WUPR Issue 16.2 by Washington University Political Review

Washington University

Political Review 16.2 | Feburary 2012 | wupr.org

Healthcare Reform: This Might Hurt

In Their Own Words

“I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections.” —Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who has given $10 million to a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich and has offered as much as $100 million. photo by Union20 | Wikimedia Commons

“I really believe we’re in such a strong position that, frankly, Iran should drop to their knees and make a deal with us.” —Donald Trump, criticizing President Obama’s foreign policy.

“Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good. We take your jobs!” —Chinese girl in Michigan Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra’s controversial Super Bowl ad.

“As I was looking at some of the really industrial-size locks, I was thinking about the fact that I am the father of two girls who are soon to be in high school and it might come in handy to have these super-locks.” —President Barack Obama, at the Master Lock plant in Milwaukee, WI.

“I don’t care how bad I do politically. I’m not going on ‘Dancing With the Stars.’” —Republican candidate Mitt Romney, regarding postelection plans in the event of a loss.

“I was the perfect candidate.” —Michele Bachmann, on her failed Republican presidential nomination bid.

Editors’ Notes WUPRites, Political discourse surrounding the issue of healthcare—the partisan mudslinging and ideological rigidity—often masks some fundamental questions. Is universal healthcare a universal right? Should the provision of healthcare services be distributed via the public or the private sector? How can we design a healthcare system that is equitable, efficient, and affordable? As with education, access to healthcare is a precondition for equality of opportunity. In other words, if we want to do more than pay lip service to the ideal of the American Dream, healthcare for all Americans is a necessity. And, consequently, healthcare should be given a special status among the wide array of goods distributed in the United States. Unlike with access to movies, cars, or watches, it is not clear that individuals should have their access to healthcare limited by their inability to pay. Many argue that healthcare ought to be distributed uniquely according to need. Others prefer a hybrid mechanism for distribution that straddles a free market and needs-based approach. However you come down on the issue of healthcare, one thing is clear. Our current system is failing. And the legislation passed by the Obama administration in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), marks a huge swing—or perhaps, more accurately, the intention of a huge swing—toward equity. Although the PPACA, for some, appears to be a futile half-measure at best and a billion-dollar boondoggle at worst, it still represents the most significant healthcare reform initiative since the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. But as the Supreme Court case set to rule on the constitutionality of the elements of the PPACA looms nearer, it remains an open question whether the healthcare pendulum will swing back toward free market ideals. Although the constitutionality of the individual mandate is ostensibly the issue on the table, it may be a technicality, a question of “severability,” that decides the fate of healthcare reform. At 17.7% of GDP, our healthcare costs rank the most expensive in the global economy, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected that over time, the “cost disease of the service sector” will only worsen. The CBO has scored universal healthcare and predicted huge cost savings that are likely associated with universal preventative care and the elimination of insurance overhead costs. Given spiraling costs and the potential benefits of retaining the new healthcare legislation, we hope that those who staunchly oppose the PPACA have in mind a viable alternative.

Sincerely, Hannah Shaffer Corey Donahue Editors-in-Chief

Table of Contents National 5

The Social Media Lobby Arrives Nicolas Hinsch

Stephen Colbert’s Newest Target: Super PACs Joey Berk

Should Education be a Privilege? Kim Gaspar

Department of Miseducation Lennox Mark

Feeding Frenzy Andrew Luskin

Libertarian Loopholes Stephen Rubino

Healthcare Timeline Nicolas Hinsch

Judgment Day Jay Evans

Democracy is Dead Jared Turkus 27 Obama’s Keystone Headache Will Dobbs-Allsopp

Primary Care Lacking, Patients Feel the Pain Alex Bluestone By All Means Necessary Trevor Leuzinger & Taka Yamaguchi

If I Only Had Healthcare... Jenna Stempel

Healthcare Reform: This Might Hurt

International 29

Sea: The Penultimate Frontier Sonya Schoenberger

Why the West Shouldn’t Take a Harder Stance on Iran Arian Jadbabaie

Operation Fast and Furious Mariana Oliver

Burma, on a Mission Gabe Rubin

The European Union: The Broken Convergence Machine Nahuel Fefer

Who’s Got Control? Anna Applebaum Dance Marathon and Car Accidents: All in the Name of the “Float” Razi Safi Operation Seth Einbinder

Staff List Editors-in-Chief Corey Donahue Hannah Shaffer Executive Director Bryan Baird Programming Director Cici Coquillette Staff Editors Anna Applebaum Peter Birke Nick Hinsch Siddharth Krishnan Director of New Media Taka Yamaguchi Treasurer Will Dobbs-Allsopp Directors of Design Stephanie Trimboli Audrey Westcott Layout Team Mitch Atkin Ismael Fofana Charlotte Jeffries Beenish Qayam Henry Osman Emily Santos Art Coordinator Audrey Westcott Managing Copy Editor Stephen Rubino Copy Editors Kelsey Berkowitz Abby Kerfoot Moira Moynihan Molly Prothero Celia Rozanski Sonya Schoenberger Katie Stillman

Staff Writers Joey Berk Alex Bluestone Michael Cohen Matt Curtis Neel Desai Seth Einbinder Jay Evans Nahuel Fefer Kim Gaspar Arian Jabdabaie Alex Kaufman Abby Kerfoot Kevin Kieselbach Mike Kovacs Raja Krishna Ben Lash Trevor Leuzinger Martin Lockman Andrew Luskin Lennox Mark Fahim Masoud Molly McGregor Zach Moskowitz Moira Moynihan Mariana Oliver Daniel Rubin Gabe Rubin Stephen Rubino Razi Safi Sonya Schoenberger Shelby Tarkenton Jared Turkus Megan Zielinski Front Cover Illustration Grace Preston

Dara Katzenstein David Maupin Michelle Nahmad Karly Nelson Grace Preston Hannah Shaffer Alex Vitti Audrey Westcott Board of Advisors Dean Ewan Harrison Political Science Department Robin Hattori Gephardt Institute for Public Service Professor Bill Lowry Political Science Department Professor Andrew Rehfeld Political Science Department Unless otherwise noted, all images are from MCT Campus. The Washington University Political Review is a student-led organization committed to encouraging and fostering awareness of political issues on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis. To do this, we shall remain dedicated to providing friendly and open avenues of discussion and debate both written and oral on the campus for any and all political ideas, regardless of the leanings of those ideas.

Back Cover Illustration Elizabeth Beier Editorial Illustrators Mitch Atkin Laura Beckman Elizabeth Beier David Brennan Kate Cohen Esther Hamburger

Submissions editor@wupr.org

National By The Numbers 28%

25%

President Obama’s proposed corporate tax rate, down from its current level of 35%.

Mitt Romney’s proposed corporate tax rate.

42-33

Vote to pass gay marriage in the New Jersey Assembly.

The maximum number of weeks that the jobless will be able to collect unemployment benefits for in 2012, down from 99.

$17,000,000 $6,500,000 Amount raised in January by a pair of super PACS, Restore Our Future, which supports Mitt Romney and Winning Our Future, which supports Newt Gingrich.

Amount raised by Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign during the past month.

$5,500,000

98%

Amount raised in the past month by Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign.

Proportion of sexually experienced Catholic women of child-bearing age who have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives.

national

The Social Media Lobby Arrives Nicolas Hinsch

fter spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying for tough new legislation to combat online piracy, the entertainment industry could practically smell victory. Two bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) in the Senate, had been drafted and introduced with bipartisan support and were marching uneventfully towards passing. The votes would be quiet and uncontroversial, escaping the attention of the nightly newscasts and newspaper headlines. But all

newspaper, website, and TV broadcast, exactly where the entertainment industry least wanted it. The reaction from Capitol Hill was swift, as numerous representatives and senators from both parties withdrew their support and the bills were pronounced dead. The stunning turnaround revealed the content creation industry to be fundamentally weak; unlike the energy industry, which wields threats of higher prices to draw voters to its side, the media industry’s concerns have little

The internet industry showed that when backed into a corner, it can unleash millions of its users against its adversaries, making it one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. of a sudden, something extraordinary happened: the social media lobby took a political wrecking ball to the bills, smashing the industry’s carefully laid plans in a single day. Since online piracy emerged in the late 1990s, it has grown to massive proportions. According to industry estimates, only 37% of downloaded music is paid for, and a quarter of internet bandwidth worldwide is devoted to pirating content. Subsequently, the recording industry alone has seen a 53% reduction in revenues in the past decade, leading it to eliminate tens of thousands of jobs. The situation has left the industry desperate for any kind of solution. SOPA and PIPA took aim at websites that host pirated content, allowing copyright holders to obtain court orders blacklisting such sites. Advertisers would be required to withdraw from blacklisted sites, search engines would be required to delist them, and most controversially, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would be required to block access to them. By shifting the legal burden of policing pirated content onto websites rather than requiring copyright holders to demand its removal, the bills presented a serious threat to emerging social media sites that depend on users to upload content but are not be able to cover the costs of policing it. It also set a dangerous precedent for the future: if the United States were allowed to block a website for hosting pirated content, what other rationales could be used in the future? The situation appeared to be just another flare-up in the perpetual tensions between the technology industry and the content creation industry, which have been bickering since the advent of the VCR. While protest simmered across the internet throughout the winter, nothing indicated that the nascent social media lobby had the power to turn back the bills’ progress. All of this changed on January 18. Popular websites Wikipedia and Reddit temporarily blacked out in protest of SOPA and PIPA, and were joined by thousands of others. Google obscured its iconic logo with a black box, equating SOPA to censorship. The resulting storm of news coverage landed the story at the top of every single

relevance to the everyday lives of mainstream Americans. The legislators therefore had little to worry about when they abandoned SOPA and PIPA in droves. Perhaps more importantly, the social media sector united around a policy objective for the first time, and in doing so revealed enormous clout. Many special interests use social media tools and online advertising to shape public opinion. Yet for the first time, the social media services themselves flexed their muscles on a large scale and were able to achieve powerful results. The internet industry proved that when backed into a corner, it could unleash millions of its users against its adversaries, making it one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. While SOPA and PIPA were bad bills and deserved to be defeated, it is concerning that social media networks have accumulated so much ability to influence public opinion. As a spokesperson for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) wrote in an email to The Boston Globe, “It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users and arm them with misinformation.” Whether the sites’ interpretation of SOPA was misinformation is debatable, but that their presentation was skewed is beyond doubt, lending credence to the RIAA’s concerns. The battle over online piracy is far from over. The content industry will regroup and begin lobbying anew for anti-piracy legislation. But this time, it will tread much more carefully, having seen how the social media lobby can wield its own tools to powerfully shape the nation’s perceptions.

Nicolas Hinsch is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at nhinsch@wustl.edu.

national

Stephen Colbert’s Newest Target Joey Berk | Illustration by Kate Cohen

sk any college student to name the most iconic political commentators today and comedian Stephen Colbert will surely be on that list. As the host of “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central, Colbert has been putting a satirical and comedic spin on national politics since the show’s launch in 2005. Colbert has developed an extremely loyal fan base, known collectively as the “Colbert Nation.” The enthusiasm of these fans across the country has enabled Colbert to participate in political activities far beyond the reach of the standard comedian. In 2006, Colbert asked his fans to vote in an online contest to have a Hungarian bridge named after him, winning with over 17 million votes. In 2008, he declared his candidacy for President of the United States, attempting to gather enough

much is being donated. Furthermore, there are almost no restrictions regarding how this money may be spent. The only significant rule is that super PACs may not coordinate with any candidates and must act completely independently of any campaign. In March of 2011 Colbert announced the creation of his own super PAC entitled “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.” Although it was not immediately apparent what the function of this new super PAC would be, there was speculation that it was just a joke, or even invalid. Yet since receiving formal approval the following June from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Colbert has demonstrated time and time again that he intends to use his super PAC to educate the public on the absurdity of the new campaign finance laws.

super PAC, they would not violate the noncoordination clause. Ironically, Colbert and Stewart had no need to coordinate as they were both knowledgeable of each other’s agendas; Colbert because he was the previous owner of the super PAC and Stewart because Colbert was announcing the details of his campaign to the public. Nevertheless, this was not considered a violation of interests and no rules had been broken. Following the initial transfer of the super PAC, Colbert and Stewart continued to expose loopholes in the campaign finance laws. For instance, Trevor Potter was hired both by Colbert to serve as the official lawyer of Colbert’s campaign and by Stewart to serve as the official lawyer of the super PAC. This too did not technically violate any rules, although it seems suspiciously close to co-

Colbert has demonstrated time and time again that he intends to use his super PAC to educate the public on the absurdity of the new campaign finance laws. signatures to appear on the ballot in multiple states. Then, in 2010, after the US speedskating team lost a major sponsor and ran short on funds, Colbert reached out to Colbert Nation and raised over $300,000. This earned him a trip to the Olympics as “team psychologist.” Colbert has a new target in 2012: super PACs. According to Colbert, the political stakes have changed - real political influence these days comes from super PACs. Political action committees (PACs) have been around for a long time and have been responsible for raising money to support presidential and congressional candidates. Their popularity and usage spiked in the 1970s and ‘80s. However, the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, initiated the effective removal of all restrictions on PACs and opened the door to the creation of today’s super PACs. At their most basic level, new deregulated super PACs can accept unlimited donations from independent sources and are not required to disclose any information regarding who is donating and how

In his most recent stunt, Colbert announced he would be running for “The President of the United States of South Carolina.” The process revealed the inevitable conflict of “non-coordination issues” between campaigns and their super PACs. When he announced his run, Colbert was required to relinquish ownership of the super PAC to another party to avoid legally coordinating with himself. To conform, he transferred ownership to longtime friend and business partner Jon Stewart who hosts “The Daily Show,” also on Comedy Central. The obvious problem with this is that Colbert and Stewart are not only business partners but also close friends, frequently in contact and even appearing on each other’s programs. This would seemingly violate the non-coordination rule required by super PAC regulations. To publicly dispel any doubt, Colbert invited former FEC chairman and personal lawyer Trevor Potter to his show to answer questions. Potter assured the public that as long as Stewart and Colbert did not discuss details of the

ordination. Stewart even had Colbert appear on “The Daily Show” where they proceeded to discuss the super PAC’s agenda but made sure to direct their comments to the show’s audience instead of each other. With Potter on the phone, he verified that this seemingly obvious form of coordination did not officially violate any rules. Lastly, Stewart inquired as to the consequences of coordinating and revealed that it was only a monetary fine that could be paid by funds from the super PAC. Clearly, there are no substantive consequences to violating the one flimsy super PAC rule that does exist.

Joey Berk is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jberk29@gmail.com.

national

Super PACs Super PACs and the Republican Nomination Corey Donahue

he rise of super PACs after Citizens United v. FEC, has drastically impacted the Republican presidential race, resulting in candidates becoming increasingly dependent on a small number of donors to help their campaign. Winning Our Future, which supports Newt Gingrich, has received over $10 million from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife. The Red White and Blue Fund, seeking to elect Rick Santorum, has been given $1 million from mutual fund investor Foster Friess and another $1 million from Louisiana energy executive William J. Dore. Ron Paul’s super PAC, Endorse Liberty, has received $3.9 million from PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and friends (Thiel has also given $1.75 million to the Seasteading Institute, which is described

on page 29). Even Restore Our Future, which supports Mitt Romney, who may seemingly have a very wide range of support among businesses and the wealthy, has received $5 million from just 25 individuals. The ability to give such large funds to these campaigns has significantly increased the influence of the wealthy in this election. Although super PACs are not allowed to coordinate with candidates’ campaigns, they have had a profound effect on the race, spending nearly as much as the candidates themselves. In fact, in January, super PACs raised $22.1 million, more than the candidates’ campaigns, and had $5 million more in cash-on-hand by the end of the month. The GOP campaigns are starting to run out of funds. Romney has received $2,500,

the maximum possible donation from an individual, from 44% of his contributors, limiting further funding from many of his supporters. His campaign spent $19 million in January despite only raising $6.5 million. Gingrich’s campaign has as much cash-onhand ($1.8 million) as it has in debt. Santorum still does not have major donor appeal. Meanwhile, President Obama has over $82 million in cash-on-hand. If the GOP nomination race continues to be this costly, the eventual Republican candidate might find himself with few resources for the general election, and will have to depend even further on super PACs. Corey Donahue is a senior majoring in political science and economics. He can be reached at corey.donahue@gmail.com

Department of Edu PRO

Should Education be a Privilege? Kim Gaspar

he Department of Education is receiving unprecedented attention this election year, though not how one might expect. Political discussion on education reform has never attracted much serious attention, yet almost every Republican candidate this primary season—from Rick Perry and Ron Paul to Michelle Bachman and Newt Gingrich—has proposed eliminating the Department of Education and transferring all educational responsibilities to the states. On the one hand, Republican candidates frequently cite the Department of Education as an inefficient and overreaching agency, whose elimination would rein in excessive government spending. On the other hand, zero time and energy is spent on the substance and reality of education reform. Mitt Romney does not even address his education views on his website. Clearly, there is a wide disconnect between the carefree rhetoric of the GOP candidates who rail against the Department of Education and any real vision for education policy reform. When constructive discussion on education re-

and secondary education programs throughout the US. Although federal funding amounts to only about 10% of the average school’s total funding, federal impact is of paramount importance, especially in low-income districts that struggle each year to make ends meet. Additionally, the Department of Education gives out a significant amount in grants to Local Education Agencies. In September of 2011, the Department of Education awarded over $35 million in grants. These grants not only benefit the recipients but provide incentives to enact constructive changes within schools. Despite the funding distributed by the Department of Education, the majority of school funding is collected through property taxes at the local level. Consequentially, low-income districts are unable to draw as much funding as higher-income districts. Two elements are at play: properties are less valuable, and raising public support to pass taxes for local schools is more difficult. Combine this lack of funding with the lack of basic social benefits that come with

Current research conducted by the Center for Education Policy Analysis at Stanford University shows that the achievement gap between children from low and high-income families has grown by at least 30% from 1970 to 2001. form is nonexistent, American education is in jeopardy. When the Department of Education is labeled as a wasteful arm of an inefficient bureaucracy, and its elimination emerges as a potential reality, the American ideal of equal opportunity is at risk. If the Department of Education is abolished, existing socioeconomic differences will widen the achievement gap between students of low-income families and students of middle to high-income families. Current research conducted by the Center for Education Policy Analysis at Stanford University shows that the achievement gap between children from low and high-income families has grown by at least 30% from 1970 to 2001. This trend in achievement is rooted in one of the most influential socioeconomic factors: income level. However, family structure and sense of community also affects the gap. Socioeconomic conditions are restricting when access to resources depends on economic status. Today’s recession has only intensified these restrictions. Policies of the Department of Education should aim to ameliorate this achievement gap and play a crucial role in providing equal opportunities for all American students. But this aim is being largely overlooked by the Republican candidates. The Department of Education’s funding is critical to providing equal access to quality schools. More than $40 billion per year is distributed by the Department of Education to public primary

growing up in a wealthier district—e.g. better healthcare, summer vacation plans, and a family dynamic less burdened by finances— and the socioeconomic gap looks like an even more difficult barrier to overcome. If the Department of Education stops funding local districts, school districts would need to rely even more heavily on local taxation. Consequently, poorer districts would struggle still more. The value of the Department of Education lies in its pursuit of equal opportunity for all American children. If seen as only an example of the overarching power of “big government,” we are neglecting to recognize the benefits of federal funding and grants. Furthermore, the abolition of the Department of Education would marginalize the role of education in society to an even greater extent with adverse consequences for the youth of America. Are we willing to allow access to a good education become a privilege restricted to a certain class of Americans? It is time that the US refocuses its attention on education reform and preserves the Department of Education to secure the right to a good education for all Americans.

Kim Gaspar is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at kgasps24@gmail.com.

ucation: Pro vs. Con CON

Department of Miseducation Lennox Mark

egardless of its mission to “promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness,” the Department of Education (ED) wastes federal tax revenue, openly insults the US constitution and the idea of federalism, and inhibits better-suited actors from addressing our nation’s education problems. Thus, we assert the need for its immediate repeal. The Department of Education consumes billions of dollars in federal tax money each year while yielding little to no viable results. Consider that federal education expenditures have quadrupled since 1973, during which time math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) rose by just 1% for high school seniors and reading scores remained the same. In 2010, the NAEP revealed that high school seniors’ knowledge of basic American history showed no progress and competency in geography has declined since 2001. Moreover, much of the ED’s budget is unaccounted for. According to the Government Accountability Office, the ED made “fraudulent,

ending school districting. This way, private citizens may pursue the education they desire, regardless of their residence. Obstacles to free market functioning, such as asymmetric information, could be overcome by requiring schools to report indicators of their success (e.g. extra-curricular programs and college acceptance rates), thus enabling citizens to better choose the school that is right for them. Along with school choice, we can improve performance by changing the way in which schools are funded. Currently, no matter how poorly schools perform, they are guaranteed a baseline budget from their districts with no economic redress. Instead, voucher programs should fund schools and school budgets determined by the number of students who choose to enroll in the program. Those schools with high performance will then be rewarded as more students opt to enroll, each one bringing more vouchers that can be redeemed from the local government for more funding. Those schools with low performance will receive less funding, as fewer enrolled students mean

The Department of Education wastes federal tax revenue, openly insults our constitution and the ideal of federalism, and inhibits better-suited actors from addressing our nation’s education problems. improper, and questionable purchases” totaling $686,000 in 2002, and $261,500 worth of computer equipment were reported missing by the schools for which they were purchased. Clearly, the ED bears a sticker price that does not match its true worth. In addition to being wasteful, the Department of Education is a gross aggrandizement of the federal government. The powers of our federal government were intended to include only those explicitly granted by the US Constitution, and determining how teachers teach in the classroom is not one of them. Such an overreach usurps states’ rights, as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment that reserves for the states all those powers not granted to the federal government. Removing federal oversight of education is not only constitutionally required but pragmatically preferred. Local and state governments are better informed about the specific problems facing their localities and are better equipped to handle such tasks as selecting textbooks, instilling appropriate disciplinary measures, and addressing social issues like bullying—all of which the federal government has attempted to regulate. Instead of a central planning agency, education in the United States ought to be governed by market principles. And the market system should be as local as possible. To increase the accessibility of a quality public education, we should enhance school choice by

fewer vouchers. In order to be an attractive option for students, those schools will be forced to improve their product—i.e. their facilities, teaching staff, and overall experience. As more students desire enrollment at the better schools, schools will then be able to choose which students to accept, forcing students to take their education more seriously if they want to remain viable candidates for admission. Federal regulation of education could never achieve the results that market forces would and instead serves only to hinder the development and implementation of creative solutions. Some proponents of the ED might contend that federal funding for college grants and loans will disappear without the ED, as well as funding for state-level education programs. However, when the $48.8 billion annual cost of maintaining the ED is written out of the federal budget, that money could return to states and citizens in the form of higher real income as a result of lower federal taxes. The Department of Education has had 44 years since its last reincarnation to get its act together. It has failed. As American voters, we should not fail to demand of our lawmakers its end.

Lennox Mark is a junior majoring in political science. He can be reached at lennoxmark@go.wustl.edu.

Democracy is

Dead Jared Turkus | Illustration by Audrey Westcott

n December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. Every year, Congress passes a bill that outlines national defense spending initiatives for the following year. However, instead of outlining military programs, sections 1021 and 1022 of this year’s bill flagrantly violate our civil liberties. They allow the military, per presidential order, to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely and without due legal process, including American citizens. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) defended the bill: “If [suspected terrorists] pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, they should not be allowed to continue that threat.” Other supporters of the bill, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), argue that the bill is vital to homeland security. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten one key issue: the bill is unconstitutional. The new law violates the Bill of Rights as well as the writ of habeas corpus, the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. It is not a minor infraction but a significant breach of the freedoms we value. Even compared with the PATRIOT Act,

which only annulled the fourth amendment, the NDAA is more clearly unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment reads, “No person…[shall] be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” This bill violates this amendment, as the authorities can now enter your property and kidnap you, as they have abducted people and detained them at Guantanamo Bay. The third amendment prohibits soldiers on duty from entering your homw during peacetime. The NDAA violates this provision since the military now has the right to enter anyone’s home during peacetime. Ninety-three Senators voted for the bill, assuming that tarring our legal system is reasonable. This is totally unacceptable. I reserve the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the government from carrying out “cruel or unusual punishment.” I think any humane person would agree that imprisoning someone indefinitely without granting that person the right to a legal defense epitomizes cruel and unusual punishment. The NDAA, together with the PATRIOT Act, has made a mockery of half of the Bill of Rights… Not bad for the freest country in the world. I have one question to ask those who think NDAA acceptable despite the constitutional arguments: How do we know that accused terrorists are actual terrorists? The line between suspect and guilty has been erased. All suspected terrorists are now treated as guilty terrorists. But because our Congress wants to ensure our safety, suspects no longer have the opportunity to defend themselves. Their freedom can now be thrown away because the president has a “reason to believe” that it ought to be. The PATRIOT Act allows the DEA, TSA, FBI and local police departments to infringe on our homes, cars, and pockets if they have a “reason to believe” that we are dangerous. Yet, this allowance has not helped them win the War on Drugs or the War on Terror. All it has done is to throw away the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure. The NDAA throws away four more amendments but will still not win us the War on Terror. We may detain some terrorists, but at the risk of permanently detaining innocent American citizens. Without trials and with an increasingly interconnected online world, anyone could be loosely associated to a terrorist and therefore treated as such. Obama’s decision to sign the bill into law is reason enough not to vote for him in November. As president, his duty is to veto any bill that violates our Constitution. When signing the NDAA, Obama promised not to use the Act, giving us “reason to believe” him. He believes in protecting the rights of Americans, right? Wrong. At least not in his foreign policy. The president ordered a drone strike on Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen in Yemen, because he had “reason to believe” that the man was a terrorist. Awlaki was given no trial. I have a hard time believing that the president would refuse to detain US citizens indefinitely if he is prepared to kill an American without trial. The NDAA passed in a bipartisan effort, with an overwhelming majority vote in both the House and the Senate. The “change we need” president signed it. As of February 2012, the United States has a $15.1 trillion GDP. A country as prosperous and globally omnipresent as the United States should set a better example for the rest of the world. Jared Turkus is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at jturkus@wustl.edu.

Obama’s Keystone Headache

Will Dobbs-Allsopp

ou may remember that last October The administration has that, “this country needs an all-out, all-of-thetwo Washington University in St. above strategy that develops every available Louis students attended a fundraising just handed the eventual source of American energy—a strategy that’s dinner for President Barack Obama. You may Republican nominee cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.” Rejectalso remember that after paying $250 per seat, a layup: the Keystone ing the Keystone bid, which would develop a the two students were thrown out. But that is domestic source of energy, makes that sound what happens when you interrupt a president XL Pipeline is a perfect bite seem like the worst kind of pandering. To mid-speech by flapping environmental slo- example of how President make matters worse, TransCanada and the Cagans pasted to the inside of your jacket. After Obama is weak on the nadian government have publicly announced three months time, however, these students they will seek alternative markets for the projare richly rewarded. They had wanted the economy, weak on jobs— ect, such as China. Needless to say, losing a President to reject the controversial Keystone and understands nothing pipeline project to the United States’ up and XL Pipeline Project, and on January 18th the about the private sector. coming rival would be a fantastic foreign polObama administration announced that it was icy failure. “If the Obama administration was doing just that. And yet, what seems like a seminal victory for the truly invested in developing domestic energy resources and securing likes of Washington University’s Green Action Committee could our national security interests,” Republicans will ask, “wouldn’t the prove to be a serious political misstep for President Obama. Keystone Pipeline be top on its list?” The Keystone XL Pipeline Project was a bid put forth by the Furthermore, this is simply the wrong economic climate to Canadian energy giant TransCanada Corporation. It proposed builddeny a bid that supporters have claimed would create up to 100,000 ing a $7 billion pipeline to transport crude oil from Alberta, Canada new jobs. Yes, some analysts argue that there would be only 20,000 all the way to the Gulf Coast of Texas. Because the pipeline would jobs created. But politically speaking, this debate is immaterial. traverse the US-Canadian border, the bid fell under the purview of In the sound bite age we live in, the statistical nuances of various the State Department. Initially, the State Department acknowledged assessments are simply background noise. The administration has that there would be little environmental impact from the pipeline and just handed the eventual Republican nominee a layup: the Keyseemed on the verge of approving the project. However, in Novemstone XL Pipeline is a perfect example of how President Obama ber, after several months of protests by environmentalists across the is weak on the economy, weak on jobs—and understands nothing country, the State Department announced that it would postpone the about the private sector. decision by 12–18 months. Noting that the proposed route would Perhaps most importantly, the Obama administration has adcross an aquifer in Ogallala, Nebraska, the department argued that opted the role of the obstructionist in this scenario. The Keystone the pipeline could potentially threaten access to fresh water for the XL Pipeline Project had bipartisan support in Congress, in addition thousands of people who lived nearby. Allegedly, the State Departto support from such typically Democratic-leaning groups as labor ment wanted to explore alternative routes, but proponents of the unions. It will be easy for Republicans to paint Obama as blockpipeline believed the delay to be a political maneuver on the part of ing a proposal that had a broad, popular consensus. This is particuPresident Obama, allowing him to shelve a problematic issue until larly problematic for President Obama, because a large part of his after the 2012 presidential election. As a result, Congress attempted campaign strategy for the general election will focus on convincing to tie the bid to an essential vote on the payroll tax cut, in effect givAmericans that the Republicans in Congress are to blame for the ing the Obama administration a two-month window to either accept political gridlock these past few years. This does not help his case. or reject the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. Under this deadline the And this issue will not simply fade away by next November. Obama administration finally decided to outright reject the proposal, Republican Senators are already gearing up to attach the issue to officially citing impossible timeframe and not the flawed nature of a highway funding bill, and it is pretty safe to assume Republican the project. efforts will continue until the election next fall. President Obama President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL Project is unshould have approved the proposal, but, at the very least, he should derstandable—he did not want it to look as though Congress could have used his rejection to make a bold defense of environmental bully him into submission, especially since many Democrats are conservation that would excite a liberal base. The middling position frustrated with what they perceive to be President Obama’s record he has taken, hiding behind the plea that his bureaucracy needs more of failed amelioration. But his was simply the wrong decision. time to reassess, was the worst possible response. The rejection of Keystone XL makes President Obama appear insincere and even hypocritical. Not even a week after rejecting Will Dobbs-Allsopp is a sophomore in the College of Arts and the Keystone Pipeline, the President said in the State of the Union Sciences. You can reach him at willda10@gmail.com.

Healthcare Reform: This Might Hurt

By The Numbers 17.4 %

Percent of Americans who are uninsured(2011).

Projected uninsurance rate in 2020 if Obama’s healthcare plan is implemented.

17.7%

10.4 %

US National Health Expenditures (as a percent of GDP, 2011).

Canada National Health Expenditures (as a percent of GDP, 2011).

2,409 pages 1,475 pages The length of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The length of Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace.

$680,000

$250,000

Komen Foundation’s planned annual contribution to Planned Parenthood.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s donation after learning of Komen’s plan to cease Planned Parenthood funding.

If only

Jenna Stempel

i had healthcare

ma xi mi ze pr of it s an d to r de or in re ca ny de .s H. M.O ur ge nt ly ne ed ed ca re ca use th e poor to po st po ne s ite d St at es cu rr en tly ra nk un til it’s too la te. Th e Un ht above Sloven ia! 37th in he al th ca re— rig

i could afford to be rescued!

WHEN WILL IT STOP?

WUPR Healthcare Event

A Local Checkup: The State of Healthcare in St. Louis March 7, 2012 6:00–7:30 pm DUC 234 Come learn about healthcare in St. Louis and how the Affordable Care Act will impact our city in years to come. A variety of healthcare professionals who have extensive experience in local healthcare will be presenting their views.

While new legislation lets young

ad ults stay on their parents’ health plan s until age 26. Unspeakable horrors await you once you age out! sured! 18,000 people die each year because they are unin

CALL YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE TODAY; SCARE THE LIVING HAIR GEL OUT OF THEM!

healthcare reform: this might hurt

Primary Care Lacking, Patients Feel the Pain Alex Bluestone

he topic of healthcare reform is of paramount importance to all citizens. At some point, like it or not, healthcare is sure to play into one’s financial and physical well-being. This truth has never been more palpable for nearly 80% of the Show-Me State which was recently dubbed a “health provider shortage area.” Last year, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Missouri Foundation of Health reported a decrease in available primary care, citing that one in five Missourians are now without access. That equates to roughly 1.2 million people. Nationally, 75 million are either underinsured or completely uninsured. The dubious state of our healthcare system is poised to be a central issue for the 2012 elections and beyond. But with its increasing complexity and highly polarized discourse, politicians have shied away from speaking candidly about the system’s precarious nature. Currently a fee-for-service structure dominates, in which the goal is to extend access with increased quality and reduced cost while yielding maximum profits. This creates perverse incentives for both insurance and health providers. While there are a myriad of industries in which free-market system should reign supreme, there are also a great many industries in which classical liberalism negatively impacts the general welfare. The point is that healthcare does not belong in the marketplace with consumer goods. “Healthcare is a need; it’s not a commodity, and it should be distributed according to need,” writes Dr. Maria Agnell, editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. It is obvious that Americans do not have a firm grasp of what our government can and should provide. Generally speaking, our nation’s ideological components are in a perpetual state of abeyance: trite tug-of-wars between a limited government that emphasizes personal responsibility (i.e. picking oneself up by one’s bootstraps) and a more

progressive notion of equality of opportunity (i.e. the fundamental guarantee of a level playing field). No matter where one stands on the issue, it is clear that we have invested in an unstable system that tolerates inequitable access, high costs, and a disjointed structure. How can we tackle these issues? Preventive care could be a viable option. Often over-looked, the preventive care approach is both less expensive and better for one’s health in the long run. In this discourse, preventive and primary care are analogous, as both aim to maintain and sustain patients’ health. Those without access to preventive medicine—vaccinations, routine check-ups, treatment of common and treatable diseases (e.g. diabetes)—face longer wait and recovery times and often must return for expensive secondary treatments. They end up paying more, spending additional time being treated and only getting more ill. According to the Commonwealth Fund, half of all US adults received recommended care in 2008 as a result of the fee-for-service system. After taking into account GDP figures, we spent roughly $650 more in healthcare than other industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED). It’s not surprising then, that healthcare costs currently comprises 18% of GDP. As additional users enter our already inefficient system in the future, aggregate shortcomings will be only further aggravated. That said, studies indicate that preventing hospitalizations could decrease costs. In many cases, patients wait until a condition becomes serious before seeking the necessary primary care, often progressing a minor issue into an expensive health ordeal. Of Medicare beneficiaries alone, one in five are readmitted within thirty days of discharge, which amounts to roughly $26 billion of additional costs.

Aspirin for our headaches? While the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was truly a monumental legislation for this country, it has also expanded the role of the fee-forservice structure. So what policy solutions could help fortify some of the PPACA’s sturdy starting points? To start, we need an amendment that seeks to expanded baselevel coverage, establish cost controlling mechanisms, and quantitatively shows improved quality of care.

Make preventive medicine more pervasive First, by allowing more low-cost clinics to be established in highneed areas (e.g. rural areas such as Southeast MO); this could easily be done by abolishing or easing certificate of need laws, thereby enabling nurses to provide clinical care with doctor oversight. Next, emphasize and incentivize the role of primary care; this would reduce unnecessary ER trips and the $4.4 billion price tag of reactive treatment. Within this, establish a reward/penalization system for doctors and hospitals that transition from the antiquated structure to one that pays according to quality and cost of care, not the quantity of patients treated.

Create a tiered system for patient reimbursement

15 The federal government—or at the very least, each respective state government – should provide basic insurance for all citizens, while encouraging those who can afford and wish to buy more coverage to do so. By easing restrictions on healthcare provider choice and responsiveness (i.e. access to primary care) the French can see any doctor or specialist they want, at any time they want, without referrals. What is more, the rate of social reimbursement is unaffected by the aforementioned. And yet the French spend half as much as Americans per capita. In order to prevent cost sharing from adversely affecting those with serious medical problems— which is already commonplace in American healthcare—the French government caps every individual’s out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, chronic conditions indentified by the government, such as diabetes and hypertension, are guaranteed to be fully covered: a safeguard intended to ensure that patients do not skimp on preventive care. Mortality rates, as well as our annual healthcare expenditures, will only continue to rise if primary care is not expanded. The mechanisms outlined above are suggestions to raise the potential of the PPACA. But at the end of the day, our inability to build consensus has stalled essential reforms to national care policy since President Truman first attempted it in 1947. We would do well to emulate other nation’s systems—that said, virtually all other industrialized nations have some debt and improper oversight. Regardless of the chosen approach, Americans need more emphasis on adequately distributed preventive care, which could increase the quality of healthcare while reducing costs. Alex Bluestone is a sophomore studying political science. He can be reached at abluestone@wustl.edu.

What a Wash U Student Can Expect from PPACA The ACA may not be the perfect approach to health care reform, but it does provide some enticing benefits to young adults. The following bullets detail what you need to know about up-coming changes. Whereas previous policies cut-off dependents from their parent’s insurance plans at the age of 18, the PPACA extends that coverage for all dependent adults through their 26th birthday. Rest assured that, if you can’t find a job after graduation, your parent’s plan might still have your back. What you should know Policy years that began on or after Sept. 23, 2010 will provide you with health benefits regardless of employment, marital, student, or dependent status. Check with your insurance provider for more information. Under the new law—assuming that you are younger than 26— insurance providers are no longer able to exclude you from purchasing coverage due to high-risk or pre-existing conditions. Prohibitions have also been established to limit rescissions of health care coverage. What you should know In addition to the prohibition of exclusions, you will no longer be subject to lifetime caps on benefits. For instance, if you are diagnosed with a chronic ailment such as diabetes, you will not lose your insurance coverage when you reach your insurance provider’s arbitrary limit. For all you entrepreneurs out there, if you plan to start a small business after graduation, the PPACA may provide tax credits. Even better, if a young adult works in a small business that meets the criteria below, their employer will qualify for these tax credits and will be able to offer health insurance benefits. What you should know The PPACA will provide tax credits for businesses with fewer than 25 employees and average salaries of under $50,000. Co-pays for necessary preventive care (such as physicals, vaccines, pap smears, and woman’s health services) will become a thing of the past.

healthcare reform: this might hurt

By All Means Ne Trevor Leuzinger Taka Yamaguchi Illustration by Mitch Atkin

n Tuesday, January 31st, the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced that it was pulling funding for Planned Parenthood. Due to the resulting public controversy, it took only until February 3rd for Komen to reverse its decision. At the crux of the initial decision was that Planned Parenthood was “under investigation,” in a charge brought by Florida’s Republican Representative Cliff Stearns, for purportedly misusing federal funding in performing abortions. Citing that Komen would not fund organizations under federal investigation, the organization suddenly pulled the approximately $680,000 grant which Planned Parenthood uses to provide breast cancer exams. Donations to Komen provide grants for breast cancer screenings, education, and cancer research. As a private organization, Komen has the right to choose where and how to spend its money; but as a non-profit that is dependent on donations, it needs to please its constituents to maintain its donor base. With the quick public backlash to the Planned Parenthood defunding, Komen was forced to reverse the decision to avoid alienating donors. Healthcare is not a private matter anymore. While the public nature of healthcare makes advancements and treatment better in the long run, it brings up the question of who decides what can and should be done. The recent health reform brought this issue to the fore, and the issue has only grown in controversy since. In its press releases last week, Komen claimed that their decision was not made for political reasons. Many understandably remain skeptical. This controversy is regrettable because Komen’s mission of curing cancer is an issue that unites everyone. Komen’s campaigns for cancer research appear on everything from Yoplait yogurt to Pinnacle golf balls. When the defunding was announced and political ulterior motives suspected, Komen appeared to have lost touch with its mission.

healthcare reform: this might hurt

ecessary The unfortunate circumstances of the defunding and reversal has tarnished Komen’s image. Waffling back and forth has hurt its standing on both sides of the political aisle. On one hand, the pro-choice bloc was astonished that the non-profit would be bullied into action for political reasons. On the other, pro-lifers were appalled that Komen would cave to popular protest online. To many pro-lifers, Komen’s funding of Planned Parenthood, which, among a myriad of other services, provides contraceptives and performs abortions, is inexcusable. Their argument is clear: Komen should not fund Planned Parenthood, regardless of its provision of thousands of breast cancer exams. Even a non-profit such as Komen cannot weather modern American politics without making severe compromises. This politicization of healthcare in general and reproductive health rights in particular is not an isolated incident, nor is it primarily a result of grassroots movements. For the progressive left, the politicization represents an increasingly visible trend of conservative efforts to capitalize on concerns over the touchy subject of reproductive health rights. The recent bill signed by President Obama requiring employer health insurance to cover contraceptives for their workers drew criticism for being insensitive to the religious beliefs of these employers. Opponents accused Obama of infringing on the freedom of religion. Similar to the Komen defunding and the resultant firestorm, the bill was quickly modified to stymie its critics. The amendment allows employers to opt out of the requirement if contraceptive use runs counter to their religion. As such, those employees that desire them would have to acquire contraceptives through much more convoluted, costly means—external insurance compa-

nies. This places another structural obstacle between a woman and control over her body. Many liberals object that this alteration gives employers a moral superiority over their workers. Instead of the employers’ religious freedoms being attacked, as many claimed after Obama’s initial decision, the employer can now leverages his or her religious convictions upon the employee, hindering her efforts to acquire contraception,

It is not helpful to accuse the Republican Party of using reproductive health as a “political football,” nor is it fruitful to exaggerate the Democratic stance on healthcare. It is important to recognize that countless American women may go without contraceptives as a result of their employers’ religious convictions, that Komen will suffer as it tries to rebuild its brand, and that the picturesque image of the non-profit working solely for the betterment of all can be corrupted. If re-elected, President Obama and his Democrat allies in the legislature face a steep uphill climb. Healthcare and reproductive rights are contentious issues with a divide that cannot be bridged easily. Following one’s convictions in the political sphere is a basic tenet of democracy, but such controversial subjects must be handled with sensitivity in order to best serve the public.

This goes to show how even a non-profit such as Komen cannot weather modern American politics without making severe compromises. an important part of reproductive health. This change, instead of constituting a government encroachment on the religious liberties of employers, now permits the employer to decide the healthcare rights of employees. These two events reveal the divisiveness of the healthcare debate in the United States. To many, the goings-on are evidence that Republicans are on a campaign to roll back the progress made decades ago in Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut, among countless other cases, which conclusively have come down on the side of privacy in reproductive medical affairs.

Taka Yamaguchi is a junior majoring in international area studies. He can be reached at tyamaguchi@wustl.edu Trevor Leuzinger is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at t.leuzinger@wustl.edu

Feeding Frenzy Andrew Luskin

After Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary, Mitt Romney put on some Huey Lewis and the News, danced around a bit, and then clobbered Gingrich over the head with a barrage of ad buys. Romney seemed inevitable after humiliating Gingrich in Florida, but a handful of billionaires stepped in to keep his competitors alive. As hard as he tries, Romney can’t convince voters to like him. Seeking to diffuse criticism that he is a callous, disconnected corporate tycoon, Romney smiled awkwardly in the corner as he received the endorsement of Donald Trump. Santorum now leads Romney in national polls, causing Republican leaders to make panicked plans to keep Santorum from securing the nomination. Meanwhile, President Obama’s approval rating has risen to 50%, as voters respond to his strategy of not vying for the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum’s success has turned him manic. Santorum channeled his inner Glenn Beck by telling a crowd that under Barack Obama, we may soon face “the guillotine.” He was not being metaphorical. Yes, that’s the progressives’ plan: first they impose health insurance, then gay marriage, and then they kill you. It all makes sense, if you’re the kind of person who would ever consider voting for Rick Santorum. Congress passed the STOCK Act, banning insider trading by congressmen and lobbyists. Apparently, laws must specify that they apply to Congress, too. In the next couple weeks, take the time to appreciate clean government, until lobbyists figure out how to get around the new act. Lest anyone get the impression that Obama cares about winning the election, his administration announced new rules forcing religious institutions to provide insurance covering contraception. The

administration pulled back its decision, but the damage was already done. For a guy who’s not a secret Muslim, Obama is pretty ignorant about how vindictive nuns can be. Still, you would expect the Catholic Church to have learned the value of proper condom use after Pope Borgia. A private plane strayed into restricted airspace around President Obama’s helicopter, leading the Air Force to scramble F-16s to force the plane to land. When investigators searched the plane, they discovered 40 pounds of marijuana. Vice President Biden was later released on bail. Westboro Baptist Church held a protest at Clayton High School for no reason in particular, although they may have chosen Clayton because they were on their way back from picketing the Super Bowl. It’s a pity they didn’t protest an event that actually deserved it, like the Pro Bowl. Westboro claims that everything, big or small, is an example of God’s wrath: a stubbed toe is divine retribution for gay marriage, and Kim Kardashian’s divorce is what we get for making our daughters whores. Maybe they have a point on that last one. The Susan G. Komen for the Cure (TM) (R) Foundation abruptly cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. Though the funding was used for cancer screening, the Komen Foundation argued that they were “avoiding controversy,” which usually entails not doing controversial things. After widespread outcry, the foundation restored the funding. Although Planned Parenthood is fine with reversing bad decisions, their central mission is really preventative. If your paint has dried, and you don’t have anything left to watch, the Senate Judiciary Committee has exciting news: they want to televise the

19 US Supreme Court! The gavel-to-gavel coverage will bring to life the characters that make up the Court, such as Antonin Scalia (the court’s Judge Judy) and Clarence Thomas (the court’s house plant). Greek workers held a nationwide strike and brought the country to a standstill, which is actually an improvement. Japan has a sex problem, and soon, they may go the way of the panda. Japan’s population is extremely old and isn’t making enough babies; their population is expected to shrink by a third over the next fifty years. The government is taking desperate measures to raise the fertility rate, such as mandating that workers go home at 6:00 PM, leaving plenty of time to start a family. Of course, those efforts are moot if people just don’t want to have sex. Among youth aged 16-19, nearly two out of five males, and three out of five females, were uninterested in or adverse to sex. Fearful that young men are becoming “herbivores,” Japanese censors are taking action against comics with strong female characters, which they blame for turning boys gay. Instead of taking on comics, Japan should concentrate on sex education. Somebody needs to tell the youth of Japan that normal reproductive anatomy does not include tentacles. Chrysler produced a cinematic two-minute Super Bowl ad, “Halftime in America,” narrated by Clint Eastwood. The ad spread messages of hope, community, and Dodge Rams, but conservative pundits saw a sinister message: that Chrysler was secretly thanking Obama for the auto bailout. Karl Rove, in particular, accused them of “Chicago-style [deep-dish] politics.” Apparently, to satisfy conservatives, the ad should have said something along the lines of: “Because of Obama’s failed leadership, America is struggling. We need strength, like you find in mediocre cars and trucks built right here in America, a situation that has nothing to do with any sort of government assistance.” Republicans are in a tough spot because their presumptive candidate, Mitt Romney, loudly opposed the auto bailout. Of course, it’s been a couple years since he took that position, so he’s due for a switch. Only 10% of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing. Let me remind the voters: you elect these people. In a democracy, you don’t get the government you want; you get the government you deserve. Cyclist Alberto Contador was stripped of his Tour de France title after he was found guilty of dop-

ing. The award will be passed down to the top runner-up who hasn’t been caught doping, if they can find one. It’s a shame Contador couldn’t be like Lance Armstrong, honorable and honest and with easy access to America’s finest designer drugs. Indeed, when politicians threaten to cut NIH funding, they’re selling short a generation of American heroes. Andrew Luskin is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. When he speaks, it’s on the seismograph. His email is atluskin@wustl.edu.

20 healthcare reform: this might hurt

Libertarian Loopholes Stephen Rubino

s of the writing of this article, it seems unlikely that Ron Paul will clinch the Republican nomination. He stands at nine delegates and 11% of primary votes, far behind frontrunner Mitt Romney. That being said, libertarians have become an increasingly large part of the Republican Party, and Paul’s popularity seems to go up every four years. For this reason, I choose to examine an aspect of the libertarian policy that I found surprisingly lacking: healthcare. Americans do spend a lot on healthcare, along with their government. Yet, many markers place us as one of the least healthy developed countries; our ranking of 34th in the world for infant death rates is just one example. Libertarians espouse several free-market solutions to our

spending, many of which seem reasonable: e.g. removing of government partnerships with pharmaceutical companies and allowing insurance providers to compete on a federal scale. Ron Paul’s fan site on healthcare policies, however, provides this quote: “In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate, and free medical care was the norm.” For a libertarian, this comment seems remarkably social-minded. The proposal to abolish Medicare and Medicaid forces lib-

While it makes for a good slogan, allowing people to take their own risks drives up healthcare costs for everyone.

ertarians to face the reality of the poor receiving no healthcare, once recognizing that the proposal of “charitable healthcare” by doctors is far-fetched. In the 21st century, healthcare no longer revolves around general practice doctors. Healthcare involves organizing specialists, nurses, lab technicians, as well as doctors. Although we do have some charities providing healthcare to the less fortunate, they are certainly not enough to cover the millions who would be left without healthcare in the wake of Medicare’s dismantlement. Paul espouses the “freedom to take your own risks.” While that makes for a good slogan, allowing people to take their own risks drives up healthcare costs for everyone. Emergency care for the uninsured would create an even larger burden on hospitals. Despite not wanting to infringe on anyone’s rights, Paul’s plan would simply be shifting the burdens of healthcare onto the shoulders of a different segment of the population. Paul stated before Congress that “No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property.” While this might seem logical at first, what if one were to apply this idea to, say, education? Doesn’t providing public education imply that we are sacrificing the liberty of teachers to provide for children? By Paul’s logic, we should remove all government services on the basis that they encroach on the rights of the service provider. Paul is eager to trade fairness for liberty. However, the policies he would implement provide neither equal healthcare nor new freedoms. It may be admirable that Paul has a consistent ideology and voting record, but healthcare is an area of policy that ought to be decided by pragmatism, not theory.

Stephen Rubino is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rubinos@wustl.edu.

2012

Offers Incentives to Hospitals to Improve Quality of Care – Hospitals that show greater success will receive larger payments.

2011

Caps Overhead as a Percentage of Premiums – Insurers will be required to keep overhead costs to a fixed percentage of the total premium.

Nicolas Hinsch is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at nhinsch@wustl.edu

Begins Phasing Out Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Gap – Medicare will begin to pay for a larger share of seniors’ drug costs.

2010

Eliminates Lifetime Limits on Health Insurance Coverage – No insurance company will be able to cap the amount of benefits recipients can receive over the course of a lifetime.

Individual Mandate – All individuals who can afford health insurance will be required to buy it or pay a tax penalty.

2014

No Discrimination Based on PreExisting Conditions – Health insurance companies will be required to cover pre-existing conditions.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/timeline

Increased Medicaid Funding – States will receive funding to bring Medicaid payments in line with Medicare payments.

2013

Begins Transition to Digital Health Records – Over time, this will reduce the massive paperwork and overhead costs of the current health care system.

Opt-Out of Employer-Provided Healthcare – Employees can use their employer’s contribution to their health insurance to pay for a different insurance package of their choice.

Health Insurance Exchanges – States will be required to set up online exchanges to facilitate comparisonshopping for health insurance.

healthcare reform: this might hurt

Judgment Day

Jay Evans | Illustration by Elizabeth Beier

he Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) loomed like an albatross over conservatives for the better part of the six months it took to be created. Condemnation of the act continued unabated even after it passed, and many conservative congressional leaders began the process to repeal before Obama’s signature was even dry. This year, opponents and

supporters will face off in the legal world’s biggest stage: the Supreme Court. During the last week of March, the nine highest judges in the United States will hear arguments about the constitutionality of “Obamacare,” as it is pejoratively known. The Supreme Court has blocked out three days of oral arguments, March 26th to the 28th, which amounts to an unusually long

session of five and half hours in total. To put it in perspective, cases usually only have one-hour hearings. Court observers expect their decision in June, only five months before the Presidential Election. The case, Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, originated in Florida. The state’s Attorney General Bill McCollum, aiming to strike down the law, initiated the case the same day Obama signed PPACA into effect. Soon after, 25 other states joined in to try and defeat the law, all of whom either have Republican attorney generals or Republican governors. Quickly shooting up the chain of courts, conservatives will finally get their chance to cripple PPACA this March, long before most of the provisions are set to go into effect. The first of four major issues the judges will consider is whether the challenge has standing. Because most of the provisions have not taken into effect yet, the Court may pass on ruling at all. The fight may fizzle out because the Court may find that the respondents cannot challenge a law that hasn’t actually gone into effect. However, the Court is unlikely to pass: they would not have granted the case a hearing and then set aside three days of arguments just to punt it. The Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the provision in PPACA that coerces states to expand Medicaid, a favorite issue among states’ rights advocates. Does it violate the 10th Amendment, which reserves rights not delegated to the United States in the Constitution? The Court most likely will consent to the expansion of Medicaid. In South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can pressure states into changing the drinking age to 21 by threatening to withhold highway funding. Pressuring states to expand Medicaid uses similar logic. Next comes the most important issue. While Congressional conservatives sounded off against the law over the past two years, they remained quiet about the most controversial component: the individual mandate, which would force every citizen to purchase health insurance starting in 2014 or face a penalty. Conservatives left the issue of the individual mandate for the courts, allowing most of their hope for repeal to hinge

healthcare reform: this might hurt 23

on its potential unconstitutionality. It is their lead domino, and they hope to leave it untouched for the Supreme Court to knock down. Indeed, PPACA opponents have received support in lower courts for the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate. US District Judge Roger Vinson ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional, deciding that “Congress can regulate commerce, but Congress cannot create it.” Other cases, originating in other states, ruled the law entirely constitutional. Judicial consent is nowhere to be found. The noise created by the range of the decisions provides plenty

rest of the law should not suffer. Obama and his administration positioned themselves to adamantly defend the new legislation, even sending their own lawyers from the Justice Department to defend it in the Supreme Court. Lower courts agreed with Obama, ruling that the mandate is severable but unconstitutional. Republican hopes center on their view that the mandate is not severable, which would allow the Supreme Court to strike down the law in one fell swoop. If the Justices sympathize with Vinson’s ruling, then the grand Republican hope of destroying all of PPACA could remain merely a wish.

Conservatives left the issue of the ‘individual mandate’ for the courts, allowing most of their hope for repeal to hinge on its potential unconstitutionality of fodder for both sides. While the Supreme Court will consider the various challenges to PPACA, they will focus mainly on Vinson’s decision; it is his verdict that they will either uphold or strike down. Adding yet another layer of complexity, the debate over the individual mandate does not stop at its constitutionality. Another major debate is over whether the mandate is “severable” from the rest of law. Can it be plucked out, keeping the rest of the law intact, or is it the domino that forces the rest of the law to become unconstitutional? Judge Vinson called the law a “finely crafted watch,” suggesting the intricacies of the law may make it hard to separate out individual pieces. The legislation has some of the funding come from the individual mandate, which is one argument for its inseverability. PPACA also prohibits discrimination based on preexisting conditions, a part of the law that is indelibly linked to the individual mandate; without universal coverage, liberals argue that insurance companies could not overcome the extra expenses tied with accepting people with preexisting conditions. They are the people most likely to buy health insurance and who receive the most money from the insurance companies. Obama, in a pre-emptive attack, said that if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the

Unwilling to limit the debate to the case itself, over the past few months advocacy groups have raised issues outside of the case. Most notably is Freedom Watch, a conservative watchdog group, who has repeatedly and vehemently called for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself, effectively ratcheting up the tension of an already breakneck case. Kagan, during her time as solicitor general for Obama, worked on the PPACA, convincing many that she is in conflict of interest. Other groups called for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because his wife openly opposes the law and is currently acting to defeat it. Unfazed by the calls, Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement defending his colleagues and saying that it is solely up to them to recuse themselves. Whether he was interested in preventing constant antagonism or in retaining the court’s political insulation is unclear. Either way he rendered calls for recusal a non-issue. Even so, Kagan recused herself from the upcoming decision on the controversial Arizona immigration law, presumably because of the same conflict of interest. While this will remain an inconsequential point of debate because of Roberts’ statement, spectators must wonder why she chooses to recuse herself on some issues and not others.

Finally, the case will result in political fallout in any version of the decision. If Republicans get their wish of an across-theboard strike-down, it would mark the biggest political swing for their party in recent history. If it turns out that Obama developed and signed a law that was unconstitutional, he will be painted as un-American and as a socialist to a level as yet unseen. It may even put a Republican in a position to defeat him. Ads blaring “Obama creates unconstitutional laws” would be a powerful tool for any Republican leading up to November. However, Republicans might be placed in an awkward position if Mitt Romney becomes their nominee for President. While Governor of Massachusetts, he signed health reform law while Governor of Massachusetts that included an individual mandate. Based on previous rulings, it is likely that the Supreme Court will rule the individual mandate severable and unconstitutional. Upholding the ruling made by Vinson, the Court will choose the “middle of the road” ruling, an outcome both advantageous and harmful to both parties. Each side will attempt the spin needed to tip the battle in their favor. No matter how the Justices decide, the case will be remembered as the most important health-care case since the New Deal reforms. There is a reason this story has been in the news for the better part of two and a half years. The importance of the case not only affects every US citizen but how we as Americans will view healthcare on a national level.

Jay Evans is a junior majoring in economics and religious studies. He can be reached at jeevans@wustl.edu.

My goal… applying my skills and talents to help others.

On a winter break service trip in Belize: an amazing experience

Playing football at Wash. U. shaped my mindset: Whatever you’re doing, do it 100%

By the way, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a position in CAREERlink. My summer 2011 internship

Danny Sufranski, a senior majoring in Economics and Political Science and participating in the Praxis Program, interned with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C.

Getting to know myself...

I first met with Carol, my Career Advisor, during sophomore year, and I’ve been meeting with her once or twice a semester since. She’s taught me how to search for opportunities in a smart and efficient way.

Bringing my story to life...

Last spring, I interned with Missouri Congressman Russ Carnahan’s Office. For the summer, I participated in the Wash. U. D.C. Program

and interned with the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. I really enjoyed both internships, especially at the Center where I could see my work having a positive effect.

Up next...

At this point, I’m not sure if I want to be in government, a think tank, or a private organization. From my experiences, I know that I want to help other people for the good of the community and country.

FROM PASSION SPRINGS PURPOSE

“Make sure you get to know your colleagues, ask questions, and take initiative.” - Danny’s Career Tip

Upcoming Events Workgroup: Government, Politics, and Public Policy Internships and Jobs – March 2 Peace Corps Info Session – March 20

Upcoming Job & Internship Deadlines Sierra Club Direct Action and Research Training (DART) Center Jewish Federations of North America Missouri Energy Initiative

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) Info Session – March 22

The Carter Center

Fund for Public Interest Info Session – March 28

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Land Trust Alliance

Apply and read more in CAREERlink at careercenter.wustl.edu.

healthcare reform: this might hurt 25

Who’s Got Control? Anna Applebaum | Illustration by Gretchen Oldelm She needs to control her body. They want to control your faith. You cannot control my freedom of religion. We are trying to control the size of our family. I am desperately trying to control my anger.

he Obama administration recently broke the news that religiously affiliated institutions—hospitals, universities and social service organizations— will not be exempt from covering the cost of contraception for employees as part of sweeping new healthcare insurance guidelines. After a series of protests by leading religious figures, the Obama administration offered a compromise: the insurance companies of these institutions are required to provide coverage, not the group itself. In fact, the guidelines were first proposed last August with the intention that private insurance plans would be required to cover women’s preventive services without a co-pay or deductible. The particular ruling on religious institutions was released in late January of this year. Catholic religious leaders rose up most quickly in protest, arguing that the government should respect the religious liberty of the church. This is, in some sense, understandable—Catholic institutions are perhaps the largest group affected by this change. In 2010, four of the top ten most profitable US hospital systems were Catholic; in addition, there are numerous well-known Catholic universities and social service orga-

nizations. American Catholic bishops argued that a rule requiring their institutions to provide employees access to birth control was a fundamental encroachment upon their religious freedom. Conservative senators and Republication presidential candidates immediately jumped in on the fight, apparently not wanting to miss a chance to proclaim the strength of their Christian faith and their aversion to big government.

employer that primarily hires and serves its own faithful.” For example, Catholic churches themselves will not have to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraception. Why should any institution necessarily have to cover contraceptives along with other prescription drugs? Isn’t this just a problem for women who want to have lots of sex? Well, no. According to a 2010 study in Vital Health and Medical Statistics, there are an estimated 62 million women in the United States between the ages of 15 and 44, or the “child-bearing” range. Of these, a full 62% are currently using a method of contraception. Let me repeat that: a full 62% of all American women aged 15–44 currently use contraception. This is an astoundingly large number. For a comparison, only about 5 million men are currently prescribed Viagra, Cialis, or other impotence drugs. Almost all insurance plans provide coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs, yet some have issue providing birth control. Looking at this parallel is telling. The contraception fight is really about controlling women and their bodies. These are arguments that have been made for centuries. Boiled down, it looks something like this: women should not have sex. Women receive, they do not give life. Since men can have sex with impunity, it is acceptable if they do. Since women are worried about pregnancy, it is up them to deal with the consequences of biology. Forget about the fact that 58% of women use the birth control pill for additional reasons other than preventing pregnancy. Forget about the women with endome-

Boiled down, the argument looks something like this: women should not have sex. Let’s be clear: separation of church and state is vital to a democracy but it should work in both ways—the government needs to stay out of religion just as much as religion needs to stay out of the government. The new regulation will not directly impact Catholic churches or seminaries. It is intended for institutions associated with the Catholic faith but which fully participate in the public sphere and have missions separate from purely religious interests. The day before the new regulation was announced, Catholic Healthcare West, the fifth largest hospital system in the US, became “Dignity Health”, as part of a “long-term strategic plan” to integrate both Catholic and nonCatholic care centers—probably not the kind of institution that would list “upholding papal doctrine” as its top priority. Furthermore, there is an exemption in the regulation for “any religious

triosis or the women who use the pill to regulate menstrual cycles and to deal with debilitating menstrual pain. Forget about the fact that birth control can cost anywhere from $850-1200 a year, causing 25% of women who make less than $75,000 to put off going to the doctor because of the high cost. For those who care about the control of religious conscience, I would like to make a plea for a greater consciousness. This controversy really tells women that their sex makes their health needs a secondary concern. How can we control that?

Anna Applebaum is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at a.applebaum@wustl.edu.

26 healthcare reform: this might hurt

Dance Marathon and Car Accidents: All in the Name of the “Float” Razi Safi | Illustration by Esther Hamburger

few months ago, I dislocated my shoulder in an unfortunate incident involving an inflatable obstacle course at Dance Marathon. I was sent to the emergency room at St. Mary’s Health Center for a minor procedure to reduce my arm. Shortly after, I was sent to the main desk for general paperwork. I handed in my Washington University student Aetna insurance card and was sent away. I expected to eventually receive a small charge as a co-pay or coinsurance but was relieved that everything was settled. Months later, however, I am still dealing with Aetna over the hospital’s compensation. In December, I received a letter from Aetna stating that they were holding all payments to St. Mary’s until they received more information about my injury. I called Aetna and was informed that they had a concern with my injury: they believed my dislocated shoulder was caused by a car accident and not by the inflatable obstacle course as I had claimed. They even asked if I was planning to pursue legal action against the other party involved in the accident. I reassured the representative that I was, in fact, never in a car accident but injured in the peculiar manner that I had initially claimed. After my reassurance, the representative fixed the error in the system. I later received a letter from St. Mary’s Hospital informing me that they had not received compensation from my insurance, forcing me to contact the insurance provider again to detail the cause of my injury. After once again assuming that everything was resolved, I received another letter from a legal services firm informing me that Aetna had advised them that I may need help in receiving compensation from the other party’s car insurance company following my car accident. I contacted the firm and explained that I was not in a car accident and did not need a lawyer. I recently received a letter from Aetna claiming that they would only pay half of the $6,000 bill because St. Mary’s charges more than the average hospital in the area, and I would be responsible for the other $3000 over my co-insurance charges. Despite this absurd series of events, I am one of the lucky ones. I am young, healthy, and fortunate enough to have health insurance, yet I am stuck with a $3000 bill over a stupid mistake at Dance Marathon. At first glance, the

culpability looks as though it belongs to St. Mary’s and its rising health costs; after all, $6000 for a simple procedure sounds pricey. However, the “insurance company” business model is increasing costs far more rapidly, evident by its rising administrative costs. The inflated costs due to such business practices ought to be examined as a possible measure to cost cutting in healthcare. All insurance companies—healthcare or otherwise—make money in two ways: underwriting income and investment income. Underwriting income is the traditional form of insurance company profits. They receive a certain amount of income from premiums and pay a lesser amount to the doctors and hospitals. The other source, investment income, comes from the “floating” income that the insurance companies receive. Insurance companies receive huge sums of money monthly from premiums and keep it until a payment is needed, which can take months or years after the premium was paid. During that time, the insurance company makes a profit on interest or other investments. There is no immediate problem with making a profit using this business model. However, when such a model becomes so profitable that it is in the best interest of the insurance company to delay payments, the model becomes a major problem. Even just a couple months of a withheld payment provides a steady income for the insurance company, causing the company to do everything in their power to continue withholding payments. Medical providers claim that rising costs is in large part due to the increased complexity and hassle of dealing with insurance companies for compensation. There are countless tasks that the provider must complete before even seeing a patient. Indeed, there are entire careers made out of understanding the coding and technicalities of medical billing, and this complexity steadily increases the cost of health care. Billing for a simple procedure takes so many man-hours, only in order that the insurance companies can milk the most out of the money. In two years, administra-

In two years, administrative costs have increased 8% in insurance companies and even more for providers—a price well worth the extra income generated by investments. tive costs have increased 8% in insurance companies and even more for providers. The practice of increasing the “float” not only decreases efficiency and increases labor costs for providers but raises administrative costs for the insurance industry, which directly impacts premium prices. This result is heightened in a weak economy, as insurance companies struggle to create profits through investments. This additional strain on health care providers raises prices or leads to the desertion of the insurance network altogether, further harming patients. I consider myself privileged, but I am still at odds with Aetna over payments to St. Mary’s—all in the name of the “float.”

Razi Safi is a sophomore in the School of Engineering. He can be reached at razi. safi@wustl.edu.

wupr Healthcare edition

...where you’re the doctor! see if you can remove whats ailing obama’s healthcare Plan

media

GOP

DEATH PANELS

DEMs

Deficit

Abortion

written by: seth Einbinder design by: Matt Callahan

lobbyists

International By The Numbers 8,846

3,895

Number of Syrian civilian casualties since start of the revolution according to the Syrian rebels.

Number of Syrian civilian casualties since start of the revolution, according to al-Assadâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regime.

21%

Number of Americans that Egypt will put on trial this month for allegedly contributing money to the democratization of Egypt.

The latest unemployment rate in Greece.

2,154,000

Number of days a Swedish man survived trapped in his car in a snowstorm, without food.

The number of barrels of oil that Iran currently exports daily.

2.2 million

$124 million

The number of revelers who came out to Rio de Janeiroâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cordao da Bola Preta parade on February 17th.

The expense to China of implementing the latest carbon cutbacks, according to Chinese officials.

international 29

Sea: The Penultimate Frontier Sonya Schoenberger | Illustration by Kate Cohen

atri Friedman, grandson of libertarian economist Milton Friedman, has a dream. Disenchanted with all existing political systems, he hopes to create a network of competing start-up governments in the world’s most dynamic environment: the open ocean. As head of the Seasteading Institute, a think-tank that seeks to facilitate the creation of such prototype governments at sea, Friedman hopes to put an end to the barriers to entry and high “consumer lock-in” that define our modern conception of government. These floating communities, or Seasteads, would be free from the jurisdiction of existing nations and could be anything from bastions of libertarian wealth to offshore technology hubs. Whatever their financial models, though, they would provide a unique chance for political experimentation, an opportunity for self-selecting groups of individuals to govern themselves according to shared ideals. Citizens would be consumers and governments would be the products. With creativity flowing and market forces supporting only the best and most popular new systems, mankind would soon discover forms of government both efficient and equitable, respectful of individual liberty and responsive to the will of each and every citizen. History has seen the rise and fall of many a utopia and has also proven that those driven to create their own ideal society seldom pay much heed to this pattern. Friedman, however, is careful to avoid associating Seasteading with the “U word.” Rather, he argues that since Seasteading would be a broad, heterogeneous phenomenon encompassing many different attempts at perfect societies in competition with one another rather than single centralized one, the more appropriate term is “meta-utopia.” This distinction, while subtle, lies at the heart of Friedman’s vision. Seasteads would be both mobile and modular, capable of migrating as single units and able to fragment and rearrange internally along political lines. Two large Seasteads could interact to form a

single massive structure or could split into tens, even hundreds, of smaller subunits. This free entry and exit from societies would force leaders to stay tuned to the needs and desires of their people. An unpopular government would not be ousted democratically or violently but instead would one day find its citizens and infrastructure floating quietly away towards the horizon. According to Friedman, such mobility would encourage healthy competition and expedite the discovery of the best system (or systems) of government. But would it? While it is certainly true that unfettered competition drives growth and innovation, such a model is not a stable basis for society itself. Volatile, ephemeral governments fighting to keep their citizens loyal at any cost can hardly support productive economies. Even if political allegiances within a Seastead aligned themselves in neat, rectangular patterns, a module integrated into the economy of a larger Seastead could not simply break off and expect to survive with specialized and incomplete infrastructure. The high consumer lock-in that Friedman attacks as the root of the inefficiencies of modern society is what allows us to maintain our standards of living and prevents dissolution into complete anarchy. No matter how competitive their export industries, which would likely be aquaculture-based, Seasteads would ultimately rely on onshore powers for markets and support. Their very survival would be dependent upon military non-aggression from, and protection by,

A network of competing start-up governments in the world’s most dynamic environment:

the open ocean. land-based governments, which would have little incentive for such magnanimity towards those who eschewed citizenship and civil duty in favor of high-tech, watery playgrounds. So why does the Seasteading Institute matter? Should citizens content with solid ground and conventional government pay any attention to Friedman and his pipe dream? While Friedman’s vision of modular government as fluid and dynamic as the water upon which it floats is completely unreasonable, the concept of cities and political experiments at sea is not one we should dismiss outright. Over the next few decades, as technology advances and large structures capable of handling ocean waves become not only feasible but affordable, we can be almost certain that Seasteads will be attempted in some shape or form. The Seasteading Institute will never have widespread political clout and will likely never see its goals implemented in full, but it will certainly influence the way in which people approach human expansion to sea. Friedman’s vision is flawed, idealistic, even quixotic, but its possible prescience makes it noteworthy. Sonya Schoenberger is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at sonyaschoenberger@wustl.edu.

30 international

Why the West Shouldn’t Ta Arian Jadbabaie

n the last few months, pressure has been mounting between Iran and the West. This recent strain on relations is not the same political posturing we have seen in the past few years—tensions are at a decadehigh. The US needs to recognize this and make sure it doesn’t take a stance that could lead to war. No one benefits from war. Iran certainly doesn’t—its military, as a whole, is technologically behind the West. Nor does the West benefit—Iran is three times the size of Iraq, which has already given the US military significant trouble. Any sort of attack on Iran would hurt both the US economy and its international standing. This is where Israel comes into the mix—they are much more willing to be involved in a pre-emptive strike on Iran, and have shown in the past that they are not afraid to address a threat with such an anticipatory attack. For now, Washington has been pressuring Israel to withhold from engaging in any strike on Iran—wisely so, for many reasons. An Israeli attack would most likely come in the form of an airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, but such an attack would only achieve a provocative result. Iran’s program is widely spread throughout the country— and if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, there are sure to be plenty of secret facilities that Israel will be unable to take out. Such an attack would give Iran all of the political justification it needs to paint itself as a victim and open hostilities against Israel. Instead, the US and Israel have been engaging in more covert forms of aggression against Iran. In the last two years, five nuclear scientists have been assassinated in Iran (the most shocking of which was when a scientist was shot through the throat right outside his daughter’s kindergarten), with many experts conceding that Israel is a likely backer of the attacks. In response, the chief of the Israeli Defense Force stated, “I don’t know who settled the score with the Iranian scientist, but I certainly am not shedding a tear,” while Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said that he “candidly” believed Iranian scientists showing up dead was a wonderful thing. Such politically incendiary attacks have opened the door for retaliation from Iran.

Meanwhile, the US has pursued its fair share of attempts at taking a harder stance on Iran, many of which have ended poorly. In October, the US accused Iran of being behind a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington—but as details arose about the plot, Iran’s involvement came into question. Iran’s motivation wasn’t clear at all, and analysts noted that the plot featured key intelligence blunders that are not characteristic of Iran’s covert operations. The US piled

In the past decade, the US and Israel have invaded 10 nations between them, while Iran has not invaded a country in 200 years. stronger sanctions on Iran in January, effectively black listing any bank that conducts business with Iran’s central bank. These sanctions, coupled with a new oil embargo from the EU, have hit the Iranian market hard, causing the value of the rial, Iran’s currency, to nose-dive. Diplomatic aggression has led Iran to take a harder stance against the West’s demands, threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, the actions of the West have pushed Iran further east. Iran has been flirting with the idea of trading its oil in a currency other than the dollar—India and Iran are already negotiating deals that would involve the transfer of oil in rupees. China has been coming to Iran’s aid, stressing a diplomatic solution to the tensions; the Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister visited Iran on February 12th, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled for a visit to China in March. The aggressive, hardline actions of the West have only provoked the situation even further, causing Iran to back away from any dealings with the West whatsoever. At the heart of the issue lies Iran’s “alleged” nuclear weapons program. For evidence, Western countries point to a November International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) report, which alleged that Iran was pursuing weapons technology,

though failed to provide any smoking gun of evidence. In fact, the current president of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, has been described in leaked diplomatic cables (courtesy of Wikileaks) as being “solidly in the US court on every strategic decision.” Meanwhile, that very same report showed how Iran was more open to allowing UN inspectors in the country in 2011. Whether or not Iran’s program is purely peaceful is still uncertain. But we must ask ourselves who is threatening whom, exactly, in such a scenario. In the past decade, the US and Israel have invaded 10 nations between them, while Iran has not invaded a country in 200 years. The US has bases stationed all around the Middle East, surrounding Iran, and it has provided faulty weapons intelligence in the past to Iraq. Israel has nuclear weapons, has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and refuses to do so, despite insistence from across the globe. Both Israel and the US fund terrorist activities against Iran’s government and have meddled in the country’s politics in the past. And the US cannot make a humanitarian argument here—while the Iranian government is authoritarian in nature, so is a key ally to the US, Saudi Arabia. Iran may feel

international

ake a Harder Stance on Iran that it is being denied the right to nuclear power simply because it is not a Western ally. Iran is by no means innocent in this scenario. Ahmadinejad has made quite a few belligerent statements regarding international relations in the Middle East. Iran has close ties to Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations deemed terrorist by the West. Although Iran recently said in a letter to the EU that it would be willing to re-open talks with the West, negotiations with Iran have failed many times before. The main question to ask here, if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, is why? First, we must understand the leadership in Iran. While Ahmadinejad has been noisy in the past, what little power he held in the first place has decreased since his fallout with the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. Many will point to hostile comments the president has made, but we have to remember both sides have been making hostile statements for a while. Regardless, these leaders are dictatorial, yes, but the cold and calculating type—they are running a nation, not a jihadist movement. The ayatollahs of Iran have a sense of self-preservation—they know that it would be suicidal to use nuclear weapons against a country such as Israel,

which has over 300 warheads at its disposal, or a nation like the US, which has shown that it is willing to become militarily involved in the Middle East. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, it is to make a statement—to show the world that Iran is a strong, regional power that does not bow down to Western interests when it feels threatened by Western allies. Iran could be doing it to gain power: while the weapons themselves are suicidal to use, their very presence still implies the nation that holds them is a powerful one—just look at the nations with nuclear weapons today. Or it may just be the case of a kindergarten squabble—Iran may feel it too is entitled to nukes when it sees Israel has illegitimately developed nukes without signing the NPT. Regardless of whether they are developing weapons, Iran is in a tough place with sanctions. If it bows down to the calls to stop any enrichment by the West, it has effectively shown that it can be pushed around. If Iran refuses to comply, then it may keep its sovereignty intact, but it faces more and more sanctions that will further hurt its economy. The West needs to step back here and re-evaluate. War with Iran would spiral out of control and engulf the whole region, with

disastrous effects on all sides. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to an arms race in the region, with Saudi Arabia feeling threatened and willing to look to anyone for nuclear technology (it would be ironic if the Saudis turned to Israel for help, as Israel isn’t bound by the NPT). Regardless, the hardline policies of the US have only exasperated the problem further—Obama needs to go back to his campaign promise to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran. Iran has stated that it is open to talks without preconditions—talks that China and Russia have pushed for repeatedly. And the US needs to make sure it reins in Israel from any violent attack on Iran that would only serve to escalate tensions even further. Perhaps the US could push Israel, as Obama did last year, to sign the NPT, one of Iran’s main complaints regarding Israel and its nuclear capabilities. In return, the US could call for Iran to accept enrichment deals that involve shipping uranium off to Russia to enrich into nuclear fuel. Either way, if the current trend continues, the region faces the threat of a crippling war. Arian Jadbabaie is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at araianjad@gmail.com.

Sanctions hurting Iran Iran’s oil production is falling, its currency weakening and inflation rising. The U.S. would like to see Iran’s oil exports continue but hopes to limit the number of customers, so they can demand discounts and further cut revenue to Tehran. Iran oil production Millions of barrels per day

Rials per dollar* Official exchange rate

Food and housing prices Monthly price indexes

4.25

11,300

300

11,200

4.00

3.54 3.50 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10

China 22%

293.6

11,200 rials per dollar

European Union 18%

250

Food

11,100 3.75

Housing 10,900 Dec.

Japan 14%

200

11,000

Jan.

150 ’08

Iran’s major oil customers Jan.-June 2011, by percentage

’09

’10

219.5

India 13% Other 33%

’11

*On the open market, the exchange rate for Iran’s rial was 17,800 rials per dollar on Jan. 2. Source: Bloomberg News, Iran Central Bank, U.S. Energy Information Administration

Graphic: Scott J. Wilson, Wil Ramirez, Robert Burns, Los Angeles Times

international

Operation Fast and Furious: A Government Nightmare and a Foreign Relations Disaster Mariana Oliver | Illustration by David Brennan

hen news of “Operation Fast and Furious” broke out, it revealed a federal operation that had been kept largely under wraps but had exploded with the death of a border patrol agent. In the last few months, US Attorney General Eric Holder has asked federal officials to conduct an inquiry into an operation by US officials that purportedly involved providing weapons to suspected drug cartel members in Mexico. Operation Fast And Furious (OFF) was started in 2007 by the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). The purpose of the operation was to provide

1,765 guns were passed, with knowledge and approval of the ATF, from weapons dealers to alleged weapons smugglers. The hope of the ATF was to recover these guns before they ever crossed into Mexico, but the ATF failed rather miserably to do this. The Center for Public Integrity reports that only 797 of those guns were recovered in either Mexico or the US, and 195 of the guns have now been traced to some form of crime. The scope of the failure of OFF reached the public’s ears in December 2010 with news of the death of US border patrol agent Brian Terry. The outcry over this tragic event occurred when two of the weapons found at

Mahon, the chief of the ATF’s western division, has admitted to Congress he did not properly keep track of OFF, and in August 2011, both the director of the ATF and US Attorney in Arizona resigned amid the controversy of the operation. The ATF has long been involved in antiweapons smuggling operations, but letting guns “walk” has never been a tactic sanctioned by the US Justice Department. In fact, various people involved in the 2006 Operation Wide Receiver are also currently under investigation by the Justice Department for allowing such tactics. While ATF has received most of the heat for this giant blun-

About 200 Mexicans have died as casualties of weapons obtained from Operation Fast and Furious. weapons to suspected firearms smugglers and then track these weapons to hopefully link them to drug cartel members in Mexico. Author Malcolm Beith, an expert on the Mexican drug wars, explains that the ATF agents would buy guns from straw buyers: “People licensed to buy guns (they have no criminal records), but [who] are knowingly buying guns for those who are not licensed to purchase them.” The idea was to let the guns “walk,” quite literally, into Mexico in order to see where the weapons ended up; this necessitated that US agents not seize the guns as they crossed customs. In essence, as politicians and citizens alike complain about Mexicans “walking” illegally into our country, we were allowing our guns to walk out. OFF, deemed an Arizona sting operation, was part of the ATF’s effort to track weapons smuggling, part of its founding mission. This kind of operation in and of itself is not actually new: a similar strategy was used under the most recent Bush administration that went by the name of “Operation Wide Receiver.” Where this recent particular operation went wrong, however, was in the total lack of control over where many of these weapons ended up. The ATF had no way of tracking these weapons except through serial numbers. In just 15 months,

the murder scene were traced back to the ATF; in other words, these were most likely weapons involved in OFF. The ATF has denied there is any concrete evidence linking the weapons to its operation, but so far there is little in the way supporting that these were not the OFF weapons. The ATF has also consistently found that the overwhelming majority of firearms recovered at crime scenes and traced by Mexican officials originate in the US. Some weapons escape through legal loopholes, such as the federal law that does not require background checks of private sales at US gun shows. Therefore, the ATF has no way of tracing how many weapons from these purchases cross into Mexico. The report puts the estimate of American weapons recovered from Mexican crimes scenes for 2008-2010 as high as 90%. The killing of a US agent was the spark necessary to begin a federal inquiry into the operation. The purpose of the committee was to determine whether weapons were properly tracked by the ATF. As stated earlier, the inquiry has shown that the operation did not lead to the arrest of any major weapons traffickers. Instead, about 200 Mexicans have died as casualties of weapons obtained from OFF. William Mc-

der, let us also acknowledge what an impossible task this agency is entrusted with. After being criticized for not going after major weapons smugglers, the ATF changed tactics, and programs such as OWR and OFF were created. Fingers must also be pointed at the lack of communication and coordination within the Justice Department. The ATF should have been coordinating with the FBI, the Justice Department, the DEA, and local law enforcement agencies from the very beginning. As the Justice Department struggles to save face and hold people accountable, our Mexican neighbors are the one who really merit throwing a not-too minor tantrum. Why? Because OFF was never actually revealed to the Mexican government. Even if OFF had successfully recovered and traced most of the weapons back to major drug kingpins, this is a success that should have been shared with the Mexican government after giving the go-ahead for such an operation. President Calderón might even have been on board, since he has previously supported US security initiatives. In the longensuing debate on the drug war and gun control, Mexico has been asking the US government to do its part by enforcing stricter gun control legislation. In March of 2011,

international 33

President Obama and Mexico’s President Calderon agreed to cooperate on efforts to curb weapons and drug trafficking across their borders. Instead, the United States did just the opposite, making it easier to smuggle weapons. OFF was a unilateral strategy that arguably trespassed on national sovereignty. If we are serious about cooperation, let’s get serious: no more of the clandestine US operations that defined much of US/Latin America relations in the 80s. Relations have been tense with Mexican President Felipe Calderon after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly deemed the Mexican cartels a kind of “insurgency.” If the two countries are to combat the drug war as a two-front initiative, then OFF is a total breach of trust. Up until now, President Obama has said little other than that

allowing the smuggling of guns into Mexico would not have been “appropriate.” “Not appropriate” does not even begin to cover the scope of the failure. As one editorial published in the Mexican newspaper La Jornada expressed, the ambiguity that the US has shown “with one hand providing economic and military resources to the Mexican government via the Merida Initiative, and with the other arming the narco trafficking cartels that operate within Mexico” is one of the main factors contributing to the failure of active security efforts. A large part of the ongoing federal inquiry involves determining whether the OFF weapons crossed the Mexican border inadvertently, or whether US law enforcement officials purposefully allowed these to cross into Mexico. It seems as if critics are

focusing on the wrong issue. More important than finding out whether the bordercrossing was by accident or on purpose, the focus should be on the flawed premise of OFF in the first place. OFF was an incredibly risky operation to undertake without an absolute guarantee that weapons would not cross the border. The questions that need to be asked instead are why was this operation ever conceived in the first place and why the ATF was allowed to follow through with it. How could the Justice Department and the President not have known about OFF? Out of sight should not be out of mind when issues of foreign policy and national security are concerned, and agencies should certainly not be left to act on their own free will. Imagine if all the border states had decided to take on a similar plan. Worse still, suppose Mexican officials conducted a covert operation to track weapons into the US and then lost them. It is impossible to predict the US response, but I am quite certain that President Obama would have used much stronger language than “not appropriate.” A report issued on February 2, 2012 by congressional Republicans places the blame for the failed OFF on the ATF and US Attorney’s office in Phoenix, thereby exonerating Obama’s Justice Department of any fault. The report claims that the ATF failed to properly share information and communicate with other law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI and DEA. Had it communicated better, the report suggests, that ATF would have been aware that two of its prime suspects that it was tracking were in fact paid informers of the FBI, and who could therefore not be prosecuted. So the Obama administration is spared disgrace and the ATF gets an overhaul of its administrators. All’s well that ends well.

Mariana Oliver is a senior majoring in Latin American studies. She can be reached at oliver.mariana89@gmail.com.

34 international

Burma, on a Mission Gabe Rubin

ituated at the crossroads of India and China and flush with influential opposition group. The NLD won Burma’s last elections in natural resources, Burma could have joined the other de- 1990 but was barred from entering parliament by the military, which veloping giants in their explosive economic growth in past then outlawed the party and later jailed Suu Kyi. decades. Could have, if not for a half-century of repressive miliOther events in the country appeared just as troubling. A 2007 tary rule and international isolation. But the events of recent months revolt known as the Saffron Revolution was brutally suppressed by show that Burma’s government is moving towards economic and the ruling junta. Horrifying images of peaceful Buddhist monks being political reforms that will eventually allow it to join the development beaten by regime soldiers flashed on news screens around the world. party if it can avoid major hiccups Northern areas of the country have along the way. been war-torn for decades, with sepaFor the first time since 1962, ratist ethnic groups waging armed inBurma, whose military junta ofsurgencies against the central authorficially changed the nation’s name ity. Tensions with the Karen ethnic to Myanmar upon assuming power, group had been particularly high in has a civilian president. Initially recent years over the Myitsone Dam written off as a military wolf in project, which would have provided sheep’s clothing, President Thein hydroelectric power for the Chinese Sein has impressed the world with and displaced hundreds of thousands his reform-focused leadership. The of people. US and other western nations have President Thein Sein anset certain conditions for the cannounced the cancellation of the cellation of economic sanctions on Myitsone project this past October. Burma, and the State Department He claimed the dam was “against has been effusive with praise for the will of the people,” an unusual the clear steps Burma has taken tophrase for a Burmese leader. In a wards meeting those conditions. At flurry of fall activity, the governthe same time, Secretary of State ment continued to announce further Hillary Clinton has been clear that prisoner releases and new freedoms the US will meet “action with acfor opposition members and the tion,” a policy clearly on display press. Suu Kyi proudly declared when she announced the immedithat she and her party will run in the ate exchange of ambassadors with Burmese President Thein Sein April elections—a choice that will Burma following the release of Photo by the Thai Government | Wikimedia Commons likely catapult her into elected office hundreds of political prisoners. for the first time in her long career. President Barack Obama sent Secretary Clinton to Burma in early The Burmese seem to be keeping up their end of the bargain; they December, the first visit by a US Secretary of State since 1955. The have been holding peace talks with the Kachin Independence Army, visit didn’t dwell on pleasantries. The US has the upper hand in nego- their foe in one of the nation’s bloodiest civil wars (Burma has the tiations with Burma, as many analysts say Burma has become wary unique distinction of fighting not one but several ethnic wars within of Chinese influence in Burmese affairs. In this sense, Burma would its borders). A peace agreement was signed with the Karen rebels in be joining its fellow Association of Southeast Asian Nations members mid-January, ending a conflict that had been ongoing since 1949. Now in cozying up to the US to blunt China’s power in the region. The US even the most pessimistic of observers are holding back their skeptirelishes this position, but has a few more provisions before Burma can cism. be taken off its blacklist: Clinton urged the Burmese to cut nuclear ties Despite the astounding pace of reform, Burma still has a long way with North Korea, put an end to its ethnic conflicts, and continue to to go. Isolation (most of it self-imposed) has stunted Burma’s growth. reform civil society. Its GDP per capita ranked 161st in 2011, placing it in the tragic comBurma’s willingness to embrace reform has happily shocked pany of Haiti and Rwanda. But Burma’s mineral wealth, including many in the West, as just months ago even the most optimistic of ob- vast deposits of metals, petroleum, and natural gas, provide a built-in servers were skeptical of any near-term changes. An election law that advantage in the global economy. With newfound international supwent into effect for the November 7, 2010 elections dictated that while porters willing to help with infrastructure and civic institutional deBurma would now have a “multi-party democracy,” no one who had velopment, Burma’s prospects have a bright upside. With roads and been convicted of a crime could run for office. In a nation that at the a democratic compass, Burma will still have a long trip ahead, but at time had thousands of political prisoners, few parties other than those least it will be headed in the right direction. supported by the military could have participated. The law notably disqualified Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who Gabe Rubin is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can leads the National League for Democracy, Burma’s largest and most be reached at grubin@wustl.edu.

Citizenry is creating a platform for transparency in government. On this platform, average citizens can exchange thoughts, ideas, and news regarding politicians, special interest groups, and other current political topics in an environment that is constructive and informational. Powering this platform is an innovative social gaming system for earning â&#x20AC;&#x153;political kickbacksâ&#x20AC;? for supporting or opposing topics on citizenry. This gaming platform allows average citizens to become political experts and shape the public perception of political campaigns either positively or negatively through feedback and interaction. By providing facts and information on a variety of political topics, you can help inform, educate, and entertain fellow students and citizens at large. This information and annotated political videos will then be available to everyday citizens on their mobile devices when they hit the polls this November, aiding them in making informed decisions. Wash U has proven to be an excellent resource in the Saint Louis community. Last year, we took in one intern on a separate project and at the end of the internship he was responsible for 7 provisional patents. This year, we want to build on that foundation by partnering with even more bright students as partners in our vision for transparency in government and in structured internships. Sincerely, Brian Blanchard HyperVize, CEO/Chief Architect 636.634.5837 brian@hypervize.com

Partners for transparent government:

If you are interested in using this platform to influence government, we ask for your support in proving that college students are interested in engaging in politics and social issues. This proof will come in the form of Facebook followers. To that end, we challenge you to find 10â&#x20AC;&#x201C;15 students who will join you in following us on Facebook. Our goal is to reach 10k followers before we launch this product in mid-March. Prior to the launch of this platform, you will have an opportunity to continue this partnership by engaging candidates and social issues on the site prior to us opening it to the public.

Internship opportunity:

Our interns are tasked with actual business deliverables.You will not be cold-calling florists or pushing papers.You will have an opportunity to work hand-in-hand with politicians, define our marketing efforts and business model, and possibly even join us as we pursue venture capital. If you have an interest in a career in political campaigning, technology, marketing, or entrepreneurism, we would like to invite you to apply for an internship by forwarding your resume directly to brian@hypervize.com.

http://citizenry.tv http://www.facebook.com/Citizenry.TV

36 international

The European Union: The Bro Nahuel Fefer

urope is in the midst of a crisis. On January 13th, 2012, Standard and Poor’s downgraded the debt rating of nine countries within the Eurozone, including France, thus raising their borrowing costs. Since the private holders of Greek debt have struck a deal that will result in a loss of approximately 70% of these assets, Greece has essentially unofficially defaulted. Spain and Italy’s borrowing costs, meanwhile, have skyrocketed due to stagnant growth and high levels of debt. The European Union has held a series of summits, which often drag on deep into the night as countries try desperately to find a solution to the euro crisis. What they’ve come up with thus far are bailouts (primarily funded by Germany) for (in chronological order) Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, and, yet again, Greece. Thus far, driven by Germany’s vision for a stronger European Union, the EU has attempted to stabilize the European economy with last-minute bailouts and has paved the way for long-term growth with forced austerity (cuts to social services, wages of government employees, etc.) and increased enforcement of laws targeting fiscal irresponsibility.

Stabilizing the European Union: Structural Problems According to the Bruegel Institute (a think tank funded by EU member states), two problems built into the European Union’s foundation have prevented it from reacting effectively to this crisis: a central bank that rarely buys government bonds and a lack of fiscal unity. The first problem is a result of the Maastricht Treaty, which created the EU in 1992 and gave the European Central Bank (ECB) a very limited mandate, discouraging it from buying government debt. Unlike the US Federal Bank, the ECB is not tasked with crafting monetary policy to maintain financial stability. Fortunately, this issue is beginning to be addressed. Although the ECB abstained from buying government debt in the initial stages of the financial crisis, it eventually began doing so in response to extraordinary circumstances. According to some experts,

this lack of decisive action perpetuated the financial crisis. Now, however, under the leadership of new President Mario Draghi, the ECB has accepted an active monetary policy. This means that markets are now beginning to assume that the ECB will buy government debt; they no longer wait for a specific announcement. All of this allows countries to borrow at lower rates while stabilizing their economies. Draghi has gone one step further, and in a move that has angered many within the EU, loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to European banks at extremely low interest rates. An unspoken agreement between the ECB and European banks dictates that the banks use this influx of money to buy up government debt at low rates. Although his critics do not believe that this lies within the ECB’s mandate, Draghi’s controversial move has been justified by the market response. The borrowing costs of Europe’s economies have fallen significantly across the board. The second main impediment to an effective response has been a lack of fiscal unity. As it stands now, each country in the EU is responsible for its own debt; a fiscal union would involve the creation of “Eurobonds” which would make Europe a single entity responsible for its debts. Investors buying Eurobonds would not be investing in a specific country, but rather the EU as a whole. While the borrowing costs of the most stable economies like Germany would go up, those of countries such as Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain would go down, stabilizing their economies. Although many economically unstable countries and even France have expressed interest in adopting Eurobonds, Germany is currently strongly opposed to them. There is no denying that Eurobonds would likely hurt the German economy in the short term, but the dissolution of the euro would hurt its economy far more. Germany’s current economic success is built on exports. A return to the mark would, given its extremely high valuation, make German goods more expensive abroad, which would deal a potentially crippling blow to the German economy. Thus, if the European crisis continues, Germany will likely consider Eurobonds as a last-ditch effort to maintain the integ-

rity of the Eurozone. This would significantly change the dynamics of the European Union. Nations would be even more reliant on each other, as one’s failure would directly drive up borrowing costs for everyone. This, in turn, would likely lead to demands for a surrender of some national sovereignty with regard to economic issues. This may sound speculative, but to an extent it has already begun. Current laws preventing budget deficits larger than 3% are for the first time being enforced harshly. Although total surrender of budgetary sovereignty is a long way off, Eurobonds would shift some economic powers from national capitals to Brussels.

Long term growth in the European Union: Restarting the Convergence Machine If the European Union manages to stabilize its economy, it must develop a plan for long-term growth. Unfortunately, the current emphasis on austerity and fiscal responsibility is misplaced. Although some countries, such as Greece and Ireland, have fiscal imbalances to blame for exasperating their current woes, others, such as Spain and Italy, boasted debt-to-GDP ratios similar to those of France, the United Kingdom and even Germany before the recession. The euro crisis started off as a sovereign debt crisis, and the EU continues to treat it as such by prescribing balanced budgets and austerity. The real problem, however, is more profound and less palatable than simple irresponsibility: lack of competitiveness. The World Bank describes the European Union as a “Convergence Machine,” a unique economic system that takes poor economies and converts them to wealthy ones. The evidence for the success of this machine can be found in quality of life data: income and consumption spiked in southern European countries such as Italy and Spain after they were incorporated into EU. The same thing happened in the 1990’s and 2000’s in central and eastern European countries. Meanwhile, northern European economies continued growing at more modest rates.

international 37

oken Convergence Machine

The European growth model has two unique qualities. The first is the highest levels of regional integration in the world. The European Union’s single market has facilitated both trade and finance between members and has encouraged the movement of private capital from richer to poorer countries via extremely high levels of foreign direct investment (FDI). All of this has fueled high levels of growth in poorer countries and maintained steady growth in economies like France, Germany, and the Netherlands. The Convergence Machine’s second distinctive feature is that European governments take on the responsibilities of encouraging research and making higher education accessible. The impact on research is moderate—government funding of research in Europe comprises an average of 35% of total research funding, as compared to roughly 27% in the United States—but the impact on European education is dramatic: almost all European countries offer education that is either free, or less than €1000 per year. Both of these trends have large positive spillovers, both into the economy, encouraging innovation and creating an educated workforce, and into the high European quality of life. The convergence model for European growth predicts that the most recent additions and poorest members of the EU will experience the greatest economic growth. Recently, however, this has not been the case. Labor productivity, a figure produced by dividing a country’s GDP by the size of

its workforce, provides a good estimate of a country’s competitiveness and is the longterm driver of economic growth. Between 2002 and 2008, the labor productivity of northern European economies slowly but steadily increased 1.5%, while that of recent eastern and central European inductees to the EU skyrocketed by more than 6%. In that same timeframe, however, the labor productivities of Italy, Spain, Greece, and Portugal not only failed to increase at a faster rate than those of northern European countries, but fell by almost 1%. This counterintuitive trend can be attributed to the structure of the Southern European economies, which rely heavily on micro-businesses consisting of fewer than ten people and local family businesses. As the World Bank notes, these businesses tend to be unattractive or inaccessible investments for foreign banks and have fewer resources to invest in innovation. The entrance of Eastern European economies into the EU both redirected FDI away from Southern European economies, slowing growth, and supplied cheap European labor that led to a shift of low technology manufacturing industry from Southern to Eastern Europe. In order to become competitive in the long run, Southern European economies must, like their northern counterparts, increase government expenditure targeted at stimulating innovation. Of equal importance is an intensive reform of their domestic regulatory system. Their inefficiency, corruption,

and intrusive enforcement have made these countries poor places to do business. Ultimately, Europeans must ask themselves how far they want to take regional integration. Some, like the British, consider European solidarity, as put memorably by The Economist, “spending someone else’s money,” and have always kept their distance from the experiment that is the Convergence Machine. Others, like Germany, have a lot to gain from solidarity, but fear that if the southern economies fail to make the necessary reforms to keep their economies competitive, increased interdependence will require that Germany repeatedly foot the bill to keep these economies stable. The poorest economies, on the other hand, have a lot to gain economically from increased integration but may lose their sovereignty in the process.

Nahuel Fefer is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at nahuelfefer@yahoo.com