Volume VII, Issue V by JHU Politik

October 24, 2011

Volume VII, Issue V

JHU POLITIK

DESPERATE FOR CHANGE

TIBETAN MONKS & NUNS SELF-IMMOLATE

Issue v INTERnational Israelis & Palestinians Exchange Prisoners by by Julia Allen, ’15 - Page 3

national President Signs Three Long-Awaited Free Trade Agreements by Chloe Reichel, ’15 - Page 4 US Military Advisers Deployed to Uganda by Michael Bodner, ’14 - Page 5

opinion Unreasonable Search at Leisure: POLICE GPS Surveillance by Alex Clearfield, ’14 - Page 6 Prayer flags fly over a conflict-torn yet resilient Tibet. (SOURCE: http://banoffee-sky.blogspot.com)

by COLETTE ANDREI, ’14 Staff Writer

n October 17, 2011, Tenzin Wangmo, a 20-year-old Tibetan nun, killed herself through self-immolation in a Tibetan town in Western China. Tenzin committed this act in a desperate call for religious freedom and a return of the Dalai Lama, according to a statement released by Free Tibet, an advocacy group based in London. Tenzin was the ninth Tibetan to self-immolate since March, the fifth to die, and the first woman to kill herself in this way, said the group. Two days earlier, 19-year-old former monk Norbu Damdrul set himself on fire while shouting “We need a free Tibet.” In regard to these acts, prominent Tibetan activist and

writer Tsering Woeser said, “This is not suicide, this is sacrifice in order to draw the world’s attention.” All the self-immolations have taken place in restive Tibetan areas of the Sichuan Province of China and, aside from the most recent act, all involved monks or former monks from the Kirti Monastery. The Kirti Monastery was a rallying point during the Tibetan uprising in 2008, a violent series of riots, protests, and demonstrations that took place in the Tibetan regional capital of Lhasa and also Tibetan Buddhist monasteries outside the Tibetan Autonomous Region. Since the uprising, the town of Aba, in which the Kirti Monastery is located, has been

Checking On The Governors from New York & Pennsylvania by Robert D’Annibale, ’15 - Page 7

johns hopkinS’ Only WeeklyPublished Political Magazine

a focal point of repression by Chinese security forces. Scholars of modern day Tibet say that self-immolation is a new and startling strategy for Tibetan monks. Stephanie Brigden, director of Free Tibet, said the acts “provide further evidence that Tibetans now feel that setting fire to themselves is their only recourse.” Woeser also stated that “Most Tibetans live in fear because of suppressive and unfair government policies but they dare not speak up. Tibetan Buddhists can’t use vio(continued on Page 2) www.JHUPOLITIK.org

October 24, 2011

Volume VII, Issue V

THE POLITIK EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Hannah Holliday

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Will Denton

Layout Editor

Assistant Editors

Ana Giraldo-Wingler

Randy Bell Jeremy Orloff Matt Varvaro

staff writers

Colette Andrei Megan Augustine Rachel Cohen Cary Glynn Ben Goldberg Eric Feinberg Anna Kochut Daniel Roettger Ari Schaffer Hilary Matfess Michael Bodner Robert D’Annibale Chloe Reichel Sindhusha Ravi

production manager

Neil O’Donnell faculty advisor

Steven R. David managing editor

Alex Clearfield JHU POLITIK is a student-run political publication. Please note that the opinions expressed within JHU POLITIK are those of the author alone.

INTERNATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 1) lence to protest; therefore, they can only do violence to themselves, such as self-immolation, to make people pay attention to their situation.” A report released this month by the bipartisan Congressional-Executive Commission on China noted China’s intense repression in Tibetan areas of the country. Human Rights Watch released a study last week that said security spending in Aba and Ganzi, another Tibetan area of Sichuan, rose sharply after 2002 and is several times the amount of security expenses in non-Tibetan areas of Sichuan. The study also said this indicates that the unrest that came in 2008 and afterward was at least in part a result of a surge in heavy-handed security measures. After the first self-immolation in March, armed personnel surrounded the Kirti Monastery and cut off its access to food and water for several days. In April, at least 300 monks were taken away by security officials for “patriotic re-education,” according to reports by Tibetan groups, and they may not have returned. When the United Nations Working Group On Enforced Disappearances expressed its concern to Beijing about this incidence, Chinese officials called the organization’s perspective “biased and unfair.” On Wednesday October 19, 2011, the Dalai Lama and Lobsang Sangay, Tibet’s newly elected Prime Ministerin-exile, led public prayers in Dharamsala, India, the

location of Tibet’s government-in-exile, for the nine Tibetans who immolated themselves. Sangay said “We pay homage to their courage and stand in solidarity with their indominable spirit.” China considers the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s 76-year-old religious leader, a subversive threat to its control in Tibet. Since occupying Tibet in the 1950’s China has forbade ethnic Tibetans to pay homage to the Dalai Lama. At this point, the Dalai Lama is calling for Tibetan autonomy rather than independence. If autonomy were granted, Tibet would be able to make its own decisions about key issues, such as religious practices. He also opposes what he calls the Chinese government’s harsh repression of Tibetan religion and culture. The state-run press in China has barely mentioned the self-immolations, but Jiang Yu, China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, denounced both the self-immolations and the solidarity prayers in a press briefing in Beijing. “As we know, such splittist activity at the cost of human life is terrorism in disguise,” she told reporters. China rejects accusations of oppression of Tibetans, saying that its rule has greatly improved living standards for the Tibetan people. These suicides have the potential to ignite protests among the wider population, with Brigden saying that “The acts of self-immolation are not taking place in isolation; protests have been reported in the surrounding (Continued on page 3) www.JHUPOLITIK.org

October 24, 2011

Volume VII, Issue V

INTERNATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 2) regions and calls for wider protests are growing.” More far-sighted policy-makers in Beijing may learn something from studying the recent self-immolations and their causes. Harsh policies have only succeeded in increasing underground resistance to Chinese rule. If the Chinese government does not rethink its strong-arm tactics against the Tibetan people, the cost in lives may continue to increase. s

Israelis and Palestinians Exchange Prisoners Amid Doubts

statistics which show that 60% of the released terrorists from previous exchanges have returned to terror.” Supporters of the agreement acknowledge that critics will point to the dangers of rewarding terrorism, but insist that the positive aspects of the deal outweigh the risks. Zweig urges people to consider the benefit that this negotiation could have on the long-term dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. He states, “Any movement in the stalled peace process might be enough to get the wheels of this heavy cart out of the rut in which it is trapped.” Another positive side to the agreement, Zweig suggests, is that it “removes a major obstacle from any future peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians” because it releases so many Palestinians from

by JULIA ALLEN, ’15 Contributing Writer

fter spending five years in the captivity of Hamas militants, Gilad Shalit received a warm welcome upon returning to his hometown in Israel this past Tuesday. In a deal which culminated in the exchange of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners for Shalit’s safe return, a majority of Israelis celebrated what people like Ronald W. Zweig, a Taub Professor of Israel Studies at New York University, claim to be a sign of hope for the future of negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. Although a poll conducted by the Dahaf Polling Institute indicates that nearly eight out of ten people support the exchange, it has sparked an intense debate over whether or not the trade was a viable security option for Israel. Over the past few weeks, families who have lost loved ones in recent terrorist attacks have been protesting the deal, which has allowed many convicted terrorists to walk free. One of the most controversial prisoners being released is a woman named Ahlam Tamimi, who was serving several life terms for playing a crucial role in the bombing of a Sbarro pizza restaurant in 2001 which killed 15 people. Although the Israeli Cabinet backed the deal to free Shalit 26 to 3, there are several officials who also feel that the exchange was a mistake. One minister called the trade “a great victory for terrorism,” reflecting the fears of many critics who point to statistics indicating that the deal has worsened the Israeli security situation. Efraim Inbar, an analyst with the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, argues that the lopsided trade with Hamas has only created more incentives for militants to capture Israeli soldiers because of the profitable deal that they have received. He also points to “clear

Students in Tel-Aviv show their support for Galid Shalit prior to his release. (SOURCE: http://banoffee-sky.blogspot.com)

Israel’s prisons. The large number of Palestinians held in Israeli jails has been one of the major points of contention throughout negotiations for a final settlement. Finally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that the exchange was necessary to demonstrate to the nation that the government will protect the army that serves it. Because every Israeli is required to serve in the military, Shalit’s situation is every family’s worst nightmare. In a letter that he wrote to the families of terror victims, Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed his sympathy for their pain in seeing “these villains” escape without paying full price for their crimes, but also stated that, “The state of Israel does not abandon its soldiers and its citizens.” Many people have been wondering why, after five years of failed negotiations, the exchange finally took place this past week. It is apparent that external factors (Continued on page 4) www.JHUPOLITIK.org

October 24, 2011

Volume VII, Issue V

INTERNATIONAL/National REPORTS (Continued from page 3) prompted Hamas and Israel to reach an agreement under the current situation. The recent unrest in the Middle East has played a large role in Netanyahu’s consideration of the deal because he was fearful that the window of opportunity to free Shalit would close and never reopen. Also, Netanyahu was prompted to accept the proposal because of the violence in Egypt which might have prevented the nation from continuing to mediate the negotiations between Hamas and Israel. Hamas was also encouraged to make concessions throughout the negotiation process because of its intense competition with the Palestinian Authority for supporters. After the Palestinian Authority’s bid for statehood in the UN, Hamas was eager to regain the political initiative amongst their shared constituency. Though October 19 was a day of celebration for most Israelis, many people will be waiting with bated breath to see if future negotiations reflect any of the promised changes. s

President Signs Three Long-Awaited Free Trade Agreements by CHLOE REICHEL, ’15 Staff Writer

n October 12, Congress voted in favor of three free trade agreements (FTAs) between the United States and Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. These agreements date back to the Bush administration, when the documents were first created. In 2006, the Democratcontrolled Congress voted down the FTAs. President Obama’s decision to send the agreements to Congress for a second time highlights his current emphasis on job creation. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is largely responsible for the passage of the FTAs, as many Democrats opposed the agreements because of concerns over the welfare of unions and over labor conditions. Other concerns raised were that these free trade agreements would increase foreign imports, instead of helping US exports. In the committee hearing titled “Job Creation Made Easy: The Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements,” Chairwoman of the House Commit-

tee on Foreign Affairs Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) suggested that the South Korea free trade agreement alone would add at least ten billion dollars a year to US exports and that 70,000 jobs will be created in the United States because of this agreement. Overall, predictions state that the United States would lose over 345,000 jobs without the passage of the FTAs. Ros-Lehtinen asserted that the United States would benefit more from these agreements than would its partner countries, citing the example of Colombia as evidence to support her claim: 93% of Colombian exports to the United States are duty-free, while most of the United States’ exports to Colombia have duties. Therefore, by removing duties on 80% of domestic exports, the agreement disproportionately —or, as the congresswoman argued, almost unilaterally—benefits the United States by removing its greater barriers to trade. Congressman Connie Mack (R-FL) echoed this sentiment, saying that the FTAs were “more of a win for the United States.” Critics of the South Korea FTA were concerned that the agreement would support the North Korean economy and North Korea’s illicit labor camps. By trading with South Korea, the United States could be unwittingly buying products made mostly in North Korea and then shipped to South Korea to be finished and exported. On the other hand, some suggested that the agreement is more than just an economic policy, but also a way of legitimizing and supporting the South Korean presidency, and preserving the United States-South Korea alliance. This same argument has been applied to the Colombia and Panama FTAs, which many hope will strengthen the United States’ alliances with those countries as well. Concerns over the Columbia FTA primarily focused on the interests of labor unions. In the past few years, many union leaders were mysteriously killed in Colombia. Signing an agreement with a country in which corruption and anti-union sentiment abound could be construed as a tacit endorsement of these conditions. Critics fear that the United States will lose its influence to improve labor conditions in Columbia now that the FTA has been signed. While International Trade Commission (ITC) reports suggest that the United States will greatly benefit from the FTAs, Thea Lee, deputy chief of staff at the AFL-CIO and witness at the hearing, argued that ITC models are not good predictors of economic activity. Prior to the passage of the North American Free Trade (Continued on page 5) www.JHUPOLITIK.org

October 24, 2011

Volume VII, Issue V

International REPORT (Continued from page 4) Agreement (NAFTA), the ITC predicted that apparel and consumer electronics would be the two sectors with the most growth as a result of the agreement. In reality, these two sectors experienced the largest job loss. Lee also brought up the issue of non-tariff barriers, saying that while the FTAs lower some barriers to trade, non-tariff barriers are not addressed in the agreements and will therefore not change. Currency manipulation is one non-tariff barrier that is of particular concern to the United States and, according to the United States Treasury Department, both South Korea and China engage in this practice. Lee suggested that non-tariff barriers like currency manipulation are more detrimental to US trade than are duties. The actual effects of the free trade agreements will take a considerable amount of time to measure. Many are hopeful that the agreements will help to create jobs and improve the national economy, but with such low-cost trade competitors like China and India, it is hard to predict if US exports will increase. At the very least, these agreements have the potential to strengthen diplomatic ties with three important allies to the United States. s

US Military Advisers Deployed to Uganda by MICHAEL BODNER, ’14 Staff Writer

or 24 years, the Lord’s Resistance Army has cut a swath of murder, rape, and kidnapping through Central Africa. Armed with AK-47’s and filling their front lines with child soldiers, the LRA is responsible for the deaths of over 12,000 people across Uganda, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic. Despite being branded by the US government as a terrorist organization since 2001, no military commitment has been made by the US to stop the militia, save for UN peacekeeping missions. Last Friday the situation took a dramatic turn as President Obama ordered the deployment of around 100 military advisers to assist the besieged countries in their fight against the savage militia and its leaders. 100 advisers may seem like a small commitment to end a quarter-century old insurgency, but these are no regular soldiers on their way to Africa. The force is made up primarily of Special Forces troops, who are

Child soldiers in Uganda have drawn international attention and disgust. (SOURCE: http://blog.invisiblechildren.org)

coming to Africa “with appropriate combat equipment,” in the words of President Obama. That said, the advisers are told to only fight directly against the LRA in actions of self-defense. The chief directive of the task force will be to provide reconnaissance, advice, and logistical assistance to the official government armed forces of the countries. Going along with the advisers will be a compliment of support personnel. The man the US forces hope to help find is Joseph Kony. The charismatic and merciless leader, born in 1961, is a religious fanatic who hopes to instill a theocracy in Uganda based on his interpretation of the Ten Commandments. Indicted by the International Criminal Court in 2005 for crimes against humanity, Kony has personally been charged with murder, sexual enslavement, and rape. The man remains unapologetic for his actions. During an interview with Reuters, Kony claimed that his army does not have any child soldiers. “We only have combatants,” he professed. Thought to have over 60 wives, Kony reportedly takes his pick of abducted women and girls, according to the BBC. The deployment of troops to Africa is truly a rare occurrence. United States soldiers have not seen combat in Africa since 1993 in Somalia. Indeed, the entire continent has less than 1,000 US troops on it. The army’s biggest base is in Djibouti, and even that has only around 350 troops. As if to emphasize the lack of army presence in Africa, the head of US Africa Command is located in Germany. So, what makes the case of the LRA special enough for our troops to intervene? Uganda has been a quiet ally of the United States in the War on Terror for years. The Ugandan Army has been fighting the Al-Shabaab terrorist group in Somalia, and the United States is sending troops to help the Ugandans as a form of thanks. (Continued on page 6) www.JHUPOLITIK.org

October 24, 2011

Volume VII, Issue V

international report/opinion (Continued from page 5) While the US already rewards allies in the War on Terror with military equipment and government funding, this move may set a precedent for sending American combat troops in return for anti-terrorist operations. The President of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni welcomed the new advisers, but assured his people that, “We have the capacity to fight our own wars.” He prefers that the media call the US advisers “personnel” instead of “troops”, because the latter implies that they will have an offensive objective, rather than one of support. In addition to Museveni’s support, Obama’s unilateral decision to send the troops enjoys the support of right wing members of Congress. Senator Joe Inhofe, (R-OK) a senior member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, said that Obama’s troop commitment “offers hope that the end of the LRA is in sight.” So far, the only major opposition to the move has come from Rush Limbaugh, who accused Obama of sending troops to Africa “to wipe out Christians.” However, upon learning more about the LRA and their actions, the radio commentator ended his criticism of the new operation. This commitment of soldiers holds large implications for the human rights situation in Central Africa. In addition to hopefully dismantling the LRA, this move will show other African militias that the United States will not hesitate to help its African allies. In a rare movement of troops that has not drawn significant attention or criticism, Obama hopes to remove a vicious militia while proving to America’s allies that support in the War on Terror can yield great benefits. s

Unreasonable Search at Leisure: The Case Against Warrantless Police GPS Surveillance by ALEX CLEARFIELD, ’14 Managing Editor

ntoine Jones and Lawrence Maynard, co-owners of a Washington, D.C. nightclub, were arrested in 2005 on counts of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine base. A GPS unit attached to Jones’ car aided the police investigation. Unfortunately for the police, the GPS unit was attached to the car without a warrant; the warrant issued specified that it be attached within ten days of the warrant’s issue, but it was attached 11 days after.

U.S. v. Jones, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on November 8, is shaping up to be a landmark case in Fourth Amendment law. The Fourth Amendment states that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” This is pretty clear language, but this provision was written in a time where transportation was on horseback and search warrants were written with quills. We must judge this case by modern standards and determine the limits of GPS surveillance for what GPS is, not what the Founders may have thought about it. GPS and similar technologies are here to stay, and this case should be the start of meaningful jurisprudence on the subject. There is ongoing conflict between privacy rights and police power that has stretched back for decades. As new technologies become available, it is only natural for the police to take advantage of them in the course of apprehending criminals. Take thermal imaging, for example: police have used it to detect marijuana plants growing under grow lights inside residential homes. The 2001 case Kyllo v. U.S. ruled that this was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as an unreasonable search. This was a correct decision and a bipartisan one, with the majority opinion authored by the conservative Antonin Scalia and joined by the even more conservative Clarence Thomas and three liberal justices. The government’s troubling position in Jones is that the police were not acting unconstitutionally in attaching the GPS unit without a warrant and that being on a public road is not a “private fact” that one can reasonably expect to be protected. The Department of Justice compares this case to U.S. v. Knotts, a 1983 case in which police attached a tracking device to a barrel containing materials used in the making of illegal drugs. In that case, the authorities kept sight of the barrel placed in Knotts’ vehicle for only one trip, not for an entire month. This requires actual work from the police, as opposed to watching a blip on a screen when doing surveillance work via GPS. This may shock you, but a barrel in a car is not a person in a car. The GPS unit in Jones was used to monitor a person’s movements for a month, while the tracking device in Knotts was used to monitor an inanimate object for a few hours. Jones was most recently argued in the D.C. Court of Appeals. Judge Douglas Ginsburg, a conservative, authored the opinion for the three-judge panel of the D.C. Appeals Court. He wrote, “A reasonable person does not (Continued on page 7) www.JHUPOLITIK.org

October 24, 2011

(Continued from page 6)

opinion

expect anyone to monitor and retain a record of every time he drives his car, including his origin, route, destination, and each place he stops and how long he stays there.” The government’s position is quite frankly puzzling. The Fourth Amendment is clear in its language that a warrant must be obtained to perform a search, and the most famous Fourth Amendment case, Mapp vs. Ohio (1961), ruled that any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state and federal courts. The evidence obtained by the police from the GPS data, which very much seems to be in violation of the Amendment, was used in court to help convict Jones and Maynard. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the GPS surveillance is that it was conducted round-the-clock for four weeks; the police were able to sit back and monitor Jones’ vehicle at their leisure. I want to avoid sounding alarmist, but if the Supreme Court finds this to be constitutional, we could be headed down a very slippery slope. Is Jones guilty of drug possession? Yes. Was there probable cause to suspect Jones of illegal activity? It sure appears that way. But this does not mean the police were either correct or acting constitutionally in attaching the GPS unit without a warrant. In their pursuit of Jones, they went too far. Had they gotten another warrant and followed it, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But procedure is procedure, and it is inexcusable that it was not followed. I don’t want the government to know where I am if they do not have permission to and I’m sure you don’t either. It would be a miscarriage of justice for the Supreme Court to decide that the police were “close enough” in their execution of the warrant. What would a warrant mean if the police could just track you anyway? I don’t want to know. s

Checking In On The Governors from New York and Pennsylvania by ROBERT D’ANNIBALE, ’15 Staff Writer

wo years ago, the Republican Party fared pretty well in the midterm elections, particularly due to the growing support of the Tea Party movement. The Republicans took control of the House of Representatives with

Volume VII, Issue V

242 seats and picked up six seats in the senate, although not with enough to gain a majority. In the gubernatorial elections, Republicans picked up six seats as well. While many voters turned towards the Republicans for a positive change, many Democratic candidates have remained positive and fought hard-won battles. New York once again maintained its blue-state status in 2010 gubernatorial election, despite the Republican overhaul. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) faced off with businessman Carl Paladino (R) in a race for the governor’s seat. After the failings of former Governors Elliot Spitzer (D) and David Patterson (D), New Yorkers looked for some sight of hope and change. When Cuomo, son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo (D), declared his candidacy on May 22, 2010, he immediately became the projected winner and ultimately won. Now, with almost a year under his belt as governor, how has Governor Cuomo performed? Between the New York education system and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, the problems have mounted. However, one of his first legislations won him initial support. On June 24 of this year, Governor Cuomo signed the same-sex marriage legislation into law. On one of the proudest days in New York, he remarked, “The other states look to New York for the progressive direction.” In a state where many differ on political and religious issues, the legislation seemed to have support. The Quinnipiac Poll showed that 54% of voters supported the same-sex legislation. Following up with the same-sex legislation, another campaign promise made was to reduce public employee pensions. This has proven more of a challenge. Thomas DiNapoli (D), New York State’s Comptroller, has stated on his website that as of March 31, 2006, “New York State had approximately $48.5 billion of total statefunded debt.” While reports estimated the current debt to be $120 million, the state has been urging the governor to take action. Although current New York employees’ benefits cannot be reduced, Governor Cuomo’s plan would create a new pension tier for newly hired employees. The plan would increase the retirement age to 65 and all employees would have to work twelve years, instead of ten, to qualify for a pension. The plan is estimated to save the city $30 billion over the next thirty years and could most definitely reduce the state’s debt. However, there has been much opposition to the governor’s plan, even though he has threatened to lay off 9,800 state (Continued on page 8) www.JHUPOLITIK.org

October 24, 2011

Volume VII, Issue V

opinion (Continued from page 7) workers if unions do not agree to the budget cuts. Recently, in handling the demands from the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors, Governor Andrew Cuomo has been faced with critical decisions. One of the demands, known as the “millionaire’s tax,” has put the governor with his own political party. It would raise taxes on those earning more than $1 million per year. New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D) has stated that the tax is a “moral imperative.” In contrast, Cuomo opposes the “millionaire’s tax,” declaring that it would “drive out the rich and hurt business.” With New York’s economy on life support, all eyes are on the governor as he tries to sort out budget cuts and job creation. Despite the obstacles he must overcome, Governor Cuomo’s approval

At N.Y. pride parade, joy over gay marriage law with Andrew Cuomo . (SOURCE: Riccardo Choni, http://i-italy.org)

rating stands at 66%, with about 17% who disapprove of the job he has done thus far. In Pennsylvania, with no incumbent running for reelection, the 2010 election seemed to be a highly contested one. Attorney General Tom Corbett (R) ran against Chief Executive Dan Onorato (D) for the governor’s seat. Corbett defeated Onorato with 54% of the vote. The seat, formerly held by Governor Ed Rendell (D), was one of the big pick-ups for the Republican Party. The governor has been tackling issues very similar to those of New York Governor Cuomo, such as an out-of-control budget and a failing educational system. The state of Pennsylvania, which is about $4 million in debt, has faced massive amounts of spending and increasing taxes for the past several years. The newlyelected governor has tried to combat these problems with a decrease in spending and submitting a balanced

budget to the state. Although his proposal has been met with much criticism, Tom Geffers, Chairman of the Monroe Country Republican Committee, said of the governor’s plan, “Spending has been reduced by four percent, amounting to nearly $1 billion. ‘Walking around money,’ or WAMS are gone. Over 1,000 state positions, most of which were vacant, have been eliminated. That’s more money that taxpayers keep.” Although budget cuts seemed imperative, the controversy lies in where the budget cuts have taken place. While the plan increases spending on health and public welfare services, $550 million (about 10% of the total budget) will be cut from instruction in K-12 public schools. Also, there will be a 50% budget cut in spending for the 14 state-owned universities. Jim Buckheit, who is the executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators, has opposed the Governor’s budget cuts in education. “Students cannot put their education on hold while waiting for state revenues to recover. This is no time to turn back the clock,” Buckheit stated. Nevertheless, the Governor has been steadfast in getting his plan fully implemented. While Pennsylvanians have become worrisome over their state’s future, the Governor has stated, “We confront an undeniable reality…The day of reckoning has come.” The Governor’s approval rating stands at a solid 50 percent. While the governors have only been in office for almost a year now, they have fared pretty well. Although it may be too soon to see how each governor’s plans really pan out, both of them have taken action in critical times. As their approval rating seem to be on the rise, it will be interesting to see how this affects the 2012 Presidential election. s