B"loan" Out of Proportion

Student loans. Anyone who has watched the news recently probably has an opinion on them. A colleague of mine wrote an article on this topic titled: "Student Loan Debt" in which she stated: "If Obama isn't wiling to let this bill pass, he needs to work on another solution to help students be able to attend college." She is referring to the The College Cost Reduction and Access Act which lowered interest rates on student loans to 3.4%, and is set to expire June 1st. President Obama has really emphasized the issue recently, and my colleague would like him to take action to keep the interest rates low. However, I would contend that president Obama has blown this issue out of proportion simply to get more votes.

First of all, the change is not nearly as dramatic as President Obama would like you to think. If we examine the text of the law (The College Cost Reduction and Access Act), we see in Title II, section 201, subsection [a], in parts [A], [B], [C], [D], and [E], that the interests rates were reduced gradually--from 6.8% to 6.0% to 5.6% to 4.5% to 3.4%. Meaning that the 3.4% interest rate only came into effect in July 2011! A 3.4% interest rate has not been the norm over the past several years--as Obama would like you to think--instead, it's only been in affect for less than a year. College students are by no means unaccustomed to rates higher than 3.4%.

Second, these interest rate changes aren't very widespread. The president would like you to believe that rates on all student loans are increasing, but this is simply not true. Douglas Holtz-Eakin made a good point on National Review's Corner blog when he wrote:

"The president’s plan would apply only to those 23 million loans being borrowed directly from the federal government. Except that not all of those would benefit; it would apply only to the 9.5 million loans being borrowed through the so-called subsidized Stafford loans. Except the lower rate would apply only to new borrowers who apply this year. Except that no payments are made until after graduation, so it would not help anyone for several years. Except that it would lower monthly payments by an average of only $7."

Considering there are 39 million Americans with student loans, as Holtz-Eakin's article states, President Obama's argument suddenly seems so much less significant. This change would not affect most college students.

Third, President Obama is emphasizing this issue only to get votes, not because he actually cares. If we examine when the bill was first passed, we see an entirely different story than what Obama is saying now. Politico published an article on April 12 titled: "As Senator, Obama Missed Votes on Student Loan Bill he Now Wants to Extend." The author of the article (Byron Tau) points out that Obama skipped the Senate vote on this bill twice. Tau says: "Obama has made keeping student loan interest rates low a new priority for his administration — but as a senator, he neither voted for Miller's bill nor signed on as a cosponsor." It's clear this bill was not a priority--until election time. Only when his reelection is at stake does Obama address this bill, and when he does, he blows it way out of proportion. 

Attack of the Super PAC

Super PACs are a recent financial phenomenon that have dramatically changed the way presidential campaigns will be conducted. 


To clarify, PAC stands for Political Action Committee.  Such an organization stands either for or against political candidates, legislation, or ballot incentives. An organization is recognized as a PAC at the federal level when it receives over $1000. However, at the state level, the definition and classification of PACs is left up to the state's election laws. 

So what's a "super" PAC, and why do we care? Well, the advent of organizations known as "super PACs" has changed the way that national campaigns in the US are run. James Werrell of The Rock Hill Herald described these super PACs well in his February article Super PACs Must be Limited:  "The so-called super PACs were spawned by the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission. Justices declared that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on spending for political purposes by corporations and unions, overturning federal rules that had restricted the amount of cash businesses and unions could spend on political advertising." Therefore, super PACs can spend as much as they want in favor of a candidate, but the court ruled they may not directly coordinate with a campaign. 

Clearly, a candidate is at an advantage if they have more monetary support than his opposition. Thus, according to a January 12th article by Time Magazine entitled Super PACs Play a Leading Role in Republican Air War, super PAC spending had accounted for nearly half of all paid media on broadcast networks, cable TV and radio since the fall. Obviously, super PACs have spent even more since that time. The article notes: "Their ability to boost allied candidates or blanket opponents with negative ads has played a crucial role in shaping the contours of the race". To be sure, these organizations have spend millions on the current presidential race--Buzz Feed put together a graphic demonstrating the amount of money spent in the race: seen here.

Therefore, I propose that there should be a limit placed on the influence of organizations such as super PACs. Granted, we should not limit free speech and the promotion thereof, but campaign success should not be based on who has the most money. If we look at the numbers presented in the Buzz Feed graphic referred to above, pro Mitt Romney spending dwarfs that of any of his competitors--and guess who is winning the race? Mitt Romney. Granted, there are other factors about Romney that contribute to his success, but when his campaign has an inordinate amount of money to spend on attack adds, its hardly a coincidence he does so well.

The Founders, Spending, and Pig Poop

Recently, a colleague of mine wrote an article entitled America Is Too Large And Cumbersome To Be Effective. Her title sums up her position accurately. She proposes the founding fathers didn't want a large amount of land or poeple, the U.S. government cannot effectively provide for all the people in our country, and that the cost of taking care of such a large population contributed to the economic recession.

The Founding Father's Concerns

I would be interested to see where the founding fathers said the size of our nation would inhibit effective governance. If anything, we can see support for a government with a large electorate. In Federalist #10, Madison argues that if there is a large electorate, an unworthy candidate is less likely to be able to trick people into electing him by using "vicious arts"--such as bribery. There will also be a larger group of potential candidates, which means a higher potential for "fit characters"--those who will best represent the people's voice. In addition,  a large amount of people will make it harder for a majority to infringe on the rights of the minority. Specifically,  he said: "Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens". Therefore, the more citizens and land in a government, the smaller the chance of faction.


If the founding fathers were concerned about the size of the land inhibiting the government, they took action to address these concerns. They created the Senate (in addition to the House of Representatives) in order to ensure that minorities and smaller states were represented. Also, back then it was harder to have a national campaign for president because travel was much more time consuming. Therefore, they created the electoral college. The founders took action on the concerns they had about size. Not to mention the use of the internet has made the size of the country almost negligible when it comes to communication.


Government Spending

The government is weighed down by unnecessary spending, not by a large population. According to a 2009 Washington Bureau article entitled When Pigs Fly: The Ruckus Over Earmarks, on the $410 billion spending bill passed in 2009, there were more than 8,500 earmarks. Specifically, $1.8 million went to research "swine odor and manure management" in Ames, Iowa. Almost $2 million on researching pig poop! This shows how wasteful congress can be! According to a 2011 video, Spending Cuts in Perspective, by reporter John Stossel, Congress has increased spending by about 60% over the last decade. The massive trillion dollar debt the government has accumulated is not because of too many people, it's because of wasteful spending.


Economic Recession

The recession was not from the government running out of money, it was because of a housing bubble: lots of people bought loans because of the low interest rates several years ago. However, the interest rates of these loans were adjustable such that, after a few years, the loan companies increased the interest rates to the point that many couldn't afford them, and consequently many went bankrupt. Professor of Economic Geography Ron Martin put it simply in 2010: "The recent financial crisis, [had] its origins in the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage boom and house price bubble in the USA".

In conclusion, the government's size problem is with it's budget, not with it's citizens. The founders actually favored a large electorate, and put provisions in the government that would protect individual rights as population grew. In addition, the internet has bridged many gaps in travels and communication that were present at the time of the founders. Next, if we look at spending, we see a government that is not bogged down with providing basic needs, but is actually wastefully spending extra on projects like pig odor research. Finally, the economic recession is a complex issue that had many contributors--it cannot be attributed to one negligible factor such as population.

The Race Is Far From Over

Who is winning the GOP race for president? Well, we actually don't know. The mainstream media continually insists that the race it all but over and that Mitt Romney is the victor, but in reality, these claims are only based on conjecture. At the end of the day, we don't know for sure because the race for delegates is far from over.

What are delegates? Delegates are ultimately responsible for electing the President. Yes, it's this group of people who form a gathering called the "Electoral College" that decide the president, not the people's vote.  Although this system may seem shocking at first, here is how it works:

• Some states have what are called "bound delegates". These delegates are assigned to whoever wins their state.
• Other states states have delegates are "unbound"--meaning that they can vote for whoever they want to when the time comes.

Right now, according to many news agencies, Romney is the clear leader in delegates. However, as Ben Swann said in a March 8th "Reality Check" video entitled The Real Republican Delegate Numbers, "Where do those numbers actually come from? Well, about half of them are guesses." Thus, because there are many unbound delegates, the numbers indicating who is winning the race are actually just approximations. As Swann goes on to explain, of the the first 20 presidential contests, 7 of them were non-binding straw polls--meaning that the delegates in these states can vote for which ever candidate they want regardless of who wins the popular vote.

As a whole, this provides some explanation for why Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul are still in the race. Even though main media outlets show them all trailing hundreds of delegates behind Romney, these numbers are by no means set in stone. In addition, if any of the current candidates were to drop out, that candidate's bound delegates would become unbound. This could potentially give any one of the candidates the extra boost needed to get the nomination.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this: the race is far from over. In fact, as Jesse Benton (Ron Paul's campaigner manager) pointed out in a Mar 26 MSNBC interview: on May 29th and June 5th Texas and California (respectively) will have their primaries, putting almost a third of the nation's delegates up for grabs that week. The media says the race is winding down, but really, it's still going strong.

On The Campaign Trail: Barack Obama

Most Americans will tell you that the economy is not doing very well, but some government officials are trying to change this conception. President Obama in particular--as seen in his state of the union speech--is trying to paint a lighter picture of the economy. The question, however, is whether or not the American people will buy the idea that Obama really has made things better--and will continue to do so if reelected. An Article by Ed Kilgore published in Washington Monthly entitled "Presidential Self-Promotion and the 'Referendum' Trap" argues that if Obama is to win, he will have to hark on the fact that the situation he inherited was far from ideal.

Kilgore has two provisions to his arguments, however. First, Kilgore argues, Obama must display his record well, while still expounding on his plans for the future. Second, Obama must make sure he doesn't dwell on the past--and his republican predecessor--too much because that would appear defensive and backward looking.

Upon review, I think that Kilgore has legitimate points. The American people know the economy isn't doing well, but if Obama can point them back to how bad it was, that will be a step in the right direction for his campaign. In addition, as Kilgore points out, this approach must be balanced with past accomplishments and future goals.

As a conservative, I do not agree with all of the rhetoric used in the article, but I think that the foundational concept is solid. Kilgore has logically laid out some strategies that, if implemented correctly by the Obama administration, have the potential to reward him with a second term.

Can Santorum stay strong?

GOP presidential candidates seem to come and go similar to how the moon waxes and wanes. We've seen it over and over again: a very popular candidate sinks only to be replaced by another who does likewise--and the cycle continues. The most recent surge has been in favor of Rick Santorum. Thus, as the frontrunners become more clear, it seems that the GOP nomination might be a battle between Santorum and Mitt Romney--a candidate who has stayed comparatively consistent throughout the race. 

Therefore, the real question at this point in the race is "Can Santorum stay strong?" Jonathan Bernstein of the Washington Post published an opinion piece on this topic yesterday, which sums up Santorum's current position quite well. Bernstein identifies 5 main areas to measure Santorum's chances of winning:  1) Wednesday's debate, 2) Santorum's performance with the elevated attention, 3) Georgia's reception to him, 4) whether he will get endorsement, 5) the Arizona and Michigan polls.

Volumes could be written on each of these reasons, but suffice it to say that they are all good indicators of Santorum's viability. Why? First, the polls and debates indicate a lot about his potential for obvious reasons. Also, the question of Santorum's performance under new pressure is important because he's never been considered a legitimate candidate until recently. Similarly, the issue of endorsement is also telling since it is really difficult to imagine a candidate succeeding with very little support from his party. Bernstein's list of items to watch is well thought out.

Bernstein's article is written for those with at least some political knowledge, but it is clear enough that you don't have to know much to understand it. Also, Bernstein is a opinion writer so he is not an expert, but has an educated and definite opinion: "Overall, I still think that Mitt Romney basically has this thing won, and what’s really at stake is how long he takes to end the contested portion of the process." Bernstein logically looks at current events and comes to a reasonable conclusion.

New Nukes

The March 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, will not be forgotten any time soon; this is why a February 9th BBC article entitled "First nuclear reactors since 1970s approved in US" caught my attention. The article says that earlier today the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted in a 4-1 decision to allow the construction of several reactors (costing $14 billion) to be built on American soil. Interestingly, these are the first reactors approved for construction by the NRC since the year before a 1979 reactor accident in Pennsylvania. However, as the article explains, this approval is really a test for nuclear power companies. Characteristically, nuclear power plant construction has not been very efficient and has experienced large and costly delays. Thus, with the help of $8.3 billion from the Obama administration, nuclear power companies will attempt to prove their worth to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as to the American people.

As a whole, the article is brief, to the point, and informative--it is definitely worth looking into. However, the events of Fukushima will put a damper on any advances nuclear power will make.