Issue 3 - Political Partisanship

ReviewVolume XXIII - November 2013

THE HORACE MANN3

Issue

Political PartisanshiP

Caroline KuritzkesEditor-in-Chief

Samuel HenickExecutive Editor

Catherine EngelmannSenior Editor - Features

Ben GreeneSenior Editor - Domestic

Hana KrijestoracSenior Editor - International

Jonah WexlerSenior Editor - Economics

Jacob HabermanSenior Editor - Science and Technology

Daniel BaudoinHannah Davidoff

Henry LuoMohit Mookim

Kelvin RheeNamit SataraLenn UchimaJacob Zurita

Senior Contibutors

Charles CottonSamuel FischRobert Hefter

Sam SternAssociate Editors

ReviewTHE HORACE MANN

Gregory DonadioFaculty Advisor

The Horace Mann Review is a member of the Columbia Scho-lastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Associa-tion, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Opinions ex-pressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School. Please contact The Review for more information at www.cjkwebdesign.com/review.

Will EllisonDavid Hackel

Sahej SuriManaging Content Editors

Jenny Heon*Mihika KapoorIsaiah Newman

Managing Design Editors

Letter From the Editor

2

Neil AhlawatEdmund Bannister

Jenna BarancikLauren Futter

Matthew HarpeLaszlo HerwitzEmily Kramer

James McCarthy

James MegibowAdam ResheffHarry Seavey

Brett SilversteinIkaasa Suri

Nathan Tillinghast-RabyMitchell Troyanovsky

Elizabeth XiongJunior Editors

*Chair of the Senior Board

Caroline KuritzkesEditor-in-ChiefVolume XXIII

Welcome to the third issue of Volume XXIII of The Horace Mann Review. In the face of a government shutdown, new health care law, ticking debt clock, and extreme party partiality, now more than ever our country’s leaders have been struggling to mend an American government fraying at its seams. As an American populace, we have many pressing questions, but we lack concrete answers. How could our government possibly cave in on itself? What is the efficacy of a two-party system if neither side can unite to generate any meaningful consensus? And why do we value deep-seated tensions of the past over critical action of the present? As our nation’s executive and legislative bodies scramble to mitigate the consequences of recent calamity and protect the American image, so do we wrestle to make sense of our political process unhinged by congres-sional standoff.

We couldn’t imagine a more relevant theme that addresses these questions than “Polit-ical Partisanship,” which we’ve selected as this issue’s features topic. Review writers crit-ically analyze key players in the government shutdown, examine the Affordable Care Act, and compare U.S. political extremism in the context of the international sphere. They explore many of the important issues of today, from the Nairobi mall shooting in Kenya and the rabies outbreak in Africa to eminent domain and drug legalization here at home. Their articles represent a vast range of opinions, and we ask that you approach them with an open mind - even if you disagree with the arguments that are presented to you.

The Review strives to publish many different perspectives, and this issue embodies that goal. Contrasting viewpoints enable us - as a community of questioners, explorers, and learners - to become more knowledgeable and critically-minded. This magazine is an outlet for our writers to channel their frustrations with the way things are and to think analytically about the way things should be. We are proud of them for stepping up to the plate and doing just that, especially during a time when there is so much to question.

We thank them, our accident-prone junior editors, senior staff, Mr. Donadio, Dr. Kelly, and the rest of the administration for their commitment to this magazine.

Enjoy the issue!

huffingtonpost.com

Cover Drawing by Mihika Kapoor

3

4D

OM

EST

IC

Table of Contents

24

FE

AT

UR

ES

40E

CO

NO

MIC

S

A House Divided

Daniel Rosenblatt

The Penny Plan

Maria Balaeskoul and Anne Rosenblatt

Drawing the Line on Gerrymandering

Ben Alexander page 34

14

INT

ER

NA

TIO

NA

L

page 28

page 40

This Land is My Land

Daniel Jin page 4

46

SCI-

TE

CH

Drug Nation

Ray Fishman page 7

The Flaws in Obamacare

Zachary Gaynor page 12

Rabies in Africa

Evy Verbinnen page 14

Rouhani: The New Face of a New IranEvan Greene page 16

GOP Obstructionism: Why Partisanship is Counterproductive

Daria Balaeskoul page 30

Afghan Retreat

Eric Stein page 18

Egyptian Elections and the Revolution that Never Ended

Hannah Seckendorf page 20

The Rise of Terror

Matthew Parker page 22

The Key Players in the Government Shutdown

Miranda Bannister page 24

Partisan Death Match

Andrew Cogut page 32

The Fed’s First Chairwoman?

Krystian Loetscher page 42

The Nobel Prize in Economics

Spencer Slagowitz page 44

Resources and the Future

Lexi Kanter page 46

Say No to Nuclear Energy

Anna Kuritzkes page 48

Breaking Down Barriers

Timothy Hoang page 50

An Inconvenient Truth

Vaed Prasad page 52

What We are Still Missing

Gabriel Broshy page 54

Government Shutdown Hits Pause on Science

Abigail Zuckerman page 38

Mayors and Money

Henry Shapiro page 10

4

Domestic

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII

THIS LAND IS MY LAND

PRIVATE PROPERTY!

GOVERNMENT PROPERTY!

Our Founding Fathers created a na-tion run on the values of freedom and individual liberty. However,

our nation’s eminent domain laws conflict with these values and threaten the security of private property. Today, eminent domain is used almost whenever land developers want to acquire property. While the intend-ed purpose of eminent domain is to expe-dite economic growth, its overuse hurts economic development more than it helps. Furthermore, the abuse of eminent domain can be attributed to the federal government, whose excessive regulations make eminent domain the most cost-effective way to ac-quire land. The use of eminent domain must be limited to prevent our government from infringing on property rights and de-stroying perfectly healthy neighborhoods.

The value of private property has deep

roots in the American tradition. John Ad-ams once said, “Property is secure or liber-ty cannot exist.” In the Fifth Amendment, the government is granted the right to seize private property for what is deems “public use.” The “public use” meant by the Con-stitution’s writers refers to buildings, roads, and parks owned and used by the general public. Over time, though, the use of em-inent domain has shifted from its original purpose. In the 1954 decision Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court allowed a dis-ease-filled, crime-ridden, Washington, D.C. neighborhood to be taken by eminent domain for “public purpose.” The ruling established the use of eminent domain to include the elimination of “blighted ar-eas” – neighborhoods or zones thought to limit economic growth. In 2005, the city of New London condemned the proper-

ties of Susette Kelo and her neighbors for a private redevelopment plan that includ-ed building more expensive houses, a new state park, and a $350 million pharma-ceutical research facility. In the case Kelo vs New London, the Supreme Court again expanded the definition of “public use” to include not only the elimination of blight, but also any private development program that generates higher property values or greater tax revenue for the government. Despite much backlash, the ruling stood.

The Kelo ruling blatantly violates property rights, and directly opposes the original purpose of eminent domain. By no reasonable definition does “public use” include private development. Econom-ic growth does not benefit the people if their ownership of their own property is at risk. Kelo gives governments the right

Daniel Jinthepeoplescube.com

atlantisbusinessjournal.comcreatingkeepsakes.com

to take property and transfer its owner-ship whenever they are presented with a development plan that will create more tax money. Therefore, virtually any home or business would be vulnerable to emi-nent domain if a plan for a new mall were introduced. Kelo-style takings under-mine the security of private property, one of the most basic rights of American citi-zens, and therefore cannot be permitted.

In addition to the violation of prop-erty rights, there are large economic and

social consequences of eminent domain that cannot be ignored. The main argument why eminent domain is just is that it assists economic growth. However, even econom-ically, eminent domain has its drawbacks. Most projects rely on public subsidies for a few years upon completion. This will like-ly be the case with New York City’s Second Avenue Subway, which will cost an esti-mated $17 billion. Despite the enormous price tag, the new line is only two blocks away from a parallel line, and will provide at best a negligible benefit to New York-ers. Additionally, though eminent domain supposedly spurs economic growth by re-placing blighted neighborhoods with more valuable ones, even healthy and growing neighborhoods have been deemed to be blighted, halting economic development. For example, an Alabama law defines blight to be “buildings … which, by reason of di-lapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of venti-lation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or ob-solete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the com-munity.” According to Attorney Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation, this definition exposes almost any neigh-borhood to seizure under eminent domain.

While local governments insist that blight obstructs economic growth, blight in fact stems from the government itself. By neglecting property rights, handing out subsidies to failing businesses, and imposing irritating taxes and regulations, the government makes building on vacant land extraordinarily expensive. A study

conducted by economists John Dawson of Appalachian State University and John Seater of North Carolina State University found that federal regulations have lowered GDP growth by 2% per year since 1949. The paper reads, “Regulation’s overall ef-fect on output’s growth rate is negative and substantial… reduction in the growth rate has led to an accumulated reduction in GDP of about $38.8 trillion as of the end of 2011.” This means that the GDP in 2011 would have been $53.9 trillion, as opposed

to $15.1 trillion. In other words, America is now 72% poorer due to its own restrictions and regulations, which have increased by a factor of seven since 1949. Ronald Bailey, a correspondent for Reason.com, inter-preted these results to mean that the me-dian household income could have been $330,000, more than six times the current number of $53,000. Blight is clearly not a result of failing neighborhoods, but rather a consequence of the government’s strict supervision of small businesses. As a re-sult, developers prefer taking land that is already owned for construction, even if it requires them to make false claims of “blight.” In 2003, developers attempted to seize land in Mesa, Arizona, to expand a local hardware store. While they claimed that they were helping to remove blight, property values in the condemned neigh-borhood actually grew by 19.3% from 2000 to 2002. More recently, in 2009, Columbia

University tried to take the properties of several small businesses in Manhattan for an expansion project. However, the univer-sity’s evidence that the areas were blighted was unpainted block walls and loose aw-ning supports. In Kelo’s case as well, well-kept homes were condemned. These are just a few of the many abuses stemming from the Berman ruling. In most cases, the very reason developers want to con-demn a property is its economic potential. All they must do to gain ownership of the property is to make a claim that it is blight-ed. It is imperative that healthy neighbor-hoods not be taken by eminent domain; takings of thriving neighborhoods restrict economic growth, contradicting the pur-pose of eminent domain in the first place.

If condemnations are not illegal, they are immoral. Those who are forced to leave their homes are often paid a price below market value, and must find a new resi-dence. For example, New York’s Second Avenue Subway has caused many Upper East Side residents to leave their apart-ments in favor of less desirable options. Ann and Conrad Riedi pay $1,120 a month for their five-room Upper East Side apart-ment, where they have lived for forty years, but will now have to find a new residence to make way for ventilation shafts. Accord-ing to the New York Times, the MTA has recommended that the couple leave Man-hattan and will possibly lose their dog. It is required that the MTA find a “comparable” apartment in size and rent, but this appears to be nearly impossible, as other apartments in the same neighborhood may require an additional $1,000 per month. However, the MTA is only bound to pay $5,250 in subsidies over the next three years if the displaced tenants move to more expensive

5

Domestic

November 2013

“When the most effective means of purchasing land are taken away from developers, the government will realize

how damaging their regulations on business are.”

rawstory.com

6

Domestic


apartments. While the MTA has said they plan to pay more, the tenants have not been happy with the options presented to them. Several tenants have been asked to con-sider moving to Harlem, but none showed interest. One tenant, Nicolle Poian, was asked to move to an apartment half the size of her current one. Another tenant, Marc Shatzman, said, “They [the MTA] kept trying to show us low-income housing.” Needless to say, the MTA has clearly failed to provide the displaced tenants “compa-rable” housing options, even though it is required by New York state law. Although a 2007 program to rent empty apartments to house displaced tenants was approved by the MTA, it has not been pursued by the authority. Instead, the MTA has spent more than $200,000 to rent empty apartments in the buildings it plans to acquire to drive up rent and dodge high relocation costs. The construction of the Second Avenue Subway has relegated tenants to inferior residences with higher fees. Developers and organiza-tions that use eminent domain have little consideration for the previous owners, who suffer greatly from the loss of their property.

In the years after Kelo, eminent do-main use grew to the point that developers used eminent domain whenever they want-ed land. During the economic recession, eminent domain use slowed, as developers

had no motivation to condemn land. How-ever, with the improvement of the econo-my and the government craving money more than ever, uses of eminent domain are starting to increase again. After the Kelo decision, many states, including Alabama, increased property protections. Recently, though, Alabama has rescinded its previ-ous protections. The bill signed into law by Governor Robert Bentley affirms the Kelo ruling and gives an extremely murky definition of “blight.” New Jersey, too, has recently passed a bill that will weaken prop-erty protections, even though it supposedly codifies two state court rulings that require governments to prove a condemned area to be blighted. Nevertheless, according to Peter Dickson, a New Jersey land-use attor-ney, “This law is transparently an attempt to go back to the old way of doing business,” referring to the peak of eminent domain use before the recession. If eminent domain use does rebound to its previous levels, not only will well-kept houses in develop-ing neighborhoods be taken when their owners have done no wrong, but taxpayer money will be spent to both pay for the land and the projects that will be pursued.

While completely outlawing eminent domain is probably not a plausible step to take at the moment, it is reasonable to request that the Kelo decision be reversed by the Supreme Court and that “blight” be

eliminated as an excuse for seizing proper-ty. The problem of eminent domain abuse is not eminent domain itself, but its over-use as a result of governmental regulations on business. As a matter of fact, the use of eminent domain to build schools or rebuld truly failing neighborhoods are actually beneficial. Nevertheless, the recent eminent domain revival must be halted. Kelo caused people to notice the abuse of eminent do-main, and since the ruling, there have been considerable measures that have already been taken to limit seizures of property for private gain. Grassroots organizations like the Institute for Justice have fought and won countless eminent domain cases in the years since Kelo, and 44 states have re-fined their eminent domain laws since the decision. Backlash against eminent domain abuse has come from people from all over the political spectrum and in a wide variety of ways. Eminent domain laws should be restored to pre-Kelo conditions, and with a more clear definition of “blight.” When the most effective means of purchasing land are taken away from developers, the gov-ernment will realize how damaging their regulations on business are. Eminent do-main must be limited to only cases in which the plan for the condemned land that truly benefits the public, and the time has come for Congress to finally take action in out-lawing eminent domain for private uses. HMR

6

intellectual takeout.com

huffingtonpost.com

In the United States, we are expe-riencing miraculous technological and social advancements; we are

able to travel to any place in the world in less than twelve hours, we have created hand-held devices able to perform inex-plicable functions, and we have created laws ensuring equal rights for all men and women, regardless of race or so-cioeconomic status. And yet, while this modernization continues to occur from an industrial and societal standpoint, we have only regressed when it comes to the strict boundaries the government has put in place on the legal status of rec-reational drugs. These limitations not only harm the users of these recreational drugs, but also deprive the government of several billion dollars in tax revenue.

There are seven main facets as to why all “soft”, non-addictive, recreational, banned substances should be legalized and why “hard”, addictive substances should be considered for at least partial, if not complete legalization or the reduc-tion of harsh jail sentences associated with crimes related to the use, distribu-tion, or sale of these drugs. (1) the use of mind-altering substances to change one’s consciousness is a natural human desire; (2) the decision to use these substances is the user’s decision; (3) the legalization of drugs would effectively eliminate all drug cartels; (4) previously illegal drugs could potentially be government regu-lated and sold by government-approved vendorss; (5) the legalization of drugs would directly stimulate the economy,

generating billions of dollars as a result; (6) harsh jail sentences would be auto-matically eradicated; and (7) the gov-ernment’s war on drugs has resulted in a disproportionate rate of African-Ameri-cans being arrested. However, there are also negative aspects associated with the legalization of psychotropic drug such as health effects, addiction, and the effect it would have on society.

In order to understand the complex relationship between psychoactive drugs and humans, as well as why addressing the legalization of these substances is necessary, we must first look at both why one would want to take drugs and their effects on us. Illicit drugs can be addic-tive and dangerous and carry harsh pun-ishments. Ronald K. Siegel, a professor

Drug Nation Ray Fishman

7November 2013

Domestic

of psychopharmacologist at UCLA says that intoxicants are the “fourth drive,” as they function similarly to human in-stincts regarding thirst, hunger, and the need for shelter. While changing one’s consciousness is often regarded as in-stinct, the government, by illegalizing a number of drugs, is effectively denying citizens the ability to act on this instinct and imposing moral law. While members of the government may believe that drug use is immoral, they do not have discre-tion to punish individuals for breaking what they believe is “moral code,” being that an individual’s actions do not harm another being. However, individuals in-gesting hard drugs do have the potential to harm other people, as a consequence of ingesting hard drugs, such as cocaine or heroin, is that one may enter a state in which he or she may not be aware of his or her actions, potentially endangering another person, but we will save the legal status of hard drugs for a later section. The choice, however, to ingest a drug like marijuana, is a decision that should not be made by the government. Cannabis has never resulted in the death of a user, as the lethal dose of THC, the psycho-active compound in marijuana, would be virtually impossible to achieve by

smoking the drug. In fact, studies show that one would die of carbon monoxide poisoning before ingesting the lethal amount of THC. Nevertheless, marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no medical value and can carry harsh punishments for posses-sion in small quantities. In addition to cannabis’ being profoundly less harmful compared to other drugs, including le-gal ones such as alcohol and tobacco, it even has some reported health benefits, such as pain relief and anxiety reduction in those with terminal cancer, the ability to kill cancer cells, as well as many other documented beneficial effects on health. The legalization of marijuana, believed to be the nation’s number one cash crop, would successfully eliminate several drug cartels involved in selling the plant, thus eliminating the violence associat-ed with them. If marijuana were legal, the sale of the drug would most likely be government controlled, and accord-ing to one study from the Cato Institute, the government would save $8.7 billion dollars from expenditures stopped to en-force the illegalization of marijuana, and an addition $8.7 billion dollars on taxes collected from the sales of marijuana, should they be taxed similarly to tobac-

co and alcohol. According to Harvard Economist Jeffrey Miron, legalizing all drugs would save between $85-90 billion dollars per year.

Besides saving money, legalizing drugs, soft or hard, would eliminate all of the drug cartels and violence associ-ated with these cartels. The illegaliza-tion of drugs creates a black market for these substances, and disputes between persons in charge of the illicit drug trade often result in deaths. Miron also esti-mates that the murder rate could fall by 25% in the U.S. if drugs were legal. This is why the U.S. should not only legalize drugs, but also tax and regulate them as well, ensuring that their products are adulterant free (adulterants in drugs sold by dealers often cause more deaths than the drugs alone) and can earn the gov-ernment a profit. Ultimately, the choice is obvious in deciding between purchasing the government’s drugs in a retail store or by a person found in the street. Although the facts show that there are 40,000 drug related deaths each year compared to ho-micide, which only accounts for about 15,000 deaths, legalizing drugs would actually bring both numbers down. One reason that so many deaths are attributed to drugs is because drugs are sold on the black market, and the product that a user is getting can never be tested for purity. An example of this would be cocaine. While cocaine is obviously an extremely powerful and addictive substance, only one in every 4,000 people will die trying it for the first time, and the reason for this is most likely because of impurities in the drug. If the government were to regulate sales and there were businesses selling drugs, there would be motivation to achieve a clean product in order to ensure that customers continue to buy its products. While perhaps there is no perfect solution regarding the legaliza-tion of hard drugs, as a society we must acknowledge their existence and realize that it would be more beneficial to soci-ety to institute a system of regulated drug control which would lower the murder rate, the amount of drug related deaths, and the racism involved in our policing of drugs than our current policy, which treats drug addicts like criminals, puts the general public at a higher risk, and is incredibly racist.

The War on Drugs has been an ab-solute failure in every sense of the word. We have handed down absurd prison sen-

totalpict.com

“The War on Drugs has been an absolute failure in every sense of the word. We have handed down absurd prison sentences, failed

to reduce drug intake, and punished minorities.”

Domestic

8 The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII

• $51,000,000,000 - annual cost of the War on Drugs

• 55% - percentage of federal prisoners serving time for drug law violations

• 200,000 - number of students who have been barred from receivng federal financial aid for drug convictions

• $47,600,000 - potential annual tax revenue that could be generated from the sale of currenlty illegal drugs

• 25% - perecentage the murder rate in the US could fall if the War on Drugs ended

• 66% - percentage of people incarcerated for drug charges who are African-Ameri-can or Latino, despite whites’ selling and using drugs at similar rates

STATISTICS ON THE WAR ON DRUGS

95rockfm.com

http://www.drugpolicy.org

Domestic

9November 2013

tences, failed to reduce drug intake and punished minorities, particularly blacks, unfairly, as well as filled our penitentia-ries with people on drug-related offens-es. In some recent years, we have spent 4 times as much on our prison system than our education system, while half of all prisoners in the U.S. are there for drug related offenses, slightly more than half of which are from cannabis meaning that the government spends the exact same amount of money on education as we do for incriminating people on a drug that has never been linked to a single death. People like this in prison often are not given a second chance in life, ending up stuck in the same socioeconomic status for the rest of their lives. Besides the ab-surd amount of prisoners in our jails, the current War on Drugs specifically targets black people. While African-Americans only make up 12% of the population and 13% percent of the nation’s drug users, 65% of all drug related arrests are of Af-rican-Americans, meaning that you are 5 times as likely to get arrested for tak-ing drugs if you are black. In a country where we stress equality so much, and have made amazing social progress in these areas, such as electing a black pres-ident, it is absolutely unacceptable that our own government is being discrimi-natory. If drugs were legal, this unprece-dented racial profiling would cease to ex-ist, as well as the unnecessary spending on our prison systems.

In conclusion, the U.S. should seri-ously consider implementing this system as an experiment. We saw what hap-pened with alcohol prohibition; it failed miserably. After it was legalized, the crime rate went down, as well as deaths associated with it. We must consider the social effects of this, and what the pos-sible international response would be, as it is our duty to do what is in the best interests of the citizens, similar to how when we fought from Britain to gain our independence. We were the first country to entertain the idea of gaining its inde-pendence from its owner. From this, we inspired many other countries to follow suit, and now independence is still per-tinent to today’s society. The same must be done with the legalization of drugs. Let’s give it a try America. HMR

10

Domestic


Mayors and Money

Big government agendas are destroying this nation and spreading as a result of Bill De Blasio’s

interventionist beliefs. He will destroy the progress made by both the Bloomberg and Giuliani administrations, while Joe Lhota would have lead New York to become a more prosperous city. A great example of the failures of interventionist governance is Detroit: a once prosperous manufacturing city destroyed by tax and spend policies.

De Blasio only wants to raise taxes on the rich to fund ineffective government programs. This tax hike will drive wealthy New Yorkers and large corporations out of the city. Bill De Blasio says that he believes that New York is a tale of two cities, one poor and one rich, but he if becomes mayor New York will become one city: a poor one. Joe Lhota on the other hand was a true capitalist.

He advocated for discontinuing excessive government spending and lowering taxes on the wealthy. Unfortunately, due to the fact that New York is a city largely populated by one political party, the chances of Lhota’s winning were slim from the start.

Unfortunately, this means De Blasio and his big government agenda are here to stay. His efforts to increase taxes will destroy New York businesses. We already have among the highest city taxes in America. The average household of 3 making $50,000 pays $909 higher than in the average US city and those who make $150,000 pay $5,980 more than national standard. Yet, De Blasio wants to raise them even more from 3.876% to 4.41%. What he fails to acknowledge is that poor New Yorkers and wealthy New Yorkers share a symbiotic relationship.

The New York City metropolitan area has the highest GDP out of any metropolitan area in the country and is larger than the GDP of many powerful nations including Mexico, Switzerland, Sweden, and a multitude of others. The

Henry Shapiro

www.thenation.com

11

Domestic

November 2013

corporate growth the city has enjoyed brings prosperity to both the poor and the rich. “Tax and spend” government can continue to senselessly tax the wealthy but the only result is a greater incentive to leave. This will prove a huge detriment to our industrial growth thereby taking money out of all New Yorkers’, not just the rich’s, pockets.

Our economy is based solely on the hope that people will continue to purchase the goods we produce. When someone spends money, that capital goes to a business. That business uses this capital, along with its other revenues, to grow and expand, resulting for a need for more employees. This translates directly into more jobs and more New Yorkers getting pay checks at the end of the month. and what do they do with that money? spend it. The agenda of De Blasio infringes upon this simple idea that forms the foundation of any successful capitalist economy. By increasing taxes, there will be less money in circulation. This means fewer jobs will be created, and fewer businesses will grow. De Blasio says he will help small businesses expand, but his policies tell a different story. Smaller industries tend to be impacted more by economic turmoil than larger

corporations. De Blasio can tax the rich all he wants, but in the end, it’s just going to come back and hurt the lower and middle class as well.

Although excessive taxation has a negative effect on the economy, we need some taxes to pay projects like infrastructure development. De Blasio, however, wants to overpay for the ineffective programs outlined in his plan. America as a whole has acquired approximately $17 trillion of debt. New York State currently has outstanding debts nearing $347 billion. Bill De Blasio wants to handle this crisis by spending more. He fails to see that we currently spend far more than we should be. He does not seem to care that this debt is something the next generation will have to pay off. So instead of cutting government spending to promote a better future, under De Blasio, we will be ravaged by interest rates and outstanding debt for years to come.

Bill De Blasio also wants to increase the minimum wage. By doing so, he forces companies to fire some of their employees. A company must make more than then they spend, therefore if their expenditures increase to much, in order to be profitable, they have to cut some loose

ends or lay off some of their employees. Fewer New Yorkers will have jobs. The state minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. De Blasio wants to raise it to $10 with benefits and $11.50 without. This is a 37%-58% increase. This change is incredibly drastic. In 1938 The Department of Labor increased the minimum wage by 20% and many economists believe this caused corporations to lay off 14% of workers whose salaries were altered as a product of the change. De Blasio’s increase will have a catastrophic impact on the poor. Using historical data, Milton Friedman speculated that each 10% increase in the minimum wage decreases the amount of jobs paying minimum wage by at least 1% to 3%. By this proportion, De Blasio’s increase could end in 15% layoffs of many of New York’s neediest. He argues that the minimum wage is not a living wage, but when it comes down to it, is it better to make slightly more than $7 or nothing at all? This also negatively affects business. After the economic crisis in 2008, the economy has had a slow recovery. We cannot afford to slow down this momentum by implementing new regulations that negatively impact the industrial corporate expansion.

Joe Lhota took the stance to promote capitalist values and policies. He was an advocate for lowering taxes, cutting useless and excessive government spending, and implementing business friendly policy. However, De Blasio and his plans that would result in economic devastation won the election in a landslide. This is indicative of a worrying political future for all branches of state government. HMR

“ ‘Tax and spend’ government can continue to senselessly tax the wealthy, but the only result will be a greater incentive to leave.”

12

Domestic


What is the purpose of hav-ing capitalism in the United States? It is to stimulate out

of the box thinking and to give everyone the possibility to live out the American dream. Obamacare imposes leftist views in the forms of programs and laws upon industries that make up this practice of capitalism. This new program is formally called the Patient Protection and Afford-able Care Act, with its liberal supporters putting it simply as a way to make health care cheap enough so that everyone can afford it, and accepting enough so that no one can be turned down due to their health problems. Obama’s goal for this plan sounds great, and is even admi-

rable, but the way that it is executed is entirely wrong. Some of the many flaws are that the law is entirely too expensive, the people overseeing the law are unac-countable to the American public, and over all, it does not accomplish the goal it sets out to.

The first problems with the Afford-able Care Act are the economic issues. Obamacare’s estimated cost by the year 2023 is 1.36 trillion dollars, an unrea-sonable amount that will cripple Ameri-ca in the long run. This plan is not only supposed to help middle and lower class families, but also bolster the future of America. Is it logical to you that it does this by adding an estimated $530 billion

to our country’s deficit by the year 2021? It is obvious that the Obama adminis-tration wants to go down in history as the one who sunk the United States into the deepest hole it has ever faced. Fur-thermore, Obamacare won’t only hit the highest price health care plans with tax-ation, but it will also eventually hit the middle- and lower-priced health care plans, too. “‘The “Cadillac tax’ on high-cost health care isn’t scheduled to take effect until 2018… it will hit more and more health plans over time – not just ‘Cadillac’ insurance plans, but ‘Chevy’ plans and even ‘Yugo’ health plans,” declared the Joint Economic Commit-tee. This is all due to the idea that the

THE FLAWS IN OBAMACARECosts, Corruption, and Crashes

Zachary Gaynor

13

Domestic

November 2013

highest-priced health care plans are con-nected to general inflation as opposed to medical inflation. Simply put, the tax is based on the success of the entire econ-omy, not just on the medical subset of the economy. This is a major problem because if there is a discrepancy between the medical subset and the economy as a whole it the tax can be raised or low-ered to a point where it could hurt the medical community. So while some of Obama’s main platforms when he was campaigning for office were not raising taxes on the middle class, this is exactly what the program will eventually do. As Nancy Pfotenhauer the president of Me-diaSpeak Strategies, said, “Enjoy the up-side now, pay the price later. It’s like eat-ing a large pizza with extra cheese and finding out two weeks from now that you don’t fit into your jeans anymore. Only much, much worse.”

Secondly, the creation of the Pay-ment Advisory Board (IPAB) is just an irresponsible part of the Affordable Care Act, which is buried in a little under 3,000 pages of the act’s legislation. This board is an unelected group of fifteen people who will be able to control our health care through making recommendations to Congress on the subject of reducing the growth rate that will most definitely be instated. If congress can’t come to a decision on the issue much like what was seen in the government shut down the recommendations are automatically put into practice. Things from setting doc-tors’ reimbursement rates, to determin-ing which drugs will be covered under health care and at what rate they will be covered will fall under their jurisdiction to change. Howard Dean of The Wall Street Journal wrote, “The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its mem-bers do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.” This is an abomination! The creation of the board alone crushes many of the ideals of America. It indi-rectly undermines our ability to get the health care we need, and all it would take is just one ignorant member of the bored to hurt the public. This would be okay of course, if we, the American people, got to elect these officials, but we don’t, and the president yields the power to nominate those officals to be approved by Congress. The people who get ap-pointed to the Payment Advisory Board are entirely out of the public’s power,

and therefore the public’s health care is entirely out of their hands.

The next problem with the Afford-able Care Act is the inability for the public to sign up for it. Not only are there fundamental problems with the program, but there are also issues of ac-cessing the program online and on pa-per. The website at healthcare.gov, when it was first rolled out, was flawed to the point that most people that wanted to enroll decided to just do it the old fash-ioned way and use a paper form. Ac-cording to the New York Post, the peo-ple that used these forms weren’t even able to enroll in the program, a further inconvenience. The Miami Herald half joked that finding a successful enrollee of the program was the equivalent of finding a Sasquatch. After the first week of the online campaign, there were an estimated 5,000 people that had signed up, and another who-knows-how-many people that had tried. The Obama ad-ministration refused to release the actu-al statistics due to their embarrassment of the first week’s enrollment results. Not saying much for the Affordable Care Act, the Obama Administration’s “big-gest accomplishment.”

Due to the many flaws and failures of Obamacare, the American public’s faith in this program has been waver-ing. According to Nancy Pfotenhauer, “a poll released at the end of June [2012] showed that, if the Supreme Court up-held the law, 77 percent of Americans wanted Congress to go back to work to fix it. Even after the decision was made, a Gallup poll showed 49 percent of in-dependents wanted all or part of the law repealed while 40 percent did not.” One of the many reasons the public’s faith is wavering is because by the year 2080, 79% of all American workers will be taxed due to the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare is like a child with the right sentiment that doesn’t know how to go about doing things in an acceptable way. Just like this child, the Affordable Care Act can be amended, or taught in the child’s case, to do the things it sets out to do in an acceptable way to the public. We must start by taking back the pow-er from the president and electing the members of Payment Advisory Board, then we must address its economic is-sues. Until we are satisfied with this act, we must keep lobbying to send this bill back to Congress to amend it. HMR

Simply put, the tax is based on the success of the entire economy, not just on the

medical subset of the economy.

14

International


RABIES IN AFRICA

How to Stop a Deadly but Curable DiseaseEvy Verbinnen

Imagine getting a small bite or scratch from a neighborhood dog and know-ing that this would prove fatal. Well, in

many rural areas of Africa, people face this problematic fact on a daily basis. As it stands, these Africans are unable to prevent the spread of and deaths linked to rabies due to a lack of funding and education on the matter as well as general healthcare. However, with the proper attention given to the matter and a rise in awareness, vaccinations can become more obtainable, giving victims a chance to survive and overcome the disease.

Rabies, a zoonotic disease primarily transmitted through bites from contaminat-ed dogs, exists in more than 150 countries and territories, with 95% of deaths caused by rabies occurring in Africa and Asia. Due to negligence in preventing dog to human transmission in societies where animals and

people live among each other, rabies kills 24,000 people each year in Africa alone, the majority of victims being children. More precisely, 40% of people who are bitten by animals suspected to be rabid are children under the age of 15. Although vaccinations have been developed, in communities where rabies is most prevalent, the people are some of the poorest. The funds needed for the vaccine are simply out of the reach of those most affected; the vaccine costs about $13 per injection, and four to five vaccinations are needed to create immunity. “This is the disease of the poorest of the poor who can’t afford the vaccine,” said Dr. Hervé Bourhy of the Pasteur Institute in France. Dr. Bourhy’s statement makes this prominent and rising issue as comprehensive as possible, as well as the problem with the cure: the vaccination, or cure, aimed toward those affected is not

affordable for those who require it. There are no tests available to diagnose

humans infected by rabies prior to the onset of disease, and unless typical symptoms of rabies such as hydrophobia, the extreme and irrational fear of water, or aerophobia, the fear of flying and heights, are observed, the diagnosis may be difficult. Over 15 million people worldwide receive a post-exposure vaccination. This vaccination is approximat-ed to prevent hundreds of thousands of ra-bies-related deaths each year. The post-expo-sure immunization entails injections of the Imovax Rabies vaccine in conjunction with anti-rabies serum. The total regimen of six injections is supposed to begin within hours after infection is suspected. After the initial injection, the next five are dispersed and be-come increasingly less frequent. While this is a great achievement and short-term solu-tion, in the battle against rabies, the majority of deaths occurring in poor and vulnerable populations are rarely reported, making it difficult for medics, or those capable of giv-ing proper care, to respond quickly. With so little awareness given to the severity of rabies, cleansing wounds within a few hours after contact with animals suspected of being ra-bid is not made a priority. However, this tech-

“[S]omething as simple as cleansing wounds is very difficult in rural areas of Africa that lack clean water and medical supplies.”

A: horsenation.com, B: blogspot.com

15

International

November 2013

nique of cleansing wounds has been proven to prevent the onset of rabies and death. Un-fortunately rabies is a quick-acting disease usually leading to fatal cardio-respiratory arrest, and something as simple as cleansing wounds is very difficult in rural areas of Afri-ca that lack clean water and medical supplies.

Solutions have been discussed on many occasions, but it is very difficult to find ade-quate funding to enact these ideas. Proposed ideas include: increasing the amount of re-ports on rabies to draw attention to the cause of its transmission; vaccinating humans, dogs, or other domestic pets; tying up dogs; and cleansing wounds and immunizing vic-tims within a few hours after contact. While these solutions may be effective if put into ac-tion, they are not very practical based on the current problems with prevention.

Vaccinations for humans, dogs, and do-mestic pets would be a perfect solution, but it overlooks the fact that the people in rural areas of Africa cannot afford the vaccination for themselves, let alone their pets. Tying up pets is a decent addition to the short-term solution, but it cannot entirely eliminate the spread of rabies because it is not practical for people to tie every single animal up in case it has rabies.

To solve this health crisis in rural Africa, the focus cannot simply be on immuniza-tion, but a change in culture as well. With a

lack of resources, Africans are not inclined to report deaths or cases of rabies because they see no feasible solution. By fostering discus-sion about rabies, people will see how large of an issue it really is. This rise in awareness and reports of rabies will cause an increase in

funding for associations like the Red Cross that go into the more rural African areas. Also, proper funding for organizations in-cluding Global Health and the World Health Organization should be used to invest in ear-ly detection tests to prevent deaths caused by rabies. By being able to catch the disease be-fore it becomes terminal, the spread of rabies can be contained. With the help of African governments, laws should be established to implement guidelines to prevent dog, or any animal, to human transmission. These laws should include information and tactics to ed-ucate Africans on the preventative steps they must take.

While African governments and in-ternational aid groups should educate rural

“The vaccination aimed towards those affected is not affordable for those who require it.”

Africans on ways to detect rabies in humans, symptoms are often less distinct in humans. Therefore, education should be focused on preventing the transmission of rabies, as well as not allowing humans and animals to live in such close proximity to one another. Africans

should also be educated on what symptoms may be exhibited by infected animals so that they may take the necessary precautions to prevent the infection of others. Associations that will administer vaccines will be respon-sible for implementing this education side by side with African governments. Preven-tative steps may also include administering vaccines to domestic animals to prevent the disease from even reaching humans. Immu-nizing animals may also lead to rabies pre-vention being easier and less costly because smaller dosages would be required, making it possible to immunize larger amounts of ani-mals and destroying the disease at the root. It is a big task but, with focus, rabies in Africa can be beaten. HMR

C: who.int

16

International


Iran’s new president, Hassan Rou-hani, has gotten a great deal of press lately with his several diplomatic

overtures, which have included both an encouraging visit to the United Na-tions and a more conciliatory approach to nuclear negotiations. Rouhani, who succeeded former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last August, has created a stir with his speeches and flamboy-ant showmanship. Iranians have chosen a truly promising and intriguing new leader, who has promised them a better economy, a more liberal society, and an improved relationship with the West. Additionally, he acts as a trusted revo-lutionary, who will not back down in fighting for Iranian hegemony over the region. If he intends to bring about this Iranian hegemony through the prolifer-ation of nuclear arms, we must incapac-itate his ability to possibly destabilize the region. Although there have to be

real repercussions for any violation of a nuclear agreement made with Iran, such as serious economic sanctions capable of paralyzing the Iranian economy – it is time we genuinely approach the bar-gaining table, offering to make fair and reasonable compromises. Now is our chance to enter real and substantial ne-gotiations with Iran, with the eventual goal of creating substantial peace and stability in the region.

We need to embrace a new strate-gy of strong diplomatic relations with Iran in order to bring the world closer to peace and away from fear of nuclear war. It is time for America to try a dif-ferent strategy and work with Rouhani for peaceful change. The White House hopes that he will not only participate in another round of nuclear talks, but also agree to make several concessions and compromises. Amidst the speculation about Rouhani’s willingness to negoti-

ate, we must ask ourselves, “How often has the United States perhaps taken too harsh a stance on Iran’s right to nucle-ar enrichment for peaceful purposes, as outlined in the Nuclear non-Prolifera-tion Treaty?” Perhaps this new leader will help to construct an internation-al diplomatic breakthrough. If we start off again by taking an uncompromising hard line approach, as advocated for by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, our ability to negotiate and make progress will certainly be inhibited, as evidenced by the failure of our current diplomatic policies on Iran. If we all desire regional stability and peace, perhaps it is time to take a different approach. The American public needs to ponder whether or not our old strategies have worked, and take a leadership role in reconciliation with Iran. Let us lead the European nations in a careful and precise agreement to end Iran’s Nuclear Program.

ROUHANITHE NEW FACE OF A NEW IRAN

Evan Greene

17

International

November 2013

Many critics of this more amenable stance point out that even if Rouhani makes some kind of agreement to curb his nuclear program, he has no real in-tention of actually following through with his promises. Any deal that gets made may only be for appearances. Critics also state that we will never re-ally know what Iran is doing with its nuclear program behind the scenes. It is true that, in an agreement, we must question whether or not Iran will actual-ly be maintaining a “breakout capacity” (defined as having produced a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium as to easily fuel the proliferation of a bomb), but this can only be done with ongoing dialogue and Iran’s consent for the inspection of its nuclear facilities by IAEA officials. We are exaggerating-ly threatened by Iran’s nuclear program more by fear of what we imagine they might do, instead of what we know they are capable of doing. To assuage the fears of these critics, we must propose a fair compromise, which allows the IAEA to

continuously gather verifiable data on the status and capabilities of the Iranian nuclear program, as to insure it is used solely for peaceful purposes.

Another component of this complex issue, that must be considered, is Israel’s outlying stance. It is understandable that Israel, a nuclear armed state, is afraid of both Iranian nuclear capabilities and the possibility of too many Western conces-sions, given its “Cold War” with Iran for hegemony over the Middle East. Net-anyahu has been very vocal about his distrust of Rouhani, claiming that Israel will never stop policing the Iranians and their arms program. However, it is worth asking: how much of Israel’s fear is well founded? Netanyahu has repeatedly said Israel will go to war if necessary with Iran over its nuclear program and has demanded that any agreement involve the complete dismantling of Iran’s civil nuclear program. This hard line request

not only infringes upon the national sovereignty of the NPT compliant Iran but also makes compromise impossible.

The best strategy for a solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis is to be clear in our negotiations. Let us be very wary of Rouhani’s possible false promises and

require evidence on all agreed terms of any nuclear negotiations and disarma-ment. However, let us greet this new President with an open mind, and be willing to have a real discussion of all the possibilities. There is no reason we have to enter this issue with past grudg-es and weigh too heavily the rhetoric of hardliners. We must also keep in mind that Rouhani has his own problems do-mestically that will keep him in check on the international stage. In order for him to maintain popular support, he must be careful not to incite or cause his popula-tion great dissatisfaction. His own peo-ple now know that many have risen up in volatile riots across the Arab World, to protest unfair government practices and oppression, and might be encour-aged to do the same if dissatisfied with his performance. Desiring not to risk the reinstitution of paralyzing sanctions, which have already caused the people

much economic hardship, Rouhani will have to tow the line and keep to his nu-clear agreements. Although sanctions have not worked to stop Iran’s nuclear program in the past, we must hold on to these punishments, while also en-tertaining new ideas like business and commercial incentives, which would greatly improve both the American and Iranian economies. Perhaps it is time for us to move away from negativity and in-stead entice Iran with offers of foreign investment and much needed financial opportunities, such as the unfreezing of Iranian assets. These incentives would not only serve a diplomatic purpose but would also improve the nation’s humani-tarian conditions and increase America’s standing with the Iranian public.

Iran wants to develop a diplomat-ic and economic relationship with the United States and the rest of the world; however, it is now up to the United States to revise its nuclear proposal and open its stance for greater compromise. Fur-thermore, Iran has always had a harsh theocratic system with little room for democracy. Now that the Iranian people have chosen a more liberal leader, who is not favored among conservative cler-ics, the US must respect the singularity of the policies advocated for by the Ira-nian people and their president, Hassan Rouhani. Rouhani has offered the inter-national community an opportunity for change, and while prioritizing our in-terests, we must also please Rouhani and avoid acting too uncompromisingly - in order to make progress towards peace and stability in the region. HMR

“There is no reason we have to enter

this issue with past grudges and weigh

too heavily the rhetoric of hardliners.”

18

International


Eric Stein

The Civil war lasted 4 years, the Revolutionary War lasted 8 years, the Iraq War lasted 9 years, yet

the United States has been involved in the war in Afghanistan for almost twelve years. The original intention of the war was to remove the Taliban government from power and to fight and disrupt the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization but now is the time to set up our withdrawal from Afghanistan.

US troop commitments to the region are astronomical, and we are unnecessarily putting thousands of American lives at risk. The number of soldiers in Afghanistan peaked in 2011 with 101,000 and the United States currently has 68,000 troops stationed in strategic locations throughout the country. The training of Afghan troops to promote self-sufficiency

must start now so that once we withdraw, we do not undo all of our progress we had made in the region. The United States has not presented a timetable as to when it feels comfortable in letting the Afghan Army take charge of the fight against the Taliban, but under the latest orders from President Obama, by February the number of soldiers stationed in Afghanistan will drop to 34,000. The plan as of now is to bring home about half the troops stationed in Afghanistan by 2014, but there is no answer as to how soon we will bring home all of the troops.

By the 2014 deadline, the only American troops remaining in Afghanistan should be ones that are training the Afghan forces because if the US halves its troop commitment, Afghanistan will not have a sufficient

fighting force to combat the Taliban unless they are already fully prepared.

The United States has already begun this transition by officially transferring all areas under its possession to Afghan forces a couple months ago. Unfortunately, the Afghan Army is currently not capable of defending these locations as shown in areas such as in the embattled district of Sangin. After recently turning over this district to the Afghan Army’s control, the Taliban have cleared out several villages, displacing up to 1,000 people, and have overrun several security checkpoints thus showing the training that the Afghan Army requires to be effective. According to local commanders, Afghan soldiers stationed in Sangin often desert instead of returning to combat when they go on brief home leaves indicating a lack of the discipline so necessary for modern combat.

Reports indicate that the Pentagon wants to keep between 6,000 and 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan until at least 2024. After the partial 2014 withdrawal, the U.S. plans on leaving troops in Afghanistan

“By the 2014 deadline, the only American troops

remaining in Afghanistan should be ones that are

training the Afghan forces.”

Afghan Retreat

www.offload.goarmy.com

19

International

November 2013

under a “support” mission. This “support” mission is merely way for the Pentagon to make the public believe that our troops will not be engaging in a lot of combat missions. In fact, each of the Pentagon’s proposals on how to continue the U.S. presence in Afghanistan includes a counterinsurgency element. Support seems like a polite term for extended combat.

Since the turning over of the U.S. positions to the Afghan Army, Afghanistan has been incapable of making important gains and has suffered such heavy casualties that some officials called the rate “unsustainable.” Yet, some American and Afghan commanders called the recent turning over of positions to the Afghans a moral victory for the Afghan forces because they mostly survived and did not completely give back gains from past Western offensives. In order for the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan, the Afghan Army needs to be able to maintain almost all of its positions instead of settling for temporary moral victories. These difficulties for the Afghan Army reveal that it needs more training and instruction before we can fully decommit from the region.

NATO has been in support of a long-lasting force of 8,000 to 12,000 troops to advise, assist, and train Afghan forces. Two

thirds of these troops would be American. It is accepted that no coalition nations would extend the mission without the United States. In a new security agreement proposed to the Afghan government, the United States demands to maintain legal

jurisdiction, which would shield the United States troops from Afghan prosecution, and also for the United States to be able to continue direct counterterrorism missions on Afghan soil. The major problem with this agreement for Afghan leadership is the American insistence on legal jurisdiction. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that American jurisdiction over its forces “is a must,” but it jeopardizes more important aspects of the plan. The United States needs to do everything in its power so this agreement gets passed and so by the end of 2014 the only American troops needed in Afghanistan will be ones that are there to assist and train the

Afghan troops. The Taliban has grown stronger

and we have seen that it is not possible to completely wipeout all of the insurgents. The United States will never be able to plan on leaving

Afghanistan if they do not plan on training Afghan troops on a huge scale. The war in Afghanistan currently costs the United States about $10 million per hour and $1.7 billion per week. 2,235 United States military personnel have been killed and over 17,500 have been wounded since the beginning of the war. The United States cannot continue to afford the human and fiscal cost of war, and the only way to prevent further engagement in Afghanistan would be to train the Afghan army until it is strong enough to defend its own country. This is the key to ending the war in Afghanistan. HMR

“Chuck Hagel said that American jurisdiction over

its forces ‘is a must,’ but it jeopardizes more

important aspects of the new security plan.”

www.anglonautes.com

In January of 2011, Egyptians began a non-violent protest against the long-standing economic and social repression connected to President Mubarak’s regime. Many Egyptian citizens wanted a democratic country allowing greater economic opportu-

nities and civil liberties. Everywhere, Egypt was plagued by widespread corruption. The uprising was mostly a campaign of non-violent civil resistance and disobedience, espe-cially involving marching. On February 11th, 2011, under the pressure of mutual con-sent, Mubarak resigned from office. President Mubarak and his former ministers were later prosecuted. The succession of Mubarak was only a beginning to Egypt’s revolution.

Egyptian Elections And the Revolution that Never Ended

Hannah Seckendorf

International


The revolution of 2011 and 2012 was disappointing in terms of new economic opportunities and political representa-tion for millions of young Egyptians. The current Prime Minister acknowledged himself that, “The government, as well as all political forces, has failed to ac-commodate the demands of the youth.” Now, two years later in 2013, civil pro-tests continue in Egypt, except this time it is not Mubarak they’re protesting – it is Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brother-hood-backed president of one year.

Egypt is facing many of the same challenges that provoked the origi-nal revolt against the Mubarak regime, including anger over police brutality, widespread unemployment and constant economic disappointments. This repeti-tion illustrates how difficult the path to stabilization is when the country does not yet have a clear vision. The sudden change in events has been referred to as the “never-ending revolution” for good reason; this revolution has been an ex-tremely complex and multi-dynamic sit-uation that changes day by day.

The schedule of transition is far from clearly mapped out, and how Egypt decides to restructure their government, primarily addressing the role of religion and the balance of government powers, will affect Egyptian citizens but also the rest of the Middle East and the world. Many young Egyptian’s are excited by this unrest and upturning, in hope that they might finally get a chance at a de-mocracy. The question is: can Egypt hold a democracy? Although many Americans and others assume establish-ing democracy is the clearest path to re-covery, who’s to say democracy will work

for Egypt as it has in America; perhaps Egypt isn’t ready for that style of govern-ment.

After such a long period of repres-sion and lack of representation, the reac-tion to the sudden access of control may cause an even further down spiral. At the same time, Egypt cannot claim to be pro-democratic and only reject its out-come, or praise its principles while mar-ring its system or evading its rules. The complexity of establishing a democracy while perhaps incorporating Islamic principles challenges all political parties involved. The currently organized polit-ical groups have little democracy seeded inside them. Many argue that the way to a harmonious future is to create a secu-lar government without military rule, in hope to create the ability to meet free-ly, and understand that disagreement is key in a successful society. Perhaps Egypt may be ready for a democracy in the next ten or fifteen years; however, Egypt’s population is largely uneducat-ed and unhappy with the recent poli-tics. Especially the minority religions and secular Egyptians want a religion neutral constitution with no mention of Islam. This group is obviously attracted to a more democratic system mirroring the current U.S. government. Many of the revolutionary protesters are secular but have not been organized enough to

produce a presidential nominee. This has resulted in the loss of faith in their government, and democracy requires trust in authority.

For the US, the best approach to working with post-revolutionary Egypt is to respond in a diplomatic tone com-bined with rewarding Egypt for putting in place policies and programs support-ing human rights. Future aid provided to Egypt should require documentation or guarantee of a fair electoral process, open trade, free press, and, hopefully, religious pluralism. If money is provid-ed to Egypt’s military, this aid should be tied to a guarantee of continued peace with Israel. During this period of tran-sition, the goal is a balance of power; preferably a mixed parliamentary-pres-idential system, with the military under-neath it, and then the judicial branch. This system is similar to current Ameri-can system of government.

Regardless of which government style Egypt decides upon, to press for rushed new elections now would only guarantee the return of power to those most organized, yet unpopular groups who would surely destroy all chances of a future stable Egypt. So for the moment at least, Egypt will be stuck in a dissatis-fying standstill until it is able to further organize itself. HMR

Hosni Mubarak was the ruler of Egypt from 1981-2011. His dictatorial regime came crashing down during the early stages of the Arab Spring.

Mohamed Morsi was the first president of Egypt from 2012 until he was overthrown on July 3, 2013. He was elected through the Muslim Brotherhood Party.

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is the de facto ruler of Egypt currently. He is the head of the armed forces and as of July 3, 2013 is the First Deputy Prime Minister.

International

21November 2013

“Regardless of which government style Egypt decides upon, to press for rushed new elections now would only guarantee the return of power to ... groups who would

surely destroy all chances of a future stable Egypt.”

International

Since 2001 there has been a decrease in successful terrorist attacks in the US, but elsewhere attacks are on the rise.

Newer terrorist organizations such as al-Shabaab have also become more prominent. The most recent signal of terror on the rise is the Westgate Mall shooting in Nairobi, Ken-ya that left 100 civilians killed or missing.

On Saturday, September 21st, the West-gate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya was operating normally. The mall was a popular place to go among the large middle class of Kenya, as well as tourists and expatriates. Attacks on the mall began at around noon local time, when terrorists attacked three differ-ent locations including the main entrance, the basement, and the parking garage. The attackers began shooting and throwing grenades at shoppers; eyewitnesses claim that the attackers were telling Muslims to run away, while killing non-Muslims. Many hostages were taken and held in a theater. Initial reports estimated that there were between 6 to 15 attackers, all armed with machine guns. Kenyan Defense Forc-es were deployed at 3:00 local time, rush-ing to the aide of many plain-clothes cops that had immediately rushed towards the shooting in an attempt to stop the attack. Attacks and standoffs between the attack-ers and security forces continued through-out the day, and by Saturday night, it was

estimated that 39 were dead. By noon the 22nd, it was estimated that 59 were dead.

The next day, security forces claimed that they had secured the mall and that all hostages had been evacuated, although on the 24th, reporters observed more gunshots and a fire, and part of the mall collapsed, leaving extensive structural damage.

Al-Shabaab, a Somali terrorist group, quickly claimed responsibility for the attack, turning media focus to its ter-rorist organization, which has plagued Kenya for the past two years. This attack was a response to the increase of Ken-yan forces sent to Somalia in order to help eliminate Al-Shabaab. This specif-ic attack targeted an Israeli owned mall, in an attempt to continue Islamic jihad.

Al-Shabaab claimed that it had com-mitted the attacks via its Twitter account about 36 hours into the shooting. It said the real death toll was 137 and also ac-cused the government of using chemical weapons to clear part of the mall, though neither of these reports was confirmed.

The organization was founded in 2006 to fight the Somali government, and since then, it has taken over large portions of land in Somalia. It was officially declared a terrorist organization in March 2008 in the US’s “Country Reports on Terror-ism,” which is published yearly. The group

is connected to the Yemeni branch of Al’ Qaeda, and the two affiliates have worked closely on the Western side of the Arabi-an Sea. Al-Shabaab has previously com-mitted large terrorist attacks, including the 2010 World Cup Suicide bombing in Uganda that cost 76 lives. Despite these atttacks, the US reported that, “In 2012, al-Shabaab’s capability to wage conventional attacks was greatly diminished.” However, the group’s presence is not underestimated in Kenya and the rest of the Middle East. Kenya and Somalia are areas where the US has had relatively little interference, as opposed to areas like Afghanistan and Pa-kistan, which have seen an increased US presence in recent years. These sobering facts have led many observers to wonder whether the US has a concrete plan to curb worldwide terrorism, and if our efforts are helping at all, or perhaps even furthering the cause for terrorism in the Middle East.

Terrorism has been on the rise in most of the world since the attacks of September 11th, despite declining numbers of attacks in the US. While the success of US forces in combating terrorism on our shores could be due to the Patriot Act, enhanced secu-rity at airports and throughout the country, as well as frequent drone strikes, these same strategies may be hurting the rest of the world. The US has been a terrorist target

AL-SHABAB

AL-QAEDA5,00

0 AT

TACK

S TE

ARLY

9 / 11

THE RISESOMALIA

SUICIDE BOMBBINGSSECURITY

PATRIOT ACT

US

TAMIL TIGERS

ARAB

SPR

ING

JIHAD

MILITARY

A T T A C K S UGANDA

ISRAE

L

RAIDS

AFRICA

WEAPONS

2001

OF TERRORWESTGATE MALL

DRONES

MID

DLE

EA

ST HOSTAGES

2 0 1 0S P Y

Matthew Parker

International


since the Cold War, and many countries in the Middle East have strong influences from the Soviet Union. US relations in the Middle East were already tense during the Iran hostage crisis in the 70’s, and esca-lated after US involvement in wars in Iraq and Kuwait through the 90’s. Between 1996 and 2001 there were an average of just over 1,000 terrorist attacks world-wide yearly, but after 2001, the global number has risen to almost 5,000 attacks yearly. The US has not been prone to this trend, with very few successful terrorist attacks on American soil in recent years. Despite a few high profile incidents, in-cluding the bombing at the Boston Mar-athon last year, there have been very few casualties from any attacks since 9/11.

There has been an increase in terror-ism in far-flung parts of the world, like Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tigers have killed many citizens in the past twenty years; however, the Tigers are one of the few terrorist organizations not connected to the Middle East. Many of these terror-ist groups are Islamic, but that is second to the fact that most attacks come from an area where the US has had the most in-tervention since the 70’s, the Middle East.

Our passion for oil led to our heavy involvement with many countries in the Middle East throughout the late 20th cen-tury, leading to many countries’ growing tired of American military involvement, especially countries like Iran. Our rela-tionship with the Middle East has snow-balled, especially after the Arab Spring in

2011 turned the Middle East on its head, taking down governments that while ty-rannical, were also allied with the US. New Islamic groups seized this opportu-nity to expand, and gained support after protests against the frequent US drone strikes that have killed many civilians.

The US seems to be winning our War on Terror at home, but abroad Al’ Qae-da is stronger than ever. Many of the terrorist groups that sprung up through the 2000’s, including Al-Shabaab, have looked to established terrorist organi-zations for help. Al’ Qaeda’s high pro-file following 9/11 gave it much of the attention. Al’ Qaeda now has four sepa-rate branches mentioned in the US’s an-nual report on terrorism, and members of Al’ Qaeda have been identified fight-ing in conflicts from Africa to Pakistan.

We have to ask ourselves, what is the end game in this war for the United States? Our undeclared war has been in progress for over ten years, and our technology far surpasses that of the organizations we are fighting, yet there seems to be little to no progress. The drone strikes, while successful in killing leaders of the terror-ist organizations and keeping American boots off the ground, have angered many citizens in the Middle East. The US needs a new plan to fight these terrorists or a plan to appease the citizens of the Middle East. The path we are going down does not appear like the right way to procede, but rather, has caused anger and frustra-tion towards America. Obama has done a

good job of limiting civilian casualties, as well as helping in the killing of the high-est-ranking terrorist leader to date. The U.S. continues to use small operations with limited involvement to impede ter-rorist activities, including the two recent covert operations to try to capture terror-ists in Libya and Somalia. The Libyan raid was successful and the target was cap-tured with no casualties, but the Libyan government and people have expressed displeasure over the U.S.’s involvement.

The raid in Somalia targeted the orchestrator of the Westgate Mall at-tacks, but American forces were fought back against and forced to abandon some equipment. Other American pol-icies such as the Patriot Act, which al-lows the government to spy on citizens in the name of security, have damaged the government’s reputation. The act has obviously upset many Americans and has made more people hesitant about fight-ing in the Middle East, if success can only come at the cost of our freedom. The people of the United States need to voice their opinions on the situation in the Middle East, and combating terror should be a main talking point in the up-coming presidential election. While our policies are working to combat terror at home, they are still not strong enough, and our leaders need to come up with a new plan to combat terrorism and to combat the world’s growing mistrust and disgust with American foreign policy. HMR

PATRIOT ACT

JIHAD

OF TERRORHOSTAGES2 0 1 0S P Y

www.theguardian.com

www.theguardian.com

www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

International

23November 2013

24

Features


THE KEY PLAYERS

IN THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

Miranda Bannister

pdnphotooftheday.com

25

Features

November 2013

The Congressional Shutdown played out a sordid affair. The shutdown of Congress occurred

because of the Republican and Democrat-ic divide over the Affordable Care Act. Republicans, in an irresponsible move, re-opened the debate over the bill, which was already passed in 2010. Since the Repub-lican-controlled House would not let the budget plan pass without their demands to postpone the bill and cut certain claus-es were fulfilled, and the Democrat-con-trolled Senate would not let the budget plan pass with these changes, Congress shutdown for over a week, unable to come to an understanding. Democrats ultimate-ly won the standoff, because of Republi-can ignorance concerning the bill, and ex-emplary leadership from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Republicans dropped all the significant arguments about the Act, instead railing for hours in favor of an amendment, which loosely complains about ethical issues within one clause of the Act. The main culprits of this shut-down were Republicans Vitter and Cruz, the former being an author of the most nitpicky amendment of ObamaCare, and the latter being Senator Ted Cruz, figure-head for the Tea Party opposition to the Act. Without the fiery politics of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, there would have been no progress at all, and the greatest advancement in medical legisla-tion that this country has seen yet, would not have gone into action.

The Republican Party’s objections to

ObamaCare were rooted in petty venge-fulness. When the bill to provide univer-sal healthcare was originally passed by the Democratic Party, there was little consul-tation of Republicans. There was a Dem-ocrat controlled Senate, House and presi-dential administration in 2010 so the bill was pushed through without any trouble for Democrats as Republicans objected helplessly.

Republicans dodged the important questions concerning ObamaCare because Democrats have won the arguments justi-fying the program. Meaningful debates concerning whether or not the US govern-ment is obligated to provide and subsidize for universal health care, and whether or not ObamaCare can constitutionally man-date that individuals purchase healthcare, fell by the wayside. Debates concerning the efficiency of ObamaCare, or the net effects of such spending on the American economy were left behind. However, even if Republicans had focused their efforts on a dignified battle, Democrats would have won on all of these points of contro-versy; access to free health care is a basic human right, one for which ObamaCare provides efficiently. The Supreme Court deemed the Act as constitutional because the government has the right to mandate citizen purchase of health insurance, as it is in the people’s best interests. Emer-gency rooms are forced by law to treat any patient, regardless of whether or not they have health insurance. Therefore, when a person does not have insurance, he or she

must either fork over massive payments themselves, or the hospitals and health providers have lost money and been taken advantage of. Hospitals spend $40 million per year on uninsured patients, who never pay back their debt. Moreover, it is ensur-ing all those that need health care have it, regardless of whether they want it or not.

Republicans, who previously fixated on the net economic effects and efficien-cy of spending in the Act, did not bother during the past few months because the Act’s future success can be predicted using the historical evidence of the similar Mas-sachusetts Health Care Reform. Firstly, they are similar because both mandate purchasing of health care, on penalty of a tax raise, both provide healthcare sub-sidization to those under the poverty lev-el, and both use threats of raised taxes to incentivize large and small businesses to cover reasonable amounts of the employ-ees’ insurance bills. The Massachusetts Reform, passed in 2006, only increased state spending by 1%. However, Massa-chusetts received more bang for the buck than even hoped for. 400,000 otherwise uninsured people signed up for health-care within the first four years of the bill’s passage. 98.1% of adults, and 99.8% of children in the state are covered under an insurance plan. As the Affordable Care Act treads in the footsteps of this cheap, but effective program, it will succeed in its goals of efficient provision of universal health care.

pdnphotooftheday.com

www.scanvine.com

26

Features


Senator David Vitter, a master of fiction, managed to pull together a ridiculous argument, nitpicking at details of the special exemption clause. This junior Senator from Louisiana, objected to the clause because it allowed for congressional employees,

senators, representatives, their employees and the like to have certain special subsidies if they purchase health insurance through the act’s channels, or to not participate in ObamaCare at all. “The rule says for members and any staff who do go to the exchange, they do get to take a big fat taxpayer-funded subsidy with them — a subsidy that’s completely unavailable to any other American at that income level going into the exchange,” Vitter argued before the Senate. Vitter goes even further to say that the entire Act is lacking because Congressmen should be forced to use ObamaCare. Vitter made this one clause into a symbol of every perceived flaw and every injustice in the Act, and fanning the fire, the standoff between the two parties, which shut Congress down.

Vitter is wrong about forcing Congressmen to get healthcare through the ObamaCare exchange and wrong about the clause, be-cause as Congressional employees, Congressmen are permitted to buy their own health insurance, or redirect the health coverage that the federal government owes them through ObamaCare. The clause allows Congressional employees to purchase their own in-surance, or simply receive healthcare from the federal government. This is not exclusive to Congress! Any American is permitted to buy healthcare outside of the Affordable Care Act exchange, and most employees have their healthcare paid or partially paid by the companies they work at. The federal government pays for Congressional employees’ healthcare, because these men and women are employees of the government. If they choose to exchange through ObamaCare, the special subsidy they receive is merely a redirection of the healthcare coverage, which they are already owed as employees. Under ObamaCare Congressional employees, along with every other citizen, are being allowed to choose the means by which they gain health coverage.

Senator David Vitter

“The ultimate failure of the Republican Party was that no one member found his or herself against a fine piece of legislation, without

one real argument to go around.”

blogs.rollcall.com

27

Features

November 2013

Senator Ted CruzSenator Ted Cruz, the Tea Party Texan from Senate, rallied huge support for Vitter’s amendment by filibustering, purely to prevent

constructive action in Senate. Although he was not in the House, with high Republican involvement, Cruz made the most poignant defense for Vitter’s amendment and postponing ObamaCare. He filibustered for 21 hours straight. It was nothing more than a selfish media stunt, because he was well aware that Democrats in Senate, holding the majority, would never postpone their own beloved Act. He wanted to hold back constructive debate, prevent democrats from speaking, and boost his own public image. He succeeded in these horrid goals, because he became the face of the Tea Party during the Shutdown. He is even being considered as one of the top republican favorites for a possible presidential candidacy in 2016.

Senator Harry ReidHarry Reid, Senate Majority leader, was the reason why the democrats did not give in, the reason why Vitter, Cruz, and the House as a

whole failed, and the face of the democratic movement against the amendment. Reid united the democrats of the senate, and of the House, and used his ability to control their votes as a threat to the Republicans. He forced the hand of his political opponents by ensuring that the popular energy efficiency bill, which many from the right wing supported, would not get passed under any circumstances if Vit-ter’s amendment was not dropped and the budget allowed to pass. Reid also took most of the media attention for the Democratic Party upon himself. His public and cutting criticisms of the Republican Party, the amendments proposed, and the players involved, were cru-cial in gaining popular support. Within the first week of the shutdown, polls from ABC News demonstrated an 8 percent increase in pop-ular support backing the Democratic Party. In the end, the most key reason republicans gave up was because public patience with them was frayed too much for continuation. Reid was the single most powerful figure throughout the shutdown, even more so than Cruz. HMR

www.atlassociety.org

www.theepochtimes.com

We live in an age of political polar-ization. All but two of the one hundred United States senators

are affiliated with one of the nation’s two major political parties; fifty-two are Democrats, and forty-six are Republicans. Every single con-gressman and congresswoman in the House of Representatives represents one of these parties with two hundred thirty-two republicans and two hundred democrats. These politicians, in the interest of reelection and continued sup-port from their respective parties, vote far too frequently along party lines, often rejecting proposals even when they offer the best solu-tion to the problems at hand.

After repeated failures to reach compro-mise, the government is now often criticized for this strict partisanship. Following Octo-ber’s government shutdown, a Washington Post/USA Today poll showed that only 12% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Con-gress. Even China agrees: “With no political unity to redress its policy mistake, a dysfunc-tional Washington is now overspending the confidence in its leadership,” a Chinese gov-ernment news agency reported.

While the public may hope for compro-mise, some of the leaders who have distanced themselves from restrictive partisanship in the name of constructive compromise have received strident criticism. Chris Christie, the Republican Governor of New Jersey, was criti-cized by members of his own party after Hur-ricane Sandy for crossing these borders. Chris-tie, in the final stretch of the Obama-Romney 2012 presidential race, commended Obama’s efforts to provide aid for Sandy victims. Re-publicans lashed out for not supporting their candidate, Mitt Romney, at a crucial time. Christie had not taken any actions to promote Obama’s reelection; he simply had been gra-cious towards the President. In an apparent act of revenge, Christie was not invited to speak at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Con-ference (CPAC),

In August, Chris Christie took three sig-nificant legislative actions. First, he vetoed a ban on .50 caliber rifles. This, naturally, stands by his party’s policy of supporting the NRA. He explained, however, that this was not merely done to please Republicans. The spe-cific weapon under discussion had never been used in a crime in New Jersey and is far too

costly and bulky to be used by regular crim-inals.

Christie also put into effect legislation to ban gay conversion therapy by signing a bill supported by the Democrats. Christie ex-plained that it was simply a matter of human rights and mental health. Despite the partisan concerns, he did not question the passing of this bill. Clearly, the governor is not scared to support legislation that is backed by both sides. He considers the outcome of the bills and the desires of the public far more import-ant than the opinions of party stalwarts.

Christie appears to have the ability to form middle ground solutions as well. His third act was to conditionally veto legalization of medical marijuana. He requested that the legislature change the needed approval from one physician to two required doctors. This addressed concerns of abuse of the system while still recognizing the benefits of the pro-gram. He took a controversial issue and settled the matter with a simple solution.

Christie’s bipartisanship has opened him up to various attacks and criticisms. Radicals from both sides will always find flaws in his approach. However, his pragmatic approach

Daniel Rosenblatt

A HOUSE DIVIDED:THE NEED FOR BIPARTISANSHIP

Jobspapa.com

28

Features


gets results. Perhaps this is the reason that he is among the most popular governors in the nation and has often been proposed as a po-tential presidential candidate. Surely, this is the reason that voters crossed party lines to re-elect him. Christie won the race for governor, capturing 60% of the votes to his opponent’s 38%. He won the majority of both male and female votes, white and Hispanic votes, and both voters who identify as conservatives and moderates. Additionally, 31% of voters who see themselves as liberal voted for Christie. In a state that hasn’t voted for another republican governor, senator, or president since 1997, Christie has demonstrated a commanding lead.

Cory Booker, the Democratic mayor of Newark was recently elected senator of New Jersey. Booker, after being elected to his new position announced his goal as senator: “I’m going down there now to try to bring the spirit of bipartisanship.”

He pointed out that the government’s shutdown was caused by partisan struggles, and it was detrimental to not only one group, but also several across his state and the nation itself. “All over New Jersey, all over America, [the shutdown] hurt. It hurt our economy. It hurt our stock market. There’s no place that this didn’t hurt everybody. There are no win-ners in this.”

Booker, who has wide support from and generally sticks with his party, has worked well with Republicans, especially Chris Christie, in Newark and in his entire political career. He has very similar views to Christie in terms of education reform; he supports the payment of teachers according to their merit, school vouchers, and the increase in the number of charter schools. As mayor, Booker began implementing some of these policies, and he looks to bring them to a national scale in the Senate.

He explained his goal: “Every single day the urgency of fixing this problem stares me in the face… for me, it’s what is going to work to get my kids the same educational opportuni-ties that I [had] growing up in a more affluent area of the state.”

However, the teachers unions, usually strong supporters of Democratic candidates, reject Booker’s policies. To gain their support and reach a compromise, Booker worked with Governor Christie to find a statewide solution that would be more accepted by both the resi-dents and teachers.

Despite his decisive Senate win, Book-er has been criticized by fellow Democrats. Liberals have criticized him for working with Christie, his own governor, and also for main-

taining close connections with Wall Street bankers. Ironically, Booker has liberal stand-points on most economic matters and social issues including abortion, gay marriage, and the legalization of marijuana but it seems not enough to satisfy his own party members.

Politicians at the national level are still, on rare occasions, found to promote biparti-san measures. In October of this year, the gov-ernment shut down, as it was unable to pass a budget plan. After over two weeks of partisan bickering, it was clear that some sort of com-promise had to be made. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator from Alaska was one of a group of female senators who stepped forward and demanded an end to the shutdown. “This should not be about someone’s speakership. This should not be about the next election.

This should be about, really, the future of our country,” she said. Like all politicians should, she focused on the needs of the country, not of its political parties. In doing so, she needed to go up against her party leader, John Boeh-ner. “I want to support John Boehner in any way that I can, but we need to be pragmatic. This is not going to be a Republican solution or a Democrat solution. This is going to be a solution that is good for the country,” she said.

She, and fellow senators Susan Collins, Kelly Ayotte, Amy Klobuchar, Jeanne Shaheen and Heidi Heitkamp, a mix of Democrats and Republicans, came together to compromise on the matter. Susan Collins, a Republican and the creator of the body, is currently a co-spon-

sor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, once again showing these women’s abil-ities to vote for their beliefs, not their party’s. After the shutdown concluded, Senator John McCain acknowledged this group, saying, ”Leadership, I must fully admit, was provided primarily from women in the Senate.”

Earlier this year, Murkowski worked with Senator Ron Wyden, a democrat, to create a bill regarding tracking campaign finances, and in 2012, she had encouraged lawmakers of both parties to sit together at the State of the Union. “Any small step we can take to show a little togetherness -- the fact that this is an op-portunity for us, as lawmakers, to demonstrate that we can be civil with one another, we can show respect for the institution, show respect for other lawmakers.” Murkowski is correct:

no matter how small the measure, it is neces-sary for the two parties to come together and unite for the sake of the nation.

The politicians mentioned above have, by virtue of bipartisanship, become the most pro-grammatic and effective in the nation. In turn, they have become widely popular. Governor Christie had a 67% approval rating in a largely Democratic state while 70% of Newark voters approved of Booker in a poll conducted this March. Perhaps the message sent by these vot-ers will gain momentum and attention. It will serve all our interests if both parties come to the realization that voters prefer getting the job done with intelligent compromise to standing on rigid principle and achieving nothing. HMR

“Christie [and Booker] appear to have the ability to form middle ground solutions.”

politifact.com

29

Features

November 2013

GOP Obstructionism:Why Republican Partisanship is Counterproductive

Daria Balaeskoul

Obamacare, by any other name, would appeal to the Republi-cans, but the current partisan

politics of Washington, as well as months of growing tension between the Republi-can controlled House and the Democratic President have finally resulted in the gov-ernment shutdown and in a battle that has essentially been won by the Demo-crats as Republican support has fallen na-tionwide. The effects on Republicans can be expected to last well into next year’s elections for the House and Senate and can even be seen now in New York City’s own municipal elections.

The Patient Protection and Af-fordable Care Act, commonly referred to as either the Affordable Care Act or

Obamacare, is geared towards reducing the number of Americans without health insurance. The act aims to do so by in-creasing the quality and affordability of insurance, as well as requiring all Ameri-cans to sign up for health insurance. De-spite, all of the excitement generated by the Affordable Care Act, many Americans are still unsure of what the legislation ac-tually means, or how it will affect them. In a Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, nearly two-thirds of the people polled said they did not know when the health insurance exchanges were set to open. More shock-ingly, in survey taken by Jimmy Kimmel, 46% of those interviewed said that they opposed Obamacare while only 37% said that they opposed the Affordable Care

Act, showing that Americans were fun-damentally uninformed about what the Affordable Care Act really is.

Despite an almost four-year bid to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Repub-licans have done more damage to their reputation than to the bill, which has had and will continue to have many conse-quences, for the American people. There have, of course, been the direct ones, such as the partial government shutdown, which cost the United States’ economy 24 billion dollars over a period of 16 days, but many Americans are unaware of the indirect consequences. As a result of the Affordable Care Act, America’s biggest employers including Wal-Mart and Pep-siCo, have been spurred into providing innovative health care to their employ-ees. These new benefits cover flying or transporting employees who are in need of critical surgery, at no extra cost, to renowned health care facilities for their procedures. Drug store chains such CVS and Walgreens have entered into a new partnership with hospitals and other health care facilities in order to be able to better coordinate treatment. In Cal-ifornia, in law geared towards decreas-ing state costs for emergency healthcare, well-qualified medical professionals, in-cluding pharmacists, nurses, and emer-gency medical technicians are now able to provide primary care, decreasing the cost of standard procedures such as hav-ing your blood pressure and cholesterol levels checked, and dispensing birth con-trol and anti-smoking drugs. As a result of the market-based principles of the Af-fordable Care Act as well as other provi-sions, employers across the United States are now scrambling to provide the best quality healthcare to their workers as a way of saving costs. With the implemen-tation of Obamacare healthcare provid-ers have largely shifted their efforts from treating illnesses to preventing them.

The congressional Republicans con-tinuing their efforts to defund the Af-

Features


fordable Care Act do not want to simply repeal the Affordable Care Act, but rather to replace it with a new healthcare pol-icy of their own. However in its essence Republican healthcare reform differs very little from Obamacare. For example, the legislation that Mitt Romney passed in his home state of Massachusetts, as governor is strikingly similar to the Af-fordable Care Act. In fact, despite a few points that Republicans and Democrats would be expected to argue over, such as birth control, the health plans both par-ties would push for are fundamentally the same. Thus, all the political frenzy surrounding Obamacare over the past several years has really been about parti-sanship rather than any sort of moral or ethical ideals.

As Health Care Plan Market Places have opened online, and the Affordable Care Act has gone into effect across the nation, more Americans have had their existing insurance plans canceled than have filed for new health insurance plans through federal healthcare exchanges. Generally, Republicans had cited the re-quirement that everyone has to purchase health insurance as a reason to defund Obamacare. However, mandating that Americans purchase health insurance, on pain of suffering a financial penalty, has had its own repercussions. Since a large number of Americans have rushed to purchase insurance through the fed-eral healthcare website before the March 31st deadline, the online market place has been overwhelmed with unexpected traffic, and is thus functioning poorly.According to a Gallup poll, two-thirds of uninsured Americans said they would obtain health insurance before the dead-line in order to avoid paying a fine; the ef-fects on the federal sponsored healthcare exchange have been numerous glitches as well as occasional crashing.

Due to all of the technical issues sur-rounding the online Health Care Market Place, and the potential economic re-percussions of the Affordable Care Act, perhaps it would be a better strategy for House Republicans to simply wait to re-peal or change Obamacare proved to be ineffective, rather than causing a govern-ment shutdown. According to Joel Ben-enson, a pollster and political strategist, every time the Republican Party has di-rected its efforts towards defunding the Affordable Care Act rather than focusing on the issues that the American people

consider to be more urgent, such as eco-nomic recovery and job creation, Repub-lican politicians are losing support, even among loyal constituents. Republicans should have taken a different approach to having the Affordable Care Act repealed rather than repeating their past mis-takes; in 1996 Republican Politicians in the House and Senate took a similar ap-proach to cut funding for Medicare and public health by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The 1996 government shutdown didn’t work out well for Republicans, as their conditions weren’t met, their ap-proval ratings fell, and public support for the Democratic President grew as a result of their stinginess.

Republican politicians nationwide now face the threat of not being re-elect-

ed. The affect can even be felt in New York City politics, where in the race for city comptroller, the Republican Candi-date, John Burnett, had been under-fire by his Democratic opponent, and current comptroller-elect, Scott Stringer, for not supporting the Affordable Care Act.

The repeated efforts of Republicans to defund the Affordable Care Act have resulted in widespread disapproval from the American people rather than any progress towards repealing the legisla-tion. Strategically, the Republican Party should have waited rather than repeated-ly attempting to repeal the bill. Now the GOP faces sinking approval ratings as well as a hard time in next year’s electoral season. HMR

“Despite an almost four-year bid to repeal Obamacare, Republicans have done more damage to their

reputation than to the bill.”

www.truthdig.com

Features

November 2013

32

Features


With the recent government shutdown, political partisan-ship has certainly been front

and center in the news and media spot-light. The Tea Party’s actions in opposing the Affordable Care Act has left the na-tion wondering whether politicians have been acting to legislate or simply to stop the opposing party’s actions. However, when considering factionalism, one usu-ally just evaluates what is wrong with the current democratic and republican par-ties. The real problem, unfortunately, is an underlying flaw with a two-party sys-tem in general. Such a system encourages polarization and creates what could be considered a “with us or against us” men-tality. There is no middle ground. One ei-ther has to agree with one side or has his or her voice drowned out by the sweeping majorities. In order to refine the politi-

cal process, we must refine the two party system. Often when reform is discussed, conventionalists will bring up how the United States has always used a system similar to our current one. However, this is far from the case, and reforming the two party system is essential. In order to confront the multifaceted problems of the 21st century and ensure our democ-racy functions to the best of its ability, we should carefully consider other systems. A better system, for example, is the Brit-ish parliamentary system. Such a system is far more conducive to the expression of all views rather than those of the far left or the far right.

The Founding Fathers never intend-ed for a two party system. Indeed, several objected to the idea of partisanship in the first place. In a letter he wrote, Thomas Jefferson explains, “If I could not go to

heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” Jefferson despised partisan-ship for the very reason that the two party system fails us today: it pigeonholes peo-ple into uniform views. John Adams also agreed with Jefferson. He addressed the issue in saying, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the re-public into two great parties...This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” Both Jefferson and Adams identified the major flaws with a two par-ty system in that it creates politics that favor extremes and puts Congress in a never-ending battle. This is certainly part of what occurred during the shutdown. Rather than working to compromise the Affordable Care Act, politicians instead chose to shut down the government in a failed attempt to get their way.

Partisan Death MatchThe Problems of a Two Party System

Andrew Cogut

www.elonpendulum.com

“

33

Features

November 2013

The two party system harms dis-course and the ability to accomplish things in Congress. When the essence of such a system is that there are two sides and only one side can win, how is democracy supposed to function? Politi-cians will oppose bills for no other pur-pose than to beat the other party. Thom-as L. Friedman reports for the New York Times, “Our two-party system is ossi-fied; it lacks integrity and creativity and any sense of courage or high-aspiration in confronting our problems.” The two party system does not provide the pow-er necessary to govern a country such as the United States. The problems the United States faces such as terrorism and our debt crisis require more than just two options to confront a problem. They are more multifaceted problems that need more options than simple, one-sided solutions. Friedman continues, citing po-litical Professor Larry Diamond of Stan-ford, “We simply will not be able to do the things we need to do as a country to move forward” if we continue the two party system. Politicians have started to think not about how to solve major issues, but about how to harm the other party and make a gain for their own party. The is-sue with this confrontational view of modern-day American politicians is that it perpetuates politics being a zero-sum game. For important issues such as for-eign policy, the United States cannot have politicians on either side opposing op-tions for the sole purpose of opposing the other party. Prioritizing the thwarting of the other party over helping the nation it-self is the antithesis of good government, essentially creating a win-lose model. Rich Tafel, founder of Public Squared, a public policy training program for non-profits and social entrepreneurs, explains that the harms of a win-lose model where politicians believe only one side can win “leads to a perpetual war between parties and to where American politics is right now – operating under the politics of sabotage. Losers logically conclude, ‘If I

sabotage, I might win, and even if I don’t win, you don’t win either…’” This kind of thinking is what destroys any potential for proper discourse. Instead of perpet-uating the win-lose model with the two party system, the United States should turn to alternative systems such as the parliamentary system. If there are more than just two parties, it creates far more potential for productive debate and deals to be made.

The parliamentary system is prefera-ble to the two party system. The way the parliamentary system works is that vot-ers do not vote for candidates, but rather for parties. The party with the majority vote names the prime minister. Then, each party gets to name the representa-tives for the districts in which they have won the election. Even though the parlia-mentary system is still a party system, it is a happy medium between the two party system and simply having candidates ran-domly run for office. It maintains struc-ture while being far more conducive to alternative views. Chis Weigant, political commentator, explains, “the parliamenta-ry system is inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties do in the American system.” This is because voters are not voting for one candidate who can only win or lose. They vote for a party and each votes counts towards gaining that party more seats. Having more parties provides an easy way to solve many prob-lems in Congress. Voters would be able to support parties that actually capture their views rather than the party that has a few issues that they support. Furthermore, it would force politicians to work together. The minority parties would have a lot of power in Congress when the Democrats and Republicans find themselves, as they often do, to be at a standstill; the minori-ties could essentially break the tie. This would force both parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, to work with the minority parties. A switch to the parlia-mentary system would certainly not be

easy, but the parliamentary system pro-vides a far preferable system for the Unit-ed States.

It is highly unlikely the United States will switch from a two party system any time soon. The system is too ingrained in the heads of Americans for it to be sud-denly changed. Furthermore, given our past status as a colony of Britain, the odds that anyone will consider changing to the parliamentary system are slim. Howev-er, the United States should consider the merits of the parliamentary system and how we can improve our current system. For example, as Wes Moore suggests, we can “start out with the audacious goal that at least 25% of all mayors [and governors] in America by 2015 will be independent/non-major party affiliated.” If we do this, people will be more willing to consider a president or congressmen coming from a minor party. Ultimately, we need to insti-tute change to solve our system. HMR

The real problem, unfortunately, is an underlying flaw with a two-party system in general…There is no middle ground. ”

www.wupr.org

“

How is former New York Knick and current Toronto Raptor Steve Novak similar to the Cal-

ifornia House of Representatives? In the past, they have both had stunningly low turnover rates. During the 2012-2013 season, Novak set the NBA all-time re-cord for lowest turnover percentage in a season, relinquishing possession of the ball to the other team a remarkably low 2.6% of the time.

The California House’s low turnover

percentage is not nearly as desirable as that of the charmingly gangly and gawky Novak. From 2002 to 2010, the California House of Representatives had a partisan turnover rate of around 0.4%, meaning that in only one of the 265 House races did a district’s vote switch from Repub-lican to Democratic, or vice-versa. This lack of turnover is the result of a harmful practice called “gerrymandering,” which is when that party draws the district lines in such a way that the party has an advan-

tage over the other party. Gerrymander-ing leads to corruption in our electoral process, and ultimately, in the way we are governed. If we want our democracy to be more productive and less partisan, it is critical that gerrymandering be reduced or eliminated.

Every ten years after the census oc-curs, the majority party in each state leg-islature redraws the districts from which public officials are elected, in order to reflect population changes. Gerryman-


Ben Alexander

Drawing the Line on Gerrymandering

Features

dering only affects races in the House of Representatives and state legislatures be-cause those elections are based on voting in districts. Senate and presidential races are not affected because they are based on votes from the entire state and state lines cannot be redrawn.

Elbridge Gerry, a former Massachu-setts governor, is credited with inventing gerrymandering two hundred years ago when he made a district in the shape of a salamander, hence the whimsical-sound-ing term, “gerrymander.”

“Packing” and “cracking” are two techniques for effective gerrymandering. “Packing” squeezes like-minded voters into just one or a few districts in order to reduce their influence in other districts.

“Cracking” involves spreading a concen-trated group of like-minded voters over multiple districts where they become the minority. Both packing and cracking are designed to maximize wasted votes for the opposition party.

Some people believe the impacts are exaggerated and that it improves compe-tition. They argue that politicians avoid making districts that are extremely red or blue, because they would effectively be “packing” against their own party, wast-ing votes. Instead, politicians spread vot-ers among a larger number of districts, leading to closer races. Others argue that incumbents keep their seats not because of gerrymandering, but because incum-bents have a natural advantage over their challengers due to name-recognition.

While gerrymandering does make some districts more competitive few pol-iticians would want their districts to be truly competitive because they still want to win comfortably. Why else would they go through the trouble of gerrymander-ing? The argument that America gerry-manders itself makes sense, but it is not an excuse for redrawing district borders for political gain. And yes, incumbents already have an advantage, but gerry-mandering unfairly increases their ad-vantage even more.

In gerrymandered districts, winners are determined by who gets to draw the districts, not by what the voters actually want. In 2012, House Democrats won the nationwide vote by around 1.4 million votes, yet House Republicans still gained 33 more seats due to gerrymandering, which is clearly a lopsided result. A spe-cific example of gerrymandering can be seen in Pennsylvania. In presidential rac-es, Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in every single election since 1992. Nev-ertheless, thirteen of Pennsylvania’s eigh-teen House seats are Republican.

Secondly, gerrymandering creates too many “safe seats,” in which repre-sentatives are more or less guaranteed to stay in office because of carefully ma-nipulated districts. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution reads, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” This clause is meant to ensure that represen-tatives do not stay in office longer than they are wanted. However, safe seats im-pede turnover and can turn a two-year term into one that lasts a lifetime. As a

result, incumbents can sometimes stay in office without pushing themselves to actually improve the country. Also, as Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the House Democrats points out, “There’s a lot to be said about mixing it up generationally, to have a constant invigoration of Con-gress with new fresh eyes and fresh voic-es.” New members of Congress can have fresh ideas and strategies, whereas long-standing incumbents often end up fight-ing over the same old topics and reaching an impasse, which in the extreme could end with a government shutdown, as it did recently.

A third problem is that gerryman-dering leads to extreme candidates and more partisanship. When districts are skewed towards one party, a candidate is incentivized to tailor his or her platform to reflect the wishes of only that party, and is thereby forced to become a more extreme candidate. In competitive dis-tricts, that candidate would have to be more moderate in order to appeal to the interests of all kinds of voters. President Obama alluded to this idea in a press con-ference on October 8th when he said, “A big chunk of the Republican Party right now is in gerrymandered districts where

there’s no competition and those folks are much more worried about a tea party challenger than they are about a gener-al election where they’ve got to compete against a Democrat or go after indepen-dent votes. And in that environment, it’s a lot harder for them to compromise.”

Gerrymandering also promotes the ability of special interest groups to ex-ert influence on the government. Ac-cording to a ProPublica investigation, many groups that advertise themselves as fighting partisan redistricting, such as Fair Districts Mass, Protect Your Vote, and The Center for a Better New Jersey,

35November 2013

“Gerrymandering leads

to corruption in

our electoral process,

and ultimately, in

the way we are

governed.”

Features

princeton.edu

Features


are actually funded by large corporations and unions. Special interest groups can therefore help candidates that would benefit them the most while in office.

With all of these problems in mind, one has to wonder why gerrymandering hasn’t been eliminated. The answer is twofold. First, any efforts to eliminate

gerrymandering would have to involve the government, and politicians are not exactly clamoring for gerrymandering reform because they are its main bene-ficiaries. Secondly, pinning down ger-rymandering in a court of law is almost impossible. In the 1986 case Davis v. Bandemer, the Supreme Court ruled that

partisan gerrymandering can be chal-lenged in court, but the plaintiff would have to show that a district demonstrates “both intentional discrimination against an identifiable political group and an ac-tual discriminatory effect on that group.” That requirement is both ambiguous and hard to prove, so little progress has

been made in recent cases involving ger-rymandering. In a 2004 case, Vieth v. Jubelirer, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that districts in Pennsylva-nia were not unconstitutional, and even the four justices in the minority did not agree on how to decide whether a district has been gerrymandered.

So can gerrymandering ever be fixed? Yes, but it is not a cakewalk. In re-cent years, the public has become much more aware of gerrymandering, and the ensuing outcry has helped to convince politicians that they need to take action. In 2010, California became the poster boy for gerrymandering reform, institut-ing the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, an independent commis-sion with the power to redraw Califor-nia’s districts. Its members are indepen-dent from the government, making its work much fairer than in other states. The California State Auditor chooses the members of the commission, which is made up of 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 4 Independents. A few other states, such as Washington, Idaho, Arizona, and Iowa have created comparable models, and similar commissions are in place in other countries such as the United King-dom, Canada, and Australia. The Cali-fornia commission is new, so it is prema-ture to draw too many conclusions, but an independent commission is a huge improvement. With the institution of the commission “you see Republicans voting for immigration reform, you see Dem-ocrats voting for streamlining environ-mental regulations,” said Dan Schnur, the director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “You never would have seen that before.” A study by Eric McGhee and Daniel Krimm of the Public Policy Institute of California concluded that the commission has “altered the electoral landscape, leading many incumbents to pass on reelection, forcing others to in-troduce themselves to unfamiliar voters, and increasing the number of competi-tive races overall.” The California Su-preme Court ruled that “not only do the Commission-certified Senate districts appear to comply with all of the consti-tutionally mandated criteria set forth in California Constitution, article XXI, the Commission-certified Senate districts also are a product of what generally ap-pears to have been an open, transparent and nonpartisan redistricting process.”

The recent government shutdown raised questions about the state of U.S. governance, and made some people won-der how effective the government is at running our country. Certainly, gerry-mandering is a big problem, violating our right for fair representation, allow-

“When districts are skewed towards one

party, a candidate is incentivized to tailor his

or her platform to reflect the wishes of only

that party, and is thereby forced to become a

more extreme candidate.”

ing undeserving politicians to remain in office, and even intensifying deadlocks that can lead to shutdowns. Our country should follow California’s lead by creat-ing independent redistricting commis-sions in every state. In order to ensure the effectiveness of these commissions, judges on individual states’ Supreme

Courts should choose retired judges to be on that state’s commission. This has three benefits: judges are required to be as fair as possible, and in order to be chosen as judges they typically have to pass rigorous screenings for impartiality; retired judges’ case records are publicly available, so impartial judges are easier

to spot; and many former judges have a good idea about how the government works and have already been exposed to many aspects of American politics. Prog-ress is being made, with proposals such as Representative Steve Cohen’s plan, called the John Tanner Fairness and In-dependence in Redistricting Act (FAIR), which would require all states to have independent redistricting commissions.

The American people also have a role to play. California voters passed Cal-ifornia Proposition 20, which created the commission. But it is not always so easy. “It’s a hard sell. It’s one of those arcane issues,” said Kim Alexander, the found-er and president of the California Voter Foundation, which studies California’s voting process. “It’s one of those issues that only comes around once every 10 years and people can get very worked up about when it’s happening and then it’s easy to forget about it once it’s all over.” We cannot allow that to happen and must make our voices heard by pressuring our government to change. Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering, so eliminating this practice is a bipartisan issue of fair-ness that we should all be able to agree on. HMR

Features

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission signs redistricting resolution

37November 2013

marylandreporter.com

Maryland voters who support independent redistricting commission in 2013

npr.org

The recent government shutdown has had undeniably widespread effects on the American people, and one little

mentioned area that has suffered dramatic setbacks is that of science and research. The National Institute of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), among other governmental organizations and independent scientists and programs, have suffered both temporary and possible long-term damages because of the shutdown, and many consequences of the freeze may not yet have been recognized. The federal shutdown also affected more than the activities of federal agencies; it also restricted the progress of sci-entists at state and local levels and at universi-ties across the country. In the coming weeks and months, the government must make sup-porting America’s shaken scientific endeavors a primary goal in order to to compensate for lost time. Additionally, that such a fundamen-tal element of this country was so disrupted is disgraceful, and such a disturbance should never be allowed to repeat itself in this age where groundbreaking discoveries are made almost daily.

The federal shutdown quite literally en-dangered the lives of many patients, and even children in need of governmental support and

medical care. During the shutdown, admit-tance of critically ill people in NIH clinical tri-als slowed to a crawl. Between October 1, the day the shutdown began, and October 8, about 12 patients were enrolled in trials, whereas in a typical week, roughly 200 new patients might be enrolled. About thirty of those 200 patients are children, a third of whom have cancer. So as a result of the government’s squabbling, about 188 individuals were prevented or post-poned from receiving what might have been life-saving treatment.

The CDC also suffered dramatic set-backs because of the federal shutdown and furloughed about two thirds of its employees, causing another serious public health worry. This severely understaffed agency was forced to halt nationwide flu monitoring, and the impacts of this stall are not yet known. The CDC was also tracking about thirty food-borne illnesses at the time of the shutdown, and the small team of eight researched focus-ing on this issue was at first cut down to one individual, but was quickly raised seven when officials decided more workers were needed to perform all the critical monitoring tasks. Therefore, the government recognized at least one research area seriously in need of support during the shutdown, but a great deal more at-tention must now be paid to these programs in the aftermath of the shutdown if they are to recover.

Hundreds of individuals receive medical attention because the government provides funding, and it is incredibly unfair for those who would ordinarily have been admitted by government programs during the time-span of the shutdown to have their treatments postponed or even called off entirely. It is the duty of the government to ensure that these individuals receive the care to which they are entitled.

Modern science also hinges in a very real way on the ability of scientists to communicate with one another, and access data and infor-mation. Research isn’t particular to individ-uals or even institutions; scientists in labs all over the country may need to communicate in order to accomplish a goal, and any delay in information transfer could cause widespread stalling. Research is therefore particularly sus-ceptible to the effects of the shutdown, and recovering lost ground as quickly as possible and preventing such devastation in the future most be a focus for the government in the af-termath of the shutdown.

The temporary closing of govern-ment-run scientific databases was therefore extremely detrimental to research, as it closed many avenues of communication between sci-entists and made an enormous source of in-formation unavailable, so that even scientists working completely independently of govern-ment funding but whose research utilized the

v


Abigail Zuckerman

SCIENCE

Government Shutdown Hits Pause On

A: www.forrst.comB: surfline.com

Features

information on such databases as PubMed, BLAST, and GenBank were stalled. Even grad-uate students were unable to access data, files, and equipment at federal facilities.

The NIH with its 27 institutes centers, is the largest source of financing for medical research in the world. Its huge grant program was driven to a standstill by the shutdown, leaving countless researchers, programs, and organizations without hard-won and much needed funds to continue their work. The NIH will undoubtedly be scrambling during the next grant cycle to make up ground. Hun-dreds of scientific conferences and meetings were also cancelled or postponed because of lack of funding, or because government scien-tists were unable to attend. The shutdown ar-rived at one of the worst possible times of year for grant review and processing. The post-ponement and possible cancelation of NSF and NIH review panels along with the backlog of processing could irrevocably damage the viability of many projects and their ability to serve the needs of the American people.

In addition to the need for informa-tion transfer, many scientific experiments are time-sensitive, and endless hours if not years of work by some researchers may have been ruined by the shutdown because scien-tists were unable to access their labs. During the shutdown, 73% of NIH’s approximate-ly 18,650 employees were furloughed. This group included researchers based on its cam-pus in Bethesda, Maryland, who quite literally scrambled to freeze cells and preserve experi-ments in progress when the shutdown was an-nounced. The impact on individual research projects could be very serious, and recovering from the sixteen-day shutdown could take months or much longer.

Yet another government agency that was damaged by the shutdown and has al-ready experienced drastic limitations due to the American government’s spending cuts is NASA. Two American astronauts aboard the International Space Station and flight di-rectors at Mission Control in Houston, Texas were thankfully exempted from furlough, but virtually all other NASA employees were sent

home during the shutdown. Flight controllers navigated a precarious maneuver for the re-cently launched LADEE, Mars rover Curios-ity kept moving, and the next Mars spacecraft MAVEN is still expected to launch on-sched-ule in mid-November, but besides that all other NASA activities were halted, including critical preparations for the 2018 James Webb Telescope.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was also hit hard by the shutdown, and was unable to conduct many of its air, water, and hazardous waste inspections. That data cannot be recovered. Additionally, NSF researchers studying climate history in Ant-arctica lost an invaluable portion of their field season, since research in that part of the world usually begins in October. These efforts are crucial to our understanding of climate change, and other environmental problems. It is unclear whether this research can or will be pushed to next season.

As the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) Executive Director and CEO Chris-tine McEntee so eloquently put it, “Continu-ous data collection and monitoring, and our ability to make that information available to the public, is essential to science’s capacity

to support public service. Nature happens in real time. We can’t hit rewind to see what we missed.” Nature certainly didn’t hit pause just because the government did, and America’s scientific efforts have been left scrambling to catch up. In the wake of the economic turmoil and other disturbances caused by the federal shutdown, science may not be the first thing on the minds of government officials as they work to restore stability to the country. It cannot, however, be neglected in the com-ing months because of its critical necessity to maintaining the well-being of the American people. Even under normal circumstances, scientific research is often forgotten by the fed-eral government, but all of the government’s scientific agencies are in dire need of attention and assistance.

Furthermore, small breakthroughs are made in research every day, and many proj-ects may be ruined because of the shutdown. If America is to maintain its usual speed of de-velopment, funds must be provided to allow projects to be revived and continued. Science is a vital part of America, and must be treated as such in the aftermath of the shutdown. HMR

39November 2013

penny4nasa.org

C: projects.harvard.eduD: www.creativepartnership.com

Features

40

Economics


The 2013 United States govern-ment shutdown has only further intensified our country’s need

to resolve the detrimental and growing national debt. Moving forward from the shutdown it is crucial to cut government spending, despite the indecision of our representatives. In only 16 days, the gov-ernment shutdown cost over $24 billion, stunting what would have been positive economic growth in the months to come. This debt can be reduced by a simple solution. The Penny Plan, introduced by Congressman Connie Mack, focuses on cutting spending across the board by 1%. The Penny Plan has already received support from 70 members of Congress and 15 senators. Unlike the government shutdown of the Clinton administra-tion where the economy had a painless rebound due to an already flourishing economy, America’s current state of re-cession will require much more action.

As a result of this shutdown, the fi-nancial crisis has worsened. S&P econo-mists predicted that the economy would grow roughly 3% in the fourth quarter,

but as a result of the shutdown, the fig-ure has now plunged to 2.4%. Just from the closure of national parks the govern-ment lost $76 million per day, and tour-ism suffered significantly. The damage is already evident in the future of the government as consumer and business confidence has been greatly under-mined after the shutdown, potentially hurting the economic growth that usu-ally accompanies the holiday season. The government will continue to have debts piling in since the approximately 800,000 federal workers that were not paid during the shutdown must now be paid, and businesses might be due in-terest because of late checks. This will amount to at least $1 billion a week to pay for the workers that were furloughed.

Historically, America has been able to bounce back with ease from times of economic stress; this time it will not be that simple. Unlike the shut down during Clinton’s presidency in 1995 and 1996, the faltering economy can-not fix itself without the implementa-tion of drastic measures and compro-

mise. When the government shut down in 1995, the economy was thriving be-cause of the developing technology sec-tor. To add to this, unemployment was only at 5.6% percent. This is in sharp contrast to the current 7.2% unemploy-ment during a slow and idle recovery, and the number of people looking for a job is at the lowest it has been since 1978. Though the rebound from the 1995 shutdown was fairly painless, as both the stock market and economy were virtually unaffected, due to the far greater debt the country is faced with, it is crucial to quickly jumpstart the econ-omy to get the nation back on its feet.

The lack of cooperation and unity in the federal government has undoubt-edly lowered the confidence of overseas investors. The inability of the House of Representatives and the Senate to com-promise has crippled global credibility and only heightened the internation-al community’s distrust in the United States. If our nation cannot come to a compromise and conclusion on domes-tic issues, how can our allies keep their

Maria Balaeskoul and Anne Rosenblatt

us.123rf.com

The Penny Plan

revenue has increased only 36.2%. Fur-thermore, the U.S national debt right now is about 73% of GDP, higher than it has been since World War II, and twice what it was in 2007. A high debt to GDP ratio indicates that an economy does not produce and sell goods in quanti-ties sufficient enough to pay back debts and to not bring in further debt. Typi-

cally, as seen in the case of our country, high national debt significantly hinders economic growth and is in some aspects even worse than a recession. It still ham-pers growth after the crisis because the labor is less productive due to reduced investment in the country. Forty cents of every dollar spent by the government goes toward paying interest on the debt. Any viable solution must cut spending. An increase in taxes from the wealthy would be futile and not nearly enough. It might raise $47 billion but not the $1.3 trillion that is needed at this point.

However, an across the board reduc-tion in spending by a simple penny on the dollar could achieve popularity between both parties and spread the pain even-ly. The Penny Plan would return federal spending, expressed as a share of GDP,

41

Economics

November 2013

trust in us on international issues? At the end of the shutdown Dagong, the most influential Chinese credit rating company, reduced the United States’ rat-ing from A to A-, which is below that of less internationally influential countries such as Botswana. As crises continue to plague the country, the credit rating will decline further and the United States

will encounter more and more difficulty in borrowing money from other nations. To regain the trust of the international community, the United States must fo-cus first on achieving internal stability.

The United States must find an ef-fective solution in hopes of achieving this crucial economic stability. Now that the administration and Congress has kicked the can down the road, to use the old cliché, and has put off any meaning-ful repair to the budget and our spend-ing problems, what can we do to achieve a bipartisan solution before the debt limit crisis reemerges in two months? In order to successfully reduce the United States’ debt, spending must be cut. Since the federal government ran its last bud-get surplus in fiscal 2001, federal spend-ing has nearly doubled, up 97.8%, while

near the level achieved during the last two years of the Clinton administration. It calls for reducing federal spending, excluding interest payments, 1 percent a year for five years, and balancing the budget in the fifth year. Though cutting spending by 1% across the board will not have any major effects on respective projects and administrations, it will dra-matically reduce the national debt as a whole, proving to be the most effective solution as of this time. This plan does not exempt any departments or programs from the cuts, ensuring that the cuts will be fair, and effectively limit spending.

American families have tight-ened their belts and the government should be doing the same, yet no poli-ticians can agree how. Because they are too attached to their own projects and legislation, no one who seeks re-elec-tion wants to approve any cuts that affect his or her own district. Howev-er, by spreading the reductions even-ly, no individual or project would have to suffer any higher percentage loss.

Some might argue that in a frag-ile recovery from recession, lowering spending would risk lowering growth; however, the threat of the national debt’s surpassing the GDP is far great-er. With the fragile state of the econo-my, it is crucial that the government takes any measures to lower govern-ment spending. At this point, the only viable solution is to cut spending in minor amounts across the board, even-ly, fairly, and without exceptions. HMR

Furthermore, the U.S national debt right now is about 73% of GDP, higher than it has been since World War

II, and twice what it was in 2007.

http://pjmedia.com/

The Penny Plan

42

Economics


Krystian Loetscher

The Fed’s First Chairwoman?

Bright Prospects for Nominee Janet Yellen

Janet L. Yellen is an economist who is projected to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve Board. This high lev-

el position comes with many duties and makes many important decisions that can either help push the economy out of a re-cession or leave it in a slump. Decisions made by this very powerful person ulti-mately decide how bright our future may be. Ben Bernanke, the most recent chair of the Federal Reserve has recently stepped down, and the position is open. Currently Janet L. Yellen is the top nominee to be the new head of the Federal Reserve. If appoint-ed, she will become the first woman ever to be chair of the Federal Reserve. Yellen will not only succeed Ben Bernanke (the previ-ous chair) but also excel, and by targeting unemployment, heave our economy out of this massive slump it has been in. Although Lawrence H. Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury (1999-2001) and President of Harvard (2001-2006), was projected to be the next chair, Senate Democrats prevented his nomination. President Barack Obama has strongly endorsed Yellen for her drive to pursue certain policies that will most likely set the economy on the right path. Yellen is the most capable and experienced person in the field of economics, and her decisions alone can boost the economy out

of this recession and continue on in steady growth.

Although Yellen brings with her a lib-eral mind-set, which has caught the atten-tion of some of her critics, her knowledge and background in the field of economics far outweigh any bias she might have. Start-ing out as a professor at Harvard University, she accelerated into very high, prestigious positions concerning the fate of our econ-omy. Throughout her career she has had much experience in dealing with the econ-omy and its unpredictable turns. She served as chair of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economics and afterward was appointed to vice-chair of the Federal Reserve. She has a solid background in this field, and is more than capable of assisting the recovery of the economy. The policies she intends to pur-sue have earned the support of many poli-ticians and newspapers, and she is believed by them to be the best person for a position that is arguably the second most import-ant position in the U.S. “She’s an excellent choice and I believe she’ll be confirmed by a wide margin,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). An article in the Washington Post strongly agrees, writing, “She is perhaps the most qualified Fed chair in history.” Yellen strongly supports and plans to implement many economic policies that will steer our

economy onto the correct path. Her poli-cies, namely monetary stimulus and plans aiming to lower unemployment and inter-est rates, will promote economic activity and thus push the economy out of stagna-tion.

Yellen’s strong belief in stimulus, or more specifically expansionary monetary policy, will help to lower unemployment. “She has expressed greater concern about the economic consequences of unemploy-ment, a stronger conviction in the Fed’s ability to stimulate job growth and a greater willingness to tolerate a little more inflation in order to reduce unemployment more quickly,” writes Binyamin Appelbaum for the New York Times. Stimulus creates jobs by easing the rate at which money flows. Stimulus is implemented by the Federal Reserve, which, through a process of buy-ing treasury bills, makes money more ac-cessible. Every country has its own “central bank”; the official central bank of the Unit-ed States is The Federal Reserve Board. The Reserve’s decisions and policies have caus-ative effects on how the economy will act or change. The Federal Reserve Board, is responsible for managing the money sup-ply, which determines the value or strength of the dollar. To implement expansionary monetary policy, which is what the Feder-

www.2.bp.blogspot.com

43

Economics

November 2013

al Reserve is currently doing, the Reserve buys treasury bills from other commercial banks, thereby allowing banks to lend and borrow more money. Treasury bills are debt owed to the government. In times of low economic activity, the Federal Reserve will buy these treasury bills. The assets, i.e. the bonds or treasury bills, are converted into liquid capital, money that the Reserve can then lend with ease. Thus money is easier to obtain and flows more readily. The direct result of an increase in liquidity would be lower unemployment. Since employers are then capable of borrowing more money, they are more able and willing to hire work-ers. As a result of higher employment and thus an increase in the number of incomes, gross domestic product also increases. The cause and effects of expansionary mone-tary policy on unemployment thus far can be seen in a simple Liquidity Preference Model; it shows that as the money supply increases the demand for money also in-creases. Essentially, when money is more plentiful or easier to obtain, the demand or want for more money is needed to keep up with the decreasing value of the dollar. Following the model, it can be seen how her plans increase the money supply while increasing the demand for money and thus increase economic activity.

Yellen’s support for lowering interest rates will lead to lower unemployment. In-terest rates determine how much it costs to borrow money and ultimately define the ease with which borrowers and lenders

interact. When the interest rates are low, borrowing increases because the cost of borrowing is lower. People borrow money to start businesses, buy houses, etc., and these activities increase economic activity as a whole. Low interest rates, low unem-ployment, and higher money supply are variables that are dealt with directly when enacting expansionary monetary. These policies are proven by models and can be seen historically to improve the rates of unemployment. Higher liquidity is a direct result of expansionary monetary policy, or stimulus, and its beneficial effects support Yellen’s drive to implement this policy. It is effective policies like these that justify Yellen’s nomination as the new chair of the Federal Reserve.

High inflation, or at its extreme, hy-perinflation, is an issue that is addressed by many economists and could result if stimulus is not properly enacted. Econ-omists as well as other experts fear that if not properly implemented, stimulus could cause inflation and thus a large decrease in the value of the dollar. However, Yellen would not allow this to happen. With her vast experience in the field of economics she knows where equilibrium is and would not let her stimulus policies get out of hand. An article in the Washington Post says, “...but she’s more than willing to crack down on inflation when the situation requires it,” regarding her drive to pursue economic stimulus but also competency in preventing high inflation.

High inflation is a rapid, uncontrolled rise in the price of goods and services in a given economy. High inflation is also the re-sult of stimulus’ devaluing the dollar. If too much money is put into the open market, as a result of the Reserve’s buying treasury bills, then the value of the dollar greatly declines. Thus, after a period of high infla-tion, the cost of paying for a good or service becomes much higher, and there would be no time for adjustment. Eventually the cur-rency could end up completely worthless. An extreme example of this is the Mark in Weimar Germany. At that time, there was so much money in the market that its cur-rency became virtually worthless, so much so that the paper bills were more valuable as fuel for fires than as currency. Hyperin-flation would only happen if the Reserve made incredibly drastic decisions approved by an incompetent chair. With Yellen, this will not happen as she knows the equilibri-um and can ensure steady growth.

Janet Yellen is the most qualified per-son for this immensely powerful position. Her experience and drive to pursue certain policies make her the best choice for chair of The Federal Reserve. Her policies have been proven to be especially successful. If she continues to show her commitment to implement the policies she said she would, the economy will soon advance from the current glum situation it is in, into a long and steady growth. HMR

www.blogspot.com

44

Economics


On October 14th, the Royal Swed-ish Academy of Sciences decid-ed to award the Nobel Prize in

Economics to three Americans on ac-count of their exemplary work concern-ing the empirical analysis of asset pric-es. These Americans are Eugene Fama, Lars Peter Hansen, and Robert Shiller. However, the work of Fama and Hansen has fundamentally contradicted that of Shiller’s. They represent two very dif-ferent economic views. Fama and Han-sen both believe that financial markets are efficient, in that the price of assets, for the most part, accurately reflects all available information. In contrast, Shill-er has repeatedly challenged the tradi-tional view of markets by showing that the stock market bounced up and down a lot more than could be justified on the basis of economic fundamentals such as earnings and dividends. This differ-

ence is representative of the overarch-ing intellectual and ideological conflict between a “market fundamentalist” ap-proach to economics and the “KKM” ap-proach. The article serves to assert that Schiller’s approach to economics is more realistic than that of Fama, and ultimate-ly strengthens the “KKM” approach to Economics.

Eugene F. Fama is a distinguished professor of finance at the University of Chicago, a school that is well known for its neoclassical, macro-economical views. Professor Fama is famous for his efficient-market hypothesis, a finding that has fundamentally shaped modern finance. In fact, he is widely known as being the “father of modern finance.”

Also teaching at the University of Chicago is Lars Peter Hansen, a distin-guished professor of economics and sta-tistics. He is an internationally known

leader in economic dynamics and has been recognized for his fundamental advances in our understanding of how economic agents cope with changing and risky environments.

Robert J. Shiller is the sterling Pro-fessor of Economics at Yale University, and has written on financial markets, financial innovation, behavioral eco-nomics, macroeconomics, real estate, statistical methods, and public attitudes, opinions, and moral judgments regard-ing markets.

Fama and Hansen are both advo-cates of a neoclassical or market fun-damentalist economics, a belief which is based on three assumptions: people have rational preferences among out-comes that can be identified and associ-ated with a value, individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profits, and people act independently on the basis

Spencer Slagowitz

www.pr-controlled.com

The Nobel Prize in Economics Exploring Three of the Brightest American Minds

45

Economics

November 2013

of full and relevant information. This is the philosophy that guided the 1994-2007 “answer to globalization,” a finan-cial liberalization of the United States’ economy. During this time period, there was little to no supervision in previously supervised sectors which had expand-ed at fantastic rates, producing massive wealth, adding to the growth of industry albeit while carrying serious systemic risk. During this time period, U.S man-ufacturing fell from 21% to 14% of GDP, while U.S finance increased from 14% to 25%. No one doubts the short-term economic growth witnessed during this time period; however, despite the level of growth produced by this type of pol-icy, financial sector debt increased from 22% to 117% of GDP.

The market fundamentalist ap-proach argues that the ‘08 financial crisis was a rare and unpredictable affect, and that despite the destruction caused, the underlying philosophy of “laissez-faire” economics still holds sway: markets are efficient and self-regulating. It is this ap-proach that Schiller’s work challenges. In his analysis of asset pricing, he demon-strates that there is a drastic difference between the volatility of stock prices and the volatility of corporate dividends. Moreover, he found that these irrational

deviations fell into predictable patterns. The value of corporate dividends is sup-posed to determine the value of stock prices, if we accept an efficient market view, as stock prices should be based off of (in the most optimal efficient setting) corporate dividends. So, when stock price volatility is drastically different than corporate dividend volatility, one can conclude, as Schiller did, that mar-kets cannot be self-regulating and effi-cient in a laissez-faire environment.

Shiller has argued that the “predict-ability of prices” reflects irrational but repeating patterns of human behavior (the basis of the work which helped him win the Nobel prize). He, among other economists, have worked to integrate behavioral theories from psychology and other social sciences into modern economics, producing positive results. The housing crash that began in 2006 is widely regarded as evidence that prices had climbed to irrational heights, and Mr. Shiller’s accuracy in diagnosing the problem suggests that future bubbles could be identified too.

Even Alan Greenspan, the former FED chair, has accepted the existence of the housing bubble. He argues that the information being promulgated by behavioral economics is similar to the

Above: Eugene Farma, distinguished professor of finance at the Uni-versity of Chicago, famous for his effiicient-market hypothesis which has fundamentally shaped modern finance.

idea first put forth by John Maynard Keynes. Keynes used “animal spirits”, a spontaneous action rather than inaction, to help explain economic phenomena. Today, the concept of “animal spirits” is used to describe fears that stifle or ini-tiate action, often irrational action. He explained that the “laissez-faire” poli-cies implemented by the United States government between 1994-2007 caused an unhealthy and dangerous expansion of “tail-risk”. “Tail risk” is a class of in-vestment outcomes that occur with very low probabilities, but are accompanied by very large losses. Similarly, Schiller argues that, in the past, economists have assumed that if people acted solely to maximize their own interests, their ac-tions would produce long–term growth paths consistent with the abilities to in-creases productivity (mpk). However, this belief is shattered given unexplain-able market deviations.

In conclusion, even though all three economists received the Nobel Prize, it is Schiller’s work that will have the most significant impact on our view of eco-nomics, as he presents the most compel-ling argument with the most evidence. HMR

Left: Lars Peter Hansen, distinguished professor of economics and statistics at the University of Chicago and an internationally known leader in economic dynamics.

Right: Robert J. Shiller, sterling Professor of Economics at Yale

University, known for his writings on various

financial issues.

www.wpwm.com

www.wikipedia.org

www.pr-controlled.com

RESOURCES AND THE FUTURE

Lexi Kanter

Damaged economies, warring na-tions and us, humans, struggling to obtain the resources we need

to live. Sounds like the synopsis of a dys-topian fiction novel, and yet, this could very soon be the reality we face as a result of the food and water crisis. The food and water crisis has become an increas-ingly alarming situation over the past few decades. Essentially, there is an es-calating imbalance in international and domestic demand for, and availability of the Earth’s water and land resources.

According to a journalist from the Yale Environment 360 publication, climate change, overconsumption, and the in-efficient, negligent treatment of natural resources are the predominant causes of the crisis. As climate change progresses, it is expected to further alter seasonal temperatures and precipitation patterns, on which global agriculture relies. A fick-le climate is, and will continue to put the international food production system at risk, as it highly depends on specific cli-matic factors.

In regard to overconsumption, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) projected the world population to reach nine billion by 2050. Growing populations are already placing immense stress on the agriculture indus-try, as there is not enough food being produced to feed the entire world popu-lation. In an effort to satiate the demand, farming systems have attempted to in-creasing their annual yield by using prac-tices that are degrading the land and wa-ter sources, according to a recent report

46

Science and Technology


by the FAO. This includes sucking the water from rivers and underground aqui-fers to irrigate fields, faster than nature can replenish it. We are depleting water sources to fuel food production that re-lies on water abundance, and it is here that we see vicious cycle. Also, growing populations need shelter and clothing, which puts pressure on water through a need during the production of commodi-ties and energy.

Not only are humans huge consum-ers, but we also happen to be incredibly inefficient when it comes using our re-sources. According to the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF), 70% of the world’s accessible fresh water is used in agricul-ture, but a significant portion of that is being wasted by the inefficient irrigation systems and food production methods. For example, it takes about 630 gallons of water, or 18 bathtubs full, to produce a single hamburger.

As the food and water crisis has be-come more pressing of an issue, we have begun to acknowledge it’s consequences, and think about what the future might hold. Unfortunately for us, this process of recognition and finding solutions is hap-pening a little too late, and severe damage has already been done. A quarter of the Earth’s land is already highly degraded, eight percent is moderately degraded, and 36 percent is currently in a stable or slowly degrading condition. According to the National Geographic, groundwater scarcity has become a significant factor as to why almost one billion people lack direct access to water. In addition, as we deplete and pollute water from rivers and aquifers their ecosystems suffer, which, subsequently, hurts us, as we rely on these other ecosystems.

Should the agriculture industry con-tinue to struggle to keep up with the growing rate of consumption, there could very likely be a negative impact on the global economy. As we are “pushed to

the limits” in food production because of water scarcity, there will be inflation in food prices, causing hardship for the worlds poorer and disadvantaged popu-lations. Water scarcity will likely cause in-ternational conflict as well, as water does not recognize boarder controls. This is currently the situation with oil, and wars have occurred as a result, as seen in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Because of the widespread destructive nature of this is-

sue, it should be a priority of ours to find a solution before this becomes the case with water. If we continue on the path that we are currently on, the WWF proj-ects that by 2025 almost two thirds of the world could face water shortages.

Luckily, we are not quite yet out of time and there are paths to a solution. First of all, we need to offer farmers and agricultural workers incentives to man-age water efficiently and conscientiously. We also need to invest in newer technol-ogy that would enable a more sustainable food production system. This is needed to implement smarter irrigation and fer-tilization strategies, increase crop yield, and produce consumer products without wasting resources. Solutions pertaining to agriculture will most likely have the most extensive impact, as most of the world’s water is used in agriculture. As individuals, we can work to limit the ef-fects of the crisis by recycling and being conscious of the commodities we use on a daily basis, such as electricity and wa-ter. These measures are usually associated with ending global warming, but as pre-viously mentioned, global warming is a major factor of the food and water crisis. Most importantly, we need to change our mindset. We can no longer think of water as inexhaustible, because that is simply no longer the reality. HMR

WE HAPPEN TO BE INCREDIBLY INEFFICIENT WHEN IT COMES TO USING

OUR RESOURCES.

47


November 2013

SAY N TO

48



The prospect of nuclear energy has ex-cited the scientific and commercial community for over 50 years. The sug-

gestion of substituting nuclear energy, in the form of enriched uranium or plutonium, for burning fossil fuels is intriguing because fossil fuels contribute to carbon emission, a leading factor in global warming. This is why there are currently 104 reactors operating in the United States (according to the Federation of Amer-ican Scientists). According to a Washington and Lee University report, “The Future of Nu-clear Power in the United States,” nuclear en-ergy currently accounts for 14% of global elec-tricity. Nuclear energy seems like a flawless solution to the problem of global warming; however, the risks of nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. Although more and more na-tions express interest in nuclear energy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) every year, the issues with nuclear energy re-main unsolved. Harnessing nuclear power is dangerous and expensive, and therefore nu-clear energy cannot be the godsend solution

to global warming that the international com-munity has been searching for.

Nuclear power is currently far more ex-pensive than energy derived from fossil fuels. Nuclear energy does generate more power than coal, but the costs of generating nuclear energy are high. There are a lot of extra ex-penses that go into nuclear fuel including the cost of upkeep of nuclear plants, storage fa-cilities, and nuclear waste facilities, as well as the cost of generating nuclear power. Accord-ing to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the average costs of coal and nuclear fuel are the same. But the cost of the building and upkeep of nuclear power plants tends to be more expensive than the cost of the fuel. This is where most of the cost of nuclear fuel comes from. The cost of building nucle-ar plants continues to rise because plants take longer and longer to build as time goes on, due to the more extensive safety regulations, in-spections, and other new features added to the process. A US Department of Energy estimate from 2010 approximates the cost of construc-

tion of a nuclear power plant to be $5,300 per kilowatt for nuclear power, $2,800 per kilowatt for coal, and only $1,000 per kilowatt for nat-ural gas. As nuclear power is the most expen-sive option, it is not likely to be a realistic type of energy that can be implemented worldwide.

Though disasters caused by the break-down of nuclear reactors are few in number, those that have occurred have devastated communities. The Three Mile Island nuclear disaster, caused by a problem with a reactor, in 1979 is the only such disaster to occur in the United States. Luckily, the nearby community was relatively unscathed after this disaster. The consequence of the Three Mile Island accident was that the public became aware of the dan-gers that nuclear technology poses to them. But a more detrimental disaster occurred in Japan in March 2011. An earthquake off the coast of Japan triggered a tsunami, causing an accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The plant had proper safety measures, such as the 10-meter tall sea wall around the facility. However, the tsunami’s 13-meter high

Anna Kuritzkes

ENERGYNUCLEARB: www.wallpaperfull.com

A: www.clker.com

C: wwww.steelguru.com

49


November 2013

wave overcame this wall, causing this disas-ter. This event underscored the fact that an amount of entropy exists that no safety mea-sures will be able to prevent. Like the Three Mile Island accident, this disaster reminded the world that nuclear reactors are hazard-ous. Unfortunately, the ramifications of the Fukushima disaster were far worse than those from Three Mile Island. This disaster caused significant damage to the environment, prop-erty, and the people in the area. The World Health Organization predicted that people in the Fukushima area are at a higher risk of cancer due to the high levels of radiation they were exposed to. Along with these conse-quences, Japan’s economy was also damaged. As a result, the Japanese government is pour-ing money into fixing the damaged property and healing the community.

The issue of radioactive waste, which is not biodegradable, poses another problem, as this waste is the result of nuclear power pro-

duction. The decay of radioactive materials occurs naturally over time. It is inevitable and unstoppable. As a result, radioactive waste must be stored in isolation. Disposal facilities must be carefully monitored, and any mishap, natural or otherwise, would be costly. Nuclear disasters are not only caused by natural events; the improper storage of non-biodegradable nuclear materials could expose a population to high levels of radiation, causing increased levels of cancer, or cause a nuclear disaster.

Additionally, many foreign policy issues develop from the possibility of nuclear energy in rogue states such as Iran, as such states may use nuclear energy as an excuse for creating nuclear weapons. Iran has a nuclear program based on enriched uranium that it uses for nuclear energy, though periodically the coun-try has expressed interest in weaponization. As a result, the United States and Israel have allegedly taken the offensive, assassinating a string of 5 Iranian scientists since 2007 by at-

taching bombs to cars and bombing Iranian plants, only increasing anti-American and an-ti-Israeli sentiment in the Middle East. Other countries that have used this façade include Pakistan and India. This increases nuclear proliferation, as more countries are develop-ing nuclear weapons. North Korea is a rogue state, and its nuclear weapons have been the source of international discourse for over 20 years.

New sources of energy that do not con-tribute to carbon emission remain an import-ant area of research for the scientific commu-nity as global warming continues to harm our biosphere. But nuclear energy, while it is a valid source of energy, should not become a major source of energy worldwide. Instead, other non-fossil fuel energy forms such as so-lar-, wind-, and bio-energy should take pre-cedence. HMR

Nuclear energy cannot be the godsend solution to global warming that the international community has been searching for.

B: www.wallpaperfull.com

www.nuclearspot.com

50



Breaking Down BarriersTimothy Hoang

Wouldn’t the world be a dif-ferent place without can-cer? A survey conducted in

the United States shows that around 1.7 million people in our very own country suffer from cancer with around 580,000 deaths. The major cancers that affect the population today are prostate, lung, melanoma skin and breast cancer. There are around 200 different types of cancer that cause deaths around the world. Cancer is a disease that can be categorized as uncontrolled cell growth. These damaged cells, if left in the body divide uncontrollably and eventually form tumors. The tumors themselves will grow and interfere with the differ-ent body systems, including the nervous, digestive and circulatory systems. Ma-lignant tumors, the scientific name for them, will move and spread throughout

the human body by making use of the blood or lymphatic systems. The ques-tion that many doctors and researchers asked themselves was why the immune system could not deal with cancer cells on its own; if there was something dif-ferent about cancer than with other dis-eases?

As it turns out, the most dangerous aspect of cancer cells is that they are lit-erally undetectable in the human body. This is because they wrap themselves with a “shield” that not only protects them but also makes them invisible to the white blood cells whose job it is to fight them off. A recent breakthrough, released to the public as of October 14th, has led to the discovery of a drug that can break through this shield and ren-der the cancer cells partially defenseless. This drug has been tested on numerous

patients who were diagnosed with mel-anoma, kidney, lung and breast cancer.

Most thought that leukemia would be unstoppable for years to come but the drug has proven to be a worthy adver-sary of the cancer cells, removing them completely in a select few cases. Many doctors who learned about this drug and found out the results described it as “Amazing”, “A game-changer”, and “A watershed moment.” But this isn’t the end, researchers will continue to explore ways to develop new immunotherapies attack cancers like that of the prostate which seems to be one of the major can-cers that evades the new drug.

Not only does this breakthrough have a huge impact on the lives of those who struggle and battle against cancer every day, but it could also have a desta-bilizing effect on the economy. If this

51


November 2013

drug were to permanently deal with can-cer tumors, it would generate massive income for its parent company. The de-mand for this drug would be unending and numerous lives would be saved. But there are those who argue that if a cure were to be found, then researchers who had been previously been working on it would become unemployed and it could have a negative effect on the American economy. Chemotherapists, cancer doc-tors and radiologists would all be out of work causing a large increase in unem-ployment throughout the entire Unit-ed States. The balance here is between saving cancer patients vs. the American economy.

Personally I think that the scientific community should devote as large a por-

tion of its resources as possible to finding a cure for cancer. We would be saving many lives, previously thought lost. It is hard to believe but 7.6 million people die from the disease a year and 12.7 million new patients will be diagnosed. Saving these lives would be a breakthrough in modern medicine.

In the 20th century, 1955 to be spe-cific, the vaccine for polio was released by Dr. Jonas Salk. It was a huge med-ical breakthrough that would decrease the number of cases from around a cou-ple hundred thousand to a mere 1,349 around the world. The economic ben-efits of the polio vaccine were astro-nomical and project savings were valued at $40 to 50 billion U.S. dollars. Polio, once a deadly disease, has been reduced

to only a thousand cases. Cancer, anoth-er fatal ailment, could be cured within a range of a few years.

One can only hope that the future cure for cancer will prove to be ben-eficial for all. Unfortunately, this new breakthrough drug is not the final an-swer. There are still many questions concerning the effectiveness of the drug itself. How long would the effects last? Forever? Temporarily, and if so for how long? No side effects have been identi-fied among those tested but that doesn’t mean that there are none that could pose a danger to future health. Perhaps when these questions are answered, the world as we know will take a turn for the bet-ter. HMR

“The scientific community should devote as large a portion of its resources as possible to finding a cure for cancer.”

According to various medical re-searchers, an estimated 100,000 players experience a concussion

during every high school football season. The intensity of these injuries is much higher among NFL players. Despite vari-ous medical researches pointing to strong evidence of permanent brain injuries, the Concussions Committee of the NFL has denied the conclusions of these studies. Former NFL players facing severe brain damage are arguing that the NFL inten-tionally concealed the risks of concussions and permanent brain injury. More than 4,000 former players, including at least 26 Hall of Fame Members, have filed a law-suit against the NFL in an attempt to get rightfully deserved compensation for the NFL’s “pattern of deception and inter-national misconduct committed by the league,” according to the Huffington Post.

The NFL’s misleading comments and denials of the long-term impact of brain injuries is markedly similar to those of the tobacco industry, which intentionally misled people about the risks of smok-ing. The NFL, like tobacco companies, hid relevant and crucial information from those who depended on the league’s abil-ity to behave responsibly and protect the players of these known dangers. It is hard to believe that a league created for the na-tion’s entertainment as well as for compe-tition at the highest level of athletic ability would intentionally retain such crucial and serious information from these play-ers. But then, that was precisely the course of action followed by the tobacco com-panies with respect to their customers.

The NFL’s Committee on Mild Traumat-ic Brain Injury falsely stated, “mild TBI’s in professional football are not serious in-

juries.” The committee’s studies have been questionable, and they have reached suspi-cious conclusions, such as: “the second im-pact syndrome and permanent brain dam-age as a result of multiple concussions is not a risk to professional football players.”

The NFL had made contradictory statements about the affects of being a player in the NFL and being diagnosed with brain injuries. At the same time that the league’s former Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee was denying a link be-tween concussions and long-term effects, the league’s retirement board was award-ing disability compensation to players fol-lowing doctors’ assessment of their mental conditions. The Committee also stated, “many NFL players can be safely allowed to return to play on the day of the injury after sustaining a mild TBI,” undermin-ing the true seriousness of concussions

52



An Inconvenient TruthVaed Prasad

to professional football players. “You had this weird dynamic of two separate com-mittees … one sending a message that concussions were essentially not a prob-lem and the other acknowledging that football had caused brain damage in sev-eral players,” said Mark Fainaru-Wada, a sports reporter for ESPN. Bennet Omalu, a forensic neuropathologist who did an autopsy on a former player’s brain, found evidence of severe brain injury and pub-lished his findings in the journal Neu-rosurgery. In response, the then-chair-man of the NFL’s former Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee wrote a letter to the journal saying Omalu’s findings were based on a “complete misunderstanding of the relevant medical literature” and that there was “inadequate clinical evidence that the subject had a chronic neurolog-ical condition.” It is shocking that the NFL would deny claims made by a med-ical authority just to spare their name.

The impact of such false claims has been significant to the lives of many peo-ple. According to the Associated Press, “23 out of 44 NFL players would try to conceal a possible concussion rather than leave the game.” These surprising large numbers are caused by the NFL’s inability to explain how harmful concussions can become, creating an unaware atmosphere of players risk-ing brain damage without even knowing.

The NFL’s behavior of concealing in-formation has contributed to the fact that death rates among NFL players from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Lou Geh-rig’s diseases are three times higher than among the general public. In addition, brain autopsies of former football play-ers have revealed that those who had re-peated head trauma had evidence of CTE (Chronic traumatic encephalopathy).” CTE is a progressive degenerative brain disease that can only be diagnosed after death and often occurs in people who have had multiple concussions or oth-er brain trauma. Symptoms of CTE can include changes in mood including de-pression, problems with cognition or be-havior like dementia and difficulties with motor abilities. Junior Seau, the former NFL linebacker who committed suicide in April 2012, was diagnosed with CTE postmortem. Dave Duerson, a former Chicago Bears defensive back, left a note asking for his brain to be studied for signs of trauma before he shot himself in Febru-

ary 2011. Ray Easterling who played safe-ty for the Falcons in the 1970s committed suicide in April 2012. He was diagnosed with CTE. Numerous such cases, unfortu-nately, exist. More and more players have been diagnosed with CTE with only one person to blame, the NFL. The NFL has deliberately hidden the facts from these players and because of this ignorance many players must face the ramifications.

These cases tell the story of the un-derlying connection between football and long-term impact of injuries among football players. As a football fan, I find it shocking and disappointing that the NFL denied the facts knowing well the ramifications on the lives of the players and their families. Outside of just mon-etary compensation the NFL needs to find a way to make it up to these individ-uals and their loved ones and make sure it doesn’t happen again going forward. With the NFL concealing such criti-cal information,have only one question: “Is the NFL hiding anything else?” HMR

53


November 2013

“23 out of 44 NFL players would try to conceal a possible concussion rather than leave the game.”

54

WScience and Technology


WHAT

WE ARE

STILL

MISSING

Gabriel Broshy

55

WScience and Technology

November 2013

According to a report in late 2012, the US ranked 17th out of 49 tested countries for its

quality of education. While it’s clear significant education reform and im-provement are necessary in the US, how to do so is in question, especial-ly with the trillions of dollars of debts the country’s federal government fac-es. One of the ways to improve on this is to put more emphasis on a particu-lar field that applies directly to a pro-fession that is much needed in today’s world and that teaches students im-portant skills that apply to any field: computer programming. Therefore, it is essential that computer program-ming becomes a significant part of ed-

ucation across the country despite the cost of funding it due to the growing need for programmers in today’s econ-omy and the benefits it presents those who learn it.

One reason is the large and grow-ing demand and need for program-mers in today’s economy. There were 913,000 of such jobs in 2010, a num-ber expected to increase 30% by 2020 while the increase for a job on average is 14% over the same span. As Presi-dent Obama declared, “To grow our middle class, our citizens must have access to the education and training that today’s jobs require.” At a time in which the country faces a strug-gling economy, the nation’s education system must keep up with industries with potential for significant job cre-ation opportunities and ensure that there are enough qualified people to take these jobs, which at the moment there aren’t. A mere 2% of students learn computer programming, and if 6% did, this would create $500 billion in the national economy according to USA Today, impacting nearly every industry. “There aren’t enough people to fill these jobs because technology

and the job market are moving much faster than education in high schools and colleges,” according to Mark La-soff, the founder of learntoprogram.tv. It is therefore essential that computer programming becomes a significant part of education so that these high schools and educations can keep up and produce enough qualified people to fill this large and growing demand for programmers, creating jobs.

Another reason computer pro-gramming should be a significant part of American education is because of the benefits it has to those who learn it. Coding teaches one problem solving and critical thinking, skills applica-ble to almost any field. As Microsoft

founder Bill Gates said, “Learning to write programs stretches your mind, and helps you think better, creates a way of thinking about things that I think is helpful in all domains.“ Apple founder Steve Jobs added, “I think ev-eryone should learn how to program a computer, because it teaches you how to think.” Not only does computer pro-gramming teach students things they can apply directly to one field, but it teaches students skills they can use for any.

In conclusion, computer program-ming is a skill that can be applied to an already large and quickly growing trade that doesn’t have enough quali-fied people able to fill its jobs. Aside from doing this, it also can teach kids very important skills that can be ap-plied to essentially all fields. There-fore, it is essential that the federal gov-ernment invests heavily in computer programming education despite the costs of doing so and it should become a significant part of education across America because of its potential ben-efits. HMR

“It is essential that computer

programming becomes a significant

part of education.”

Issue 3 - Political Partisanship

Documents

horace mann school

government shutdown

american government

american image

american populace

review writers crit

political process

pressing questions