The Statesman, April-May 2014

April/May 2014 Volume I Edition 4

A Look at Arizona’s Controversial SB1062 Bill

Dear Reader,

Staff Campus Coordination Joe Kiernan C’17 Nicholas A. Zarra C/W’16 Content Ben Fogel C’17 Matt Nickaj C/W’14 Grayson Sessa W’17 Dillon Weber SEAS’16 Design and Layout Donald Sonn C’16 Finance Aidan McConnell C’16 Praneeth Tripuraneni C’17 Relations Chet Heldman C’17 Nayeli Riano C’17 Liz Sanchez C’17 Justin Wong C’16 Technology Alexander George SEAS’17 The Statesman is a student-run publication at the University of Pennsylvania. Our opinions are of our writers, and do not represent those of the University or of our donors. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without written permission is strictly prohibited. For inquiries, requests, and submissions, reach us at: statesmanofpenn@gmail.com 02 - April/May 2014

As we emerge from a grueling winter, we can reflect upon rhetoric once uttered by President Ronald Reagan. He articulated, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

President Reagan’s words illustrate the fundamental fear of government that runs amok over civil liberties and property rights, all while sacrificing efficiency and effectiveness for patronage. This prescient observation underscores the continuing theme of The Statesman this semester: “Trust in Government.” Considering the questions raised by this broad inquiry, we seek to answer why and where government fails and how it can work better for the American people.

In this issue, we explore topics including state education, foreign affairs, and civil liberties. We begin our analysis with a discussion closer to home concerning Pennsylvania education policy. Tackling this issue, Joe Kiernan (pg 4) highlights the challenges that impede progress in public education and provides solutions to reinforce Pennsylvanians’

faith in their state government.

Can we trust the government to safeguard our rights? Moving from Pennsylvania to Arizona, Julia Hintlian (pg 13) dissects the controversial SB 1062 which allows for the denial of business services to gays and lesbians based on the religious beliefs of the business owner.

On a broader scale, the role of the United States in world affairs is fundamental to understanding whether we trust our government to make the rights judgment calls in situations that often involve the global balance of power. Addressing the provision of U.S. foreign aid, Dillon Weber provides a stalwart defense of foreign aid (pg 18) in the interest of the U.S. government. In opposition, McKenna Klein articulates a scathing rebuke of U.S. financing of foreign affairs in lieu of domestic sources.

In this age of uncertain roles, uncertain consequences, and uncertain expectations, how can we create trust in our institutions of power? Can we trust government or should we put our confidence elsewhere? What do you think?

Sincerely, The Statesman Staff

Content

April/May 2014 4

Feature Article

Our Greatest Investment?

Building a Better Public Education System Joe Kiernan A comprehensive overview of the Pennsylvania public school system, especially its shortcomings, as well as a way to turn things around.

13

17

18

National Spotlight

Arizona: Can You Say Libertarian?

Feature Article, pg 4

Julia Hintlian As conservative and religious Republicans attempt to maintain anti-gay stances in an ever-liberalizing society, the libertarian wing of the Republican Party may be able to provide a roadmap to a pragmatic approach to the issue.

Call for Conservatism

Old Advice from an Old Whig

Ben Fogel Why warnings from one of Conservatism’s oldest forebearers need to be heeded today.

National Spotlight, pg 13

For and Against

Foreign Aid

McKenna Klein, Dillon Weber Our two writers debate the merits and flaws of American foreign aid.

For and Against, pg 18

Cover Art by Donald Sonn

April/May 2014 - 03

Our Greatest Building a Better Public Education System.

By Joe Kiernan

I

t is tragic that our public education has become defined by overcrowded classrooms, overstressed teachers, and overstretched budgets: this is the state of public education system across much of our Commonwealth. Some districts are thriving, and some schools are stellar, but far too many are struggling and are under-serving their students. Prospective Democratic candidates have seized the issue of education as a scathing rhetorical weapon to use against Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett. As one of the foremost gubernatorial contenders, York County Democrat Tom Wolf has flooded the airwaves with criticism of Governor Corbett’s education policy. Mr. Wolf ’s website vociferously accuses the Governor Corbett of “destroying public education” and supporting “failed education policies.” Following the much publicized conflict over Philadelphia schools, Mr. Wolf ’s words easily evoke images of shuttered classrooms and penny-pinching teachers. Who’s to blame for these systemic failures? Republicans? Democrats?

Teacher unions? What has the system been doing wrong? What has it been doing right? As with most crucial policy challenges, the answers to these questions are complex and far less partisan than they might appear.

Additionally, they will need to be addressed regardless of whom is living in the Governor’s Mansion next year.

The state is facing four fundamental challenges: (1) the Philadelphia school crisis, (2) the education budget, (3) higher education commitments, and (4) opposition to change. There are a wide variety of proposed solutions to these problems, but I aim to highlight some of the more innovative choices. If the Commonwealth is willing to engage in substantive dialogue and broad-based reform, we can revolutionize Pennsylvania schools.

04 - April/May 2014

Investment?

Teachers union strike in Chicago in 2012

FEATURE ARTICLE

Our Greatest Investment Policy Report Card So how are we doing now? Every year, Education Week compiles a comprehensive national report card called “Chance for Success,” which details six areas of education performance and policy. The 2014 national average was 77.3 or a C+.

Massachusetts, leading the country, was the only state to receive higher than a B+ (pulling in an A- with a score of 91.4.) Pennsylvania, ranked 13th nationally, received a B, with a score of 82.6. Pennsylvania ranked low in “Incentives & Allocation,” with a D-, and in “College Readiness,” also with a D-. Interestingly, among its highest categories were “Early Foundations”, “Equity”, and “Economy and Workforce.” This does not particularly support Tom Wolf ’s criticisms, or his overall theme of a state failing its students. States like California, Texas, and Florida rank far below Pennsylvania and all have at least one failing grade. According to Education Week, the most important factor in state rankings is “The School Years”, outweighing the “Early Foundations” and “Adult Outcomes” categories.

Pennsylvania is doing well, though admittedly not extremely well, by national standards. However, just because the Commonwealth isn’t failing does not mean that substantive education reform is unnecessary.

Philadelphia Public Schools – A Call to Arms It is imprudent to put too much faith in averages, because not all schools are created equal and not all schools are providing equally good education opportunities for 06 - April/May 2014

“The state of the Pennsylvania school system is unacceptable... a D- “Incentives and Allocation” and D- in “College Readiness.” their students. Nowhere has this realization been more egregiously apparent than in the Philadelphia public school system, which has garnered national attention due to catastrophic funding shortfalls.

The Philadelphia school debacle is a serious issue because it is jeopardizing the futures of tens of thousands of Philadelphia students. It involves a variety of pressures that have systematically crippled the ability of the district to provide adequate education. To fully understand the breadth and calamity of the problem, it is necessary to transcend the political mudslinging.

Partisan websites such as “Fund Philly Schools,” which slam Corbett for cuts, make the same accounting error concerning the ARRA. This site claims that “Gov. Corbett expanded tax breaks for corporations and the energy industry while cutting $1 billion from public schools.” Not only does this ignore the decreases in collected tax revenue due to the

Recession, but also fails to account for the ARRA or the fact that in the FY2011 budget, “Basic Education Funding,” the largest chunk of the Commonwealth’s funds devoted to public schools, was increased (if federal funding is not counted.) There is an expectation that any funding lapses in Philadelphia schools are only Harrisburg’s fault, and the fact of the matter is that this is simply not true.

According to the district’s FY2013-14 Budget, there is actually a substantial increase in state funding between the FY2012-13 estimate and FY2013-14 projection amounting to around $30 million. Conversely, the district is receiving major reductions in funding from the federal government.

In the FY2012-13 estimate, the district received $411 million from the federal government which is projected to drop precipitously to $276 million in the FY2013-14 predictions. Out of the grand total, there is a $401 million reduction from FY201213 to FY2013-14. However, this

state and federal aid, the future of the Philadelphia school system is dire indeed.

It’s a numbers Education Budget

Pennsylvania State Capitol is almost entirely due to the loss of federal funding and deficit spending in the FY2012-13 cycle. Shockingly, there are $51 million in delinquent real estate taxes. $51 million is no small sum when such deep cuts are being sustained and this should be recognized by the Philadelphia community.

The state of the Philadelphia school system is unacceptable. To bridge the deficits, an enormous $304 million cut will be enacted in the FY2014 budget. However, once again, the real problem is far more subtle than a disinterested state government or falling tax revenues.

The Pennsylvania School Employee’s Retirement System (PSERS) is set by the state government and is nondiscretionary for the city’s schools. In fact, its budget share has spiked from 4.76% to 16.93% in FY2014. This is the hidden cost that is eating away at the integrity of the budget. Furthermore, costs from charter schools are a source of further fiscal obligation for

the district. Debt service and charter schools now constitute 42% of the district expenditures in addition to increased healthcare spending due to pressure from unions.

The Philadelphia district is only able to spend a meager 52% of its budget on the core district schools.

These should be prioritized, but with the budget numbers, they simply can’t be. Just as Medicare spending is an astronomically-high and growing federal entitlement, many of the district’s expenses have to be fulfilled, with deficit funds or appropriated teachers’ salaries. Since FY2010, average teachers’ salaries have jumped from a bit below $65,000 to around $73,000. This is a huge increase considering the extreme fiscal state of the district and the natural decrease in tax revenues, locally and statewide, due to the Recession.

Teachers unions seem ignorant of the economic realities faced by the district. Between rising benefit costs, union demands, and reductions in

game:

PA’s

In his Fiscal Year 2015 Executive Budget, Governor Corbett appropriates $11,601,289,000 from the state General Fund to public education. The majority of this sum, $5.53 billion, is appropriated to K-12 education, primarily in the form of the “Ready to Learn Block Grants.” How much impact does this $11.6 billion have on the state of the education system?

The Philadelphia City School District receives almost half of its funding from Harrisburg, while wealthier districts receive far less. In addition to block grants, the state supports a number of other programs including schooling for disabled students and enrichment programs.

However, the nature of these block grants does little to improve local schools other than to infuse raw capital. There are non-monetary changes that could be made to assist struggling districts and provide students with more opportunities.

Sticking to fiscal matters, however, the Governor’s past budgets have drawn extensive criticism. He has been painted as an enemy of public education, undermining traditional core district schools in favor of charter schools and attempting to force self-sufficiency upon districts rather than allowing for more state funding. The details behind the state budget are far more complex.

Critics of Governor Corbett point to the large reduction in education April/May 2014 - 07

FEATURE ARTICLE

Our Greatest Investment

Annual PA Budget Changes

Percent Change

Total Budget

*Note: the 2011-12 Budget was the first of the Corbett Administration; the 2013-14 Budget represents Available funds; the 2014-15 Budget is the Governor’s Executive Budget and is subject to change

Education Budget

Fiscal Years spending between the FY2010 (Rendell) and FY2011 (Corbett) budgets as evidence of the Governor’s slashing of education funding. There was a 9.2% reduction in total General Fund education spending between the FY2010 and FY2011 budgets. Where did these reductions come from?

Well, there was actually an increase in state-funded education spending.

The reductions were primarily caused by the loss of around $1 billion in Stimulus Package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA) funds allocated to education.

The only reason that there was not a staggering 18% cut in BEF (Basic Education Funding) was because Corbett’s FY2011 budget increased the state contributions to BEF by $400 million, tempering the cut to a 08 - April/May 2014

7% rather than 18% reduction. So, in fact, Governor Corbett increased state-funded education spending by 13% in FY2011, if one accounts for the loss of ARRA funds.

The PA Department of Education’s “ARRA Overview and Reporting” specifically says to “invest one-time ARRA funds thoughtfully to minimize the ‘funding cliff ’.”

Taking this into account, there is no case to say the BEF was cut drastically and indiscriminately by the Corbett Administration. This is not to say that there were not extensive, selective cuts throughout the budget for education: Lifelong Learning, Reimbursement of Charter Schools, elementary science programs, Higher Education Assistance and School Improvement Grants were

entirely defunded. However, these primary and secondary education cuts, considering the vast discrepancy due to ARRA exhaustion throughout the budget were extremely modest.

Then where did the 9.2% reduction originate? The answer is state-supported universities. Tertiary education faced the most severe cuts.

Penn State saw a massive 31.8% cut in state funding while the University of Pittsburgh, Temple University, and Lincoln University faced 19% cuts each. Once again, the exhaustion of ARRA funding made an impact, but the cuts were far beyond that rather minimal $15 million reduction. The real education spending reductions were not the sacrosanct Basic Education grants which support numerous public schools, university

grants. The issue of university assistance remains a key talking-point in the Commonwealth’s education discussion as seen with recent moves to modify the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE).

A Case Study in Unwise Fiscal Policy – the PGSE Cuts There is an intriguing financial fact that not only shifts some of the blame for state reductions in education spending, but raises larger issues about what constitutes a worthwhile state program. In the Governor’s most recent executive budget, $350,000 is appropriated to the Pennsylvania Governor’s Schools of Excellence. The reason the sum is so low and that there are only three programs left is not due to Corbett’s budget cuts, but to former Governor Ed Rendell.

In the past, the Pennsylvania Governor’s Schools of Academic Excellence were crowning jewels of the state’s secondary education network. These programs, providing a five-week, free summer program for the Commonwealth’s top students incorporated diverse subjects such as education, international studies, global entrepreneurship, the arts, and more. They were hosted at universities across the state.

It was Democratic Governor Ed Rendell, not Corbett, who effectively gutted these programs. Now, only three are functioning due to an infusion of private capital after the cessation of state funding in the FY2010 state budget. Ironically and tragically, the education-focused PGSE program was one of the casualties of the Rendell cuts. Depriving the state’s

top students from engaging deeply in education is a surefire method for deterring such talented youth from becoming great Pennsylvania teachers in the future. These programs are not only an investment in the state’s top students, but they expose students to life at some of Pennsylvania’s best colleges. The full PGSE program cost the state about $2.5 million. The savings from its elimination were but a drop in the fiscal bucket for the state. If people are concerned about a statewide brain drain of talent, they should direct at least some of their frustration towards Governor Rendell and his elimination of the PGSEs. The PGSE cuts are a tragic loss, but pale in comparison to the danger faced by the state’s largest school district.

State Higher Education – A Crucial Investment State-funded universities are under threat. It was universities that faced the most dramatic budgetary cuts in the FY2011 budget. The fiscal situations of the Commonwealth’s higher education system has become a popular topic as tuitions rise and aid is cut. Reformation of this system has gained recent attention as well.

State Senators Robert Tomlinson (R-District 6) and Andrew Dinniman (D-District 19) introduced Senate Bill 1275, which amends the Public School Code of 1949 to enable members of the PASSHE (the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education) to transfer out of the system. Although this proposed legislation may appear to be a minor, technical change, it is hugely significant for Pennsylvania’s education infrastructure.

The

14-member PASSHE includes a number of small colleges such as Millersville University and Lock Haven University among others.

The goal of the bill is to fiscally and administratively liberate these colleges from the PASSHE system based upon a variety of prerequisites that are outlined more in-depth in the bill itself. The reasoning behind SB 1275 is that certain universities (such as West Chester University) are financially successful, but are prevented from reinvesting that capital internally because it is used to support less financially successful members of the PASSHE. While this bill may be a boon for the more well-off schools, it could be a serious blow to the less fiscally secure institutions. Some Democrats have complained that in lieu of addressing budget cuts sustained under the Corbett administration, SB 1275 will redirect these funding gaps onto students. The potential effect of the bill is to deconstruct the PASSHE network, which would create more institutions like Penn State and Pitt—which are semiautonomous— and break down the system of fiscal pooling. This is not the intent of the PASSHE is somewhat different from the Commonwealth’s flagship institutions in that it was intended to provide for an economical academic opportunity for Pennsylvania’s residents. In fact, more than 100,000 students attend these universities and the majority tend to stay in Pennsylvania. PASSHE needs reform and investment, but breaking up the system in this manner is not the solution. If Harrisburg wishes to keep more talent in-state, it should look to April/May 2014 - 09

FEATURE ARTICLE

Our Greatest Investment

“The system can seek to prioritize, economize, and diversify to provide more educational opportunities for students across the Commonwealth and ensure that they can attend great schools.” supporting these universities more.

Perhaps structural reform would be a better method for solving funding gaps than cutting off the money flow to less successful colleges.

The Special Interests Fight Back: The PASA Paper In 2011, the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators (PASA) compiled a comprehensive white paper, entitled “Educational Efficiency in Pennsylvania.” The document provides a counterargument to criticisms of the current public school arrangement throughout the Commonwealth. It attempts to parry attacks, both from the 10 - April/May 2014

Left and from the Right, concerning inefficiencies and disparities. It begins by stating “Many people, including political leaders, editorial writers, think tank “experts”, taxpayers, and bloggers, believe the [Pennsylvania public education] system is inefficient, bureaucratic, top-heavy, and staffed with too many administrators.” It pushes back against county-wide district models implemented in states such as Maryland and North Carolina and provides answers to four major questions regarding the state education system.

The PASA report notes that Pennsylvania has a “low rate of state support” for its public schools. Since 2007, this number has fluctuated around 36% of aggregated public

education funding. PASA states that having five-hundred independent school districts does not impact property taxes, but rather impacts the state’s low level of support. However, according to the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative think-tank, the real cause of this comparatively low level of support is the increase, since the height of state support in the 1970s, in property tax revenues.

Interestingly, the level of fiscal commitment from Harrisburg has actually increased. PASA suggests shifting funding from the local to state levels to be in-line with some of the aforementioned states would allow for a reduction of $2.6 billion in property taxes.

Unfortunately, this would only rob Peter to pay Paul. Excise

taxes, which would take the place of property tax funding in this case, are far more regressive than the current tax system as they disproportionately affect poorer consumers.

Furthermore, this centralization of funding is not attached with any major reform caveats, nor does PASA push for any substantive internal changes to improve the system.

The PASA white paper, apart from defending the current educational bureaucracy, contends that district consolidation would not markedly help Pennsylvania students. It asks, “Would our students get better results if we had fewer districts? They already do.” This is not a constructive perspective on public education. Yes, Pennsylvania students score better than the national average in math and reading. Yes, Pennsylvania students tend to perform better than their peers on grade level examinations.

This should not be a sign for the state to sit on its laurels. Pennsylvania is far from first in many of these key indicator categories. Relative success does not mean that more ambitious goals to improve the system should be set aside or forgotten. Furthermore, the PASA report completely ignores the incredible academic achievements of schools in Maryland and Northern Virginia, where consolidated districts are the norm.

The PASA report is obsessed with averages, many of which ignore the schools in the state that are facing real difficulties. Unfortunately, just as many of Pennsylvania’s schools perform better than the national average, many are failing. The report argues that Pennsylvania does not have too many school districts and uses average math and reading scores as evidence. Its

narrow scope is indicative of its weakness.

Larger districts have a number of significant benefits.

They allow for pooling of resources, protect schools from localized downturns, reduce dependence on a sometimes capricious state government for annual aid, provide for the establishment of specialized magnet schools such as New Jersey’s Bergen County Academies, maintain control locally in school boards rather than in Harrisburg, and give students access to a wider range of resources. The state of our schools is simply not good enough, nor ever will be, to justify complacency.

Solutions for our Future

Education is not an issue that can be solved with a single policy panacea; it will take a variety of creative tactics to meliorate public education.

Pennsylvania needs comprehensive reform across the board. Improving education involves a slew of innovations, improvements, and commitments, fiscal and political.

However, funding is a crucial, and particularly difficult part of the challenges faced by Pennsylvania.

The state should be responsible to help support struggling school districts. However, cuts should affect all appropriations across the board, not merely extinguish smaller programs and leave BEF untouched.

The Governor’s Schools and other unique opportunities can only be provided by the state. Faltering districts should receive more than a check, their new state aid should be attached with important reforms to establish fiscal solvency and achieve more efficiency, as well as

making the least painful budgetary reductions. Cutting state aid is not the solution. Neither is leaving the organization status quo, and infusing billions more in capital. The system can seek to prioritize, economize, and diversify to provide more educational opportunities for students across the Commonwealth and ensure that they can attend great schools.

Fewer Districts, More Opportunities Pennsylvania has too many districts and they are too small. In total, the Commonwealth has sixtyseven counties with five-hundred school districts containing in excess of 3,000 public schools. These five hundred districts are responsible for raising revenues to pay for the majority of their schools’ expenses.

Each of these districts is also a separate taxing authority and thus, statewide, there is great discrepancy in enrollment figures. The ShanksvilleStonycreek School District in Somerset County has an enrolment of 375 while Central Bucks School District in Bucks County has 19,814.

Consolidating smaller school districts to establish regional systems would allow for administrative streamlining and resource sharing. In Virginia, the county-based school systems, especially Fairfax, are able to provide exemplary education to tens of thousands of students, while also offering magnet school opportunities such as the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, a specialized governor’s school.

Philadelphia also illustrates another benefit of large districts: flexibility.

Most small school districts could not April/May 2014 - 11

LOCAL FOCUS

Our Greatest Investment close 24 schools and relocate students throughout the system. Most districts only have one high school. If severe budgetary problems arise, resources cannot be pooled and prioritized; cuts occur and they hit hard. Some of the state’s poorest communities are small cities and towns, which cannot garner the same amount of media attention as the nation’s fifth largest city.

Recommitting to Higher Education The Commonwealth’s public higher education is an asset and an investment in the future of the state’s economy. The provision of low tuition, high quality tertiary educational opportunities not only encourages students to stay in-state, but can catalyze economic growth by developing human capital. State College is a hotbed of innovation and economic activity. There is no reason that we cannot push for more centers of technological progress right here in the Keystone State. Obviously, this will require more funding. Many on the right have pushed for more dissociation between state schools and state education funding and policy.

However, breaking up PASSHE is unwise because it forsakes many of the state’s institutions to save a few.

Creating dynamic partnerships with Pennsylvania industry is a phenomenal way to shore up public colleges.

Local corporations, needing an ever-more skilled labor force, should recognize the benefit of the state universities in crafting this force.

Business should look at education, not as a tax hole, but as an investment.

Providing grants and scholarships, 12 - April/May 2014

working with government to subsidize lower tuition, and creating opportunities for hands-on experience are all excellent ways that the private and public sectors can come together to support state higher education.

are far less populated than they were fifty years ago, and others are far more populated. Districts must be mutable, dynamic entities that can respond to changing demographic and socioeconomic environments, not bureaucracy-laden monoliths.

Overcoming the Special Interests More flexibility, less concern for special interests, and responsible It seems ridiculous that teachers fiscal measures will certainly allow unions in Philadelphia would demand school districts to better adapt. higher compensation when the district is in such a dire fiscal state. A duty and a dream Cuts should be absorbed across the board. Unfortunately, regulations and Some of Mr. Wolf ’s quotes unions have effectively safeguarded do have a resounding quality. “All teacher pay and benefits from any schoolchildren in the Commonwealth sort of reform. The administrators should have access to a worldin Philadelphia have their hands tied class education.” Pennsylvania is a because since they cannot reduce wonderful, diverse, and proud state benefits or negotiate temporary pay and its public schools should reflect reductions with employees, cuts hit the belief of its citizens in its public the district’s schools in the form of education system: primary, secondary, reduced staff and lowering operating and tertiary. Pennsylvanians need to budgets. Philadelphia’s problems are remember that the state of schools twofold: funding and structure. More in Philadelphia and the quality of money will be needed, in the short education in Tioga County are term, to ensure that Philadelphia equally important. Nonpartisan, students are receiving the education wide-reaching reform is an essential to which they are entitled. The state ingredient in the formula for better will have to step in for funding education in the Commonwealth. infusions, and the city needs to The multitude of education issues will commit to collecting the $51 million need to be tackled regardless of who delinquent school taxes. Long-term, is living in the Governor’s Mansion choices will also be tough. There will next year. Pennsylvania shouldn’t be be fewer schools and less programs, fighting to save its public education but spreading the burden more widely system from failure and it should be will help to prevent the catastrophic striving to make this system the best situation faced right now. The PASA in the country. This is clearly a lofty, report highlighted the exact type of idealistic, and perhaps unrealistic goal impediment presented by such interest because Pennsylvania is far from articulation groups. Opposition to the wealthiest state and far from the progress negatively impacts students smallest. However, almost 13 million because it prevents districts from people in this state are counting on adapting. Many areas of the state Harrisburg to fight for that dream.

NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT

Arizona, Can You Say Libertarian?

Arizona, Can You Say Libertarian?

Arizona govenor Jan Brewer vetoes SB 1062

Arizona’s SB 1062 bill and the future of Republican response to progressive views on sexuality

By Julia Hintlian April/May 2014 - 13

NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT

Arizona, Can You Say Libertarian?

Supporters of SB 1062 protest for the right to religious freedom

O

are compelling from both those in support of and also those against the bill, precisely because both sides evoke traditional “American” values and rights to support their causes.

Supporters of SB 1062, including its prime sponsor, Senator Steve Yarbrough, have argued that it “is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith.” Republicans who supported SB 1062 saw it as a religious freedom bill, protecting the constitutional rights of Americans and Arizona residents to live their faith anywhere, anytime—including Support and Opposition in the work place. In addition, Controversy over SB 1062 has Arizona already has another act been widespread, and the arguments in place, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, which is n February 26, 2014, the Republican governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, vetoed SB 1062, a bill that passed in both houses of the Arizona Legislature and would have given Arizona business owners the ability to deny services to gays and lesbians on account of the owner’s religious faith. The ever-increasing societal acceptance and normalization of gay rights challenges many factions within the Republican Party. A libertarian response provides the best approach to addressing this issue in Arizona and nationwide.

14 - April/May 2014

recognized in 26 other states and by the federal government) that guarantees that citizens do not have to abide by any law that significantly burdens their religious beliefs.

Theoretically, this act would allow business owners to reject the business of gays and lesbians if they believe that offering their services burdens their belief systems. In 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that New Mexico’s version of the RFRA law only applies in cases in which the government is involved, and consequently, supporters of the SB 1062 bill in Arizona argued that their bill simply extended the RFRA law to cover cases between two private parties.

Opponents of SB 1062 had several compelling arguments

Opponents of SB 1062 believed that it would perpetuate sexual discrimination

against its passage. First, opponents claimed that this was an inherently discriminatory bill.

In addition, there was concern over how business owners would actually prove they were rejecting service based on religious belief as opposed to simple dislike of homosexuality.

Furthermore, there was fear that if business owners could reject gay/lesbian clients based on sexual orientation, what/who else could they reject? How far could business owners stretch the idea of a religious burden? Finally, Jan Brewer was concerned that SB 1062 did not “address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona,” and that it was, “broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.”

Media sources, activist groups,

government officials, and the general public continue to bicker over whether SB 1062 was a bill that protected religious freedom or a bill to discriminate against homosexuality. However, the fact of the matter is that SB 1062 has been tabled, and while Republicans like Yarbrough could theoretically go back to the drawing board and rework this bill, there has been enough outcry and media attention against it that they probably won’t.

So, if SB 1062 isn’t coming back, why is it still significant?

light the overarching struggle of how conservative citizens should behave in a society where perceptions of gay rights are changing. This is a national issue that is bigger, more significant, and longer term than the status of one legislative statute in Arizona.

When Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062, she was criticized by members of her own party, some of whom labeled her a traitor. Brewer was accused of submitting to national GOP pressure to appear more moderate at the price of local Republican beliefs being upheld and enforced. Some SB 1062 supporters also claimed that Brewer The Overarching Struggle and was more worried about the tourism How to Respond industry in Arizona than she was about the interests of her own constituents The very existence of SB 1062 (some name brands, such as the NFL, is important because it brings to the threatened to leave Arizona if the bill April/May 2014 - 15

NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT

Arizona, Can You Say Libertarianism?

Arizona capitol building was passed).

However, Brewer’s concern over unintended negative consequences seems legitimate. Supporters of gay rights in Arizona (and nationally) aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. In the past several years, laws supporting expansion and recognition of gay rights have only become more abundant (or passed with greater frequency). LGBT advocacy groups are strong enough to make passing a bill like SB 1062 almost impossible.

So what is the appropriate conservative response?

Most conservatives I know have a libertarian streak. What does that mean? Libertarians strive to live in a society with minimal governmental intervention and few opportunities for anyone to impose beliefs, rules, and regulations on other people’s lives. We call that freedom. Rather 16 -April/May 2014

than arguing over a bill like SB 1062, Republicans and citizens who don’t want to acknowledge the legitimacy of a gay lifestyle would do better to come up with a pragmatic and even-handed solution to the issue.

For example in Arizona, perhaps encouraging a non-profit group to draw up and distribute a list of business owners who do support working with gay patrons would relieve the pressure on those with faith-based concerns. If a solution like this were put into effect, the choice would really be an economic one: those business owners who aren’t on the list can decide whether or not their religious beliefs are more important than their cash flow. A positive solution promotes compromise and leaves neither business owners nor homosexuals feeling discriminated against.

National opposition to gay rights certainly has not disappeared and probably never will. In the whole history of known civilization, until the last fifteen or twenty years, gay marriage was unimaginable.

However, trends do seem to indicate that Americans and Republicans are becoming generally more accepting of gay rights. The Pew Research Institute reports that 61 percent of young Republicans favor same-sex marriage, and in addition, 59 percent of samesex marriage opponents say that legal recognition of same-sex marriage is inevitable. If the pragmatic libertarian arm can convince the rest of the Republican Party of the validity of their position, Republicans may have a real opportunity to stop the trend of using government to enforce social precepts that are by no means universally accepted.

CALL FOR CONSERVATISM

Old Advice from an Old Whig

B

orn in Dublin, Ireland in 1729, Edmund Burke would go on to become a man many consider to be the forefather of modern conservatism.

In his early career, Burke was a prolific writer and he eventually became a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons in the winter of 1765, quickly soaring to prominence. After delivering his first speech, William Pitt the Elder (who would soon become the Prime Minister of Great Britain) remarked that Burke’s words were “spoken in such a manner as to stop the mouths of all Europe.”

Burke fought valiantly in attempting to curb the unrestrained executive power of the king and worked to install constitutional limits on the royal authority. To Burke, protecting the populace from unjustified abuses and tyranny was about more than just limiting the power of the monarchy.

As laid out in his “Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents,” Burke believed that the size of the state directly affected the rights and protection of the people. The larger the state, the larger the probability of corruption and exploitation.

In opposition to the expansion of the power of the House of Commons in…” 1771, Burke wrote, “The greater the power the more dangerous the abuse.” This cautionary observation is even more relevant today. Burke’s warning against the dangers of allowing a body to wield such great power should resonate with the 21st

Why warnings from one of Conservatism’s oldest forebearers need to be heeded today.

By Ben Fogel

century citizen and the suitability of the remarks are twofold. First, as a society, we have willingly and unwillingly surrendered many of our personal and private rights and civil liberties to our governments and to large corporations like Google and Verizon. The damning revelations regarding the massive data-collection enterprise of the National Security Agency (NSA), warrantless tracking of individuals committed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and private sector infringements on personal privacy should only frighten us and serve as a reminder of the potential dangers of possessing such great power.

Second, as we are witnessing around the world and within the United States, an unfettered and unchecked government and private sector have led to economic inefficiency, political stalemate, defective and destructive administration, the greatest global financial crisis in over half a century, and a corrosive way of thinking.

Without checks on power, we are doomed to fail. The media, which Burke hoped would serve as

“a fourth Estate” vital to a working democracy, has largely failed to serve as an adequate check on power.

The ultimate check on power is the people, and only the people can act to limit the powers of the dominant.

There is but one solution to solving this problem: unity and consensus. As a society, we must come together and reconcile our differences in order to work for societal common good. “It’s important to return to the roots of conservatism, focusing on philosophical fundamentals. The wisdom and insight provided by Burke, though hundreds of years old, remains suitable and meaningful to this day. While we live in a hyperpolarized world, the advice of this man should resonate with people who fall everywhere and anywhere on the ideological spectrum of politics.

Rallying around such wise input, all Americans can find common ground and work together for the benefit of the country. As Burke noted, “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

April/May 2014 - 17

A

decade ago, Bono - lead singer of the rock band U2 - gave the commencement address to the graduating class at Penn. In it, he called the needless suffering and death by preventable diseases and starvation in Africa the great moral blind spot of our generation. He then called Penn students to act, challenging that if we truly believed all humans were created equal under God, there was simply no way we could ignore the suffering in Africa despite having the means to prevent it.

The United States does what it can to fight such causes with funding for programs like the Global Health Initiative ($8.1 billion) to fight diseases such as AIDS and malaria. The Humanitarian Assistance Program ($4.8 billion) also goes to helping people around the world who, without such aid, would almost certainly die.

While, as a conservative, I am all for cutting deficits and paying down our debts, there are simply other sources of funding which can be cut that will not have such direct and negative consequences on the lives of millions. The State Department’s budget makes up about 1% of the federal government’s annual expenditures, and only a portion of that goes to foreign aid and humanitarian causes. In terms of effectively cutting deficits, we can hardly make much headway here.

Cutting foreign aid is not only detrimental because it all but ensures the suffering and death of people around the globe, it also pulls focus

YES

Is Foreign Aid

away from the issue of deficit reduction of the long-term drivers of our debt (like entitlement spending). We could cut the entire State Department budget for the next century, but if we don’t reform Social Security and Medicare, it wouldn’t make one bit of difference: we would still go broke.

As Bono pointed out in his commencement speech, subSaharan Africa, and the continent in general, has rapidly become a new training ground for terrorist cells.

Recent events like the mall shooting in Nigeria only serve to reinforce this point. Knowing this, it seems obvious that building goodwill within these countries is not only commendable because it saves lives and gives us stronger diplomatic clout, it also serves national security interests. So foreign aid money is really killing several birds with a single stone. In contrast, there are numerous examples of other programs (like the multitude of job-training programs) which overlap with each other, taking multiple stones and tossing them all at the same bird.

Let’s trim budgets, but let’s do it in a manner which has the least overall impact on human welfare and the greatest potential for

Foreign aid is critical to many people around the world

By Dillon Weber

budgetary savings now and in the future. Cutting foreign aid today will save us a few billion dollars each year, certainly not something to shake at; but in return we will lose diplomatic clout, the respect of many different countries and leverage on others, and we will sentence thousands to miserable and yet preventable death.

Necessary?

F

oreign aid has been ingrained in the fabric of US foreign policy for roughly the last hundred years, but now, more than ever, it is the time to write a new chapter of diplomacy without aid. Quite frankly, foreign aid is a flawed appendage of international politics. American taxpayers deserve to have their hard-earned money directed to more productive programs instead of the current system that adds to our already tight budget and fosters corruption and inefficiency.

To begin, foreign aid is a very costly expenditure, especially as our nation deals with budgetary constraints. It is one of the few programs that can be cut to help get our finances in order. According to USAID, in FY 2014, foreign aid accrued an allowance of about $48 billion. Proponents of foreign aid claim that this number is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. Yet, that figure translates to an additional 6.9 million disadvantaged Americans that could greatly benefit from enrolling in Medicaid, among other things. Sure, $48 billion may appear to be miniscule in a budget that runs in the trillions of dollars, but it is a significant number to Americans in need of assistance. We must take care of our people before we become concerned with others abroad.

Without a doubt, withdrawal of funds will not be an easy position to take, especially with our closest allies (like Israel). Sen. Rand Paul (RKy.) sums it up best when he says, “We can’t just borrow from our kids’ future and give it to countries even if they are our friends.” Does a country such as Brazil, with the seventh largest GDP and a relatively strong economy, really warrant over $800 million in US foreign aid?

Furthermore, it is very discouraging, especially to American taxpayers, when the federal government gives financial assistance

NO

to countries that own our debt. In 2010, the Congressional Research Service found that China and Russia received $27.2 million and $71.5 million, respectively.

Ironically, China and Russia own a combined $1.2 trillion in US Treasury Bonds.

Unfortunately, this one of several examples of misallocation of foreign aid.

More importantly, foreign aid hinders free-market principles from propelling countries to the forefront in the globalized economy by keeping capital in the hands of corrupted officials and elites. Interestingly, a group called Transparency International calculates corruption through its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), with a score of 100 being least corrupt. With that in mind, aid recipients like Afghanistan and Sudan get $2.3 billion and $513 million, respectively, and yet they have ranked at the bottom of the CPI, with scores of 8 and 13.

Sadly, with these egregiously low numbers, it can be expected that the people of these countries are not receiving the financial assistance needed to alleviate their situations.

Ultimately, the American people deserve much more accountability when it comes to the handling of their hard earned tax dollars. The appropriation of such money towards foreign aid is insulting, especially when those funds could be directed toward struggling people in this country. The foreign aid budget must be slashed for the betterment of the American people and our friends abroad.

Foreign aid is wasteful and money is better spent elsewhere

By McKenna Klein

- Dillon Weber Content Director

champion the beacon for Penn conservatism we would like to personally thank the following people and institutions for making this issue of The Statesman possible:

Mary DeChristopher Dr. Barbara Nielsen Sara Weber Matt Wolfe Michael Cibik Joe & Jamie Kiernan Mr. & Mrs. James E. Maurey Alicia & Kevin McConnell John & Clare McConnell Matt and Michele Weber Rob Wonderling