The Biggest Crisis in America Today: The National Debt

Now that we’ve elected a new president and the bailout bill has been passed, the attention of many political commentators and economists has refocused on what is arguably the biggest problem that America is facing today: the national debt, which recently topped 10 trillion dollars.

A documentary released on Friday, called “I.O.U.S.A.” details the history of the national debt and how we have come to a point where there doesn’t seem to be any end in sight for the deficit.

Today, the National Debt as a percentage of the Gross National Product has reached a level that we haven’t seen for 50 years. The last time the debt reached this level, we were recovering from World War II. We’ve also seen a rise in dependency on foreign nations to carry our debt, something that is a particular concern to many, especially since it could start to have an effect on the way our foreign policy is carried out.


Even beyond National Debt as a Percent of the GDP, the debt in dollars alone, adjusted to reflect inflation, is now at an all time high, and the trend doesn’t look good for the future.


Even more disturbing is this graph, which shows that the National Debt has nearly doubled just under the Bush Administration.

The fact that the National Debt has nearly doubly just during the time that the Bush Administration has been in power may explain some of the overwhelming support for Barack Obama this year, as many voters were looking at the bad state of the economy. Barack Obama will now have to face an incredible pressure to lower the National Debt, which will be no easy feat. We simply cannot maintain the same degree of low taxes while continuing to spend at the rate that we are. Programs will have to be drastically cut, or taxes will have to be raised, and neither option is likely to be popular with the public. The looming prospect of the retirement of massive amounts of Baby Boomers will likely also affect the way in which future presidents will have to deal with this problem. For now, the big question is: what immediate steps can be take to combat this problem before it’s out of control?

Where are they going?

According to the LA Times, Arnold Schwarzenegger “urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first.” In relation to the protests against the ban on gay marriage in his state, the Governor of California publicly declared his support for the fervent opposition to Prop 8. “I learned that you should never ever give up,” the governor said. Schwarzenegger also assured that the legality of the gay marriages that preceded the propositions is not in jeopardy.

As expected, Schwarzenegger’s statement outraged religious and social conservatives throughout the country. The Family Research Council has urged its supporters to let “Gov. Schwarzenegger [know that he] is playing a dangerous game, and it needs to stop. Now.”

This social controversy emerges at a bad time for the governor’s party. As a press release of the Liberty Counsel reveals, conservative groups have started to look at some political figures of the Republican Party with contempt. According to this statement, “conservatives have not governed well and have forsaken conservative values.”

The Republicans are having a hard time bringing a solid party coalition back to life. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not making it any easier. The governor’s statement has further alienated religious and socially conservative groups that had previously constituted the party’s strongest base of supporters. This makes me wonder, where are the Republicans going? While Schwarzenegger might become an important figure of bipartisan politics in the near future, I doubt the GOP will play the maverick card once more.

A Passionate Parliament -- For Better or for Worse?

This past Wednesday, a brawl broke out during a session of Iraq’s Parliament dedicated to a discussion of the U.S.-Iraq security agreement. Ahmed Masu’udi reportedly instigated it, although other followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadre were soon actively contributing to the chaos.

Although Sadre’s followers make up a bloc of only 32 legislators in the 275-member Parliament, their possible alignment with, for instance, other anti-American blocs could lead to their overruling the other, perhaps calmer, voices within Parliament. This is precisely what the United States has attempted, since the creation of the Constitution, to--successfully--prevent. As a single-member plurality system, the United States has developed into a two-party system that is much more stable than a system ruled by factions who are, in the words of James Madison, “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

In a system free of these many competing blocs, or factions, it would have most likely been easier for the Iraqi government to reach a decision. Now only time will tell what the outcome of this disagreement about the security agreement will be.

Problems of Democracy

Last week, Taiwan's former president Chen Shui-bian was arrested by the current government under charges of corruption and money-laundering. Former President Chen is a member of the recently created Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which gained the presidency for the first time during the 2000 elections. The DPP is known as the pro-independence party, and its emergence as a key party signaled the creation of a true democracy. This past March however, the Nationalist Party regained power in a controversial election and re-established ties to the Chinese government. The Taiwanese media, though clearly polarized between the two parties, reported issues of illegal vote buying on both sides. There is also evidence that both parties paid for former Taiwanese residents to fly back to Taiwan to vote in the election.

Although there is evidence for the charges against Former President Chen, his arrest is of huge concern to the future of the DPP. Corruption has been a huge problem in Taiwanese history, but governmental officials have largely gone unpunished because of the continual reign of the Nationalist Party. After the 2000 elections, the DPP decided not to pursue the allegations against the Nationalist Pary in the spirit of putting the past behind and encouraging a more responsible future. Chen's arrest signals a return to the past reign of the Nationalist Party and raises questions about the future of Taiwanese democracy.

The future of Taiwanese democracy depends upon cooperation between these two parties. The BBC notes that, "Taiwan's young democracy needs opposition parties, which are one of the main means of checks and balances." As articulated by James Madison in Federalist Papers 51, checks and balances are necessary to spread out powers throughout the entire government. Currently the Nationalist Party not only has control of the presidency under Ma Ying-jeou, but also holds 75% of the seats in the legislature. Even members of the Nationalist Party are starting to fear a return of one-party rule in Taiwan.

California Court can't seem to make up its mind

Californians just can’t seem to make up their mind about the extremely controversial Prop. 8. Or rather, maybe it is the Supreme Court of California that can't make up its mind. Either way, this is an issue that seems to be far from over.

Before May, the California Supreme Court made a landmark decision in allowing same-sex couples to marry in California. However, this past November, California citizens (most of whom were conservatives) used their powers of initiative and referendum to vote to overturn this decision. The decision to pass Proposition 8 passed with a slim majority of only 52%. Some thought that was the end of it, that now gay couples could not get married, and that those who already had already gotten married, would face uncertain futures.

But now, the Supreme Court in California has decided to re-evaluate this passage of Proposition 8, and decide whether the ban on gay marriage is actually constitutional. The Court has agreed to review the case of the almost 20,000 gay couples who were married before the ban was passed, and to discuss whether their marriage will remain legal or not. Furthermore, they will be looking into and contemplating whether or not Proposition 8 denies gay couples equal-protection under the California Constitution.

So why is there still such controversy about Proposition 8? It passed with 52% of the votes. The majority spoke, so shouldn’t that be the end of it? Not according to the the opponents of Proposition 8. They have been arguing ever since it passed, that it is wrong to allow the public to effectively change the constitution, simply by power of their popular vote. These opponents say the California courts should not allow the people to make such a drastic decision, and that Proposition 8 was a "fundamental change to California’s State Constitution." They argue that major revisions such as this one, cannot be decided upon by simply polling the public, and allowing the majority to make such drastic decisions. They argue against the plebiscitary way of democracy and say that, instead, any revisions to the Constitution can only be put on the ballot for vote by a 2/3 vote of the State Legislature. In other words, they argue that the people can’t simply get thousands of Californians to sign a petition, and then have it appear on the ballot to be voted on. They believe the measure needed to go through the legislature, before even appearing on the ballot in November.
In my opinion, opponents are right to say that California shouldn’t allow this type of plebiscitary democracy. For decisions as controversial as this one, it is absolutely necessary that the judiciary, in conjunction with the legislature, use their wisdom and judgment to come to a decision. This decision should not be based on the outcries of the public, because, as we can see, the public will never be happy. For every 52 California citizens who were happy about Proposition 8, there are another 48 who are devastated with the decision.

The people are obviously biased, and clearly everyone has their own beliefs and convictions. That is precisely why we need to allow what is supposed to be an impartial 3rd party i.e., the courts and the legislature, to decide these issues. Furthermore, we shouldn’t amend the State Constitution based on "majority rule" of the people, when 52% barely even constitutes a majority.

Whatever their personal opinions are, most Californians are supportive of the Court decision to review Proposition 8. Either way, this will mean that Proposition 8 will get its day in court, and the right to a fair trial. Hopefully this time, though, the court will make a decision, and stick to it.

Keeping Up Appearances

President-Elect Obama has long made it known that he plans on using a "team of rivals" model for his cabinet. At first glance, his apparent desire to keep current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at his post seems indicative of this idea, but how much real influence would Gates have should he stay on?

He's already made it obvious that he would stay not out of personal ambition, but "patriotic duty" only. And even were he to stay on, his days would already be numbered, maybe as little as nine months: he would be there for transition purposes only.

Ultimately, I believe Gates would be a lame-duck Secretary, and to hail his reappointment as "reaching across the isle" would be rather laughable. The main issue that he and Obama disagree over is a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but most likely Gates would be gone before he could butt heads with the President and others in the cabinet on this question. Obama, as President, has full prerogative when it comes to his cabinet, of course. They are an auxiliary part of the Executive Branch with no Constitutional precedents. But if Obama really wants to live up to his "team of rivals" goal, he should welcome friction rather than avoid it with pointless gestures towards bipartisanship.

The Democratic Conflict

After sidelining immigration reform for the bulk of his presidential campaign, Obama must now face the issue head-on. As Angelica Salas, the executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, says, Latinos, who voted for Obama in sweeping majorities, “…voted for a person who we believed understood the importance of immigrants to this country.” Now, they are expecting Obama to follow through: just last week, immigrant rights organizations announced their plans for a major march on Washington on January 21st, the day after Obama assumes office. While the issue of illegal immigration did not determine the outcome of this election, polls show 61% of Latinos rate immigration reform as a top priority.

As the platform currently stands, Obama would require illegal immigrants pay a fine, learn English and zip to the end of the line for naturalization. Yes, he would keep open that pathway to citizenship. While this policy may seem palatable enough to the Latino community, there is some concern over whether Obama will act any time in the near future, let alone fast enough to solidify the Latino voting bloc as a Democratic stronghold.

Why worry? Well, Americans, as dictated by majority rule, have a different agenda on their mind. According to a Center for Immigration Studies survey, only 25% of Republican and 50% of Democratic voters said they would support a policy that entails eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Given the recent financial crisis, the economy is dropping 220,000 jobs per month, and Americans are feeling unfriendlier than ever towards illegal immigrants. Why should an illegal be employed when a citizen is not? Equality of opportunity is an American value that, therefore, applies only to Americans.

But given the recent economic collapse, shouldn't we usher these immigrants out of hiding and onto the tax rolls? Why not fine them, tax them, and collect the revenue, as our President-elect so intends? Will Obama, slowly but surely, champion the Burkeian, trusteeship vision of democracy? Will he, through timely action, appease the Hispanic minority (albeit fasting-growing minority in the country) and defer to pluralism? Or will he succumb to public opinion?

What's In a Name?

For much of the country these past two weeks have meant quieter phones, fewer door-knockers, and television commercials reminding us of the impending holidays--election 2008 is officially over. Unfortunately, there are a few states that aren't so luck. Senate races across the country are still going strong: Alaska's was just decided, Minnesota's won't be decided for weeks (pending a recount), and Georgia has a run-off on their hands.

Georgia's senate race on November 4th between incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss (R) and challenger Jim Martin (D) resulted in Chambliss getting 49.8% of the vote and Martin getting 46.8%. But in order to win Chambliss needed to get 50% of the vote, without this there's a run-off. And this run-off is getting a lot of political attention.

On both sides party organizers are doing their best to get their candidates elected. Clinton and Gore separately made trips down to Georgia to fire up support for Martin. Television ads are running that link Martin to Obama, encouraging the idea that, if elected, Martin will help Obama lead the country. On the other side, Chambliss isn't saying no to Republican leaders either. John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney have all made trips to Georgia to help the incumbent Republican retain his seat.

In our otherwise "weak" party system these actions hint that our parties might in fact be getting stronger. However, looking at this race it's important to remember who those voting on December 2nd will be (hint: probably won't be all of the voters who went to the polls on the 4th.) When it comes to a run-off election it all goes back to energizing your base, and for that you bring down big names. In this case, reminding people to vote and getting them to the polls falls on the prominent party players. So for the next few weeks Georgia will continue attracting the Clintons and the Romneys of the political world. There's no room for non-partisan in this run-off race.

America's Red-Headed Stepchild

While there has been much discussion about the significance of the United States' electing an African-American president, there has also recently been some analysis of the importance of how a black president won (and how he didn’t).

Breaking the notion that a “Southern Strategy” is necessary to win presidential elections, Senator Barack Obama won last Tuesday not only by a large margin of electoral college votes, but also without the South (excluding prosperous Virginia and North Carolina). While many Democratic voters who had been ambivalent about Mr. Obama for whatever reason gradually returned to the Democratic fold starting mid-September, anecdotal evidence from the New York Times suggests that in many Southern states wariness about Mr. Obama’s race remained, with some individuals even voting to prevent a black president from entering office.

Although the Republican bent to Southern votes was not dramatic as the New York Times would imply—like the rest of the nation, there was a shift towards the Democratic party—it is still interesting that those states in the 2008 election that voted Democratic most closely to (or even below) their 2004 levels were mostly Southern. White reaction to a black candidate in the deep South, however, may have been understated, given an increase in black voters. While subgroup analysis of exit polls is always problematic, it would be interesting to compare the relative increase of the black vote in those “cutting even” states with the drop, if any, of the white Democratic vote in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

Regardless of why President-elect Obama did not win the South, that an election can be won without the largest section of the country is significant for the future of American politics. The disproportionately Democratic under-30 vote would seem to hint that this leftward shift throughout the nation may not solely be due to voter reaction to the last eight years under Mr. Bush-it may signal a new generation of Democratic voters. If this holds true, the South may not be the only group left behind; an increasingly conservative Republican Party may find itself drifting further from the American people as well.

U.S. v U.N.

The United States’ role in foreign policy and the United Nations has been, and will remain a vital part of the latter’s existence. According to Kim R. Holmes, Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, in a speech to the Baltimore Council of Foreign Affairs, states, “We pay 22% of its regular budget, and about 27% of its peacekeeping costs. On top of that, we give generously to support the work of UN agencies providing humanitarian relief, electoral assistance, food aid, and more.” The United States played a crucial role in the founding of this institution and remains one of its greatest supporters. With the most peacekeeping soldiers from the United States and a great majority of the financial and material support coming from this nation, the United Nations has become largely dependent on the United States and now unhealthily employs it as a crutch.

While it is commendable that the United States is aiding the United Nations, the UN is plagued with a multitude of problem, among which, high inefficiency. It has been established that a great number of Americans wish to increase support for foreign projects. Public desire for increasing aid to foreign nations, however, should not be the barometer one uses in deciding to send aid. It was discovered that the public tends to overestimate the amount of federal funds devoted to aiding foreign issues. Even when confronted with how much the actual budget is, the public continues to advocate for more foreign support. It was also discovered that emotions play an all-too significant role in wishing to send aid to certain counties. Hunger and poverty were placed on a pedestal when the public was asked which circumstances make it most allowable and acceptable for the United States to send aid. A far smaller percentage of Americans agreed that strategic influence was a sufficient enough reason for aid to be sent to foreign nations. And if this was necessary, a greater percentage of Americans agreed that aid should be sent multilaterally. To combat the United Nation’s inefficiency, the United States should partake in missions that would seem beneficial in the long run and are not ones in which immediate gratification is looking to be obtained. Not only would this effort help preserve the budget, it would also work to maintain and build the United Nation’s image as a multilateral police force wisely and meticulously working to solve the world’s problems.

Race after the Race

Obama’s platform of change has multiple implications and one of them is inevitably race relations in America. The ascendancy of a black man to the presidency is a pivotal leap in America’s racial history. It shows that Americans seem to be tired of divisions across racial lines and now want to bridge divides. In an article in The Nation, Melissa Harris-Lacewell harkens back to W.E.B. du Bois’s work, The Souls of Black Folk, and reminds Americans that blacks were always considered the source of problems in racial issues. Lacewell points out that, for many people, both black and white, “when Barack Obama was elected as the first black president of the United States, African-Americans became the solution instead of the problem.”

Gallup polls show as well that Americans are optimistic about the nation’s future under Obama’s presidency.


Interestingly, I don't feel like Obama plays the race card at all. While some might not consider him to be truly black, he embraces both aspects of his heritage, and by doing so, he does not alienate either blacks or whites. The ability to find common ground on the racial issue shows that his approach is different and promising. He is nowhere near the extremes of "black power" or "white supremacist". When added to the chronology of black and white history, Obama's election serves as the point at which both sides converge and start a new path together.

The issue of race in this election is only one part of the larger influence of race in American politics and society. Race can define party alignments and the implications of one racial group voting for a particular party has certainly caused dramatic shifts the American political scene. The movement of blacks to the Democratic party undermined the power of the Republican party. In one way, while race can be a divisive issue, race also brings all Americans together by engaging them in the political world and by unifying them as members of a republican democracy.

The Racial Divide: Will it Disappear?

What does Obama’s victory mean for race relations in the United States? As a result of having an African-American President, many voters of all races, will be expecting a change in the racial politics of this country. Overall, African-Americans and whites disagree on how much of an issue race currently is in society. According to the Washington Post, poll results show that 47% of voters believe there will be an improvement in race relations, 34% predict no change, while 19% believe race relations will get worse. Although there is no reason that race relations would get better or worse, it is clear that African-Americans in particular have many expectations, including “shrinking white racism to vestigial proportions” and using Obama’s leadership as an example of how students of color can equalize their education. However, it is important to note that Washington Post emphasized that Obama presented himself as a candidate who happened to be African-American as opposed to an African-American president. Essentially being an African-American President would be representing the African-American race. Although Obama does in some ways reflect African-Americans within the United States, he is actually a president who happens to be African-American because to the rest of the world and perhaps to the U.S itself, Obama represents all of the United States and not the relatively small proportion of African-Americans within the U.S. This variation in ideas of what Obama’s victory means for the country could make up whether the racial divide of the U.S., assuming it exists, will stay the same, become stronger, or disappear.

The Racial Divide: Will it Disappear?

What does Obama’s victory mean for race relations in the United States? As a result of having an African-American President, many voters of all races, will be expecting a change in the racial politics of this country. Overall, African-Americans and whites disagree on how much of an issue race currently is in society. According to the Washington Post, poll results show that 47% of voters believe there will be an improvement in race relations, 34% predict no change, while 19% believe race relations will get worse. Although there is no reason that race relations would get better or worse, it is clear that African-Americans in particular have many expectations, including “shrinking white racism to vestigial proportions” and using Obama’s leadership as an example of how students of color can equalize their education. However, it is important to note that Washington Post emphasized that Obama presented himself as a candidate who happened to be African-American as opposed to an African-American president. Essentially being an African-American President would be representing the African-American race. Although Obama does in some ways reflect African-Americans within the United States, he is actually a president who happens to be African-American because to the rest of the world and perhaps to the U.S itself, Obama represents all of the United States and not the relatively small proportion of African-Americans within the U.S. This variation in ideas of what Obama’s victory means for the country could make up whether the racial divide of the U.S., assuming it exists, will stay the same, become stronger, or disappear.

Propositon 8 Passes

While many around the country rejoiced as news came in that Barack Obama became the new President-elect, others watched in anticipation for Proposition 8 results. By the end of the evening, it became clear that Prop 8 had passed in California, effectively adding an amendment to California's Constitution defining marriage as between a man and woman. While 61 % of Californian voters elected Barack Obama for president, 52.2 % of voters supported Proposition 8.

Reasons for Proposition 8's approval are currently being debated . Some suggest, based on already suspicious exit polling, that the high volume of new African-American and Latino voters, or the "pro-Obama surge", contributed heavily to the ban. Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com argues: "But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage".

California was not the only state to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Florida and Arizona also passed constitutional bans on same-sex, with slightly larger margins. Florida passed Amendment 2 with 62 % of voter approval, Arizona's Proposition 102 passed with 56% of voter approval. Arkansas also passed Initiative 1, a ban on gay couple adopting children, with 57 % of voter approval.

Again, it is unclear what factors specifically played roles in the approvals of Amendment 2, Proposition 102, and Initiative 1; however, it is interesting to note the wording of Florida's Amendment 2. While the actual amendment states: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized", the summary given on the ballot says "This amendment protects marriage...". The use of the word "protect" in this statement could have very well affected the decisions of voters, creating a higher percentage of votes in favor of the ban. This leads us to wonder, what were the affects of question-wording in these amendments?

The Economic Bailout Plan: A Work in Progress?

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gave an update on the financial crisis on Wednesday, saying that the economic bailout plan is working. “I believe we have taken the necessary steps to prevent a broad systemic event. Both at home and around the world, we have already seen signs of improvement,” he said about the $700 plan. However, he also announced some major changes in the way that the funds will be allocated to aid the economy. Paulson also seemed to reject a new proposal made by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to use some of the $700 billion to bailout certain major car companies.

Instead of using the funding to buy up troubled bank assets, the money will be used to purchase stocks in banks in order to help the banks revive their normal lending practices. This idea is more likely to help banks and less complicated than trying to buy up bad stocks. In spite of Paulson’s attempt at reassuring remarks, the Dow Jones ended 411 points down on Wednesday, a drop of 4.73%. Most stocks had been falling all day, with General Motors, which rose 5.5%, as one notable exception.

General Motors owes this rise in stocks to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who asked Congress to allow three major car companies - General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler - to share $25 million out of the $700 billion bailout package. These companies have suffered severe losses during the financial crisis, especially General Motors which reported a third-quarter loss of $4.2 billion. The success of these companies is vital to the U.S economy because of the millions of employees and retirees that depend on it. Nariman Behravesh, the chief economist at HIS Global Insight Inc., projected that if General Motors went bankrupt, it could put the U.S. jobless rate at 9.5%. “It's truly one of those companies that's too big to fail, and everybody understands that,” he said.

Unfortunately, the fate of these major companies is still uncertain because Paulson has opposed the idea of giving funds allocated to financial institutions to private corporations in trouble. But as these vital companies see their stocks whither, it may become necessary for the federal government to step in.

Wait, what?

I have no objection to paying taxes - they do help keep the national mechanism turning, after all - but when times are bad, money is tight, and the government is taking my hard-earned cash and giving it to large-scale investment banks, whose fleet of bankers make more in ten minutes than I make in three hours, I would just like a little insight into the details. However, details are just what have been missing.

In early October, Congress passed a $700 billion bailout bill authorizing the Fed to spend said amount to purchase troubled assets from struggling banks. Theoretically, doing so would have allowed the banks to borrow fresh capital, thereby jump-starting the banking and lending system. However, more than a month after the bill, unemployment is higher than ever, Wall Street continues to nosedive, recovering a little just this afternoon, and now the Fed has shifted its strategy. Did those $700 billion have any impact at all? It was as if, amidst the heightened Election excitement, the media just forgot to keep an eye out on just what the Fed had been up to. Now that the hype is over, we've turned back around to find the money gone and the economy not much better.

Now I understand that this bailout bill is, and was never intended to be, the end-all solve-all of the financial crisis. This economic turmoil will undoubtedly continue to swallow the economy at home and abroad for a while, and I can only hope that it blows over in the next year or so before I leave the fuzzy comforts of college and head out to join the working masses. What frustrates me, though, is when I feel like my tax money is going to waste. At a time when fear and uncertainty are what lie at the core of the problem, muddled bureaucratic dealings certainly do not help the situation. Tell us straight up what is going on - a little (or a lot) more transparency may go a long way.

The Rookie is Already Being Called to the Plate

Barack Obama has just barely celebrated his one-week anniversary as the president-elect of the United States and already the international pact proposals are rolling in. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn’t wait 24 hours before issuing his proposal for a joint climate-change pact between Canada and the United States. Obama’s plans for the environment, which entail reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 15% in the next ten years, align almost exactly with Harper’s plans for Canada, making our newly elected leader an ideal environmental partner.

Home to the second largest oil reserve, Harper’s government is proposing to enter into an agreement with the U.S. that would guarantee American access to its northern neighbor’s oil sands supplies. Both sides would benefit from this pact: America would decrease its dependence on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil while Canada’s economy would be bolstered as a primary supplier to the world’s most gluttonous oil consumer. As allied forces, they would help each other to find solutions for their shared goal of reduced carbon emissions.

While this all sounds so perfect it belongs on an episode of “Leave it to Beaver,” environmentalists are quick to note the glaring problem with this proposal. Oil sands extraction results in carbon dioxide emissions that are three to five times greater than the crude oil on which we currently rely. It’s also difficult to see how America would benefit from this plan, as Canada is already one of our major suppliers of foreign oil. Most importantly, it complicates Obama’s efforts to decrease consumption of “dirty oil;” these sources require surface mining and sand extraction, two processes that are extremely harmful to the environment.

At first glance, this proposal sounds like a wonderful step forward, both in international relations and reliable (not to be confused with renewable) energy sources. However, you can’t pull a fast one on Obama. Clearly, increasing our reliance on oil sands would be a violation of the national low carbon fuel standards he intends to put in place. America isn’t going to be duped into a lousy pact that would bolster Canada’s economy and exploit our environmental solutions. While wrapping up a poor proposal in a pretty bow may have worked on the last administration, our new one is smart enough to actually read it before signing.

Maybe California Isn't as Progressive as We Thought...

On May 16th, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that two state laws, both limiting marriage to officially be between a man and a woman, were unconstitutional. 30 days later, that ruling became the law. A week ago, however, California voters, through initiative and referendum (a reformation from the Progressive era), struck down the very same law that the state's congress deemed constitutional.

On November 4th, 52% voters ensured that Proposition 8, which deemed gay marriage illegal, passed. While some see the problem as a civil rights issue, others see it as a religious issue. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pushed hard in their campaign to have gay marriage banned. And the Mormon Church, while receiving the brunt of protests, weren't the only ones. Some Baptist churches and evangelical churches were against the proposition, as well. Interestingly enough, there were also churches against the proposition as well. According to SignonSanDiego.com, St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral felt that the proposition should not have passed. "The very foundations of law are being shattered... everybody deserves the same rights."

This brings up an interesting issue in American politics. We, as Americans, have immense pride about the system of freedom and equality in this country; we’re all for political and social equality. But on the other hand, if the equality in question pushes too hard against our religious beliefs, then we strike it down. Granted civil unions are a step away from this, but in a lot of states, that’s as far as those laws will go. The only states where our gay citizens can actually get “married” are Massachusetts and Connecticut. This whole thing makes me question our so-called American Creed. I think many things in it are true, but I wonder if those things were true years ago. Maybe the creed should be rewritten. Or maybe as some suggest, it doesn’t really exist at all.

. 

A Profitable Alternative?

The debate on ethanol has raged since the first environmentalists and government policy makers alike proposed the use of corn ethanol as a means to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and encourage alternative, mores sustainable sources of energy.
The energy return on the energy invested (EROEI) is a measure used by many to conclude whether the production of energy resources is worthwhile. The EROEI of the production of crude oil is between 7 and 13.3. Those who argue that the EROEI of corn ethanol is below 0, which makes it useless to produce as it brings in a net “loss” of energy, agree that the “co-product credit,” the ways in which the byproducts of corn ethanol can be used, turn it into a positive. Regardless, corn ethanol’s EROEI does not come close to that of crude oil.
Low EROEI scores, the inflation in corn prices and products dependent upon it, the 2007 United Nations Rapportuer calling for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production to allow for research to develop sustainable non-food sources of ethanol, as well as the bankruptcies of some of America’s biggest ethanol producers, all indicate that the ethanol biofuel industry is in trouble.
VeraSun, Ethanex (“Today in Biofuels: BioTown USA falters, Ethanex files for bankruptcy”), Alternative Energy Sources, and E3 Biofuels are all examples of major corporations filing for bankruptcy or struggling to stay competitive in the market.
Biofuel corporations already receive billions of dollars in subsidies from taxpayers. Yet, has biofuel really been made that affordable? Subsidies create incentives for consumers to purchase alternative products. Thus, the taxpayers are the ones who pay to create the incentives for themselves, as the consumers, to purchase a product that has low energy return, and crippling effects on communities that depend upon cheap corn products.
Barack Obama, the current United States President Elect, includes in his comprehensive environmental plan a 150 billion dollar investment in clean energy sources, such as biofuels. Hopefully, the proposed investment does not further support an already troubled industry but rather seeks to find other energy efficient alternatives.

How did the economic crisis and the election impact each other?

Undoubtedly, the economic crisis had an impact on how both the presidential and the senatorial campaigns were run, and also perhaps an impact on the results of these elections. It’s also entirely possible that the elections had an impact on the economic crisis, too.

When the economic crisis hit and the stock market started to lose hundreds of points in the course of one day, the polls showed a significant drop in the popularity of congressmen up for re-election, and also in support for John McCain. In these elections we saw some elements of retrospective voting, as many Americans rejected incumbents.

As many of our country’s senators were up for re-election, they needed to make sure they sent the message that they were sticking up for the little guy – that they favored “Main Street” instead of “Wall Street.” Concern about being re-elected caused them to be more careful in how they went about coming up with a solution for the economic crisis. It soon became clear that those in Washington had to both act quickly to avert an economic meltdown, and also had to reassure voters that they were acting in their interests.

The first bailout package failed in the House, and the stock market continued to fall. As more and more pressure was put on lawmakers to save the economy, voters made it clear that they saw the bailout bill as a bailout for rich companies and not for everyday people. Congress ultimately came to the conclusion that it was best to act decisively and quickly in order to find a “fix” for the economic crisis. A few changes were made in the package, and it passed. The swiftness of its passage caused the media to focus less attention on the economic crisis once the bill was approved.

In the end, the economic crisis had a big effect on the election, but the election also had a huge impact on the way the economic crisis was handled. Now that the election is over, the question becomes, how do we move forward? With the election behind us, many people are beginning to step back and re-examine how we handled the financial crisis, and some are questioning whether we moved too quickly.

Ultimately, the weight of this economic crisis, as well as the weight of the wars we are engaged in, will fall upon the shoulders of our new president, Barack Obama. Expectations around the world are extremely high, and our focus now will be on how Obama deals with these extremely difficult situations. Among his important transition choices: his Treasury secretary, and what kind of signal to send congressional leaders on an economic stimulus package.

Hope for Health Care Reform Has Been Elected!

Obama has no need for campaign ads like these anymore, although now he faces the new challenges in executing his proposals of change that have been presented all across the country for the past year. One of the more significant proposals is that of the health care issue. His platform focuses on insuring the uninsured and offering more affordable premiums, deductibles and co-payments as well as requiring all children to have health insurance. He also hopes to expand eligibility for Medicaid. How can this all be done? And how long will it take before this “change” we’ve been hoping for finally becomes a reality?
According to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution report, Obama’s health care plan would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 18 million in 2009 and by 30 million in 2018. His plan, according to the New York Times, “would provide heavy government subsidies for insurance for low-income workers”. Even if these ambitions are not immediately attained within the next couple of years as the estimates suggest, we will still be better off than if we would have had Mccain’s plans implemented. A few days ago it was confirmed by Senator Mccain’s ecnomic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin that his health care plan contained a large flaw; according to Holtz-Eakin “young, healthy workers likely wouldn't give up their company-sponsored plans for the $5,000 tax credit McCain would offer to offset the cost of purchasing private insurance.” The journal Health Affairs projected that “After a short-term reduction of 1 million in the number of people without coverage, the number of uninsured would increase by 5 million after five years” under Mccain’s plan.
So for all of the realists like me who are skeptical about how much of what Obama promised can really be done, have hope that the best possible candidate has been elected, and on the issue of health care (and many other important topics) Obama has a credible and reliable plan that just might change the American health care system as we know it, undoubtedly for the better.

Illegal Immigration at Fault?

Now that the election is over, we can anticipate oodles of celebration…and yodels of finger-pointing. Who’s to blame for McCain’s loss? Sarah Palin? African-Americans successfully voting for Obama? Latinos failing to vote for their strongest advocate of immigrant rights? McCain’s own stance on illegal immigration?

Election day results: exit polls indicate Obama carried the Latino voters 66% to 32% nationwide. Good for Obama! Nevertheless, this particular victory has everyone wondering not about what Obama did to win it, but about what McCain did or didn’t do to lose the support of this coveted demographic group.

Perhaps, McCain’s silence on comprehensive immigration reform for the bulk of this presidential campaign can explain his loss of support from the Latino voting bloc. Or conversely, McCain’s support of illegal immigration legalization may have been—counterintuitively—the source of his woes. By pushing for his brand of immigration reform, McCain inflamed the violent and vocal opposition of many in his party. But while these Republicans were galvanized by McCain, their own raucous cries may very well have repulsed the Latino bloc from voting Republican this election.

Yes, more Latinos voting Democrat over Republican may explain McCain’s loss of support, but I don’t think immigration reform is the reason.

I’m sure you’re all aware of the recent financial crisis. Perhaps, you are also aware Latinos comprise a disproportionately high number of the working class. On average, they have more children but earn less income than the average American. They work primarily in construction and service industries, among the first and worst affected in the economic collapse. In California, Latinos faced a 2.1% increase in unemployment from July 2007 to July 2008, whereas non-Latino Whites saw a 1.2% increase.

Naturally, the Latinos are fretting about the state of our economy, and they, like most of America, blamed the Republican party in power when the fundamentals of our economy disintegrated. Regardless of his championing of illegal immigrant naturalization, Republican John McCain couldn't have garnered much support on this end of the socioeconomic boulevard.

McCain need not blame his stance on illegal immigration for costing him the Latino vote, let alone the election. He hardly held a stance during the campaign. Either way, dissenting Republicans held their noses and voted for the Republican candidate. Latino citizens cared too much about their mortgages to vote for the Republican candidate. And illegal immigrants – they didn’t vote.

Financial Crisis or Environmental Crisis: Do We Have to Choose?

In the midst of what has become a global financial crisis, some environmentalists are concerned that efforts to fight global warming will be pushed aside as the country deals with what some see as more pressing issues. Political leaders around the world are saying that as the global economy heads into a recession, now is not the time to attempt reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. At their summit on October 16, the European Union looked at stepping back and reconsidering their original goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

According to some estimates the climate crisis is just as pressing if not more so than the financial crisis. Warming is occurring quicker and at a greater extent than scientists predicted. Putting off action until after the financial crisis is averted could, according to some, could mean action will come too late.

After Tuesday night, with Barack Obama now officially the United State President Elect, questions are being asked on both sides of the issue. How will the financial crisis affect efforts to reduce climate change, but also, how can efforts to reduce climate change affect the financial crisis?

Some voices in the media are suggesting that while efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to switch to cleaner energy will be curbed due to the financial crisis, it is important than nations do not cease to address these issues.

Other voices are more optimistic. Perhaps the new green tech initiative will not only further goals of decreased greenhouse gas emissions, but also help pull the world out of the financial crisis. The new industry will create jobs and offer chances for greater and more secure investment. As unemployment rises in both the U.S. and in the European Union, the financial crisis may be an incentive for non-environmentalists to act to curb climate change. The financial crisis could be the best thing that ever happened to the global warming movement.

Say what?

On the night of the 2000 election Ralph Nader made the headlines. He was seen as a key element that switched the course of the U.S presidential election and became the ‘spoiler’ of Al Gore’s road to presidency. Since then Nader is perhaps one of the most recognizable figures of ‘third party’ politics.
America cherishes equality of opportunity and adequate representation. The idea that any citizen should be able to run for office along with the right that every voter has in choosing the candidate that will truly represent his or her views are the basis that credit legitimacy to third parties.
On the night of Barack Obama’s victory, Ralph Nader, was also featured in the media (perhaps not the headlines). But this time, the news sang a different tune. Ralph Nader made an infamous statement that many have considered the end of his career. During an interview in a radio station in Houston, Nader questioned “whether he [Obama] is going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations”. This statement was qualified as racist and it has been controversial to say the least. However, and without any intentions to justify his words, this is probably the only way the media would have paid any interest to what Nader had to say.
In an interview with Fox News, Nader did not attempt to excuse his statement. The former candidate accused the media of promoting ‘celebrities’ in politics and disregarding the essence of the presidential run. In his campaign’s website a post titled "Nader Wins!" argues that if this election had been centered in issues rather than parties or individuals, Ralph Nader would have won. The same website featured for the past couple of months an initiative to allow third party candidates to take part of the presidential debates. If the ballots include the names of alternative party candidates, shouldn’t the media as well? Are we letting the media disqualify third party candidates before we do?
These are all important questions to be raised. It is a shame that Ralph Nader ended up joining the media spectacle instead of challenging it.

A Commander-in-Chief Who Will (Hopefully) Lead His Troops Home

The military has typically encouraged soldiers to maintain professionally apolitical attitudes. Nevertheless, military personnel tend to lean toward the conservative Republican side of the political spectrum, principally because it supports strong national defense. In fact, national defense makes up one of the GOP’s central platforms; Senator John McCain received much of the support he did because, as a veteran of the Vietnam War, he was expected to be able to make more informed decisions in this area than, say, Senator Barack Obama, especially about the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to past polls, McCain did hold a decisive lead over Obama 68% to 23%. These polls, however, focus on retired soldiers, rather than those in active service. The troops stationed in Iraq have actually given more support to Obama, donating six times the money to his campaign than to McCain’s. While this suggests that there has been a shift within the military towards the left, many of the troops who are supporting Obama still identify as conservative Republicans. The troops, then, are able to look past traditional party definitions to Obama because he has suggested a time-line to bring them home, something McCain was not willing to set.

At this point, it’s not a matter of what each party believes the role of the commander-in-chief to be; if the troops want to come home it’s time to make that happen. Now that Obama has been elected, to the disgruntlement of those who consider the very troops who voted against McCain as members of their party, this will hopefully begin at last.

Court Blocks Bush's last attempt to Screw Up

As President Bush and company used his last days in office to try to pass a bill involving Medicare, a federal court blocked his attempt like a goalie in a soccer game. The bill would have allowed Medicare to save money by paying only for the least expensive treatment options for certain diseases. According to the Bush administration, the bill was introduced because they believe Medicare companies have the right to use discretion, not only in choosing what it would cover, but also in choosing how much of the payment it would cover.
Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. rejected the bill, citing that Congress is the one with the authority to set payment rates, and that Medicare companies should not have the broad discretion to alter them. An earlier Medicare law, passed in 1968, states that if a person’s doctor decides that a certain type of treatment or medicine is necessary for his patient’s health, Medicare would cover it, and the payment rates would be specified in another part of the law. The idea was that Medicare companies could not limit the amount of coverage payments they give back to patients when these patients required more expensive brand-name medicines, if these medicines have been proven to be more effective in providing treatment.

However, even before the Bush bill was introduced, the court discovered that one group of Medicare contractors were already up to something shady. They tried to limit coverage payments for a specific asthma medicine, DuoNeb, which is taken through an inhaler and acts as a nebulizer. While the drug may be expensive, under current law these Medicare providers don’t have the authority to limit the amount of coverage payments, because the Medicare payment rates are set by Congress.

But, under the bill that Bush proposed, Medicare would have had the ability to take prices for medicines into account when deciding which brand of medicine to cover. Allowing Medicare to have this discretion is dangerous because they would surely look for the least costly alternative to the medicines that doctors have prescribed for their patients. It would give them the unbrideled discretion to decide how much they would pay for each medicine. Many believe that Medicare coverage should be based solely on clinical effectiveness, and not based on the least costly alternative. Passing such a bill would prevent many patients from getting coverage for more expensive drugs, even though these specific expensive drugs may be more effective in battling a disease. The patients, especially those relying on Medicaid, would be unable to receive crucial medicine for their illnesses, simply because without coverage, the costs of these medicines were through the roof.

The decision by the court to block the bill surely brought a huge sigh of relief from thousands of Medicare patients across the nation. This was a great decision, because it exemplified perfectly the benefits of our system’s separation of powers. In the United States, through the separation of powers, we have an executive, legislative, and judicial branch. These separate branches were granted the power to use a system of checks and balances to control the behavior of the other branches. Whether you thank Madison, Hamilton, or any of the other Framers of the Constitution, it is important to understand how significant this system of checks and balances is. When one branch, such as the executive branch, tries do dangerous things like pass bills that would disable many patients from buying effective medicine, the judicial branch can step in and check Bush’s power like a hockey player in a game.

In other words, looks like it’s “game over” for you, George Bush.

The McGovern Coalition: Redux

In the 1972 presidential election, George McGovern cobbled together a base of minorities, the young, and the highly educated out of the rubble of the old Democratic New Deal coalition that was in its last throes, having been torn apart by issues such as civil rights and the Vietnam War. He lost in a landslide to Richard Nixon, his only electoral votes coming from a single state, Massachusetts.

36 years later, Barack Obama managed to gather a similar coalition, and while it wasn't a landslide, he won this past election decisively.

What is it about the composition of the electorate today that made such a big difference in these outcomes? As much as the media likes to harp on it, the youth vote probably played only a secondary role in Obama's win: yes, he took a very significant portion (68%), but the percentage of the youth vote in the electorate only increased 1% since the last election (to 18% of all voters). Perhaps the shift that helped him the most was the significant growth in minority voting, which increased its share of the electorate to 26% (compared to 19% in 2000). This, combined with the fact that he took large majorities of the minority vote (96% of African Americans and 68% of Latinos, for example), most likely made a large difference for Obama.

There is also at least one way in which the Obama coalition hearkens back to the New Deal coalition: he took 60% of those making under $50,000 a year. However, upon closer inspection, this is due in large part to minorities in that income bracket--Obama actually lost the white vote in this category by a 4% margin.

Of course, whether the Obama base will become a viable coalition for the Democratic Party remains to be seen after just one election. However, with the increase in minorities the U.S. will experience in the coming decades, it should certainly not be counted out yet.

Obama Wins! Now What?

In a monumental victory on Tuesday night, Barack Obama gained a large majority of the country's votes and became the next president. Many are still celebrating this historic moment in American history, but the important question is, what's next? Obama will be sworn in on January 20, just a few months away. In his first steps into the oval office, Obama will be faced with the daunting mountain of problems left behind by the Bush Administration. Obama has clearly stated his opinions on major foreign policy concerns during his campaign. But once in office, what will actually happen? Here are some key issues the Obama administration needs to tackle.

1) Repair US world image: Following Bush's eight year regime of operating like the unilateral superpower, the US has some repair work to do. With the onslaught of international issues at hand, Obama must mend some old friendships and make some new ones. As noted by the International Herald Tribune, the US "is increasingly seen as a nation in decline, hobbled by hubris and uninspired leadership -- destined, perhaps, to be overtaken by China within a generation." If Obama hopes to make any headway in international affairs, he will have to transform America's image into a leading country one again.

2) Transfer attention from Iraq back to Afghanistan: Obama made his views on Iraq clear during his campaign, but implementing a successful plan for withdrawl in Iraq may prove difficult. The key, though, is that efforts need to be shifted from the media centered conflict in Iraq to the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. Obama promised to "focus on Afghanistan" but the situation there is currently in a downward spiral. Obama needs to not only commit more troops to the area but also begin discussions with Pakistan to improve policy against al-Qaeda forces.

3) Begin discussions with international leaders: Although he was bitterly attacked by McCain for promising to sit down with Raul Castro and Iran (though maybe not with Ahmadinejad just yet) Obama was right to emphasize the importance of communication. Diplomacy is the only option right now with the increasing number of international concerns each day.

Obama vs. The Media

As soon as Barack Obama surpassed 270 electoral votes every news channel and paper headline championed the historic moment that just happened. For at least 12 hours following the announcement the news media remained excited, reflecting on the event and speculating about the greatness of the Obama Presidency. The news media loved covering the moment, but that love can only last so long. Just as quickly as Campbell Brown congratulated Obama on his victory, she reminded viewers that CNN would be there holding our President accountable to his constituents. CNN even has a special graphic that to compare Obama's promises with the reality of his policies.

This isn't all bad. The media is responsible for holding our leaders accountable. Check their power, and let the public know what the government is up to. But sometimes in checking up on our politicians the news media searches for conflict, and Barack Obama shouldn't expect anything different. President Obama's interactions and lack of interactions with the media will be scrutinized. With the economy in crisis and wars on multiple fronts any and all actions Obama takes will be analyzed. It's only inevitable the press will look for the conflict within an Obama administration.

Obama himself admits that these next few years won't be easy. In his victory speech on Tuesday he admits that everything he wants to achieve might not be achievable in one term, but the media might not be this patient. There are people out there ready to monitor what he's doing (and not doing.)

2008 will inevitably be remembered as a historic year with a historic outcome, but the next four years will be the real test--and the media is ready to report on just how well it's going. Despite how great an Obama Presidency might be the reporters and bloggers will be there to find the conflict and the mistakes. With a media ready to fight on all fronts--24 news networks, online newspapers, and blogs--will it be possible for any leader to rise above the scrutiny? Has the information age meant an end to the age of great leaders? Only the Obama administration will be able to tell.