The Death of The Republican Party

By

Benjamin Barasch

One of the few constant truths in Washington is that any major policy change, appointment, or ruling is surrounded by intense scrutiny and controversy from the media. It is necessary for the American people to be involved in the political process and know what is happening in our national government, but the media takes advantage of the desire to be informed by creating sensational stories. Recently, President Obama has announced the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to replace Supreme Court Judge David Souter. Since this is Obama’s first Supreme Court appointment, the Conservative media naturally gave reasons to be skeptical of her appointment. I think its fair (and even helpful) for respectable journalists such as Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic to question her abilities to take over such a crucial position, but when the likes of influential right wing radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, Representative Tom Tancredo, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich add their two cents about the subject, the Republican party is left looking like a bitter ten year old after losing a game of kickball.

The most controversial part of Sotomayor’s past is that she made a speech in 2001 in which she said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” In politics, any remark about race, no matter what the context, is a colossal faux pas, this remark ranks very low on the provocative scale. Plus Obama, after reading the whole speech himself, thought the comment was not meant to offend but rather to show Sotomayor’s pride towards being a Latina. Still, Limbaugh branded Sotomayor a “reverse racist” on his show and even went as far to compare her to former KKK leader David Duke. The problem isn’t even that Limabugh makes claims like this, its not even that he once referred to our president in a bit as “Barack the Magic Negro,” the real problem is that too many influential people in the republican party are too afraid to oppose Limbaugh because of his influence. Sadly, there are also too many people in the Republican party who agree with Limbaugh. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo supported Limbaugh’s claim by telling CNN that a civil rights group Sotomayor is a member of known as National Council of La Raza is “Latino KKK without the hoods and nooses.” Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich insinuated that Sotomayor was a racist (on his twitter account, no less). Sure there are some such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) who are willing to dismiss such claims, but when influential Republicans make claims as ridiculous as Limbaugh’s, Tancredo’s, and Gingrich’s, the party needs to show a unified front against the comments. It is not in the best interest of the Republican party to allow their most influential members to make imbecilic comments.

With the total failure of GW Bush’s presidency, Barack Obama’s overwhelming victory in the election, and even Arlen Spector’s switch of party; the Republican party is losing its footing as an equal to the Democratic party. The leaders of the GOP need to wake up and not allow for the likes of Limbaugh and Gingrich to represent the views of their party. Also, the population of Hispanics in the United States is expected to be around 16% by 2010; how can a major party succeed while alienating such a large demographic? Although I can’t say that I am a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter), I believe it is important to have at least two powerful political parties in this country to balance each other out, but if the Republican party continues down this spiral, it will cease to exist.

The Effect of the Recession on Colleges and Universities

Ben Barasch

With about a half of the school year remaining, to high school seniors there is not a more diverse set of emotions towards a single issue than college acceptance. A portion of the senior class (such as my Purple Youth colleagues Max, Jon, and Gabe) is already in college; for them the rest of their high school career is about as challenging as criticizing George W. Bush. The remaining seniors are faced with a long road ahead filled with last minute applications, college visitations, and counselor meetings. As someone who witnessed another (my sister) agonize until spring break, let’s just say that I am happy that I am a junior (words that have are rarely spoken). Unfortunately the current economic climate is going to make the college experience, from applicants, to students, to educators, to admission board members, more challenging than it was before.
Basically colleges are run very much like large corporations. Because they usually generate more expenses than they can pay for from tuition, universities and colleges rely on earnings from their endowments and gifts to cover their costs. As we all know, investments in general have not really been in the green of late, and those of universities and colleges are no exception. Endowments are way down due to a combination of the failing economy and fewer people are willing to donate money. Harvard, a school that most would expect to be immune to such a crisis, has  lost 22% of its endowments which equals about an $8 billion loss.  Endowments are not the only financial hit that these education institutions face. As mentioned above, now that people generally have less money, donations are decreasing.
In theory, the amount of money that a parent has should have nothing to do with increasing or decreasing the chance of a student to get into the school of their choice. Many of our best schools have adopted “need-blind” admissions policies.  Now, this egalitarian practice may be at risk. It may turn out that parents who can afford tuition give their children better chance to be admitted to the schools of their choice. That would be unfortunate.
Another problem caused by the recession, is how the universities are going to deal with having less operating money. Less money for colleges and universities is bad news for everyone. Less money means that schools that were looking to expand need to put projects on hold and in some cases schools will shrink or even worse close their doors. Certain improvements that were proposed and were feasible two years ago are no longer economically viable and have been put on the back burner.
An added concern for applicants caused by the recession is price elasticity of   demand for schools now that money is tight. Price elasticity of demand is a measurement of how much interest waivers/increases as prices rise/fall respectively. For example if a top flight student from Illinois gets into a Princeton or a Yale, will he or she now be more inclined to attend their state universities where they can still receive a good education for a lot less? The answer is yes and no depending on the financial situation and circumstance of that particular family. Because of the reputations of the top schools, many parents will spring to send their children to the top private universities. This may spell trouble however for the less distinguished private universities where the tuition is still higher than state schools. It is a no brainer for a student to attend their state school as opposed to a private college/university where they are getting a similar education for a lot less.
Fortunately, amidst all of the financial issues facing schools, most schools have not yet cut into their financial aid programs to free up money. If Wall Street continues to deteriorate, financial aid may be the next thing in jeopardy in this economic crisis.

Ben Barasch 

 Saying that the United States government conforms to the mold that has been set by other countries is like saying that Kevin Federline has a bright future in Rap. Sure, there are some situations where our government takes an opposing stance to the rest of the world (see the Kyoto Protocol), but in other cases, the United States is simply behind the rest of the world’s advanced nations and a prime example of this is our lack of universal health care.

The United States is the only wealthy, developed, free, and industrialized nation that does not have universal health care. Universal health care can mean several things; in some countries like England and Canada, it is a system in which each taxpaying member of a country automatically receives dental and medical care. A system like this is expensive for the government, which in turn is expensive for the taxpayers. This past election, universal health care was a hot button topic from then democratic candidate Barack Obama. President-elect Obama realizes that it would be politically impossible to implement a single payer system in the US. Instead, he has proposed a universal health care system that within 6 years all Americans would be required have health insurance, either from the government or from a private plan. 
With the economy not improving and tax revenues declining, Obama may be tempted to rethink this prediction since it will be very expensive. However, 46 million Americans are not covered by insurance and the number will only grow as more and more people lose their jobs and go into debt. Some Americans believe that health insurance is a luxury rather than a necessity, which causes them to resist their perceived notion of being forced to pay for other people’s health benefits.

Fortunately, some within Obama’s inner circle such as Rahm “Rambo” Emmanuel have said that the downturn of the economy is a reason to hasten the implementation of universal health care, not delay it. Many studies have shown that universal health care would ultimately make our economy stronger. Currently our corporations and businesses (based on a 2007 study by the National Coalition on Health Care) spend approximately $7,600 per person on health care each year. Having universal health care will eliminate the a heavy cost for American corporations and allowed them to invest more money in their business. This extra money will increase the competitiveness of American products in the world market. Also, it will put more money in the pockets of the American people, which can be put back into the economy through consumption. 
     

  As hard as it will be to spend additional taxpayer money, the time has come for universal health insurance in the US. An estimated 18,000 people die each year because they do not have health insurance and it is about time that the United States got the ball rolling on universal health care.