October 2013 Inaugural Edition
No Schools No Dreams No America
And why it’s that simple Interview
Talk with Dr. Nielson Daniel Alvarez
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013
Friends of the Statesman | 2
Friends of The Statesman The Statesman Staff would like to thank the following people and organziations for their help in publishing the inaugural issue: Sponsors Matt Wolfe Sara Weber Think-Tank Supporters
Supporters Alicia & Kevin McConnell John & Claire McConnell
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013
Contents and Staff| 3
CONTENTS 4 | Dear Reader 6 | Removing Politics from Education The urgency of Phiadelphia’s public school debacle - and how to address it
9 | Persepectives: Interview with Dr. Nielsen 12 | The Death Knell of Racial Preference missions
14 | A Chill in US-Russian relations How Syria changes everything
16 18 | The Dangers of a Debt Ceiling
STAFF We represent The Statesman of Penn, the only conservative or right-leaning publication at the University of Pennsylvania. Ben Fogel C’17 Chet Heldman C’17 Joe Kiernan C’17 Aidan McConnell C’16 Nayeli Riano C’17 Liz Sanchez C’17 Donald Sonn C’16 Grayson Sessa W’17 Dillon Weber SEAS’16 Juston Wong C’16 Nicholas A. Zarra CW’16
Content Co-Editor Technology Deputy Relations Deputy Director of Finance Relations Deputy Relations Deputy Layout and Design Editor Content Co-Editor Content Co-Editor Director of Relations Campus Coordinator
Picture Credits: Cover image by Nayeli Riano; pg. 4 image by Donald Sonn; pg.6 image from labornotes.org; pg. 9 image courtesy of Dr. Nielsen; pg.14 image by Pete Souza used under the public domain; pg. 16 image courtsey of Daniel Alvarez; pg. 18 image by Pete Souza used under the public domain
Dear
READER, It is our great pride and pleasure to introduce this
have yet to reach a broad part of the campus. As such, it is pertinent to re-introduce our core goals, our pursuit of which led to this publication. At The Statesman we aim to: 1. Showcase the intellectual nature of the conservative movement on campus. disputes to be debated. 4. Solidify and strengthen relationships with the conservative alumni base. 5. Create an environment where being conservative is an enjoyable, positive experience for all involved. Yet The Statesman is not the usual political publication. Although we use the word “conservative� plan to do so. One need look no further than the current debate over nearly any national issue to see that we are living in period where the idea of conservatism can and should encompass many ideas, policies, and people. On foreign policy, for example, ten years ago neo-conservatism was the base of the vocal conservative movement. Now, it would appear that neo-conservative interventionism shares the stage with the return of conservative traditionalism, pragmatic moderatism, and right-leaning libertarianism. With all of this in mind, conservatism cannot and will not be strictly publication.
inform you that all views expressed in The Statesman are those of the writer and the only view held by the publication is the writer’s right to express such his/her views in a reasonable and respect-
ful manner. We strive to represent and enfranchise all of these conservative views, as long as they follow some important rules of engagement. What are these rules of engagement? In brief, our rules of engagement are based on upon the belief that respect must be shown to each participant in discourse, the writer, the publisher, the reader, and the general populace. Discourse should be aimed at explaining the reasoning and logic behind an opinion, not personal attacks. Moreover, discourse is cisions and greater cohesion. Good taste should be shown to different viewpoints and each individual should feel as if they can express their viewpoint, although quality ideas and supportable opinions are expected. Finally, we at The Statesman believe there is a difference between representing an unpopular viewpoint and being derisive, and will always aim for the former and not accept the latter. This publication is not just the rhetoric exhibited by certain writers, but a relationship between individuals, writers and readers, activists and theorists. Should you agree with an article, we encourage you to get involved and voice your support. Similarly, should you entirely disagree with what it is written, we encourage you to reach out to the individual and explain, in a respectful way your own Over the next few months, The Statesman will not just publish written works or online content (at www.statesmanofpenn.com), but will also be working to become a noticeable presence on campus. working to balance the dialogue on campus. Feel free to reach to out to any member of The Statesman for questions about the publication, or about our beliefs. We are proud of what we stand for and know that others are proud as well; bringing these varied people and viewpoints out into the open for discussion is what we do. Undeniably, we are a growing organization with much uncharted territory ahead; however, we hope that you enjoy this publication and will join us as we grow! Sincerely,
The Statesman Staff
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013
Removing Politics from Education | 7
Removing Politics From Education By Aidan McConnell C’16
P
hiladelphians are told to think of it as “the school district from hell.” The New York Times laments the loss of money and logistical support as the “grim new normal,” as if Philadelits struggling but still viable educational system. The overarching narrative, told again and again by media outlets ranging from the Inquirer to the public relations department of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, is that a right-wing state government led by a governor who despises public education is at fault for playing politics with funds for the city.If there is anything the Philadelphia school debate has taught us, it’s that politics and education do not mix. take a look at underlying policy, it is easy to see a completely different picture of Philadelphia’s
education dilemma and make some sense out of the squabble between Pennsylvania state leaders and city interests. The issue starts at the top of state government—not with Governor Tom Corbett, but with the budgetary situation that rapidly changed at the beginning of his term. federal stimulus money for basic education aid in lieu of state funds, effectively removing a large chunk of education spending from the budget line item. Facing pressure on budgetary fronts such as pensions, a newly elected Governor Corbett elected to follow Rendell’s example by reallocating state funds from education and making up the difference in stimulus provisions. Unfortunately, the Rendell mod-
8 | Removing Politics from Education
funds instead of sustainable state taxation and revenue generation. Philadelphians may be surprised, then, to learn that Corbett has recently assumed a responsible approach for reinvesting lion back into the state budget for basic educabudget, Corbett has increased overall state education spending by $1 billion. Additionally, the Governor can rightly say that his administration is “spending more money on education than at any point in state history” due to the added state payments into the pension system for school employees. Far from revealing Mr. Corbett and his government as a constructed right-leaning conspiracy against the city of Philadelphia, issues like pension contributions illustrate a governor who is tackling a tricky statewide problem But what about the governor’s support for trade and charter schools? What about state Republicans’ dislike for unionized schooling? While it is true that Corbett looks favorably on alternatives to the traditional public school, indicators not ideology, as the motivating factor for altered Philadelphia support. In fact, the majority of the trade and charter school debate seems to be to get a piece of a much smaller pie. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers President Jerry Jordan has sought to portray Corbett as engaging in “deliberate underfunding of education” to defeat the teachers’ union and clear the way for more charter and trade systems. Jordan suggests that the PFT is the primary remedy against the Governor’s “ways to starve public education”—never mind the fact that the Federation is being asked ment and needs to trump up its image to gain leverage. Folks, that’s politics, not policy, and it certainly won’t alleviate the strain on the education system. So, with politicized governance removed, the only other route is a solutions-based ap-
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013 proach. Currently, the most viable bipartisan measure is a proposal initiated by Corbett and state leadership that calls for the extension of a Philadelphia sales tax to provide for education. Supported by Mayor Michael Nutter, the plan has encountered controversy because it diverts money away from the pension fund of city employees. In this particular case, City Council stands in the way of school funding, representing a rehash of all urban crises that leverage generational development to account for long-term obligations. For the sake of Philadelphian sustainability, let’s hope the Council has a change of heart: not only will the tax revamp offer a longterm source of monetary support, but the accrual of local funds will grant the city greater input into the function of a school district that has been ofOther results-oriented suggestions include the sale of now-vacated educational buildings, a policy promoted by Council president Darrell Clarke. According to CBS Philly, Mr. Clarke has a large chunk of the education shortfall while providing opportunities for developers to increase the value of potential city blights. Not to mention the fact that Philadelphia is estimated due to Real Estate Tax delinquency—money that could easily offset education and pension costs if acquired responsibly. Ultimately, in a school district situation that Salon.com describes as “indescribably insane,” there are multiple sane options for reinvigorating Philadelphia education. The key in the struggle for school sustainability is the introduction of responsible thinking that disposes of overtly political language and maneuvering. Once such clarity is made possible, it is easier to see how Governor Corbett can be an ally in the push for a stronger school district. It is easlem-solving should be applied in place of crumbling union-built models. And it is easier to see how, with the right dialogue and strategic action, the city of Philadelphia can ensure a better future for its next generation of leaders.
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013
Persepctives: Interview with Dr. Nielsen | 9
Perspectives: Interview with Dr. Nielsen By Nicholas Zarra CW’16
Dr. Barbara Nielsen: discussions on what became the Common Core took place]. We began to look across the states work quilt. In South Carolina, we were introducing two digit-division in fourth grade, but, in California and Texas, they were introducing it in in third grade. Then, during testing, our kids did not have the background knowledge to perform well. So, when we put the state’s content standards side by side, we saw big gaps both in content introduction and rigor. We then decided to come up with a set of “core standards.”These standards would not tell a state how to deliver the content, because it should be the state’s prerogative. The Common Core is just a simple statement of basic content standards. Essentially, it introduces a bare minimum for content that should be covered for each subject area and grade level. A student must be able to do, to understand and to apply these concepts. There are no suggested materials and states can add additional content standards if they wish. Essentially, it is a simple set of content standards that raises the minimum bar for our schools. Many states then chose to adopt the standard. The Common Core standards do not tell a school or school district how to implement them or what materials to use. For example in English, the [Common Core] standards only state that there Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Gettysburg Address. Those are the only materials we had the Obama election and things changed;
we asked the federal government not to interfere. We never wanted federal government mandates or interference under Bush and we did not want it under the new president, but they did not listen. The U.S. Department of Education came out with requirements [when offering grants] that you had to adopt these requirements, despite the fact that 46 states had already adopted them, and refused to offer waivers. This act hijacked the Common Core and created a good bit of pushback from the states. Nicholas Zarra: What would you want people to know about you before reading an interview with you?
10 | Perspectives: Interview with Dr. Nielson BN: I am an educator, oldest of 7 children. I came up through the ranks as a teacher and administrator: I never thought that I would run for elected done here. I came in as a reformer, as a Republican, and as the second woman in the history of ing to do what was right for kids, because, at the end of the day, I had to be able to look in the mirror and live with myself. I was not always as political as I could have been. [District] Superintendents were very nervous about me because I defeated a man who was there
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013 NZ: How do you believe technology should be incorporated into the classroom? BN: I think schools as we currently know them will not exist in the future. Technology will open up new worlds for students in terms of learning. It cannot just be sitting in front of a computer though. The training of teachers should focus on technology as a tool and teachers should not feel threatened by that fact. I think there is a place for technology in the classroom, and there is going to be a lot more self-directed learning: teachers will be guiding the process of learning rather than just lecturing. They will become facilitators of learning. I am not sure if students will be in school for all of their academic classes either. However, I do think we need to be careful about the potential impact of social isolationism that can arise from increased reliance on technology.
I was going to do what was right for kids ... They saw change coming.
change coming. We brought in technology and downsized the department on the state level. I believe in inclusive input, so I incorporated a lot of teacher input, principal input, and counselor input into the decision-making process. We also concurrently developed very rigorous standards and a school-to-work program that helped further the accessibility of education. NZ: What was the reaction to your election to BN: I think the education superintendent is a little it has the most money of any of the state agencies, which means that it is a huge responsibility. I would not have known what many people felt
I would not have let it bother me. I had a lot of backlash, but it was not from Republicans. It was from some of the educators because the system was so incestuous at the time and I was breaking up that facet of the system. We had cheating on tests. We had people not doing what they were supposed to do and not being held accountable in the school districts. In one district, they were running [private] car repair maintenance shops out of the public bus repair shops. I would say “Why are you doing this?” The reply was always: “This is the way we’ve always done it.”
NZ: What are your thoughts on higher education? BN: higher education. [The big question is:] How do we organize education? I do not know the answer, but there must be a wake-up call. [The catalyst] is going to be economic. I am a big history person, and we need to study history and watch the decline of civilizations. I am not an alarmist, but century and the only thing people will respond to now is economic incentives. We have far too many colleges and universities in this state. Just needs to reinvent itself, and there will be some soul searching [on] the purpose of a university versus a college. Our mission should be balanced at the university level and we need rethink how we can achieve that balance. NZ: Going on to school choice, what do you think is the place [for it]?
Perspectives: Interview with Dr. Nielson | 11
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013 BN: I am in favor of school choice (both public and private). I have three, maybe four, principles: the dollars should follow the child, [school choice] cannot be used to segregate schools, [schools receiving vouchers] must give the same test that the state gives, and the schools must report the information the way other schools do. If the charter schools will not follow those guidelines, then we cannot have them: charter schools would be funded by tax dollars and tax dollars must be used in a way that is both accountable and honest. The good thing about school choice is charter schools can be used to offer different curricula and then child the best. NZ: How do you feel about incentive pay? BN: I do not support incentive pay: all teachers should be paid fairly and be respected for their important task. I also think every teacher should be quality: if they are not, then they should not be teaching in our schools. For example, if you are a great teacher and I am not quite as good as you, there is a clear questioBN: which room do you want your child in? And there is a clear answer. As professionals we need to be accountable for learning. There are fair ways to help teachers and fair ways to dismiss those that are not producing learning. NZ: Philadelphia, Penn’s home, is currently in the midst of an education crisis. What advice would you give to its superintendent of education in order BN: First of all, I think that the schools are too big; I would organize (smaller) schools within a school based on different curricula in order that the children could receive personalized attention. I would hire a fantastic principal, because the building goes as the principal goes. The schools are a mirror of the community, so [school administrators] need to work with other agencies and with the communities to value education. The administrators need to hire quality teachers and cannot keep teachers who will not do their jobs. Those teachers are adversely affecting the lives of the children under their instruction. I know there are union rules and
dismissals need to be fair to the teacher, but we also need to be fair to the students. Schools are about learning - learning for all students. If you have to do so, you take them on because it means that a child that is not learning. NZ: What is causing the roadblocks in government right now? BN: We have lost sight of the purpose of government, and when people are there too long, it becomes [a matter of] keeping the job or control [rather than] doing what is right. Everything is far too political. I do believe in term limits as a solution to this problem. Moreover, I believe that the president also needs to govern, not campaign, all the time. Leadership takes courage. I think using executive orders takes away from the power of Congress and the will of the people. Moreover, I think the press also contributes to the political stalemate. The press seems to be taking sides on issues: this is not reporting facts for people to make their own decisions, which is the purpose of a free press. NZ: BN: I am a conservative. I also think we cannot be single issue. I think the Republican philosmany very different philosophies of governing. I believe in less federal government and that federal government has grown far too big. [Most importantly,] I believe in my philosophy as I deNZ: What do you think Romney did wrong? BN: Things should have been done differently. Romney should have been stronger in the last two debates and should have directly gone after Obama. Moreover, he needed to be a little warmer when it came to presenting himself. Unfortunately, in today’s world, people seem to vote on personality instead of on who will be a good leader. Principles should matter, but if you cannot relate to people, you cannot win. [People] vote on the warmth.
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013
12 | The Death Knell of Racial Preference
The Death Knell of Racial Preference By Dillan Weber C’16
In a country which so often and so eloquently demands the equality of every individual under law and in public it is simply wrong to have a system which not only discriminates based on race but also fails to produce positive results. Without a doubt racial preferences in university admission is a controversial and oft-debated topic. As the Supreme Court will once again be taking on a case regarding racial preferences in the summer of 2014 with Schuette v. Coalition to Defend AfThe most frequently voiced argument against the use of racial preference in university admissions, that it violates the fourteenth amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, is the one which clearly makes the strongest case. Regardless of one’s opinion on white privilege, white guilt, reparations, or systematic racism, there is no denying that treating one student’s application as better than another’s purely on the basis of race is discrimination. Race as a tie-breaker for admissions was often seen as the answer to sides, and so was presented as a non-discriminatory way to boost minority attendance at universities. The idea of race as a tie-breaker, however, is a façade created by universities to appease the courts and the fourteenth amendment. Thomas Espenshade, Joan Walling, and Chang Chung of Princeton University studied the admissions data of applicants to elite universities (Ivy’s and peers) and translated the effects of racial preference to an illustrative scale—SAT scores. The professors found that racial preferences at elite universities went well beyond simply breaking ties between (used before the current point system was introduced), Black applicants had the equivalent of ed with an advantage of 185 SAT points over their White counterparts. Most illuminating however, was that Asian-American students were actually
at a disadvantage; marking Asian on an applicaViewed in the light of this data, racial preferences are clearly discriminatory against Asian-American applicants and (to a lesser extent) White applicants. Further evidence of the strength of racial preferences at universities was brought to light in the oft-cited University of Michigan case Gratz v. Bollinger, in which the Supreme Court ruled the University’s system of admissions was unconstitutional. The system assigned point values to certain characteristics of applicants and an applicant who gained enough points would be accepted. Despite claims that racial preference should only points to applicants from an underrepresented acceptance (Cornell Law). The Supreme Court felt this was too much weight to assign to race in an applicant and that a points system was too systematic and so made it unlawful. Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear the University largely ignored the court’s decision, as according to data compiled by the Center for Equal Opportunity using the University’s admissions statistics, racial preferences actually increased at the University in the years following the Gratz decision—at least until Michigan voters banned the practice in a state While the stark realities of the strength of
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013
The Death Knell of Racial Preference | 13
racial preference are often enough to convince individuals of the need to end their use in admissions, some advocates of racial preference tory practice outweigh the cost of such inequality. The stigmatism and personal insult of a preference system, however, should not be viewed as a
credit to students who earn strong grades despite socioeconomic obstacles, they should implement a system of socioeconomic preference, not racial preference. To use socioeconomics as an excuse for racial preference is to confuse two entirely different obstacles and make judgments about applicants based on prejudiced assumptions rather than realities. In the end, no student should ever in college admissions paints every minority stu- have to question whether his accomplishments dent at a university which uses racial preferences with a broad brush, and no one wants to feel at the school he attended and racial preferences who attends an institution of higher learning de- student population. serves the respect and dignity that comes with Unfortunately, the harm racial preference knowing it was her achievements and abilities which earned an acceptance letter, not an acci- yond the potential psychological damage. The dent of race. The same is true of the opposite; problem of Mismatch, detailed at length in the
knowing it was her achieve
Students It’s Intended to Help and Why Universities Won’t Admit It� by authors Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. may make the most convincing case of all for ending racial preferences in universities. Based on extensive studies of reams of data, the authors show minority students accepted to schools with strong racial preferences tend to have poor academic credentials and lower graduation rates, potentially because racial preferences result in students attending schools they are not academically prepared for. Their research also shows that the assumed added bene-
she was passed over for students with stronger credentials, not because her skin was the wrong color. Finally, lowering the bar for minority students is a tacit admission that the universities adhere to racist stereotypes of academic inferiority. Clearly, universities feel minority students are not as capable of academic success as their white counterparts. While any university administrator will sternly deny this, citing higher rates of poverty and poor school systems among minority communities, they are then digging themselves deeper into the hole. Such an argument requires stereotyping all minority students as coming from poor or broken families in tough neighborhoods and all White and Asian students as coming from dice and plain wrong. If universities wish to give
not outweigh the negative impact on grades and achievement while in school, leading to poorer job placement and lower lifetime earnings. The authors also show how racial preferences are leading to a dearth of minority presence in the math and sciences, as well as fewer minorities with higher level degrees. Institutions with strong racial preferences end up with much higher rates of attrition from these degree programs among minorities despite a greater percentage of minority students who initially express interest in studying the subjects. ies by Messrs. Sander and Taylor. The previously cited study at the University of Michigan by the CEO, again conducted at a time when the University was using strong racial preferences in admissions, showed Blacks and Hispanics were on aca-
institution of higher learn ing deserves the respect and
14 | A Chill in US-Russian Relations demic probation at rates greater than twice that of Whites, and that Black students’ GPAs were sigthe 75th percentile for Black students below the Clearly, minority students accepted to institutions for which they are not academically prepared for are being put at a severe disadvantage in terms of academics and employment prospects. Such blatant exploitation on the part of universities is plain wrong. Accepting students into a university on the promise of improved opportunity university knows (or at least has reason to suspect based on past statistics) those students will be unable to cope with the rigors of the coursework. Such a system is exploitation, amounting to universities funneling minority students in their
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013 doors to tout a diverse student population without regard to whether those students will have any chance of being successful at the university. Certainly, some students are able to catch up, but the data show the vast majority do not and instead end up crippled with debt and potentially without a degree. The system of racial preferences which is prevalent throughout higher education in the United States today needs to end. The Supreme Court should further this goal with their ruling this summer by allowing states to individually outlaw racial preferences at public universities. As has become obvious in recent national politics, the ability of a few states to set laws for themselves can create a domino effect, leading to the eventual end of discriminatory practices in admissions
A Chill in US-Russian Relations By Justin Wong C’16 In his remarkably prescient “Long Teledicted that dealing with Soviet communism would be “undoubtedly [the] greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably greatest it will ever have to face.” In the decade or so following the toppling of the Soviet regime, it certainly seemed that the United States had accomplished this task. However, in the past decade, with the emergence of an aggressive Russia, Kennan’s analysis has again proven to be relevant. Although no longer a communist state, Russia’s current deteriorating relations with the United States and her allies bear many similarities to the` state of affairs on which Kennan was reporting in 1946. First of all, the apparatus of the Soviet police state has largely survived the breakup of the Soviet Union. Although somewhat suppressed during Mr. Gorbachev’s presidency, with Vladimir Putin’s rise, they have once again become the power players of the Russian state. Mr. Putin cronies in his inner circle. In fact, almost a quarter of upper level bureaucrats are siloviki, trans-
lated approximately as “power-guys” – men who policed the police state, so to speak. These men are loyal to Putin and have preserved the power structures of the Soviet Union, along with a massive distrust of the West. That was, after all, their job under the Soviet state, and they failed by letting the Soviet Union collapse. As a result, they have not shied away from the use of force to suppress “western elements” in their society. This brings us to one of Kennan’s most memorable lines: “impervious to the logic of reason while highly sensitive to the logic of force.”
A Chill in US-Russian Relations | 15
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013 In dealing with what they see as progressive and “western,” they have been undoubtedly illogical and brutal. loviki who had betrayed the brotherhood and had dared to criticize Mr. Putin’s policies was poisoned in a Central London restaurant. This blatant disregard for international borders hearkens back to Cold War relations between the West and Russia. Secondly, Russia’s courting of countries opposed to the United States is reminiscent of the state of affairs during the Cold War. Kennan warns in his telegram: Russians will strive energetically to develop Sony, Argentina, Middle Eastern countries, ... These countries are currently China, Syria, and Iran, and included many Arab countries before the Arab Spring toppled governments traditionally opposed to the West. The recent foreign policy cribetween Russia and the United States. Russia has sold billions of dollars to arms to the Syrian government since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War in an attempt to prevent the toppling of the regime, the promotion of a US backed regime. To that end, they view intervention by the United States as a direct affront to its mission of building relationships with Western-opposed countries. There is also the matter of ideology. No longer communism, but the preservation of repressive regimes. If Mr. Putin and his inner circle were to stand by and allow Syria’s repressive government to topple, their own livelihood and internal power would be threatened, in an already fragile domestic environment racked by protest. It is in Russia’s interest to install and preserve regimes similar in outlook that will work together to undermine American ideology of the Cold War has merely been replaced with the ideology of repression and control. Russia’s actions during UN sessions are also reminiscent of its Cold War efforts to hinder
the goals of the United States and her allies. In the Long Telegram, Kennan explains Russia’s goals as a member of the UN:
-
devotion to UNO ideals. Throughout the course of the Syria crisis, Russia has behaved the same way. Mr. Putin, addressing the UN, and in his opinion editorial for the New York Times repeatedly calls upon humanitarian ideals. He invokes international law, laid down in the United Nations Charter to criticize US intervention. He calls for an end to the language of force. This is ironic, considering Russia’s show of force in London and in Chechnya. However, as Kennan observes, these are but empty words. Moscow has no real devotion to the mission of the UN, but is using the United Nations only as a tool to advance its interests. Finally, Russia’s recent offer of political asylum to Edward Snowden is reminiscent of its support of political agitators in the United States during the Cold War. Again, Kennan’s words apply:“Democratic-progressive” elements abroad are to be utilized to maximum to bring pressure to bear on capitalist governments along lines agreeable to Soviet interests. Russia has used Snowden to snub the United States, portraying itself as a protector of human rights. At the same time it has also pointed to American hypocrisy in criticizing Russia’s human rights record. Again, Russia does not have any real devotion to human rights and principles but is using the Snowden incident to challenge the United States. Although US-Russia relations have come a long way from the Cold War; we are after all no longer in an arms race, in the recent decade with the reemergence of the Siloviki and the presidency of Putin, there has been a distinct chill in US-Russia relations. As in 1946, when Kennan wrote his telegram, we are in a time of transition, from friends and allies to competitors on the world stage. Let Syria be a warning.
16 | Profile: Daniel Alvarez
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013
By Grayson Sessa W’17 Alvarez. In his pursuit to be the next District Attorney for Philadelphia, Alvarez has hit every corner of the city, even the most dangerous and drug-ridden ones. He is a new type of politician – although “father” may be a better descriptor than “politician” – who seeks to represent the people from an ofconsidered a longshot Republican candidate in a deeply blue city, Alvarez now has a real chance of unseating the current District Attorney Seth Williams. Although he is no average politician, Alvarez has the experience needed to make his time as District Attorney productive. Alvarez worked as an assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia as soon as he graduabuses occurring there. He freely explains how “ofbe an attorney, start a family, and be a good dad. His father used to always say: “There are two types of people – there are personally ambitious people, then there are people who are ambitious for their children – people who are ambitious for their children, you be one of them.” He had no intention of running for powho sold it as an “opportunity to make a difference [and] the right thing to do.” After thinking and praying on it, Alvarez decided to take on the challenge. Regardless of the outcome of the November election, the Republican is glad he had this opportunity to meet the great people of Philadelphia and gain a better understanding of some of the deplorable living conditions in the city. Still, winning the election and bringing a breath of according to him, that breath of fresh air is desperleft due to corruption and a system based on connections and favors rather than merit. In fact, the unfairness arising from political connections is emblematic of Alvarez’s basic campaign promise: to do away with the “high hats” that run the city – or at least keep them in check. In Alvarez’s
mind, the race comes down to three central tenets: misuse of taxpayer dollars, not enough being done to combat public corruption, and the terrible circle Just how extreme the misuse of dollars is is still unclear, but Danny Alvarez has some estimates. After speaking to current DAs still working in the ee Enrichment,” essentially a party planner, earnthe median household salary in Philadelphia is just on the payroll who complete no legitimate work. Because Alvarez’s requests for salary information have so far been denied the true extent of such excess is unknown, although Alvarez believes it is widespread. He also points out that every dollar spent on these positions are dollars that do not go to prosecuting criminals in Philadelphia. “Political leaders must spend less time at the Union League, more time on the street” is a frequent refrain. Even more frightening may be the potential public corruption. Recently, the FBI executed a search ently because of an audit from the city comptroller that exposed money going missing. Because
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013
points out, he could have at any point looked into the misappropriation of funds. Alvarez recognizes that letting federal agents deal with our city’s corruption is not good enough: “If we allow the federal government to do it…only one person gets caught out of resources” whereas it is a “deterrent of corruption if the DA gets involved.”
Alvarez’s campaign promises dove-tail because he points out that “every dime wasted in corruption is later converted to a bullet out on our streets.” It is one of his most pressing goals to take the illegal guns off the streets of Philadelphia. Still, he says the Obama administration’s attempt at reforms after the Newtown shooting would be “moving in the wrong direction [because they] restrict law-abiding good people imate reasons, which are to protect themselves and their families.” He says, “Moving in the right direction is increasing those penalties [for possessing illegal guns]” because they account for the majority of shootings. Alvarez could not be any clearer: “If you’re get it out of your hands.” eral have an “amazingly powerful tool” – the grand jury – that can be used to combat public corruption. Over the past seven years in high-level city positions, Williams has yet to use this tool even once – Alvarez would begin to change that. He admits this proposthe corruption: “Yes, you’ll have no friends, but that’s not the job. Scorch the earth of all public corruption.” He says that because he is “not looking for a future in politics, [only] looking for a future for my kids” he has “no problem using the grand jury on all levels of government.” His concerns here do not stem from his days as an assistant district attorney as much as from being a father of two kids. The dollars being lost
Profile: Daniel Alvarez | 17 “could be used for public safety or schools [which are] legitimately, totally broke and it’s because it was leached by people supposed to be stewards.” Although the issues seem to be on his side, the campaign has not been smooth sailing for Althink we ain’t got a shot” but I still “give it my all everyday and have faith that’s going to change.” He feels fortunate though that the “overwhelming majority of voters are open-minded” and that because he speaks Spanish he can “go to Puerto Rican and Hispanic neighborhoods that don’t feel represented” and show them that he represents all people. His strategy is based on grassroots word-of-mouth. He says, “For every person that you shake their hand and listen to them and give them an honest answer, they tell their friends and realize that I’m not a politician and don’t know how to slap backs and tell them a bunch of lies.” He also goes to as many community meetings and civic associations as possible – sometimes even spur of the moment. In early September, he drove ily car with handbills, lawn signs, and a bull horn” as he always does and conducted an impromptu town hall on a woman’s front porch. As he spoke to the crowd of about thirty, everyone could see the drug dealers and corner boys standing across the street trying to intimidate the group, but Alvarez made clear: “We’re not intimidated.” McCann says that he now hosts “a segment called ‘Dan on the Street’ where me, and my team go into neighborhoods where shootings have recently occurred and talk to the neighbors about crime and corruption.” The Alvarez campaign team is not afraid to take an honest look at Philadelphia, and that may be what is necessary to take back the city. Moving forward Alvarez hopes that the Reblue areas by refocusing on “what it means to be a Republican”: “inclusive, based on the Constitution, [and] the party of Lincoln.” The party needs to teach the same lesson his janitor mother and plumber father taught him: you “can do whatever with hard work and a strong faith in God.” With his commitment to being a different sort of politician, Alvarez just may be able to win enough votes to he says, “It is unacceptable to accept the status quo when the status quo is unacceptable.”
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013
18 | The Dangers of the Debt Ceiling
The Dangers of the Debt Ceiling By Benjamin Fogel C’16 eral government will have accumulated $16.699 trillion in outstanding debt. sides the United States owing its creditors the largStates. As the U.S.’s external debt once again nears its borrowing limit, the renewed debate has spawned new questions about American monetary policy and the mere existence of a debt limit. Congress has already shown its immaturity and irresponsibility by allowing budget sequestration to be implemented. In light of this, control over the debt ceiling is too great of a power, a weapon, and a risk, for our government to yield. debt-ceiling crisis which led to record low congressional approval ratings, volatile markets, and a downgrade of America’s credit rating, congressioreduction to tax reform as part of a deal that would raise the debt ceiling. The White House, on the other hand, remains adamant that it will not have another debt-ceiling debate and wants to shift the burden of raising the debt limit onto Republicans in Congress. In a September interview, President Obama vowed that he would not even participate in debt ceiling negotiations stating, “What I haven't been willing to negotiate, and I will not negotiate, is on the debt ceiling” of having a debt ceiling make sense? Yes. The debt ceiling as it is currently structured had the potential to be a cogent roadblock in our political system that would force a dialogue among conservatives, liberals and independents on our keep us sane and grounded. Like a medical “time-out” process which forces health care providers to stop and think before a procedure is performed, the debt ceiling was supposed to force our politicians to do the same
thing with our money, refusing to continue to road. debt-ceiling debacle was disastrous and the adverse effects of it, which are still felt today, happened when Congress was “successful” and did reach a deal. It’s a sad statement on our government’s modus operandi that the federal debt limit has turned into nothing more than a political football, held hostage by both parties to score cheap political points and advance their own agendas. Our debt should not be used as leverage by our leaders in a political battle to protect So, should we have the debt ceiling law as currently written? No. Congress has already proven that self-imposed safeguards against reckless spending do not work. The sequester, which was intended to be so ludicrous and painful that it would engender a national debate and force Congress to come together in a bipartisan fashion to save the day, has already gone into effect despite Congress’s attempt to avoid it. This is just further evidence that the debt ceiling, while a rare opportunity for the U.S. government to be proactive and not reactive as well cal disaster, is nothing more than a ticking time-
The Statesman of Penn Oct 2013 bomb at the heart of our political structure. An IGM Forum survey among our nation’s leading economists conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business revealed that 84% of the nation’s economists “agree” or “strongly agree” that “Because all federal spending must be approved by both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch, a separate debt ceiling that has to be increased periodically creates unneeded unAngus Deaton of Princeton, who strongly agreed, stated: “It does indeed provide some break on long-term spending, but there has to be a The debt ceiling’s greatest merit is that it has
It’s a sad statement on our government’s modus operandi that the feder into nothing more than the potential to force a national debate on our govtops $16.7 trillion. But history has proven that the debt ceiling will not lead to reigning in spending. ceiling 78 times, an average of more than once a that the debt ceiling has sincerely prevented Congress from running a large debt. While we desperately need a solution that would impose a national debate about how to deal with spending and control our reckless habit, the law, as written, is not in our best interests. So what is a possible solution to this dilemma? First, let us take a look at the root of the problem. If we can prevent the necessity for the Treasury department to pay off these obligations, we do not have to worry about needing to continue to raise a debt ceiling. The time to eliminate debt is before the federal government spends the money,
The Dangers of the Debt Ceiling | 19 debt would not only eliminate the necessity for having a debt ceiling and subsequent debates about its limits but is also the most direct and Instead of maintaining a limit on our national debt, which will prevent the Treasury Department from paying its obligations and cause a U.S. default, a direct limit should be instituted on our national budget, preventing the federal government from simply spending money we do not have. This new limit would prevent the approval of a budget that exceeds spending beyond a certain amount of US revenue or beyond a certain point in the debt-to-GDP ratio. This new limit could be passed in a less strict form of a national balanced-budget amendment, preventing federal authorities from spending money we surely do not have, while allowing allocation of funds for national emergencies, in times of This new limit would impose a spending restriction on Congress that would not allow it to spend more than the predetermined limit - set by either a certain amount of money higher than US total revenue or debt-to-GDP ratio. While this plan is far from perfect, it would at least force a dialogue in Congress about the proper appropriations of our money. The issue dreds of billions of dollars as our debt approaches $17 trillion. While we surely cannot undo the spending of years pasts or simply eliminate our of years prior by ensuring we start spending money responsibly in the coming years. If we can balance the budget and reconsider our curcit and shift our focus to the future and paying off the debt. Physically imposing spending restrictions on Congress would not only force a national dialogue on our spending habits, but begin to put sponsibility and allow the U.S. to gradually work towards a balanced budget.
The Statesman of Penn Visit StatesmanofPenn.com