Review THE HORACE MANN
Volume XXIII - November 2013
Political Partisanship
Issue
3
Review
Letter From the Editor
THE HORACE MANN
Caroline Kuritzkes Editor-in-Chief
Samuel Henick Executive Editor
Will Ellison David Hackel Sahej Suri
Jenny Heon* Mihika Kapoor Isaiah Newman
Managing Content Editors
Managing Design Editors
*Chair of the Senior Board
Catherine Engelmann
huffingtonpost.com
Senior Editor - Features
Welcome to the third issue of Volume XXIII of The Horace Mann Review. In the face of a government shutdown, new health care law, ticking debt clock, and extreme party partiality, now more than ever our country’s leaders have been struggling to mend an American government fraying at its seams. As an American populace, we have many pressing questions, but we lack concrete answers. How could our government possibly cave in on itself? What is the efficacy of a two-party system if neither side can unite to generate any meaningful consensus? And why do we value deep-seated tensions of the past over critical action of the present? As our nation’s executive and legislative bodies scramble to mitigate the consequences of recent calamity and protect the American image, so do we wrestle to make sense of our political process unhinged by congressional standoff. We couldn’t imagine a more relevant theme that addresses these questions than “Political Partisanship,” which we’ve selected as this issue’s features topic. Review writers critically analyze key players in the government shutdown, examine the Affordable Care Act, and compare U.S. political extremism in the context of the international sphere. They explore many of the important issues of today, from the Nairobi mall shooting in Kenya and the rabies outbreak in Africa to eminent domain and drug legalization here at home. Their articles represent a vast range of opinions, and we ask that you approach them with an open mind - even if you disagree with the arguments that are presented to you. The Review strives to publish many different perspectives, and this issue embodies that goal. Contrasting viewpoints enable us - as a community of questioners, explorers, and learners - to become more knowledgeable and critically-minded. This magazine is an outlet for our writers to channel their frustrations with the way things are and to think analytically about the way things should be. We are proud of them for stepping up to the plate and doing just that, especially during a time when there is so much to question. We thank them, our accident-prone junior editors, senior staff, Mr. Donadio, Dr. Kelly, and the rest of the administration for their commitment to this magazine. Enjoy the issue!
Ben Greene
Senior Editor - Domestic
Hana Krijestorac
Senior Editor - International
Jonah Wexler
Senior Editor - Economics
Jacob Haberman
Senior Editor - Science and Technology
Daniel Baudoin Hannah Davidoff Henry Luo Mohit Mookim Kelvin Rhee Namit Satara Lenn Uchima Jacob Zurita Senior Contibutors
Neil Ahlawat James Megibow Edmund Bannister Adam Resheff Jenna Barancik Harry Seavey Lauren Futter Brett Silverstein Matthew Harpe Ikaasa Suri Laszlo Herwitz Nathan Tillinghast-Raby Emily Kramer Mitchell Troyanovsky James McCarthy Elizabeth Xiong Junior Editors
Charles Cotton Samuel Fisch Robert Hefter Sam Stern Associate Editors
Gregory Donadio Faculty Advisor
2
Caroline Kuritzkes Editor-in-Chief Volume XXIII
Cover Drawing by Mihika Kapoor
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 more information at www.cjkwebdesign.com/review.
Table of Contents
4
This Land is My Land Daniel Jin
Partisan Death Match page 4
Andrew Cogut
DOMESTIC
Drug Nation Ray Fishman
Drawing the Line on Gerrymandering
page 7
Ben Alexander
Mayors and Money Henry Shapiro
Abigail Zuckerman
page 14
INTERNATIONAL
Rouhani: The New Face of a New Iran Evan Greene
page 16
Afghan Retreat Eric Stein
page 18
page 20
The Rise of Terror Matthew Parker
Maria Balaeskoul and Anne Rosenblatt
page 40
The Fed’s First Chairwoman? Krystian Loetscher
page 42
The Nobel Prize in Economics Spencer Slagowitz
page 44
Resources and the Future Lexi Kanter
page 24
page 28
Daria Balaeskoul
page 30
page 48
Breaking Down Barriers Timothy Hoang
page 50
An Inconvenient Truth Vaed Prasad
GOP Obstructionism: Why Partisanship is Counterproductive
page 46
Say No to Nuclear Energy Anna Kuritzkes
A House Divided Daniel Rosenblatt
46
page 22
The Key Players in the Government Shutdown Miranda Bannister
FEATURES
The Penny Plan
Egyptian Elections and the Revolution that Never Ended Hannah Seckendorf
24
40 ECONOMICS
Rabies in Africa Evy Verbinnen
page 38
page 12
SCI-TECH
14
page 34
Government Shutdown Hits Pause on Science
page 10
The Flaws in Obamacare Zachary Gaynor
page 32
page 52
What We are Still Missing Gabriel Broshy
page 54
3
Domestic
PRIVATE PROPERTY!
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY!
THIS LAND IS MY LAND
O
ur Founding Fathers created a nation run on the values of freedom and individual liberty. However, our nation’s eminent domain laws conflict with these values and threaten the security of private property. Today, eminent domain is used almost whenever land developers want to acquire property. While the intended purpose of eminent domain is to expedite economic growth, its overuse hurts economic development more than it helps. Furthermore, the abuse of eminent domain can be attributed to the federal government, whose excessive regulations make eminent domain the most cost-effective way to acquire land. The use of eminent domain must be limited to prevent our government from infringing on property rights and destroying perfectly healthy neighborhoods. The value of private property has deep
roots in the American tradition. John Adams once said, “Property is secure or liberty cannot exist.” In the Fifth Amendment, the government is granted the right to seize private property for what is deems “public use.” The “public use” meant by the Constitution’s writers refers to buildings, roads, and parks owned and used by the general public. Over time, though, the use of eminent domain has shifted from its original purpose. In the 1954 decision Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court allowed a disease-filled, crime-ridden, Washington, D.C. neighborhood to be taken by eminent domain for “public purpose.” The ruling established the use of eminent domain to include the elimination of “blighted areas” – neighborhoods or zones thought to limit economic growth. In 2005, the city of New London condemned the proper-
4
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Daniel Jin
thepeoplescube.com atlantisbusinessjournal.com creatingkeepsakes.com
ties of Susette Kelo and her neighbors for a private redevelopment plan that included building more expensive houses, a new state park, and a $350 million pharmaceutical research facility. In the case Kelo vs New London, the Supreme Court again expanded the definition of “public use” to include not only the elimination of blight, but also any private development program that generates higher property values or greater tax revenue for the government. Despite much backlash, the ruling stood. The Kelo ruling blatantly violates property rights, and directly opposes the original purpose of eminent domain. By no reasonable definition does “public use” include private development. Economic growth does not benefit the people if their ownership of their own property is at risk. Kelo gives governments the right
Domestic to take property and transfer its ownership whenever they are presented with a development plan that will create more tax money. Therefore, virtually any home or business would be vulnerable to eminent domain if a plan for a new mall were introduced. Kelo-style takings undermine the security of private property, one of the most basic rights of American citizens, and therefore cannot be permitted. In addition to the violation of property rights, there are large economic and
conducted by economists John Dawson of Appalachian State University and John Seater of North Carolina State University found that federal regulations have lowered GDP growth by 2% per year since 1949. The paper reads, “Regulation’s overall effect on output’s growth rate is negative and substantial… reduction in the growth rate has led to an accumulated reduction in GDP of about $38.8 trillion as of the end of 2011.” This means that the GDP in 2011 would have been $53.9 trillion, as opposed
“When the most effective means of purchasing land are taken away from developers, the government will realize how damaging their regulations on business are.” social consequences of eminent domain that cannot be ignored. The main argument why eminent domain is just is that it assists economic growth. However, even economically, eminent domain has its drawbacks. Most projects rely on public subsidies for a few years upon completion. This will likely be the case with New York City’s Second Avenue Subway, which will cost an estimated $17 billion. Despite the enormous price tag, the new line is only two blocks away from a parallel line, and will provide at best a negligible benefit to New Yorkers. Additionally, though eminent domain supposedly spurs economic growth by replacing blighted neighborhoods with more valuable ones, even healthy and growing neighborhoods have been deemed to be blighted, halting economic development. For example, an Alabama law defines blight to be “buildings … which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the community.” According to Attorney Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation, this definition exposes almost any neighborhood to seizure under eminent domain. While local governments insist that blight obstructs economic growth, blight in fact stems from the government itself. By neglecting property rights, handing out subsidies to failing businesses, and imposing irritating taxes and regulations, the government makes building on vacant land extraordinarily expensive. A study
to $15.1 trillion. In other words, America is now 72% poorer due to its own restrictions and regulations, which have increased by a factor of seven since 1949. Ronald Bailey, a correspondent for Reason.com, interpreted these results to mean that the median household income could have been $330,000, more than six times the current number of $53,000. Blight is clearly not a result of failing neighborhoods, but rather a consequence of the government’s strict supervision of small businesses. As a result, developers prefer taking land that is already owned for construction, even if it requires them to make false claims of “blight.” In 2003, developers attempted to seize land in Mesa, Arizona, to expand a local hardware store. While they claimed that they were helping to remove blight, property values in the condemned neighborhood actually grew by 19.3% from 2000 to 2002. More recently, in 2009, Columbia
University tried to take the properties of several small businesses in Manhattan for an expansion project. However, the university’s evidence that the areas were blighted was unpainted block walls and loose awning supports. In Kelo’s case as well, wellkept homes were condemned. These are just a few of the many abuses stemming from the Berman ruling. In most cases, the very reason developers want to condemn a property is its economic potential. All they must do to gain ownership of the property is to make a claim that it is blighted. It is imperative that healthy neighborhoods not be taken by eminent domain; takings of thriving neighborhoods restrict economic growth, contradicting the purpose of eminent domain in the first place. If condemnations are not illegal, they are immoral. Those who are forced to leave their homes are often paid a price below market value, and must find a new residence. For example, New York’s Second Avenue Subway has caused many Upper East Side residents to leave their apartments in favor of less desirable options. Ann and Conrad Riedi pay $1,120 a month for their five-room Upper East Side apartment, where they have lived for forty years, but will now have to find a new residence to make way for ventilation shafts. According to the New York Times, the MTA has recommended that the couple leave Manhattan and will possibly lose their dog. It is required that the MTA find a “comparable” apartment in size and rent, but this appears to be nearly impossible, as other apartments in the same neighborhood may require an additional $1,000 per month. However, the MTA is only bound to pay $5,250 in subsidies over the next three years if the displaced tenants move to more expensive
rawstory.com
November 2013
5
Domestic apartments. While the MTA has said they plan to pay more, the tenants have not been happy with the options presented to them. Several tenants have been asked to consider moving to Harlem, but none showed interest. One tenant, Nicolle Poian, was asked to move to an apartment half the size of her current one. Another tenant, Marc Shatzman, said, “They [the MTA] kept trying to show us low-income housing.” Needless to say, the MTA has clearly failed to provide the displaced tenants “comparable” housing options, even though it is required by New York state law. Although a 2007 program to rent empty apartments to house displaced tenants was approved by the MTA, it has not been pursued by the authority. Instead, the MTA has spent more than $200,000 to rent empty apartments in the buildings it plans to acquire to drive up rent and dodge high relocation costs. The construction of the Second Avenue Subway has relegated tenants to inferior residences with higher fees. Developers and organizations that use eminent domain have little consideration for the previous owners, who suffer greatly from the loss of their property. In the years after Kelo, eminent domain use grew to the point that developers used eminent domain whenever they wanted land. During the economic recession, eminent domain use slowed, as developers
had no motivation to condemn land. However, with the improvement of the economy and the government craving money more than ever, uses of eminent domain are starting to increase again. After the Kelo decision, many states, including Alabama, increased property protections. Recently, though, Alabama has rescinded its previous protections. The bill signed into law by Governor Robert Bentley affirms the Kelo ruling and gives an extremely murky definition of “blight.” New Jersey, too, has recently passed a bill that will weaken property protections, even though it supposedly codifies two state court rulings that require governments to prove a condemned area to be blighted. Nevertheless, according to Peter Dickson, a New Jersey land-use attorney, “This law is transparently an attempt to go back to the old way of doing business,” referring to the peak of eminent domain use before the recession. If eminent domain use does rebound to its previous levels, not only will well-kept houses in developing neighborhoods be taken when their owners have done no wrong, but taxpayer money will be spent to both pay for the land and the projects that will be pursued. While completely outlawing eminent domain is probably not a plausible step to take at the moment, it is reasonable to request that the Kelo decision be reversed by the Supreme Court and that “blight” be
eliminated as an excuse for seizing property. The problem of eminent domain abuse is not eminent domain itself, but its overuse as a result of governmental regulations on business. As a matter of fact, the use of eminent domain to build schools or rebuld truly failing neighborhoods are actually beneficial. Nevertheless, the recent eminent domain revival must be halted. Kelo caused people to notice the abuse of eminent domain, and since the ruling, there have been considerable measures that have already been taken to limit seizures of property for private gain. Grassroots organizations like the Institute for Justice have fought and won countless eminent domain cases in the years since Kelo, and 44 states have refined their eminent domain laws since the decision. Backlash against eminent domain abuse has come from people from all over the political spectrum and in a wide variety of ways. Eminent domain laws should be restored to pre-Kelo conditions, and with a more clear definition of “blight.” When the most effective means of purchasing land are taken away from developers, the government will realize how damaging their regulations on business are. Eminent domain must be limited to only cases in which the plan for the condemned land that truly benefits the public, and the time has come for Congress to finally take action in outlawing eminent domain for private uses. HMR
intellectual takeout.com
6
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Domestic
huffingtonpost.com
Drug Nation I
n the United States, we are experiencing miraculous technological and social advancements; we are able to travel to any place in the world in less than twelve hours, we have created hand-held devices able to perform inexplicable functions, and we have created laws ensuring equal rights for all men and women, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. And yet, while this modernization continues to occur from an industrial and societal standpoint, we have only regressed when it comes to the strict boundaries the government has put in place on the legal status of recreational drugs. These limitations not only harm the users of these recreational drugs, but also deprive the government of several billion dollars in tax revenue.
There are seven main facets as to why all “soft”, non-addictive, recreational, banned substances should be legalized and why “hard”, addictive substances should be considered for at least partial, if not complete legalization or the reduction of harsh jail sentences associated with crimes related to the use, distribution, or sale of these drugs. (1) the use of mind-altering substances to change one’s consciousness is a natural human desire; (2) the decision to use these substances is the user’s decision; (3) the legalization of drugs would effectively eliminate all drug cartels; (4) previously illegal drugs could potentially be government regulated and sold by government-approved vendorss; (5) the legalization of drugs would directly stimulate the economy,
November 2013
Ray Fishman generating billions of dollars as a result; (6) harsh jail sentences would be automatically eradicated; and (7) the government’s war on drugs has resulted in a disproportionate rate of African-Americans being arrested. However, there are also negative aspects associated with the legalization of psychotropic drug such as health effects, addiction, and the effect it would have on society. In order to understand the complex relationship between psychoactive drugs and humans, as well as why addressing the legalization of these substances is necessary, we must first look at both why one would want to take drugs and their effects on us. Illicit drugs can be addictive and dangerous and carry harsh punishments. Ronald K. Siegel, a professor
7
Domestic
“The War on Drugs has been an absolute failure in every sense of the word. We have handed down absurd prison sentences, failed to reduce drug intake, and punished minorities.” of psychopharmacologist at UCLA says that intoxicants are the “fourth drive,” as they function similarly to human instincts regarding thirst, hunger, and the need for shelter. While changing one’s consciousness is often regarded as instinct, the government, by illegalizing a number of drugs, is effectively denying citizens the ability to act on this instinct and imposing moral law. While members of the government may believe that drug use is immoral, they do not have discretion to punish individuals for breaking what they believe is “moral code,” being that an individual’s actions do not harm another being. However, individuals ingesting hard drugs do have the potential to harm other people, as a consequence of ingesting hard drugs, such as cocaine or heroin, is that one may enter a state in which he or she may not be aware of his or her actions, potentially endangering another person, but we will save the legal status of hard drugs for a later section. The choice, however, to ingest a drug like marijuana, is a decision that should not be made by the government. Cannabis has never resulted in the death of a user, as the lethal dose of THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana, would be virtually impossible to achieve by
smoking the drug. In fact, studies show that one would die of carbon monoxide poisoning before ingesting the lethal amount of THC. Nevertheless, marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no medical value and can carry harsh punishments for possession in small quantities. In addition to cannabis’ being profoundly less harmful compared to other drugs, including legal ones such as alcohol and tobacco, it even has some reported health benefits, such as pain relief and anxiety reduction in those with terminal cancer, the ability to kill cancer cells, as well as many other documented beneficial effects on health. The legalization of marijuana, believed to be the nation’s number one cash crop, would successfully eliminate several drug cartels involved in selling the plant, thus eliminating the violence associated with them. If marijuana were legal, the sale of the drug would most likely be government controlled, and according to one study from the Cato Institute, the government would save $8.7 billion dollars from expenditures stopped to enforce the illegalization of marijuana, and an addition $8.7 billion dollars on taxes collected from the sales of marijuana, should they be taxed similarly to tobactotalpict.com
8
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
co and alcohol. According to Harvard Economist Jeffrey Miron, legalizing all drugs would save between $85-90 billion dollars per year. Besides saving money, legalizing drugs, soft or hard, would eliminate all of the drug cartels and violence associated with these cartels. The illegalization of drugs creates a black market for these substances, and disputes between persons in charge of the illicit drug trade often result in deaths. Miron also estimates that the murder rate could fall by 25% in the U.S. if drugs were legal. This is why the U.S. should not only legalize drugs, but also tax and regulate them as well, ensuring that their products are adulterant free (adulterants in drugs sold by dealers often cause more deaths than the drugs alone) and can earn the government a profit. Ultimately, the choice is obvious in deciding between purchasing the government’s drugs in a retail store or by a person found in the street. Although the facts show that there are 40,000 drug related deaths each year compared to homicide, which only accounts for about 15,000 deaths, legalizing drugs would actually bring both numbers down. One reason that so many deaths are attributed to drugs is because drugs are sold on the black market, and the product that a user is getting can never be tested for purity. An example of this would be cocaine. While cocaine is obviously an extremely powerful and addictive substance, only one in every 4,000 people will die trying it for the first time, and the reason for this is most likely because of impurities in the drug. If the government were to regulate sales and there were businesses selling drugs, there would be motivation to achieve a clean product in order to ensure that customers continue to buy its products. While perhaps there is no perfect solution regarding the legalization of hard drugs, as a society we must acknowledge their existence and realize that it would be more beneficial to society to institute a system of regulated drug control which would lower the murder rate, the amount of drug related deaths, and the racism involved in our policing of drugs than our current policy, which treats drug addicts like criminals, puts the general public at a higher risk, and is incredibly racist. The War on Drugs has been an absolute failure in every sense of the word. We have handed down absurd prison sen-
Domestic tences, failed to reduce drug intake and punished minorities, particularly blacks, unfairly, as well as filled our penitentiaries with people on drug-related offenses. In some recent years, we have spent 4 times as much on our prison system than our education system, while half of all prisoners in the U.S. are there for drug related offenses, slightly more than half of which are from cannabis meaning that the government spends the exact same amount of money on education as we do for incriminating people on a drug that has never been linked to a single death. People like this in prison often are not given a second chance in life, ending up stuck in the same socioeconomic status for the rest of their lives. Besides the absurd amount of prisoners in our jails, the current War on Drugs specifically targets black people. While African-Americans only make up 12% of the population and 13% percent of the nation’s drug users, 65% of all drug related arrests are of African-Americans, meaning that you are 5 times as likely to get arrested for taking drugs if you are black. In a country where we stress equality so much, and have made amazing social progress in these areas, such as electing a black president, it is absolutely unacceptable that our own government is being discriminatory. If drugs were legal, this unprecedented racial profiling would cease to exist, as well as the unnecessary spending on our prison systems. In conclusion, the U.S. should seriously consider implementing this system as an experiment. We saw what happened with alcohol prohibition; it failed miserably. After it was legalized, the crime rate went down, as well as deaths associated with it. We must consider the social effects of this, and what the possible international response would be, as it is our duty to do what is in the best interests of the citizens, similar to how when we fought from Britain to gain our independence. We were the first country to entertain the idea of gaining its independence from its owner. From this, we inspired many other countries to follow suit, and now independence is still pertinent to today’s society. The same must be done with the legalization of drugs. Let’s give it a try America. HMR
95rockfm.com
STATISTICS ON THE WAR ON DRUGS • $51,000,000,000 - annual cost of the War on Drugs • 55% - percentage of federal prisoners serving time for drug law violations • 200,000 - number of students who have been barred from receivng federal financial aid for drug convictions • $47,600,000 - potential annual tax revenue that could be generated from the sale of currenlty illegal drugs • 25% - perecentage the murder rate in the US could fall if the War on Drugs ended • 66% - percentage of people incarcerated for drug charges who are African-American or Latino, despite whites’ selling and using drugs at similar rates http://www.drugpolicy.org
November 2013
9
Domestic
www.thenation.com
Mayors and Money Henry Shapiro
B
ig government agendas are destroying this nation and spreading as a result of Bill De Blasio’s interventionist beliefs. He will destroy the progress made by both the Bloomberg and Giuliani administrations, while Joe Lhota would have lead New York to become a more prosperous city. A great example of the failures of interventionist governance is Detroit: a once prosperous manufacturing city destroyed by tax and spend policies. De Blasio only wants to raise taxes on the rich to fund ineffective government programs. This tax hike will drive wealthy New Yorkers and large corporations out of the city. Bill De Blasio says that he believes that New York is a tale of two cities, one poor and one rich, but he if becomes mayor New York will become one city: a poor one. Joe Lhota on the other hand was a true capitalist.
He advocated for discontinuing excessive government spending and lowering taxes on the wealthy. Unfortunately, due to the fact that New York is a city largely populated by one political party, the chances of Lhota’s winning were slim from the start. Unfortunately, this means De Blasio and his big government agenda are here to stay. His efforts to increase taxes will destroy New York businesses. We already have among the highest city taxes in America. The average household of 3 making $50,000 pays $909 higher than in the average US city and those who make $150,000 pay $5,980 more than national standard. Yet, De Blasio wants to raise them even more from 3.876% to 4.41%. What he fails to acknowledge is that poor New Yorkers and wealthy New Yorkers share a symbiotic relationship.
10
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
The New York City metropolitan area has the highest GDP out of any metropolitan area in the country and is larger than the GDP of many powerful nations including Mexico, Switzerland, Sweden, and a multitude of others. The
Domestic
“ ‘Tax and spend’ government can continue to senselessly tax the wealthy, but the only result will be a greater incentive to leave.” corporate growth the city has enjoyed brings prosperity to both the poor and the rich. “Tax and spend” government can continue to senselessly tax the wealthy but the only result is a greater incentive to leave. This will prove a huge detriment to our industrial growth thereby taking money out of all New Yorkers’, not just the rich’s, pockets. Our economy is based solely on the hope that people will continue to purchase the goods we produce. When someone spends money, that capital goes to a business. That business uses this capital, along with its other revenues, to grow and expand, resulting for a need for more employees. This translates directly into more jobs and more New Yorkers getting pay checks at the end of the month. and what do they do with that money? spend it. The agenda of De Blasio infringes upon this simple idea that forms the foundation of any successful capitalist economy. By increasing taxes, there will be less money in circulation. This means fewer jobs will be created, and fewer businesses will grow. De Blasio says he will help small businesses expand, but his policies tell a different story. Smaller industries tend to be impacted more by economic turmoil than larger
corporations. De Blasio can tax the rich all he wants, but in the end, it’s just going to come back and hurt the lower and middle class as well. Although excessive taxation has a negative effect on the economy, we need some taxes to pay projects like infrastructure development. De Blasio, however, wants to overpay for the ineffective programs outlined in his plan. America as a whole has acquired approximately $17 trillion of debt. New York State currently has outstanding debts nearing $347 billion. Bill De Blasio wants to handle this crisis by spending more. He fails to see that we currently spend far more than we should be. He does not seem to care that this debt is something the next generation will have to pay off. So instead of cutting government spending to promote a better future, under De Blasio, we will be ravaged by interest rates and outstanding debt for years to come. Bill De Blasio also wants to increase the minimum wage. By doing so, he forces companies to fire some of their employees. A company must make more than then they spend, therefore if their expenditures increase to much, in order to be profitable, they have to cut some loose
November 2013
ends or lay off some of their employees. Fewer New Yorkers will have jobs. The state minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. De Blasio wants to raise it to $10 with benefits and $11.50 without. This is a 37%-58% increase. This change is incredibly drastic. In 1938 The Department of Labor increased the minimum wage by 20% and many economists believe this caused corporations to lay off 14% of workers whose salaries were altered as a product of the change. De Blasio’s increase will have a catastrophic impact on the poor. Using historical data, Milton Friedman speculated that each 10% increase in the minimum wage decreases the amount of jobs paying minimum wage by at least 1% to 3%. By this proportion, De Blasio’s increase could end in 15% layoffs of many of New York’s neediest. He argues that the minimum wage is not a living wage, but when it comes down to it, is it better to make slightly more than $7 or nothing at all? This also negatively affects business. After the economic crisis in 2008, the economy has had a slow recovery. We cannot afford to slow down this momentum by implementing new regulations that negatively impact the industrial corporate expansion. Joe Lhota took the stance to promote capitalist values and policies. He was an advocate for lowering taxes, cutting useless and excessive government spending, and implementing business friendly policy. However, De Blasio and his plans that would result in economic devastation won the election in a landslide. This is indicative of a worrying political future for all branches of state government. HMR
11
Domestic
THE FLAWS IN OBAMACARE Costs, Corruption, and Crashes Zachary Gaynor
W
hat is the purpose of having capitalism in the United States? It is to stimulate out of the box thinking and to give everyone the possibility to live out the American dream. Obamacare imposes leftist views in the forms of programs and laws upon industries that make up this practice of capitalism. This new program is formally called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with its liberal supporters putting it simply as a way to make health care cheap enough so that everyone can afford it, and accepting enough so that no one can be turned down due to their health problems. Obama’s goal for this plan sounds great, and is even admi-
rable, but the way that it is executed is entirely wrong. Some of the many flaws are that the law is entirely too expensive, the people overseeing the law are unaccountable to the American public, and over all, it does not accomplish the goal it sets out to. The first problems with the Affordable Care Act are the economic issues. Obamacare’s estimated cost by the year 2023 is 1.36 trillion dollars, an unreasonable amount that will cripple America in the long run. This plan is not only supposed to help middle and lower class families, but also bolster the future of America. Is it logical to you that it does this by adding an estimated $530 billion
12
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
to our country’s deficit by the year 2021? It is obvious that the Obama administration wants to go down in history as the one who sunk the United States into the deepest hole it has ever faced. Furthermore, Obamacare won’t only hit the highest price health care plans with taxation, but it will also eventually hit the middle- and lower-priced health care plans, too. “‘The “Cadillac tax’ on highcost health care isn’t scheduled to take effect until 2018… it will hit more and more health plans over time – not just ‘Cadillac’ insurance plans, but ‘Chevy’ plans and even ‘Yugo’ health plans,” declared the Joint Economic Committee. This is all due to the idea that the
Domestic highest-priced health care plans are connected to general inflation as opposed to medical inflation. Simply put, the tax is based on the success of the entire economy, not just on the medical subset of the economy. This is a major problem because if there is a discrepancy between the medical subset and the economy as a whole it the tax can be raised or lowered to a point where it could hurt the medical community. So while some of Obama’s main platforms when he was campaigning for office were not raising taxes on the middle class, this is exactly what the program will eventually do. As Nancy Pfotenhauer the president of MediaSpeak Strategies, said, “Enjoy the upside now, pay the price later. It’s like eating a large pizza with extra cheese and finding out two weeks from now that you don’t fit into your jeans anymore. Only much, much worse.” Secondly, the creation of the Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is just an irresponsible part of the Affordable Care Act, which is buried in a little under 3,000 pages of the act’s legislation. This board is an unelected group of fifteen people who will be able to control our health care through making recommendations to Congress on the subject of reducing the growth rate that will most definitely be instated. If congress can’t come to a decision on the issue much like what was seen in the government shut down the recommendations are automatically put into practice. Things from setting doctors’ reimbursement rates, to determining which drugs will be covered under health care and at what rate they will be covered will fall under their jurisdiction to change. Howard Dean of The Wall Street Journal wrote, “The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.” This is an abomination! The creation of the board alone crushes many of the ideals of America. It indirectly undermines our ability to get the health care we need, and all it would take is just one ignorant member of the bored to hurt the public. This would be okay of course, if we, the American people, got to elect these officials, but we don’t, and the president yields the power to nominate those officals to be approved by Congress. The people who get appointed to the Payment Advisory Board are entirely out of the public’s power,
and therefore the public’s health care is entirely out of their hands. The next problem with the Affordable Care Act is the inability for the public to sign up for it. Not only are there fundamental problems with the program, but there are also issues of accessing the program online and on paper. The website at healthcare.gov, when it was first rolled out, was flawed to the point that most people that wanted to enroll decided to just do it the old fashioned way and use a paper form. According to the New York Post, the people that used these forms weren’t even able to enroll in the program, a further inconvenience. The Miami Herald half joked that finding a successful enrollee of the program was the equivalent of finding a Sasquatch. After the first week of the online campaign, there were an estimated 5,000 people that had signed up, and another who-knows-how-many people that had tried. The Obama administration refused to release the actual statistics due to their embarrassment of the first week’s enrollment results. Not saying much for the Affordable Care Act, the Obama Administration’s “biggest accomplishment.”
Due to the many flaws and failures of Obamacare, the American public’s faith in this program has been wavering. According to Nancy Pfotenhauer, “a poll released at the end of June [2012] showed that, if the Supreme Court upheld the law, 77 percent of Americans wanted Congress to go back to work to fix it. Even after the decision was made, a Gallup poll showed 49 percent of independents wanted all or part of the law repealed while 40 percent did not.” One of the many reasons the public’s faith is wavering is because by the year 2080, 79% of all American workers will be taxed due to the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare is like a child with the right sentiment that doesn’t know how to go about doing things in an acceptable way. Just like this child, the Affordable Care Act can be amended, or taught in the child’s case, to do the things it sets out to do in an acceptable way to the public. We must start by taking back the power from the president and electing the members of Payment Advisory Board, then we must address its economic issues. Until we are satisfied with this act, we must keep lobbying to send this bill back to Congress to amend it. HMR
Simply put, the tax is based on the success of the entire economy, not just on the medical subset of the economy.
November 2013
13
International
RABIES IN AFRICA How to Stop a Deadly but Curable Disease Evy Verbinnen
I
magine getting a small bite or scratch from a neighborhood dog and knowing that this would prove fatal. Well, in many rural areas of Africa, people face this problematic fact on a daily basis. As it stands, these Africans are unable to prevent the spread of and deaths linked to rabies due to a lack of funding and education on the matter as well as general healthcare. However, with the proper attention given to the matter and a rise in awareness, vaccinations can become more obtainable, giving victims a chance to survive and overcome the disease. Rabies, a zoonotic disease primarily transmitted through bites from contaminated dogs, exists in more than 150 countries and territories, with 95% of deaths caused by rabies occurring in Africa and Asia. Due to negligence in preventing dog to human transmission in societies where animals and
people live among each other, rabies kills 24,000 people each year in Africa alone, the majority of victims being children. More precisely, 40% of people who are bitten by animals suspected to be rabid are children under the age of 15. Although vaccinations have been developed, in communities where rabies is most prevalent, the people are some of the poorest. The funds needed for the vaccine are simply out of the reach of those most affected; the vaccine costs about $13 per injection, and four to five vaccinations are needed to create immunity. “This is the disease of the poorest of the poor who can’t afford the vaccine,” said Dr. Hervé Bourhy of the Pasteur Institute in France. Dr. Bourhy’s statement makes this prominent and rising issue as comprehensive as possible, as well as the problem with the cure: the vaccination, or cure, aimed toward those affected is not
“[S]omething as simple as cleansing wounds is very difficult in rural areas of Africa that lack clean water and medical supplies.”
affordable for those who require it. There are no tests available to diagnose humans infected by rabies prior to the onset of disease, and unless typical symptoms of rabies such as hydrophobia, the extreme and irrational fear of water, or aerophobia, the fear of flying and heights, are observed, the diagnosis may be difficult. Over 15 million people worldwide receive a post-exposure vaccination. This vaccination is approximated to prevent hundreds of thousands of rabies-related deaths each year. The post-exposure immunization entails injections of the Imovax Rabies vaccine in conjunction with anti-rabies serum. The total regimen of six injections is supposed to begin within hours after infection is suspected. After the initial injection, the next five are dispersed and become increasingly less frequent. While this is a great achievement and short-term solution, in the battle against rabies, the majority of deaths occurring in poor and vulnerable populations are rarely reported, making it difficult for medics, or those capable of giving proper care, to respond quickly. With so little awareness given to the severity of rabies, cleansing wounds within a few hours after contact with animals suspected of being rabid is not made a priority. However, this techA: horsenation.com, B: blogspot.com
14
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
International nique of cleansing wounds has been proven to prevent the onset of rabies and death. Unfortunately rabies is a quick-acting disease usually leading to fatal cardio-respiratory arrest, and something as simple as cleansing wounds is very difficult in rural areas of Africa that lack clean water and medical supplies. Solutions have been discussed on many occasions, but it is very difficult to find adequate funding to enact these ideas. Proposed ideas include: increasing the amount of reports on rabies to draw attention to the cause of its transmission; vaccinating humans, dogs, or other domestic pets; tying up dogs; and cleansing wounds and immunizing victims within a few hours after contact. While these solutions may be effective if put into action, they are not very practical based on the current problems with prevention. Vaccinations for humans, dogs, and domestic pets would be a perfect solution, but it overlooks the fact that the people in rural areas of Africa cannot afford the vaccination for themselves, let alone their pets. Tying up pets is a decent addition to the short-term solution, but it cannot entirely eliminate the spread of rabies because it is not practical for people to tie every single animal up in case it has rabies. To solve this health crisis in rural Africa, the focus cannot simply be on immunization, but a change in culture as well. With a
lack of resources, Africans are not inclined to report deaths or cases of rabies because they see no feasible solution. By fostering discussion about rabies, people will see how large of an issue it really is. This rise in awareness and reports of rabies will cause an increase in
Africans on ways to detect rabies in humans, symptoms are often less distinct in humans. Therefore, education should be focused on preventing the transmission of rabies, as well as not allowing humans and animals to live in such close proximity to one another. Africans
“The vaccination aimed towards those affected is not affordable for those who require it.� funding for associations like the Red Cross that go into the more rural African areas. Also, proper funding for organizations including Global Health and the World Health Organization should be used to invest in early detection tests to prevent deaths caused by rabies. By being able to catch the disease before it becomes terminal, the spread of rabies can be contained. With the help of African governments, laws should be established to implement guidelines to prevent dog, or any animal, to human transmission. These laws should include information and tactics to educate Africans on the preventative steps they must take. While African governments and international aid groups should educate rural
should also be educated on what symptoms may be exhibited by infected animals so that they may take the necessary precautions to prevent the infection of others. Associations that will administer vaccines will be responsible for implementing this education side by side with African governments. Preventative steps may also include administering vaccines to domestic animals to prevent the disease from even reaching humans. Immunizing animals may also lead to rabies prevention being easier and less costly because smaller dosages would be required, making it possible to immunize larger amounts of animals and destroying the disease at the root. It is a big task but, with focus, rabies in Africa can be beaten. HMR
C: who.int
November 2013
15
International
ROUHANI THE NEW FACE OF A NEW IRAN Evan Greene
I
ran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, has gotten a great deal of press lately with his several diplomatic overtures, which have included both an encouraging visit to the United Nations and a more conciliatory approach to nuclear negotiations. Rouhani, who succeeded former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last August, has created a stir with his speeches and flamboyant showmanship. Iranians have chosen a truly promising and intriguing new leader, who has promised them a better economy, a more liberal society, and an improved relationship with the West. Additionally, he acts as a trusted revolutionary, who will not back down in fighting for Iranian hegemony over the region. If he intends to bring about this Iranian hegemony through the proliferation of nuclear arms, we must incapacitate his ability to possibly destabilize the region. Although there have to be
real repercussions for any violation of a nuclear agreement made with Iran, such as serious economic sanctions capable of paralyzing the Iranian economy – it is time we genuinely approach the bargaining table, offering to make fair and reasonable compromises. Now is our chance to enter real and substantial negotiations with Iran, with the eventual goal of creating substantial peace and stability in the region. We need to embrace a new strategy of strong diplomatic relations with Iran in order to bring the world closer to peace and away from fear of nuclear war. It is time for America to try a different strategy and work with Rouhani for peaceful change. The White House hopes that he will not only participate in another round of nuclear talks, but also agree to make several concessions and compromises. Amidst the speculation about Rouhani’s willingness to negoti-
16
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
ate, we must ask ourselves, “How often has the United States perhaps taken too harsh a stance on Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment for peaceful purposes, as outlined in the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty?” Perhaps this new leader will help to construct an international diplomatic breakthrough. If we start off again by taking an uncompromising hard line approach, as advocated for by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, our ability to negotiate and make progress will certainly be inhibited, as evidenced by the failure of our current diplomatic policies on Iran. If we all desire regional stability and peace, perhaps it is time to take a different approach. The American public needs to ponder whether or not our old strategies have worked, and take a leadership role in reconciliation with Iran. Let us lead the European nations in a careful and precise agreement to end Iran’s Nuclear Program.
International Many critics of this more amenable stance point out that even if Rouhani makes some kind of agreement to curb his nuclear program, he has no real intention of actually following through with his promises. Any deal that gets made may only be for appearances. Critics also state that we will never really know what Iran is doing with its nuclear program behind the scenes. It is true that, in an agreement, we must question whether or not Iran will actually be maintaining a “breakout capacity” (defined as having produced a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium as to easily fuel the proliferation of a bomb), but this can only be done with ongoing dialogue and Iran’s consent for the inspection of its nuclear facilities by IAEA officials. We are exaggeratingly threatened by Iran’s nuclear program more by fear of what we imagine they might do, instead of what we know they are capable of doing. To assuage the fears of these critics, we must propose a fair compromise, which allows the IAEA to
not only infringes upon the national sovereignty of the NPT compliant Iran but also makes compromise impossible. The best strategy for a solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis is to be clear in our negotiations. Let us be very wary of Rouhani’s possible false promises and
“There is no reason we have to enter this issue with past grudges and weigh too heavily the rhetoric of hardliners.” continuously gather verifiable data on the status and capabilities of the Iranian nuclear program, as to insure it is used solely for peaceful purposes. Another component of this complex issue, that must be considered, is Israel’s outlying stance. It is understandable that Israel, a nuclear armed state, is afraid of both Iranian nuclear capabilities and the possibility of too many Western concessions, given its “Cold War” with Iran for hegemony over the Middle East. Netanyahu has been very vocal about his distrust of Rouhani, claiming that Israel will never stop policing the Iranians and their arms program. However, it is worth asking: how much of Israel’s fear is well founded? Netanyahu has repeatedly said Israel will go to war if necessary with Iran over its nuclear program and has demanded that any agreement involve the complete dismantling of Iran’s civil nuclear program. This hard line request
require evidence on all agreed terms of any nuclear negotiations and disarmament. However, let us greet this new President with an open mind, and be willing to have a real discussion of all the possibilities. There is no reason we have to enter this issue with past grudges and weigh too heavily the rhetoric of hardliners. We must also keep in mind that Rouhani has his own problems domestically that will keep him in check on the international stage. In order for him to maintain popular support, he must be careful not to incite or cause his population great dissatisfaction. His own people now know that many have risen up in volatile riots across the Arab World, to protest unfair government practices and oppression, and might be encouraged to do the same if dissatisfied with his performance. Desiring not to risk the reinstitution of paralyzing sanctions, which have already caused the people
November 2013
much economic hardship, Rouhani will have to tow the line and keep to his nuclear agreements. Although sanctions have not worked to stop Iran’s nuclear program in the past, we must hold on to these punishments, while also entertaining new ideas like business and commercial incentives, which would greatly improve both the American and Iranian economies. Perhaps it is time for us to move away from negativity and instead entice Iran with offers of foreign investment and much needed financial opportunities, such as the unfreezing of Iranian assets. These incentives would not only serve a diplomatic purpose but would also improve the nation’s humanitarian conditions and increase America’s standing with the Iranian public. Iran wants to develop a diplomatic and economic relationship with the United States and the rest of the world; however, it is now up to the United States to revise its nuclear proposal and open its stance for greater compromise. Furthermore, Iran has always had a harsh theocratic system with little room for democracy. Now that the Iranian people have chosen a more liberal leader, who is not favored among conservative clerics, the US must respect the singularity of the policies advocated for by the Iranian people and their president, Hassan Rouhani. Rouhani has offered the international community an opportunity for change, and while prioritizing our interests, we must also please Rouhani and avoid acting too uncompromisingly - in order to make progress towards peace and stability in the region. HMR
17
International
www.offload.goarmy.com
Afghan Retreat Eric Stein
T
he Civil war lasted 4 years, the Revolutionary War lasted 8 years, the Iraq War lasted 9 years, yet the United States has been involved in the war in Afghanistan for almost twelve years. The original intention of the war was to remove the Taliban government from power and to fight and disrupt the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization but now is the time to set up our withdrawal from Afghanistan. US troop commitments to the region are astronomical, and we are unnecessarily putting thousands of American lives at risk. The number of soldiers in Afghanistan peaked in 2011 with 101,000 and the United States currently has 68,000 troops stationed in strategic locations throughout the country. The training of Afghan troops to promote self-sufficiency
must start now so that once we withdraw, we do not undo all of our progress we had made in the region. The United States has not presented a timetable as to when it feels comfortable in letting the Afghan Army take charge of the fight against the Taliban, but under the latest orders from President Obama, by February the number of soldiers stationed in Afghanistan will drop to 34,000. The plan as of now is to bring home about half the troops stationed in Afghanistan by 2014, but there is no answer as to how soon we will bring home all of the troops. By the 2014 deadline, the only American troops remaining in Afghanistan should be ones that are training the Afghan forces because if the US halves its troop commitment, Afghanistan will not have a sufficient
“By the 2014 deadline, the only American troops remaining in Afghanistan should be ones that are training the Afghan forces.” 18
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
fighting force to combat the Taliban unless they are already fully prepared. The United States has already begun this transition by officially transferring all areas under its possession to Afghan forces a couple months ago. Unfortunately, the Afghan Army is currently not capable of defending these locations as shown in areas such as in the embattled district of Sangin. After recently turning over this district to the Afghan Army’s control, the Taliban have cleared out several villages, displacing up to 1,000 people, and have overrun several security checkpoints thus showing the training that the Afghan Army requires to be effective. According to local commanders, Afghan soldiers stationed in Sangin often desert instead of returning to combat when they go on brief home leaves indicating a lack of the discipline so necessary for modern combat. Reports indicate that the Pentagon wants to keep between 6,000 and 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan until at least 2024. After the partial 2014 withdrawal, the U.S. plans on leaving troops in Afghanistan
International under a “support” mission. This “support” mission is merely way for the Pentagon to make the public believe that our troops will not be engaging in a lot of combat missions. In fact, each of the Pentagon’s proposals on how to continue the U.S. presence in Afghanistan includes a counterinsurgency element. Support seems like a polite term for extended combat. Since the turning over of the U.S. positions to the Afghan Army, Afghanistan has been incapable of making important gains and has suffered such heavy casualties that some officials called the rate “unsustainable.” Yet, some American and Afghan commanders called the recent turning over of positions to the Afghans a moral victory for the Afghan forces because they mostly survived and did not completely give back gains from past Western offensives. In order for the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan, the Afghan Army needs to be able to maintain almost all of its positions instead of settling for temporary moral victories. These difficulties for the Afghan Army reveal that it needs more training and instruction before we can fully decommit from the region. NATO has been in support of a longlasting force of 8,000 to 12,000 troops to advise, assist, and train Afghan forces. Two
thirds of these troops would be American. It is accepted that no coalition nations would extend the mission without the United States. In a new security agreement proposed to the Afghan government, the United States demands to maintain legal
Afghan troops. The Taliban has grown stronger and we have seen that it is not possible to completely wipeout all of the insurgents. The United States will never be able to plan on leaving
“Chuck Hagel said that American jurisdiction over its forces ‘is a must,’ but it jeopardizes more important aspects of the new security plan.” jurisdiction, which would shield the United States troops from Afghan prosecution, and also for the United States to be able to continue direct counterterrorism missions on Afghan soil. The major problem with this agreement for Afghan leadership is the American insistence on legal jurisdiction. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that American jurisdiction over its forces “is a must,” but it jeopardizes more important aspects of the plan. The United States needs to do everything in its power so this agreement gets passed and so by the end of 2014 the only American troops needed in Afghanistan will be ones that are there to assist and train the
Afghanistan if they do not plan on training Afghan troops on a huge scale. The war in Afghanistan currently costs the United States about $10 million per hour and $1.7 billion per week. 2,235 United States military personnel have been killed and over 17,500 have been wounded since the beginning of the war. The United States cannot continue to afford the human and fiscal cost of war, and the only way to prevent further engagement in Afghanistan would be to train the Afghan army until it is strong enough to defend its own country. This is the key to ending the war in Afghanistan. HMR
www.anglonautes.com
November 2013
19
International
Egyptian Elections And the Revolution that Never Ended
Hannah Seckendorf
I
n January of 2011, Egyptians began a non-violent protest against the long-standing economic and social repression connected to President Mubarak’s regime. Many Egyptian citizens wanted a democratic country allowing greater economic opportunities and civil liberties. Everywhere, Egypt was plagued by widespread corruption. The uprising was mostly a campaign of non-violent civil resistance and disobedience, especially involving marching. On February 11th, 2011, under the pressure of mutual consent, Mubarak resigned from office. President Mubarak and his former ministers were later prosecuted. The succession of Mubarak was only a beginning to Egypt’s revolution. 20
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
International The revolution of 2011 and 2012 was disappointing in terms of new economic opportunities and political representation for millions of young Egyptians. The current Prime Minister acknowledged himself that, “The government, as well as all political forces, has failed to accommodate the demands of the youth.” Now, two years later in 2013, civil protests continue in Egypt, except this time it is not Mubarak they’re protesting – it is Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed president of one year. Egypt is facing many of the same challenges that provoked the original revolt against the Mubarak regime, including anger over police brutality, widespread unemployment and constant economic disappointments. This repetition illustrates how difficult the path to stabilization is when the country does not yet have a clear vision. The sudden change in events has been referred to as the “never-ending revolution” for good reason; this revolution has been an extremely complex and multi-dynamic situation that changes day by day. The schedule of transition is far from clearly mapped out, and how Egypt decides to restructure their government, primarily addressing the role of religion and the balance of government powers, will affect Egyptian citizens but also the rest of the Middle East and the world. Many young Egyptian’s are excited by this unrest and upturning, in hope that they might finally get a chance at a democracy. The question is: can Egypt hold a democracy? Although many Americans and others assume establishing democracy is the clearest path to recovery, who’s to say democracy will work
“Regardless of which government style Egypt decides upon, to press for rushed new elections now would only guarantee the return of power to ... groups who would surely destroy all chances of a future stable Egypt.” for Egypt as it has in America; perhaps Egypt isn’t ready for that style of government. After such a long period of repression and lack of representation, the reaction to the sudden access of control may cause an even further down spiral. At the same time, Egypt cannot claim to be pro-democratic and only reject its outcome, or praise its principles while marring its system or evading its rules. The complexity of establishing a democracy while perhaps incorporating Islamic principles challenges all political parties involved. The currently organized political groups have little democracy seeded inside them. Many argue that the way to a harmonious future is to create a secular government without military rule, in hope to create the ability to meet freely, and understand that disagreement is key in a successful society. Perhaps Egypt may be ready for a democracy in the next ten or fifteen years; however, Egypt’s population is largely uneducated and unhappy with the recent politics. Especially the minority religions and secular Egyptians want a religion neutral constitution with no mention of Islam. This group is obviously attracted to a more democratic system mirroring the current U.S. government. Many of the revolutionary protesters are secular but have not been organized enough to
produce a presidential nominee. This has resulted in the loss of faith in their government, and democracy requires trust in authority. For the US, the best approach to working with post-revolutionary Egypt is to respond in a diplomatic tone combined with rewarding Egypt for putting in place policies and programs supporting human rights. Future aid provided to Egypt should require documentation or guarantee of a fair electoral process, open trade, free press, and, hopefully, religious pluralism. If money is provided to Egypt’s military, this aid should be tied to a guarantee of continued peace with Israel. During this period of transition, the goal is a balance of power; preferably a mixed parliamentary-presidential system, with the military underneath it, and then the judicial branch. This system is similar to current American system of government. Regardless of which government style Egypt decides upon, to press for rushed new elections now would only guarantee the return of power to those most organized, yet unpopular groups who would surely destroy all chances of a future stable Egypt. So for the moment at least, Egypt will be stuck in a dissatisfying standstill until it is able to further organize itself. HMR
Hosni Mubarak was the ruler of Egypt from 19812011. His dictatorial regime came crashing down during the early stages of the Arab Spring.
Mohamed Morsi was the first president of Egypt from 2012 until he was overthrown on July 3, 2013. He was elected through the Muslim Brotherhood Party.
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is the de facto ruler of Egypt currently. He is the head of the armed forces and as of July 3, 2013 is the First Deputy Prime Minister.
November 2013
21
International
AL-SHABAB
SOMALIA
ATTACKS
AL-QAEDA
S
Matthew Parker
SUICIDE BOMBBINGS
RAIDS
SECURITY
JIHAD
US
DRONES
AFRICA
MIDDLE
MILITARY
ARAB SPRING
5,000 ATTACKS TEARLY
9 / 11
THE RISE OF TERROR
2001
WESTGATE MALL
estimated that 39 were dead. By noon the 22nd, it was estimated that 59 were dead. The next day, security forces claimed that they had secured the mall and that all hostages had been evacuated, although on the 24th, reporters observed more gunshots and a fire, and part of the mall collapsed, leaving extensive structural damage. Al-Shabaab, a Somali terrorist group, quickly claimed responsibility for the attack, turning media focus to its terrorist organization, which has plagued Kenya for the past two years. This attack was a response to the increase of Kenyan forces sent to Somalia in order to help eliminate Al-Shabaab. This specific attack targeted an Israeli owned mall, in an attempt to continue Islamic jihad. Al-Shabaab claimed that it had committed the attacks via its Twitter account about 36 hours into the shooting. It said the real death toll was 137 and also accused the government of using chemical weapons to clear part of the mall, though neither of these reports was confirmed. The organization was founded in 2006 to fight the Somali government, and since then, it has taken over large portions of land in Somalia. It was officially declared a terrorist organization in March 2008 in the US’s “Country Reports on Terrorism,” which is published yearly. The group
22
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
HOSTAGES 2010
SPY
PATRIOT ACT
UGANDA
ince 2001 there has been a decrease in successful terrorist attacks in the US, but elsewhere attacks are on the rise. Newer terrorist organizations such as alShabaab have also become more prominent. The most recent signal of terror on the rise is the Westgate Mall shooting in Nairobi, Kenya that left 100 civilians killed or missing. On Saturday, September 21st, the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya was operating normally. The mall was a popular place to go among the large middle class of Kenya, as well as tourists and expatriates. Attacks on the mall began at around noon local time, when terrorists attacked three different locations including the main entrance, the basement, and the parking garage. The attackers began shooting and throwing grenades at shoppers; eyewitnesses claim that the attackers were telling Muslims to run away, while killing non-Muslims. Many hostages were taken and held in a theater. Initial reports estimated that there were between 6 to 15 attackers, all armed with machine guns. Kenyan Defense Forces were deployed at 3:00 local time, rushing to the aide of many plain-clothes cops that had immediately rushed towards the shooting in an attempt to stop the attack. Attacks and standoffs between the attackers and security forces continued throughout the day, and by Saturday night, it was
ISRAEL
WEAPONS
E A S T
TAMIL TIGERS
is connected to the Yemeni branch of Al’ Qaeda, and the two affiliates have worked closely on the Western side of the Arabian Sea. Al-Shabaab has previously committed large terrorist attacks, including the 2010 World Cup Suicide bombing in Uganda that cost 76 lives. Despite these atttacks, the US reported that, “In 2012, alShabaab’s capability to wage conventional attacks was greatly diminished.” However, the group’s presence is not underestimated in Kenya and the rest of the Middle East. Kenya and Somalia are areas where the US has had relatively little interference, as opposed to areas like Afghanistan and Pakistan, which have seen an increased US presence in recent years. These sobering facts have led many observers to wonder whether the US has a concrete plan to curb worldwide terrorism, and if our efforts are helping at all, or perhaps even furthering the cause for terrorism in the Middle East. Terrorism has been on the rise in most of the world since the attacks of September 11th, despite declining numbers of attacks in the US. While the success of US forces in combating terrorism on our shores could be due to the Patriot Act, enhanced security at airports and throughout the country, as well as frequent drone strikes, these same strategies may be hurting the rest of the world. The US has been a terrorist target
International since the Cold War, and many countries in the Middle East have strong influences from the Soviet Union. US relations in the Middle East were already tense during the Iran hostage crisis in the 70’s, and escalated after US involvement in wars in Iraq and Kuwait through the 90’s. Between 1996 and 2001 there were an average of just over 1,000 terrorist attacks worldwide yearly, but after 2001, the global number has risen to almost 5,000 attacks yearly. The US has not been prone to this trend, with very few successful terrorist attacks on American soil in recent years. Despite a few high profile incidents, including the bombing at the Boston Marathon last year, there have been very few casualties from any attacks since 9/11. There has been an increase in terrorism in far-flung parts of the world, like Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tigers have killed many citizens in the past twenty years; however, the Tigers are one of the few terrorist organizations not connected to the Middle East. Many of these terrorist groups are Islamic, but that is second to the fact that most attacks come from an area where the US has had the most intervention since the 70’s, the Middle East. Our passion for oil led to our heavy involvement with many countries in the Middle East throughout the late 20th century, leading to many countries’ growing tired of American military involvement, especially countries like Iran. Our relationship with the Middle East has snowballed, especially after the Arab Spring in
2011 turned the Middle East on its head, taking down governments that while tyrannical, were also allied with the US. New Islamic groups seized this opportunity to expand, and gained support after protests against the frequent US drone strikes that have killed many civilians. The US seems to be winning our War on Terror at home, but abroad Al’ Qaeda is stronger than ever. Many of the terrorist groups that sprung up through the 2000’s, including Al-Shabaab, have looked to established terrorist organizations for help. Al’ Qaeda’s high profile following 9/11 gave it much of the attention. Al’ Qaeda now has four separate branches mentioned in the US’s annual report on terrorism, and members of Al’ Qaeda have been identified fighting in conflicts from Africa to Pakistan. We have to ask ourselves, what is the end game in this war for the United States? Our undeclared war has been in progress for over ten years, and our technology far surpasses that of the organizations we are fighting, yet there seems to be little to no progress. The drone strikes, while successful in killing leaders of the terrorist organizations and keeping American boots off the ground, have angered many citizens in the Middle East. The US needs a new plan to fight these terrorists or a plan to appease the citizens of the Middle East. The path we are going down does not appear like the right way to procede, but rather, has caused anger and frustration towards America. Obama has done a
good job of limiting civilian casualties, as well as helping in the killing of the highest-ranking terrorist leader to date. The U.S. continues to use small operations with limited involvement to impede terrorist activities, including the two recent covert operations to try to capture terrorists in Libya and Somalia. The Libyan raid was successful and the target was captured with no casualties, but the Libyan government and people have expressed displeasure over the U.S.’s involvement. The raid in Somalia targeted the orchestrator of the Westgate Mall attacks, but American forces were fought back against and forced to abandon some equipment. Other American policies such as the Patriot Act, which allows the government to spy on citizens in the name of security, have damaged the government’s reputation. The act has obviously upset many Americans and has made more people hesitant about fighting in the Middle East, if success can only come at the cost of our freedom. The people of the United States need to voice their opinions on the situation in the Middle East, and combating terror should be a main talking point in the upcoming presidential election. While our policies are working to combat terror at home, they are still not strong enough, and our leaders need to come up with a new plan to combat terrorism and to combat the world’s growing mistrust and disgust with American foreign policy. HMR
www.theguardian.com
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
November 2013
www.theguardian.com
23
Features
pdnphotooftheday.com
THE KEY PLAYERS
IN THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN Miranda Bannister 24
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
T
he Congressional Shutdown played out a sordid affair. The shutdown of Congress occurred because of the Republican and Democratic divide over the Affordable Care Act. Republicans, in an irresponsible move, reopened the debate over the bill, which was already passed in 2010. Since the Republican-controlled House would not let the budget plan pass without their demands to postpone the bill and cut certain clauses were fulfilled, and the Democrat-controlled Senate would not let the budget plan pass with these changes, Congress shutdown for over a week, unable to come to an understanding. Democrats ultimately won the standoff, because of Republican ignorance concerning the bill, and exemplary leadership from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Republicans dropped all the significant arguments about the Act, instead railing for hours in favor of an amendment, which loosely complains about ethical issues within one clause of the Act. The main culprits of this shutdown were Republicans Vitter and Cruz, the former being an author of the most nitpicky amendment of ObamaCare, and the latter being Senator Ted Cruz, figurehead for the Tea Party opposition to the Act. Without the fiery politics of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, there would have been no progress at all, and the greatest advancement in medical legislation that this country has seen yet, would not have gone into action. The Republican Party’s objections to
Features ObamaCare were rooted in petty vengefulness. When the bill to provide universal healthcare was originally passed by the Democratic Party, there was little consultation of Republicans. There was a Democrat controlled Senate, House and presidential administration in 2010 so the bill was pushed through without any trouble for Democrats as Republicans objected helplessly. Republicans dodged the important questions concerning ObamaCare because Democrats have won the arguments justifying the program. Meaningful debates concerning whether or not the US government is obligated to provide and subsidize for universal health care, and whether or not ObamaCare can constitutionally mandate that individuals purchase healthcare, fell by the wayside. Debates concerning the efficiency of ObamaCare, or the net effects of such spending on the American economy were left behind. However, even if Republicans had focused their efforts on a dignified battle, Democrats would have won on all of these points of controversy; access to free health care is a basic human right, one for which ObamaCare provides efficiently. The Supreme Court deemed the Act as constitutional because the government has the right to mandate citizen purchase of health insurance, as it is in the people’s best interests. Emergency rooms are forced by law to treat any patient, regardless of whether or not they have health insurance. Therefore, when a person does not have insurance, he or she
must either fork over massive payments themselves, or the hospitals and health providers have lost money and been taken advantage of. Hospitals spend $40 million per year on uninsured patients, who never pay back their debt. Moreover, it is ensuring all those that need health care have it, regardless of whether they want it or not. Republicans, who previously fixated on the net economic effects and efficiency of spending in the Act, did not bother during the past few months because the Act’s future success can be predicted using the historical evidence of the similar Massachusetts Health Care Reform. Firstly, they are similar because both mandate purchasing of health care, on penalty of a tax raise, both provide healthcare subsidization to those under the poverty level, and both use threats of raised taxes to incentivize large and small businesses to cover reasonable amounts of the employees’ insurance bills. The Massachusetts Reform, passed in 2006, only increased state spending by 1%. However, Massachusetts received more bang for the buck than even hoped for. 400,000 otherwise uninsured people signed up for healthcare within the first four years of the bill’s passage. 98.1% of adults, and 99.8% of children in the state are covered under an insurance plan. As the Affordable Care Act treads in the footsteps of this cheap, but effective program, it will succeed in its goals of efficient provision of universal health care.
www.scanvine.com
November 2013
25
Features
blogs.rollcall.com
Senator David Vitter S
enator David Vitter, a master of fiction, managed to pull together a ridiculous argument, nitpicking at details of the special exemption clause. This junior Senator from Louisiana, objected to the clause because it allowed for congressional employees, senators, representatives, their employees and the like to have certain special subsidies if they purchase health insurance through the act’s channels, or to not participate in ObamaCare at all. “The rule says for members and any staff who do go to the exchange, they do get to take a big fat taxpayer-funded subsidy with them — a subsidy that’s completely unavailable to any other American at that income level going into the exchange,” Vitter argued before the Senate. Vitter goes even further to say that the entire Act is lacking because Congressmen should be forced to use ObamaCare. Vitter made this one clause into a symbol of every perceived flaw and every injustice in the Act, and fanning the fire, the standoff between the two parties, which shut Congress down. Vitter is wrong about forcing Congressmen to get healthcare through the ObamaCare exchange and wrong about the clause, because as Congressional employees, Congressmen are permitted to buy their own health insurance, or redirect the health coverage that the federal government owes them through ObamaCare. The clause allows Congressional employees to purchase their own insurance, or simply receive healthcare from the federal government. This is not exclusive to Congress! Any American is permitted to buy healthcare outside of the Affordable Care Act exchange, and most employees have their healthcare paid or partially paid by the companies they work at. The federal government pays for Congressional employees’ healthcare, because these men and women are employees of the government. If they choose to exchange through ObamaCare, the special subsidy they receive is merely a redirection of the healthcare coverage, which they are already owed as employees. Under ObamaCare Congressional employees, along with every other citizen, are being allowed to choose the means by which they gain health coverage.
“The ultimate failure of the Republican Party was that no one member found his or herself against a fine piece of legislation, without one real argument to go around.” 26
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Features
www.atlassociety.org
Senator Ted Cruz S
enator Ted Cruz, the Tea Party Texan from Senate, rallied huge support for Vitter’s amendment by filibustering, purely to prevent constructive action in Senate. Although he was not in the House, with high Republican involvement, Cruz made the most poignant defense for Vitter’s amendment and postponing ObamaCare. He filibustered for 21 hours straight. It was nothing more than a selfish media stunt, because he was well aware that Democrats in Senate, holding the majority, would never postpone their own beloved Act. He wanted to hold back constructive debate, prevent democrats from speaking, and boost his own public image. He succeeded in these horrid goals, because he became the face of the Tea Party during the Shutdown. He is even being considered as one of the top republican favorites for a possible presidential candidacy in 2016.
www.theepochtimes.com
Senator Harry Reid H
arry Reid, Senate Majority leader, was the reason why the democrats did not give in, the reason why Vitter, Cruz, and the House as a whole failed, and the face of the democratic movement against the amendment. Reid united the democrats of the senate, and of the House, and used his ability to control their votes as a threat to the Republicans. He forced the hand of his political opponents by ensuring that the popular energy efficiency bill, which many from the right wing supported, would not get passed under any circumstances if Vitter’s amendment was not dropped and the budget allowed to pass. Reid also took most of the media attention for the Democratic Party upon himself. His public and cutting criticisms of the Republican Party, the amendments proposed, and the players involved, were crucial in gaining popular support. Within the first week of the shutdown, polls from ABC News demonstrated an 8 percent increase in popular support backing the Democratic Party. In the end, the most key reason republicans gave up was because public patience with them was frayed too much for continuation. Reid was the single most powerful figure throughout the shutdown, even more so than Cruz. HMR
November 2013
27
Features
A HOUSE DIVIDED:
THE NEED FOR BIPARTISANSHIP Daniel Rosenblatt
Jobspapa.com
W
e live in an age of political polarization. All but two of the one hundred United States senators are affiliated with one of the nation’s two major political parties; fifty-two are Democrats, and forty-six are Republicans. Every single congressman and congresswoman in the House of Representatives represents one of these parties with two hundred thirty-two republicans and two hundred democrats. These politicians, in the interest of reelection and continued support from their respective parties, vote far too frequently along party lines, often rejecting proposals even when they offer the best solution to the problems at hand. After repeated failures to reach compromise, the government is now often criticized for this strict partisanship. Following October’s government shutdown, a Washington Post/USA Today poll showed that only 12% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Congress. Even China agrees: “With no political unity to redress its policy mistake, a dysfunctional Washington is now overspending the confidence in its leadership,” a Chinese government news agency reported.
While the public may hope for compromise, some of the leaders who have distanced themselves from restrictive partisanship in the name of constructive compromise have received strident criticism. Chris Christie, the Republican Governor of New Jersey, was criticized by members of his own party after Hurricane Sandy for crossing these borders. Christie, in the final stretch of the Obama-Romney 2012 presidential race, commended Obama’s efforts to provide aid for Sandy victims. Republicans lashed out for not supporting their candidate, Mitt Romney, at a crucial time. Christie had not taken any actions to promote Obama’s reelection; he simply had been gracious towards the President. In an apparent act of revenge, Christie was not invited to speak at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), In August, Chris Christie took three significant legislative actions. First, he vetoed a ban on .50 caliber rifles. This, naturally, stands by his party’s policy of supporting the NRA. He explained, however, that this was not merely done to please Republicans. The specific weapon under discussion had never been used in a crime in New Jersey and is far too
28
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
costly and bulky to be used by regular criminals. Christie also put into effect legislation to ban gay conversion therapy by signing a bill supported by the Democrats. Christie explained that it was simply a matter of human rights and mental health. Despite the partisan concerns, he did not question the passing of this bill. Clearly, the governor is not scared to support legislation that is backed by both sides. He considers the outcome of the bills and the desires of the public far more important than the opinions of party stalwarts. Christie appears to have the ability to form middle ground solutions as well. His third act was to conditionally veto legalization of medical marijuana. He requested that the legislature change the needed approval from one physician to two required doctors. This addressed concerns of abuse of the system while still recognizing the benefits of the program. He took a controversial issue and settled the matter with a simple solution. Christie’s bipartisanship has opened him up to various attacks and criticisms. Radicals from both sides will always find flaws in his approach. However, his pragmatic approach
Features gets results. Perhaps this is the reason that he is among the most popular governors in the nation and has often been proposed as a potential presidential candidate. Surely, this is the reason that voters crossed party lines to reelect him. Christie won the race for governor, capturing 60% of the votes to his opponent’s 38%. He won the majority of both male and female votes, white and Hispanic votes, and both voters who identify as conservatives and moderates. Additionally, 31% of voters who see themselves as liberal voted for Christie. In a state that hasn’t voted for another republican governor, senator, or president since 1997, Christie has demonstrated a commanding lead. Cory Booker, the Democratic mayor of Newark was recently elected senator of New Jersey. Booker, after being elected to his new position announced his goal as senator: “I’m going down there now to try to bring the spirit of bipartisanship.” He pointed out that the government’s shutdown was caused by partisan struggles, and it was detrimental to not only one group, but also several across his state and the nation itself. “All over New Jersey, all over America, [the shutdown] hurt. It hurt our economy. It hurt our stock market. There’s no place that this didn’t hurt everybody. There are no winners in this.” Booker, who has wide support from and generally sticks with his party, has worked well with Republicans, especially Chris Christie, in Newark and in his entire political career. He has very similar views to Christie in terms of education reform; he supports the payment of teachers according to their merit, school vouchers, and the increase in the number of charter schools. As mayor, Booker began implementing some of these policies, and he looks to bring them to a national scale in the Senate. He explained his goal: “Every single day the urgency of fixing this problem stares me in the face… for me, it’s what is going to work to get my kids the same educational opportunities that I [had] growing up in a more affluent area of the state.” However, the teachers unions, usually strong supporters of Democratic candidates, reject Booker’s policies. To gain their support and reach a compromise, Booker worked with Governor Christie to find a statewide solution that would be more accepted by both the residents and teachers. Despite his decisive Senate win, Booker has been criticized by fellow Democrats. Liberals have criticized him for working with Christie, his own governor, and also for main-
taining close connections with Wall Street bankers. Ironically, Booker has liberal standpoints on most economic matters and social issues including abortion, gay marriage, and the legalization of marijuana but it seems not enough to satisfy his own party members. Politicians at the national level are still, on rare occasions, found to promote bipartisan measures. In October of this year, the government shut down, as it was unable to pass a budget plan. After over two weeks of partisan bickering, it was clear that some sort of compromise had to be made. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator from Alaska was one of a group of female senators who stepped forward and demanded an end to the shutdown. “This should not be about someone’s speakership. This should not be about the next election.
sor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, once again showing these women’s abilities to vote for their beliefs, not their party’s. After the shutdown concluded, Senator John McCain acknowledged this group, saying, ”Leadership, I must fully admit, was provided primarily from women in the Senate.” Earlier this year, Murkowski worked with Senator Ron Wyden, a democrat, to create a bill regarding tracking campaign finances, and in 2012, she had encouraged lawmakers of both parties to sit together at the State of the Union. “Any small step we can take to show a little togetherness -- the fact that this is an opportunity for us, as lawmakers, to demonstrate that we can be civil with one another, we can show respect for the institution, show respect for other lawmakers.” Murkowski is correct:
“Christie [and Booker] appear to have the ability to form middle ground solutions.”
politifact.com
This should be about, really, the future of our country,” she said. Like all politicians should, she focused on the needs of the country, not of its political parties. In doing so, she needed to go up against her party leader, John Boehner. “I want to support John Boehner in any way that I can, but we need to be pragmatic. This is not going to be a Republican solution or a Democrat solution. This is going to be a solution that is good for the country,” she said. She, and fellow senators Susan Collins, Kelly Ayotte, Amy Klobuchar, Jeanne Shaheen and Heidi Heitkamp, a mix of Democrats and Republicans, came together to compromise on the matter. Susan Collins, a Republican and the creator of the body, is currently a co-spon-
November 2013
no matter how small the measure, it is necessary for the two parties to come together and unite for the sake of the nation. The politicians mentioned above have, by virtue of bipartisanship, become the most programmatic and effective in the nation. In turn, they have become widely popular. Governor Christie had a 67% approval rating in a largely Democratic state while 70% of Newark voters approved of Booker in a poll conducted this March. Perhaps the message sent by these voters will gain momentum and attention. It will serve all our interests if both parties come to the realization that voters prefer getting the job done with intelligent compromise to standing on rigid principle and achieving nothing. HMR
29
Features
GOP Obstructionism: Why Republican Partisanship is Counterproductive
Daria Balaeskoul
O
bamacare, by any other name, would appeal to the Republicans, but the current partisan politics of Washington, as well as months of growing tension between the Republican controlled House and the Democratic President have finally resulted in the government shutdown and in a battle that has essentially been won by the Democrats as Republican support has fallen nationwide. The effects on Republicans can be expected to last well into next year’s elections for the House and Senate and can even be seen now in New York City’s own municipal elections. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as either the Affordable Care Act or
Obamacare, is geared towards reducing the number of Americans without health insurance. The act aims to do so by increasing the quality and affordability of insurance, as well as requiring all Americans to sign up for health insurance. Despite, all of the excitement generated by the Affordable Care Act, many Americans are still unsure of what the legislation actually means, or how it will affect them. In a Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, nearly two-thirds of the people polled said they did not know when the health insurance exchanges were set to open. More shockingly, in survey taken by Jimmy Kimmel, 46% of those interviewed said that they opposed Obamacare while only 37% said that they opposed the Affordable Care
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Act, showing that Americans were fundamentally uninformed about what the Affordable Care Act really is. Despite an almost four-year bid to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have done more damage to their reputation than to the bill, which has had and will continue to have many consequences, for the American people. There have, of course, been the direct ones, such as the partial government shutdown, which cost the United States’ economy 24 billion dollars over a period of 16 days, but many Americans are unaware of the indirect consequences. As a result of the Affordable Care Act, America’s biggest employers including Wal-Mart and PepsiCo, have been spurred into providing innovative health care to their employees. These new benefits cover flying or transporting employees who are in need of critical surgery, at no extra cost, to renowned health care facilities for their procedures. Drug store chains such CVS and Walgreens have entered into a new partnership with hospitals and other health care facilities in order to be able to better coordinate treatment. In California, in law geared towards decreasing state costs for emergency healthcare, well-qualified medical professionals, including pharmacists, nurses, and emergency medical technicians are now able to provide primary care, decreasing the cost of standard procedures such as having your blood pressure and cholesterol levels checked, and dispensing birth control and anti-smoking drugs. As a result of the market-based principles of the Affordable Care Act as well as other provisions, employers across the United States are now scrambling to provide the best quality healthcare to their workers as a way of saving costs. With the implementation of Obamacare healthcare providers have largely shifted their efforts from treating illnesses to preventing them. The congressional Republicans continuing their efforts to defund the Af-
Features fordable Care Act do not want to simply repeal the Affordable Care Act, but rather to replace it with a new healthcare policy of their own. However in its essence Republican healthcare reform differs very little from Obamacare. For example, the legislation that Mitt Romney passed in his home state of Massachusetts, as governor is strikingly similar to the Affordable Care Act. In fact, despite a few points that Republicans and Democrats would be expected to argue over, such as birth control, the health plans both parties would push for are fundamentally the same. Thus, all the political frenzy surrounding Obamacare over the past several years has really been about partisanship rather than any sort of moral or ethical ideals. As Health Care Plan Market Places have opened online, and the Affordable Care Act has gone into effect across the nation, more Americans have had their existing insurance plans canceled than have filed for new health insurance plans through federal healthcare exchanges. Generally, Republicans had cited the requirement that everyone has to purchase health insurance as a reason to defund Obamacare. However, mandating that Americans purchase health insurance, on pain of suffering a financial penalty, has had its own repercussions. Since a large number of Americans have rushed to purchase insurance through the federal healthcare website before the March 31st deadline, the online market place has been overwhelmed with unexpected traffic, and is thus functioning poorly. According to a Gallup poll, two-thirds of uninsured Americans said they would obtain health insurance before the deadline in order to avoid paying a fine; the effects on the federal sponsored healthcare exchange have been numerous glitches as well as occasional crashing. Due to all of the technical issues surrounding the online Health Care Market Place, and the potential economic repercussions of the Affordable Care Act, perhaps it would be a better strategy for House Republicans to simply wait to repeal or change Obamacare proved to be ineffective, rather than causing a government shutdown. According to Joel Benenson, a pollster and political strategist, every time the Republican Party has directed its efforts towards defunding the Affordable Care Act rather than focusing on the issues that the American people
consider to be more urgent, such as economic recovery and job creation, Republican politicians are losing support, even among loyal constituents. Republicans should have taken a different approach to having the Affordable Care Act repealed rather than repeating their past mistakes; in 1996 Republican Politicians in the House and Senate took a similar approach to cut funding for Medicare and public health by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The 1996 government shutdown didn’t work out well for Republicans, as their conditions weren’t met, their approval ratings fell, and public support for the Democratic President grew as a result of their stinginess. Republican politicians nationwide now face the threat of not being re-elect-
ed. The affect can even be felt in New York City politics, where in the race for city comptroller, the Republican Candidate, John Burnett, had been under-fire by his Democratic opponent, and current comptroller-elect, Scott Stringer, for not supporting the Affordable Care Act. The repeated efforts of Republicans to defund the Affordable Care Act have resulted in widespread disapproval from the American people rather than any progress towards repealing the legislation. Strategically, the Republican Party should have waited rather than repeatedly attempting to repeal the bill. Now the GOP faces sinking approval ratings as well as a hard time in next year’s electoral season. HMR
“Despite an almost four-year bid to repeal Obamacare, Republicans have done more damage to their reputation than to the bill.”
www.truthdig.com
November 2013
Features www.elonpendulum.com
Partisan Death Match The Problems of a Two Party System Andrew Cogut
W
ith the recent government shutdown, political partisanship has certainly been front and center in the news and media spotlight. The Tea Party’s actions in opposing the Affordable Care Act has left the nation wondering whether politicians have been acting to legislate or simply to stop the opposing party’s actions. However, when considering factionalism, one usually just evaluates what is wrong with the current democratic and republican parties. The real problem, unfortunately, is an underlying flaw with a two-party system in general. Such a system encourages polarization and creates what could be considered a “with us or against us” mentality. There is no middle ground. One either has to agree with one side or has his or her voice drowned out by the sweeping majorities. In order to refine the politi-
cal process, we must refine the two party system. Often when reform is discussed, conventionalists will bring up how the United States has always used a system similar to our current one. However, this is far from the case, and reforming the two party system is essential. In order to confront the multifaceted problems of the 21st century and ensure our democracy functions to the best of its ability, we should carefully consider other systems. A better system, for example, is the British parliamentary system. Such a system is far more conducive to the expression of all views rather than those of the far left or the far right. The Founding Fathers never intended for a two party system. Indeed, several objected to the idea of partisanship in the first place. In a letter he wrote, Thomas Jefferson explains, “If I could not go to
32
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” Jefferson despised partisanship for the very reason that the two party system fails us today: it pigeonholes people into uniform views. John Adams also agreed with Jefferson. He addressed the issue in saying, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties...This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” Both Jefferson and Adams identified the major flaws with a two party system in that it creates politics that favor extremes and puts Congress in a never-ending battle. This is certainly part of what occurred during the shutdown. Rather than working to compromise the Affordable Care Act, politicians instead chose to shut down the government in a failed attempt to get their way.
Features
“
The real problem, unfortunately, is an underlying flaw with a two-party system in general…There is no middle ground.
The two party system harms discourse and the ability to accomplish things in Congress. When the essence of such a system is that there are two sides and only one side can win, how is democracy supposed to function? Politicians will oppose bills for no other purpose than to beat the other party. Thomas L. Friedman reports for the New York Times, “Our two-party system is ossified; it lacks integrity and creativity and any sense of courage or high-aspiration in confronting our problems.” The two party system does not provide the power necessary to govern a country such as the United States. The problems the United States faces such as terrorism and our debt crisis require more than just two options to confront a problem. They are more multifaceted problems that need more options than simple, one-sided solutions. Friedman continues, citing political Professor Larry Diamond of Stanford, “We simply will not be able to do the things we need to do as a country to move forward” if we continue the two party system. Politicians have started to think not about how to solve major issues, but about how to harm the other party and make a gain for their own party. The issue with this confrontational view of modern-day American politicians is that it perpetuates politics being a zero-sum game. For important issues such as foreign policy, the United States cannot have politicians on either side opposing options for the sole purpose of opposing the other party. Prioritizing the thwarting of the other party over helping the nation itself is the antithesis of good government, essentially creating a win-lose model. Rich Tafel, founder of Public Squared, a public policy training program for nonprofits and social entrepreneurs, explains that the harms of a win-lose model where politicians believe only one side can win “leads to a perpetual war between parties and to where American politics is right now – operating under the politics of sabotage. Losers logically conclude, ‘If I
sabotage, I might win, and even if I don’t win, you don’t win either…’” This kind of thinking is what destroys any potential for proper discourse. Instead of perpetuating the win-lose model with the two party system, the United States should turn to alternative systems such as the parliamentary system. If there are more than just two parties, it creates far more potential for productive debate and deals to be made. The parliamentary system is preferable to the two party system. The way the parliamentary system works is that voters do not vote for candidates, but rather for parties. The party with the majority vote names the prime minister. Then, each party gets to name the representatives for the districts in which they have won the election. Even though the parliamentary system is still a party system, it is a happy medium between the two party system and simply having candidates randomly run for office. It maintains structure while being far more conducive to alternative views. Chis Weigant, political commentator, explains, “the parliamentary system is inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties do in the American system.” This is because voters are not voting for one candidate who can only win or lose. They vote for a party and each votes counts towards gaining that party more seats. Having more parties provides an easy way to solve many problems in Congress. Voters would be able to support parties that actually capture their views rather than the party that has a few issues that they support. Furthermore, it would force politicians to work together. The minority parties would have a lot of power in Congress when the Democrats and Republicans find themselves, as they often do, to be at a standstill; the minorities could essentially break the tie. This would force both parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, to work with the minority parties. A switch to the parliamentary system would certainly not be
November 2013
”
easy, but the parliamentary system provides a far preferable system for the United States. It is highly unlikely the United States will switch from a two party system any time soon. The system is too ingrained in the heads of Americans for it to be suddenly changed. Furthermore, given our past status as a colony of Britain, the odds that anyone will consider changing to the parliamentary system are slim. However, the United States should consider the merits of the parliamentary system and how we can improve our current system. For example, as Wes Moore suggests, we can “start out with the audacious goal that at least 25% of all mayors [and governors] in America by 2015 will be independent/ non-major party affiliated.” If we do this, people will be more willing to consider a president or congressmen coming from a minor party. Ultimately, we need to institute change to solve our system. HMR
www.wupr.org
33
Features
Drawing the Line on Gerrymandering Ben Alexander
H
ow is former New York Knick and current Toronto Raptor Steve Novak similar to the California House of Representatives? In the past, they have both had stunningly low turnover rates. During the 2012-2013 season, Novak set the NBA all-time record for lowest turnover percentage in a season, relinquishing possession of the ball to the other team a remarkably low 2.6% of the time. The California House’s low turnover
percentage is not nearly as desirable as that of the charmingly gangly and gawky Novak. From 2002 to 2010, the California House of Representatives had a partisan turnover rate of around 0.4%, meaning that in only one of the 265 House races did a district’s vote switch from Republican to Democratic, or vice-versa. This lack of turnover is the result of a harmful practice called “gerrymandering,” which is when that party draws the district lines in such a way that the party has an advan-
34
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
tage over the other party. Gerrymandering leads to corruption in our electoral process, and ultimately, in the way we are governed. If we want our democracy to be more productive and less partisan, it is critical that gerrymandering be reduced or eliminated. Every ten years after the census occurs, the majority party in each state legislature redraws the districts from which public officials are elected, in order to reflect population changes. Gerryman-
Features
pr inc eto n.e du
dering only affects races in the House of Representatives and state legislatures because those elections are based on voting in districts. Senate and presidential races are not affected because they are based on votes from the entire state and state lines cannot be redrawn. Elbridge Gerry, a former Massachusetts governor, is credited with inventing gerrymandering two hundred years ago when he made a district in the shape of a salamander, hence the whimsical-sounding term, “gerrymander.” “Packing” and “cracking” are two techniques for effective gerrymandering. “Packing” squeezes like-minded voters into just one or a few districts in order to reduce their influence in other districts.
“Cracking” involves spreading a concentrated group of like-minded voters over multiple districts where they become the minority. Both packing and cracking are designed to maximize wasted votes for the opposition party. Some people believe the impacts are exaggerated and that it improves competition. They argue that politicians avoid making districts that are extremely red or blue, because they would effectively be “packing” against their own party, wasting votes. Instead, politicians spread voters among a larger number of districts, leading to closer races. Others argue that incumbents keep their seats not because of gerrymandering, but because incumbents have a natural advantage over their challengers due to name-recognition. While gerrymandering does make some districts more competitive few politicians would want their districts to be truly competitive because they still want to win comfortably. Why else would they go through the trouble of gerrymandering? The argument that America gerrymanders itself makes sense, but it is not an excuse for redrawing district borders for political gain. And yes, incumbents already have an advantage, but gerrymandering unfairly increases their advantage even more. In gerrymandered districts, winners are determined by who gets to draw the districts, not by what the voters actually want. In 2012, House Democrats won the nationwide vote by around 1.4 million votes, yet House Republicans still gained 33 more seats due to gerrymandering, which is clearly a lopsided result. A specific example of gerrymandering can be seen in Pennsylvania. In presidential races, Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in every single election since 1992. Nevertheless, thirteen of Pennsylvania’s eighteen House seats are Republican. Secondly, gerrymandering creates too many “safe seats,” in which representatives are more or less guaranteed to stay in office because of carefully manipulated districts. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution reads, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” This clause is meant to ensure that representatives do not stay in office longer than they are wanted. However, safe seats impede turnover and can turn a two-year term into one that lasts a lifetime. As a
November 2013
result, incumbents can sometimes stay in office without pushing themselves to actually improve the country. Also, as Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the House Democrats points out, “There’s a lot to be said about mixing it up generationally, to have a constant invigoration of Congress with new fresh eyes and fresh voices.” New members of Congress can have fresh ideas and strategies, whereas longstanding incumbents often end up fighting over the same old topics and reaching an impasse, which in the extreme could end with a government shutdown, as it did recently. A third problem is that gerrymandering leads to extreme candidates and more partisanship. When districts are skewed towards one party, a candidate is incentivized to tailor his or her platform to reflect the wishes of only that party, and is thereby forced to become a more extreme candidate. In competitive districts, that candidate would have to be more moderate in order to appeal to the interests of all kinds of voters. President Obama alluded to this idea in a press conference on October 8th when he said, “A big chunk of the Republican Party right now is in gerrymandered districts where
“Gerrymandering leads to corruption in our electoral process, and ultimately, in the way we are governed.” there’s no competition and those folks are much more worried about a tea party challenger than they are about a general election where they’ve got to compete against a Democrat or go after independent votes. And in that environment, it’s a lot harder for them to compromise.” Gerrymandering also promotes the ability of special interest groups to exert influence on the government. According to a ProPublica investigation, many groups that advertise themselves as fighting partisan redistricting, such as Fair Districts Mass, Protect Your Vote, and The Center for a Better New Jersey,
35
Features are actually funded by large corporations and unions. Special interest groups can therefore help candidates that would benefit them the most while in office. With all of these problems in mind, one has to wonder why gerrymandering hasn’t been eliminated. The answer is twofold. First, any efforts to eliminate
partisan gerrymandering can be challenged in court, but the plaintiff would have to show that a district demonstrates “both intentional discrimination against an identifiable political group and an actual discriminatory effect on that group.” That requirement is both ambiguous and hard to prove, so little progress has
“When districts are skewed towards one party, a candidate is incentivized to tailor his or her platform to reflect the wishes of only that party, and is thereby forced to become a more extreme candidate.” gerrymandering would have to involve the government, and politicians are not exactly clamoring for gerrymandering reform because they are its main beneficiaries. Secondly, pinning down gerrymandering in a court of law is almost impossible. In the 1986 case Davis v. Bandemer, the Supreme Court ruled that
been made in recent cases involving gerrymandering. In a 2004 case, Vieth v. Jubelirer, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that districts in Pennsylvania were not unconstitutional, and even the four justices in the minority did not agree on how to decide whether a district has been gerrymandered.
36
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
So can gerrymandering ever be fixed? Yes, but it is not a cakewalk. In recent years, the public has become much more aware of gerrymandering, and the ensuing outcry has helped to convince politicians that they need to take action. In 2010, California became the poster boy for gerrymandering reform, instituting the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, an independent commission with the power to redraw California’s districts. Its members are independent from the government, making its work much fairer than in other states. The California State Auditor chooses the members of the commission, which is made up of 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 4 Independents. A few other states, such as Washington, Idaho, Arizona, and Iowa have created comparable models, and similar commissions are in place in other countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. The California commission is new, so it is premature to draw too many conclusions, but an independent commission is a huge improvement. With the institution of the commission “you see Republicans voting for immigration reform, you see Democrats voting for streamlining environmental regulations,” said Dan Schnur, the director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “You never would have seen that before.” A study by Eric McGhee and Daniel Krimm of the Public Policy Institute of California concluded that the commission has “altered the electoral landscape, leading many incumbents to pass on reelection, forcing others to introduce themselves to unfamiliar voters, and increasing the number of competitive races overall.” The California Supreme Court ruled that “not only do the Commission-certified Senate districts appear to comply with all of the constitutionally mandated criteria set forth in California Constitution, article XXI, the Commission-certified Senate districts also are a product of what generally appears to have been an open, transparent and nonpartisan redistricting process.” The recent government shutdown raised questions about the state of U.S. governance, and made some people wonder how effective the government is at running our country. Certainly, gerrymandering is a big problem, violating our right for fair representation, allow-
Features
npr.org
The California Citizens Redistricting Commission signs redistricting resolution
ing undeserving politicians to remain in office, and even intensifying deadlocks that can lead to shutdowns. Our country should follow California’s lead by creating independent redistricting commissions in every state. In order to ensure the effectiveness of these commissions, judges on individual states’ Supreme
Courts should choose retired judges to be on that state’s commission. This has three benefits: judges are required to be as fair as possible, and in order to be chosen as judges they typically have to pass rigorous screenings for impartiality; retired judges’ case records are publicly available, so impartial judges are easier
to spot; and many former judges have a good idea about how the government works and have already been exposed to many aspects of American politics. Progress is being made, with proposals such as Representative Steve Cohen’s plan, called the John Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act (FAIR), which would require all states to have independent redistricting commissions. The American people also have a role to play. California voters passed California Proposition 20, which created the commission. But it is not always so easy. “It’s a hard sell. It’s one of those arcane issues,” said Kim Alexander, the founder and president of the California Voter Foundation, which studies California’s voting process. “It’s one of those issues that only comes around once every 10 years and people can get very worked up about when it’s happening and then it’s easy to forget about it once it’s all over.” We cannot allow that to happen and must make our voices heard by pressuring our government to change. Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering, so eliminating this practice is a bipartisan issue of fairness that we should all be able to agree on. HMR
marylandreporter.com
Maryland voters who support independent redistricting commission in 2013
November 2013
37
Features
v
Government Shutdown Hits Pause On
SCIENCE A: www.forrst.com B: surfline.com
Abigail Zuckerman
T
he recent government shutdown has had undeniably widespread effects on the American people, and one little mentioned area that has suffered dramatic setbacks is that of science and research. The National Institute of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), among other governmental organizations and independent scientists and programs, have suffered both temporary and possible longterm damages because of the shutdown, and many consequences of the freeze may not yet have been recognized. The federal shutdown also affected more than the activities of federal agencies; it also restricted the progress of scientists at state and local levels and at universities across the country. In the coming weeks and months, the government must make supporting America’s shaken scientific endeavors a primary goal in order to to compensate for lost time. Additionally, that such a fundamental element of this country was so disrupted is disgraceful, and such a disturbance should never be allowed to repeat itself in this age where groundbreaking discoveries are made almost daily. The federal shutdown quite literally endangered the lives of many patients, and even children in need of governmental support and
medical care. During the shutdown, admittance of critically ill people in NIH clinical trials slowed to a crawl. Between October 1, the day the shutdown began, and October 8, about 12 patients were enrolled in trials, whereas in a typical week, roughly 200 new patients might be enrolled. About thirty of those 200 patients are children, a third of whom have cancer. So as a result of the government’s squabbling, about 188 individuals were prevented or postponed from receiving what might have been life-saving treatment. The CDC also suffered dramatic setbacks because of the federal shutdown and furloughed about two thirds of its employees, causing another serious public health worry. This severely understaffed agency was forced to halt nationwide flu monitoring, and the impacts of this stall are not yet known. The CDC was also tracking about thirty foodborne illnesses at the time of the shutdown, and the small team of eight researched focusing on this issue was at first cut down to one individual, but was quickly raised seven when officials decided more workers were needed to perform all the critical monitoring tasks. Therefore, the government recognized at least one research area seriously in need of support during the shutdown, but a great deal more attention must now be paid to these programs in the aftermath of the shutdown if they are to recover.
38
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Hundreds of individuals receive medical attention because the government provides funding, and it is incredibly unfair for those who would ordinarily have been admitted by government programs during the timespan of the shutdown to have their treatments postponed or even called off entirely. It is the duty of the government to ensure that these individuals receive the care to which they are entitled. Modern science also hinges in a very real way on the ability of scientists to communicate with one another, and access data and information. Research isn’t particular to individuals or even institutions; scientists in labs all over the country may need to communicate in order to accomplish a goal, and any delay in information transfer could cause widespread stalling. Research is therefore particularly susceptible to the effects of the shutdown, and recovering lost ground as quickly as possible and preventing such devastation in the future most be a focus for the government in the aftermath of the shutdown. The temporary closing of government-run scientific databases was therefore extremely detrimental to research, as it closed many avenues of communication between scientists and made an enormous source of information unavailable, so that even scientists working completely independently of government funding but whose research utilized the
Features
C: projects.harvard.edu D: www.creativepartnership.com
information on such databases as PubMed, BLAST, and GenBank were stalled. Even graduate students were unable to access data, files, and equipment at federal facilities. The NIH with its 27 institutes centers, is the largest source of financing for medical research in the world. Its huge grant program was driven to a standstill by the shutdown, leaving countless researchers, programs, and organizations without hard-won and much needed funds to continue their work. The NIH will undoubtedly be scrambling during the next grant cycle to make up ground. Hundreds of scientific conferences and meetings were also cancelled or postponed because of lack of funding, or because government scientists were unable to attend. The shutdown arrived at one of the worst possible times of year for grant review and processing. The postponement and possible cancelation of NSF and NIH review panels along with the backlog of processing could irrevocably damage the viability of many projects and their ability to serve the needs of the American people. In addition to the need for information transfer, many scientific experiments are time-sensitive, and endless hours if not years of work by some researchers may have been ruined by the shutdown because scientists were unable to access their labs. During the shutdown, 73% of NIH’s approximately 18,650 employees were furloughed. This group included researchers based on its campus in Bethesda, Maryland, who quite literally scrambled to freeze cells and preserve experiments in progress when the shutdown was announced. The impact on individual research projects could be very serious, and recovering from the sixteen-day shutdown could take months or much longer. Yet another government agency that was damaged by the shutdown and has already experienced drastic limitations due to the American government’s spending cuts is NASA. Two American astronauts aboard the International Space Station and flight directors at Mission Control in Houston, Texas were thankfully exempted from furlough, but virtually all other NASA employees were sent
home during the shutdown. Flight controllers navigated a precarious maneuver for the recently launched LADEE, Mars rover Curiosity kept moving, and the next Mars spacecraft MAVEN is still expected to launch on-schedule in mid-November, but besides that all other NASA activities were halted, including critical preparations for the 2018 James Webb Telescope. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was also hit hard by the shutdown, and was unable to conduct many of its air, water, and hazardous waste inspections. That data cannot be recovered. Additionally, NSF researchers studying climate history in Antarctica lost an invaluable portion of their field season, since research in that part of the world usually begins in October. These efforts are crucial to our understanding of climate change, and other environmental problems. It is unclear whether this research can or will be pushed to next season. As the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) Executive Director and CEO Christine McEntee so eloquently put it, “Continuous data collection and monitoring, and our ability to make that information available to the public, is essential to science’s capacity
to support public service. Nature happens in real time. We can’t hit rewind to see what we missed.” Nature certainly didn’t hit pause just because the government did, and America’s scientific efforts have been left scrambling to catch up. In the wake of the economic turmoil and other disturbances caused by the federal shutdown, science may not be the first thing on the minds of government officials as they work to restore stability to the country. It cannot, however, be neglected in the coming months because of its critical necessity to maintaining the well-being of the American people. Even under normal circumstances, scientific research is often forgotten by the federal government, but all of the government’s scientific agencies are in dire need of attention and assistance. Furthermore, small breakthroughs are made in research every day, and many projects may be ruined because of the shutdown. If America is to maintain its usual speed of development, funds must be provided to allow projects to be revived and continued. Science is a vital part of America, and must be treated as such in the aftermath of the shutdown. HMR
penny4nasa.org
November 2013
39
Economics
The Penny Plan us.123rf.com
Maria Balaeskoul and Anne Rosenblatt
T
he 2013 United States government shutdown has only further intensified our country’s need to resolve the detrimental and growing national debt. Moving forward from the shutdown it is crucial to cut government spending, despite the indecision of our representatives. In only 16 days, the government shutdown cost over $24 billion, stunting what would have been positive economic growth in the months to come. This debt can be reduced by a simple solution. The Penny Plan, introduced by Congressman Connie Mack, focuses on cutting spending across the board by 1%. The Penny Plan has already received support from 70 members of Congress and 15 senators. Unlike the government shutdown of the Clinton administration where the economy had a painless rebound due to an already flourishing economy, America’s current state of recession will require much more action. As a result of this shutdown, the financial crisis has worsened. S&P economists predicted that the economy would grow roughly 3% in the fourth quarter,
but as a result of the shutdown, the figure has now plunged to 2.4%. Just from the closure of national parks the government lost $76 million per day, and tourism suffered significantly. The damage is already evident in the future of the government as consumer and business confidence has been greatly undermined after the shutdown, potentially hurting the economic growth that usually accompanies the holiday season. The government will continue to have debts piling in since the approximately 800,000 federal workers that were not paid during the shutdown must now be paid, and businesses might be due interest because of late checks. This will amount to at least $1 billion a week to pay for the workers that were furloughed. Historically, America has been able to bounce back with ease from times of economic stress; this time it will not be that simple. Unlike the shut down during Clinton’s presidency in 1995 and 1996, the faltering economy cannot fix itself without the implementation of drastic measures and compro-
40
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
mise. When the government shut down in 1995, the economy was thriving because of the developing technology sector. To add to this, unemployment was only at 5.6% percent. This is in sharp contrast to the current 7.2% unemployment during a slow and idle recovery, and the number of people looking for a job is at the lowest it has been since 1978. Though the rebound from the 1995 shutdown was fairly painless, as both the stock market and economy were virtually unaffected, due to the far greater debt the country is faced with, it is crucial to quickly jumpstart the economy to get the nation back on its feet. The lack of cooperation and unity in the federal government has undoubtedly lowered the confidence of overseas investors. The inability of the House of Representatives and the Senate to compromise has crippled global credibility and only heightened the international community’s distrust in the United States. If our nation cannot come to a compromise and conclusion on domestic issues, how can our allies keep their
Economics trust in us on international issues? At the end of the shutdown Dagong, the most influential Chinese credit rating company, reduced the United States’ rating from A to A-, which is below that of less internationally influential countries such as Botswana. As crises continue to plague the country, the credit rating will decline further and the United States
revenue has increased only 36.2%. Furthermore, the U.S national debt right now is about 73% of GDP, higher than it has been since World War II, and twice what it was in 2007. A high debt to GDP ratio indicates that an economy does not produce and sell goods in quantities sufficient enough to pay back debts and to not bring in further debt. Typi-
Furthermore, the U.S national debt right now is about 73% of GDP, higher than it has been since World War II, and twice what it was in 2007. will encounter more and more difficulty in borrowing money from other nations. To regain the trust of the international community, the United States must focus first on achieving internal stability. The United States must find an effective solution in hopes of achieving this crucial economic stability. Now that the administration and Congress has kicked the can down the road, to use the old cliché, and has put off any meaningful repair to the budget and our spending problems, what can we do to achieve a bipartisan solution before the debt limit crisis reemerges in two months? In order to successfully reduce the United States’ debt, spending must be cut. Since the federal government ran its last budget surplus in fiscal 2001, federal spending has nearly doubled, up 97.8%, while
cally, as seen in the case of our country, high national debt significantly hinders economic growth and is in some aspects even worse than a recession. It still hampers growth after the crisis because the labor is less productive due to reduced investment in the country. Forty cents of every dollar spent by the government goes toward paying interest on the debt. Any viable solution must cut spending. An increase in taxes from the wealthy would be futile and not nearly enough. It might raise $47 billion but not the $1.3 trillion that is needed at this point. However, an across the board reduction in spending by a simple penny on the dollar could achieve popularity between both parties and spread the pain evenly. The Penny Plan would return federal spending, expressed as a share of GDP,
near the level achieved during the last two years of the Clinton administration. It calls for reducing federal spending, excluding interest payments, 1 percent a year for five years, and balancing the budget in the fifth year. Though cutting spending by 1% across the board will not have any major effects on respective projects and administrations, it will dramatically reduce the national debt as a whole, proving to be the most effective solution as of this time. This plan does not exempt any departments or programs from the cuts, ensuring that the cuts will be fair, and effectively limit spending. American families have tightened their belts and the government should be doing the same, yet no politicians can agree how. Because they are too attached to their own projects and legislation, no one who seeks re-election wants to approve any cuts that affect his or her own district. However, by spreading the reductions evenly, no individual or project would have to suffer any higher percentage loss. Some might argue that in a fragile recovery from recession, lowering spending would risk lowering growth; however, the threat of the national debt’s surpassing the GDP is far greater. With the fragile state of the economy, it is crucial that the government takes any measures to lower government spending. At this point, the only viable solution is to cut spending in minor amounts across the board, evenly, fairly, and without exceptions. HMR
http://pjmedia. com/
November 2013
41
Economics
The Fed’s First Chairwoman? Bright Prospects for Nominee Janet Yellen www.2.bp.blogspot.com
Krystian Loetscher
J
anet L. Yellen is an economist who is projected to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve Board. This high level position comes with many duties and makes many important decisions that can either help push the economy out of a recession or leave it in a slump. Decisions made by this very powerful person ultimately decide how bright our future may be. Ben Bernanke, the most recent chair of the Federal Reserve has recently stepped down, and the position is open. Currently Janet L. Yellen is the top nominee to be the new head of the Federal Reserve. If appointed, she will become the first woman ever to be chair of the Federal Reserve. Yellen will not only succeed Ben Bernanke (the previous chair) but also excel, and by targeting unemployment, heave our economy out of this massive slump it has been in. Although Lawrence H. Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury (1999-2001) and President of Harvard (2001-2006), was projected to be the next chair, Senate Democrats prevented his nomination. President Barack Obama has strongly endorsed Yellen for her drive to pursue certain policies that will most likely set the economy on the right path. Yellen is the most capable and experienced person in the field of economics, and her decisions alone can boost the economy out
of this recession and continue on in steady growth. Although Yellen brings with her a liberal mind-set, which has caught the attention of some of her critics, her knowledge and background in the field of economics far outweigh any bias she might have. Starting out as a professor at Harvard University, she accelerated into very high, prestigious positions concerning the fate of our economy. Throughout her career she has had much experience in dealing with the economy and its unpredictable turns. She served as chair of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economics and afterward was appointed to vice-chair of the Federal Reserve. She has a solid background in this field, and is more than capable of assisting the recovery of the economy. The policies she intends to pursue have earned the support of many politicians and newspapers, and she is believed by them to be the best person for a position that is arguably the second most important position in the U.S. “She’s an excellent choice and I believe she’ll be confirmed by a wide margin,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). An article in the Washington Post strongly agrees, writing, “She is perhaps the most qualified Fed chair in history.” Yellen strongly supports and plans to implement many economic policies that will steer our
42
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
economy onto the correct path. Her policies, namely monetary stimulus and plans aiming to lower unemployment and interest rates, will promote economic activity and thus push the economy out of stagnation. Yellen’s strong belief in stimulus, or more specifically expansionary monetary policy, will help to lower unemployment. “She has expressed greater concern about the economic consequences of unemployment, a stronger conviction in the Fed’s ability to stimulate job growth and a greater willingness to tolerate a little more inflation in order to reduce unemployment more quickly,” writes Binyamin Appelbaum for the New York Times. Stimulus creates jobs by easing the rate at which money flows. Stimulus is implemented by the Federal Reserve, which, through a process of buying treasury bills, makes money more accessible. Every country has its own “central bank”; the official central bank of the United States is The Federal Reserve Board. The Reserve’s decisions and policies have causative effects on how the economy will act or change. The Federal Reserve Board, is responsible for managing the money supply, which determines the value or strength of the dollar. To implement expansionary monetary policy, which is what the Feder-
Economics al Reserve is currently doing, the Reserve buys treasury bills from other commercial banks, thereby allowing banks to lend and borrow more money. Treasury bills are debt owed to the government. In times of low economic activity, the Federal Reserve will buy these treasury bills. The assets, i.e. the bonds or treasury bills, are converted into liquid capital, money that the Reserve can then lend with ease. Thus money is easier to obtain and flows more readily. The direct result of an increase in liquidity would be lower unemployment. Since employers are then capable of borrowing more money, they are more able and willing to hire workers. As a result of higher employment and thus an increase in the number of incomes, gross domestic product also increases. The cause and effects of expansionary monetary policy on unemployment thus far can be seen in a simple Liquidity Preference Model; it shows that as the money supply increases the demand for money also increases. Essentially, when money is more plentiful or easier to obtain, the demand or want for more money is needed to keep up with the decreasing value of the dollar. Following the model, it can be seen how her plans increase the money supply while increasing the demand for money and thus increase economic activity. Yellen’s support for lowering interest rates will lead to lower unemployment. Interest rates determine how much it costs to borrow money and ultimately define the ease with which borrowers and lenders
interact. When the interest rates are low, borrowing increases because the cost of borrowing is lower. People borrow money to start businesses, buy houses, etc., and these activities increase economic activity as a whole. Low interest rates, low unemployment, and higher money supply are variables that are dealt with directly when enacting expansionary monetary. These policies are proven by models and can be seen historically to improve the rates of unemployment. Higher liquidity is a direct result of expansionary monetary policy, or stimulus, and its beneficial effects support Yellen’s drive to implement this policy. It is effective policies like these that justify Yellen’s nomination as the new chair of the Federal Reserve. High inflation, or at its extreme, hyperinflation, is an issue that is addressed by many economists and could result if stimulus is not properly enacted. Economists as well as other experts fear that if not properly implemented, stimulus could cause inflation and thus a large decrease in the value of the dollar. However, Yellen would not allow this to happen. With her vast experience in the field of economics she knows where equilibrium is and would not let her stimulus policies get out of hand. An article in the Washington Post says, “... but she’s more than willing to crack down on inflation when the situation requires it,” regarding her drive to pursue economic stimulus but also competency in preventing high inflation.
High inflation is a rapid, uncontrolled rise in the price of goods and services in a given economy. High inflation is also the result of stimulus’ devaluing the dollar. If too much money is put into the open market, as a result of the Reserve’s buying treasury bills, then the value of the dollar greatly declines. Thus, after a period of high inflation, the cost of paying for a good or service becomes much higher, and there would be no time for adjustment. Eventually the currency could end up completely worthless. An extreme example of this is the Mark in Weimar Germany. At that time, there was so much money in the market that its currency became virtually worthless, so much so that the paper bills were more valuable as fuel for fires than as currency. Hyperinflation would only happen if the Reserve made incredibly drastic decisions approved by an incompetent chair. With Yellen, this will not happen as she knows the equilibrium and can ensure steady growth. Janet Yellen is the most qualified person for this immensely powerful position. Her experience and drive to pursue certain policies make her the best choice for chair of The Federal Reserve. Her policies have been proven to be especially successful. If she continues to show her commitment to implement the policies she said she would, the economy will soon advance from the current glum situation it is in, into a long and steady growth. HMR
www.blogspot.com
November 2013
43
Economics
The Nobel Prize in Economics
www.pr-controlled.com
Exploring Three of the Brightest American Minds Spencer Slagowitz
O
n October 14th, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences decided to award the Nobel Prize in Economics to three Americans on account of their exemplary work concerning the empirical analysis of asset prices. These Americans are Eugene Fama, Lars Peter Hansen, and Robert Shiller. However, the work of Fama and Hansen has fundamentally contradicted that of Shiller’s. They represent two very different economic views. Fama and Hansen both believe that financial markets are efficient, in that the price of assets, for the most part, accurately reflects all available information. In contrast, Shiller has repeatedly challenged the traditional view of markets by showing that the stock market bounced up and down a lot more than could be justified on the basis of economic fundamentals such as earnings and dividends. This differ-
ence is representative of the overarching intellectual and ideological conflict between a “market fundamentalist” approach to economics and the “KKM” approach. The article serves to assert that Schiller’s approach to economics is more realistic than that of Fama, and ultimately strengthens the “KKM” approach to Economics. Eugene F. Fama is a distinguished professor of finance at the University of Chicago, a school that is well known for its neoclassical, macro-economical views. Professor Fama is famous for his efficient-market hypothesis, a finding that has fundamentally shaped modern finance. In fact, he is widely known as being the “father of modern finance.” Also teaching at the University of Chicago is Lars Peter Hansen, a distinguished professor of economics and statistics. He is an internationally known
44
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
leader in economic dynamics and has been recognized for his fundamental advances in our understanding of how economic agents cope with changing and risky environments. Robert J. Shiller is the sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, and has written on financial markets, financial innovation, behavioral economics, macroeconomics, real estate, statistical methods, and public attitudes, opinions, and moral judgments regarding markets. Fama and Hansen are both advocates of a neoclassical or market fundamentalist economics, a belief which is based on three assumptions: people have rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value, individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profits, and people act independently on the basis
Economics of full and relevant information. This is the philosophy that guided the 19942007 “answer to globalization,” a financial liberalization of the United States’ economy. During this time period, there was little to no supervision in previously supervised sectors which had expanded at fantastic rates, producing massive wealth, adding to the growth of industry albeit while carrying serious systemic risk. During this time period, U.S manufacturing fell from 21% to 14% of GDP, while U.S finance increased from 14% to 25%. No one doubts the short-term economic growth witnessed during this time period; however, despite the level of growth produced by this type of policy, financial sector debt increased from 22% to 117% of GDP. The market fundamentalist approach argues that the ‘08 financial crisis was a rare and unpredictable affect, and that despite the destruction caused, the underlying philosophy of “laissez-faire” economics still holds sway: markets are efficient and self-regulating. It is this approach that Schiller’s work challenges. In his analysis of asset pricing, he demonstrates that there is a drastic difference between the volatility of stock prices and the volatility of corporate dividends. Moreover, he found that these irrational
deviations fell into predictable patterns. The value of corporate dividends is supposed to determine the value of stock prices, if we accept an efficient market view, as stock prices should be based off of (in the most optimal efficient setting) corporate dividends. So, when stock price volatility is drastically different than corporate dividend volatility, one can conclude, as Schiller did, that markets cannot be self-regulating and efficient in a laissez-faire environment. Shiller has argued that the “predictability of prices” reflects irrational but repeating patterns of human behavior (the basis of the work which helped him win the Nobel prize). He, among other economists, have worked to integrate behavioral theories from psychology and other social sciences into modern economics, producing positive results. The housing crash that began in 2006 is widely regarded as evidence that prices had climbed to irrational heights, and Mr. Shiller’s accuracy in diagnosing the problem suggests that future bubbles could be identified too. Even Alan Greenspan, the former FED chair, has accepted the existence of the housing bubble. He argues that the information being promulgated by behavioral economics is similar to the
idea first put forth by John Maynard Keynes. Keynes used “animal spirits”, a spontaneous action rather than inaction, to help explain economic phenomena. Today, the concept of “animal spirits” is used to describe fears that stifle or initiate action, often irrational action. He explained that the “laissez-faire” policies implemented by the United States government between 1994-2007 caused an unhealthy and dangerous expansion of “tail-risk”. “Tail risk” is a class of investment outcomes that occur with very low probabilities, but are accompanied by very large losses. Similarly, Schiller argues that, in the past, economists have assumed that if people acted solely to maximize their own interests, their actions would produce long–term growth paths consistent with the abilities to increases productivity (mpk). However, this belief is shattered given unexplainable market deviations. In conclusion, even though all three economists received the Nobel Prize, it is Schiller’s work that will have the most significant impact on our view of economics, as he presents the most compelling argument with the most evidence. HMR
Right: Robert J. Shiller, sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, known for his writings on various financial issues.
www.wpwm.com www.pr-controlled.com
Above: Eugene Farma, distinguished professor of finance at the University of Chicago, famous for his effiicient-market hypothesis which has fundamentally shaped modern finance. www.wikipedia.org
November 2013
Left: Lars Peter Hansen, distinguished professor of economics and statistics at the University of Chicago and an internationally known leader in economic dynamics.
45
Science and Technology
RESOURCES AND THE FUTURE Lexi Kanter
D
amaged economies, warring nations and us, humans, struggling to obtain the resources we need to live. Sounds like the synopsis of a dystopian fiction novel, and yet, this could very soon be the reality we face as a result of the food and water crisis. The food and water crisis has become an increasingly alarming situation over the past few decades. Essentially, there is an escalating imbalance in international and domestic demand for, and availability of the Earth’s water and land resources.
According to a journalist from the Yale Environment 360 publication, climate change, overconsumption, and the inefficient, negligent treatment of natural resources are the predominant causes of the crisis. As climate change progresses, it is expected to further alter seasonal temperatures and precipitation patterns, on which global agriculture relies. A fickle climate is, and will continue to put the international food production system at risk, as it highly depends on specific climatic factors.
46
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
In regard to overconsumption, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) projected the world population to reach nine billion by 2050. Growing populations are already placing immense stress on the agriculture industry, as there is not enough food being produced to feed the entire world population. In an effort to satiate the demand, farming systems have attempted to increasing their annual yield by using practices that are degrading the land and water sources, according to a recent report
Science and Technology by the FAO. This includes sucking the water from rivers and underground aquifers to irrigate fields, faster than nature can replenish it. We are depleting water sources to fuel food production that relies on water abundance, and it is here that we see vicious cycle. Also, growing populations need shelter and clothing, which puts pressure on water through a need during the production of commodities and energy.
the limits” in food production because of water scarcity, there will be inflation in food prices, causing hardship for the worlds poorer and disadvantaged populations. Water scarcity will likely cause international conflict as well, as water does not recognize boarder controls. This is currently the situation with oil, and wars have occurred as a result, as seen in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Because of the widespread destructive nature of this is-
WE HAPPEN TO BE INCREDIBLY INEFFICIENT WHEN IT COMES TO USING OUR RESOURCES. Not only are humans huge consumers, but we also happen to be incredibly inefficient when it comes using our resources. According to the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF), 70% of the world’s accessible fresh water is used in agriculture, but a significant portion of that is being wasted by the inefficient irrigation systems and food production methods. For example, it takes about 630 gallons of water, or 18 bathtubs full, to produce a single hamburger. As the food and water crisis has become more pressing of an issue, we have begun to acknowledge it’s consequences, and think about what the future might hold. Unfortunately for us, this process of recognition and finding solutions is happening a little too late, and severe damage has already been done. A quarter of the Earth’s land is already highly degraded, eight percent is moderately degraded, and 36 percent is currently in a stable or slowly degrading condition. According to the National Geographic, groundwater scarcity has become a significant factor as to why almost one billion people lack direct access to water. In addition, as we deplete and pollute water from rivers and aquifers their ecosystems suffer, which, subsequently, hurts us, as we rely on these other ecosystems. Should the agriculture industry continue to struggle to keep up with the growing rate of consumption, there could very likely be a negative impact on the global economy. As we are “pushed to
sue, it should be a priority of ours to find a solution before this becomes the case with water. If we continue on the path that we are currently on, the WWF projects that by 2025 almost two thirds of the world could face water shortages. Luckily, we are not quite yet out of time and there are paths to a solution. First of all, we need to offer farmers and agricultural workers incentives to manage water efficiently and conscientiously. We also need to invest in newer technology that would enable a more sustainable food production system. This is needed to implement smarter irrigation and fertilization strategies, increase crop yield, and produce consumer products without wasting resources. Solutions pertaining to agriculture will most likely have the most extensive impact, as most of the world’s water is used in agriculture. As individuals, we can work to limit the effects of the crisis by recycling and being conscious of the commodities we use on a daily basis, such as electricity and water. These measures are usually associated with ending global warming, but as previously mentioned, global warming is a major factor of the food and water crisis. Most importantly, we need to change our mindset. We can no longer think of water as inexhaustible, because that is simply no longer the reality. HMR
November 2013
47
Science and Technology
SAY N
TO
NUCLEAR
ENERGY A: www.clker.com B: www.wallpaperfull.com C: wwww.steelguru.com
Anna Kuritzkes
T
he prospect of nuclear energy has excited the scientific and commercial community for over 50 years. The suggestion of substituting nuclear energy, in the form of enriched uranium or plutonium, for burning fossil fuels is intriguing because fossil fuels contribute to carbon emission, a leading factor in global warming. This is why there are currently 104 reactors operating in the United States (according to the Federation of American Scientists). According to a Washington and Lee University report, “The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States,” nuclear energy currently accounts for 14% of global electricity. Nuclear energy seems like a flawless solution to the problem of global warming; however, the risks of nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. Although more and more nations express interest in nuclear energy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) every year, the issues with nuclear energy remain unsolved. Harnessing nuclear power is dangerous and expensive, and therefore nuclear energy cannot be the godsend solution
to global warming that the international community has been searching for. Nuclear power is currently far more expensive than energy derived from fossil fuels. Nuclear energy does generate more power than coal, but the costs of generating nuclear energy are high. There are a lot of extra expenses that go into nuclear fuel including the cost of upkeep of nuclear plants, storage facilities, and nuclear waste facilities, as well as the cost of generating nuclear power. According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the average costs of coal and nuclear fuel are the same. But the cost of the building and upkeep of nuclear power plants tends to be more expensive than the cost of the fuel. This is where most of the cost of nuclear fuel comes from. The cost of building nuclear plants continues to rise because plants take longer and longer to build as time goes on, due to the more extensive safety regulations, inspections, and other new features added to the process. A US Department of Energy estimate from 2010 approximates the cost of construc-
48
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
tion of a nuclear power plant to be $5,300 per kilowatt for nuclear power, $2,800 per kilowatt for coal, and only $1,000 per kilowatt for natural gas. As nuclear power is the most expensive option, it is not likely to be a realistic type of energy that can be implemented worldwide. Though disasters caused by the breakdown of nuclear reactors are few in number, those that have occurred have devastated communities. The Three Mile Island nuclear disaster, caused by a problem with a reactor, in 1979 is the only such disaster to occur in the United States. Luckily, the nearby community was relatively unscathed after this disaster. The consequence of the Three Mile Island accident was that the public became aware of the dangers that nuclear technology poses to them. But a more detrimental disaster occurred in Japan in March 2011. An earthquake off the coast of Japan triggered a tsunami, causing an accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The plant had proper safety measures, such as the 10-meter tall sea wall around the facility. However, the tsunami’s 13-meter high
Science and Technology
Nuclear energy cannot be the godsend solution to global warming that the international community has been searching for. wave overcame this wall, causing this disaster. This event underscored the fact that an amount of entropy exists that no safety measures will be able to prevent. Like the Three Mile Island accident, this disaster reminded the world that nuclear reactors are hazardous. Unfortunately, the ramifications of the Fukushima disaster were far worse than those from Three Mile Island. This disaster caused significant damage to the environment, property, and the people in the area. The World Health Organization predicted that people in the Fukushima area are at a higher risk of cancer due to the high levels of radiation they were exposed to. Along with these consequences, Japan’s economy was also damaged. As a result, the Japanese government is pouring money into fixing the damaged property and healing the community. The issue of radioactive waste, which is not biodegradable, poses another problem, as this waste is the result of nuclear power pro-
duction. The decay of radioactive materials occurs naturally over time. It is inevitable and unstoppable. As a result, radioactive waste must be stored in isolation. Disposal facilities must be carefully monitored, and any mishap, natural or otherwise, would be costly. Nuclear disasters are not only caused by natural events; the improper storage of non-biodegradable nuclear materials could expose a population to high levels of radiation, causing increased levels of cancer, or cause a nuclear disaster. Additionally, many foreign policy issues develop from the possibility of nuclear energy in rogue states such as Iran, as such states may use nuclear energy as an excuse for creating nuclear weapons. Iran has a nuclear program based on enriched uranium that it uses for nuclear energy, though periodically the country has expressed interest in weaponization. As a result, the United States and Israel have allegedly taken the offensive, assassinating a string of 5 Iranian scientists since 2007 by at-
taching bombs to cars and bombing Iranian plants, only increasing anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middle East. Other countries that have used this façade include Pakistan and India. This increases nuclear proliferation, as more countries are developing nuclear weapons. North Korea is a rogue state, and its nuclear weapons have been the source of international discourse for over 20 years. New sources of energy that do not contribute to carbon emission remain an important area of research for the scientific community as global warming continues to harm our biosphere. But nuclear energy, while it is a valid source of energy, should not become a major source of energy worldwide. Instead, other non-fossil fuel energy forms such as solar-, wind-, and bio-energy should take precedence. HMR
www.nuclearspot.com
November 2013
49
Science and Technology
Breaking Down Barriers Timothy Hoang
W
ouldn’t the world be a different place without cancer? A survey conducted in the United States shows that around 1.7 million people in our very own country suffer from cancer with around 580,000 deaths. The major cancers that affect the population today are prostate, lung, melanoma skin and breast cancer. There are around 200 different types of cancer that cause deaths around the world. Cancer is a disease that can be categorized as uncontrolled cell growth. These damaged cells, if left in the body divide uncontrollably and eventually form tumors. The tumors themselves will grow and interfere with the different body systems, including the nervous, digestive and circulatory systems. Malignant tumors, the scientific name for them, will move and spread throughout
the human body by making use of the blood or lymphatic systems. The question that many doctors and researchers asked themselves was why the immune system could not deal with cancer cells on its own; if there was something different about cancer than with other diseases? As it turns out, the most dangerous aspect of cancer cells is that they are literally undetectable in the human body. This is because they wrap themselves with a “shield” that not only protects them but also makes them invisible to the white blood cells whose job it is to fight them off. A recent breakthrough, released to the public as of October 14 th, has led to the discovery of a drug that can break through this shield and render the cancer cells partially defenseless. This drug has been tested on numerous
50
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
patients who were diagnosed with melanoma, kidney, lung and breast cancer. Most thought that leukemia would be unstoppable for years to come but the drug has proven to be a worthy adversary of the cancer cells, removing them completely in a select few cases. Many doctors who learned about this drug and found out the results described it as “Amazing”, “A game-changer”, and “A watershed moment.” But this isn’t the end, researchers will continue to explore ways to develop new immunotherapies attack cancers like that of the prostate which seems to be one of the major cancers that evades the new drug. Not only does this breakthrough have a huge impact on the lives of those who struggle and battle against cancer every day, but it could also have a destabilizing effect on the economy. If this
Science and Technology
“The scientific community should devote as large a portion of its resources as possible to finding a cure for cancer.� drug were to permanently deal with cancer tumors, it would generate massive income for its parent company. The demand for this drug would be unending and numerous lives would be saved. But there are those who argue that if a cure were to be found, then researchers who had been previously been working on it would become unemployed and it could have a negative effect on the American economy. Chemotherapists, cancer doctors and radiologists would all be out of work causing a large increase in unemployment throughout the entire United States. The balance here is between saving cancer patients vs. the American economy. Personally I think that the scientific community should devote as large a por-
tion of its resources as possible to finding a cure for cancer. We would be saving many lives, previously thought lost. It is hard to believe but 7.6 million people die from the disease a year and 12.7 million new patients will be diagnosed. Saving these lives would be a breakthrough in modern medicine. In the 20 th century, 1955 to be specific, the vaccine for polio was released by Dr. Jonas Salk. It was a huge medical breakthrough that would decrease the number of cases from around a couple hundred thousand to a mere 1,349 around the world. The economic benefits of the polio vaccine were astronomical and project savings were valued at $40 to 50 billion U.S. dollars. Polio, once a deadly disease, has been reduced
November 2013
to only a thousand cases. Cancer, another fatal ailment, could be cured within a range of a few years. One can only hope that the future cure for cancer will prove to be beneficial for all. Unfortunately, this new breakthrough drug is not the final answer. There are still many questions concerning the effectiveness of the drug itself. How long would the effects last? Forever? Temporarily, and if so for how long? No side effects have been identified among those tested but that doesn’t mean that there are none that could pose a danger to future health. Perhaps when these questions are answered, the world as we know will take a turn for the better. HMR
51
Science and Technology
An Inconvenient Truth Vaed Prasad
A
ccording to various medical researchers, an estimated 100,000 players experience a concussion during every high school football season. The intensity of these injuries is much higher among NFL players. Despite various medical researches pointing to strong evidence of permanent brain injuries, the Concussions Committee of the NFL has denied the conclusions of these studies. Former NFL players facing severe brain damage are arguing that the NFL intentionally concealed the risks of concussions and permanent brain injury. More than 4,000 former players, including at least 26 Hall of Fame Members, have filed a lawsuit against the NFL in an attempt to get rightfully deserved compensation for the NFL’s “pattern of deception and international misconduct committed by the league,” according to the Huffington Post.
The NFL’s misleading comments and denials of the long-term impact of brain injuries is markedly similar to those of the tobacco industry, which intentionally misled people about the risks of smoking. The NFL, like tobacco companies, hid relevant and crucial information from those who depended on the league’s ability to behave responsibly and protect the players of these known dangers. It is hard to believe that a league created for the nation’s entertainment as well as for competition at the highest level of athletic ability would intentionally retain such crucial and serious information from these players. But then, that was precisely the course of action followed by the tobacco companies with respect to their customers. The NFL’s Committee on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury falsely stated, “mild TBI’s in professional football are not serious in-
52
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
juries.” The committee’s studies have been questionable, and they have reached suspicious conclusions, such as: “the second impact syndrome and permanent brain damage as a result of multiple concussions is not a risk to professional football players.” The NFL had made contradictory statements about the affects of being a player in the NFL and being diagnosed with brain injuries. At the same time that the league’s former Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee was denying a link between concussions and long-term effects, the league’s retirement board was awarding disability compensation to players following doctors’ assessment of their mental conditions. The Committee also stated, “many NFL players can be safely allowed to return to play on the day of the injury after sustaining a mild TBI,” undermining the true seriousness of concussions
Science and Technology to professional football players. “You had this weird dynamic of two separate committees … one sending a message that concussions were essentially not a problem and the other acknowledging that football had caused brain damage in several players,” said Mark Fainaru-Wada, a sports reporter for ESPN. Bennet Omalu, a forensic neuropathologist who did an autopsy on a former player’s brain, found evidence of severe brain injury and published his findings in the journal Neurosurgery. In response, the then-chairman of the NFL’s former Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee wrote a letter to the journal saying Omalu’s findings were based on a “complete misunderstanding of the relevant medical literature” and that there was “inadequate clinical evidence that the subject had a chronic neurological condition.” It is shocking that the NFL would deny claims made by a medical authority just to spare their name. The impact of such false claims has been significant to the lives of many people. According to the Associated Press, “23 out of 44 NFL players would try to conceal a possible concussion rather than leave the game.” These surprising large numbers are caused by the NFL’s inability to explain how harmful concussions can become, creating an unaware atmosphere of players risking brain damage without even knowing.
“23 out of 44 NFL players would try to conceal a possible concussion rather than leave the game.” The NFL’s behavior of concealing information has contributed to the fact that death rates among NFL players from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Lou Gehrig’s diseases are three times higher than among the general public. In addition, brain autopsies of former football players have revealed that those who had repeated head trauma had evidence of CTE (Chronic traumatic encephalopathy).” CTE is a progressive degenerative brain disease that can only be diagnosed after death and often occurs in people who have had multiple concussions or other brain trauma. Symptoms of CTE can include changes in mood including depression, problems with cognition or behavior like dementia and difficulties with motor abilities. Junior Seau, the former NFL linebacker who committed suicide in April 2012, was diagnosed with CTE postmortem. Dave Duerson, a former Chicago Bears defensive back, left a note asking for his brain to be studied for signs of trauma before he shot himself in Febru-
November 2013
ary 2011. Ray Easterling who played safety for the Falcons in the 1970s committed suicide in April 2012. He was diagnosed with CTE. Numerous such cases, unfortunately, exist. More and more players have been diagnosed with CTE with only one person to blame, the NFL. The NFL has deliberately hidden the facts from these players and because of this ignorance many players must face the ramifications. These cases tell the story of the underlying connection between football and long-term impact of injuries among football players. As a football fan, I find it shocking and disappointing that the NFL denied the facts knowing well the ramifications on the lives of the players and their families. Outside of just monetary compensation the NFL needs to find a way to make it up to these individuals and their loved ones and make sure it doesn’t happen again going forward. With the NFL concealing such critical information,have only one question: “Is the NFL hiding anything else?” HMR
53
Science and Technology
WHAT WE ARE STILL MISSING Gabriel Broshy
54
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
A
ccording to a report in late 2012, the US ranked 17th out of 49 tested countries for its quality of education. While it’s clear significant education reform and improvement are necessary in the US, how to do so is in question, especially with the trillions of dollars of debts the country’s federal government faces. One of the ways to improve on this is to put more emphasis on a particular field that applies directly to a profession that is much needed in today’s world and that teaches students important skills that apply to any field: computer programming. Therefore, it is essential that computer programming becomes a significant part of ed-
Science and Technology and the job market are moving much faster than education in high schools and colleges,” according to Mark Lasoff, the founder of learntoprogram.tv. It is therefore essential that computer programming becomes a significant part of education so that these high schools and educations can keep up and produce enough qualified people to fill this large and growing demand for programmers, creating jobs. Another reason computer programming should be a significant part of American education is because of the benefits it has to those who learn it. Coding teaches one problem solving and critical thinking, skills applicable to almost any field. As Microsoft
“It is essential that computer programming becomes a significant part of education.” ucation across the country despite the cost of funding it due to the growing need for programmers in today’s economy and the benefits it presents those who learn it. One reason is the large and growing demand and need for programmers in today’s economy. There were 913,000 of such jobs in 2010, a number expected to increase 30% by 2020 while the increase for a job on average is 14% over the same span. As President Obama declared, “To grow our middle class, our citizens must have access to the education and training that today’s jobs require.” At a time in which the country faces a struggling economy, the nation’s education system must keep up with industries with potential for significant job creation opportunities and ensure that there are enough qualified people to take these jobs, which at the moment there aren’t. A mere 2% of students learn computer programming, and if 6% did, this would create $500 billion in the national economy according to USA Today, impacting nearly every industry. “There aren’t enough people to fill these jobs because technology
founder Bill Gates said, “Learning to write programs stretches your mind, and helps you think better, creates a way of thinking about things that I think is helpful in all domains.“ Apple founder Steve Jobs added, “I think everyone should learn how to program a computer, because it teaches you how to think.” Not only does computer programming teach students things they can apply directly to one field, but it teaches students skills they can use for any. In conclusion, computer programming is a skill that can be applied to an already large and quickly growing trade that doesn’t have enough qualified people able to fill its jobs. Aside from doing this, it also can teach kids very important skills that can be applied to essentially all fields. Therefore, it is essential that the federal government invests heavily in computer programming education despite the costs of doing so and it should become a significant part of education across America because of its potential benefits. HMR
November 2013
55