tax. This lapse will leave a gap of $3.5 billion in our budget, which could have been used on healthcare and other subsidized programs.

In an attempt to make up for the budget shortfall, Cuomo has proposed that we legalize full-state commercial casinos, which would require amending the state constitution. Currently and in the

ers live in New York City. Also, middleclass earners who have been hit hard by the economic recession will pay taxes at a more reasonable rate, increasing the amount of money circulating in the state’s economy from their luxury and practical purchases. Not to mention that with the unemployment rate so high, Cuomo’s dedication to job creation is necessary to keep our state competitive in the country’s economy. Overall, Cuomo’s tax reform is a victory. As Cuomo said himself, people who earn $50,000 a year will no longer be in the same tax bracket as those who make $1 million.

The major issue with the increased tax on high-income earners is that it could drive them out of the city and into suburbs. For example, Connecticut, where taxes are lower and public schools are top-notch, is an appealing option for

“The most important benefit this tax will have, however, is that it will promote fairness.” classes, as their taxes will be decreased, the plan will ultimately decrease our state revenue. The most important benefit this tax will have, however, is that it will promote fairness.

The middle-class is not the only group who will benefit from this tax. The new tax will abolish the millionaire’s tax, the surcharge on people with an income of over $200,000 starting December 31st.

This means the wealthy will pay fewer taxes except for the top 0.3%, whose taxes will be raised. The pool of tax filers in the top bracket will decrease. Now the top bracket will be earners of income over $2 million whereas before it was $200,000.

So the governor is trying to compensate for the loss in state revenue caused by the diminishing of the surcharge. As it turns out, this will not quite close the gap in the

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

past, we have lost money to other states that house these institutions. These casinos, he says, would promote job creation as well as increase revenue. On the other hand, money collected from gambling does not seem like it would be enough to compensate for a loss in budget that large.

As well as building casinos, Cuomo plans to institute tax credit programs for small business as well as working with entrepreneurs to fund their scientific inventions that lead to commercial products.

While the tax reform may not seem like a wise idea once you examine its economic consequences, it will at least promote a sense of fairness in a state and a city that is dominated by the one percent. Taxing the wealthy at a higher rate is a reasonable request given that the majority of the top percent of income earn-

high-income individuals who work in the city. If all our disgruntled tax payers moved to Connecticut, they would not be required to send as much money into New York’s economy. However, New York City has sophistication and cultural appeal that more than outweighs its price, and which Connecticut lacks. So although Cuomo’s progressive tax code may not seem like the smartest move economically, it will ultimately prove that politics in New York is not dominated by the one percent. We just need to have faith that Cuomo will not make any decisions that will destroy New York’s economy. HMR

45

Science & Tech.

? e g T n & o e r c n W e i cS n i e t s iE n sa W

Science &ch.Tech.

46

2

By

d n a x Ale

mc

E=

r e n s o P er

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Science & Tech.

I

n September of last year, a European report sent shockwaves through the physics community. For the first time ever, scientists had recorded particles traveling faster than the speed of light. This discovery not only threatened to derail Albert Einstein’s famed Theory of Special Relativity, but it also left decades of scientific research essentially invalid.

The source of this supposed breakthrough is tiny localized objects called neutrinos. Electrically neutral, these subatomic particles are capable of being sent through ordinary matter almost unaffected.

And that’s exactly how the experiment, known as OPERA, was conducted. Scientists shot beams of neutrinos through 730 kilometers of solid bedrock from the CERN laboratory, on the Swiss-French border, to the Gran Sasso Laboratory in central Italy; what the scientists found was shocking.

The physicists had been planning to study the transformation of muon neutrinos into tau neutrinos, a phenomenon in itself. Instead they discovered the neutrinos clocked in at 61 billionths of a second faster than the speed of light, a difference of 2 thousandths of a percent. While the researchers were initially skeptical, the experiment was repeated 15,000 times, each with the same result.

After a thorough analysis of the data, the scientists finally went public with their findings. However,

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

47

Science & Tech.

Photo from http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/QuantumPhysics-Used-to-Study-Ocean-life-2.JPG/

Photo from http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/neutrinos.html

the report, published by the Arxiv repository, expressed uncertainty and reservation: “Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the robustness of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly.”

Scientists from across the globe were quick to criticize the findings and to attempt to explain the anomalous results.

Many suggested the beams of neutrinos shot through the bedrock were unnecessarily long, which opened the door for calculation error. As Matt Strassier, a professor at Rutgers University, explains, “It’s like sending a series of loud and isolated clicks instead of a long blast on a horn…

In the latter case you have to figure out exactly when the horn starts and stops, but in the former you just hear each click and then it’s already over. In other words, with the short pulses you don’t need to know the pulse shape, just the pulse time.”

In November, CERN decided to repeat the experiment, this time making the beam a thousand times shorter. However,

after another round of trials, the results were no different. Panic spread through parts of the scientific community. What had seemed to be mere experimental error now was valid. If the initial results proved true, they would nullify one of the fundamental underpinnings of modern physics.

In 1905, Albert Einstein proposed what is today known as the mass-energy equivalence: E=mc2 (where “E” stands for energy, “m” for mass, and “c” for the speed of light.) What Einstein found was that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases, and in order for said object to actually reach “c,” it would have to have an infinite mass. As such, at least according to Einstein, an object would never be able to reach the speed of light. However, the recent CERN findings contradict Einstein’s core assertion. If objects are indeed capable of traveling faster than the speed of light, that would open the door to time travel, blurring the line between past and present. Moreover, such a reality would undermine the fundamental principle of cause and effect.

If the results of this experiment stand, then decades of research and scientific investigation will be rendered invalid. The

48

study of physics as we understand it today will be fundamentally altered. However, new information has come to light again calling to question the validity of the CERN results. Indian physicists in collaboration with researchers from Tel Aviv University have used the laws of conservation of energy and momentum to show that the existence of faster-than-light neutrinos contradicts the very observations that discovered them. As Telegraph India reports, “Their calculations, based on equations taught in masters-level physics courses, show that if the neutrinos detected in Italy had indeed travelled faster than light, they would have had much lower energies than observed.”

An October report written by two American physicists also questions the results. The report, published in the journal Physics Review Letters, asserts that if the neutrinos were in fact superluminal, the researchers would have seen high levels of radiation. However, because no such radiation was detected, the measurements must have been flawed; the neutrinos simply could not have reached light speed.

Repeats of the CERN experiment are in the works but those results won’t be known for months. In the meantime, we are left to speculate. What if faster-thanlight travel is in fact possible? What if Einstein was wrong?

Tied to their conventional wisdom, the scientific community has almost uniformly rejected the recent findings. Despite evidence to the contrary, researchers across the globe seem unwilling to embrace this wave of scientific change. There are clear parallels to the time of Galileo and the debate over geocentricism; many researchers seem more concerned with the preservation of their own mark on history than with the pursuit of scientific truth. However, the tides may be turning.

As commentator John Rennie put it, “Einstein’s theory of special relativity sits on a pedestal of honor, not on an altar. Plenty of physicists would be glad to knock it off and put something else in its place. But it may take something more substantial than OPERA’s superluminal neutrinos to bring it down.” Only time will tell. HMR

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Science & Tech.

Apple is in the Station

O kelvin rhee

On December 9, 2011, Apple opened up a new store in New York’s most historic transportation hub, Grand Central Station. The Grand Central store is Apple’s new flagship store in New York City, taking away that title from its famous underground sibling on 5th avenue, a store that will continue to remain in business. The massive store in Grand Central encompasses 23,030 square feet and hosts over 300 employees. Just 10 years ago there was no such thing as an Apple retail store and the extremely rapid growth of Apple and the highly publicized launch of this mammoth store will almost certainly help the company grow. With the massive foot traffic passing through Grand Central daily and the heavy media exposure the store has received Apple’s success will surely skyrocket.

Many people, however, are opposed to the Apple store’s opening. The lease arrangement has brought a negative light upon the Metropolitan Transit Authority The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

(MTA) because of reports that Apple is getting a comparatively cheap deal on the floor space the store occupies. Apparently the MTA is leasing the space to Apple at $60 per square foot per year, which is significantly lower than the rental rates paid by its neighbors. Along with this relatively inexpensive rent, Apple does not have to pay a percentage of its revenue to its landlord, Grand Central Station, although every other store in Grand Central does. While the MTA claims that Apple is paying more than $60 a square foot, the deal remains controversial because critics do not see it as fair to the rest of the stores in the station. Cipriani pays $86.68 per square foot and Michael Jordan’s Steakhouse pays $70.10 per square foot which would work out to be $2 million and $1.6 million respectively per year for the 23,030 square feet for which Apples pays only $1.4 million per year.

The perceived preferential treatment of Apple among its inferior Grand Central Station neighbors is justified in the eyes of the MTA and Apples’ supporters.

MTA can justify its low prices by saying that the number of customers that Apple

will bring into Grand Central Station will bring more business to the neighboring stores and restaurants. The fact that people could complain about having a potential for increased business is absurd.

These influxes of customers will do nothing but benefit the surrounding stores so those businesses should be grateful for Apple. Businesses that are not regarded with the same level of esteem as Apple will never receive treatment of the same caliber. Apple being in their presence and attracting a massive amount of customers is the closest thing they could fathom to a “royal Apple treatment” and their complaining is beyond my comprehension. This is a win-win situation for everybody. The MTA has a reliable tenant who attracts a large amount of customers, Apple gets a fantastic deal on the floor space, and the other stores in Grand Central have more customers to attract.

However, there are still those who still complain about Apples supposed deal on the floor space. Regardless of Apple’s deal with the MTA, this store will be a true New York mecca for Apple “fanboys” and techies across the world. HMR

49

Science & Tech.

CRUCIAL CENSORSHIP L

samantha rahmin

ooking at past history, many different branches of science, such as astronomy, math, physics, optics, and nuclear science, have been subject to censorship. In 1633, The Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo to repudiate his discovery that the world was heliocentric, with the earth revolving around the sun. A clear-cut case of censorship. In 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were killed due to secretly giving Moscow bomb secrets. Again, censorship.

The newest branch of science that is running into problems with the government is virology. The government fears that tinkering with the basics of life to understand deadly epidemics might inadvertently set them off. Also, deadly mirco organisms can set off a whole new, scary type of warfare. On December 20th, two respected journals were asked by the United States government not to reveal details on the scientific reports regarding how to recreate an airborne form of the deadly bird flu. Respected, reasonable action. The United States government implemented beneficial measures in order to protect the masses by assuring the secrecy of virologist Ron Fouchier’s experiments that recreate the H5N1 virus, or the Bird Flu. Minimal information is known about the bird flu.

Scientists know that the virus originated in Hong Kong, spreading from birds to chickens to humans. While Hong Kong’s government took care of its citizens who were falling fatally ill by slaughtering birds and chickens, the virus could not be suppressed in other parts of Asia. It then spread to Europe and Africa, which was unexpected due to the history of bird flues appearing only once before vanishing. To try to unravel the mystery, The National Institute of Health, a part of the U.S.

50

government, paid for Ron Fouchier’s experiments to try to discover what genetic changes would make the H5N1 bird flu virus easier to transmit. This virus currently rarely infects people; however, when it does, it is incredibly fatal with a very high death toll. Therefore, the goal of Fouchier’s research was to help scientists identify warning signs for when the virus will attack.

Knowing what mutations lead the virus to transmissibility should help scientists recognize the onset of he bird flu.

Fouchier stated, “There are highly respected virologists who thought until a few years ago that H5N1 could never become airborne between mammals.

I wasn’t convinced. To prove these guys wrong, we needed to make a virus that is transmissible.” So he did. Fouchier’s experiment is based on a ferret’s reaction to a strain of the H1N1 virus. Ferrets are known to catch virus in a similar way as humans. Fouchier describes how in his research all the ferrets in nearby cages would become sick if a specific mutation of the virus was squirted into the lungs of one ferret.

The experiment was repeated with consistent results: clear evidence of the speed with which the virus could spread to humans. But should this dangerous information be published?

Senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign relations and Pulitzer Prize winner, Laurie Garrett, explains that the true debate at the heart of the matter of whether or not Fouchier’s experiments should be published, is actually whether or not the research should even be conducted. The information is useful, as confirmed by virologist Dr. Webby, who explains of his freezers full of bird flu viruses and how The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Science & Tech. this information would contribute to this research.

However, the scientific community is infused with fear that if these fatal viruses were released, it would cause the history’s biggest flu pandemic. Are some things better left unknown?

Another worry of scientists is that the virus may spark bioterrorism. Prominent biologist, David Franz defended our government’s action, stating, “My concern is that we don’t give amateurs- or terrorists- information that might lead them to do something that could really cause a lot of harm.” Very little can be done to prevent the formation of biological weapons.

They are simple enough to be made in Horace Mann’s biology lab. To try to curtail the growth of this industry, in the 1970s, the Nixon administration and Breszhevnev, a Soviet politician, signed a treaty called “The Biological Weapons Convention.” Both parties agreed to shut down their bioweapon programs. The Soviets did not live up to their promise. While over 130 nations have agreed to this treaty, there is no way to enforce the treaty, rendering it almost completely useless. Thus, many nations have drawn up codes of conduct for biosecurity. These codes promise that their research is well intended, but the treaties all have inconsistent policies. Basically, the new information pertaining to the bird flu could bolster other bioweapon industries if it falls into the wrong hands.

While some scientists feel that terrorists would not use this information because the virus kills so nonspecifically, other scientists cannot forget the threats this information poses to national security.

Replicating a virus is now a relatively simple task. Viruses can be made from basic chemicals with genetic blueprints. These blueprints can be machine

sequenced in a few minutes for a cost of only $5.

Knowing these methods, for reconstructing viruses, the United States government became involved in the sticky situation of whether two journals, “Science” and “Nature,” should publish the information concerning the virus H1N1.

The United States government acted responsibly.

A federal board was established in 2004 with 25 members appointed by the secretary of health and human services and 18 officials from other agencies. The officials discussed putting controls on the information.

Ultimately, the government advisory panel, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which is aided by the National Institutes of Health, asked the journals to refrain from publishing their procedures and mutation data, in order to prevent the experiments from being replicated. The conclusions of the experiments are published. Usually, scientific journals fight these types of control. However, in this case, both scientific journals have decided to respect the United States government’s request due to the potential threats of releasing this information. Dr. Fouchier himself is unenthusiastically agreeing to withhold portions of his data.

For the safety of our country, science and the government are working together to control the flow of information. Editor of Science, Bruce Alberts, defends the actions of our government, reminding the public of the true threats of this information ending up in the wrong place. Dr. Alberts states, “I wouldn’t call this censorship. This is trying to avoid inappropriate censorship. It’s the scientific community trying to step out front and be responsible.” HMR

“

For the safety of our country, science and the government are working together to control the flow of information.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 4

”

51