Review THE HORACE MANN
The Horace Mann Volume XXII - Issue 2
AMERICA’S CHOICE The issues and why they matter
Review THE HORACE MANN
Letter From the Editor
Daniel Elkind Editor-in-Chief
Spencer Cohen Executive Editor
Jacob Gladysz-Morawski Alex Posner Nicholas McCombe Stephen Paduano Managing Editors - Design
Managing Editors - Content
Ben Davidoff
Head of Middle Division
Charles Scherr
kqed.org
W
hen we first held a writers’ meeting for this special election issue, the turnout was like nothing we had seen before. The number of writers was unprecedented in the twenty-two year history of The Review. The issue that resulted from their work – and the work of our editors – is a great milestone not only for The Review, but for the level of political dialogue at Horace Mann. In addition to demonstrating an extraordinary school-wide interest in the presidential election, the issue proves more generally that students are ever more eager to explore current events and to express their views. This issue strikes to the heart of The Review’s mission: to act as a platform by which students can appreciate the satisfaction of speaking out and can make their opinions heard. The current election comes at a particularly challenging moment in our nation’s history. At contest are issues of immense significance: jobs, regulation, entitlement programs, gun control, and the role of the U.S. in the world, to name a few. The candidates
Daniel Elkind Editor-in-Chief Volume XXII
2
Senior Editor - Features
Treshauxn Dennis-Brown have advanced two fundamentally different visions at a time when political polarization and public discontent with Washington have reached a fever pitch. The choice we face could not be more consequential. Our aim was to present the candidates’ proposals on a broad range of issues and to examine the effects those views would have. The special issue you are now reading is a remarkable fufillment of that goal. The work of our writers and editors perfectly demonstrates the diverse array of views held by our student body. The table of contents is proof enough of the huge number of different policy issues that are weighing on voters’ minds. I am immensly proud of everyone involved in the production of this issue. Each issue of The Review is a collective achievement made possible by the enthusiasm and collaboration of large and dedicated staff. Together, we are proud to share this issue, a model of what we stand for as an organization, with the Horace Mann community. Enjoy the issue. And go vote.
Senior Editor - Domestic
Lizzy Rosenblatt
Senior Editor - International
Nathan Raab
Senior Editor - Economics
Vivianna Lin
Senior Editor - Science and Technology
Maurice Farber Philip Perl Sam Rahmin Senior Contibuter
Will Ellison Catherine Engelmann Ben Greene David Hackel Sam Henick Jennifer Heon Caroline Kuritzkes Isaiah Newman Sahej Suri Jonah Wexler Junior Editors
Daniel Baudoin Hannah Davidoff Mihika Kapoor Mohit Mookim Kelvin Rhee Associate Editors
Jacob Haberman Hana Krijestorac Henry Luo Namit Satara Jacob Zurita Junior Contibutors
Gregory Donadio Faculty Advisor
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.
Domestic Nathan Tillinghast-Raby Timothy Huang Jonah Wexler Will Ellison Gabriel Broshy Adam Resheff Morgan Raum James Megibow Danny Jin
For the Good of the Union 4 Stay in School, Teachers 6 An Armed Society is a Polite Society 8 An Issue We Can Agree on: Guns 10 Two Parties 14 The Roads to Healthcare 16 The True Tale of Unemployment 20 Why Super Pacs are Fair 21 D.R.E.A.M. or Reality 22
Sam Henick Emily Kramer Neil Ahlawat Daniel Rosenblatt Ryota Ikeda Ethan Gelfer Hana Krijestorac
The Foreign Policy Duel 26 Abandoning an Ally 30 Not Just Rocks 32 The Obama Doctrine 35 Obama, Romney, Morsi 38 Russia Will Matter 40 Mending Our Relations with the Arab World 42
Caroline Kuritzkes Lauren Futter Laszlo Herwitz Ikaasa Suri Mihika Kapoor Matthew Harpe Charles Cotton Eric Stein Even Greene Jake Haberman
A Campaign of Lies 44 Disenchantment 46 The Contradicting Campaign 48 A Demographic Race 50 The Incomplete Candidate 52 Presidential vs. Congressional Election 54 Swing States in the Election 56 An Unpopular System 60 Where Has the Youth Vote Gone? 62 No Lies From Romney 60
International
Features
Economics
Harry Seavey Regulate the Private Sector: Pro 66 Jack Golub Regulate the Private Sector: Con 70 Mitchell Troyanovsky The Flat Road Ahead 72 Edmund Bannister Bubble Economics 74
Science and Technology
Jenna Barnacik Empty Rhetoric: Election Year Energy Policy 76 Samuel Fisch Legalize Stem Cells: Now! 78
3
Domestic
For the Good of the Union By Nathan Tillinghast-Raby
T
he political landscape is always full of scapegoats and fall guys – it’s one of those inviolable rules of politics, and it’s not about to change anytime soon. But perhaps no organization has felt the brunt of this sacred law quite so strongly in recent years as the unions. Their membership numbers are at their lowest in decades, and it’s vital that we reverse this trend. Unions were first given teeth by the Clayton Act of 1914, which allowed them to legally strike, boycott and picket peacefully, reaching the apex of their power in the mid 1950s, when 40% of American workers were either part of a union or covered under a union’s contract. Since then, membership has declined precipitously, due mostly to active opposition by the corporate sector and even the government on occasion. As of this article’s printing, union membership in America is around 12%, and Harvard economist Richard Freeman has estimated that this decline explains 20% of the current income gap. But to many people, this seems like an open-and-shut issue, hardly worth thinking about and definitely not important enough to bring to national attention. After all, when you think of unions, the image that springs most readily to mind is of a bygone era with low wages and poor working conditions; a time that necessitated unions to fight for the well being of the average Joe. Surely we’re beyond that by now. Unfortunately this could not be farther from the truth. In the coming decade the jobs of cashiers, home health and personal care aids, retail salespersons, childcare workers, food prep workers, and fast food workers will experience the most growth, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
4
With this in mind, it should come as no surprise that the National Employment Project has found that almost one in three job openings this decade will have a median wage of $20,000, nor that wages are at their lowest share of profits and GDP in over half a century. Wage theft, unpaid overtime and job insecurity are also rampant in today’s workplace. And in 2010, because of weakened regulations, the worst mining accident in over 40 years took place in West Virginia, claiming 29 lives. Despite what
wages to three times the industry average, he did so on the rationale that your employees should be your best customers. When the unions forced corporations to increase the worker’s wage, this principle was applied throughout the United States. But not everyone likes the idea of prosperity being spread around. For the rich, this means less for themselves, and so they are in a constant struggle to disenfranchise and discredit unions by proclaiming that unions do nothing to help the econ-
In a country largely controlled by the upper class, unions provide a voice to those who otherwise could simply be ignored. we’d like to think, our “bygone era” has relapsed. One thing we seem to have forgotten in these past few decades is that companies don’t ever pay more than they have to. It goes against their basic self-interest; since the goal of a corporation is to make money, spending more of it would defeat the purpose. That’s why workers relied on the unions, because the collective bargaining power a union offered was the only way to force a fair wage out of their employer. The glory years of the union therefore led to a greater middle class – more money was spread amongst more people. This would lead to a greater net demand for consumer goods; something that no company, no matter how large, could provide. This insatiable and well-funded demand is what would help fuel the economic prosperity of the midcentury. When Henry Ford increased his The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
omy or the average worker. One recent example of this occurred when Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin passed his anti-union bill, which stripped collective-bargaining rights for public-sector unions. Governor Walker argued that the state government couldn’t afford to pay the wages demanded by the public unions, a half-truth at best and outright manipulation of the facts at worst. It’s true that Wisconsin has a budget problem, but it is less severe than that of other states, and the unions had shown that they were willing to make concessions on wages - even though public-sector workers are already paid less than private workers with the same qualifications. A far more likely reason that the government couldn’t pay their already underpaid workers? 60% of companies earning over $1 million a year in Wisconsin pay no taxes whatsoev-
Domestic
www.huffingtonpost.com
er. The bill also included exemptions for Republican-leaning public sector unions, including the fire and law-enforcement unions, which are largely conservative. So now the question becomes: what’s the real reason for this all-out attack on public unions? The answer, unsurprisingly, is a desire for power, on behalf of both the Republican politicians and the wealthy individuals and companies that finance them. The rich already have a great deal of power in America; they can funnel jaw-dropping sums through Super-PACs, and they can hire themselves an army of lobbyists and finance think-tanks to support their beliefs to the public at large. Unions are one of the few organizations left in America that can check the power of the wealthy. Getting rid of collective bargaining rights for public sector work-
ers in Wisconsin would set a precedent for more anti-union laws. Every organization in the world will have problems and make mistakes. It’s a fact of human nature that we are not perfect, and so the organizations we run will not be perfect either. But this is no reason to get rid of unions altogether. Negotiation between unions, the government and corporations over what the balance of power will undoubtedly be arduous and bitter. It will also be necessary. Unions act as a counter to the all but unstoppable influence that the wealthy exert in American society today. You don’t have to agree with their policies all the time to recognize that unions play a vital role. In a country largely controlled by the upper class, unions provide a voice to those who otherwise could simply be ignored. The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Unions act as a counter to the all but unstoppable influence that the wealthy exert in American society today. You don’t have to agree with their policies all the time to recognize that unions play a vital role.
5
Domestic
Stay in School, Teachers By Timothy Huang
A
s most people may have known, a strike by the Chicago Teachers Union has left approximately 350,000 students wandering the streets of Chicago. Karen Lewis, the president of the Chicago Teacher’s Union, or the CTU, led this strike. According to the Denver Post, Lewis’s reason for this sudden upheaval was that the teachers of Chicago were unhappy with what they have and subsequently must strive for as many benefits that they can potentially receive. Some of these benefits are teacher evaluations, job security, and manageable work hours. The standoff between Karen Lewis and Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago has become heated and neither side was willing to back down until September 18th, the last day where the strike finally came to a close. The strike was deemed to be “non-strikable” by Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, due to the fact that the concerns that the teachers raise are not valid grounds for striking. The Chicago Teachers Union should take the blame for the lapse in the student’s education and next time think about whom they are affecting rather than preoccupying themselves with their own personal gain. Karen Lewis was a chemistry teacher in Chicago before she made her way up the ladder of teacher society to become the reigning president of the Chicago Teacher’s Union. According the Chicago Tribune she is known to have bold and blunt personality, with a brash approach to life as well as debate. Mayor Rahm Emanuel is a veteran politician and the former White House Chief of Staff for President Obama. He was the senior advisor for Bill Clinton, as well, from 1993-1998, revealing his experience and adeptness in the political community.
6
The strike in Chicago extended to a 2nd week on September 16th even though a deal had been proposed to the CTU’s House of Delegates. There was a divide among the delegates, one side voted to accept the deal and resume school as it would benefit the children, while the other half wanted more time to discuss the proposed resolution. There were even some delegates who rejected the proposal and wanted to continue the strike in search of a more favorable deal. Unfortunately the delegates could not see a valid reason to end the strike and decided to continue the strike in search of more benefits, thus disregarding children’s education and further hindering the students’ opportunities to grow and learn in school. A perfectly valid reason to end the strike was for the children’s education; however, it seems the delegates dismissed this and continued to prolong the work stoppage. The CTU teachers are among
teachers. This is the first strike undertaken by the CTU in 25 years, implying that the motives of the strike cannot be sound due to the silence of the union in previous years. The union even asked for laid-off teachers to get first priority on open school jobs in the district. This in itself is unfair for schools as well as non-union teachers. Teachers are laid off for legitimate reasons not contingent to the principal’s whims, so it does not appear fair that now they are getting first priority over other teachers who may be just as good if not better at his or her job. Mayor Emanuel first proposed to the CTU, when he was first elected, that he would give 2% pay raises in return for increasing the length of the school day by 90 minutes. Mayor Emanuel had the STUDENTS’ best interests in mind with this proposal; however the CTU refused perhaps because of the increased school hours, but most likely because they did not have the best interests of the children in mind.
“The Chicago Teachers Union should take the blame for the lapse in the student’s education and next time think about whom they are affecting rather than preoccupying themselves with their own personal gain.” the highest paid compared to other states and are paid an average salary of $76,000 a year according to the Denver Post. No other teacher unions are striking for more pay, more rights, and more benefits, despite the fact that Chicago teachers are already paid more than most others unionized American The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Several aldermen in Chicago have come under fire in the past weeks due to their writing of a letter to the CTU’s president, asking if she could continue negotiating on behalf of the union, but nonetheless end the strike to allow the teachers to return to school. Lewis refused this request and the strike
Domestic
continued. Whose interest do you think Karen Lewis had in mind when she refused? The students’ or her own? Now that the strike is over, the aldermen who signed this letter have come under heavy criticism by middle-class union workers about their support for the end of the strike. One specific alderman by the name of Matt O’Shea fought for what he thought was best for the children by advocating for the end of the strike even though his wife, sister, sister in law, and other family members are either current CTU members or retired ones. He is being criticized both at work and at home. Another alderman by the name of Proco Moreno saw protesters outside his office after he signed the letter addressed to Karen Lewis. This is nothing short of disappointing, the CTU is criticizing these men just for asking if the president of the CTU could end the strike while continuing to negotiate a better contract for teachers.
There is nothing wrong with stating your own opinion, especially if it is beneficial to the students throughout Chicago as well as teachers who would still be negotiating for what they desire. Thanks to the CTU House of Delegates’ voting for the suspension of the strike, 350,000 children can now go back to school. Many of the teachers in the CTU saw the light of reason and tried time and time again to suspend the strike. It took two attempts for the CTU House of Delegates to vote for the suspension of the strike, but at least it happened. The proposal mentioned before was accepted but in the words of Karen Lewis, “The deal was seen as good, though hardly perfect.” According to the New York Times, the President of the CTU is still not content with the benefits won in this strike. All we can do now is wait and see the results of this deal while hoping they will last for years to come.
Karen Lewis, leader of the Chicago Teachers Union, is picutred giving a speech highlighting the requests of the teachers.
www.chicagomag.com
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
7
Domestic
An Armed Society Is a Polite Society “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.� - Anonymous By Jonah Wexler
B
anning assault weapons would diminish the Bill of Rights and open the door to dilute other Constitutional Rights and protections. The Bill of Rights is considered to be fundamental to the Constitution, which probably would not have been ratified without it. Certain rights were considered to be fundamental to individual liberty. The right to bear arms was considered to be such a basic individual right; it was not very controversial during revolutionary times. The Founders recognized that while guns were used for hunting, the purpose of allowing citizens to own guns without restriction was for protection from tyranny. An armed population could protect itself from a despotic government. The Founding Americans learned from centuries of experience that government, or despots, could oppress an unarmed or weak population. The Founders, therefore, wanted the population
8
armed and did not want to see a strong standing military that could oppress the people on behalf of a tyrant. The Founders passed the Bill of Rights anticipating that citizens would own exactly the kind of arms the militia would use. Although there is ample room to discuss the types of weapons that should be legal, assault weapons should be permitted both because it is right and because the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to own assault weapons. The Second Amendment also provides for the ability of an individual to protect him/herself when the government cannot. Many people keep guns in their houses for self-defense. Many people who maintain cash businesses keep guns to protect their property and their lives. The idea that arms are owned for self-protection is as important as their prevention from a tyrannical government. Criminals can purchase a wide variety of weap-
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
ons on the black market. Since criminals are able to buy assault weapons, they should be available for law-abiding citizens to provide for personal protection. John R. Lott, an academic who studied the effects of permitting citizens to carry a concealed weapon, found that states with liberal gun laws suffered less crime than those with strict gun laws. While his findings have been challenged, many experts agree that gun ownership does not increase violent crime. The Second Amendment is not limited by technology. It is clear that the Constitution was ratified when guns included pistols, shotguns and rifles. That those guns are protected under the Second Amendment should not be an issue. The Founders and courts held that weapons which would create fright on the part of the population are not acceptable. Weapons that should not be lawful to own
Domestic
include nuclear weapons, tanks, and missiles. Do assault weapons lie closer to weapons that should be clearly not lawful rather than those that are clearly protected by the Constitution? Assault weapons are automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Semiautomatic weapons are used for hunting and for shot gunning as a sport. Automatic weapons are more controversial as they can deliver bullets quickly by depressing the trigger and holding it. It is easy to convert a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic. Laws would not keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals. Assault weapons take magazines for their bullets and have folding stocks, which are not typically found on sporting guns. However, pistols have magazines as well as certain shotguns and rifles. Assault weapons have pistol grips which allow guns to be fired with one hand, flash suppressors, legs (bipods) for stability, can take bayonets and can be fit-
ted with night sights. Many of the features that define an assault weapon are cosmetic. Is having flash suppression sufficient to say that a weapon should be illegal when it would otherwise be legal? A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right. When the First Amendment was ratified, the Internet and television did not exist. The First Amendment right to free speech was not limited to the technology or type of speech that existed when the Bill of Rights was ratified. So too should the Second Amendment apply to any and all weapons used by a typical soldier and able to be found by a criminal. The citizen should not be penalized because technology progressed. Citizens should be permitted to own any weapon the soldier may have and certainly the criminal may use. For protection against tyranny and for self-protection, all forms of guns, including assault weapons, should be legal.
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Assault weapons should be permitted both because it is right and because the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to own assault weapons.
www.debate.org
9
Domestic
An Issue We Can Agree On: GUNS
F
ollowing the horrific massacre in Aurora, Colorado this summer, many Americans nationwide, as well as political leaders such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, challenged President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney to specify what they intend to do about gun violence. “Soothing words are nice,” said the mayor (an independent and a gun control advocate). “But maybe it’s time the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they’re going to do about
10
By Will Ellison it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.” Although gun control laws are controversial, our President should provide the necessary leadership so that Congress passes the legislation essential for public safety. Compared to other significant issues facing our nation, such as severe economic difficulties and critical foreign policy predicaments, gun violence is a simple problem with a straightforward solution. We need federal legislation that allows for gun ownership pursuant to the Second Amendment, but controls The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
the sale and use of guns to save and protect American lives and reduce crime. Congress must renew the suspended federal ban on lethal assault weapons (military, combat-style semi-automatic firearms and high capacity ammunition clips), and require background checks on all gun sales since an estimated 40% of legally purchased guns (bought online, in gun shows, and from private owners) do not involve a background check. Americans should demand that an effort be made to increase our safety and peace of mind by reducing random, malicious and trag-
Domestic
ic gun violence. There have been more than 61 mass shootings since the January 2011 massacre in Tucson, Arizona where Representative Gabrielle Giffords was severely wounded. In one year on average, almost 100,000 Americans are wounded or killed with a gun. Over a million Americans have been killed since 1968, when Martin Luther King Jr. and President John F. Kennedy were assassinated. During the term of the next President, if nothing is done, approximately 48,000 Americans will be murdered with guns. (According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; former White House Press Secretary James Brady was seriously wounded in the 1981 attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan.) Keeping a gun in your house increases the risk of homicide by a factor of 3 and increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 5. A gun in the home
is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide, criminal assault or homicide, or unintentional shooting death or injury than to be used in a self-defense shooting. There are only about 200 legally justified self-defense homicides by private citizens compared to over 30,000 gun-related deaths. Gun violence harms American society in other ways than death: there are medical bills, the expenses of the criminal justice system, security devices and the decreasing of the quality of American life due to fear of gun violence. These collectively cost the United States $100 billion annually. In one year, guns murdered 17 people in Finland, 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 60 in Spain, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada and 9,484 in the United States. Even considering relative populations of these countries, these numbers, due to insufficient gun control, are stunning.
The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher than the rates of 22 other high-income countries combined. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occur in the United States. Most other industrialized nations recognize the necessity of gun control laws since easy, unrestricted access to guns lead to unimaginable violence and death. Washington, D.C. is currently suspended in an unofficial stalemate on the issue of gun control due to the power of the National Rifle Association (NRA), the influence of numerous gun-friendly red-state Democrats, and polls. According to the Brady Campaign, 87% of Americans support background checks on all gun sales to prevent gun violence. However other polls, such as that conducted by the Pew Research Center in April, show that 72% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats want to safeguard gun
“There have been more than 61 mass shootings since the January 2011 massacre in Tucson, Arizona where Representative Gabrielle Giffords was severely wounded. In one year on average, almost 100,000 Americans are wounded or killed with a gun.�
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
11
Domestic ownership, and 55% of independents believe that it is more important to protect gun ownership than to control guns. Consequently, both President Obama and Governor Romney are hesitant to discuss this highly controversial topic but expressed their views after the Aurora massacre. President Obama, speaking to the National Urban League stated: “I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation – that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47’s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals – that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe that the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They
12
should be common sense.” Despite this statement, President Obama’s promise for several years to reinstitute a federal ban on assault weapons hasn’t yielded results. Governor Romney, in an interview with NBC, stated: “Well, this person shouldn’t have had any kinds of weapons and bombs and other devices, and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won’t. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what’s essential, to improve the lots of the American people.” However, so far there isn’t proof that the Aurora shooter attained the weapons he had illegally, and changing the hearts of the American people is not going to be an easy task. Although Romney has actually been more active than Obama on gun control, unfortunately, he has drifted away from his previous positions. When running for the Senate in 1994, Romney supported background checks and a prohibition on certain assault weapons. In 2004, Governor Romney signed an assault weapons ban into law in Massachusetts and raised the state’s gun-regis-
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
tration fee. In 2006, Romney joined the NRA before running for president. In 2007, he commented, “I support Second Amendment rights, but I don’t line up 100 percent with the NRA. They take some positions that are different than mine.” Confusingly, Romney later said to conservative bloggers, “I don’t support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose. There’s no new legislation that I’m aware of or have heard of that I would support.” Romney has recently added, “We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners.” Hopefully Romney will clarify these contradictions and stand up for what’s right and not what some people want to hear to vote for him. Whoever is elected in November needs to take action and urge Congress to pass an assault weapons ban and background checks as soon as possible. Under the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, there was a 66% reduction in the use of assault weapons in crime (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). While gun laws can be federal, state
Domestic or local, the nation needs uniformity in its gun control laws since states with strong gun laws are undermined by surrounding states with weaker gun laws. States with the strongest gun laws - Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York - have among the lowest gun death rates, while states with the weakest gun laws – Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi – have among the highest. Gun rights advocates, most notably the NRA, maintain that guns enable citizens to defend themselves and exercise a constitutional right as fundamental as freedom of speech
izens and there is no need for militias. We have the police, the Army and the National Guard. Even though average citizens owning guns could in theory decrease crime and violence, that theory is dubious. Additional guns in circulation will inevitably end up in the hands of the wrong people, even if the firearms are intended for the just cause of self-defense. And even if criminals don’t attain these weapons, giving people weapons to defend themselves is not a good idea. There are the police for crime-prevention, and it’s doubtful most citizens would come out victorious and unscathed in a shootout
be slow-to-reload hunting rifles and perhaps pistols, but not assault rifles, submachine guns, automatic pistols, sniper rifles or shotguns. There is no practical reason to need to such weapons when hunting, and if you are a gun collector or competitive shooter, although you may wish to have these guns, the guns are too unsafe and too lethal to be permitted for legal use. Additionally, it is important to point out that in mass-shooting situations, assault weapons are much more deadly than slow-to-reload pistols and shotguns. Assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips allow
“States with the strongest gun laws - Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York - have among the lowest gun death rates, while states with the weakest gun laws – Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi – have among the highest.” or freedom of religion. Guns control legislation need not violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. In 2008 and 2010, two 5-4 Supreme Court decisions established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a gun unconnected with militia service, and to use the gun for lawful purposes such as self-defense. But these cases did not establish an individual’s right to own all types of weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled that guns should be permitted for self-defense purposes: but, this is problematic. The language of the Second Amendment refers to a different era in which men were expected to own weapons for reasons of livelihood and self-defense. Men also participated in militias, which required them to own weapons. In the 1600s and 1700s, vagabonds roamed the countryside, Native American raiding parties and French soldiers patrolled the frontier, and French and Dutch ships wandered close to the coast. But today, conditions are not perilous for everyday cit-
against a criminal. Nonetheless, there is no reason to have an assault rifle, submachine gun, shotgun or any other heavier weapon other than a pistol when it comes to self-defense because they are not more useful. Also, gun rights advocates promote their right to use guns for hunting, collecting and competitive shooting. They say hunting with guns is a meaningful tradition experienced with friends and family and an activity which enables one to enjoy nature; they say that guns inspire gun collectors by connecting them to inventors, craftsmen, warriors and pioneers who have long since died; they say that guns allow competitive shooters to experience self-mastery and pleasure. These arguments indicate that guns will not be banned wholesale from our country in the foreseeable future: the Second Amendment will not be overturned anytime soon. The only practical reason for the owning of guns today should be for hunting, collecting and competitive shooting. However, the guns that should be allowed for these purposes should only The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
one to shoot for much longer without exposing oneself to the momentary vulnerability of reloading. So even if someone were evil or insane enough to try to commit a mass shooting, he or she would be limited to hunting rifles and pistols with smaller magazines, giving any people resisting the shooter more opportunities to attack him or flee while he is reloading. It is critical to note that criminals will always be able to get assault weapons, the weapons of choice for mass murderers and gang members, on the illegal market. But why not make it more difficult to get such weapons by preventing them from being legally purchased? There is no reason whatsoever for private ownership of assault weapons in this country and saying that it’s a natural right for someone to legally own any gun he or she wants just isn’t logical. Whoever is elected president in November must provide the leadership to take the necessary steps towards reducing gun violence so that we can live in a safer and better nation.
13
Domestic
What's Wrong With This Picture? Two Parties
By Gabriel Broshy
W
hen people discuss the United States government, they often describe it as a government of the people. It is the people who decide who is elected and in turn what decisions are made at the local, state, and national levels. Every adult citizen has the right to vote and make his or her voice heard, so surely it must be a government of the people. But due to the current American election system, I would like to argue that this is not an accurate claim. The foundation of the country’s election system prevents exactly what and who the American people want to represent them in government from taking office. For the entirety of American history, groups with similar political views have formed in order to strengthen each other and nominate a candidate that embodies their beliefs. Politicians make their opinions known and clear by declaring which group they belong to. Of course, these groups are called political parties. Yet, despite the hundreds of years
of our nation’s history, we have always had two parties with significant power and popularity at any given time. This dates back to the forming of the United States, when two main parties emerged: The Federalist Party, and the Democratic-Republican Party. Since then, there have always been two main political parties battling it out, whether it was the Federalists and Democratic Republicans, National Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats, Whigs and Democrats, or Republicans and Democrats. Two main political parties have always dominated American politics at any given time. Major parties have remained extremely dominant throughout the 223 years since Federalist George Washington won the first presidential election in 1789. 56 presidential elections have occurred in the country, and yet only once has a candidate not from one of the two main parties finished ahead of a candidate of a main party. This exception occurred in 1912 when Theo-
dore Roosevelt, who had already been President as a Republican, finished second as a Progressive candidate ahead of incumbent Republican William Howard Taft. And not once has the nation had a president not from one of the major parties. As the election approaches, many may be wondering, how does this apply? There seems to be no evidence showing that the dominance of the two main political parties will not continue, at least for now. The percentage of voters defecting two minor parties has decreased every election from 1992 with the exception of the period from 2004 to 2008, when a miniscule increase of 1% to 1.53% occurred. That number will likely increase, as a recent poll in July found that the minor party vote was expected to be around the 1-7% range. According to another recent poll, 39% of Americans considered themselves independents, a higher percentage than those committed to either major party. Yet the Repub-
"Despite the hundreds of years of our nation's history, we have always had two parties with significant power and popularity at any given time." 14
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Domestic licans and Democrats get nearly every vote because of their overarching power that prevents a candidate from any other party from having a legitimate chance of winning the election. Now, why is the control and grasp of the main parties and the lack of power thereof of all others parties a pivotal issue? American voters, those whose decisions decide the fate of our country and who in turn have a large impact on the world, essentially have two options when voting and making those monumental decisions. Though these minor parties do get some votes, as evidenced by voting results and the 2004-2008 increase, they have not been a truly legitimate threat to win the Presidency since Theodore Roosevelt attempted to become the only minor party candidate to be elected President. This results from the immense power for the major parties, as they have more leeway to do as they wish and still receive votes because they really have only each other as noteworthy competitors. Though the Democrats and Republicans do obviously have boundaries in what they say and do because they need to prevent their supporters from absconding to the other major party, they can make more decisions in their own interests rather than what American citizens want because people will still vote for them since they only have one alternate option with a possible impact on the outcome of the election. Since this alternate option is so different and has such divergent views on most issues, most of the supporters of one of these two parties will maintain their support anyway. Another issue with having two main parties that are the only legitimate
options to win the election is that only two sets of views and beliefs are being expressed throughout the entire government, from the national to state to local government. Not only this, but in each branch of government, from Executive to Legislative to Judicial, only two groups of ideas are presented. Other ideas cannot be introduced because essentially every politician must endorse one of these parties and then make decisions to appease that party. The 39% of Americans who are independent do not get their views represented. Consider a circumstance in which only two phones were produced that could call other phones. The companies behind these devices could obviously charge more in a duopoly, but they could also have more independence to do as they pleased because there was only one alternate option. This means that the wide variety of views, ideas, and opinions of the American people that do not fall into the Democratic or Republican nets are not accurately represented. Major minor political parties with little political power include the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and the Green Party. The Libertarian Party supports smaller government and little to no market regulation, two conservative ideas. Meanwhile, they have liberal human rights platforms that include the legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriage. This fusion of conservative economic principles and liberal domestic ideas is distinct and cannot be found in either the Republican or Democratic Party. The Constitution Party is a very right-wing minor party with a heavy focus on the power of the church and immigration. It is unique because it
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
“Another issue with having two main parties that are the only legitimate options to win the election is that only two sets of views and beliefs are being expressed throughout the entire government.” is much more conservative than the major conservative party, the Republican Party, is. The Green Party concentrates mainly, of course, on environmental issues. Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has such specific focus on environmental issues. Due to the control of the two major parties, all the distinct ideas of these parties and the many more of the American people are not represented. It is clear that many people endorse minor parties because of the fact that 39% of Americans consider themselves Independent. As the 2012 election looms and blows are fired about Barack Obama’s decisions the last four years, Romney’s business background, and other issues, an informed voter must know that only President Obama and Governor Romney, out of everyone in the United States, have a legitimate chance of becoming the most powerful person in the world. This is the lack of choice American voters have with such an unjust and bizarre election system in place today.
15
Domestic
The Roads to Healthcare: The Two Paths Obama and Romney Have Laid Out for Healthcare By Adam Resheff
A
s the presidential election gets closer, certain issues are becoming magnified along the campaign trail as the candidates try to distinguish themselves and present their platforms. With 46 million Americans uninsured, healthcare has become an issue that impacts many potential voters, thus drawing hoards of attention to the issue. Both President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney have laid out plans to curb the high number of uninsured people in the United States of America. Their plans rest on two fundamentally different ways for the government to approach healthcare. President Obama wants the government to have a hand in lowering the cost of insurance and ensuring that as many people as possible in the US have and can afford health care. In 2010, President Obama put in place the Affordable Care Act, with the goal of lowering the cost of private insurance and expanding Medicaid. It gave 30 million people access to private insurance that previously couldn’t afford private
16
insurance or didn’t qualify for Medicaid. The Affordable Care Act, known by some as “Obamacare,” requires everyone to buy insurance or face a tax, thus increasing the pool of capital for the insurance companies to draw from and driving down premium costs. The bill also includes provisions that extend the age that a child can stay on his or her parents’ plan to 26, prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to someone with a preexisting condition, and prohibit insurance companies from putting in place lifetime caps on care a patient can receive. Governor Romney’s position is that the private sector can do the best job of providing healthcare, while the government plays a minimal role. Governor Romney has suggested a plan with a basis similar to that of President Obama’s plan. His plan gives people more access to care, while approaching it from a different standpoint. Governor Romney has stated that on his first day of office, he would give waivers to states to opt out of the Obamacare provisions and actively work to appeal Obamacare.
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Governor Romney has said that he likes some aspects of the bill and plans on keeping them; these portions include measures to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Romney’s method of approaching healthcare is about limiting the federal government’s role and giving more power to the states in managing health care. Governor Romney has said he would allow people to purchase insurance across state lines to lower the costs. Further, he has articulated that he would cap Medicaid spending and give block grants to states, turning Medicare into a voucher system, in which the elderly would gets fixed amounts of money for care that they could use for either private or government insurance, creating competition and lowering the costs of both types of insurance. Essentially, these two candidates’ views on healthcare come down to the role of government in this industry. President Obama believes that the government should have a large presence in ensuring that everyone can af-
Domestic ford the medical treatments they need. On the other hand, Governor Romney believes that less government intervention and more innovation at the state level will make medical treatment and insurance accessible to everyone. When closely examining both plans these candidates have laid out, it is Obama’s plan the increasingly looks favorable compared to Romney’s. In looking at Obamacare, we can al-
nies and drug manufacturers and has used that money to subsidize the cost of prescription drugs for those on Medicare. This has given Medicare patients average savings of $641 on prescriptions. Further, it has provided Medicare patients with free access to preventative care, such as check-ups and mammograms, according to NYT. Meanwhile, Romney’s plan of competition with some basic provisions
chase of insurance, fails on two points. The first is that the current health care system in America runs on private companies competing with each other already; this system has left 46 million Americans uninsured. The second is that his interstate-insurance policy to expand markets and lower costs would result in people looking for the markets with the cheapest insurance available that include the fewest benefits. This
“Essentially, these two candidates' views on healthcare come down to the role of government in this industry. President Obama believes that the government should have a large presence in ensuring that everyone can afford the medical treatments they need. On the other hand, Governor Romney believes that less government intervention and more innovation at the state level will make medical treatment and insurance accessible to everyone.” ready see that its implementation has had a positive effect on certain demographics. According to The New York Times (NYT), the number of young of adults that do not have insurance has decreased 6% from 33.9% in 2010 to 27.9% in 2011, giving 1.6 million young adults access to insurance who wouldn’t have been able to stay on their parents’ plan prior to the law. Two independent groups (one liberal and one conservative) both confirmed that the drop in uninsured young adults was a result of Obamacare. Additionally, several of Obama’s policies have helped Medicare patients who are senior citizens. Obama has cut upwards of $700 billion from Medicare that previously went to reimbursements for insurance compa-
founders on several fronts. Governor Romney has, like President Obama, pronounced that he would prevent insurers from denying people coverage with pre-existing conditions. But after this statement was delivered, a Romney aid made clear that this provision would only extend to people who have maintained their coverage with no significant lapses. This would drastically decrease the number of previously uninsured people, as according to a report from the Commonwealth fund, 89 millions Americans went uninsured for at least a month from 2004 to 2007. What is more, Romney’s idea of fostering competition among insurance companies to lower costs, exemplified by his policy to allow inter-state pur-
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
would result in more out-of-pocket costs for those people in the case of a sickness or an accident, and it would lead health insurance companies to attract younger, healthier people. In turn, this would, leave the older and sicker people with skyrocketing premiums prices. Furthermore, Romney’s plan would put people’s ability to pay for their medical expenses at risk. Romney wants to put in block grants to limit Medicaid spending, meaning states would receive the amount they received the year before plus a 1% increase for inflation each year. People using Medicaid would be given fixed amount payments, as the state would be responsible for the distribution of the payments. This is opposed to the current system of the federal government matching the amount states need to spend for care. The problem is that people might not receive the payments they need to match the payments for the care they require, something that will be especially problematic for seniors. According to NYT, seniors make 25% of Medicaid patients but use 2/3 of what the program spends. Putting in a block grant would almost definitely mean that senior patients would be unable to pay for the full cost of their treatments, even though seniors typi-
17
Domestic cally incur some of the highest medical costs in the program. Additional parts of Obamacare that would be eliminated with Romney’s bill are the payments to provide patients with preventative care and the measures allowing kids to stay on their parents’ plans. This would put patients at risk for future ailments and costly procedures and prevent younger people from accessing insurance. Wedged in a position that further puts seniors at risk of losing necessary coverage, Romney says he will end the $716 billion Medicare spending cut from Obamacare, removing the subsidy that lowers the cost of seniors’ prescriptions and reduces the life-span of Medicare by 8 years. A report from the American Institutes for Research found that taking away this Medicare spending cut would raise Medicare premiums and co-payments an average of $342 over the next ten years. Now, even though Romney’s plan comes with a slew of problems, that doesn’t make Obamacare a perfect system. One of the critiques of Obamacare is its impact on small businesses. Obamacare’s employer mandate requires companies with 50 or more employees to provide insurance or face a $2,000 fine per person. This mandate has frightened many business owners and made them wonder whether or not they will have the funds to be able to cover all their employees when the
18
mandate takes effect in 2014. According to the Washington Post, 10% of businesses plan on dropping their coverage and another 10% said they were not certain about whether or not they would be able to keep their coverage. An additional 1/3 of the surveyed businesses articulated that if they had to include more benefits in their plans or pay a tax on high-cost insurance plans, they would drop their insurance. Some said that they would even drop the insurance if the cost of the fine were cheaper than the cost to cover their employees. This effect threatens the expansion of health care and could harm the economy, as employers might not be able to afford to cover all their employees, instead opting to pay the fine and leaving their workers uninsured. They could choose to limit the number of employees they hire or keep in their companies, killing jobs and hurting our economy as well. Supporters, nonetheless, question the negative impact of this employer mandate, as 81% employers don’t plan on dropping their healthcare, and according to Time Magazine, numerous employers have found that it has become easier than they thought to cover their employees under Obamacare. Further critiques of Obamacare aim at the rising government spending and its constitutionality. According to Forbes, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates Obamacare will
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
cost $1.8 trillion over the next decade, and the US will incur $9.7 trillion in tax increases during that same time period. Although this statistic seems menacing, the costs will not weigh heavily on taxpayers, as even with the $1.8 trillion spending increase, the CBO estimates that Obamacare will reduce the deficit $109 by 2022, and the $9.7 trillion in taxes will not have an impact on most taxpayers This is because the revenue increases come from people and employers who do not purchase insurance, insurance companies, drug manufacturers, medical equipment manufacturers, and luxury insurance plans, or plans that cost more than $10,000 a year for an individual or $27,000 for a family. At no point do the taxes of Americans who already have insurance increase unless they pay premiums far higher than most Americans can afford, and any American who then purchases insurance will avoid these costs. In terms of the constitutionality of the law, many on the right have argued that Obamacare exceeds the authority of the federal government, claiming that Obamacare forces people to buy private insurance with the penalty for not complying with the law. They say that this violates their individual rights and argue that Obamacare violates state rights, as it forces states to comply with Medicaid expansion. However, this argument is flawed. The federal government has the right to require people to buy private insurance with the incentive of a monetary penalty for non-compliance. The Supreme Court ruled this past summer that Congress has the right to tax whomever they deem they need to, and the non-compliance penalty would fall under the category of a tax. Opponents responded to this by saying that Obama and Congress had misrepresented what Obamacare was, insisting that it wasn’t a tax. Chief Justice Roberts, though, made the point that it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to rectify the consequences brought upon by the representatives that the people elect. Rather, Roberts contended that it’s the people’s responsibility to put into pow-
Domestic
er others who agree with their views. In terms of the Medicaid compliance, the Supreme Court ruled against the states’ being required to expand Medicaid and they can now opt out of it if too drastically hurts their budget. After we have examined both candidates’ positions, weighing what they have presented becomes the crucial factor in determining whose path for healthcare benefits the US the most. In the end, Romney can claim that Obamacare is a government takeover of the insurance industry and that it will kill jobs. Even if Obama conceded that point, President Obama can still make the point that his plan will give 30 million Americans the opportunity to have health insurance who didn’t have it before. He can also argue that regardless of however many people may or may not lose insurance from their employers, Obamacare will still cause a vast net
We see a net benefit for the elderly and for the younger generation of healthcare recipients under Obamacare, which will give younger people more insurance and decrease medical costs for the elderly.
gain in people’s owning health insurance. When comparing the two candidates’ positions, we see a net benefit for the elderly and for the younger generation of healthcare recipients under Obamacare, as Obamacare will give younger people more insurance and decrease medical costs for the elderly. On the other hand, Romney’s plans will hinder younger people’s ability to access health insurance and will drive up the costs of health care for seniors and the out-of-pocket costs for lower income households on Medicaid. And when we look at the last real opposition to Obamacare, jobs, we must ask ourselves why we want more people having health insurance. As President Obama stated during the first presidential debate this year, a single accident or illness can put a family into financial ruin. Even more, when we look past the burden on families and to the cost of actual lives, we find that according to CNN, a report from Family USA found that 26,000 people died last year in the US because they did not have health insurance. This lack of healthcare prevented them from getting the care that would have possibly saved their lives. So when we compare jobs to more health care, there emerges an obvious choice – a few more jobs or a lot more lives. If we want to look for evidence regarding whether or not President The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Obama will implement his plan effectively, ironically enough, a good place to look would be Massachusetts. Governor Romney, former governor of that state, implemented a health care system in the state that became the model for Obamacare. He put in a private insurance mandate that included nearly all provisions that Obamacare currently does. In rebuttal, Governor Romney has repeatedly said that his health care system was intended for the state, not for the nation (despite his telling Fox News in 2006 that an insurance mandate, an integral facet of Obamacare, would be great for the nation). Even if Romney (currently) disagrees that the state can’t be looked at to give a sense of how well a healthcare mandate would work on a national level, conventional wisdom would suggest that Massachusetts could be a harbinger for Obamacare’s success. Massachusetts is currently the state with the highest percent of residents with health insurance at 99%, up from 90% from before the healthcare reforms, according to Forbes. And Massachusetts has decreased its population of uninsured among low-income people from 24% to 8 %. Additionally, the number of employers offering health insurance rose from 70% prior to the law to 77% after the law’s passage. This suggests that Obama’s position on health care could have a better impact on our nation, while cold hard statistics show that Romney’s way will only lead us to more problems.
19
Domestic
THE TRUE TALE OF UNEMPLOYMENT
U
nemployment is one of the most serious issues the United States currently faces. The economy is stagnant and any major improvement seems to be potentially far off. With the 2012 presidential election around the corner, the problem of unemployment is often raised. Current President Barack Obama and former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney have entirely different perspectives on how to address this distressing subject. As Obama's website states, "[He] is fighting to grow the economy from the middle class out, not the top down." He is looking to create government jobs that will employ hundreds of thousands of Americans, and he also plans to eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Romney's website has a different approach to lower unemployment: a 5-point plan to create roughly 12 million jobs by reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs, by increasing trade (opening new markets), by producing energy, by utilizing human capital, and by imposing labor flexibility. He also plans to “[confront] nations xsuch as China that cheat on trade and steal American jobs.� Meanwhile, Democrats and what many feel to be the left-leaning mainstream media falsely depict unemployment as better than it actually is. But, in reality, it goes much deeper than the standing number - most Americans do not follow how exactly the US Department of Labor arrives at the final figure it releases each month. Thus, they do not follow government statistics religiously and are unaware of its actual current state. So, in the end, the true picture of
20
By Morgan Raum unemployment far exceeds the figure the government distributes each month, which is currently at 7.8% as of September 2012. The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. Anyone over the age of 16 who is not in school and who is not retired is considered part of the labor force. Those excluded include individuals under 16 years old, those in institutions (nursing homes, prisons, etc), as well as those on active duty in the Armed Forces. Under false pretense, Americans believe that the only people excluded from the work force are those aforementioned. In reality, the simple unemployment number is not indicative of the true economic picture. There are citizens in the government-measured work force not accounted for in the rankings: the partially employed, the underemployed, the discouraged, and students who are still in school only because they cannot find jobs. Part-time workers are those who desire a 40-hour workweek; however, they can only find a job offering fewer hours. Discouraged workers have simply given up their job search. These partially-employed and disenchanted workers are not considered in the unemployed statistic because their services are of use and they are earning a salary, or because their frustration due to an unsuccessful job search, have forced them to quit looking. The underemployed are working individuals overqualified for the job they currently hold. Bu unfortunately, they are unable to achieve their full capacity as a result limited available opportunities. Furthermore, those who remain in the formal education system longer than necessary crave real life job
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
experience. They are also among the many groups not considered for the unemployment figure. It is outrageous that these four categories are not viewed when calculating the percentage of jobless Americans. A statistic that should be more heavily examined in order to discern the number of jobless Americans is the workforce participation rate: the percentage of eligible individuals that do not have a job. For the last decade it has spiraled down and does not seem to be improving; and, with the amount of people participating in the job search dropping, the unemployment number in turn drops as they go hand in hand. As of August 2012 the unemployment rate was 8.1%. But, on October 5, 2012, the September numbers were released and stated that the current rate is now at 7.8%; much of this drop in the unemployment rate can be attributed to an increase in part-time jobs. This could be the result of the underemployed workers or students on government loans taking any job they can attain even though they would like longer hours or even a job in an entirely different field of work. An overwhelming percentage of the media is liberal; in fact, CBS news reported that in 2009, the national press was found to be 34% liberal and only 7% conservative, and this bias portrays unemployment as healthier than it truly is. If all of the underemployed, partially employed, and discouraged workers were accounted for in this number, it could very possibly be around 20%. Thus, unemployment is significantly more layered and intricate than the simple figure that the government announces monthly.
Domestic
WHY SUPER PACS ARE FAIR By James Megibow
T
he Citizens United v Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling upheld the vital rights of freedom of speech and freedom to own wealth. This ruling has had a significant effect on this year’s campaign funding for the candidates, as Governor Romney has managed to acquire vastly more funding than President Obama has via Super-Pac spending. Some, including Jane Mayer in her New Yorker article, “Schmooze or Lose,” incorrectly state that this ruling has created a “plutocracy” that favors the rich and Republicans. The Citizens United ruling upheld the inherent rights of the people of The United States of America and allowed for the dissemination of political opinion. The ruling has no significant negative effect on this election, or on the democratic system as a whole. The American people have the intrinsic right to own wealth and property. This is an inherent right of man as expressed by John Locke. Additionally, the US government does not have the ability to “abridge the freedom of speech or of the press” as per the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Americans can express their political opinions and spend their own money. So, why should they not be able to call upon both vital rights and disburse funds to organizations that will allow their political opinions to be heard? Campaign spending is exactly this. Americans donate wealth to political organizations or Super-Pacs that they feel will embody, express, and represent their own political beliefs. However, Warren Buffet said that he does not “want to see democracy go in that direction,” and President Obama elucidated that he could not think of anything “more devastating to the public interest.” These opinions illustrate the belief that many share that the American people are somehow corrupting elections by express-
ing their political views and rights guaranteed by the constitution. To be opposed to the Citizens United ruling one conveys the belief that Americans are not entitled to the aforementioned freedoms of political opinion and monetary spending. The rights of the people are of the utmost importance and to oppose the ruling by questioning the free speech and property of US citizens is simply unconstitutional. Those who oppose the ruling, such as Bill Burton, make fallacious claims that “big business… can purchase the White House,” but this is most certainly not the case. Statements like this are based upon the notion that candidates who raise more capital tend to win the election. However, this is a misattribution of causation and correlation. Robert Shrum, a senior fellow at New York University’s School of Public Service, states, “There is certainly no linear relationship between amount of money and degree of success.” Candidates who raise more capital tend to win elections not because they have more capital but because they have more supporters willing to donate. Stephen Dubner, author of Freakonomics, states, “Winning an election and raising money do go together. But it doesn't seem as though money actually causes the winning. It's just that the kind of candidate who's attractive to voters also ends up, along the way, attracting a lot of money. And the losing candidate, nobody wants to give money to that guy.” There exists a minimum threshold for funding required to run a successful campaign with adequate public awareness and persuasive commercials (further advertisements provide “no beneficial effects”), but all major candidates have always achieved, with or without Super-Pacs, this minimum. The unnecessary additional funding supplied by Americans’ expression of political opin-
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
ion through Super-pac spending provides “statistically no significant effect” according to Bradley Smith. Some, such as Jane Mayer, even inaccurately contend that Republicans have a Super-Pac funding advantage because conservatives serve “the well-funded.” She writes, “It is an article of faith among some Democrats that liberals give money to politicians for altruistic reasons, whereas Republicans make campaign contributions as self-serving investments, in order to protect future profits.” However, there exists no factual evidence indicating that Republicans are “well-funded” compared to Democrats or that they attempt to voice their opinions in order to safeguard profits. In fact, the top 2% of the population in terms of annual income has a heavy Democratic majority. Democrats even have a slightly higher mean income than Republicans do. Clearly, Republicans as a whole are no richer than Democrats, and therefore Republican candidates certainly do not “serve” the wealthy. Simply because during this election a Republican is receiving more donations than Obama does not indicate a problem within the law; rather, it denotes that the Republican candidate may have the charisma necessary to raise additional funding. The ruling on Citizens United does not have an inherent party bias. The ruling on Citizens United has not created a “plutocracy” or harmed the democratic system in any way. All Americans are entitled to the freedom to express their political views. To limit campaign-spending amounts is to limit the freedom of speech and opinion for Americans without reason. The Supreme Court made the right decision to uphold the First Amendment and the rights of American citizens by ruling in favor of Citizens United.
21
Domestic 4.bp.blogspot.com
D.R.E.A.M. or Reality? By Danny Jin
I
n Barack Obama’s own words, his “biggest failure so far is that we haven’t gotten comprehensive immigration reform done”. With more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country today, immigration reform is an issue that requires more focus than it is currently given, and putting a halt to illegal immigration is destined to be a challenge. While I doubt that either candidate has found a permanent solution to the problem, Romney’s idea of builder a high-tech fence along the entire United States-Mexico border would be detrimental to the country. That being said, Obama’s policy is not without flaws either, and it is not any better than the Romney plan – the Obama administration’s DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act allows a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have every right to be American citi-
22
zens, but it would only encourage more illegal trespassing into the country. Right now, entering our country is not a tough task – the security on the border is far from satisfactory, and allows easy access to America illegally when 4.5 million are waiting to get into the country legally. Obama claims that the border fence is “now basically complete”, which is hardly true. Only 36 of the 649 miles of fencing are made of the sturdy double-layer type that Congress requested. Furthermore, only 44% of the 2,000 mile-long border is under adequate control and only 15% is fully controlled, according to a GAO report in February. However, the idea of building a fence along the border probably was not the brightest idea in the first place; Texas Governor Rick Perry has stated that building a fence along the entire US – Mexico border would take “10 to 15 years and $30 billion”. This does not The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
even take into account the fact that the fence would also require billions just to maintain it for a few years. The damage caused by trespassers attempting to get past it would require fixing. Obama is well aware of the hefty price tag – in January 2011, he terminated a Bush administration project that was supposed to bring high-tech sensors and cameras to the border. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman claims that the “program… spent far too much of the taxpayers’ money for the results it delivered”. While Obama made a good decision in ending Bush’s project, he himself still needs to do something. Many people are becoming impatient with the lack of active enforcement from the government, as shown in Arizona’s 2010 immigration law. In the end, the nation as a while will have to come together to resolve immigration issues at the federal level.
Domestic Obama is against the idea of building a border fence and would instead opt to save taxpayer money spent on border security. The DREAM Act would allow as many as 1.7 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children a path to earn temporary work permits as long as they meet some requirements. After DREAM failed several times in Congress, Obama decided to take the matter into his own hands, announcing on June 15 that his administration would stop deporting young undocumented immigrants who meet some criteria of the DREAM Act, drawing criticism from many congressmen. The congressmen were chosen to represent their states and districts. They represent the people from their respective districts, and Obama should not be able to act on his own and completely ignore the say of the representatives of the people. The act itself only contributes to the immigration problem in the United States. “It makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents
and purposes, Americans,” Obama reasoned. While he is being rational, these
“Though Obama may be right that illegal immigrants who crossed the border when they were young may be just as American as we are, the DREAM act will never be able to work.” young illegals broke the law, and laws exist for a reason. The DREAM Act fails to punish crime and it will encourage even more illegal immigration. Based on estimates by the CIS (Center for Immigration Studies), the DREAM Act would cost about $6.2 billion of taxpayer money each year. Spending $6.2 billion a year just to reward people for
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
breaking the law is ludicrous. While Obama’s policy will not even temporarily solve the illegal immigration problem in our country, his support of the DREAM Act has made him popular among Latino voters – 79% of Californian Latinos supported the California DREAM Act, as opposed to only 30% of Caucasian voters. Obama’s popularity is reflected in the Presidential polls, as 70% of Latinos say they would vote for Obama. On the other hand, Mitt Romney supports the building of a hightech border fence and would guard the border with a reasonable number of security agents. While finishing the border fence would probably not be cost effective, America needs to put more officers on the border. Romney also supports the idea of “self-deportation”, which encourages illegal immigrants to leave on their own because they do not have the legal documentation to get a job. Romney has pledged to develop a verification system that makes sure that only legal residents can find
23
Domestic jobs. While this sounds like a cruel way to kick illegal immigrants out of the country, it is simply enforcing the law. The IRCA (Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) states that employers are required to attest to their employees’ immigration status. Rom-
fers in those fields from US companies,” These workers could potentially help boost the American economy. In order to let them into the country, he would have to put an end to residents illegally overstaying visas; 40% of illegal immigrants have entered the country legally
to all illegal immigrants who had entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously since. After the act was passed, the number of illegal immigrants in the country almost quadrupled. Many supporters of the DREAM Act assume that
“All in all, Obama’s DREAM Act will never be able to work, and Romney’s idea of a high-tech border fence is too expensive for the benefits that it brings.” ney would simply be enforcing what is said in the IRCA, and he has stated that he would veto the DREAM Act if it were passed in Congress. Citing the fact that 4.5 million are waiting to legally get into the United States, Romney is very harsh about ending illegal immigration. In his book Believe in America: Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth, Romney writes, “As President, a first step that Mr Mitt Romney will take is to raise the ceiling on the number of visas issued to holders of advanced degrees in Math, Science, and engineering who have job of-
24
but overstayed their visas. He states, “A Romney Administration will work to develop an efficient, effective system of exit verification to ensure people do not overstay their visas.” If he were able to accomplish this, it would be a great help to our ailing economy. Though Obama may be right that illegal immigrants who crossed the border when they were young may be just as American as we are, the DREAM act will never be able to work for several reasons. First, a 1986 Reagan administration amnesty law, the IRCA, similar to the DREAM Act, granted amnesty
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
illegal immigrants that don’t qualify would leave the country. However, this did not happen in 1986. About a month after Obama stopped deporting young illegal immigrants, federal immigration agents filed a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, claiming that they were being forced to “violate federal law”. Interestingly, the attorney for the agents in the suit is Kris Kobach, secretary of state in Kansas and advisor to none other than Mitt Romney himself. “Obviously, we would not be pleased if they say this is a legal order,”Roy Beck, the executive director of Numbers USA, an immigration deduction organization, says, “We do believe strongly that the president doesn’t have the right to do this…We’re going to do something that’s not allowed by law in order to get Congress to pass something which they have defeated repeatedly,” he said.Atlanta Senator Jeff Sessions also voiced his concern that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officers might be obliged to release illegal immigrants with misdemeanor records. “It is a sad day when our nation’s law enforcement officers are left with no recourse but to file suit against the administration and its political appointees,” he said. Senator Sessions certainly has the right to be concerned about criminals qualifying for amnesty. The ICE
Domestic will probably have to cease its anti-gang program known as Operation Community Shield, as more than one fourth of the program’s targets could qualify for amnesty. Statistics from the CIS show that more than 1,300 of the 4,370 gangsters who were arrested fall into the qualifying age group for the DREAM Act and have not committed crimes serious enough to stop them from receiving temporary residence from DREAM. All illegal immigrants have committed crime by entering the country illegally, but granting amnesty to gangsters is a totally different story. Even if it is passed, the DREAM Act should revise some of its criteria to ensure that gang members will not be allowed to stay. Clearly, the DREAM Act will not be able to function, as the government has learned from the 1986 amnesty’s failure. “Granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants doesn’t solve illegal immigration, and employer
sanctions are meaningless unless they are strictly enforced,” according to Arizona Republic writer Daniel González. The DREAM Act would just completely
“The government must come together to form a long-term plan that will both stop illegal immigrants from coming into the country and deal with those currently in the country.” disregard the fact that it is illegal to enter the United States without legal documentation, as well as encouraging and rewarding crime. Apart from the DREAM Act,
ralphbarrera.files.wordpress.com
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment also encourages illegal immigration. It reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” In 1898, a Supreme Court case arose when Wong Kim Ark was denied re-entry to the country after a trip abroad. Wong was born to Chinese parents in San Francisco, but was not recognized as an American citizen. Wong argued that the 14th amendment implied that he was a citizen because he was born in the country, even though his parents were not citizens. After the court ruled in Wong’s favor, the clause was thought to imply that children of illegal immigrants are American citizens. In other words, all children born to illegal immigrants after Wong were considered legal citizens of the United States. This is another temptation for people to illegally enter the country. In order to discourage illegal immigration, the citizenship clause must be reviewed and perhaps even rewritten. All in all, Obama’s DREAM Act will never be able to work, and Romney’s idea of a high-tech border fence is too expensive for the benefits that it brings. Looking forward, the problem of illegal immigration will be a tough problem to solve, and every solution that has been proposed has just as many pitfalls as benefits. The government must come together to form a long-term plan that will both stop illegal immigrants from coming into the country and deal with those currently in the country. For this to happen, Republicans and Democrats will have to compromise to settle their differences. Though a permanent fix to this issue is not obvious, it can be achieved if the nation comes together to solve this issue. While Obama’s plan may please voters, it is not an adequate solution to the problem of illegal immigration in the United States.
25
International
OBAMA ROMNEY
THE FOREIGN POLICY DUEL By Sam Henick
On November 6th, 2012, Americans will choose a leader. Obama and Romney have two different approaches to foreign policy that will shape our world and the world of generations to come.
T
he goal of this article to see whether President Obama met his goals and outline Governor Romney’s similar and contrasting plans. Romney criticized Obama for lowering American prestige abroad due to an “Apology tour,” and bad leadership. Obama rebutted by labeling Romney’s foreign policies “wrong and reckless” on October 22 during the final presidential debate. In order to effectively sum up their foreign policies, we will go region by region, starting with Eastern Europe and ending in the Middle East, the deciding factor for foreign policy in this election. Obama’s actions in Eastern Europe have upset many in situations like Wikileaks (2010), which showed that Obama scrapped a Bush-era plan to station missile defense systems in Poland to intercept Iranian missiles in hopes of securing Russia’s support for sanctions against Iran. This plan was of paramount importance to the late Polish President Lech Kaczynski; this decision is a great example of how US-Poland relations have deteriorated. Poles have grown cynical of Washington’s support and the Economist said
26
on July 19, “The golden age of Polish-American relations has passed.” Obama further alienated himself when on May 30, 2012, Obama called Nazi death camps “Polish death camps,” offending many. Meanwhile in Romney’s international tour at a stop in Warsaw, Romney praised Poland for “A march toward economic liberty and smaller government has meant a march toward higher living standards.” Romney wrote about Poland in his book No Apology, “If Poland and the Czech Republic can’t count on America to support them, they will have to bend to the will and wishes of Russia.” This reflects Romney’s hardline on Russia. On September 10, 2012, he said “Russia is a geopolitical adversary, meaning that almost everything we try to do globally they try and oppose,” he said, calling them “without question, our Number 1 geopolitical foe.” Romney has been criticized for this statement because the Cold War is over and terrorism and a nuclear Iran should be bigger concerns. Nonetheless, Romney also found fault with the incumbent for being to soft on Russia with Obama’s “reset” policy. Obama’s policy includes an The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
arms reduction; Romney on the other hand, wants to take the hard line with Russia while improving damaged relations with Poland. Romney’s criticism of Obama for being too soft on Russia echoed what he said about China. In the final presidential debate on October 22, both Obama and Romney agreed that China could be a great trading partner, but only if they played by the rules. On September 17, Obama asked the World Trade Organization to rule that Beijing is illegally subsidizing autos and auto parts, a move that Romney derided as “too little, too late.” As Despite Obama’s efforts, a Bloomberg poll in June (2012) showed 40% of voters were dissatisfied with the Obama administration’s China trade policies, while only 32% were satisfied; an NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll in June found that 62% saw China as an adversary; just 25% saw China as an ally. Romney plans on calling China a “currency manipulator,” an audacious move that some fear might lead to a trade war. In Libya, Romney’s “wrong and reckless” policies and actions were put on display when he tried to politicize the attacks in Libya in which Chris Ste-
International vens was killed along with three others on September 11, 2012. Obama’s administration was also at fault when they delayed in labeling the assault in Libya and an organized terrorist attack (top US spy’s office called the attack “deliberate and organized” on September 28). In the past, Obama did show competence in his previous dealings with Libya when NATO overthrew ex-president Muammar Gaddafi with US providing the bulk of military support to rebel forces. Yet despite aid in defeating Gaddafi, Libyans still need economic aid because rising unemployment. Obama tried to keep his promise to “Rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats” (said on April 23, 2007). In response to the protests that damaged the US embassy in Cairo on September 11, 2012, the Obama administration notified Congress on September 28 that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million (this aid would be part of the $1 billion of additional assistance to the $1.3 billion in military aid the US provides Egypt every year, Obama had promised to help Egypt’s new democratic government since the fall of ex-president Hosni Mubarak). Egypt’s budget shortfall is approximately $12 billion according to a New York Times article from September 28, 2012. Nonetheless, in a Telemundo interview on September 12, 2012 Obama refused to call Egypt an ally and not an enemy but a “work in progress”; Egypt has been a Major Non-NATO Ally since 1989 and White House spokesman Tommy Vietor clarified that there is not going to be a change in this status. “Governor Romney would focus a great deal on using our influence to support democracy … and to protect our diplomatic installations,” Romney foreign policy director Alex Wong said, adding that he would accomplish this by “putting strong stipulations” on U.S. financial assistance to Egypt and encouraging
On April 23, 2007, Barack Obama outlined his foreign policy: 1.
“Bringing a responsible end to this war in Iraq and refocusing on the critical challenges in the broader region,”
2.
“By building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it,”
3.
“By marshaling a global effort to meet a threat that rises above all others in urgency – securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction,”
4.
“Rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats”, and
5.
“While America can help others build more secure societies, we must never forget that only the citizens of these nations can sustain them.”
U.S. allies to do the same. Obama has also helped in the fight against global poverty by providing millions in aid every year to African countries (Tunisia will be getting an estimated 2657% increase in aid to $19.3 million a year by 2013). The concept of using diplomacy and development as tools to aid the US in building new and even stronger alliances has been an important part of Obama’s foreign policy as seen in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. According to a Reuters article on October 23, 2012, Romney would cut $100 million in foreign aid. Both Romney and Obama feel the need to remain involved with Pakistan, a country with hundreds of nuclear weapons, but would only continue giving aid to Pakistan if it acted responsibly. Within 16 months of his presidency, Obama tactfully pulled troops out of Iraq (after the successful raid and killing of Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011). Despite the fact that Obama strongly opposed Bush’s successful surge, which demolished al-Qaeda and Sunni resistance, even he had to admit that the surge of American forces in Iraq has “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams’’ and that “[t]he surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated.” The Bush surge stabilized Iraq to the point where elections could be held and a government established. It was the Bush surge enabled the pullout, but Obama does deserve credit for completing the task and accomplishThe Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
ing one of his major objectives from April 23, 2007. On April 29, 2011, after delaying three times, Obama gave the go-ahead to kill Osama in a compound in Pakistan. The raid of the compound further strained relations with Pakistan. Drone usage has increased under the Obama administration to take out top military targets. In Pakistan 2 strikes in 2006 to 70 strikes in 2011, including the death of Abd al-Rahman (a number 2 leader for al-Qaeda). Military spending on unmanned aerial systems has increased almost 10 times over the past decade. Romney supported the decision to increase drone usage but insisted that we must focused on rebuilding the mindset and eliminate the extremists from the Arab world instead of killing top targets. At the May 2012 NATO Summit Meeting, an agreement was made to pull out of Afghanistan by 2014. Unfortunately, despite Obama’s effort in diplomacy, the pull out (leaving 68,000 troops in Afghanistan) will be at an inopportune time. “There are still pockets of periodic violence to in outlying areas to be sure, but these populated areas are largely free of violence today,” ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) spokesman Colonel Tom Collins wrote. In November 2009, Obama ordered a surge (that ended on September 15, 2012) that gave room for Afghan army and police to grow from 80,000 in Afghan National Army and 73,000 national police in January
27
International
In this Oct. 3, file photo, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama wave to the audience during the first presidential debate at the University of Denver in Denver. media.nj.com
2009 to 189,000 and 148,000 respectively; in August 2012, over 80% of operations in the south were led by the Afghan Army, according to Collins. According to Fred Hiatt, an editor for The Washington Post, “Last summer [2011] Obama overruled his generals’ advice in ordering a drawdown of 10,000 troops in 2011 and an additional 23,000 by this summer. He insisted that ‘the tide of war is receding’ and that it was ‘time to focus on nation-building here at home.’ Yet U.S. deaths continue: 34 in January, 24 in February, 39 in March, 39 in April, 45 in May, 39 in June, 46 in July, 53 in August.” Green-on-blue deaths, where allied Afghan forces or militants turn their weapons on NATO troops have increased from 5 in 2009, 3 in 2010, and 1 in 2011 to 9 this year. 51 international troops have been killed by Afghan forces or militants wearing their uniforms in 2012, compared to 35 in 2011. While the strength of the Taliban is difficult to measure, coalition statistics give some indication of the insurgents’ ability to sustain military opera-
28
Last summer, Obama overruled his generals’ advice in ordering a drawdown of 10,000 troops in 2011 and an additional 23,000 by this summer. He insisted that ‘the tide of war is receding’ and that it was ‘time to focus on nationbuilding here at home.’ tions; in June 2012, at the height of this year’s traditional fighting season, Taliban insurgents launched an average of roughly 110 attacks a day, according to coalition reports. According to a New York Times article on October 2, 2012, “The failure to broker meaningful talks with the Taliban underscores the fraThe Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
gility of the gains claimed during the surge of American troops ordered by President Obama in 2009. The 30,000 extra troops won back territory held by the Taliban, but by nearly all estimates failed to deal a crippling blow.” On September 18, 2012, the US military started pulling back cooperation with Afghan forces in the wake of several deadly attacks and the fallout from an anti-Muslim video. Romney failed to mention Afghanistan in his speech at the Republican National Convention on August 30, 2012, the first time war was omitted from the RNC since 1952. Romney has been criticized for flip-flopping on whether he wanted to have a timetable for the exit. Romney wants the military’s heads to determine policy and thinks that the bulk of the security obligations must lie with the Afghanis themselves. Despite helping rebels in Libya, Obama has been criticized for not helped rebels in Syria. He has not established safe zones for civilians or supplied weapons for the rebels despite the fact that the death toll is over
International
U.S. Marines with Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 6, patrol through a poppy field during Operation Lariat in the Lui Tal district, Helmand province, Afghanistan, April 16, 2012.. publicintelligence.net
30,000. Obama called for Assad to step down more than a year ago (as of October 2, 2012 according to a Newsday article) but has been stymied by Russia and China to act through the United Nations. Nonetheless, the US has provided intelligence and has met with the major players in the region to determine the leading rebel groups. Romney accused Obama for a “lack of leadership” and said he would do what Obama did but that he would have done so sooner. Both candidates want to avoid a conflict that will involve US troops and possibly lives. “Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Obama administration has been engaged to support democratic transitions in the Arab world,” former NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark said on September 13, 2012. “At the same time, we will continue to stand up for America’s core interests in the region – countering terrorism, preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran, and standing squarely by our strongest ally in the region, Israel.” The US faces a huge issue: whether, when, and
how to help Israel with a war on Iran waiting to happen. Shared U.S.-Israeli intelligence that suggests Iran hasn’t decided yet whether to build a bomb, despite pursuing the technology, and Obama said that there would be time for action beyond toughened sanctions already in place. Help to Israel in this conflict has involved strict economic sanctions. In 2011, US sanctions targeted Iran’s petrochemical and banking sectors after a report by the IAEA in November 2011 included credible evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. In February 2012 Obama signed an executive order authorizing US institutions to freeze all property and interests of the Iranian government, central bank, and financial institutions that come within US jurisdiction. BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus noted in May that NATO “has watched the spread of ballistic missile technology with growing unease. If there is a potential ballistic missile threat to NATO countries then it can be summed up in one word -Iran.” Romney agreed to the sanctions The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
but said he would have put them in place sooner. Both candidates are wary of a nuclear Iran and Romney claims that “Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon.” Israel wants the US to draw a “red line,” a point at which the US will take aggressive action to help Israel against Iran. Part of Israel’s concern is that According to the Pentagon’s April (2012) “Annual Report on the Military Power of Iran,” the country “may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.” Under Obama there was a deployment of several thousand US troops to Israel, a fact he boasts demonstrates his strong relation with Israel. This election will lead to different Americas. Romney and Obama debated the standing of the US in the world as “the one indispensible nation in the world” (Obama during the last presidential debate on October 22, 2012). This election will not only change issues at home but will alter the world in which we live, shaping foreign policy for years to come.
29
International
Abandoning an Ally The U.S. Role in Israeli - Palestinian Peace Relations
By Emily Kramer
E
ver since the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, the United States has considered Egypt to be a close ally, providing them with over $1 billion a year directed towards military support. However, President Obama’s reaction towards the Egyptians’ revolting against the government of Hosni Mubarak in the past few years has raised the question of whether the United States can be considered a reliable ally. Hosni Mubarak began his presidency in 1981 following the assassination of Anwar El Sadat. During this time, he remained an ally of the United States and upheld Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. On February 11th, 2011 President Mubarak was forced to step down from his position as president of Egypt when the
30
Egyptians revolted, desiring a change in leadership. As Egyptians began to revolt earlier that year, President Obama, rather than assisting ally Hosni Mubarak in maintaining control over his country, advised that Mubarak complete his current presidential term without seeking another. This lack of support added fuel to the Egyptian people’s revolt against the president, as they recognized Egypt’s strongest ally would not be there to support Mubarak. Now, with Hosni Mubarak imprisoned and the Egyptian military in control of the government, there is uncertainty as to where Egypt and the United States stand on their relationship. On September 12th of 2012, President Obama stated, “I don’t think that we consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
enemy.” For thirty years, Egypt has been our ally, and it was President Obama’s responsibility to attempt to maintain good relations with Egypt not only for our sake, but for Israel’s as well. President Obama’s actions threaten the security of Israel, raising the question as to how reliable an ally the United States truly is in the face of conflict. The United States failed to support Egypt, our ally of thirty years, providing enemies of Israel with a greater sense of confidence that the the U.S. could abandon Israel just as easily. Following Israel’s victory of the 1967 Six-Day War when Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, Israel acquired the territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the Eastern
International
“It will be hard for Palestinians to accept anything less than what the President of the United States feels they deserve.�
al fasl
Bank of the Sea of Galilee, and the Golan Heights. Israel acquired and maintained this land to secure its future security and redefine its borders. In the current negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, President Obama compromised the negotiating process that would have otherwise taken place, providing his opinion that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders. The decision about what land Israel is willing to give up and how much land the Palestinians are willing to accept in order to achieve peace and security in the area is up to the Israelis and the Palestinians, and them alone. President Obama was in no position to make such a definitive, unilateral statement that ultimately could have negative consequences to these negotiations.
President Obama has put the Israelis, as well as the Palestinians, in a difficult position to negotiate, seeing that Israel may determine that it cannot return all of its land in the interests of preserving its own security. The Palestinian leadership now faces an extremely problematic situation, as it will be hard for Palestinians to accept anything less than what the President of the United States feels they deserve. Not only has President Obama caused further tension between Israel and the Arab world, but he has also lost credibility for the United States in this region as well. In the Arab world, similar to the relationship between two individuals, when a country does not support an ally, it loses respect and credibility. A recent poll The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
revealed that 85% of Egyptians have an unfavorable opinion of the United States, and 75% have expressed that they would prefer a change in presidency. The United States failed to support Egypt, a U.S. ally for over thirty years, in a time of need. This loss of credibility can do nothing but threaten the safety and security of Israel. President Obama’s actions have had negative consequences not only for the United States but for Israel and the Arab world as well. It would be in our best interests if President Obama remembered that the role of the United States should be one that encourages and supports these peace negotiations, but ultimately leaves the decisions of what is right and acceptable up to the negotiating parties themselves.
31
International
Russia Will Matter How Our Relationship With Russia Will Impact The Elections
Ethan Gelfer 32
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
R
International
ussian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, and the country he leads, has an influence on the United States Presidential Elections. The relations with the Russian Federation have been slowly improving after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. However, in general, the citizens of the United States still do not trust Russia and want a president that will provide stern guidelines for Russia to follow. Therefore, the New York Times reported President Obama as saying
“
this is no longer the Cold War. Romney truly believes that it is not any Middle Eastern countries or North Korea that is our enemy. According to the Huffington Post, Mitt Romney has stated that Russia is “without question our number one geopolitical foe.” Why does he say this? Romney, along with a percentage of Americans, still believe that Russia is our enemy, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of Communism and Socialism there, and their institution of democracy. Democrats have taken every possible opportunity to bash Mitt for some-
many of our other world enemies with the weapons, training, and finances they need to carry out attacks in their respective countries and against the US. Russia is in possession of the majority of unsecured weapons-grade uranium and plutonium in the world, in fact, they have more unsecured nuclear material than the rest of the world combined. They have an abundant and relatively easy-to-get source of the material, material which the Iranian government has been accused of trying to obtain. On the surface, it might seem that other countries such as Lib-
While most analysts and the general public believe that Romney is putting forward absolute nonsense, that is not necessarily the case.
to President Dmitri A. Medvedev that Medvedev “would have ‘more flexibility’ to negotiate on the delicate issue of missile defense after the November election, which Mr. Obama apparently feels confident he will win.” After this gaffe, Obama was criticized heavily by the opposing party (the Republicans) for one (or both) of two things – firstly, that Obama was being much too overconfident about the election, so much so that it was becoming suspicious. Second, critics remarked that his relations with Russia were much too lenient. His approval ratings, at least from Russia-haters, plummeted. Later on in the year, the Republican Party convened in Tampa, Florida, for their quadrennial Republican National Convention (RNC). At this convention, Mr. Mitt Romney accepted the nomination for Republican candidate for President of the United States and delivered his speech directed at outlining his views on how to improve the state of America. On foreign policy, Romney had one point: He would be tightening security on Russia and was quoted by POLITICO and Fox News as saying: “But he’s [Obama is] eager to give Russia’s president Putin the flexibility he desires after the election. Under my presidency our friends will see more loyalty and Mr. Putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone.” This was met with criticism on both sides, since Putin and Russia are not our greatest threat and because
thing he has said, and the topic of Russia is no exception. Democratic media, such as MSNBC, have been repeatedly heard saying, “Mitt Romney needs to be reminded that this is no longer the Cold War.” However, Romney does have a valid position or his argument. In every conflict the United States has faced, Russia has always been right there- on the enemy’s side. In Libya, Russia provided aid to former dictator Moamar Gaddafi. In Egypt, they supported Hosni Mubarak. Now, in Syria, they are selling arms to the very dictator America and the UN are helping to defeat. While most analysts and the general public believe that Romney is putting forward absolute nonsense, that is not necessarily the case. The fact remains that the Russian Federation supplies www.in.com
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
”
ya, Syria, Somalia, Iran, North Korea, and others are our greatest threat, but when you delve into the root cause of the issue, one can see that they are just consumers. Our threats stem from the supplier. To give an example, if someone comes up to you, gives you a gun, and says go shoot somebody, he/she is the real problem, because that person would be the one providing you with the necessary material to go and shoot somebody. Now, it may seem that Romney is the smart guy in all these goings-on but it is, in reality, at this point irrelevant. Mitt Romney may be intelligent and have a grasp of what is going on, but what he needs to do is appeal to the people, and more importantly, to the media and analysts, who tell the people what to think. Therefore, Romney is actually losing votes because of a smart argument, simply because people lack the intelligence to scrape off the paint and read what’s under the surface. And it hurts Mitt even more that, conversely, Barack Obama is doing exactly what he needs to do in terms of Russia, he needs to tell people that they are OK, that our real enemies are the ones who are hurting us, and that is exactly what he needs to do. Obama is the clear winner of the Russia controversy, partially because of his own doing, but partially because of Romney’s off-color and off-topic comments about Russia, which ironically, may actually be too smart for the general public.
33
International
Not Just Rocks Neil Ahlawat
Los Angeles Times
The U.S. Role in the China/Japan Islands Dispute
B
eginning in the 1970’s, the Japanese and Chinese created a conflict out of uninhabited, tiny, and seemingly worthless islands. Known as the Senkakus to the Chinese, and the Diaoyus to the Japanese, these islands are situated in the East China Sea, where China estimates there are huge reserves of natural gas and oil. A Chinese evaluation suggests that as much as 213 billion barrels of oil lie untapped in the South China Sea which, if true, would render the region the largest oil reserve outside of Saudi Arabia, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. If either China or Japan is able to gain full
34
control of the islands, an international maritime law known as “Exclusive Economic Zone” could be invoked, which would give countries the exclusive rights to develop resources within 200 nautical miles of their shores. This law could give either country access to the billions of barrels of oil predicted to be in the area surrounding the islands. This fact, coupled with the idea that with the possession of the islands could come access to oil, has clearly been left out of the recent media spotlight. It hasn’t been clear as to whether or not China and Japan are engaged in just a “diplomatic quarrel” over rock formations in Asia. Yes, it may seem The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
as so on the outside- quite literally too. But the billions of barrels of oil and nationalistic pride involved in the ownership of these islands demonstrate a conflict of a larger scale. This is not whatsoever a superficial conflict over some barren islands in the entrails of Asia. There is a further economic value, as well as symbolic value, in the ownership of these islands to the respective nations. There is no doubt that both nations are among the superpowers of Asia and have some of the strongest global economies. Access and full ownership to these islands would result in not only a rich abundance of natural resources, but also a
International strengthened influence over the region that China has been reaching for in its resurgence over the past 50 years, and has come close to achieving with Japan in a near second place. Ownership of these islands is crucial for both China and Japan. There have been more than enough events to signal the growth of strained relations between China and Japan. First of all, this past September 18th marked the 1937 Japanese invasion of China -- a deadly and troubling ordeal, which continues to spur protests annually, only adding to Chinese tensions with Japan over the island dispute. According to the Japanese government, on September 14th, six unarmed Chinese patrol boats navigated into Japanese administered waters surrounding the islands. While the Japanese may view China’s crossing into Japanese territory as a threat, the Chinese have something else in mind -- perhaps they felt provoked by the Japanese government’s recent purchase of the islands from a private Japanese owner. However, this transaction was only an effort by the Japanese to prevent the island from falling into the hands of Chinese-oppositionist Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara, as tensions could have been pushed further with the islands under his jurisdiction. Even so, Chinese state-run media continues to heavily criticize the sale of the islands, proclaiming the transaction to be an offensive step by Japan. Due to the propaganda of the Chinese government, growing nationalism in China has been further aggravating the conflict. At the moment, fervent nationalism in China is a key reason for the island dispute emerging once again. In a meeting with American defense secretary, Leon Panetta, the Chinese Vice-president and apparent heir, called Japan’s planned purchase of the islands a “farce” and urged that Japan “rein its behavior.” As you can see, China has been blowing Japan’s actions out of proportion. According to The Economist, a recent poll suggested
eia
“This is not whatsoever a superficial conflict over some barren islands in the entrails of Asia.” that over half – that’s right, half -- of the Chinese population believes that the next few years will bring about some kind of military dispute with Japan. One Chinese newspaper went as far as suggesting the use of an atomic bomb on Japan in order to speed up what the Chinese now believe is the inevitable; that is, military conflict with Japan. It seems that as if for now, military conflict between these two Asian superpowers will be something of the future. This island-dispute could mark the beginning stages of the path to war. When reportedly half of the Chinese citizens believe such a conflict is in the near future, matters should be taken seriously, and so far that has been far from reality. As tensions between China and The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Japan have been mounting, September 29th marked the 40th anniversary of Sino-Japanese relations. Amid the troubled past of these two nations, forty years ago on this date, a joint statement was signed by Japan and China, signaling resumption to peaceful relations between the two current Asian powers. Although it seems but a miniscule detail, this signing brought about one of the strongest global trade partnerships today. According to Japan’s finance ministry, China was Japan’s largest trading partner last year, and Japan is currently China’s second-biggest trading partner after the United States. According to a Japanese lobby group, Japan is also China’s largest outside investor, with Japanese companies directly or indirectly em-
35
International ploying about 10 million Chinese. The enormous amount of trade and business relations between these countries shows how complicated matters between the two nations could become if any tangible steps of confrontation are taken by either side, which could put billions of dollars of trade value in limbo between two of the top three economies (other than that of the United States.) in the world. It’s for this reason that unlike Chinese nationalists, ardent Japanese nationalists are torn between laying claim to the islands and losing their largest trading partner. Meanwhile, Chinese nationalists are not as torn, as China’s overall trade with Japan has been decreasing over the past number of years, while its other trade relations, such as those with the U.S., have been gaining in strength. Quite frankly, this issue has become a high-stakes game for Asia’s future. So far, the U.S. government has neither addressed the seriousness of the affair, nor has it suggested any type of solution or diplomatic mediation in the path to solve the conflict. The United States has repeatedly stated that it takes no position on the dispute, and urges Japan and China to work out their differences peacefully. In his campaign, Romney has not yet addressed the island conflict between Japan and China, indicating that Romney also doesn’t understand the seriousness of the issue at hand, and will most likely declare American neutrality, like Obama has. This neutrality comes at a surprising time, given the Obama administration’s pivot towards Asia, and the American solidification of military ties with countries in the region such as Vietnam and the Philippines. However, on this issue we continue to sit idly. According to the Washington Post, an unnamed senior American military official said that America wouldn’t go to war “over a rock.” The Senkaku islands are not just a bunch of rocks. This is exactly what the U.S. somehow fails to understand, when its
36
Discovery News
“Its time to create some sort of a diplomatic intervention to stop and reverse tensions before they can advance further and have a tangible consequence.” own energy agency suggests that the East China Sea could hold an abundance of oil. It’s also quite astounding that the U.S. and other Western nations haven’t jumped into action at the possibility of acquiring oil, whether in the Middle East, or China. The U.S. and the rest of the world must try and intervene to ensure that matters do not progress and become worse. The Senkaku/Diaoyu island dispute has become a high stakes game for Asia’s future. Its time to create some sort of a diplomatic intervention to The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
stop and reverse tensions before they can advance further and have a tangible consequence. Asia’s inability to deal with these islands creates a shadow of doubt as to how they would deal with a crisis of a larger scale. If coming to a solution means American involvement, so be it. What has to be avoided is this issue being pushed along further and further until it progresses into the two global powers cutting off ties, creating violent hostility, and ending billions of dollars in business relations.
International
The Obama Doctrine Obama's Foreign Policy Failures By Daniel Rosenblatt
I
n recent polls, voters have said that they favor President Obama’s Arab Middle Eastern foreign policy over Governor Romney’s. However, in the latest poll conducted by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, only 49% approved of how Obama is “handling foreign policy,” 5% lower than the President’s foreign policy approval rating in same poll that was conducted in August. In addition, Governor Romney recently criticized Obama’s comments on the state of the Middle East in which he referred to recent events as “bumps in the road”: “I can’t imagine saying something like the assassination of ambassadors is a bump in the road,” the governor said. “These are not bumps in the road, these are human lives — these are developments we do not want to
see. This is time for a president who will shape events in the Middle East, not just be merciful or be at mercy of the events of the Middle East.” While both presidential candidates have somewhat incomplete policies regarding international affairs, President Obama, over the past 4 four years, has shown that he enters and makes actions in important conflicts without significant plans or goals and that he does not believe in asserting America’s power on an international front. As shown in his actions regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and the Arab Spring, President Obama has apologized often, but rarely taken actions towards a goal that would benefit the United States’ interests. Obama kept the United States’ interest in mind but did not capitalize The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
on opportunities presented. He was able to greatly lessen and prevent further negative affects of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and withdrawing troops form Iraq and creating a plan to do so in Afghanistan. However, in general, his lack of end-goals and his failure to accomplish the goals that he set are large failures in his term as president, and will greatly affect the elections this year. As promised in his campaign, Obama withdrew all troops from Iraq; the last troops came home in December 2011. This ended the largely opposed 10-year war in Iraq. Our presence in Iraq had increasingly stabilized the country leading to the nation’s elections, and it was clear that an eventual withdrawal would be beneficial. Taking out the troops
37
International without a completely stable government system in place and without any form of lasting American diplomatic influence, though, was one of the greatest faults of the Obama administration. Just shortly after our withdrawal from Iraq, government instability increased, and violence escalated, resulting in the death of tens of thousands Iraqis. First, the government arrested Taruiq al-Hashimi, the vice president of Iraq for killing Iraqi officials. This was followed by a standstill in the government due to disagreement between the Shiite,
“Obama should have been more influential, and he should have considered an end-goal” Sunni, and Kurd representatives, and further aggravated as two of Iraq’s leaders, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and President Alawi refused to talk to each other. In addition, there were waves of bombings and terrorists attacks specifically targeting Shiite communities and security forces. Al Qaeda, a Sunni terrorist group, claimed responsibility for many of these anti-government and sectarian attacks. Some might argue that these two problems do not pertain to America, but, rather, an unstable Iraq could become a home to anti-American terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, already quite present in the region. This risk defeats one of the main points of the War in Iraq, and while pulling troops out may have spared American lives, it made the actions of the countless soldiers practically meaningless. Instead, a transition program should have been created to ensure political stability and security from terrorist groups. Here, Obama should have been more influ-
38
President Barack Obama addresses service members and their families during a visit to Ft. Bliss, Texas, on Aug. 31, 2012.
ential and he should have considered an end-goal. This failure to transition properly shows a clear fault in Obama’s consideration of long-term goals, and Governor Romney will continue to point out this weakness in Obama’s foreign policy record. Another issue, in some ways similar to Iraq, was that President Obama promised to solve is the conflict in Afghanistan. Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States entered Afghanistan which, according the former President George W. Bush was “designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capabilities of the Taliban regime.” Since then, over 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the war, a large percentage of them in the last four years. The current goals however are vague and not complete, and Obama, himself, stated that he “does not think that they’re clear enough.” In 2009, Obama recognized one goal for Afghanistan “is that we make sure The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
that it’s not a safe haven for al-Qaeda, and they were not able to launch attacks of the sort that happened 9/11 against the American homeland or American interest.” Despite the continuing violence and terrorist activity in Afghanistan- a clear sign that his goal has not been reached, Obama entered the United States upon an agreement with Afghanistan detailing the troops’ return by 2014 and a creation of a self-dependent Afghan security force. Even with this agreement, the state of Afghanistan after a withdrawal is unpredictable, and without further results, Obama cannot pretend that our mission was accomplished. Over his term, Obama has also made an effort to correct the Iranian Nuclear conflict. He supports sanctions, and diplomatic efforts that pressure Iran to halt uranium enrichment because of a widespread concern that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. The President extended sanctions in Executive Order
International
13553 in September 2010, Executive Order 13574 in May 2011, Executive Order 13590 in November 2011, and also passed the CISADA act. These show that he is committed to pressuring Iran and together with UN and EU sanctions, these have greatly hurt the Iranian economy; this seems to be large step towards forcing a halt of Iran’s nuclear activity. Iran, though, has not stopped it nuclear program or abided by UN demands, and the sanctions are now simply an unsuccessful attempt at diplomatic pressure. As a nuclear Iran poses a threat to the United States and Israel, a major ally in the Middle East, President Obama should be more aggressive, and he should threaten Iran with greater ardor. Romney criticized Obama’s lack of success saying, “We’re not moving them in a direction that protects our people or our allies. And that’s dangerous,” The governor is correct in stating that as the absence of diplomatic success continues, our allies and the US are
put an increasingly higher risk. The reality is that there is a small chance that this conflict will be solved in the near future, and Obama’s promise of a solution was overreached. Overall, Obama failed in effectively hampering Iran’s nuclear program, and this may be a topic that governor Romney criticizes. Obama, in his four years in office, clearly attempted to strengthen relations with the Arab nations in the Middle East, specifically supporting democratic movements in the Arab spring. Also, he wanted to increase the United States’ prestige abroad. In his first few months in office, he visited Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt where he discussed the state of the Middle East in both meetings with government officials and speeches the public. This failed, however, as Americas “favourability rating” is lower in Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan than in 2008. In addition, Obama supported the Arab Spring in speeches and financially. In FebruThe Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
ary of 2012, Obama proposed a $250 million addition to a continued $1.3 billion aid to Egypt and $770 million more for countries involved in the Arab Spring. Moreover, the Obama administration provided support for Libyan rebels during the uprisings against General Muammar al-Gaddafi in Operation Odyssey Dawn and NATO’s (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Operation Unified Protector. Yet, following the release of an anti-Islamic film, protests broke out across the Middle East, all of which displayed great hatred towards America, the American government, and in some instances, specifically President Obama. The most serious cases of this was in Libya, in which the protesting was extreme and, with possible planning involved, the American embassy was breached and 4 Americans were killed, including American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. The state of American relations with Arab nations has not showed significant progress under the Obama administration, even though this has been a large priority. These shortcomings highlight Obama’s inability to convert opportunities in the Middle East into advantageous situations for the United States. No matter what the rational, these countries simply do not like Obama’s policies, and he either must find a way to cooperate with these countries without harming America or he must focus on other, more important international conflicts. Leading up to the upcoming elections, Governor Romney will criticize Obama’s foreign policy, most likely, as he has done in the past, attributing Obama’s failures to his weakness as a president. Romney will be correct in the sense that Obama did not fully commit to solving important conflicts. In addition, Obama simply promised far too much in 2008, and he accomplished far to little. In four of the most important international issues, Obama did not succeed in reaching his goals.
39
International
Obama, Romney, Morsi Foreign Policy in Egypt
By Ryota Ikeda
A
s political regimes are changing throughout the world, one of the most uncertain transitions has been the first democratically elected Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, who was elected on June 30, 2012. A former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and a former student of the University of South Carolina, Morsi is a leader who has had a strong background in education. For thirty years, the US had been in contact with former President Hosni Mubarak, who, albeit corrupt, was a reliable ally to the United States. Now, it is much less certain. Morsi is taking a much stronger stance on what Egypt wants, clearly stating
that the US must respect Arab values, even when that conflicts with the US’s. Although he has stated that Egypt will not be hostile to the US, he has suggested that the US fix relations in the Middle East and to follow up on the alliance with Egypt. The most notable incident recently has been the controversial anti-Muslim movie trailers, which were released on Youtube in July. When enraged Egyptian protestors attacked the U.S. embassy in Cairo on September 11th, invading and burning the American flag, Morsi received strong criticism for not reacting quickly enough, although stating that he dealt decisively with
the violent rioters and that the embassy employees were never in danger. Obama informed Morsi that if he failed to protect American diplomats and put down protests more efficiently next time, then Morsi was putting relations with the US at risk. Although the new democratically elected Egyptian leaders have promised to stand as allies with the United States, this has been a serious breach of trust, leading to the statement from Obama, “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally but we don’t consider them an enemy,” during an interview with Telemundo last September. Morsi has stated that the values of
Obama said "“I don’t think that we would consider them an ally but we don’t consider them an enemy,” during a Telemundo interview in September 2012 40
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
International the Middle East are completely different from Western values, and the West would have to respect some of the decisions that Egypt made, even if they did not agree, referring to Egypt’s slow responses to silencing the attacks towards the US embassy. A strain on the bond has also compromised the amount of foreign aid being administered to Egypt. The U.S. is planning on giving one billion total dollars in aid to Egypt, but because of the lingering uncertainty on the legitimacy of Egypt’s claim of being a US ally, there is resistance from some lawmakers on actually giving aid. Additionally, Morsi is facing tremendous pressure from both the United States and the Egyptian public on how exactly to respond to the controversial movie. His people want him to defend Islam, whereas he also needs to condemn and shut down protests in or-
he also defended the religious anger held towards the video, challenging Obama’s view on free speech. As relationships become strained through conflicting values, the possibility of the loss of a long-standing ally becomes possible, raising the question of what may happen when the US loses one of its most important allies in the Middle East. It has been a relatively short time period since Morsi has been elected into presidency, and we have no way of knowing whether Egypt truly wants to remain allies with the West. After the rising instability in the Middle East, especially after the Arab Spring, Romney has criticized the current presidential administration, saying that there needs to be a new course of action taken. His foreign policy director, Alex Wong has explained Romeny’s stance on Egypt. Wong explains how the Rom-
A poster of Morsi, Egypt’s president
Romney's foreign policy director explained that “Governor Romney would focus a great deal on using our influence to support democracy… and to protect our diplomatic installations.” der to stay friendly with the United States. When he decided to stay silent and do nothing about the protests, a phone call from Obama galvanized him into shutting it down. When Obama both condemned the anti-Muslim video and still tried to defend the right of free speech during the United Nations General Assembly, there was an eruption of anger from not only Egypt, but also the Middle East as a whole. Although Morsi publicly denounced the violence in the protests,
ney administration sees Egypt as a “fulcrum for the Muslim World.” He explains how “Governor Romney would focus a great deal on using our influence to support democracy… and to protect our diplomatic installations.” The administration would also put “strong stipulations” on foreign financial assistance to Egypt, and ask other foreign allies to do so as well. Romney has also commented on the fact that instead of direct aid, foreign assistance should be given out on investments The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
in the private sector, to help the employment rate rise. However, he has also cited Morsi’s relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood as one of the distressing problems within the Middle East. Romney is also planning on giving aid to countries that promise to reform, and not just Egypt. However, terms are still being thrown around. A clearer, direct plan must be made with substantiated numbers, before we can evaluate and analyze Romney’s stance on foreign policy. 41
International
Mending Our Relations with the Arab World By Hana Krijestorac
http://artspastor.blogspot.com
V
iolent riots in Pakistani cities erupted last month due to a short film produced by American filmmakers titled Innocence of Muslims. Published on YouTube, the film depicted the prophet Mohammed as a rapist, homosexual killer. Naturally following this blatantly offensive portrayal of the religion’s holy prophet, Pakistanis profusely protested the video and voiced a general anti-United States sentiment. Other Middle
42
Eastern countries such as Egypt, Yemen, India, Lebanon, Sudan, Bangladesh and Libya also condemned and banned the video, as citizens engaged in riots as well. A number of atrocities and violence acts have taken place, such as in Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, 10,000 citizens sought to break into the U.S. Embassy. In Karachi, 12 people were killed in the midst of riots, including two policemen. Currently, a two hundred thousand dollar The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
reward for the person who assassinated the creator of these “blasphemous films.” The United States hasn’t banned the video in the nation, but instead encouraged Google, YouTube’s owner, to ban the film. The American government took this somewhat feeble stance due to the right of the first amendment. However, we should look to improve the cause of these overtly inflammatory claims on the Ameri-
International
http://wmot.org
can side of the equation. Awareness is essential when constructively expressing one’s right to the freedom of speech. President Obama should focus his efforts on informing American the implications and responsibilities of free speech and the realities of the Muslim world. Looking at our relations with Islam, fostering a tolerant United States would be ideal. The U.S.A. Patriot Act, created in 2001, gave the right for the F.B.I. to profile anyone who is suspected to be a terrorist, which included religious profile against innocent Muslims. The F.B.I. was instructed to look for citizens with “Muslim attire” such as burkas, hijabs, or who attend mosque. Responding to 9/11, politicians fostered a similarly disrespectful attitude toward Islam. These acts coming from
York City subway system. Placed adjacent to anti-Islam posters, these signs read, “Love your Muslim neighbor.” For the United States to improve their relations with the East, more atten-
Integration of Muslims into the American community is how we will create a more culturally diverse nation. a government branch should be condemned in order to integrate more diversity into the United States. American advertisements created by the U.S. government, which portray Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and President Obama condemning the video, have been running on Pakistani television stations. Even though America’s leaders have disapproved of this film, this doesn’t solve the problem. Violence in any case is wrong, but when Americans have created a provocative film, and permit such a film, the U.S. government should be at fault. However, this creates a standstill, should freedom of speech take precedence, or should the government intervene? Do commercialized advertisements justify insulting an entire region’s belief system? Recently, posters advocating religious tolerance have been displayed in the New
tion spent on campaigns like the one mentioned, is necessary. Although the commercials endorsed by the American government were a good start, supplementary effort should be concentrated on overall relations with the Muslim world, not just when an international crisis arises. Egyptian-born Mark Basseley Youssef (otherwise known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the creator of the film has been put on trial in California for violating his probation after being charged with fraud. He faces up to two years in prison for lying to his probation officer, using an alias, and using the Internet without his probation officer’s strict permission. The short film’s actors and actresses claim to have been completely misinformed concerning the script, saying that their voices were dubbed. Youssef ’s lawyer, Steven Seiden, spoke outside The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
of the court and said his client was not responsible for the rioting in the Middle East, and that it was “preplanned.” This relates to the incident in 2010, when Florida pastor, Terry Jones, burned Qurans and photos of Mohammed at his church, on the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Pastor Jones has been linked to the promotion of the Innocence of Muslims as well. The government took a stand against this and urged Pastor Jones to stop his demonstration, but he went ahead with his plan. This is where the United States should’ve stepped up as defender of religious acceptance. Integration of Muslims into the American community is how we will create a more culturally diverse nation. ` Overall, the United States needs to decide how to approach the unrest in the Middle East. Becoming more involved in the conflicts in the region seems to be useless, since riots continue to erupt. The American government is using the strategy of containment, employed during the mid-nineteenth century era of McCarthyism, except currently; it concerns religious and cultural differences, rather than a political cold war. The United States should either focus a large amount of effort on creating more peaceful relations, or end their presence in the Arab world.
43
Features
A Campaign of Lies By Caroline Kuritzkes
O
n the surface, honesty appears to be an American virtue. Just a year ago, citizens across the country protested bank corruption in the Occupy Movement, denouncing embezzlement and fraud seemingly unchecked in the American economy. Throughout the nation, schools have been taking plagiarism more seriously, imposing harsher punishments for cheating students than those of even a generation ago. Copyright infringement has become a national issue amplified by the proposed SOPA and PIPA bills, capturing the attention of the media last January. Still, the list continues, as the Penn State child sex abuse scandal finally exposed last fall received nationwide condemnation aimed not only at Sandusky’s inexcusable sexual assaults, but also at the deceitful efforts of university officials working to conceal his actions. As current events have proven and the media has magnified, Americans do not tolerate dishonesty from bankers, executives, students, teachers, coaches, or website owners. So why do we excuse deceit from our own politicians? Since Americans do indeed value honesty, it is natural to assume that our candidates would be truthful. After all, presidential nominees contest to be the leaders of our nation, vying to demonstrate that they are the prime represen-
44
tation of American virtue. But sadly, politicians are not above dishonesty; rather, they are deceit’s main perpetrators. With the onset of the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, erroneous claims by both parties alike have been exposed, bringing to light a chronicle of false assertions in the U.S. electoral process. As Americans, it is time that we reevaluate our country’s electoral practices and realize that dishonest campaign tactics undermine the legitimacy of the election process. Perhaps the controversy most amplified by the media has involved the issue of misleading claims over Obama’s Medicare spending. In campaign speeches, television advertisements, and interviews this August, Mitt Romney alleged that Obama “robbed $716 billion out of the Medicare trust fund to pay for Obamacare.” Paul Ryan similarly identified Obama’s health care plan as the “greatest threat to Medicare,” and a “power play…at the expense of the elderly.” Yet these allegations are far from the truth. Though Obama is restructuring Medicare costs, his cuts reduce annual increases made out to private insurance companies, affecting providers as opposed to beneficiaries, and certainly not harming the elderly. He argues that his alterations “will not touch [the] Medicare benefits [of recipients], not by a The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
dime,” while “sav[ing] Medicare money by getting rid of wasteful spending in the health care system.” Moreover, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has asserted that Obama’s cuts are in fact curbing unnecessary health care spending, thus saving Medicare an approximated $716 billion over the next decade and making the program more economically efficient in the long run. Not to mention, the estimated savings from Obama’s health care plan could potentially offset new spending that would be advantageous to patients. Obama aims to increase coverage for the uninsured by providing private insurance for beneficiaries. If brought to completion, such a proposal would be financed by tax credits, thus only made possible by the $716 billion savings of the very same plan. Clearly, Obama’s goals are not aligned with the original claims of the Romney/Ryan campaign. The sheer irony of the situation is that Ryan’s budget proposal includes the very same cuts to Medicare insurers as those in the Obama plan, plus additional reductions in Medicare spending that amount to $800 billion. And will the savings from Ryan’s reductions offset future health care spending that could help patients in need? It is highly unlikely. The Romney/Ryan assertions are therefore both false and hypocritical.
Features
This is not the only false claim by the Romney/Ryan campaign: the list goes on and on. While Romney stated in the first presidential debate that Obama had “doubled” the deficit, the deficit has actually shrunk since Obama’s start of term. The Congressional Budget Office reported a $1.19 trillion deficit inherited by Obama at the beginning of 2009 and estimates a $1.09 trillion deficit by the end of the 2012 fiscal year – a deficit reduced by about 8%, and certainly not doubled. Admittedly, the Republican Party is not the only perpetrator guilty of exercising dishonest campaign tactics; Obama too has made misleading claims in the election process thus far. In his acceptance speech for the Democratic candidacy, he tried to portray Romney as inexperienced in the realm of foreign policy, asserting Romney’s belief that “it was ‘tragic’ to end the war in Iraq.” This claim, however, was taken completely out of context. Insisting that a swift retreat might exacerbate Iraq’s current political instability, Romney had originally stated that the “tragedy” (as mentioned by Obama) was not simply ending the war, but rather ending it too quickly. In other words, Romney was criticizing the pace of the withdrawal of troops, arguing that a hasty retreat would undermine the time, lives, and dedication of our soldiers. In light of the intended meaning
of Romney’s initial statement, Obama’s assertion is actually quite skewed. In the same conversation speech, Obama claimed that Romney called Russia “our number one enemy – not Al Qaida, Russia,” arguing that his running mate was “new to foreign policy.” It is true that in a CNN interview Romney did label Russia as our “number one geopolitical foe,” criticizing Obama for his willingness to consult with Russia over missile defense. However, he went on to explain in the same interview (as well as in future interviews and in an article for Foreign Policy magazine) that Iran and North Korea obviously pose greater threats to U.S. security than Russia does. Romney clarified that by the phrase “geopolitical foe,” he did not mean that Russia was a United States “enemy”; rather, that in terms of “geostrategic politics,” the nation supported “the world’s worst actors,” like the Assad regime in Syria. Taken out of context, Obama’s statement is somewhat misleading. Yet interestingly enough, in the very same speech Obama voiced his own political equivocations, reminding the American public that we “didn’t elect [him] to tell [us] what we wanted to hear. [We] elected him to tell [us] the truth.” Here, the hypocrisy of our campaigns is once again unveiled, but this time working against Obama. What makes the election process so invalid is that campaign deceit cannot be pinned to one side - both parties are to blame. This issue is not about Republicans versus Democrats; it is about Americans challenging the electoral practices of our nation that have thus far been accepted without question. Perhaps an even more disturbing notion is that the American public cannot distinguish true and false from a TV screen. Candidates are not just asserting false claims, but intentionally misinforming Americans, taking advantage of complex campaign issues beyond the comprehension of many American citizens. Furthermore, do most Americans The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
even realize the campaign deceit begin with? Though many individuals are in fact unaware of their candidates’ campaign dishonesty, other citizens greedily devour the media coverage shining a positive light on the candidates they favor, while pardoning their preferred candidates for their own dishonest allegations. As reported by Time Magazine, an ABC News and Washington Post survey gathered that only 12% of Obama supporters and 17% of Romney supporters admitted that their own favored candidate had made false assertions. On the other hand, 76% of both Romney and Obama voters believed that the opposition was “intentionally misleading.” This study is a testimony to how easily Americans are fooled by campaign dishonesty, eve those who are conscious of the fact that the deception is occurring. Furthermore, Obama’s and Romney’s deceitful campaign tactics unjustly fortify the biases of their supporters, rendering the election process vastly unfair. Now is the time for Americans to analyze not only the views of our politicians but also the means by which they communicate those views. Since candidates are contending to become the President of the United States, they should campaign abiding by American morals. No longer should we excuse deceit from our country’s presidential candidates just because they are “politicians,” and forgiving the deception of our favored candidates while condemning that of their opponents is downright unacceptable. If our own president achieves his goal of being elected by dishonest measures, what does that say about American virtue? Moreover, if our nation’s leader who is expected to set an example for U.S. citizens is elected through deceitful campaign tactics, it is no surprise that so many scandals involving dishonesty will come to light, as they have this past year. Let’s question the electoral practices of our politicians before we judge the dishonest actions of the American populace.
45
Features
Disenchantment By Lauren Futter
A
common mantra of the Romney campaign is that they want to appeal to the people tired of sitting in their old bedroom “looking up at the faded Obama posters.� Those people, they argue, need the change that presidential candidate Mitt Romney can offer. But what about the people sitting in their rooms looking at the old stack of politics books, cynical at what has become of the government? The 112th United States Congress was the least successful United States congress in recent history, congress is more bipartisan then ever, and as SNL painfully points out we are choosing between a president who has inspired less change then many people hoped he would aspire to and a man who appears to have trouble coherently speaking his mind. As a result, we often end up questioning how our choice come Election Day will affect the economy and our lives as a whole. The question we often fail to ask ourselves is how
46
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Features
We still have a huge deficit and high unemployment; it is easy to understand why people are more than a little disappointed.
this will affect our views of the way the political system is run. Yes, there are the people who always cry every four years, “If [insert candidates name here] wins the election I’m moving to [insert country name here],” but what about the people who have truly become disenchanted with the political process as a whole, are they right to feel this way, and what has this election specifically meant for these people? Four years ago, Barack Obama won what is considered a historic election. He was the young and new candidate with fresh ideas from Chicago, and he was going to fix the financial problems that caused many to become disenchanted with his predecessor (notice a pattern?). In the present, we still have a huge deficit, and high unemployment, leaving people more than a little disappointed. The convention and debate speeches by President Obama did not make this idea any better with the President on defense most of the
time and acknowledging the slowly growing economy. To sum it all up, it has been disappointing. We all thought that the minute we changed presidents, the magic deficit curse would be lifted from all the land. Unfortunately, we are stuck in reality, and we are still living with the curse. Now, four years later, President Obama is an insider who could not affect the change we all imagined for the country four years ago. We projected all of our hopes and visions on a man who talks about hope, but has lost all of the trust of the American people. Suddenly (or not so suddenly), Mitt Romney returns for another run at the presidency, but he represents all that the Middle Americans are unenthusiastic about. All these factors combine mixed all together into a recipe for political doldrums pie. One piece of the pie is that while Obama used to inspire hope and trust, people now believe him to be a political insider, amplifying an already
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
ingrained mistrust of government that has been in the roots of American society since its creation. It does not make things much better that the other option is the pinnacle of stereotypical businessmen who have earned a bad reputation with Occupy movements and the middle class. Secondly, people feel a lack of political worth. President Obama was supposed to be the voice of the people or “the change candidate,” but many voters feel that a lot of the issues they want resolved have not been addressed properly such as the economy, welfare, social security, and education. People also feel that Romney is out of touch with the average American. So, what can we do to get out of our political sweatpants and put away the chunky monkey ice cream? We need to remember to keep hope and keep trying for a better tomorrow because if we do not keep fighting for it, it will never come.
47
Features
The Contradicting Campaign by Laszlo Herwitz
E
ver since President Obama was elected in 2008, a noticeable swing to the far right began in the the Republican Party. The face of this swing has been the Tea Party Movement, driven by a group of conservatives that believes the federal gov-
48
ernment should not have a role in state rights and that the separation of church and state is a ludicrous principle. This shift was originally made to help rally people to the GOP base and it was successful in the 2012 midterm elections, with Tea Party candidates staging
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
dramatic upsets across the nation that helped the Republicans take back the House. However, the swing to the far right will hurt the GOP in the upcoming election because it clashes with Mitt Romney’s image, antagonizes many minorities and scares undecided voters.
Features While Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007 he took relatively moderate social and economic positions. He said that he supported abortion and came up with a healthcare plan that was similar to Obama’s. However now that he is running for president he must change these opinions. In order to please the large number of Tea Party Republicans, Romney must take a very hardline stance in opposition to abortion and “Obamacare.” This shift in his views opens Romney up to accusations of flip-flopping, particularly on topics such as abortion which he clearly supported while he was governor of Massachusetts but now staunchly opposes on the campaign trail. This indecisiveness has hurt his chances of being elected
cans interviewed said they would vote for Obama and 0% saying they would vote for Romney. The swing to the right has also cost the GOP the Latino vote. This is due to Romney and other Republicans being pressured into expressing support for strict anti-immigration and voter ID laws, which have been labeled as GOP attempts of racial profiling and stopping minorities from voting. Romney is being forced to support the two policies because part of the GOP base that strictly believes in them, even though they hurt Romney’s already slim chances at election. Most importantly, the swing towards ultra-conservatism has scared undecided voters. These people do not have any strong allegiance either way
Obama” viewpoint. As a result of this, they will get out and vote anyway in the hope of removing Obama from office. Therefore, having socially conservative views will not gain the Republicans any supporters but will likely lose them supporters among the more moderate independents and undecided voters. After reviewing the facts, it is hard to see why Mitt Romney would continue to go hand in hand with views that he does not support and that hurt his campaign. Donations seem to be the main reason Romney continues to support these views publicly. The major contributors to the GOP campaigns have been Tea Party billionaires such as the Koch brothers and Sheldon Addleston. Moreover, super PACS such as Crossroads GPS, founded by hardliner
In order to please the large number of Tea Party Republicans, Romney must take a very hardline stance in opposition to abortion and “Obamacare.” His shift in views opens him up to accusations of flip-flopping. because people do not want to vote for someone who is seen as inconsistent. If there had not been such a dramatic shift to the far right Romney would probably be doing better in the polls as he would be able to talk about his true views instead of just spitting out the default messages of the Tea Party. Another problem with the swing to the far right is that it antagonizes most minorities. The Tea Party, with its hardline views on immigration, has been labeled as racist from the very start, with many videos surfacing of people at Tea Party rallies yelling highly offensive slogans about Muslims and African-Americans. This has resulted in the African-American population of the U.S., which was already mostly Obama supporters, to throw all support behind him, made clear by a recent poll that found that 96% of African-Ameri-
and, consequently, are likely to be scared by a party that states extreme views on issues such as same sex-marriage. This is especially detrimental to Mitt Romney. Romney would normally be the perfect man to attract undecided voters. He has traditionally not shown any extreme views and has promising plans for fixing the economy. However, Romney has been forced to advocate the extreme views of the Tea Party, through actions such as choosing GOP hardliner Paul Ryan as his running mate, a move which has lost him the support of many undecided voters. Some may say that the swing to the right will help the GOP in the upcoming election because it will energize ultra social conservatives to get out and vote, but this could not be less true. The fact is that ultra social conservatives are the people who hold the “anyone but
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Karl Rove, have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into attack ads against Obama. If Romney did not remain in line with the official views of the GOP then these super PACS would surely have lessened their support. In conclusion, the swing to the far right in the GOP will hurt Republicans in the upcoming election because it will contradict Mitt Romney’s image as a moderate politician, intimidate undecided voters, and antagonize minorities. This presents Romney with a complicated dilemma. He can either mirror the swing to the far right to appease ultra-conservatives at the expense of more moderate voters or he can retain his moderate views with the risk of losing support from hardcore Republicans. Failure to act decisively may very well cost Romney the election.
49
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Features
A Demographic Race By Ikaasa Suri
D
ropped into one of the worst economies America has seen since the Great Depression, sewn into a battle of foreign policy and oil wars and in the midst of healthcare and education crises, this presidential election has come down to more than a few issues. While it could be seen as a struggle of two parties, conservative versus liberal, the rich versus the poor or white versus color, the power of America’s shifting demographic is another competition to consider. Simply put, the electorate is becoming more diverse, featuring fewer whites and therefore a more liberal mindset. While demographics change, parties feel the pressure to fit these expanding sentiments. At this point in the election the undecided states like Florida, Virginia, Nevada and Colorado are ultimately the electoral votes that will count towards the final outcome of the polls. While each president is playing his own strengths, the demographics favor Obama. Our president’s advertising has geared its campaign towards this fact through ads aimed at Latinos, women and young people. Throughout his campaign, public announcements and speeches have been less about maintaining his share of the white working-class votes and more
50
about maximizing his support among the rising share of the minority electorate. Strategically this makes sense as the percentage of whites is decreasing. In 1996 white voters accounted for 83% of the electorate. This fall, Caucasians may only make up 72% of the vote. In states like Nevada and North Carolina, Obama is relying strongly on Hispanic votes in order for him to win. While Romney seems to take a more economic stance in his campaign, advertising by regional economic issues instead. Although logical, due to the high unemployment rates and housing crash, Romney’s campaign has failed to reassure the American people about improvement. Obama’s campaign, more socially founded, seem to have cast a more reassuring bate. The typically conservative Cuban-Americans have dwindled in number. As a result, the proportion of non-Cuban Hispanics has risen. For Obama, it seems that if he is able to draw a sizable number of Hispanics, African-Americans, women and other minorities to the polls he can expect to win anywhere from 60-75% of their votes. The Democratic Party has usually won over the young, college-educated class as well, since they seem to take a more liberal stance. But, in reality, it is crucial for the President to capitalThe Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
ize on the Latino votes since students drowning in debt might not be as eager as the last election to show up to vote. As found in recent interviews, they feel they have problems issues to solve. With the union workforce more diverse today than just 25 years ago including the decline in the white electorate by three percent, and growth among blacks and Hispanics as well as college-educated whites, Obama has a grip on these three main demographics that tend to be more sympathetic to Democrats than white voters are in general allowing him to gain a huge advantage beyond marginal factors. By now, our presidential candidates are sticking with what they know. In other words, both candidates are using their political backgrounds and respective areas of expertise to their own benefits. Romney, a businessman, knows economics and can use his knowledge to improve the deficit, trade and markets. While the actuality among Democrats seems obvious: when it comes to white voters, they’ve been losing for years, particularly those without college degrees, the truth is, the white overall electorate is decreasing. Surveys taken across the nation have found that most economically stressed white voters in the US view Mitt Romney as a far more favor-
Features able than the president when it comes to handling the economy. For this reason, Romney has used his campaign to geo-target economic issue like housing in Florida and manufacturing in Ohio. Hopefully his campaign’s effect on people will hold until the election, because, in the long run, the changing electorate is a far bigger problem for Republicans, who remain overwhelmingly white in their makeup. Obama, on the other hand, a family man, knows people. His campaign is focused around social issues benefitting the middle class so that the majority of America can appreciate him as not only a politician, but also a person. His familial background is very relatable, growing up without a father, a mediocre education and working his way to the top. In other words, he’s the American dream magnified. America wants to see someone like that succeed; it gives them hope. This is where Obama has the upper hand and we see him playing this up a lot in his speeches, debates and advertisements themselves. In my opinion, this is a multi-sided issue—not one solely based on voter demographics. The outcome of this year’s election will also result from factors such as a culmination of party bias, comprehensive platforms for hot topics, speaking skills, the stronger candidate’s aggression and the pre-determined bias of the American people, in addition to demographics. It wasn’t only Romney’s unconsciousness and ignorance about the “47%” or his seemingly never-failing skills to insult any group of people that makes Obama seem like more of a people person. It’s our President’s elegant poise while public speaking, his appeal to most races and his background most can identify with. Romney seems to hold more credibility though, on what he can do to improve our falling nation and get it back on its feet due to his economic background as a businessman and Obama’s past term. His new plans are something he stated during the first presidential debate “never seen before,” while Obama claims that if elected he
will only keep fighting. But that raises a question among all American people. Keep fighting for what, Obama? Whether you’re black, white, Hispanic or Asian American, it’s easy to say this nation as a whole hasn’t seen the change we were hoping to come across back in 2008. New
playing their own fortes. In a nutshell, the economy favors Romney. The demographics favor Obama. The way I see it, demographics are changing and so should the parties, especially the Republicans. Most conservative voters fit into the simple
The way I see it, demographics are changing and so should the parties... candidate, new race, new political party, Obama seemed to have it all to change America’s path. He had most minorities on his side, single women, Catholics and even a majority of the college-educated whites, but even that didn’t seem enough to push our somewhat timid, less assertive president for change. Against a republican-majority house, Romney seems like a better candidate, but what about his flaws, his public slip-ups? All that doesn’t seem to matter when our nation has had the past eighteen months to decide. Now it’s all up to whom each citizen relates to more: Obama, a family man with sound moral foundations, or Romney, a rich, economically robust businessman. This race, as it seems, will come down to the demographic of the electorate, which race and ethnicity will go for who. As in any competition, both candidates have their flaws. The middle class, the biggest and most broad demographic that holds the most votes, is something both parties want to win over but by
demographic of white and wealthy, a group of people America has seen declining in the electorate. Obama, on the other hand, has been able to reach out to more groups, ethnicities and social classes, causing him to be the definite popular vote this year. But in an election as close as this race may turn out to be, many things could tip the balance: a notable change in the unemployment rate, an overseas crisis, a major gaffe in one of the debates, even, perhaps, spending by the super PACs. But at the margins, at the very end of the race, the demographics will make all the difference. It’s, as one could say, the time where every vote counts. But unfortunately, demographics aren’t always destiny. Population trends don’t actually register voters or bring them to polls, the candidates do, the people themselves do. Demographics can, at most, serve as a way to predict the possible outcomes of the presidential election, not a method to assure it.
Left: www.babyboomergold.com Right: www.archives.com
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
51
Features
There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who believe they are victims, who believe that the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it…These are people who pay no income tax…my job is not to worry about those people-I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their own lives.”
The Incomplete Candidate By Mihika Kapoor Governor Mitt Romney casually hurled unjustified allegations at nearly half the country he is running to represent this past summer. In a private speech to fellow Republicans, while discussing how to best shape his campaign, he stereotyped 47% of America, inculpating them of living off the government, and in doing so, dramatically distanced himself from them. This brings up a crucial question: if he does not care about these citizens during his campaign, will he care for them as president? His comments demonstrate his inability to sympathize with half of the country, and perhaps suggest he is not the best solution for the country for the next four years. This disdainful attitude estranges him from those millions of Americans currently without a job and makes it hard for him to sympathize and connect with a large portion of this country suffering from this current economic climate. Since the inception of the current
52
election campaign, Romney has been notorious for his affection to protect the interests of the wealthy. In a GOP debate, leading up to the primaries, while in disagreement on the topic of the country’s new health insurance law, he stuck out his hand and challenged Governor Rick Perry: “Rick, I’ll tell you what, 10,000 bucks? $10,000 bet?” The blasé attitude often displayed by Romney erects a very obvious wall between himself and a majority of the country. Romney was secretly recorded making this 47% comment during a fundraiser in May, in what he clearly thought was a safe environment for such frankness. Upon first being confronted by reporters, he merely called his comments “inelegant.” White House Senior Advisor David Plouffe has attacked Romney’s initial remark, saying, “There is no elegant way to attack half the country. These are teachers…veterans…seniors. And the most important thing is his policies reflect that approach The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
and that disdain because his entire economic philosophy is geared toward the extremely wealthy and as a result, burdening the middle class.” Plouffe hit the nail right on the head. Romney’s comments reveal that he is thinking about America as a divided country, where people in need, elderly, war veterans and those with modest economic means should not be supported by the government. His accusations go against nearly all the values America was built upon and contradicts many written lines in historical documents, including the first three words in our constitution: “We the people.” Should Governor Romney be elected, it is uncertain how much he would care for this part of America. Quick and eager to bandage up his 47% slip up, Romney has recently declared his comment, in an interview with Fox News, “just completely wrong,” insisting that his “life has shown that [he] care[s] about 100%...and this whole
Features campaign is about the 100%.” However, Obama campaign spokesperson Jen Psaki said that all that he said and implied is “backed up by his policies.” Furthermore, his original words imply that 47% of America does not “care for their own lives,” and that because they pay no income tax and cannot support themselves, he does not seem to want to care for their lives either. But when he himself implies that nearly half the country is in such a condition, with no housing, food or healthcare, it should be on the top of the president’s priority list. As soon as this video was released, sirens blared in the political world. The Obama campaign pounced on Romney’s comments from the get go, portraying him as unsympathetic and hypocritical. Biden said, “He attacks the 47 percent of the American people who he says pay no federal taxes. And he attacks, he, Romney? Attacking someone on taxes?...We are all in this together, and if the 47 percent doesn’t make it, the country doesn’t make it.” Bloomberg News broadcasted a headline proclaiming, “Today, Mitt Romney lost the election,” while the Telegraph remarked that the result would be a “no-choice US election.” These remarks seem to be only slightly less than an overstatement. Romney’s blunder, blown up to
such high proportions, could reshape how America interprets his campaign. He portrayed everyone not paying income taxes as being lazy and unwilling to work, as though it was their fault they no longer held jobs. Furthermore, he skated over the fact that many people do not pay income taxes because after exemptions and deductions many do not earn enough money and that over 16 million Americans are not held to these taxes due to tax breaks for seniors. Others are on Social Security or pay alterna-
encompass their needs. This attitude is detrimental to his campaign and destabilizes his potential of supporting the whole country. The president needs to make sure the country is safe and able to defend itself from its enemies, build infrastructure, invest in developing alternative sources of energy and ensure all its citizens have access to healthcare. He needs to be concerned with educating tomorrow’s generation so that they will have the skills to work and make
Romney’s comments demonstrate his inability to sympathize with half of the country and perhaps suggest that he is not the best solution for the country. tive sorts of payroll tax. The president needs to look after the interests of not only the wealthy, but those who risked their lives serving their country on battlefields, those whose futures have been jeopardized by the current economy, and those who have worked hard for the country but are now elderly and just want to know that they will be taken care of. Romney currently disregards these people’s votes, and so in a way accepts that his policies do not
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
a living, and carry promise for a better tomorrow for their children. Romney may have alienated the 5-10% of people whose votes he was fighting for. The most shocking sentence in his tirade was when he pronounced, “My job is not to worry about these people.” On the contrary, that is exactly his job. As president of the United States, he would have to take decisions for the whole country, for more than the 53%.
53
Features scrollonline.net
blog.seedalliance.org
PRESIDENTIAL vs. CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS By Matthew Harpe
T
he presidential election is looming near. Whether President Obama or Governor Romney wins, the candidate’s ability to enact his policies and fulfill his promises will largely depend on the results of the congressional elections. The House of Representatives, which currently has a Republican majority of 241 to the Democrats’ 191, appears to be a relatively easy hold for the Republicans. According to the New York Times, the Republicans have
(of which there are twenty-two) and none of the Democrat leaning districts, they would end up with an twenty-three person majority. Democrats, such as House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, are promoting their “drive to twenty-five” campaign, which asserts that the Democrats only need twenty-five additional seats to reclaim the majority this is assuming they keep all of their current seats, and doesn’t account for any Republicans winning currently Democratic districts.
seats. It seems unlikely that the House will leave the Republicans’ control Control of the currently Democratic Senate is more of a toss up. The Democrats currently hold a fifty-three to forty-seven majority, not close to the sixty required to invoke cloture, prevent a filibuster, and enact legislation. Moreover, twenty-three of the Senate seats up for re-election are currently held by Democrats, and ten by Republicans, leaving thirty continuing Democrats and thirty-seven Republicans.
The House of Representatives, which currently has a Republican majority of 241 to the Democrats’ 191, appears to be a relatively easy hold for the Republicans... Control of the currently Democratic Senate is more of a toss up. strong control in 196 districts, compared to the Democrats’ 158, and another thirty-three are leaning towards their Republican candidate. If the Republicans were to win only two-thirds of the thirty-three Republican leaning districts, one-half of the tossup districts
54
The Democrats, according to the New York Times, only hold 158 solid seats, and would therefore need 60 of the leaning and tossup districts. Winning would require the Democrats winning all of their leaning seats, all of the tossup seats, and twelve of the Republic leaning The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
The Democrats should be able to get ten straight-forward wins out of states like New York and California, and the Republicans are favored in five races from states such as Texas and Mississippi. With forty solid seats, the Democrats only need to win the seven states that
Features presidential election is producing more excitement than in previous years, and voter turnout is expected to greatly increase from the 2008 election. This excitement is likely to extend to the congressional elections, which voters vote for on the same ballot that they use for the presidential election. At the very least, new voters, many of whom are minorities, are expected to vote for the
whether the House, and/or Senate, is under Republican control, as they will be less concerned with putting Obama in bad light for the next election. While we can only hope that the two parties are able to reach compromises to address our country’s pressing issues, other barriers might stand in Obama’s way. Grover Norquist’s taxpayer protection pledge has put many congress-
With the Senate likely to stay slightly Democratic, and the House Republican, it is unlikely that much will get done without compromise regardless of who wins the Presidential election. congressional representative from the same party as their presidential candidate. Considering that these voters are often Democrats, things would seem to be looking up even more for the Democrats. The congressional races certainly play a role in swaying voters in some swing states towards a particular presidential candidate, but this year the results of the these elections could be even more influential than usual. The make-up of congress will influence what either Presidential candidate is able to achieve while in office. In his first term, President Obama struggled during his last two years to get as much accomplished as he would have liked due to the Republican controlled House. Democrats, such as Bill Clinton, point out that Obama will likely be able to achieve more in his second term, http://25.media.tumblr.com
are leaning Democrat and four of the seven tossup states, while the Republicans need the four states that are leaning Republican and five of the tossup states to reach a fifty-one person majority. It is pretty clear that neither party will be able to come close to winning the 60 seats necessary to be filibuster proof. It is almost impossible, requiring either party to not only win all of the states that are leaning towards their party and all of the tossup states, but also some states that are strongly leaning to the other side. Many of the toss up states in the presidential contest, where the two presidential candidates are much of their time campaigning, are also host to close congressional races. In fact, eight of the nine presidential battleground states have at least one house or senate race in which both candidates are in a deadlock and that could end up swaying the majorities in. In most cases, the presidential campaigns are far outspending the congressional campaigns. For example, in Ohio, Obama and Romney have spent a combined $75 million, while all of the candidates in the two closest House races in the state have only raised about $6 million all together. With so much focus on the presidential election, the presidential candidate that performs better and eventually wins the state will probably help to sway the state’s close races towards his party’s candidate. Looking at the bigger picture, this suggests that the candidate who is able to win more of the swing states, who will then almost definitely win the election, will also see more congressional election victories for their party. While polls for the Presidential Election show the candidates virtually neck-to-neck, Barack Obama still has a slight lead in most of the swing states, and the Democrats’ chances of maintaining a majority in the Senate and gaining seats in the House are looking slightly better than the Republicans’ for now. Polls have shown that this year’s
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
men in an unusual position. His pledge signed by 238 current Members of the House (only two of whom are Democrats) and 42 Senators (one of whom is a Democrat) requires Congressmen to oppose any legislation that has an overall or effective tax increase. Even a bill with with $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases would have to be rejected, due to Norquist’s pledge. Republicans feel required to sign the pledge to win their party’s nomination or the election, as they fear retaliation from Norquist, especially in the form of ads. Due to this, even turnover within the Republican party’s House seats probably wont lessen the number of member signing the pledge, and makes Obama’s need for Democrats to win the House and Senate is only greater. With the Senate likely to stay slightly Democratic, and the House Republican, it is unlikely that much will get done without compromise regardless of who wins the Presidential election. In congress, Romney will probably not face as little co-operation from the Democrats as Obama has from the Republicans, as the majority of the Democrats haven’t signed a pledge. However, if the Republicans refuse to raise taxes in any form, regardless of if they have a majority, Romney might face a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.
55
Features
SWING STATES IN THE 2012 ELECTION By Charles Cotton
I
n any presidential election, winning 270 electoral votes, out of 538, is the path to victory. The electoral votes in many states are taken for granted by the candidates. For instance, Massachusetts almost always votes Democratic, while Texas typically votes Republican. This follows for about 80 percent of the states and electoral votes. However, the remaining 20 or so percent of the states and electoral votes are up for grabs. These states are most commonly known as swing states or tossup states, and due to their importance, the candidates spend the majority of their time and money focusing on trying to win them. Ultimately, it is these five to ten states that give a candidate enough electoral votes to win. Each of these states has its own special demographics and voting blocs. Five of the most important swing states are Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado.
56
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Features
Florida
T
he state of Florida has 29 electoral votes, making it the third largest electoral state, along with New York. It is usually considered one of the two most significant states in the entire presidential election, along with Ohio. The larger states of New York and California usually vote Democrat, and Texas Republican. The state of Florida will be one of two states where more money is spent campaigning by both candidates then any other. The state consists mainly of three distinct demographics: elderly Jews, Latinos (Mainly Cubans and Puerto Ricans) who make up over 21 percent of the population, according to the US census bureau, and middle class whites. These demographics are geographically defined: Jews and Cubans typically reside in Southern Florida, Puerto Ricans in Central Florida, and middle class whites in Northern and Western Florida, near Jacksonville., Candidates tailor their messages very carefully in order to appeal to the views of each demographic. For example the elderly retirees, who are abundant in much of Southern Florida, have traditionally voted Democratic; but as they age, their needs and focus are changing. They want their candidate to protect their savings from increased taxes, reject any new estate taxes outright, and take a strong stand on keeping Israel safe and secure; however, the Puerto Ricans are strongly Democratic and will be hard to overcome for Romney, as his appeal to Latin Americans, other than the one million Cubans living in Florida, is limited because of the strong anti-immigration rhetoric of the Republican party. In fact, in the last election Hispanics as a whole voted in favor of Obama 67 percent of the time, according to CNN news. Overall it looks like it will be another tight race in Florida, but Obama should be able to overcome the increasing number of conservative retirees, and a downturn in the housing market, in order to carry the ever important state of Florida.
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
57
Features
Ohio
O
hio is also a very important state, with eighteen electoral votes. It has been a battleground state for the past several elections, and it continues to gain importance as its population increases. It has picked the winner in all but one election since 1944, which is why, thus far, according to The New York Times, more commercials and ads in general have been aired than in any other state. Ohio is made up of a high percentage of independent voters, who each party will try to win over. Many of these people are blue collar, generally white, men. In the state of Ohio, 84 percent of the whole population is white (6 percent more than the national average), according to census bureau, and many of them are working class, often belonging to Unions. Traditionally, save for the South, these types of people vote Democratic; however, with unemployment rates that are worrisome to many Americans, Obama is at risk of losing some of these votes. However the economy has shown some signs of improvement, and the polls reflect these improvements, with Obama narrowly holding his lead. Generally, the urban centers are more liberal than the conservative, rural areas. If Romney can get a high percentage of votes in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and possibly Columbus, too then he would have a strong chance to carry the state, however this is not very likely, as pollsters show his numbers in urban centers across the state to be uncompetitive to those of Obama. The way it looks now, and has looked for a while would lead me to have a hard time believing that Romney can win this state, which, statistically speaking, doesn’t bode well for his overall chances. However these polls are constantly changing as each significant event takes place, like the president’s subpar performance in the first debate.
Virginia
V
irginia has long been a solid red state, voting republican 13 out of the last 15 elections. However, Obama won Virginia in 2008. While Southern Virginia continues to be very conservative, like its southern neighbors, Northern Virginia, near Washington D.C has become far more liberal than it was before. This is why Obama surprisingly won Virginia four years ago. Those in Southern Virginia are not happy about the direction the country is going, so Obama is not expected to win there. Virginians who have government jobs may not support Romney’s platform to shrink government. Virginia is also home to many veterans who almost always support the Republican candidate. Virginia is a state that Obama feels he must win because he won it in the last election, while Romney feels he must win because of its previous Republican history, and of course its electoral votes. I believe that Obama will win Virginia because of his support in Northern Virginia, even after a disappointing four years in office for the president.
58
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Features
Colorado
C
olorado is often contested in the general election, but it almost always ends up voting Republican. However, in 2008 Obama pulled off a surprise upset, which helped him win the election. He hopes to do the same in this election. There is an abundance of Latino voters in Colorado and Obama is leading by an extremely wide margin amongst them. Romney must improve on these numbers if he wants to have any chance in Colorado. Although their nine electoral votes do not compare to the 29 of Florida or 18 of Ohio, they still can be very important. Another positive for Obama in Colorado is the extremely Democratic results of female voters in the past (as we can see in the 2010 senate and house elections. According to a study done by Rutgers students, women voted for the Democratic Senate candidate 56 percent of the time, when men voted for him only 40 percent of the time. Similar to Latinos, Obama is leading Romney by a great amount in terms of women voters. Romney should fare well amongst ranchers who are an important demographic in the state and can be counted on by almost any Republican nominee. Overall it seems like this race should come down to the wire, but the winner will ultimately be determined by the turnout of each demographic. In the end, Obama should carry Latinos and women and, therefore should be able to carry Colorado for the second time in a row.
North Carolina
N
orth Carolina is another swing state that has fifteen electoral votes. The Democrats chose to have their National Convention there, although it is historically a Republican state, showing their intention to compete for those fifteen important votes. North Carolina is predominantly made up of conservative working class whites, and mostly liberal blacks. It is 70 percent white and 22 percent black, with little other diversity. In the 2008 election, Obama was able to win over some of these whites, who voted Republican in the past, promising changes and improvements to the economy. Today, many believe he did not deliver, nor was he even close to doing so. In this election, with jobs being a major issue, most of the American people are looking for a real improvement in the job market, unlike what many of them got over the past four years. They believe that Romney will be able to boost the job market, due to his experience in the private sector. Romney has led in the polls for a while, but it remains close (much to the chagrin of the Republican party). The Democrats may continue to campaign in North Carolina, but in the end Romney will win, as his support amongst blue collar conservatives while be too much for the Democrats to handle.
T
he battleground states continue to be the focus of each presidential election. Once the primaries are finished and each party has picked their candidate, they spend the majority of their time going to these swing states, in order to gain as many electoral votes as possible. In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney will need to win at least half of the swing states, including Florida and Ohio, in order to win the presidency. I predict Obama will take the key swing states and win sufficient electoral votes to win the Presidency.
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
59
Features
An Unpopular System By Eric Stein
T
he Electoral College System is a system that allows someone to be elected as president even if they do not win the popular vote. It allows someone to be elected president by winning states with big populations by small margins. The U.S. uses the Electoral College system for the final stage of the election. The Electoral College system comes into place when each party has its candidate and the winner of the nationwide voting will become president. Each state is given a certain amount of electoral votes, and the states with bigger populations have more electoral votes. If a candidate has the most popular votes in a state, they get all of the electoral votes of that state. There are two states that have an exception to the “winner-takes-all” rule. Maine and Nebraska are the two exceptions, where they divide their states into districts and whoever has the most votes in each district wins that Electoral College vote. It doesn’t matter if the person who wins the popular vote in a state wins by only
60
a couple hundred votes, they get all of the electoral college votes of the state. The Electoral College system makes a voter in a very competitive state, also known as a “swing state,” such as Florida, more important than someone who is voting in a state that is a landslide or a state that is locked up such as New York. Either candidate in this year’s
So, Bush became president to which many Americans were angry with because they felt their votes didn’t matter. This lead to protests and also millions of Americans questioning the Electoral College system. presidential election needs 270 electoral votes to win. I think this system is unfair because it allows a candidate to become president even if they don’t win the popular vote. The system that should be used instead of the Electoral College system is a simple nationwide popular vote. The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
One example of a way in which the Electoral College system overturned the popular vote was in 2008 when Obama won the state of Iowa in the presidential election 818,240 votes for Obama, to 677,508 votes for McCain. Obama won all 7 electoral votes in Iowa even though the popular vote was very close. Another particularly controversial instance in which a candidate who lost the popular vote won the general election was in in 2000, when George Bush ran against Al Gore. The Electoral College system played a huge role in electing Bush as president. In that election Gore won the popular vote, but what matters is how many electoral votes each candidate receives. Bush received more electoral votes than Gore did. So, Bush became president to which many Americans were angry with because they felt their votes didn’t matter. This lead to protests and also millions of Americans questioning the Electoral College system. The Bush vs. Gore election is the third time where a candidate
Features
Electing a candidate based on popular vote would result in a more fair decision that includes the sentiments of the majority of Americans. loses the nationwide popular vote, but is elected because the candidate won more electoral votes. Also, in 2004, when Bush ran for re-election, Bush won the states 31 to 19, even though the popular vote was very close. The popular vote was 50.7 % to Bush and 48.3% to Kerry. It was almost a duplication of the 2000 election. In this year’s presidential election, it seems the Electoral College system will provide an advantage to Romney.
Obama in the pre-election polls leads the popular vote. If Romney can win key swing states such as Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio by very slim margins, he would win the election even though he didn’t win the popular vote. Electing a candidate based on popular vote would result in a more fair decision that includes the sentiments of the majority of Americans. Simply, whoever has the most votes at the end of the election would win. It shouldn’t
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
matter what state you are in. I think all of the votes should be added up and whoever has the most, is elected president. This system would work by making every single vote equal, no matter what state you are in. The president should be elected by the majority of people that agree with his policies. The president shouldn’t be elected because of a system that doesn’t follow what the majority of people in America actually want.
61
Features
WHERE HAS THE YOUTH VOTE GONE?
http://www.photos-room.com/
By Evan Greene
In 2008, students all over America held signs, knocked on doors, and used Facebook to help usher Obama into office. Thousands of youths joined the Democrats to support Obama. Many feel that voters aged 18-24 years were so powerful that they actually changed his entire campaign with their upbeat enthusiasm and grass root activism. However, the focus of this year’s election is very different. It is clear that the economy is not only a major factor to all voters, but a crucial one for new voters who are starting working careers. In what will surely be a very close race, there seems to be less activism by young voters on college campuses, in support of either candidate.
62
The political climate is remarkably different for this election of 2012. Many young voters have not been going to the polls to register to vote. The Chicago Tribune reports, “Only half of voting-age Americans younger than 30 are absolutely certain that they are registered to vote, the independent organization’s polls have found. That compares with registration levels of 61% in 2008 and 27% in 2004.” What are the reasons that young democrats are not registering to vote this election as they did four years ago? Some say that the average young American is unhappy and unemployed. Many have lost faith in the promises made by Obama in the last election. Maybe our young
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
voter population is angry and hurt that they have not seen the changes they had so seriously hoped for in the election of 2008. Others feel like Obama inherited a horrible financial situation that wasn’t his fault, and he has done his best to dig us out of our economic woes. Young voters would vote for him because they believe that he has done the best job possible given the economic recession passed on to him. Obama’s ability to capture the youth vote is now in jeopardy. Times are hard and there is not a new unheard voice for the Democratic Party this time around. We must give some thought to what it is like when a president runs for the second term,
Features
Obama's ability to capture the youth vote is now in jeopardy. when his ideas sound the same and the campaign is a little less exciting. It is hard for the incumbent to impress the voters with new ideas and policies. Younger people may not be caught up in the idea of Obama for President, as it is old news now, and they like to stay current. Younger voters are not as likely to folThey are more interested in the provision of jobs for young college graduates, which may increase with more programs and current. Younger voters are not as likely to follow a run for second term as president, as they are on to the next challenge. They are more interested in the provision of jobs for young college graduates, which may increase with more programs and funding. This is a low a run for second term as president, as they are on to the next challenge. They are more interested in the provision of jobs for young college graduates,
which may increase with more programs and current. Younger voters are not as likely to follow a run for second term as president, as they are on to the next challenge. They are more interested in the provision of jobs for young college graduates, which may increase with more programs and funding. This is a more immediate concern for young voters, and so calls their attention. Obama can try to gain more votes by dedicating a speech solely to the youth of America. Obama can present examples of how he can create more jobs and increase salaries for young people. Creating financial help could lead to big steps in Obama’s campaign. The more people he encourages to vote, the greater his support and chances of winning will be. To stimulate the rate of youth vote, he must create a new source of money. This is essential for Obama’s continuation as President of the United States. Another focus Obama can have is to perfect his oratory skills to what they were four years ago. To me, something new, different and outgoing is what young voters and college kids can appreciate in a strong president. On the other side of the picture, Mitt Romney is trying to take advantage of the seemingly lack of enthusiasm so far by young voters for Obama. The New York Times reported that Joshua Baca, National Coalitions
Director of Romney’s campaign, said, “The Romney campaign tends to seize the moment, with new online and campus-based initiatives rolling out in the next few weeks.” He said the message was simple: “Mr. Obama polices are not working for young people.” Romney hopes to capitalize on the state of the economy and the recession which has hurt recent college graduates’ ability to break into the job market. This is interesting to me as many young people think that initiatives for employment might be worse with Romney. What I find hardest to understand is the lack of enthusiasm emitted by young voters on either side. It would seem to me that any 18 year old would be thrilled with the opportunity to vote. Also isn’t walking into that voting booth and pulling the curtains shut for the first time an exciting event. It shouldn’t matter which side you are on- Republican or Democrat - young voter percentages should be the highest of any age bracket. It is important that our nation bring a new generation of enthusiastic youth who care about the state of America. So maybe the inventors of smart phone applications need to create a new application that will bring voters between the ages of 1824 to the voting polls. It is time for the young Americans to go to the polls and make an impact on America because we are the future.
cuindependent.com
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
63
http://www.cuindependent.com
http://blogs.voanews.com/
Features
NO LIES FROM ROMNEY JAKE HABERMAN
D
uring the early stages of his electoral campaigning, Governor Romney was often criticized for his lack of transparency when it came to his personal taxes. In an attempt to quell public suspicion, he released his 2010 and 2011 federal income tax reports. The public however did not find solace in his candid acts, for Mr. Romney continued to be unjustly criticized. Why did you pay “so little” in taxes? Are you trying to avoid paying money to the Federal Government? Why have you been so hesitant to re-
64
veal your foreign finances? Regardless of these censures, Governor Romney followed all of the “rules” in relation to paying his federal income taxes. These attacks therefore either depict superficial understandings of the Federal tax system, or malicious attempts to vivify unwarranted opposition to Governor Romney’s campaign. Governor Romney’s latest tax report detailed that the majority of his taxable income was from long-term capital gains and qualified dividends, both of which are taxed at an effective The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
rate of 14%. However, salaried and wage earning employees paid as much as 35% of their gross income to the Federal Government (disregarding any deductions they might have received). So while it might seem unfair that Governor Romney paid “so little” of his income to the Federal Government in 2011, the reality of the situation is far from unjust. He paid his federal income taxes as owed. In 2011, Governor Romney was eligible to receive $4.02 million in tax deductions because of his consid-
Features
Mr. Romney continued to be unjustly criticized. Why did you pay “so little” in taxes? Are you trying to avoid paying money to the Federal Government? Why have you been so hesitant to reveal your foreign finances? ably generous donations to charity. Yet when the time came to send in his annual federal income taxes, he did not use all of the available deductions. Accordingly Mr. Romney paid an additional $500,000 to the federal government. So why, one would ask, did he wait so long (under intense scrutiny) to release his financial documents? The candidate recently explained to Parade magazine that his hesitancy stemmed from the amount of money that the Romneys gave to the Mormon Church. “Our church doesn’t publish how much is given,” Romney noted. “One of the downsides of releasing one’s financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It’s a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and
to our church.” Officials from the Obama campaign have stressed that Governor Romney has “not been straight with the American people” regarding his foreign ventures. They have repeatedly highlighted Governor Romney’s alleged “tax havens” (in Bermuda, Luxembourg, and the Cayman Islands), and condemned the dearth of information that the Romney campaign has disclosed about them. But are Governor Romney’s foreign bank accounts and foreign stakes really a cause of concern for the American public? He explains in an interview with Fox News, “Blind trusts often turn to foreign [investments]. That tends to be something [they] do.” Governor Romney’s critics have also played up the fact that he has not been paying taxes
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
on the returns from his foreign investments. Nonetheless, the Federal Government cannot touch those proceeds as long as they are not brought back into the country. “And quite frankly,” Governor Romney states, “all the taxes (on his now foreign funds) were paid exactly as owed [before they left the country].” Romney’s federal income tax reports add another dimension to his personal image. Aside from being the Republican Presidential Candidate, he is also that successful foreign investor who at times has been reluctant to release statements about his personal finances. This lack of transparency alone has surely lost him countless numbers of votes. Yet with regard to his income taxes, people would be mistaken in calling him unjust or greedy.
65
http://web-link.info/ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Economics
Regulate the Private $ector Opposing Perspectives on the Presidential Candidate's Plans to Deal with the Issue
Harry Seavey 66
Jack Golub
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
Economics
Pro: Additional Regulation is Essential for Prosperity
I
By Harry Seavey
f you turn on the television today and listen to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speak about the economy, you will constantly hear the words “deregulation.” If you happen to do the same thing with incumbent Barack Obama, you will notice his lauding of the very thing Mitt Romney rejects: regulation. The candidates are running on a variety of very different positions, but nowhere are their differences more stark than in their approaches to government regulation of the private sector. More specifically, the differences are apparent when we examine their attitudes towards business, and the way businesses interact with the environment. For example, Romney wants to repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a bill of which Obama demonstrated resounding support for, signing the bill into law. Romney wants to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency; in contrast, Obama wants to further the EPA’s control over regulatory action.
Both men have competing views on laws governing the actions of the private sector, but one has a demonstrably better position. Barack Obama’s firm support of increasing regulation upon banks and businesses has not only been shown to be the most effective way to approach the private sector during his presidency, but also this philosophy proved effective under previous administrations as well. Regulating the private sector is an obligatory government function to prevent financial disasters (e.g., the crash of 2008) and mitigate environmental damage. Without government regulation, society faces substantial risks that imperil its stability. In 2008, the most severe economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s struck the United State— with catastrophic results. So large was the recession that value equal to 14.5 trillion dollars was lost from companies worldwide, the largest drop in American GDP since the 1950’s was seen, and one out of every ten Amer-
icans was out of work. Causes of the financial crisis are still disputed four years later, but many economists and politicians agree that a primary cause behind the crumbling of the financial system was irresponsible lending from banks and other financial institutions, specifically real estate loans, typically known as “mortgage loans.” These mortgage loans were made to people who undoubtedly could not pay them back. When the loans were not paid back, the holders of the mortgage loans, whether they were the original lenders or purchasers of the loans, were out vast sums of money. When significant financial institutions lost substantial amounts of money, they went bankrupt (i.e. Lehman Brothers in 2008) or the institutions became so financially weak that government was forced to invest in them to help them survive (i.e. AIG in 2008). At the heart of the circumstances surrounding the collapse of 2008, in which reckless mortgage lending started the ball rolling, was government’s failure
The United States government is one of the least regulative in the world, yet private sector regulation is still a heavily contentious argument
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
67
Economics
to regulate how, and to whom, loans could be given out. Banks were eager to lend to anyone and everyone in order to turn a profit, but when hundreds of thousands of borrowers, and then some, could not pay the money back, banks, and the economy, went under. The solution to such a problem was simple: impose restrictions on mortgage loans, such as limiting how much money can be lent towards the price of a home and requiring that a borrower have a certain grade of credit when borrowing money. If government had imposed these simple limitations on lending before the crisis, we might not have had to weather the devastating consequences of the crash. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 is an excellent example of the irresponsible deregula-
68
tion of the economy in the early 2000’s. The bill, signed by then President Clinton in 2000, deregulated a financial product known as an “over the counter derivatives”, stating than an over the counter derivative would not be regulated by any government agency. There are many different types of over the counter derivatives, but they are essentially financial contracts exchanged between two parties. One form of OTC derivatives is known as “credit default swaps” and had a large impact on the 2008 crisis. A credit default swap is, in essence, insurance on a pool of mortgages, with the catch being that the person who owns the insurance does not have to own the pool of mortgages. This situation is typically likened to a person, or many people, owning fire insurance on a house he does not own.
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
In short, a credit default swap is a bet on whether a pool of mortgages will or will not retain their value. So when the value of a pool of mortgages goes down, many, many “insurers,” in fact a number many times greater than the one owner of a given pool of mortgages, will lose money. This loss in value can be, and in 2008 was, enormous. The impact of credit default swaps on the meltdown in 2008 was substantial, and the only reason credit default swaps did so much damage was because Clinton irresponsibly deregulated them (and all OTC derivatives) in 2000. And yet, the mortgage market has not been the only one to have suffered under the Commodities Futures Modernization Act; the oil market has been under duress ever since the CFMA’s enactment. Much like mortgages, the CFMA allowed for deregulation of oil products. The allowance of of non-commercial entities to buy, sell, and trade oil products has drastically changed prices. If oil is indeed a precious resource, then we cannot allow for its prices to be at risk of manipulation by those non-commercial entities. Regulatory action, primarily the repealing of the CFMA, is imperative in preventing an oil price crisis. Clinton’s signing of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, and the damage it would do, is a testament to the fact that deregulation can, and will, lead to financial meltdowns of both domestic and international economies—and that it is imperative to end the love affair with deregulation as soon as possible, lest America fall into another economic recession just again. . Appropriate regulation does not
Economics only protect people’s pocketbooks, but also it protects people’s health. A healthy, safe environment has been shown to affect the living standards of countries, the infant mortality of countries, and the life expectancy of countries. Pollution has been linked to a number of ailments, including appendicitis, respiratory diseases, ear infections, diabetes, and various heart diseases—and its up to the government to make sure that the condition of our environment is not at the hands of greedy corporations looking to sacrifice anything and everything for a profit. It’s absolutely imperative that government prevent corporations from destroying the environment, and with it public health and safety. Only one thing can accomplish these goals, however, and that is regulation. Regulations need to be placed upon enterprise to mitigate it’s industrial cousin. After decades of results: The EPA has instituted small, environmental damage, or America dangerous waste emission from corpo- but nevertheless landmark, regulations runs the risk of endangering the lives of rations across America, 40% of all riv- upon businesses, and the benefits have millions of citizens with tainted water, ers, and 48% of all lakes are too polluted been proven. For example, because of polluted air, and poisonous food sup- for fishing, swimming, and drinking. 3 significant drops in particle pollutions millions tons of toxic chemicals annu- from 1980 to 2000, scientists have replies. In a world where urbanization is ally are belched into American air, wa- corded an increase in life expectancy by increasing at a steadier pace each year, ter, and land. The cost of coal burning five months in fifty-one U.S. cities. Simand the industrialization of both first in environmental damage equaled 62 ply put, America cannot function under such conditions. But with world and developing councitizens dying and the envitries continues to grow, the “The impact of credit default swaps on the meltdown in ronment being destroyed, the world’s environment has taken greater and greater hits 2008 was substantial, and the only reason credit default government must do something more. with each passing decade. The time has come for Some countries, like China, swaps did so much damage was because Clinton irresponsithe government and the peohave industrialized so quickly bly deregulated them (and all OTC derivatives) in 2000.” ple of this nation to finally that laws regulating the envistand up to the industrial ronmental actions of corporations have not been able to keep up billion dollars in 2005. Thirty five thou- titans that are destroying our econwith the exponential growth of indus- sand seven hundred people died last omy and environment. It is the peotry—with devastating effects. In Chi- year in America of diseases connected ple, as detailed by the authors of the na, cancer is the leading cause of death to particle pollution, of which the EPA Declaration of Independence and the because of carcinogens released into has yet to impose health standards on. Constitution, that are supposed to run the land, water, and air, clean drinking In the past few decades, scientists have this country, and it is the people who water isn’t available to millions of cit- found a small, but nevertheless import- demand regulation. No longer can we izens because of toxins in rivers and ant, increase in lung-cancer in people stand for the government’s reckless inlakes, and only 1% of citizens breathe who had never smoked. The facts are difference to corporations and banks clean air. And if you think China’s situ- here, but the question remains: when that run wild at the cost of American ation is some far off fantasy, you would will the government and the EPA solve lives and livelihoods. This behavior be surprised to learn that because of the the environmental crisis that is destroy- must stop now, or America will face American government’s lackadaisical ing this beautiful country and killing decades plagued by economic recesattitude towards regulatory action, the our citizens? The answer has been par- sions and the consequences of a damUnited States has begun to resemble tially answered already, with positive aged environment. The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
69
Economics
Con: Additional Regulation is Not Essential for Prosperity
“T
he private sector is doing fine.” These were the words of President Barack Obama during a June press conference at the White House. In an election centered upon the national economy, these words define Obama. By stating such an opinion, his lack of judgment and awareness demonstrates the fact that that there is clearly only one candidate who can fix our problems and only one candidate with the economic background and success making him suited to lead. Former Massachusetts Governor Romney has a track record of economic success dating back to his time spent at Bain Capital. While Obama and his campaign have continually criticized Romney for his time spent there, he was highly successful and he earned his success. The “business know-how,” understanding, and experience he conveyed and accumulated during his time at Bain are the same traits that make him well-suited to lead our economy. He has proven he can generate economic success in the private sector, something Obama hasn’t even come close to doing. So in other words: no Mr. President, the private sector is not doing fine. In order to determine how much “regulation” there should be, it is important to define this term. Regulation
70
By Jack Golub of the private sector comes in two different forms; let’s call them legislative and executively authorized. Legislative consists of laws passed by Congress, such as the requirement of all companies to give salaries that at least satisfy minimum wage. The other type, executively authorized, is where the President appoints a group of unelected individuals as an agency that’s given the power to set regulations. These regulations, the ones determined by agencies, are of the utmost concern, since these have and, if Obama remains in office, will continue to cripple our economy. An example of regulation is the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Act Obama considers his crowning economic achievement, and an act that if followed to its entire extent would severely cripple the Private Sector. It consists of over 2,300 pages within which are almost 500 new rules! If organizations like the SEC, which has only implemented a third of the mandates stated for it in Dodd Frank, can’t possibly follow it in its entirety, how do we expect corporations to? After all, they are quite busy trying to survive in this economy as is, regardless of ridiculous new regulations. It also establishes the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) that gives a single
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
director a budget of over $500 million and unchecked authority. Before getting into what regulations Dodd-Frank imposes, these facts alone prove it to be a ridiculous act. Regulation on the private sector was originally put into place to inhibit the ability of a company to have a monopoly; yet giving one single person the absolute authority on hundreds of regulations and hundreds of millions of dollars to enforce these and come up with new regulations is a monopoly in it of itself. The entire system of regulations where the President chooses unelected members of agencies is hypocritical and simply not fair. The concepts of capitalism and free enterprise are built upon the premise of equal opportunity, yet mandates posed by Dodd-Frank eliminate opportunities for only select companies. Obama stating that the goal of his increased taxes on the upper class, additional educational benefits, and medical insurance is to provide everyone a chance to succeed is pure hypocrisy! Obama’s giving advantages to certain businesses and crippling others is, in the name of capitalism, appalling. The specific effects of Dodd-Frank, an act exemplifying the Obama administration, are a legitimate threat to our national economy. One example is the
Economics
Since these technology companies do not have officials breathing down their necks, they have the ability to take some risks. These risks have shaped our world as we know it.
Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), which allows the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Treasury Secretary, and the Federal Reserve to liquidate a financial company would damage financial stability in the US. If it is then authorized, the FDIC shall run and sell the company as it sees fit. If this happens, it would occur in a time of great economic instability and uncertainty. So, in the midst of a financial crisis, when leadership and smart thinking is of primary concern, an entirely new government-run organization assumes control. And the thing is, these guidelines aren’t specific at all. How close to defaulting is too close, or how damaging would it have to be? These questions are answered not by companies who are necessary to the survival and growth of our economy, but by bureaucrats. Now consider that of the 500 regulations instituted by Dodd-Frank, only 30 per cent have been enacted. It’s that complex! If it is too complex to be even enacted, let alone followed, how can Obama expect this to help? Furthermore, this OLA is only one of many established by Dodd-Frank, which itself is only one act of regulation. Mitt Romney would repeal Dodd-Frank. Mitt Romney would let our capitalism flourish. A contrary example of the benefits of lack of private sector regulation can be found by looking at companies that have flourished: companies in industries with little regulation. Many of these companies come from the technology industry, an industry with significantly fewer regulations than that of Wall Street. Technology companies like Apple, the highest valued company in the entire world, or Google, which is right behind. These two companies are known for their cutting edge innovation, innovation that has only come about by taking risks. Sometimes new technology flops, like the first Windows Phone, but this is a necessary part of free enterprise in America. Since these technology companies do not have officials breathing down their necks, they have the ability to take some risks. These risks have shaped our world as we know it. For example, the iPhone was a risk. The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
By thriving in an industry with little regulation, technology companies have proven that less regulation leads to more growth. These companies are growing and are hiring new employees, not laying them off because they have regulations restraining them. They can grow to their fullest potential and truly embrace capitalism because government is not holding them down. By having prolonged, incredible success, technology companies like Apple and Google have proven that lack of private sector regulation is vital to our economy. More regulation will not help; it will only damage an economy that is already weak. It is unfair to judge a man based on a single quote, but in this case: “the private sector is doing fine,” highlights the lack of understanding Obama has for the economy. The United States of America is a top economic power in the world, yet we have slipped considerably over the past few years. By enacting regulations like DoddFrank, regulations that the president and his appointees alone decide, capitalism is hurt. Free enterprise is hurt, and bureaucrats in Washington decide the fate of thousands of companies. These officials are not forced to react to changing economic states, while the individual companies have to. Therefore, the individual companies are the ones that can make the most informed and efficient decisions. Obama’s economic policies have failed to truly create more jobs and get America “back on its feet.” Mitt Romney wants us, America, to succeed, and he knows that we must let free enterprise and our economy speak for itself. If we regulate, we are nationalizing our economy, and a nationalized economy will not help the American people. President Barack Obama is well on his way from taking the United States of America’s capitalist nature away and making all economic decisions for us. If that is a path you are willing to walk down, and you are willing to live with the consequences, your choice is clear. But if you want our economy to prosper, and you want companies to be in control of themselves and able to grow, then don’t take Obama’s practically socialist regulations. Take capitalism. Choose Mitt Romney.
71
Economics
THE FLAT ROAD AHEAD WHY THE UNITED STATES MUST SCRAP THE TAX CODE AND REPLACE IT WITH A FLAT TAX By Mitchell Troyanovsky
P
ayingTroyanovsky taxes can be thought of as Mitchell
paying a fee to our government for providing military protection and public goods to all residents. If this is true, why do some residents pay a higher percentage of their income toward financing said services? It is wrong to ask some people in our country to give up more of their income than others to finance governmental services. It is not fair for a family with an income of $300,000 to pay more in taxes than a family with an
72
income of eighty thousand dollars; yet, they both receive military protection, have the protection of local police, have access to an emergency room in case of emergencies, and have access to public schools to get a free education for their children. Each level of government should change its tax code for the purpose of ensuring that all current taxpayers pay the same rate on their income. This should apply to only nominal income and not to capital gains or dividend
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
taxes, as those must stay low to incentivize investment. As a result, the federal nominal flat tax rate should fall to an amount around 15% which, at any rate, is close to that of the capital gains tax, anyway. On top of that, our current tax code is extremely complex and actually costs money for the government to count and collect all the taxes: 11 billion dollars. Converting to a flat tax would not only simplify our tax system but also make it more cost ef-
Economics
Countries that have adopted the flat tax “Almost 50 countries around the world currently employ a flat tax, further proving that it is not the outlandish anarchist system liberal media claims it to be.“ ficient. Those 11 billion dollars could be used for a wide variety of useful endeavors instead of collecting taxes. While a flat tax is not what Mitt Romney is proposing, it has been proposed by some of his fellow Republi-
redistribution of wealth. Politicians don’t like to dub the idea as a redistribution of wealth, but that is exactly what it is. Almost 50 countries around the world currently employ a flat tax,
want to keep our current tax system because they believe that changing it could hurt their election chances. Unfortunately we live in a society where that is true, where the majority of voters being middle/middle lower/ lower
“It is wrong to ask some people in our country to give up more of their income than others to finance governmental services. It is not fair for a family with an income of $300,000 to pay more in taxes than a family with an income of eighty thousand dollars; yet, they both receive military protection, have the protection of local police, have access to an emergency room in case of emergencies, and have access to public schools to get a free education for their children.”
cans such as Herman Cain. Romney wants to lower taxes by 20% across the board. Although this is not a flat tax, it is a step in the right direction because it would decrease loopholes and, in turn, make the tax code simpler. Contrary to liberal propaganda, it is “fair” to tax all income brackets proportionally, and it is not fair to force higher income residents to disproportionately pay for governmental services. It would be socialist to take more from the rich and then use it in spending, which is essentially
further proving that it is not the outlandish anarchist system liberal media claims it to be. In fact some state in our country have such a tax system including but not limited to Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Utah, Tennessee and so on. This system is not a new outlandish idea because it has incorporation even here in the U.S and even in countries of importance like the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia. Both presidential candidates
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
class don’t want to pay the same tax rate as the upper class. Mitt Romney once said, “you can’t punish the wealthy for being successful.” I absolutely agree with that statement. It is fair for everyone to pay the same tax. It is unfair for those who have participated in the macroeconomic environment to be taxed a greater amount than those who haven’t been quite as successful. We are all part of the United States of America; we should all equally assist in financing her endeavors.
73
Economics
Bubble Economics Fed Implementing QE3 By Edmund Bannister
O
n September 13th, 2012, Ben Bernanke walked into a packed Washington pressroom. Cameras flashed, microphones stretched out into the air near the podium, reporters sat in complete silence listening to what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve was going to say. Bernanke made a brief statement. By the end of the Day, every stock index around the world including the Dow, Nasdaq, and Nikkei indices was up at least 2%, if not more. Every news pundit, every stock analyst, every journalist, and every economist gave their opinion on Bernanke’s announcement. The Federal Reserve has entered into a third round of Quantitative Easing. The Fed is going to lower interest rates in the United States by buying 40 billion dollars of mortgage debt and promises to keep interest rates at these levels through 2015. By buying this debt the Fed is injecting billions of dollars of cheap cash into the banking system to encourage lending and spur economic growth, a plan that is the height of lunacy. This cheap cash,
74
fresh off the U.S. treasury printing press, will not revitalize our economy. In fact this kind of bubble economics, financed by inflation, is the exact reason the Great Recession occurred in the first place. Economists, politicians, and business people of every party or group agree that the financial crash and the recession were largely set off as a result the housing bubble. This massive glut of houses formed as a result of “aggressive” monetary policy by Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman preceding Bernanke. The sustained low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve and financed by inflation, encouraged banks to lend to anyone and everyone by making money so easy to lend. Mortgages became so cheap that people began borrowing money far beyond their means to purchase houses. This massive amount of new mortgage debt spread through the banking system, part of it expanding the subprime mortgage market. Eventually investors realized that all this debt was worthless and many of the mortgages would nevThe Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
er be paid back. When they realized that huge quantities of this debt were held by the largest banks in the country, who couldn’t find buyers for it, the stock market crashed. Consumer confidence was devastated, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns went out of business, the government was forced to bail out the banking system, and the recession began. Now, Ben Bernanke is proposing the same thing as Greenspan did after the .Com crash and 9/11 when the economy was in a slump. Bernanke is taking a scalpel and using it as if it is a machete. It is now the Fed’s policy to keep interest rates low, come rain or shine, until 2015. This means the Fed will continue to buy up assets from the banks to promote lending. The Federal Funds Rate (Interest rate banks must pay to take out a loan from the Fed) will be kept at a tiny 0.25%. Bear in mind the money the Fed is injecting into the system is newly printed cash, representative of no real savings or value. Even if the economy is roaring by 2014, interest rates will stay low, and just like before
Economics
If an economy is to grow, capital must be used efficiently first and foremost, not just thrown haphazardly into the market. the recession, a bubble will begin to form. It will expand and expand with politicians citing it as economic “prosperity.” Then it will pop. The economy will collapse. Money markets will dry up worldwide and the government will be forced to bail out the financial system once again. An institution that is supposed to balance our economy in times of need will become an instrument of our destruction. It is the federal reserves job, established at its founding in the Great Depression, to manage inflation, keep market prices stable, and keep interest rates at a reasonable level. Ben Bernanke and the Fed Board have lost sight of this purpose. The economy isn’t a machine that can be engineered to pursue an agenda but rather an organic entity and should be treated as such. The only thing more infuriating than the irresponsible current monetary policy by the Fed that it is based on the assumption that growth will occur in the first place. The first two rounds of quantitative easing were ineffective. Interest rates have never been lower in U.S. History, yet the unemployment rate still hovers around 8%, consumer confidence remains low, and banks refuse to open their purse strings. It is the very manifestation of insanity for the Fed to try the same thing again and again and hope for a different result. A free-market economy abides by its own time schedule, and attempting to manipulate it to be politically and economically convenient is not a constructive practice, even if the economy grows, for the multitude of reasons mentioned above. Wealth and prosperity emerge from investments made with real savings, not a series of bubbles created by runaway monetary policy. In order to sustain
growth, debt must be kept at a moderate level. Any industry or economy driven by too large a quantity of debt is bound to crash. It must be the Fed’s policy to lower the amount money injected into the economy, so banks and companies are forced to save and then invest their money. Slightly lower quantities of capital and slightly higher interest rates will reduce the volume debt of mal-investments such as subprime mortgages. If an economy is to grow, capital must be used efficiently first and foremost, not just thrown haphazardly into the market. Austrian economics, one of the great schools of economic thought and research, is based upon many of these principles. It is time for a Fed chairman that embraces these principles as well. Of course the President is the man who appoints the Fed chairman. Both the candidates in the presidential election have taken a stand in the debate over the Federal Reserve. Romney has taken the position that this third round of quantitative easing
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
is unwise. Paul Ryan, hisvice-presidential nominee, recently referred to QE3 as, “sugar high economics.” It is the perfect metaphor in my opinion, for the Fed’s policies over the past 15 plus years. Obama is standing by Bernanke, the Fed chairman he re-nominated (Bush originally appointed Bernanke). A quick jump in the stock market, consumer confidence, and even positive job numbers may be exactly what Obama needs to win the election in November, even if the effects are not long lasting. But whether or not the decision by the Fed was politically motivated, the American public needs to seriously scrutinize Bernanke’s policies and consider what role the Federal Reserve should play in our economy. In a country that prides itself on fair play and free-market principles, it is time to examine whether those principles are being followed. Boom and Bust economics will endure so long as our leaders will do everything and anything to encourage growth, even if the growth comes in the form of a bubble.
75
Science and Technology
Empty Rhetoric: Election Year Energy Policy
A
nyone who watched the presidential debate on October 3 heard Jim Lehrer, the moderator, repeatedly ask the candidates to describe the differences between their policies. On the subject of energy, viewers heard discussion of the oil industry and natural gas. However, no matter who is elected, the outcomes for the energy sector look similar. The candidates’ policies have more in common than not in common. It is especially difficult to determine the policies’ differences given that neither candidate has been specific enough about his policy. Americans deserve in-depth discussion by the candidates on the future of the
76
By Jenna Barancik energy sector. Neither candidate has provided that, although Mitt Romney has been more specific on how he plans to increase domestic oil and natural gas production. Romney portrays himself as the champion of domestic energy resources; according to his campaign website, “[he] will make America an energy superpower.” However, Obama also wants to increase domestic oil and natural gas production. Obama has yet to define his method, but points to an increase in production during his term. That fact (the increase in production) alone is not enough information. Obama should be specifying how he would continue that trend,
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
and if his administration would truly be responsible for that continuation. The Obama-Biden campaign website reads that Obama “is promoting” and that the Obama Administration “supports” natural gas. That’s it. When deciding whom to vote for, Americans deserve more than such vagueness. Obama especially needs to state the “how” of his plan, as he did not necessarily cause the rise in oil and natural gas production. Much of the new extraction has been on private lands. Furthermore, Obama has hindered achieving North American energy independence by vetoing the Keystone XL pipeline and decreasing the issuance of drilling permits in the Gulf during the past year. In light of
Science and Technology the BP oil spill, caution over offshore drilling is prudent and necessary. However, Obama cannot simultaneously reject the Keystone XL pipeline, an extension of an oil pipeline coming from Canada, and promote North American oil independence. He cannot please his environmentalist constituents while pleasing Americans who see the opportunities for job creation the development of North American oil reserves presents. Therefore, he pussyfoots around the issue. He refrains from stating his support or disapproval over the pipeline’s resubmission. Again, voters deserve better. Romney, however, openly wants to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, saying in October 3’s debate, “I’ll bring that pipeline in from Canada.” Additionally, Romney intends to achieve North American energy independence by reforming regulations and issuing more permits. Specifically, Romney would try to hand over responsibility for oil drilling on Federal lands to states. This means respective states would control the issuance of permits and the regulation of drilling
that happens inside their state. This would limit “big government” and hopefully make the process of issuing permits faster. Although Romney has been more explicit about energy than Obama, he should still provide more details. On the Romney campaign website, the energy section reads that he “will eliminate any barriers that might prevent new energy technologies from succeeding on their own merits” and will “streamline” regulation. Romney should specify how he would accomplish these goals. Despite the apparent differences between the candidates’ positions, no matter who is elected, domestic oil production will increase. Obama has already issued new permits in Alaska, and Romney would continue the trend if elected. Admittedly, Romney advocates for offshore drilling more so than Obama. However, Romney would still need the approval of states like Florida and California to drill off their coasts, and their approval is unlikely according to CNN. No matter who is elected, nat-
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
ural gas production will increase. As for other forms of energy, it is unclear. During October 3’s debate, the candidates mentioned nuclear energy zero times, coal once, and argued over green energy subsidies without discussing if green energy is viable without government support. It is impossible for voters to make an educated decision with so little information.
“It is especially difficult to
determine the policies’ differences given that neither candidate has been specific enough about his policy. Americans deserve in-depth discussion by the candidates on the future of the energy sector. Neither candidate has provided that…”
77
Science and Technology
LEGALIZE
STEM CELLS
NOW ! NOW ! By Sam Fisch
By Samuel Fisch
S
tem cell research offers potential cures for many of today’s greatest medical afflictions: heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, to name a few. The two main classifications of stem cells are embryonic and adult. Although adult stem cells possess many of the same qualities as embryonic stem cells, the adult cells are by no means full replacements for embryonic cells. Scientists who conduct research on embryonic stem cells are not destroying life; on the contrary, their research is pro-life. The research has the potential to lessen the suffering of millions of people, and could lead to cures for many of today’s leading causes of death. Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research must be permitted, because this research is criti-
78
cal to curing many medical ailments. According to research at the University of Michigan, embryonic stem cells exist “only at the earliest stages of embryonic development” and “are capable of making any cell type in the body.” On the other hand, the study states that adult stem cells are “tissue-specific stem cells,” and this type of stem cell is not in embryos. Adult stem cells are very specialized in comparison to embryonic stem cells, and can only develop into one or two types of tissue. For example, while a certain type of adult stem cell might be able to develop into blood and immune system cells, an embryonic cell has the capability to develop into a myriad of different types of cells, each with a specific function. The cultural debate and controver-
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
sy over stem cells is about whether the use of embryonic stem cells destroys of human life. The scientific community continually debates whether adult or embryonic stem cells are more beneficial, because it is not yet known which type will be more helpful in finding cures for medical ailments. We must continue to allow federal funding for research of both types until we can fully understand which offers the best for different diseases. Every year, hundreds of thousands of stored embryos go to waste. They remain frozen and stored at in vitro fertilization clinics around the world. Never to be used for pregnancy, these embryos remain untouched. Fertility clinics are faced with a choice: they can discard the embryos or donate them for scientific
Science and Technology research. Social conservatives believe that the destruction of embryos, even for scientific purposes, is paramount to abortion and therefore the termination of an embryo is the murder of a human being. Their argument is illogical. If the embryos are not to be used for a future pregnancy attempt or donated for scientific research, the clinics that store these embryos will at some point have to discard them in the trash. By disposing of the embryos, we are wasting countless opportunities to further research that will help us to better understand the many scientific complexities of embryonic stem cells. One of President Obama’s first acts was to reverse the Bush Administration’s ban on federal funding on human embryonic stem cell research. President Obama overturned the Bush Administration policy and permitted the National Institutes of Health to fund the use of embryos for stem cell research as long as federal funds were not directly used in the production of the stem cells. In a creatively worded executive order, President Obama decreed that federal funds could not be used to extract the stem cells from the embryos (which would otherwise be discarded), but once a private lab made the stem cells ready for research, federal
funding could be used to then conduct research on the embryonic stem cells. As subsequent courts have upheld, this policy allows federal funding of research on embryonic stem cells only after they have been derived from the embryos – therefore, no human embryos are destroyed in the projects that the government is funding. The government must continue to fund embryonic stem cell research because it is so crucial to potential cures for many of today’s most pressing medical concerns. Although stem cell research used to be a more prominent political issue, it has not yet been front and center in this year’s presidential election. The Republican Party’s platform does contain support for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion as well as a statement that they opposed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. It is interesting that many prominent Republicans have publicly supported embryonic stem cell research. Nancy Reagan spoke out publicly in support of embryonic stem cell research and her son Michael addressed the Democratic National Convention on the topic as well. Although the issue of stem cell research played a prominent role in prior elections, in this election, the issue has not received much atten-
www.stemcellresearch.org
tion at all. Even though it is difficult to pin Governor Romney down on what his position on embryonic stem cell research in a Romney presidency would be, the Republican party platform as well as Vice Presidential candidate Ryan supports giving fetuses the same rights as humans. It is easy to see how these positions would spell the death of federal funding for stem cell research if it were put into law. Embryonic stem cell research is such a critical source of medical research for potential advancements for so many ailments that if Mitt Romney were elected and he attempts to place further restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, the issue will unfortunately become front and center once again, and hopefully not to the detriment of advancements in medical research.
“Every year, hundreds of thousands of stored embryos go to waste.”
learn.genetics.utah.edu
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII
79