Issue 6 - A Special Report on Public Policy by The Horace Mann Review

Review the horace mann

A Special Report on Public Policy

a d n

ge A â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a n c i o i r t e ca ation m u A Ed igr m s Im gres n Co lth a He rgy e n E

Issue

FROM THE EDITOR

Review The Horace Mann

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

Deependra Mookim Editor-in-Chief

Andrew Demas Danielle Ellison Executive Editor

Mark Wilson

Possible Solutions to America’s Problems Looking at Domestic Affairs through the Lens of Public Policy

or this special report on public policy, we challenged our writers to be creative and develop innovative answers for this country’s problems. The articles in our special issue focus on addressing issues in education, immigration, Congress, health, and energy through concrete solutions. We live in an increasingly complex, multidisciplinary, and dynamic world. As the United States falls back in scientific research and development (relatively speaking), the need for improving our schools is as pressing as ever before. In addition, immigration remains a national concern due to the persistence of illegal immigration and its perverse effects. The “Congress” section of Issue 6 narrows in on flaws with the workings of Congress and the political process itself.

Cover designed by Andrew Stier

According to the Center for Disease Control, 34% of Americans over 20 years of age are obese. We also cover nutrition and health, in light of grave issues such as obesity. We conclude this report with ideas regarding America’s energy sector and alternative energies. I feel that this special report of The Review epitomizes what we stand for: opinions and ideas. Each article in this issue is premised on the belief that we have work to do. We must strive to learn, experiment, and take action, because there are- and always will be- issues unresolved and ideas yet to be discovered.

Aaron Goldman Daniel Grafstein Justin Katiraei Victor Ladd Philip Lin Editorial Director

Gregory Barancik Photo Editor

Seth Arar

Production Director

Aramael Pena-Alcantara Andrew Stier

Dorin Azerad Jordan Berman Alexander Daniel Emily Feldstein Harrison Manin

Production Manager

Andre Manuel Mathieu Rolfo Zoe Rubin Rebecca Segall Katherine Wyatt

Associate Editor

Songge Chen Justin Gilston Production Assistant

Richard Lee Editorial Assistant

Alexander Familant Ben Marks Business Manager

Jasmine Mariano Senior Columnist

Gregory Donadio Faculty Advisor

Deependra Mookim Editor-in-Chief Volume XX

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

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Education Teaching Parents America’s Failing Grade

Charles Scherr Sam Rahmin

4 6

Emulating European Education

Hannah Davidoff

The Rio Grande Problem

Nicholas McCombe

Crime & Punishment Repeal the 14th Amendment Illegal Immigration and the American Dream

Vivianna Lin Treshauxn Dennis-Brown

12 14 16

Horror in Arizona

Spencer Reiss

A Nuclear Iran

Sahej Suri

It’s Time to Fix the Filibuster

Isaiah Newman

Keep Our Army Strong

Jonah Wexler

Democracy on Sale

Mohit Mookim

Getting Kids Moving

Kelvin Rhee

The Great Marijuana Debate In Healthy Food We Trust

Maurice Farber

26 28

Immigration David Hackel

Congress

Health Noah Lee

Energy At a Crossroad Fallout of the Nuclear Dimension All About Fracking Where’s the Alternative Energy?

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

Harry Manin

30 33 34

Daniel Elkind

Will Ellison Adam Mansfield

Education

Teaching Parents

Is parental involvement the answer to the education crisis? by charles scherr

o one would argue in the importance of education. It serves as the means to bring about change in society, to develop our country’s youth to be able to be good human beings and contribute to society when they are older. These adults-to-be will soon be the next great politicians, writers, athletes, and scientists, and preparing them through education is of paramount significance. Imagine a country ran by inept students, whose faults come not at the expense of themselves, but of their country’s public education. With a fluctuating economy and uncertain times ahead, it is more important than ever for our gen-

involvement, and most importantly, an illiteracy epidemic. The solutions to these problems are not easy, but there are ways Congress can handle the flaws in our education system. Among a list of daunting tasks for the incoming congressmen and women, improving our education system should be a top priority. The alarming attrition rate of teachers certainly is one aspect of the education system that needs to be fixed. The profession of a teacher is a very demanding job, one that requires a lot of devotion both in and out of the school. However, a shocking statistic shows that 46% of all teachers quit before their fifth year working, with the number growing to 50% in ur-

It starts with a support system for new teachers. It is said that teachers need to be there to support their students, but what about supporting the new teachers? They’re learning the ropes of everything and the constant demands of the job can be a large reason for the low rate of teachers making it past year five on the job. The support system should be composed of old teachers and administrators who understand what teachers need to do to get through the hard years. Proper mentoring to the new teachers could be crucial in saving the low attrition rate. Another problem facing America’s school system today, and probably one of the reasons for the low attrition rate

If the public schooling system adopted Horace Mann’s model of encouraging parental involvement, the system would certainly be in better shape. eration to receive a proper education and training that will allow them to acquire a good a job and revenue to live. So today, when taking a look at America’s education system, there are some alarming flaws that, quite simply, need to be fixed before this generation of students takes over the country. Among the problems that are plaguing today’s education system include attrition rate of teachers, lack of parental

ban areas. This statistic is frightening, as not only are half of America’s teachers inexperienced, but also because this forces our schooling system to spend money on hiring new teachers, rather than investing in new textbooks, lab equipment, or facilities. By one estimate, it costs almost seven billion dollars a year as states try to recruit and hire new teachers. There are however, a few solutions to stop this “revolving door” of teachers.

of teachers, is the lack of parental involvement. A lack of parental involvement, whether in the PTA or just simply checking up with their child, is very detrimental to the education system. When parents don’t care, the effect trickles down to the children. They see the parents don’t care, so why should they? Parental involvement in a teen’s education can have beneficial results; one professional says the students “typically have The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Education higher grade point averages, higher test scores on standardized and classroom assessments, enrollment in more rigorous academic courses, more classes passed, more credits earned toward graduation,

of 76 million cannot read at a basic level. There is an evident problem, and fixing it needs to be of top priority. Unfortunately, the solution to fix the reading problem cannot happen over

have a system to teach how to read and comprehend English is very important, as are parents stressing the importance of reading at home. It is a total team effort to improve the reading problem in America. It is without a doubt that fixing something as large and important as America’s schooling system will take time. But by fixing the attrition rate, parental involvement, and reading problem in schools, with all three parties (students, teachers, and parents) America’s schooling system can get back on track. HMR

It is reported that almost eight million students out of 76 million cannot read at a basic level. and higher graduation rates.” The bottom line is, the statistics show that a successful student most likely has parents who are actively involved in his or her education and school. The solution to this problem is simple, and one that students at Horace Mann may not even realize is part of what they do. From a young age, HM students are required to get their parents signature on all tests. This ensures that parents are actively involved with their child’s work. In addition, it needs to be stated that parents are expected to involve themselves with the school, whether through contributions of money or time. In fact, on Horace Mann’s website, it states that they, “set a goal for the Annual Fund of 100% parent participation,” and parents are also encouraged “to donate their time to the School by participating in School and Parents’ Association activities.” If the public schooling system adopted Horace Mann’s model of encouraging parental involvement, the system would certainly be in better shape. Obviously, having parents involved in school life is tough -- busy work schedules make it very hard for most parents to keep up with their child’s work. That said, no amount of work makes it impossible for a parent to ask about his or her child’s school life. And it is of paramount significance that, public school or private, the notion of keeping tabs with a child’s work needs to be stressed. The last, and probably most important issue affecting America’s students is an alarming illiteracy epidemic. It is well known that a large majority of children are not reading at their respective grade levels, and the effects of the literacy problem are obviously disastrous. It is reported that almost eight million students out The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

night, nor is there any systematic way to go about it. Improvements on the two previous fronts can go a long way for improving reading. Having teachers who

Drawn by Baci Weiler

Education

America’s Failing Grade

by samantha rahmin

he children in America are the future of America; one day, they will be the congressmen, accountants, doctors, professors, plumbers, and teachers debating the very issues discussed in this magazine. Consequently, educating America’s children should be a top priority. Overall, public schools across the country require more funding and more competition to provide students with a better education. In a speech in 2008, then-Senator Obama declared, “Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. I’ll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. But in exchange, I will ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.” Now, over three years later, it is time to evaluate: is President Obama

following through with his promises? A few years ago, students in New Jersey, which statistically has some of America’s best public schools, and students in Belgium took the same test. The Belgian students performed significantly better. After taking a test administered in forty different countries, fifteen-year-old American students only ranked twentyfifth. According to ABC News, “American schools don’t teach as well as schools in other countries because they are government monopolies, and monopolies don’t have much incentive to compete. In Belgium, by contrast, the money is attached to the kids– it’s a kind of voucher system. Government funds education– at many different kinds of schools– but if a school can’t attract students, it goes out of business.” Schools are not given any motivation to better educate their students; praise worthy public schools gain few benefits. In effect, America’s public school system represents a socialist plan for education. Socialism is a political and economic belief that advocates for collective ownership and equal resources, subordinating people to the state. The

arguably socialist American school system subjects all students to the government-regulated monopoly on all aspects of education, including curriculum and textbooks. Our current school system contradicts the competitive capitalist values deeply ingrained in American society. The lack of motivated schools leads to a lack of motivated students. In Europe, students have more choice for their high schools. There are two options: vocational schools or college track schools. In America, most students simply graduate from their college track public school. In a way students are wasting time in school with such broad curriculums, and must later make up for the time in college, graduate school, or beyond. Furthermore, students are essentially forced into a particular school system due to their geographic location. A system must be implemented in which students are not zoned out of a better education. Different schools would lead to more types of schools, thereby leading giving students the chance to find a school that is a better “fit” for them. Ideally, with more choices and more oppor-

World Education Report Grade

Education Official

Sweden Sweeden

A+

Leif Pagrotsky

Switzerland

B+

South Korea

Lee Ju-hoo

B+

Tina Nedergaard

A+

Michael Suen

Country

Denmark Hong Kong Netherlands Japan United States of America 6

A-

Marja van Bijsterveldt

Yoshiaki Takaki

Arne Duncan The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Education

The average salary of a U.S. high school teacher is

$43,355

tunities would lead to more competition for opportunities, thereby better motivating students and leading to greater academic success. If schools must compete for students, it would assure that schools and teachers are taking their responsibility of educating their students seriously. In analyzing whether or not Obama’s plans have come to fruition, one can notice that for the 2010-2011 school year, districts all around the country have made up to 48% budget cuts. In New Jersey, for example, Governor Chris Christie cut $820 million in state education aid. Programs such as art, music, and foreign language were removed from the curriculum. Unfortunately, there are predictions that the situation will only worsen

$11 billion of federal funding is spent on school lunches kids home with school supply lists. In addition, teachers all around the country are losing their jobs. A direct reversal of what is happening is necessary for America’s children to stay on the same academic track as students in other developing countries. The United States currently has a 77% graduation rate, which is below the graduation rate for most developing countries. The monumental budget cuts impair students from learning. More funding must be poured into public education. A reduction of class size is important so students can be given more individual attention in order to assure no student falls through the cracks. As a result, more teachers are needed within the schools. However,

U.S. school buses provide appoximately 10 billion student trips a year. American school system, is a socialistic concept. Teachers, like all other professions in our capitalist society, should be forced to continue working and proving themselves. Tenure is merely supposed to assure that teachers receive due process for contract removal. However, tenured teachers are challenging for public school boards to remove, despite that they may not be meeting standards in their classrooms. As in other professions, teachers should be penalized for failure to successfully do their jobs. Teachers’ success, as students’ academic successes can be measured through standardized tests. However, more than just standardized tests are necessary to evaluate students, schools, and teachers. Each

Our current school system contradicts the competitive capitalist values deeply ingrained in American society. next year. Michael Griffith, an established Finance Analyst for the Education Commission of the United States, whose financial conclusions are frequently cited in the New York Times, CNN, and NPR, reported that “(the amount of budget cuts) is affecting classroom teachers one way or another, either with the class size rising, or cutting the school week ... or cutting the school year.” Many districts are buying fewer supplies and sending The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

America’s public schools need teachers capable of controlling the classrooms and teaching students both factual information and critical thinking skills. Teachers and students in public schools need to accept less stability. Studying and teaching in school should not simply be a guaranteed daily routine. Teachers who fail to do their job should not be promised tenure, namely, a permanent job contract. Tenure, as is the

teacher’s lessons and lectures should be evaluated in order that they meet federal standard. As of now, principals can observe teacher’s classes. But, each state should have a form of educational board to compare each and every teacher at each and every school to assure that standards are being met and kept consistent throughout all schools. One of the problems within our public schools includes teachers merely teaching to a test, which

is the concept of schools narrowing their curriculums solely to cover the material on the test. A high school algebra teacher states, “…at least in my district, and I believe it’s much the same throughout the country, the pace at which the material is given to the students is much too fast. Standardized testing is to blame for this...” Students and teachers alike are forced to simply speed through material in order to be prepared for standardized tests. However, critical thinking skills suffer due to this approach. The United States is the only economically advanced nation to be so dependent on standardized multiplechoice tests. Other nations evaluate students more heavily on projects and essays to develop analytical skills. Also, as this high school math teacher reports, “Students who do poorly in algebra… barely have time to digest it,” a she sights the magnitude of material as a reason students fail his class. Passing grades for students in America range from 60% to 75% depending on the school and the district. However, usually students who are failing high school dropout. A vicious cycle begins in elementary school as in most districts little can be done for students who fail classes in middle school and even elementary school. By the time these students reach high school and must pass classes, they have not developed the proper skills to do so. High schools do not have room to keep these uninspired students. An article in the Los Angeles Times reports, “The school typically has made little effort to keep such students. It has few resources to spend on them and is often happy to be rid of the ones considered troublemakers.” Overall, a remedy to this problem would include making admission to high school less automatic. There should be a standard for entering high school that every student must meet and until the student can do so, he or she must continue studying and if necessary repeating middle school. Then, by the time students enter high school, they would be prepared to take their classes and learn. Finally, Congress should take a stand against mainstreaming. In many schools, it is policy that students with special needs should be integrated into the classroom with other, non-disabled students. In this case, students with disabilities

would leave the room only occasionally to work on certain subjects. Some make the argument that having students with learning disabilities thrive inside classrooms learning both social and academic skills as well as life skills when in the regular class room with peers. However, the advocates for mainstreaming are so compelling to state legislators solely because mainstreaming is cheaper. An article in The Wall Street Journal mentioned, “Ruth Lowenkron, a special-education attorney, testified that beyond being the right thing to do, mainstreaming would save money. “Repeat after me,” she told the legislators, “inclusion is cheaper than segregation.”” Many schools have turned to mainstreaming since it is cheaper than having special needs teacher, who must have a higher degree and therefore, a higher salary. Again, with more funding schools would adequately be able to address problems and better educate all students, both disabled and non-disabled. A large group of dissenters for mainstreaming are teachers and parents of learning disabled children. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Some teachers and administrators have been less supportive of the practice, saying that they lack the training and resources to handle significantly disabled children. And more parents are joining the dissenters. People like Ms. Travis (parent of learning disabled child) believe that mainstreaming can actually hinder the students it is intended to help.” Parents of learning disabled children, such as Ms. Travis state said when their children are forced into regular schools, “the progress Valerie(Travis) had made learning to speak all but disappeared.” In addition, competition within the classroom is reduced because the teacher’s grading system must be fair to the learning disabled students. Mainstreaming is at the hindrance of excelling students, whom it is not fair to hold back. Learning disabled students in a classroom shift the classroom dynamic, especially when numerous learning disabled students are in one class. Generally, lessons are slightly altered and the teacher’s attention is more divided. Ultimately, America’s public schools should not suffer due to the faltering economy. Education must be considered one of America’s most important,

pressing issues. America needs a system, which fosters more competition between schools and students, thereby assuring that teachers do their jobs. Furthermore, more funding is necessary to reduced class size better implement more programs and opportunities at our schools. Finally, students with learning disabilities should be given the attention they require, despite the extra costs. Overall, the public school system in America must be revamped in order that our students are able to compete with international students. As said by president Obama, in his State of the Union Address, “Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don’t meet this test…”He continued to explain a competition he instigated forcing schools to compete with schools out of state. Programs such as this one, Race to the Top, are what our schools demand.

HMR

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Education TITLE

Emulating European Education wikipedia

by hannah davidoff

or decades, public schools in America have been behind those of other nations. Schools in Europe are superior to the schools in America. Even an excellent private school, such as Horace Mann, pales in comparison to highly structured schools in Europe. The United States ranks 7th in the world in the number of college graduates, and is below average in test scores. Congress should look into this nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s poor education system, and initiate changes before it is too late. Congress should specifically focus on mirroring the European style of education. There are many things that Congress should be changing in our public schools one of which is our curriculum. The United States should seek to emulate the structured European education system. In Europe, students must fulfill certain requirements between ages 7 and 13. In European schools, students are required to learn their first language as well as a foreign language, such as English, SpanThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

ish, French, German, or Gaelic. They must also take courses in mathematics, science, history, geography, ethics, and physical education. Art and music courses, as well as a second language, are required for students in grades two through five. There are also additional options in later years, such as economics, or a fourth language. Unlike in America schools, classes generally last two to four hours, enabling the students to absorb more information. A great part about the European curriculum is that by the time that they are in 2nd grade students are often already fluent in three languages. This is one of best aspects of European schools that Congress should attempt to echo. Curriculums in America should be planned designed so that students can learn more and have more choices in courses even at a relatively young age. Another large problem that Congress should look into is the declining quality of teachers in American public schools. The requirements to teach in Europe far

stricter than those in the United States; in Europe the government appoints all teachers after an exclusive selection procedure. Meanwhile, in the United States, anyone with a 2.50 GPA (C+) in College can teach. The process to teach in Europe is more stringent. American public school teachers often donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t perform as well as they should, leaving children uneducated, and our nation unprepared for a rapidly advancing world economy. In Europe, teachers are incentivized to try their hardest, and its students are reaping the benefits. America is behind other nations due to its unnecessarily poor education system. It is imperative that Congress devise a solution to our education concerns. Europe has a great curriculum and great teachers: qualities that our country does not necessarily have, especially in poorer neighborhoods. Congress should take charge of the education system and make a difference in our country. HMR

Immigration

Immigration The Rio Grande Problem

by nicholas mccombe

edro, forgive me for being stereotypical, has just crossed the border into the United States. He may have crossed the Rio Grande, through a boarder town like Nogales, or via the vast deserts of southern: Arizona, New Mexico, or California. It doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t matter so much how Pedro did it only that he is comforted by that fact that there is more boarder than the boarder patrol can constantly keep eyes on. Although the boarder patrol are good at what they do, he might take solace in knowing that thousands successfully make the passage everyday and that once he gets in the chances of him being deported for lack of papers are very low. Pedro is one of millions in the United States who have entered the country illegally in search of greener pastures. It naturally follows the question of how do sympathize with the plight of people like

Pedro while protecting law abiding U.S. Citizens. The solution starts with securing the borders through new means. It also starts with the U.S. providing aid to Mexico in order to soften the color disparity in the pastures, therefore making the jobs picture better in Mexico as well as the U.S. The long-term solution is to provide a path to legal residence, not citizenship, for aliens already residing within the nation. There is an obvious partisan challenge that is embedded in the issue but it is one we must overcome. The first part of the solution entails reducing the incentive of migrating and increasing the inverse. We have to provide aid to Mexico so that it can provide a sense of law and order to its citizens. It has always been unpopular to provide foreign aid to needy nations because of the belief that it is not our problem. However, given the trillions we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, trying and failing

to nation build, it reasonably follows that to provide merely billions to aid a country which poses a civic threat and that is right on our boarders, we might be willing. Statistics show that during the depths of the recession illegal immigration from Mexico was halved because of a lack of jobs in the U.S. Rather that making the situation worse by decreasing the incentive to migrate why donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t we make things there better. We know from science that, a gas will move from an area where it is compresses to area with more space. The same is true for people, people move from areas with little economic opportunity and jobs to areas with more. The most common sense solution to solve this problem is to help the Mexican government to provide more jobs in Mexico for its citizens. The second part of the immediate solution is increasing border security in new and innovative ways including more airborne video surveillance. The proposiThe Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Immigration tion frequently brought by both sides to increase border security has always been a poplar one. Most agree that we should secure our borders. Where the disagreement lies is how to do so. The popular suggestion is to perpetually increase the number of border patrol agents; this suggestion is passed on the beliefs that more boots on the ground equals a more secure boarder. However, I believe this is not always the case; we have reached a point of diminishing returns in the number of agents we employ. More agents may result in less illegal immigrants but we will not get the sort of bang for our buck we have in the past. In other words, the ratio of increasing boarder agents to decreasing illegal immigrants is decreasing severely. To combat this issue we need to slightly decrease agent numbers and increase our investment into video surveillance. Obviously it would prohibitively expensive to put a camera on a post every hundred yards across the entire boarder, but what would be achievable is airborne video surveillance. The actual border patrol agents would not have to patrol no longer but rather act as a quick reaction force to apprehend aliens attempting to cross the boarder who have been spotted by drones. This sort of surveillance

is already conducted but by large human piloted helicopters. This is also expensive because of the fuel these large helicopters burn and the cost of training pilots. The ideal solution would be a large fleet of small antonymous drones that alert agents to movements on the ground. Some of this technology is already in use and it is only a matter of having the will to implement it. The longer-term solution though, is a more complicated one. It involves providing legal residence to the nearly 20 million illegal immigrants already here. It is clear that we cannot indiscriminately deport such a large segment of the population. The other challenge is how to enforce legal residence. Arizonaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s law, which allows â&#x20AC;&#x153;paper-checkingâ&#x20AC;? of suspicious individuals, has created an uproar across the country. We would have mass riots if such a law were implemented across the country. It is immoral and wrong to discriminate on the basis of race, it is something that the U.S. prides its self and not doing and that policy should continue. In terms of the enforcement of legal residence my solution would be to hold employers responsible. Large and smalltime employers would be spot checked and forced to provide proof of legal resi-

dence for all of their employees. This is not an ideal solution since some will view it as an impediment to hiring. As to providing legal residence I would have them pay a fine for crossing the boarder illegally commensurate with the number of years they have been in the country and I would have them pay back taxes on income earned. The actual documents would be guest worker visa that last for no more than 10 years, at which point they can re-apply or go home. In my view the problem is not so much that we have these people in our country it is that they do not pay taxes. In order for immigrants to become full partners in the American experiment they need to pay taxes, and why would they want to do that if not forced to. There are clear partisan issues with my plan. Republicans think that it is not in their interests to increase the Hispanic voters demographic but sooner or later my party will have to face facts, that some time in the near future minorities will out number non-minorities. Republicans have to realize this and craft their policies to reflect this bacillary issue. We have to realize that this is a problem worth solving, because a divided America is not a strong nor a productive America. HMR

How to Solve the Immigration Issue Short Term

Long Term Aid to Mexico- Providing aid to Mexico will augment growth and negate the necessity for Mexicans to emigrate

Effective Border SecurityBorder security must allocate their resources more effectively

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

Amnesty- Congress ought to pass a proposal similar to the McCainKennedy bill, granting amnesty to immigrants

Fines for Individuals having Immigrated IllegallyImmigrants should pay taxes in order to ensure that all immigrants contribute to the American economy

Immigration

Crime & Combatting by vivianna lin

he illegal drug trade is one of the largest and most dangerous global issues, spurring murder, smuggling, and a slew of other crimes. Illicit drug trafficking has devastated Central and South America, as well a regions of Central and Southeastern Asiaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; no corner of the world is left unscathed. In the United States, illegal drugs tend to originate from Mexico and Southeast Asia. Today, there are over 200 cities in America with Mexican drug cartels that maintain drug distribution networks. The federal government should be given all power regarding drug policy; the issue is too large and dire to be handled by states individually. Laws regarding the possession and trafficking of drugs should be much more severe and border security must be tightened. Most of all, awareness of the harm stemming from drugs must be increased so that the American demand can be curbed. States cannot be given the right to decide laws for their own citizens. Instead, all states should have the same laws regarding drug possession and distribution in order to prevent certain cities from becoming centers for the drug trade. The federal government must have

more power in this regard, since the illicit drug trade is most definitely a national problem. Currently, some states even regard the possession of marijuana a petty offence, like that of a speeding violation. For example, the punishment for possessing 28.5 grams of marijuana is only a fine of $100 in some states, whereas,the punishment for possessing less than twice that amount in other states is 180 days in prison and a fine of $2,000. All drug possessors and sellers ought to be punished, regardless of where they live. Drug use not only harms users but also those individuals around the user. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between drug use and crime. Addicts who are willing to do anything to get drugs may even murder and steal. Letting a drug user get off easy in the short term could amount to letting a murderer or thief escape. First, Congress needs to pass legislation that gives the federal government the power to have complete control over drug-related crime penalties. It is the lax laws in certain states that make them hubs for illegal drug distribution. To combat this reality, drug legislation ought pertain to the entire country. In addition, national laws must be rewritten to create far more stringent penalties. Obviously, the prison sentences for drug possession should still differ based upon the type of drug. First time offenders hold-

ing non-prescribed drugs should have to serve anywhere from a months to two years in jail, instead of at most one year in jail. Second time offenders should just serve life imprisonment. Only through stricter laws can law enforcement officials effectively crack down on drug possession and drug trafficking. Even if drug offenders do learn from their mistakes, their absence from society will have a profoundly beneficial effect. What are the chances that drug dealers wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t go back to dealing once they get out of jail? Yet, first-time offenders should also be enrolled in treatment programs so that they at least have the chance of rebuilding their lives. Nowadays, some political and media figures advocate that, in order to decrease the power of drug cartels and end the violence stemming from the drug trade, states should consider legalizing narcotics like marijuana. However, this suggestion should not even be considered. Legalizing marijuana is paramount to giving addicts full access to their drugs. In short, legalization would simply destroy all the laws put in place to prevent drug trafficking and possession. Legalization would only further increase the power of drug cartels and the size of the drug trade itself. Although some supporters of legalization argue that the federal government would earn money from The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

lunacanus

Immigration

Punishment: the Illegal Drug Trade taxing drugs, the government would not actually be decreasing drug cartels’ power. Cartels would still remain the main source of drugs. There is a reason these narcotics are illegal in the first place. By legalizing illicit drugs, lawmakers will only bring further devastation to drug addicts and the entire nation as a whole. The majority of illegal drugs in the United States are smuggled over the Mexican border along California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Researchers have estimated that ninety percent of the cocaine entering the United States comes from Mexico. In Colombia, where most of the cocaine found in the United States is produced, drug trafficking organizations have formed powerful alliances with insurgent groups. The FARC, otherwise known as the Revolutionary Armed

The main problem of drug trafficking stems from the US’ insatiable demand for drugs. Trafficking would not be so much of a problem if American demand were not so high. Forces of Colombia, is a socialist guerrilla organization that funds itself on drug trafficking, as do numerous other groups on America’s terror blacklist. The FARC has kidnapped and murdered countless The Horace Mann Review | Issue 56

government officials in the years since it began its bloody conflict against Colombia’s legitimate government, in addition to terrorizing civilians and coercing children to serve within its ranks. These actions are absolutely unforgivable. To finally put a stop to this terror, the U.S. must target the FARC’s funding— the illicit drug trade. The main problem of drug trafficking stems from Americans’ insatiable demand for drugs. Trafficking would not be so much of a problem if the American demand were not so high. Congress needs to increase the funding used to prevent drug use in the first place, as well as funding for drug treatment programs. Addicts do have a chance of recovery, despite the long and arduous journey ahead of them. Although some addicts never fully recover, effective treatment centers can give users their lives back. Furthermore, these recovery stories can serve as examples to fuel the cause. In addition, the federal government must expand current drug awareness programs and initiate new campaigns at both national and local levels. Education is the best means of prevention, especially in high schools where many teenagers are exposed to drugs. For example, thirty-eight percent of illicit drug users in 2008 were 18 to 20 years old. Many of these teenage drug users will develop into addicts later on in

life. Thus, it is crucial for kids to become aware of the threatening nature of drug use at an early age. Finally, Congress should expand government-funded research regarding drug use. Scientific research about drug use often is highly effective in treatment programs, especially when this new information can lead to more efficient methods of recovery. Statistics and surveys from this research can also be used to support the aforementioned awareness campaigns as well. Overall, our country needs to become far more educated on the dangers of drug use in order to curb demand. Illicit drug trafficking is doubtlessly a multi-faceted problem that will not be solved overnight. The process of reducing the trade will require time and persistence. If our government begins by passing laws that have a greater focus on prevention, then in the future the drug demand will decrease and hopefully so too will drug trafficking. That is not to say that increasing awareness alone will get rid of drug trade; only by imposing harsher punishments on drug users and dealers can law enforcement officials fully address the current problem. Congress must take a far more active approach towards addressing our nation’s current drug problem through a combination of both short and long term solutions. HMR

Immigration

Why Illegal Immigrantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Children Should Not be Considered American Citizens by david hackel

he 14th Amendment states that any person born in the United States of America is a legal citizen. Many foreigners, however, come to America illegally; they give birth to children here, so their children can live free lives, have the right to vote, attend public schools, etc. However, a good percentage of these illegal immigrants are a part of a Mexican drug cartel, and give birth to a child in America so the cartel can have a legally born American, across the boarder, which can cause grave danger to the innocent Americans around the cartel. However not all of the children of illegal immigrants are dangerous; some foreigners just want their children to have free lives. But, these children usually do not have high paying jobs, and therefore require financial aid to live. Our economy is not in the best possible shape, and their are other things we could spend money on than financial aid for people who are taking rightful citizenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s jobs, and school

scholarships. As well as taking things away from true Americans, the financial aid the children of illegal immigrants receive is money that could be going elsewhere such as alternate fuel sources of

It is unfair to a citizen whose family has been in America for centuries, legally, to not get a job position that he or she deserves because a child of an illegal immigrant does.

stopping illegal immigration as a whole: more important areas. I believe Congress should pass a law in which children of illegal immigrants are also illegal. It is unfair to citizens whose family has been in America for centuries, legally, to not get a job position that he or she deserves because a child of an illegal immigrant

does; or, if a child to an illegal immigrant gets a college scholarship over a person who came to America legally. Some people who are unhappy with their native country, come to America because of its freedom; the American Dream. Though the immigrants themselves might not become successful, they come to provide their children greater opportunities. However, many immigrants plan on giving birth to their children here, which would make their kids legal citizens. I believe this should not be the case. An example of something that happens is for a couple to come to America illegally, and have an American born child. However, much of the time, the parents to the child are deported back to their home country, leaving the child to be raised on government money. In 2010, Los Angeles County spent more than six hundred million dollars on children of illegal immigrants not even including education and schooling, which if included is estimated at over one billion dollars. That is only the expenses for one year, in The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Immigration one county. If we spend approximately 1 billion dollars a year for one county, how much would we spend on children of illegal immigrants for one year in the entire country? That money could go towards something of greater importance such as alternate fuel sources or trying to stop illegal immigration in the first place. It is hard enough for the government to provide of the American’s it needs to in this economic crisis, so how is the government going to provide for millions more? However, it’s hard to get rid of such a large population who make up such a big part of our country. Approximately 5.5 million people in the United States are children of illegal immigrants. About 4 million of that 5.5 were born as American citizens. If congress were to pass such a bill, than all men and women currently residing in America, would have to become or stay citizens. It would be to complicate to send millions of people back to their home country. But we could stop people from coming illegally in the first place. It is no surprise what the illegal immigrants are doing: coming to America to give birth to free children. However, they are taking jobs and scholarships away from rightful citizens. Out of those four million, one in every three is living under the poverty rate, which means our government has to supply food stamps, healthcare, education etc. It might take a while, but eventually some of our immigration problems will stop. As I mentioned, these problems can be fixed by Congress passing a law to make children of illegal immigrants also illegal. In fact, the GOP’s top priority is to propose a bill, hopefully passed by Congress, which would make these children illegal, and no longer give illegal immigrants the incentive of coming to America for their children. Yes, immigrants founded our country and our population is largely made up of them, but the problem is getting out of hand. By passing that law, we no longer will have to give the billion dollars a year to Los Angeles Country, or more to the

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

country as a whole. That money could go toward stopping to problem: improve security, fences around the boarder, technology around the boarder, and hiring a larger staff to patrol the boarder. Such a law also would benefit. Children of illegal immigrants take jobs that should go to true America citizens, who have had family here for generations, as well as immigrants who came here legally and passed all of the required tests. Children of immigrants get college scholarships to top schools over rightful citizens. There are many people deserving to attend certain colleges, but do not get to attend

because they are not given scholarships. Many smart kids should get scholarships to schools, but don’t because children of illegal immigrants do. They take jobs, and opportunities away from rightful citizens. We need to act now. Do you want to not be able to attend your favorite college because you didn’t get a scholarship? Would you like to not get your dream job? I doubt it. Congress should pass a law stating that children of illegal immigrants are also illegal. It is for the good of our country economically, so we don’t have to spend billions of dollars on something we don’t want to do. HMR

Should children of illegal immigrants be considered American citizens?

Yes No Unsure

Of Horace Mann students, 62% voted yes and 22% voted no.

Immigration

by treshauxn dennis-brown

n annual occurrence, November 2, 2010 was the date set for the midterm elections for the Congress of the United States November 2nd bore a mixed bag of emotions for both the Democratic and Republican parties as the election results yielded an even more divided Congress. Whereas the Republicans dominated the House of Representatives, gaining 242 seats to the Democrats’ 193, the Democrats held the Senate with 51 seats (including two Independents who caucus with them) to the Republicans’ 47 seats. Despite these divisions, Congress, as the branch designed to propose and pass laws for the advancement of the country, must tackle the hotbutton issue of immigration. Our country is not referred to as the melting pot of the world for fallacious reasons. Millions of immigrants have immigrated to this country for the purpose of pursuing the American dream, the promise of a life and lifestyle significantly better than the one they have left behind. There are three types of immigration: legal immigration, the movement of a person from his native country to a foreign country in search of livelihood and with an intent to settle down, with prior and proper permission (valid visa, passport, or citizenship) from the government; do-

Illegal the mestic immigration, the movement of a person from an economically backward region of the country to another more developed and economically well off region of the same country; and of course, illegal immigration, the movement of a person from his native country to foreign country, with an intent to find a livelihood and settle down without the permission of the government. The latter is, and has been, the focus of particularly bitter debate involving how to command the problem of an increasingly present undocumented population. In order to obtain a full understanding of the illegal immigration epidemic or to take a stance on the issue, one has to be fully educated on the topic. The most prevalent types of illegal immigrants are visa overstayers, border crossing immi-

Are we to deny illegal immigrants the dreams of a better future? Should we not embrace the concept of the American dream? grants, and immigrants with fraudulent visas. It is necessary to distinguish between the three, as doing so would be essential in order to identifying the optimal

way to deal with the epidemic. Visa overstayers are those who entered the country with a valid visa, enabling them to reside in the country for a specified amount of time. Instead of leaving when their visa runs out, these immigrants then continue to reside illegally. Immigrants with fraudulent visas of course forge fake visas, which then allow them to enter the country illegally. Despite the visible presence of these other classifications of the illegal immigrant, the one that has dominated the Congressional political debate is of course, the Mexican immigrant who crosses over the border illegally. The reservations concerning these undocumented residents are primarily founded on the claims of increased crime rates in large cities, the stealing of jobs that would otherwise have been filled by a law abiding American citizen—especially in a downturn of the U.S. economy— and their refusal to pay taxes. However, some of these claims are completely unfounded. For example, illegal immigrants hold American jobs of the lowest tier, such as workers in farming, restaurants, and factories or—all jobs the average American citizen has no wish to obtain. To completely remove this class, is to remove, the foundations of this country. And to the claim that illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes, the truth is that they contributed The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Immigration and American Dream $308 million in taxes to the government last year. As mandatory as it seems for Congress to institute some form of an amnesty program for the purpose of integrating these hard-working, trustworthy immigrants into our society, it will certainly be an arduous, uphill battle. Former President George W. Bush, in the waning years of his presidency, urged Congress to introduce a “temporary guest worker program.” Such a program would allow the 12 million (illegal) immigrants to work legally in America, upon the claims that the lack of legal status denies the protections of U.S. laws to millions of people who face the dangers of poverty and exploitation, and penalizes employers despite a demand for immigrant labor (what do you mean by the purple- are employers penalized under the program or due to the lack of legal status of their workers? How are the punished?. He did not however, support an all-out amnesty program, a bill that would essentially “forgive” immigrants for their illegal statuses and facilitate their applications for visas or green cards. A heated public debate followed, which resulted in divisions within the Republican Party and in the majority of conservatives opposing the bill because of its legalization or amnesty provisions. The bill was eventually defeatThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

ed in the Senate on June 28, 2007, when a motion failed on a 46–53 vote. Naturally, for President Obama to even propose an amnesty program would be met with similar, if not more intense dissension within the ranks of Congress. It is hard to view the foreseeable future as promising to the 12 million undocumented workers in our country. This assumption is fostered through the failure of the recent Congressional Dream Act, a resolution designed to grant permanent residency to students who entered the US illegally as minors through service in the army or higher education . On the state

son’s immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien. No one is asking for Americans to trust and integrate illegal immigrants immediately as full fledged citizens: it is true, they have committed an illegal act. But are we to deny them the dreams of a better future? Should we not embrace the concept of the American dream? The best compromise is a temporary guest worker program such as the one President Bush suggested, because only then can all sides win. Congress must analyze the myriad of benefits presented by integrating these hardworking immigrants into the Ameri-

In order to obtain a full understanding of the illegal immigration epidemic or to take a stance on the issue, one has to be fully educated on the topic. level, Arizona recently passed the controversial Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB1070). The most inflammatory aspect of the resolution is the fact that the act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents and obligates police to make the attempt, during a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” to determine a per-

can workforce and society. Therefore, it is time for Congress to put its differences aside and finally present a show of bipartisanship that has been lacking during these few years of the Obama Administration. HMR

lunacanus

Immigration

Congress

Horror in Arizona heloise9.files.wordpress.com

by spencer reiss

n Saturday, January 8th, a crazed gunman Jared Lee Loughter opened fire at a political rally where Representative Gabrielle Giffords was speaking to constituents. Six of the seventeen shootout victims died, among them, Mrs. Giffords herself and United States District Court chief judge John M. Roll. Giffords, the intended target of the rampage, suffered a gunshot to the head, the bullet passing through her brain. She was rapidly transported to the Arizona University Medical Center for surgery. Doctors removed half of her skull to prevent injurious swelling to her brain. Only five days after the shooting Giffords regained some simple capabilities. She opened her eyes and moved her leg and one of her hands. She was later transported to a facility in Houston for physical therapy. Her survival has been pronounced a miracle, and her swift recovery even more unprecedented. The motivations for the shooting remain unclear as to whether the debacle was politically driven. The volatile political climate in Arizona is certainly a plausible factor. Democrats pointed the finger at the aggressive Republican atmosphere. In a Republican dominated state, the democrat won the vote for a third term but faced stiff opposition from adversaries. Ms. Giffords strongly opposed the state’s controversial immigration laws and received condemnation for her endorsement of the health care law. The shooting transpired at an inauspicious time as the Republicans gain control of the House, ushering in a new period of government. Ms. Giffords helped maintain the bipartisanship in the predominantly Republican House. The tragedy has highlighted larger implications of party disputes, serving

Then and Now: Shooter Jared Lee

Loughner transformed notably from highschool (Above) to his mugshot (Left) taken days after his attempted assasination of Congresswoman Giffords (Below). dailynexus.com

m-x.com

as a microcosm for the dwindling party relations in Washington. The antagonism in the House has undermined American progress and advancement forcing crucial legislation to remain stagnant due to the inter-party hostility. The shooting should assuage the strained-relations and facilitate a collaboration between the parties so they can work side by side to improve America. President Obama attended a memorial service for the victims to offer his condolences to the victims’ families. Mr. Obama delivered one of the most potent and touching speeches of his presidency imploring American’s to use the tragedy as a unifying force. Re-

maining nonpartisan, he asked people to refrain from pointing fingers, enjoining Americans “to listen to each other more carefully to remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.” Mr. Obama attempted to bring the country together in a time of tragedy and in the midst of heated political rhetoric. HMR The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

by sahej suri

A Nuclear Iran

Congress

look at the more volatile superpowers reveals Iran at the top of the list. Iran has gone about achieving its goals, the first of which is becoming a consequential entity, in an appalling way according to many countries including the United States. On April 12th 2010, the leaders of 47 countries met in Washington D.C. for a summit conference called by President Obama to discuss the growing problem of what to do about the build-up of Iranian nuclear materials. At issue was the allegation that Iran is a supporter of terrorism. These two issues have lead to a major question: what would happen if nuclear weapons were available to terrorist organizations? Iran claims that its use of nuclear energy is only for purposes of the improvement of the abysmal quality of life of its people. Because it is such an intricate and delicate issue, the question of what to do about Iran and its disarmament has become a difficult puzzle to solve. Representatives of Congress have suggested a plethora of solutions to resolve the conflict. To date, President Obama has relied only on a series of diplomatic talks with Iran. There is not a plan in place as to what the next step would be should diplomacy fail. The myriad of solutions that have been proposed include placing an embargo on Iranian imports and

exports, stopping imports of gasoline but find ways to slow down its build-up and exports of oil, imposing crippling of nuclear weapons. No one has yet sanctions, toughening military actions come upon the optimal solution to the to disable nuclear facilities, and even acproblem in Iran, but it has become more cepting Iran as a nuclear power. Though and more clear that finding a solution is some of these solutions may have some imperative. In order to form a successvalidity, it is arguable that they would be ful relationship with Iran, many would able to be properly implemented, and advocate for greater flexibility from all therefore, would not be viable. In order parties to help reach a compromise. All to impose strong sanctions against Iran, parties must speak candidly and honor the major powers of the world would the decisions agreed upon. Perhaps if have to come to an understanding and all parties were to treat one another a mechanism to carry out the sanctions with respect, meaningful negotiations would have to be set in place. If the would stand a better chance of taking United States and/or other nations were place. Although the government alleges to use open force in Iran, serious conforce will never become necessary, if sequences could result. Senator Reed of the agreement were to be violated, maRhode Island suggestjor steps toward selfed, “The only way is to Instead of creating sanctions protection would be physically occupy the that affect innocent people vital. In order to avoid country and dismantle living in Iran, a rational agree- such a catastrophic its nuclear facilities.” setting strict ment must be devised in such calamity, Admiral Mike Mullen, terms of agreements to chairman of the Joint a way that only the governing which all parties willChiefs of Staff, wrote, officials would be affected. ingly agree, is impera“Should the president tive. Instead of creating call for military options, we must have sanctions that affect innocent people livthem ready.” General Jones testified in ing in Iran, a rational agreement must be front of a Senate committee that Presidevised in such a way that only the govdent Obama wanted to be prepared for erning officials would be affected. In orany emergency. He mentioned that der to assure safety and compliance of all Obama wants to build a coalition of nanations, the conundrum of how to deal tions in order to put pressure upon Iran with Iran must be successfully resolved to make good its promises. Another opboth immediately and amicably. HMR tion is to accept Iran as a nuclear power,

1992-1993: U.S. President Clinton imposed sanctions on Iran because of its alleged support of terrorism.

2006: The United States declared it would join other European nations in talks with Iran if they stopped uranium enrichment. Because Bush feared that American aid to Iranian banks was being used to help support terrorism and to develop nuclear and ballistic missile programs, he tried to limit American aid to Iranian Banks in 2006.

2000: Secretary of State Albright lifted the sanctions.

2002: The United States discovered two nuclear sites by the usage of satellite imagery. The IAEA confirmed these formally.

2003: Iran explained that those sites were used as power plants for the good of its people. The Iranian government suspended their nuclear weapons programs because of the Non Proliferation Treaty.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

“

”

2007: The United Nations Security Counsel passed resolutions to stop Iranian uranium enrichment.

2008: During campaign elections, President Barack Obama promised to open relations with Iran. President Barack Obama pushed to get support from the United Nations to seize cargo shops carrying weapons, and stop financial credit to Iran, possibly pushing them to adhere to the NPT.

2010: On April 12th , President Obama held the Washington Nuclear Summit, including 47 countries around the world, but not Iran. Ahmadinejad responded by hosting his own summit a month later. On May 3rd 2010, Ahmadinejad denied development of nuclear weapons. Iran charged the United States with having nuclear weapons. Ahmadinjed accused the United States of being the only country in the world to ever have used a nuclear weapon. Ahmadinjed suggested that the United States be eliminated from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the NPT.

Congress

Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Time to Fix the Filibuster

by isaiah newman

ur government works in complicated ways. It is a complex machine, containing different branches with different areas of jurisdiction and sets of powers. The most crucial path for all legislation is through our two houses of Congress. For anything to become law, our elected representatives must in favor of its passage. Many bills meet significant obstacles before they are signed into law by the President. The most significant roadblock is one that occurs only in the Senate, however: the filibuster. In the Senate, in order to end debate and vote on any bill, measure, or motion, 60 out of 100 Senators must be in favor of doing so. It is at this time that a filibuster generally occurs. A filibuster is when a Senator, or group of Senators, tries to stop the debate on a bill from ending for as long as possible. These Senator(s) simply get up to speak in normal fashion, and then they refuse to relinquish the ability to speak on a bill to any other Senator(s) for as long as they can, or until 60 other Senators vote to end debate. This occurs when Senators are opposed to open debate on a bill because they are aware that the bill will come to pass. Filibusters take many forms: sometimes a single Senator simply talks for hours, trying to stave off defeat in a debate they know they cannot win; other times, Senators do not even remain on the Senate floor when they are conducting a filibuster. In the modern Senate, more often than not, it is the latter. No longer do Senators use the filibuster as a means of passionately fighting for a cause they believe in. Senators simply use it to stop legislation they are at all opposed to, never even giving an

The filibuster, over time, has turned from one of the finest aspects of debate in the Senate to nothing more than a procedural roadblock.

flamewarriors

argument in favor of their position. They simply stall, hoping that debate on a bill will go on for so long that the Senators who were originally in favor lose interest. The filibuster, over time, has turned from one of the finest aspects of debate in the Senate, such as when used by Huey Long during FDRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presidency, to nothing more than a procedural roadblock. It halts the Senate from passing needed legislation. It decreases the effectiveness and efficiency of our government, and turns the Senate into a massive obstacle to the functioning of our government. The filibuster must still be retained, however, as an important part of Senate procedure. It prevents the majority party from steamrolling over their opponents on each bill and voting without even hearing the opinions of the minority party. If not for the filibuster, then any majority at all would allow for the passage of a bill, leading to mob rule within the Senate. That said, the government must reform the filibuster, keeping its useful properties while eliminating the rules that have allowed it to grow into a nuisance and embarrassment. Senators in the 112th session of Congress have worked on a proposal to helps solve some of these problems, which allows for fixed amounts of amendments that each party can offer and a fixed amount of debate on each, so as to limit possible filibusters on amendments. However, the final rule change, agreed upon on January 26th, 2011, falls far short of what is needed. Very few reforms to the filibuster itself have actually been agreed upon. The only significant agreement made between Democrats and Republicans was that Democrats would try to let Republicans make amendments, and Republicans would try to use the filibuster to block bills less frequently. The Senateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rules were not repaired

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Congress

“The government must reform the filibuster, keeping its useful properties while eliminating the rules that have allowed it to grow into a nuisance and embarrassment.” as required. The reinstatement and passage of those proposals are what is necessary to fix the filibuster. One such proposal requires any Senators wishing to filibuster to actually remain on the Senate floor for the duration of the filibuster. The Senate voted against this proposal, and in doing so have made a foolish mistake. If a Senator or group of Senators is opposed to a bill, then they should have to say why! It makes absolutely no sense for a Senator to be able to bring the functioning of our Congress to a grinding halt and not provide a reason for doing so. If they are opposed to a bill, then they should try to actively change it or defeat it, rather than declare that they are staging a filibuster, and then leave. This proposal would also increase the amount of senators in favor of the filibuster required to be on the floor by 5 senators for each day

the filibuster continues. This would test a Senator’s commitment to his or her position, and make sure that they are serious in their opposition to the bill and not just filibustering in order to win votes from their constituents. Another proposal put forth by Senate Democrats would limit when a filibuster can be conducted. It would require only a simple majority to end a filibuster during debate on whether or not to consider a bill. This would further streamline the process of passing legislation in the Senate, and it would encourage debate in the Senate. If Senators filibuster a bill, then they prevent everyone from sharing his or her opinions on the legislation at hand. Important pieces of legislation need to be debated and considered, so that they can be amended if necessary and passed into law. If neither party

the ugly

length: 15 hours, 30 minutes

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

esquire

wikimedia

the bad On June 12, 1935, Huey Long, senator from Louisiana, filibustered the Democrats’ attempt to retain a provision requiring Senate support for National Recovery Administration jobs that would have given power to his political enemies.

is allowed to state their opinions on a bill, then none of the Senators will be able to hear well-reasoned arguments from their colleagues and possibly change their vote. It disallows one of the basic principles encouraged in American government and society: an open public discourse and debate. The United States Senate has been crippled by the filibuster in recent years. The Senate needs to be able to effectively pass legislation and debate on it, otherwise none of the problems facing Americans can be solved. We need the proposals above to be enacted in order to fix our Congressional system. If this is not done, then the efficiency of our government will suffer and thus the American people will suffer. In these uncertain times, the Senate’s procedural rules need reform, and they need it now. HMR

In 1957, Strom Thurmond filibustered the Civil Rights Act for the longest time ever by a single Senator. Thurmond read and discussed the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Farewell Address. His record still stands.

length: 24 hours, 18 minutes

Congress

keep our army strong

by jonah wexler

Reducing

our military budget and weakening our national defense during a time of war would be a mistake, because providing for our national defense is the most important function of our federal government. It is not appropriate to place national security in a position where it is on par with discretionary programs. Wasted spending throughout government, including the Department of Defense, should be cut, however expenditures for our troops, intelligence, counterterrorism, and equipment should not be cut. Congress should ensure that any savings from cuts are reinvested in the U.S. military to retain the best personnel and maintain aging equipment. In a January 17, 2011 article, The Weekly Standard reported that in 1991 there were 710,821 soldiers in the U.S. army. By the end of the Clinton administration in 2001, soldiers had dwindled to 478,918. After 9/11, the United States debated both the proper response to the attack on the World Trade Center and the ability of a weakened U.S. military to achieve those goals. Approximately 500,000-600,000 soldiers were not sufficient to maintain a presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq without putting severe strains on our volunteer army. The U.S. military is asked to prepare for conventional war (against a large force, like Russia or China), multiple small wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), peacekeeping and humanitarian missions (Haiti), and to be effective in the complex war against terrorism. Before the war on terrorism, the army was able to focus on troop levels and equipment to respond to whatever the President and Congress required. However, the growing threat of State sponsors of terror, such as Iran, who use both conventional forces and terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and cyber-warfare have made the Pentagon’s job complex

wikimedia

and require an even greater arsenal of weapons to effectively fight. No great power has survived without the ability to project military strength. The West must address the economic strain that growing entitlement programs put on funding an effective military. Over the last two decades, Europe has grown its entitlements programs to a point where their militaries have become ineffective. With the exception of Great Britain, no European military at this point has an effective expeditionary force. European governments depend upon the U.S. military to do the “heavy lifting” they cannot perform on their own. They cannot even respond in their own backyard. During the civil war in Kosovo, the EU was very good at meeting and talking but the battle waged on. It took American intervention through NATO to bring the war to an end. The world would be a more dangerous place if the United States did not have an effective military. The United States safeguards shipping channels from the Middle East to Asia, performs humanitarian missions, and through agreements with weaker democratic countries keeps non-democratic aggressors in check. Defense Secretary Gates has announced cuts to military personnel and the budget. Today, the army is at around 566,000 soldiers. Gates plans to cut 27,000 soldiers, not including an already planned cut of 22,000 soldiers. The Marines, who perform the most of the Army’s front line work, are also being asked to cut about 15,000-20,000 soldiers. The Navy has only 287 ships, down from 529 in 1991. At a time when our troops are

spread thin throughout the world and we are in two wars, cutting about ten percent of our manpower is a mistake. Not only is the military being asked to cut personnel, but also vital equipment. There are also certain programs that could be cut to fund other programs. The F-22 stealth fighter program has already been eliminated. The EFV, or the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, probably should by cut because of cost overruns and questionable effectiveness. Those funds are better used to upgrade an aging air force and other equipment, which has been overused during the Gulf, Afghan, and Iraqi wars. It is dangerous to cut these programs while China rapidly builds its arms and the growth of other problems the U.S. military may need to deal with. Military strength is useful off the battlefield also. Military strength gives a country political and diplomatic power as it is less likely to be challenged and more likely to be befriended by weaker countries and respected by stronger nations. Democracies do not declare was on other countries. Militarily strong democracies maintain a balance of worldwide power, promoting peace and freedom. The U.S. military has been degraded over the past twenty years: as the U.S. and the West cope with an emerging China, an aggressive Russia, threatening Iran and North Korea, and a potentially explosive Latin and South America, we must reverse this trend. As George Washington once declared, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” HMR The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Congress

Democracy on Sale Why campaign finance reform is imperative to rectifying American government

by mohit mookim

he current system of campaign financing undermines the democracy we have so proudly constituted. Money and politics have never been as connected as they are now. Candidates with relatively less financial backing running for a political position have lower chances of election. Does the amount of money in one’s wallet really determine your ability to represent a constituency? Should corporate donations be able to bribe and determine the decisions made by this elected official? I believe that the answer to these questions is unequivocally, “No.” Reform in the current regulations and policies regarding campaign financing are vital in creating a better democracy. From television advertisements to political rallies, money allows candidates to reach an all-inclusive audience, which leaves opponents at an unfair disadvantage. The origin of all of this money is the most inequitable and heinous as-

pect of this financing: campaign donations and past wealth. While past wealth has its place in the private sphere, inherited or self-made personal fortunes should not affect the electoral process. Under current regulations, any corporation can donate money to a candidate. Ideally, this donation would merely be an act of appreciation towards a campaign, but this is rarely the case. However, if this candidate enters public office, his decisions will be swayed by the supporting corporation. Simply put, corporate donations are in effect bribes to incline a candidate to act in a certain way. Last year, Citizens United, an organization dedicated to reasserting traditional democratic values, defied its own mission statement by attempting to release a film bashing Hillary Clinton within 30 days of election day. Not only would releasing this film have clearly gone against the McCain–Feingold Act of 2002, the film would have money flooding the political

marketplace and corrupting the democratic system. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, with a split 5 - 4 vote, overturned Congressional regulations and deemed this corruption of democracy constitutional. As bleak as the situation may look in its current form, precise and effective reforms to the current policies for campaign financing could result in a fairer electoral system. To meet this end, my proposal involves the government publicly financing election campaigns. If a potential representative is running for a public office, this money should naturally be government financed. To avoid wasting public funds, a potential candidate would additionally have to obtain an appropriate amount of signatures to run for public office. Some would venture to say that taking taxpayer money to fund political campaigns would further worsen our economy. But we should not be willing to compromise the very principles

Fighting against Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

-President Barack Obama

“What’s happening right before our eyes is a blatant attempt by outside interest groups using secret money to buy a Congress that will serve their interests at the expense of the American people.”

-Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

“Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”

-Justice John Paul Stevens The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

Congress

Political Clout Top Political Action Committee Contributors to Candidates, 2009-2010 National Association of Realtors Honeywell International AT&T Inc.

Opensecrets.org

$3,773,296

$3,645,200

$3,251,375

National Beer Wholesalers Association Intl. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

$3,001,000 $2,988,373

Top Lobbying Sectors, 2009-2010

$3.47

Communications

Transportation

Finance

Health

Energy

billion

Total Lobbying Spending (2010)

Should there be a cap on how much politicians can spend on political campaigns? 100 HM Students Polled

Yes 24

Unsure

that define and distinguish America for a relatively small amount of money. In contrast to the current system of campaign financing, this revamped system would eliminate significant unfair advantages non-incumbent candidates would otherwise have. Studies have shown a direct correlation between the likelihood of a candidate being elected and the amount of funding for his or her campaign. We can end this erosion of democracy by placing opposing candidates on a level playing field and, in the process, creating a more fair and balanced electoral process. Although this simple solution has resolved one pressing issue regarding the campaign process and its relationship with money, another is yet to be addressed: campaign donations. Although resolving the issue of campaign donations lends itself to multiple solutions, two basic proposals stand out: let people and corporations give donations - as in the current system - or ban all and any campaign donations. Problems arise in both cases. In the former, when a candidate is running for public office, a corporation can heavily influence potential candidates, swaying them to take certain courses of actions, as previously described. In the latter solution, worthy candidates would be drained of their ability to glean well-deserved and muchappreciated campaign donations. As both alternatives taint at least one aspect of our sacred democratic system, a middle path can be found that resolves both of these issues. For example, campaign finance reform could be successfully implemented by allowing any person or any corporation to give donations to potential candidates, on the condition of anonymity. Currently, several blatant flaws exist in our system for campaign financing. These pragmatic solutions would set us on the path for creating a better and morerepresentative political system. Through campaign finance reform, not only would a more legitimate, money-independent electoral process be created, but American politics on the whole would be more focused on progress. American government would be reborn into one that can proudly attest to its most basic notions of fairness, equality, and democracy. HMR The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Health

mvol

Getting Kids Moving

The government is taking steps towards improving national health as childhood obesity rates swell

by kelvin rhee

n recent years obesity in America has become a huge issue, especially among children from ages 6 to 11. What factors caused this sudden change? While living environment and diet play instrumental roles in personal health, lack of physical activity has been cited as the largest contributor to rising childhood obesity rates. A relatively healthy diet isn’t enough to sustain physical health; without exercise, fat and calories will build up and muscle won’t be developed. Physical activity in children is especially important for children because they are in the initial stages of physical and mental development. For some kids, the only daily physical activity occurs at school during Physical Education class. However, in some

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

schools across America P.E. can be replaced with activities like band or other extracurricular activities. In some extreme cases students are not required to do anything physical. According the Center for Disease Control’s study of schools health policies in 2006, 20% of elementary schools, 23% of middle schools and 31% of high schools allowed students to be excused from physical education for extracurricular activities, including participation in community service or musical ensemble. Across America only 4% of schools provide daily physical education and only 10% provided physical education for at least 3 days of the week. Congress is now engaged in an ongoing effort to pass bills that require schools to make P.E. mandatory for all students of all ages, no exceptions. These measures are necessary to the health of children in America. Recently, Congress approved the Physical Education for Progress (PEP) Act, which grants local education centers money for the expansion and improvement of physical education programs for all students in all age ranges. The bill set aside five million dollars to fund schools’ sparkpe physical education

programs though purchasing equipment, developing curriculum, hiring or training staff, and raising awareness about the risks of obesity. The PEP Act is a step in the right direction and it is encouraging that Congress has demonstrated a willingness to take a role in the fight against rising obesity rates. The goal behind the PEP Act is an excellent one; however, the act has been somewhat controversial because of the cost of funding the improvement of physical education programs nationwide. Our government is deeply in debt, so funding for the PEP Act is harder to access. The PEP Act, although controversial and potentially difficult to fund, is worth the time and money because of the potential benefits to national health. Whether it’s sports teams, P.E. class, or field days, physical education must be required for all students. For this reason, Congress must continue the campaign against obesity, starting with the PEP Act and leading, hopefully, to dropping childhood obesity rates. If Congress continues the efforts demonstrated in the passing of the PEP Act, physical education programs across the nation will improve and children will become more active. Exempting students from physical education for any reason other than injury is unacceptable; physical education must be required for all students and extracurricular activities cannot serve as a replacement. When it comes to the promotion of good health, exceptions cannot be made. HMR

Health

The Great Marijuana Debate

by maurice farber

annabis, marijuana, weed, pot, ‘kush’, and many other colloquial nicknames refer to the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States and in the world. The drug comes from a matured cannabis plant, usually in the form of a dried flower. The flower is smoked, in a pipe, joint (rolled cigarette), blunt (rolled cigar), or in a number of other ways, or can be ingested by way of a heated butter or oil. When heated, marijuana releases a chemical called THC, which alters psycho-activity when circulated through the blood and to the brain. Recently there has been an increasing support of legalizing marijuana for its medical usage in the United States, with the highest support of legalization centering around California, New York, and Southern Florida. Although not a major issue facing the United States Congress at the moment, the issue is becoming more prevalent as scientists make more headway with the positive health

effects smoking marijuana presents. Prior to the twentieth century Marijuana was legal to posses, trade, and consume in every developed nation in the world. However, this was probably because of the incredibly low amount of usage as a drug. The usage of marijuana spiked from almost nothing at the turn of the nineteenth century, especially in South Africa, the Caribbean, Australia, and Southern United States. As usage increased, so too did profits of trading the drug, and, as a result, the competition created in marijuana’s markets created violence towards venders by rivals. In 1911, the possession of and trade of cannabis was outlawed in South Africa following a massacre of vendors by Johannesburg’s largest trader. In 1913, Jamaica followed suite, and by 1920 the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and all British colonies. The Canadian government criminalized marijuana and the production of hemp in 1923, setting the

precedent for possession now used in the United States. At this point the United States was the largest consumer of marijuana in the developed world. However, it wasn’t until 1937 that the drug was actually outlawed. A military study of the psycho-active effects of Marijuana preceded The Marijuana Transfer Tax Act passed Congress in February of that year and entailed the prohibition of the production of hemp and marijuana on the basis that hemp fields in the United States were also used to grow marijuana. It is speculated that the reason the scientific study was highly endorsed by the Secretary of Treasury and many notable businessmen is that they all had invested large sums of money into nylon and the timber industry. These were competitors of hemp which provided with much cheaper products. The question currently facing many American people is not whether marijuana should be wholly legalized, but The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Health whether or not medical marijuana should be legalized and recreational-use marijuana should decriminalized. Medical Marijuana is considered a grey-area for many, where they are not sure whether it is completely un-beneficial or completely beneficial. This may be due to a lack of funding for government research in the topic and the small amount of scientific tests affirming either. Despite the lack of substantive tests, the amount of evidence compiled so far is pretty convincing. It shows that there is an increase of public support for the legalization of medical marijuana. These studies have shown that consumption of marijuana ameliorates nausea and vomiting, the stimulation of hunger in patients undergoing chemotherapy or who have AIDS, where lack of appetite is rampant. In addition, marijuana can lower pressure on the eyes, effective for treating glaucoma, as well as lessening the effects of pain for people with a range of diseases such as arthritis. Marijuana is currently legalized for medicinal usage in 15 states and Washington D.C., and in Canada, Spain, The Netherlands, and Austria. Besides the health benefits received from medicinal use, Marijuana can prove to be a cash crop for the government of the United States. Despite arguments that smoking marijuana is damaging to the health and that one isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t in control of oneself whilst high, infrequent usage recreationally has been proven to not affect your health much. Marijuana has been proven to be less harmful in the long-term as smoking tobacco, or as harmful in the short-term as consuming alcohol. One is more likely to lose control of the senses or mind while drunk than while high. If the government legalizes marijuana or decriminalizes it, a subsidized-industry for growing marijuana can be created in the United States. This could create smallbusinesses that could potentially help the economy. In addition, if marijuana were to be sold legally in pharmacies or shops, the government could tax it, just as is done in The Netherlands. The tax would be very similar to what is already in place for alcohol and cigarettes, and could create billions in revenue for local or the federal government. HMR The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

The Student Voice

100 HM students polled

Health

In Healthy Food by noah lee

asked some of my fellow students (20 of each occur. If a person really enjoyed unhealthy food, he or grade) the following question: Do you think that she would pay the tax to eat it. Since many of the obese raising taxes on unhealthy food will help prevent people fall into this category, we can assume that taxing obesity? Of the 80 people I asked, 43 people an- unhealthy food will not help much in stopping obesity. swered yes, 4 people answered that they did not In the case of people who eat unhealthy food because know, and 33 people responded that it would not. And I of the cost, people will be limited to either eating less or ask you. Do you think that taxing unhealthy spending more. If someone is of low infoods will help prevent obesity? come, he or she will be forced to Of course, the best anspend more money to eat. swer depends on the situBy increasing the price ation, but there are of unhealthy foods, three basic reasons the government for why people buy would be exploitunhealthy foods: ing lower income the convenience, families, while the the price, and, once other classes will in a while, the taste. generally be unafWho wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t go fected. If the govthrough a Mcernment were to Donaldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s drive give a healthier through when alternative to in a rush? Takfast food with ing these concerns out affecting the into account of budget of low unhealthy eating income famihabits may require lies, it would much more than have to find a taxation of unway to make healthy foods. healthy foods In the case as cheap as of people who go unhealthy to fast food restauones, a feat that rants because of the would be exconvenience, extra tremely difficult taxes on fast food will to accomplish. not change the eating But a bigger issue seventy million dollar blog habit. To those in a rush, lies in taxing unhealthy the speed of eating food would be foods. Taxing unhealthy food would most important. People in a rush will not take the time to be the same as robbing many of the lower income families find a healthy restaurant and wait fifteen minutes for the of their money. Unhealthy foods may be the only practical food to come out. Despite the taxes, people who are in a option they have. If unhealthy foods were to be taxed, only rush will not stop eating fast food. the lower income class would be affected severely. Those For the many people who buy unhealthy foods be- who have the money to make healthier choices would not cause of the taste, not much change in eating habits would be affected as negatively by an unhealthy food tax.

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Health

We Trust Another reason taxation of unhealthy foods is impractical is because of the definition of “unhealthy foods.” What distinguishes healthy foods from unhealthy ones? Salads

drates, should be required of all restaurants. Making healthier foods cheaper is probably the toughest part of the three points mentioned. In or-

“Taxing unhealthy food would be the same as robbing many of the lower income families of their money. Unhealthy foods may be the only practical option they have.”

could be considered healthy, unless there is unhealthy salad dressing, such as the Thousand Island dressing. Protein is vital for the human body, so would steaks be considered healthy or unhealthy? Many companies would claim that their foods are relatively healthier than they used to be. Fast food restaurants now use “healthier” oils. The defining of “unhealthy food” would be so chaotic and impractical that even experts would have trouble. In order to change bad eating habits, we need to focus on three major points. Firstly, people need to be aware of what they are eating. Second, healthy foods need to be made inexpensive and convenient. Lastly, people will need an incentive to change their eating habits. The first point is solely up to the government to fulfill, and the government seems to be doing a good job. Most schools have health classes in which they learn about nutrition. However, in order to further help people realize what they are eating, providing basic nutrition information – such as amount of calories, fat, carbohyThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

der for people in the lower class to take healthier options, healthy foods must be made at least as cheap as unhealthy ones. The government can start by cutting taxes on healthy foods. Although this does not make healthy foods as cheap as unhealthy ones, it is a step closer to it. There must be further development in many aspects such as preservation in order to further lower prices. As for motivation, cheaper prices will generally motivate people to eat healthier foods. Moreover, awareness of nutrition may further motivate change in people’s eating habits. Although many of the students at Horace Mann stated that they believed that taxation of unhealthy foods may help stop obesity, 72 of the 80 people I asked added that they firmly believed that taxing unhealthy foods is not the way to try to solve that problem. And they are definitely right. Taxing unhealthy foods would be a myopic, impractical attempt to solve a problem that ends up affecting only the people that it shouldn’t affect. HMR

A State Issue Many states already levy their own taxes on certain types of food. Would taxing unhealthy food be any different? • “Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia exempt most food purchased for consumption at home from the state sales tax. South Carolina is the state that most recently eliminated its sales tax on food (effective November 1, 2007). • Seven states tax groceries at lower rates than other goods; they are Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. [1] • Five states — Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota— tax groceries fully but offer credits or rebates offsetting some of the taxes paid on food by some portions of the population. These credits or rebates usually are set at a flat amount per family member. The amounts and eligibility rules vary, but may be too narrow and/or insufficient to give eligible households full relief from sales taxes paid on food purchases. • Two states continue to apply their sales tax fully to food purchased for home consumption without providing any offsetting relief for low- and moderateincome families. They are Alabama and Mississippi.” -Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Energy

Energy OBAMA AND CONGRESS LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

BY WILLIAM ELLISON

resident Obama and Congress have the ability to end the USâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; dependence on foreign oil, to clean the atmosphere, to lower the cost of fuel, and to promote the development of more advanced, American fuel technology. If Washington works together, this can come to fruition. There are many strategies that America can use to help ameliorate the energy crisis. One of these strategies is for America to continue on its path of energy independence by using domestic coal, natural gas, and hydropower. It is up to President Obama and Congress to decide 30

which plans of action are the easiest, least expensive, most beneficial, and most important. Once they do so, they must initiate the processes immediately. Obama and Congress must demonstrate strong leadership. One thing is certain: Washington needs to take the politics out of energy, begin to think about the planet, and get to work. Until recently, Congress had a limited approach towards energy policy. The disastrous BP Oil Spill or, formally, the Horizon Oil Spill of 2010, served as a wake-up call for politicians. They realized that something needed to be done about the energy crisis. The spill revealed

that many problems existed within the oil industry. As a result Democrats and Republicans are trying to formulate bills that will force consumers to buy electricity from companies that derive their power from renewable, clean energy sources, primarily wind and solar power. According to this plan, by 2020, 15 to 20 percent of the electricity that distributors purchase will be generated by harnessing wind and solar power. This plan is called a renewable-energy or a clean-energy standard. Supporters say the bill will cut greenhouse gas emissions, will create jobs, and will reenergize communities. However, economist The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Energy

Robert Michaels stated that the best way to solve the energy crisis is not to build-up new inefficient energy industries but to find a way to force energy consumers to cut back on their energy demands. Congress’ proposal to endorse clean, renewable energy would actually prevent economists, scientists, engineers, and politicians from actually finding a way to produce energy that is more efficient. Congress supports its renewable energy standard by maintaining that wind and solar power production make more jobs than they eliminate. Yet, this statement has been proven wrong. An independent German economic think tank discovered that each new solar power job costs $240,000 and that, overall, hundreds of new solar power jobs would result in greater energy costs, people losing jobs in other, more stable sectors of the economy, and decreased consumer purchasing power. A Spanish university study

“

Democrats and Republicans are trying to formulate bills that will force consumers to buy electricity from companies that derive their power from renewable, clean energy sources, primarily wind and solar power. According to this plan, by 2020, 15 to 20 percent of the electricity that distributors purchase will be generated by harnessing wind and solar power.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

also found that every clean energy job created would destroy 2.2 jobs in other parts of the energy industry. Furthermore, agricultural government-sponsored subsidies did not manage to revitalize rural areas in the countryside of the United States. Therefore, Congress should not expect renewable energy subsidies to reenergize the rural areas. Another major argument that renewable energy standard supporters emphasize is that solar and wind power cost less to produce than coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and other conventional energy resources. No evidence exists, however, to substantiate this claim. The US government would not be required to back the wind and solar power industries if they were actually cost competitive with other forms of energy already. “Levelized” costs often allow economists to observe which industry makes more money when comparing two or more industries. “Levelized” costs include the cost of building a power plant, the time needed to build the plant, the fuel and non-fuel costs of operating a plant, and the cost of financing. The “levelized” costs per megawatt hour are $100 for coal power, $129 for advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration, $149 for domestic wind power, $191 for offshore wind power, $257 for solar thermal power, and $396 for solar photovoltaic power. Clearly, cleanrenewable energy of all kinds are much more expensive than regular coal or other substances like natural gas. Using the “levelized” costs statistics as a guide, economists in Congress should be able to see that

subsidizing wind or solar power would increase electricity prices by 10 to 20 percent. Congress could solve the energy crisis without using cleanrenewable energy, no matter how enticing “clean” and “renewable” may seem. Clean-renewable energy is extremely expensive and destroys other energy jobs that were previously more standard, stable and efficient. In fact, a recent analysis by the Heritage Foundation found that, by 2020, if solar and wind power are subsidized by the government as has been suggested, the typical American family would lose $1,700 annually due to extra energy expenses, and unemployment would increase by an additional half-million. In addition to wind and solar subsidies, another way that the previous session of Congress tried to address the energy crisis was to pass a cap-and-trade carbon-rationing bill that aims to cut the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, the democratic leadership in the previous Senate could not garner enough votes to pass the bill. The 112th Congress may pass this bill. President Obama and the 112th Congress should attempt to carry out many new strategies in order to deal with the energy crisis. While electric cars are already on the market, a major objective is to create an electric car battery that can run 200 miles on a 10-minute charge. Hopefully, the ingenuity, intelligence and, entrepreneurship of America can create this technology as soon as possible. The internal combustion

Energy engine that still powers our cars has existed for approximately 100 years. Over 160,000 well-organized and effective service stations exist throughout America. If Congress can manage to transfer this entire system to electric cars, a very successful energy policy is possible in the near future. The first step, which would transpire over the next ten years, is to force or convince automobile manufacturers to make the switch to fully electric vehicles and to continue to develop electric car technology. The second step is to enable electric vehicles to be recharged in homes, parking lots, parking garages, and of course, service stations. However, this can only happen once the battery is actually developed. All

“

The energy crisis is a critical problem, but, fortunately there are many approaches that President Obama and Congress can pursue to solve it.

”

we need is the same recharging devices and batteries used to recharge computers, phones, iPods and cameras on a much larger automobile level. Other ways that Congress can alleviate the energy crisis are: to make the US’ electrical distribution system more efficient and speedy; to support the construction of nuclear power plants so that more electricity can be created; to endorse the usage of alter32

nate fuel sources (primarily natural gas); to establish a new fuel-vehicle system; and to make the fueling, refueling, and transportation industries run on electricity. There are other unconventional but ingenious ways for Congress to solve the energy crisis through legislation. The first is to endorse electric cars by completely banning gasoline-only cars. The average car exists for 17 years, and, when an American consumer buys a car, he or she is about to depend on foreign oil for 17 years. Congress could make a law so that every car in the U.S. can run on practically any fuel, including gasoline, ethanol, and methanol. A positive is that the technology to allow cars to be able to run on practically any fuel already exists, although it is scarcely found on the public market. Granting every vehicle in the US the capability to run on these three fuels would cost about $100 extra per car, which is inexpensive when compared to how much this would improve our environment and help to solve one part of the energy crisis. This technology would also open the public market to new, more advanced fueling technology. Another strategy would be to eliminate the Iowa Caucuses. The ethanol lobby has placed tariffs and taxes on ethanol created outside of the US; however, simultaneously, it has managed to halt the development of other alternative fuel sources at home. Ethanol is a helpful partial solution to the energy crisis in the US, but statistics show that it could only replace 12 percent of the American gasoline requirement. Using sugarcane would also be beneficial. Although America does not have very good relation-

ships with many Middle Eastern countries that produce oil, America is friendly with several countries in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia; including Panama, Kenya, and Thailand. These nations grow sugarcane. Sugarcane can create ethanol that costs only half as much to produce as corn ethanol. American foreign aid should be directed to helping these countries so that they produce more ethanol, more quickly and more efficiently. Such a practice would also strengthen American national security as the US would not have to rely on unfriendly oilproducing nations in the Middle East A fourth strategy is to completely revolutionize and “technologize” waste and other substances in order to produce methanol. 65 percent of garbage is considered biomass (food, paper, wood, etc.), and, therefore, could be converted to methanol. Methanol is twice as efficient as cellulosic ethanol. Furthermore, America owns one quarter of all the coal in the world. Instead of using America’s coal to fuel power plants, coal should be converted to methanol for one dollar a gallon. Also, a byproduct of basic paper known as black liquor can be converted to methanol. All three of these methanol-producing paths working together would generate nine billion gallons of methanol a year, or, about twice the amount of energy that is made through ethanol corn annually in the US. The energy crisis is a critical problem, but, fortunately there are many approaches that President Obama and Congress can pursue to solve it. HMR

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Energy

WARNING: FALLOUT OF THE NUCLEAR DIMENSION

by adam mansfield

hen thinking about nuclear disasters. Knowing what hap- sulting fallout could kill. Corrosion can nuclear strikes, most pens during this possible catastrophe build up in the exhaust towers which think of a huge mush- will better prepare populations against could lead to a major release of radioacroom cloud explosion what might happen. The Obama admin- tive material into the air and water. Posthat envelops every- istration is discussing “how to spread the sible plant melt downs also can occur thing. This, however, is not the full story. word without seeming alarmist about of coolant isn’t properly applied. Melt Nuclear strikes are not the end all ca- a subject that few politicians care to downs can lead to a large nuclear bomb tastrophe that they are often associated consider, let alone discuss.” Withhold- like explosion. The public has seen the with. Although they are indeed devastat- ing this information is putting millions possibility of such a problem during the ing, there are ways to prevent massive of citizens at risk even if this particular 3-mile island crisis when it had a partial losses. catastrophe isn’t likely to happen in the melt down. The initial strike of a nuclear weap- near future. The Obama administration aton shoots out enough atomic particles to Ironically, at the same time that tempted to explore what would happen cook anyone inside a small radius with a the government is hesitant to teach the during a nuclear terrorists attack, but lethal dose of radiation. The radioactive American people the proper protocol was stopped in 2009. A live exercise particles created during the initial blast in case of a nuclear disaster resulting in was planned for Las Vegas which would continue to spread at very high speeds. fallout, the government is encouraging involve a fake nuclear terrorist attack. After the explosion, these traveling par- plans that carry with them a real danger The casinos and businesses protested, ticles are called fallout. They of course, as did Senator slam into human bodies and The Obama administration is discussing “how to Harry Reid. This, they because severe damage at the spread the word without seeming alarmist about lieved, would scare away molecular level, causing a a subject that few politicians care to consider, tourism costing the city a high loss of white blood let alone discuss.” Withholding this information lot of money. cells, damaged nerve end It is underis putting millions of citizens at risk even if this ings, and hemorrhaging. standable that cities would particular catastrophe isn’t likely to happen in be unwilling to do full The radioactive materithe near future. als also can cause different scale nuclear bomb drills, forms of cancers as well as but it remains important deformities in embryos. To protect from of a nuclear accident. The United States that Americans understand what to do in these radioactive particles after the initial Government is in favor of creating and the case of a nuclear attack or accident. strike, people should stay inside, prefer- expanding new nuclear power plants. Smaller scale ways to convey knowledge ably in a basement. The deadly particles The Department of Energy agreed to a might be better. There could be school cannot reach those who are properly $3.4 billion guarantee for the expansion and business nuclear threat drills similar sheltered. Many lives could be saved. of a nuclear facility in Georgia, and the to fire drills. When deciding whether to It may seem like a scare tactic to rile Obama administration asked Congress educate and save the citizens in the Unitup citizens against an enemy to say all for more funds to create more plants ed States or ignoring what some might of this, but the point is to inform, not including two new reactors to the Co- call an improbable catastrophe, it is clear to instill fear. This information can be manche Peak plant in Glen Rose, near that the answer is saving lives under any found in an unclassified planning guide Fort Worth. These power plants can have circumstance. It is better to be safe than that was made to help teach those about problems, and, if they do, then the re- to be sorry. HMR

“

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

”

Energy

BY: HARRY MANIN

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY projects that 650 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas exist in the US in shale rock formations that are known as shale plays. This form of energy has huge benefits. Although it is a fossil fuel, natural gas is less toxic to the environment than oil or coal. An MIT interdisciplinary study cited natural gas as having “the lowest carbon intensity [of any other fossil fuel], emitting less carbon dioxide per unit of energy generated.” Unlike coal, it contains no mercury. And unlike both coal and oil, its refining process is not costly because natural gas has few impurities. Some environmentalists believe that these qualities make natural gas a potentially viable bridge from coal and oil to renewable energies like nuclear and solar. The use of natural gas will have positive economic effects. It is abundant enough in the US that we could easily suffice on natural gas alone for two to three decades. Currently, the US imports about 20 million barrels of oil a day, spending

over 600 billion dollars on foreign oil a year. Natural gas could potentially wean us off of our addiction to foreign oil and end what is now the largest transfer of wealth in human history (primarily to unfriendly nations), keeping money and jobs in America. Adopting natural gas would stimulate an economic boom throughout the US, especially considering that workable shale plays exist in the Northeast, the Midwest, the

Gulf coast, the Rockies, and the West. Seeing that America’s incessant need for oil also sparked or fueled most of our military operations and wars in the Middle East since Operation Earnest Will in 1987, making natural gas our main energy source should be an easy decision. But switching to natural gas has not been seen as such an easy decision, because of deregulation that has allowed companies such as Halliburton to pollute the environment. This follows a pattern set during the Bush years, traceable to the actions of then-Vice President Dick Cheney. Though deregulation, and laissez faire policy in general, are conservative tenets, Cheney converted these ideas into an attitude of self-serving neglect. It requires little investigation to substantiate Cheney’s culpability for our present condition. The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Energy

Cheney’s tenure in the White House did not begin under George W. Bush. As President George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, he reduced the military by 426 thousand personnel and cut military expenditures by $20 billion. These actions benefitted his corporate connections. One of his final moves as Secretary of Defense was to award a $10 million no-bid contract to Halliburton to determine the efficacy of the private military sector in assisting a potentially undermanned US Armed Forces. In 1995, Cheney was named Halliburton’s chairman of the board and CEO. Cheney’s underhanded dealings with Halliburton were not an anomaly, but rather part of a much larger trend. He became vice president in 2001. Having served 10 years in Congress, part of it as House minority whip, he is adept in the legislative process, and he masterfully exerted his power as president of the Senate, a usually inconsequential post. He compelled Congress to grant Halliburton and the private military contractor Blackwater (now Xe Services) multibillion-dollar contracts. Beyond the conflict of interest raised by Cheney’s involvement with the former, Blackwater had connections to Cheney as well. The parents of Erik Prince, the private military contractor’s owner and founder, were in the upper echelon of conservative society and members of the clandestine Council for National Policy (CNP). CNP is a highly exclusive group whose mission is to “bring together the country’s most in-

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

fluential conservative lead- The US ers…to cultivate ideas to imports help solve America’s grow- about 20 ing problems.” Though million the CNP deals surrepti- barrels of tiously, through leaks and oil a day, its own condoned releases, spending it is common knowledge over 600 billion that Cheney has spoken dollars a there numerous times and year. is probably a member. Blackwater and Halliburton conduct business in highly scrutinized fields. In order to make certain that they were well taken care of financially, Cheney had to ensure that they were above the law. Bush, presumably under Cheney’s direction, issued executive order 13303, which exempts American companies that deal with Iraqi oil from legal action. Halliburton had a large presence in Iraq as builders of oil rigs, and Blackwater mercenaries frequently served as security contractors defending Iraqi oil. A substantial portion of Halliburton’s business takes place on the home front, including its natural gas operations. Cheney played a pivotal role in the deregulation of domestic industry, which allowed companies such as Halliburton to operate with relative impunity. As its title implies, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 2005 stipulates regulations to protect America’s water from terrorism and corporations. In response to its passage, Cheney essentially browbeat Congress into passing the 2005 Energy Bill later that year. It nullified much of the Safe Drinking Water Act, mandating decreases and

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, allows drillers to harvest valuable natural gas trapped in underground rock known as shale rock. After drilling vertically and then horizontally, water, sand and chemicals are pumped into a well, cracking the rock and releasing the gas.

A propping agent, often including sand or ceramic beads, is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing. Released natural gas then flows from the rock fractures. The fracturing fluids are then returned back to the surface.

Drillers use a perforating gun to inject water, sand and chemicals into a geologica formation when high pressure from the injection exceeds the rock strength, the fluid opens or enlarges fractures in the rock

Energy even lapses of governmental oversight on industry. The bill became an exemption list, also freeing companies from the stipulations of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. One of these exemptions deregulated the process by which companies retrieve the natural gas in shale, called hydraulic fracturing or simply “fracking.” Fracking operates by drilling miles below the Earth’s surface to the shale formations. Then, through the recent innovation of horizontal drilling, the axis shifts sideways and drilling continues for about another mile. To release the gas trapped within the shale, a mixture of water and sand, together with thousands of chemicals, are injected into the hole at extremely high pressures. Since regulation has been close to nil, the companies involved in the fracking jobs, Chesapeake, Cabot Oil and Gas, and Halliburton, to name a few, have been able to proceed negligently. They claim that since they drill miles below the surface, the chemicals involved in fracking cannot affect private drinking wells and groundwater. On the contrary, however, people around the country who have fracking operations in their areas have complained of oddly colored water, water that makes them sick, and even water that ignites. The industry has claimed no responsibility and has emerged from numerous lawsuits unscathed.

Another reported problem occurs above ground. When investigators positioned infrared cameras on the drilling structures, they saw toxic fumes oozing out of the complexes. In Fort Worth, Texas, scientists discovered that one of these harmful plumes enveloped a school. The industry’s exemption from the Clean Air Act, thanks to Cheney, relieves it of responsibility for such occurrences. Until recently, the chemicals in the fracking concoctions were unknown. Per the 2005 Energy Bill, they were considered proprietary trade secrets, similar to fast-food recipes. Aggravating the problem, the Bush Administration withdrew the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) jurisdiction to regulate fracking. Dr. Theo Colborn, holder of the United Nations Environment Program Women Leadership for the Environment Award, uncovered everything we knew, until recently, of the fracking fluids’ makeup. She took samples and identified 596 chemicals commonly used during the fracking process, some of which are carcinogens. This September, the EPA, empowered by Obama, requested of nine companies that they reveal the chemicals used. Every company except Halliburton complied. Halliburton, after years of Cheney’s protection, thought it was above the law. And with good reason: Even though Halliburton was implicated as a key player in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Obama

administration exonerated it of any wrongdoing. In this instance, however, the EPA, steadfast in its pursuit of justice, subpoenaed the conglomerate. Given the myriad benefits of natural gas, more forthright action must be taken in order to legitimize it. Unfortunately, due to the broad scope of the deregulation, the effort to bring the fracking process up to adequate standards has been piecemeal. In such legislation as the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (currently deadlocked in the Senate), Congress has proposed to mend the disaster one problem at a time. Unfortunately, this is the only viable course of action, short of an onslaught of executive orders that can confer on natural gas extraction the respectability it deserves as a more prudent fossil fuel. The Bush administration managed to blur the lines between free enterprise and the role of government. It forgot that government’s purpose is to serve the people, not to bolster the corporate sector. As great calamities befall the US, many resulting from Bush’s conservative deregulation juggernaut, the Obama administration is left to fix them. With popular uneasiness concerning natural gas increasing throughout America, the Democrats tried unsuccessfully to solve the issue before the Republicans took the House. Natural gas could have been the first step to an energy-independent America; now it may end up a permanent reminder of human greed. HMR

The Halliburton Loophole The natural gas industry does not have to disclose the 80-300 tons of chemicals used per frack. Scientists have identified volatile organic compounds such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene.

TREEHUGGER

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

Energy

Where’s the Alternative Energy?

thevividedge

The U.S. Government and Alternative Energy

by daniel elkind

ennedy said the U.S. would put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. That was May, 1961, and by 1969, we had done it. Today, America faces an even more urgent problem in the need to deal with its rapidly increasing energy needs. To deal with that problem, the U.S. must embark upon a government-led initiative with the same commitment and sense of urgency that led America to the moon. We are not doing so at the present. Consider these facts. The importation of foreign oil adds more than $200 billion per year to our national trade deficit. Among the leading sources of imported oil are 10 countries on the State Department’s travel warning list - highly unstable naThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

tions like Algeria, Columbia, Chad, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We import on average $1 billion of oil per day, and when oil prices spiked only several years ago, our monthly trade deficit from oil rose as high as $40 billion. Equally pernicious are the environmental consequences of our reliance upon coal and fossil fuels. Approximately 54% of our electricity is produced by coal-powered electric plants which spew tens of millions of tons of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants into the air. Oil is like a narcotic to us - foreign entities getting rich off of our inability to wean off of it, the compulsive cries of “Drill, baby, drill!”, and the consequences for the American economy and the environment that we often simply deny.

At the same time that our dependence on foreign oil is increasing, we are losing the lead in our commitments to alternative energy. In 2009, China, with an economy smaller than ours, dramatically surpassed the U.S. in investments in clean energy. According to a PEW Charitable Trust and Bloomberg New Energy Finance report, Chinese investment in clean energy totaled about $34.6 billion in 2009, nearly double the $18.6 billion total investment in the U.S. China is now the leading maker of solar cells, and the leader in wind-turbine production capacity. China has embarked upon a national objective of obtaining 15% of its total energy from renewable sources by 2020, and, just as important, is committed to building a massive industry as the leader 37

Energy in renewable energy technology. By contrast, the PEW/Bloomberg report indicated that the U.S. is spending a significantly smaller percentage of its Gross National Product on such investments than countries like China, Brazil, the U.K., and even Spain. Critics of government support for alternative energies are fond of pointing out that some forms of clean energy are still more expensive to produce than energy from fossil fuels. In some cases, this is true. Yet that argument misses the point, for a variety of reasons. First, if the government is successful in dramatically increasing the installation of alternative energy technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars, the cost of producing these technologies will go down, just as the costs of all new technologies decline rapidly over the course of their development. Second, if this country delays in rolling out clean energy technology until the costs of clean energy are less than the costs of fossil fuels, then, by the time that fossil fuels become more costly than alternative energy, the U.S. will not have a competitive industry. Third, the cost of fossil fuels is not limited to the expense of such fuels to the consumer, but also includes the enormous environmental costs that we incur as our result of the use of fossil fuels. There can be no doubt that clean energy is destined to become Photos

a massive industry of the future. The nation that becomes the leader in clean energy technology will gain 38

tens of millions of new jobs. Does America want to control the jobs that the new industry will produce, or do we want to see those jobs going abroad to countries like China? While it is fashionable for conservative politicians to assert that all of our problems can be solved by the private sector and that the government should have no role in assisting new technological development, that way of thinking will lead to failure in our quest to become the leader in clean energy and to capture the many millions of jobs that the new industry will create. China has already embarked upon a government-sponsored initiative to become a leader in the field. It is essential that the U.S. government aggressively foster the use of alternative energy at a time when the energy is still in development, so that we will become the leader in the field by the time that it becomes more efficient and less costly than fossil fuels and coal. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act adopted by Congress in 2009, also known as the “stimulus” bill, President Obama and Congress included stepped-up spending for clean energy. However, that spending only slightly made up for years of neglect under President Bush. The new Congress needs to put in place a massive program of tax benefits and government spending initiatives to establish clean energy usage and build the leading worldwide alternative energy industry in the United States. Perhaps the most compelling measure the government can take to promote alternative energies and

reduce our dependence on oil is to embark upon a program to convert the country from gasoline-powered cars to electric-powered cars. The electricity used to power electric cars can be produced by electric utilities with wind, solar, gas, nuclear, or any other source. As a result, if the country’s automobiles are powered by electricity, then ultimately they will be powered by the alternative sources of energy which are the most efficient, the least expensive, and the cleanest for the environment. The government must employ a system of tax credits for individual consumers and tax benefits for the producers of electric automomy wind power sy biles to convert the nation’s automobiles from gas to electricity on a massive scale and as quickly as possible. This means extending and increasing tax incentives dramatically and immediately. The U.S. needs to invest in nuclear power in order to bring ourselves into step with countries like France, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, and Hungary. Nuclear power is currently the principal energy source in numerous European nations, providing 76% of the total energy in France, 36.7% in South Korea, and The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX

ystem

Energy 57% in Slovakia. Yet America’s prog- should immediately adopt stream- ment should also vigorously encourress has continuously been thwarted line procedures for the approval of age the conversion of electric power by local objections to nuclear dis- new nuclear power plants so that the plants which currently rely heavily posal and by prohibitive obstacles construction of those plants can be upon coal from coal to natural gas. to the approval of new Although nuclear plants. While Investing in nuclear power would reduce our energy natural gas other countries are mov- dependency on foreign nations, provide the most im- is a fosing forward, the U.S. had mediate alternative to environmentally-damaging coal, sil fuel, it is not built a single nuclear substantially spur job creation, and create another promising and power plant in the past less pollutcompetitive industry within the United States. 14 years. For example, ing than the Yucca Mountain coal or oil, region has been identi- accomplished in years, not decades. and the U.S. has enormous domesfied by the Energy Investing in nuclear power would tic supplies of natural gas that can be Department as a reduce our energy dependency on tapped into, rather than importing potential site foreign nations, provide the most from other countries. for the nu- immediate alternative to environ All these can be accomclear waste mentally-damaging coal, spur job plished by the federal government. disposal, creation, and create another promis- It will take more than private ensince it ing and competitive industry within terprise. Those who believe that the is geo- the United States. federal government should not be logically The government must also involved are mistaken, for doing so inactive spur solar energy by investing in the while other nations make firm inand a development of the technology and vestments in the promising energy remote extending tax incentives for the in- industry of the future will leave the area. stallation of solar energy. Solar en- U.S. far behind countries like ChiTwoergy is still more expensive for in- na, without any competitive industhirds of dividual consumers than electricity try, and without the jobs, economic Nevadans purchased from coal-burning power stimulus, and environmental beneoppose plants. However, the cost to individu- fits that alternative energies will prothe plan on al consumers can be decreased if the vide. At a time when it is trendy to, a “not-in-my- demand for solar power is increased in the words of Ronald Reagan, want backyard” basis. Yet dramatically and the economies of to “get government off the backs of the Energy Department scale in producing solar power en- the people,” the issue of energy is a recently estimated that the radi- able the costs of production to be testament to the need for sturdy fedation exposure per year to the Yuc- reduced. But if we wait until the cost eral government. The race for the ca nuclear waste site would be 0.24 is less than the cost of other forms of benefits that the alternative energy millirems per year, well under the electricity, then by the time that the industry will provide could well beEnvironmental Protection Agency’s costs are equalized, the U.S. will be come another “Sputnik” moment for limit of 350 millirems per year, and too far behind countries like China the U.S., as President Obama said, less than the 3 millirems to which a to catch up in the development and and the decisions that Congress passenger travelling round-trip from implementation of solar power. makes now will determine how sucNevada to Washington D.C. would The government should sim- cessful we will be in the future. If we be exposed. The Yucca Mountain ilarly encourage other forms of en- procrastinate, it will not be long besite should be approved and com- ergy, among them wind power and fore it is too late, and we will be too pleted promptly, and the politicizing natural gas. Congress must increase far behind to catch up. HMR of the issue should come to an end. and extend tax benefits to the proIn addition, the federal government ducers of wind power. The govern-

“

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

”

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XX