THE EMORY WHEEL
OP ED
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
7
All Students Should Vote For President Obama On the Issues of Tuition, Jobs and Healthcare, Democrats Support Student Interests PROF. RICHARD DONER The upcoming elections will have a big impact on your future. The two presidential candidates and their parties have sharply different positions and records on issues such as education costs, job opportunities, access to healthcare, debt, reproductive rights, and the very quality of democracy. In my view, the clear choice is President Obama and the Democratic Party. Here’s why: Consider first college costs and debt. Since 1985, the price of a college degree has risen over twice the rate of inflation. Americans now owe more for student loans than for credit card debt. In response, President Obama increased Pell grants, simplified student aid applications, made it easier for ex-students to repay loans, and ended unnecessary subsidies to banks. The Obama administration has helped students get accurate information on the costs and benefits of colleges and universities. Republicans want to raise interest on federal student loans and cut Pell grants for low-income students; they oppose interest limits on private loans; and they back bankruptcy rules that make student loan indebtedness tough to discharge. What about jobs? Millions of jobs have been lost since 2008. History tells us that
Democrats provide better remedies than the GOP. Over the 64 years leading up to President Obama’s inauguration, jobs were created twice as fast under Democrats as under Republicans. During the economic collapse that started under Republican President George W. Bush, 417,000 jobs were lost each month. Since Obama’s policies took hold, job creation has amounted to 155,000 per month. His American Recovery and Reinvestment Act invested in infrastructure and construction jobs, provided help to the unemployed and grants to enable states to retain and hire teachers, police, and firefighters. This hasn’t been enough. Part of the problem was that the administration underestimated the depth of the recession, and its stimulus was too modest. But a big part of the problem was Republican opposition: The GOP unamimously opposed the President’s American Jobs Act and has fought hard to cut funds for state and local governments. Republicans respond that Obama’s plans will increase our huge national debt (now equal to our GDP) while discouraging private sector hiring. Their approach is to cut spending (austerity) as is happening now in Europe. In fact, Obama’s plans may lead to a short-term rise in debt. But history, economic theory, and Europe’s dismal economic performance under Republican-supported policies
tell us that fiscal stimulus - spending - is the only way to get out of this kind of a recession and to reduce debt, when interest rates are already close to zero. If you’re skeptical, check out the latest IMF study concluding that fiscal expansion helps growth while austerity has weakened it while raising debt. And keep in mind that, at least since Pres. Carter, deficits have risen under Republicans; Democrats are left to clean up the mess, as Pres. Obama is now trying to do. There are also striking different on health insurance The Affordable Care Act passed by the Democrats in 2010 is critical for young adults, who have often not had access to affordable health coverage. The law requires insurance companies to let young people stay on parents’ plans until age 26; it prohibits insurers from denying coverage or dropping people with health problems; and in 2014, Americans who lack health insurance will be eligible for Medicaid benefits or will get tax credits to help them buy health plans in state-run marketplaces. Gov. Romney pledges to repeal health reform, while the Republicans propose drastic cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that will leave tens of millions more without health insurance or require people to pay more for care they already have. The two parties differ sharply on the rights of women and gays. The first bill
President Obama signed into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, makes it easier for a woman to challenge pay discrimination in court. Republicans opposed this law and state efforts to enhance remedies for victims of gender based wage discrimination. Opposed by Republicans, the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover contraception free of charge as well as a full range of preventive and pregnancy-related services without charging women more than men. In contrast, the 2012 Republican platform calls for overturning Roe v. Wade and ending women’s rights to make their own choices about childbearing - no exception for victims of rape or incest. Finally, President Obama and most Democrats support gay rights, such as marriage equality. Republicans want to reverse these gains. And....there’s this little question of voting rights and democracy. I’m a Democrat. If the Democratic Party was engaged in what I consider to be efforts to discourage political participation by voter suppression, I would protest, along with Republicans. So where are thoughtful Republicans when it comes to Republican efforts in over 30 states to discourage voting? These efforts involve legislation requiring new identification - unexpired governmentissued photo IDs - before entering the voting
booth. In principle there’s nothing wrong with requiring an official ID. But these new restrictions will affect seniors, who may not have photos on their driver’s licenses or even have a drivers license or other such identification. In fact, according to NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice, at least 11% of voting-age Americans, mostly elderly and minority voters, lack necessary papers. Republicans have also fought to limit voter registration drives. This will clearly limit the votes of Latinos and African-Americans who were more than twice as likely as white voters to register through early voter registration. Early voting has been especially important for people without easy access to transportation or the ability to take off work: low-income voters. The NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice found no evidence of any extensive fraud and concluded that these laws could “make it significantly harder for more than 5 million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.” Even the Bush White House was unable to find evidence of fraud Indeed, judges across the country, from Florida to Ohio to Pennsylvania to Texas, have been ruling the Republican backed measures illegal and damaging to the democratic process.
Richard Doner is an Emory professor of Political Science.
ROSS FOGG
PRIYANKA KRISHNAMURTHY
Romney’s Contradictions a Weakness
Our Deliberately Transcendental Youth
For the entirety of the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney has been characterized by flip-flopping on issues like abortion, stemcell research, gay marriage, climate change, the so-called Taxpayer Protection pledge, and of course, health care reform. During last week’s debate, Romney took his willingness to say whatever it takes to be elected a step further by consistently playing both sides of the fence. Either way, the media seems to have let him off scot-free and his unrealistic desire to want his cake and have it too needs to be addressed. The most obvious example of Mitt Romney’s alternate universe, in which leaders don’t have to make hard decisions, is with health care. Romney says that in his plan, and that word is used lightly, the provision stating that insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions would remain, but the individual mandate would be history. There’s a slight problem with that. The individual mandate is the linchpin of the Affordable Care Act. Without it, the popular parts of the law, like letting people under the age of twenty-six stay on their parents plan, which Romney also expressed support for, cannot exist. Without the individual mandate, the pool of people with coverage is deprived of roughly 40 million people. Without this increase of the pool, costs would not decrease and subsequently, the other provisions would crumble without it. Not-so ironically, in March 2006, Romney even called the individual mandate “essential” to his Massachusetts law. Romney also leaves voters curious as to whether or not he would preserve provisions of the law like eliminating the cap that limits how much money will be spent on during a person’s lifetime or the stipulation that eightyfive percent of the cost for a person’s coverage has to go toward direct care. Romney also boasted that his law in
Katrina Worsham | Staff
Massachusetts had broad, bipartisan support, while Obama’s did not. This is more of a reflection on the obstructionist Republican party, but more importantly, it is another example of Romney wanting to have his cake and eat it too: his hollow pledge to work across the aisle with Democrats would go straight out the door if he fulfills his primary campaign promise of repealing “Obamacare” on the first day. Shifting to the economy, where the candidate’s expertise supposedly lies, is another example of him failing to stand his ground. Romney aggressively pushes for job creation, but famously argued against the auto industry bailout, while the president saved one million jobs and made General Motors once again the world’s top automaker. In terms of the national debt, Romney also wants it both ways. He thinks it would be just great to reduce it, but refuses under any circumstances to raise taxes to do so. But somehow he will raise revenue by closing unspecified loopholes and ending deductions, which he has yet to name. If that is not
enough, Romney will still reduce the national debt and increase the military budget by two trillion dollars despite the Pentagon not asking for the increase. Mitt Romney clearly thinks the American public is too stupid to realize his contradictory pledges and reconcile that someone who is so averse to making tough decisions simply cannot make a good leader or commander-in-chief. The most troubling of Romney’s contradictions, however, is that despite wanting voters to “Believe in America,” he dismissed last month’s employment numbers, which showed unemployment under eight percent for the first time since Obama’s presidency and a revision of 86,000 extra jobs created in July and August, as a Labor Department fabrication and a result of fewer people actively seeking employment. The only real risk Romney has taken is audaciously assuming voters will not realize his incompetence and failed logic.
Ross Fogg is an College junior from Fayetteville, Ga.
Imagine a place filled with all that is naturally beautiful. This place flourishes because of the bright flowers, deep green trees and wild birds that surround it. It is a place where inner peace and serenity are actually attainable, not just abstract, utopian concepts. This place is called the Memphis Botanical Gardens. I never really thought I would enjoy a trip that consisted of volunteering with a lot of people I didn’t really know. Things like that were awkward and hard for me. But for some reason, I decided to attend this trip, mainly because I wanted to leave a monotonous Emory to see a more exciting nature. A group, plus me, went to Memphis, Tennessee and volunteered at the beautiful botanical garden located there. It was filled with various plants and flowers that depicted the roots of Asian art and culture. The pond in the middle of the garden sparkled as the blazing sun hit it, illuminating the already bright sky. The woods were filled with different plant species and even the day it rained, the muddy earth beneath our feet made me feel more in touch with Mother Nature than ever. This place was one of the most beautiful places I have ever seen. The reason we were volunteering there was because they needed help with uprooting trees and invasive species. We even had the chance to pick up the chestnuts and black pecans that were sprinkled around the tree from which they originated. It did look kind of weird that we were pulling out nature rather than growing it, but that’s beside the point (utilitarianism, I suppose). The beauty that surrounded us made me realize the frivolity of material things like technology. I understand the practicality of owning something like a laptop or a cell phone, but I’m talking more in the idealistic sense. Being able to walk around in a labyrinth of trees really makes you think and
focus on what is right in front of you. At least that’s what I did. I feel as if I experienced some kind of transcendental revelation where I really want the whole world to understand what I’m saying, but at the same time it’s one of those things that’s hard to put into context if you weren’t actually there. Regardless, being in the outdoors really had a heavy effect on me and made me re-analyze what modern society stands for. I feel like technological advances have subsumed our youth. Rather than being fascinated with all that is natural and real, many feel the need to constantly check how many Facebook likes their new profile picture got. Focusing on those kinds of materialistic goals really blind us from what is actually important. We would be nowhere without the nature that surrounds us; that kind of beauty is a prerequisite to the superficial beauty many are so obsessed with today. As humans, we have intellectual capabilities that can be used either to advance society in a positive way or a negative one. We should use those capabilities to take a step back and admire what is in front of our eyes, rather than trying to constantly advance the objects we have constructed. I really admire Henry David Thoreau for his solitary time in Walden Pond. It makes me wonder what kind of character development and self-actualization can occur when we become isolated from human-made things. Everyone, at some point, should drop everything they have (yes, that includes your cell phones) and spend a little time outdoors. You won’t believe the kinds of revelations that happen when all you have is your mind and the beauty that lies before your eyes. Thoreau said he went to the woods to live deliberately. We went to the woods to live deliberately, too.
Asst. Editorials Editor Priyanka Krishnamurthy is a College sophomore from Coppell, Texas.
Bottled Water: Not Nearly as Great as Everyone Thinks WILLIAM HUPP Americans are delusional when it comes to the most basic building block of life. If you had a choice between buying something priced at one dollar and the exact same thing priced at 10,000 dollars, common sense tells you to choose the former. However, it seems a lot of people in the United States lack common sense. That’s right, we’re talking about one of the greatest evils ever to be manufactured: bottled water. Bottled water consumption has grown dramatically over the past 40 years. Today people in the United States consume between eight and nine billion gallons of bottled water yearly. Whereas tap water costs about 1.5 percent of one cent per gallon, bottled water can cost as much as 10 dollars per gallon — averaging anywhere between 1,000 to 10,000 times the price of tap. This raises the question: Why do people ever drink bottled water? “I want to be able to transport my water and drink it too,” a potential bottled waterdrinker might say. However, this problem is easily solved by a five dollar refillable bottle and a sink. “I prefer the taste of bottled water to that of tap water,” the same potential bottled water-drinker might once again say. This person ignores the fact that most bottled water companies literally take tap water and put it in bottles. That bottled water for which you’re paying 10,000 times more is little different from the cup of tap water you could have had. “But bottled water is cleaner … right?” Wrong. Because tap water comes from the government, it has to pass certain safety regu-
Mariana Hernandez | Staff
lations. Not only is bottled water exempt from these same safety regulations, but it is also exempt from tests for bacteria like E. coli as well as required quality reports. This is not to say bottled water is completely unregulated, but it doesn’t have the same regulations as tap.
“I like to pretend I’m a good person by recycling my empty plastic bottle.” You’re in the minority. Four in five bottles of water are not recycled. While we’re on the topic of these bottles, we should also look at what goes into making them. Plastic bottles are made using
anywhere between six and 17 million barrels of petroleum annually, depending upon who you ask. It also takes more water to produce the bottle during the manufacturing process than actually goes into the bottle during the filling process. In no way is bottled
water environmentally sustainable, even if the bottle is recycled. “I like supporting corporate interests by purchasing bottled water over tap.” No you don’t. Corporations have hijacked a basic human right and jacked up the price by a factor of thousands. The sick twist is that people actually buy into this scheme more every year. Luckily, the solution is simple: go buy a refillable bottle and fill it with tap water. Even if you bought a 100 dollar bottle and used it for just one year, it would be more cost-effective than purchasing a comparable amount of bottled water. However, if you insist upon consistently paying for water, there is an alternative. A small company called Boxed Water caters to both markets: those who refuse to use water bottles and those who think sustainability is important. Boxed Water is basically water in a paper milk carton, circumventing the environmental problems caused by manufacturing plastic. Paper breaks down more easily, so even when it’s thrown away it does not exist in a landfill for decades. The best part is that a portion of the company’s profits go toward philanthropic projects committed to sustainable water practices and responsible forestation techniques. While the company is still in its infancy stages, Boxed Water is available for purchase at locations close to Emory like Rise-N-Dine and Steady Hand. So why are so many Americans still about this superfluous corporate concoction that comes in plastic bottles? Maybe it’s something in the water.
William Hupp is a College sophomore from Little Rock, Ark.