19 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
The captured al Qaeda fighters that are currently being held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are part of an international gang of terrorists. Their operations transcend political boundaries and are a threat to every nation in the world. They are, by their very nature, not protected by a convention designed to regulate international warfare between individual and clearly-defined states or governments. \nThe language of the Convention is also clear about the status of detained Taliban soldiers. According to Article II, "the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties…" Given that the Taliban regime was not a signatory party to the Convention, its soldiers are not covered by it, either.\nArticle II goes on to state that countries that did sign the Convention are still bound by its provisions in their relations with non-signatories if "the latter accepts and applies the conditions thereof." But the U.S. and the United Nations have never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Taliban officers did not have the authority to deny or accept the conditions of the Convention, even before Sept. 11. \nIn order for Geneva to apply now, the U.S. would have to unilaterally reverse the position of the entire international community and recognize the Taliban as having once been the legitimate government of Afghanistan. \nSince day one, the Bush Administration has bent over backwards to treat the detainees at Guantanamo Bay fairly, even though it was clear that the Geneva Convention did not apply. They have been provided with medical attention, three culturally correct meals each day and have even been given free copies of the Koran. None of the detainees have been mistreated. \nThe language of the Convention is clear. The president should have stuck with what he knew was right, instead of giving in to political pressure from his opponents.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
A lawsuit filed in federal district court last Tuesday has reopened one of the most troubling chapters in America's history. The plaintiff's chief complainant, Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, is suing Aetna Inc., CSX Railroad and Fleet-Boston Financial Corp. for once profiting from unpaid slave labor. The class-action lawsuit is seeking reparations for the 35 million descendants of African slaves, giving new meaning to the term "frivolous lawsuit." \nThe corporations named in the suit are the same as those that allegedly profited from the institution of slavery in name only. None of the owners, employees or managers now operating these companies are responsible for the actions of their predecessors. Just as a person cannot be sued for an offense committed by a stranger, owners of Aetna Inc., CSX Railroad and Fleet-Boston Financial Corp. cannot be held liable for the actions of strangers who profited from slavery more than 135 years ago.\nEven if they could be, profiting from slave labor was not a crime; it was a legally sanctioned institution. In filing their lawsuit, the plaintiffs have asked the courts to retroactively apply the current U.S. prohibition against slavery to corporate owners and employees who hadn't even been born at the time of the offense. \nProponents of corporate responsibility for slavery often cite reparations claims paid to German survivors of the Holocaust to strengthen their case. There is a crucial difference between reparations for victims of Nazi persecution and descendants of African slaves: survivors. There are living survivors of the German concentration camps to compensate. There are no living former slaves.\nA ruling for the plaintiffs would require the courts to compensate descendants of slaves generations removed from the Black Americans that actually suffered under institutionalized slavery prior to 1865. \nPayments derived from corporations for an offense they did not commit and compensation to millions of Black Americans for a painful time in American history that they did not endure is not a strong case for corporate reparations. \nOf course, reparations advocates know their case will likely be thrown out of court. Under the guidance of the Reparations Coordinating Committee, a group of high-powered lawyers and historians, the plaintiffs are only using the case to raise awareness of their cause in preparation for a future lawsuit seeking reparations from the U.S. government. \nClaims for reparations from the government do not withstand scrutiny either. It is true that America as a whole has benefited economically from slavery. But claims against the government would also require payment from those who were neither party to its creation, nor responsible for its longevity. \nDespite this fact, millions of Americans have already voluntarily paid reparations for slavery. Billions of dollars in welfare payments, which have benefited many Americans, including those in the black community, have been and continue to be funded by U.S. taxpayers. Race-based preferences for government employment, contracting and higher education have also been employed to compensate Black Americans for the injustices they were once forced to endure at the hands of generations past.\nWhile the most recent corporate reparations case will likely be thrown out of court, the larger reparations debate will undoubtedly live on.\nThe Coordinating Committee will eventually seek additional claims against the U.S. government, but there they are likely to fail as well. Black Americans have overcome what must have, at times, seemed like insurmountable odds to achieve a level of success that many may have once thought unattainable. One can only imagine how much further along we would all be today if their energy spent focused on the past were instead turned and used to make way for a better future.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
The prospect of new Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards is dead in the water, Iraq has just cut oil exports and U.S. demand for cheap energy is rising by the minute. It's time for Congress to authorize oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.\nSince the Arab oil price shocks of the 1970s, American consumers have increasingly sought greater energy independence. Opponents of new oil exploration in ANWR advocate government regulations to reduce U.S. oil consumption. Advocates of new drilling claim real energy independence can only be achieved by increasing the world's supply of oil. Both are wrong.\nU.S. energy independence is a myth. In 1974, environmentally conscious consumers convinced Congress that new government regulations were needed to increase fuel efficiency standards and reduce U.S. consumption of imported foreign oil. Since the CAFE standards were introduced more than 20 years ago, average fuel economy has increased 114 percent for new cars and 56 percent for new light trucks, but U.S. consumption of imported oil has increased from 35 to 52 percent.\nAdvocates of oil exploration in ANWR are equally misguided in their attempts to convince consumers that energy independence will come with increased domestic oil production. Even if the U.S. could produce enough oil in Alaska to satisfy the demands of every U.S. consumer, an OPEC led reduction in world oil supply would still increase prices for U.S. consumers. Increasing domestic oil production won't make the U.S. energy independent either.\nWhile neither approach will give U.S. consumers complete independence, new ANWR oil exploration would provide a less costly and decidedly more effective way to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil than government regulations designed to reduce consumption. The largest North American oil discovery in decades, reserves now located beneath Alaska's arctic tundra are estimated to be large enough to provide the equivalent of 30 years of Saudi crude; a sizeable amount considering that the U.S. now imports more oil from Saudi Arabia than any other country in the world.\nDrilling in ANWR would create thousands of jobs and help the U.S. economy grow. Attempts to reduce consumption with higher fuel efficiency standards would, if temporarily, raise vehicle prices, reduce vehicle safety and stifle efforts to revive an already weak U.S. economy. Even with expanded domestic oil supply, OPEC price reductions would still mean higher prices for U.S. consumers. But a more diverse oil supply would help mitigate short-term price fluctuations.\nThe environmental costs of opening the new Alaskan oil reserves would also be negligible. The entire ANWR reserve is composed of 19.5 million acres, roughly the size of South Carolina. \nNew drilling operations would require just 2,000 acres, or one hundredth of a percent of the refuge to be used for oil exploration. Work would stop during caribou calving and migration. Ice roads would be used to transport heavy equipment and machinery to the drilling site during the winter months to preserve indigenous plant life and minimize new road construction.\nA recent report by the U.S. Geological Survey confirmed oil exploration in ANWR would have little, if any, negative environmental impact on the wildlife native to the Refuge.\nNew domestic oil production is no magic bullet. While the benefits of opening the new Alaskan reserves far exceed the costs, it will ultimately be of little value if long-term efforts to expand production abroad are not also employed in the future. Tax incentives for U.S. producers and foreign aid to assist the development of emerging energy markets in Russian and Central Asia will be crucial to the growth of the world economy for years to come.
(04/08/02 4:09am)
If dissent is patriotic, Howard Zinn's lecture at the Buskirk-Chumley Theatre Friday was about as patriotic as it gets.\nAs expected, the event offered a predictable display of the anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-capitalist and anti-just-about-everything mentality embodied by today's extreme Left. A group of self-described progressive activists, their decidedly backward-looking, nihilistic agenda is as out of touch with reality today as ever.\nZinn and his followers have managed to construct a world view that is frighteningly inaccurate. The wealth of nations, they say, is becoming concentrated in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. The forces of globalization are destroying our natural resources, polluting our air and water and fueling an ever-accelerating worldwide race to the bottom. We now stand at the brink of disaster. Our only hope is to surrender our SUVs, crush the multinational corporations that are the root of all evil and become socialists. \nThis, of course, would be a sound course of action if any of these things were really true, but the evidence does not support their claims. While the rich have, indeed, been getting richer, the poor have been getting richer too. The poorest nations in the world are, on balance, less poor today than they were at the turn of the century.\nNew productivity and economic growth, ushered in by the Industrial Revolution and buttressed by recent technological advances, have created new wealth and raised living standards throughout the world.\nAs barriers to trade and investment have decreased more rapidly in the last decade, wealth and opportunity have expanded on an unprecedented scale. Those who have welcomed greater economic freedom and openness have benefited, while those who have resisted the change have suffered. Countries in East and Southeast Asia, which have embraced the global marketplace, have made great progress toward reducing poverty and expanding opportunity. In Sub-Saharan Africa, where trade and investment flow less freely, wide-spread poverty persists. \nDespite assertions that today's more open, integrated world economy has come at the expense of the environment and workers' rights, the U.S. and its European allies, which have the most open economies in the world, also have the most rigorous labor and environmental standards. In the United States, concentrations of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and other forms of air pollution have decreased dramatically over the past several decades. The workplace has never been safer. \nA similar trend is evident even in less-developed nations. A 1996 study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) linked "successfully sustained trade reforms" to improvements in core labor standards. A 1997 World Bank study also found a strong correlation between higher occupational safety, health conditions and foreign direct investment. Environmental conditions are also improving in the developing world as multinational corporations export cleaner technology to their production facilities abroad in an effort to satisfy the concerns of more environmentally conscious U.S. and European consumers. The race to the bottom is actually a race to the top. Free trade and investment are now creating the resources necessary to more effectively combat already diminishing levels poverty throughout the world. Efforts to protect the environment and improve working conditions will only be strengthened as the forces of globalization continue to expand opportunity and hope to people and places in the future. \nFar from the downward spiral that leftist ideologues like Zinn represent, ours is a history of tremendous forward progress. There is still poverty and hopelessness that we have yet to overcome, but things are only getting better.
(03/25/02 4:40am)
The U.S. Senate recently voted to put the breaks on legislation that would have required automakers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles, opting to send the issue to the Department of Transportation (DOT) for further review. Environmentalists claim that democracy has once again been thwarted by industry lobbyists and wealthy special interests groups. But it isn't that simple. \nIf the costs of more stringent Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards exceed the benefits derived from their implementation, they should be avoided. If the benefits exceed costs, government intervention is necessary. Much has been made of the benefits of new CAFE standards, but very little has been said about costs. \nWhen fuel efficiency standards rise, automakers are forced to alter vehicle design. Smaller, lightweight vehicles are more fuel-efficient than heavier SUVs. Any attempt to raise CAFE requirements will inevitably require U.S. automakers to reduce vehicle size. Smaller vehicles, which are less able to protect drivers in an accident, are less safe.\nA 1999 study conducted by USA Today revealed that since their inception in 1975, CAFE standards have contributed to a dramatic increase in traffic fatalities. Using data provided by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), the study estimated 46,000 people had lost their lives as a result of the vehicle downsizing produced by the push for greater fuel efficiency in the 1970s.\nThe National Academy of Science (NAS) also found evidence of the safety penalty associated with fuel efficiency requirements in a more recent 2001 report. Again, the Academy reaffirmed its conclusion from a previous 1993 study that between 1,300 and 2,600 crash deaths annually may have been prevented if fuel efficiency standards had not forced automakers to reduce vehicle size to achieve government efficiency standards. \nRaising CAFE requirements would also increase the costs automakers incur when producing new vehicles. The increased production costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher vehicle prices. The NAS report estimates that new CAFE requirements could push automobile prices up by as much as $2,750. \nThe additional cost burden placed on producers and consumers would discourage new vehicle purchases. Some consumers would retain older, less efficient vehicles longer, undermining efforts to reduce fuel consumption. Those that are able to absorb rising prices and purchase new vehicles will enjoy lower operating costs, since greater fuel efficiency makes driving cheaper. Unfortunately, reducing the marginal cost of operation provides consumers with an incentive to drive more, not less. \nAir quality will not be affected by greater fuel economy either. Tailpipe pollutants are regulated by emission limits that are the same for all vehicles, regardless of fuel economy. The Environmental Protection Agency already requires that the least fuel-efficient cars not pollute any more than the most fuel-efficient. \nThe costs of increasing CAFE standards are real. The consequences of the new regulations are less certain. The benefits of greater fuel economy are even more ambiguous. It's no wonder the Senate decided to give the DOT more time to study the issue before making its decision.
(03/18/02 4:23am)
Members of IU's Black Student Union are offended. A mural, which now hangs in a classroom in Woodburn Hall, is to blame. Created by Thomas Hart Benton in 1933, its depiction of what was then contemporary Indiana life, complete with Ku Klux Klan members gathered around a burning cross, is apparently unacceptable. Under the familiar guise of diversity, the BSU and its members have requested the IU Administration to cover or remove the offending display.\nBut doing so would be a mistake.\nDiversity means difference. To remove the Benton mural or to conceal its message would be to abrogate the very principles of difference and tolerance that diversity necessarily entails. Opponents of the Benton mural claim to advocate the kind of free and open marketplace of ideas that diversity requires, but their true intentions are to censor and suppress the expression of a history they find objectionable.\nIt is understandable that one might be made uncomfortable by the image of Klan members burning a cross, but real diversity requires discomfort. Confronting opposing views is never an enjoyable experience. As a nation of immigrants, we must be prepared to tolerate and to learn from a wide range of speech and expression. \nIf IU were to suppress those differences, it would create a world that doesn't exist beyond the confines of the University. In the real world, we will not always have the luxury of removing those views that we find offensive. We will not be free from the conflict that results when competing views collide. Better to accept and learn from our differences now than to leave IU unprepared.\nSome have said the mural is exhibited out of context; that it would be more appropriately displayed in a museum where it would not interfere with the University's ability to educate its students. The Benton mural is itself an education. Although it was created well before the American Civil Rights movement took to the streets of Birmingham, Ala., its image of Klan violence is a powerful reminder of the injustice that African Americans were once forced to endure. It is a testament to the strength of our institutions of government and their ability to adapt and change through time. It is a testament to the strength of the African-American community, which has overcome such tremendous adversity and oppression.\nBy focusing more on the image of hate and less on Benton's larger message of tolerance, BSU members have allowed themselves to be victims of racist intentions that do not exist. They complain about context, yet they point to only one of many images contained within the mural. \nThey vehemently oppose the background images of Klan members and their cross ablaze with hate, yet they are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the foreground. There, in sharp contrast to the glow of the Klansmen's cross, Benton placed the image of a white nurse tending to a black child. His message was one of tolerance, not of hate.\nIf Chancellor Sharon Brehm and the administration are sincere in their efforts to promote diversity on our campus, they will keep the mural in Woodburn 100. IU should be a place where we embrace our differences. It should be a place where we tolerate ideas and expressions that we disagree with. It should be a place where we are encouraged to rise and challenge opposing views and learn from the exchange. IU has a choice: Diversity or intolerance. We should choose diversity.
(03/05/02 5:17am)
Indiana law already prohibits alcohol from being provided to minors. Senate Bill 97 would make that law enforceable. If buyers are held responsible for providing alcohol to minors, they will have an incentive to regulate consumption. There will be consequences for leaving kegs unattended, available to those who may not be of age. At large parties where consumption from multiple kegs is difficult to manage, buyers will check IDs at the door or risk being held accountable for underage drinkers with access to their alcohol. \nSB 97 would also provide incentives for drinkers to abstain. The next time friends host an off-campus party, underage participants will think twice about drinking if they know their friends may be penalized for providing the alcohol. Students don't need to be educated about alcohol as much as they need to be held responsible for their actions. \nGovernor Frank O\'Bannon should sign SB 97.
(03/04/02 5:15am)
The way that student groups are funded at IU needs to change. The system now is inherently discriminatory. It prohibits certain student organizations from receiving money collected from mandatory student activity fees on the basis of their views. The result is an inequitable funding arrangement that elevates some forms of student speech and discourages others. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently had much to say about mandatory fees and how they must be used to support extracurricular speech; IU should listen.\nIn 1997, Ronald Rosenberger challenged the constitutionality of the University of Virginia's student group funding program, which was, at the time, very similar to IU's present system. Student organizations seeking financial assistance to fund their activities were required to become listed by the university. Upon listing, they became eligible to reserve university rooms and facilities. \nSome listed student organizations were then also entitled to apply for financial support from the university's Student Activity Fund, composed of money collected through mandatory fees. UVA's guidelines recognized 11 categories of student initiatives eligible to receive SAF money. Rosenberger's student organization, Wide Awake Productions, was determined to meet the fund's eligibility requirements. \nAfter producing its first issue, which was designed to inform students of Christian religious teachings, WAP requested that the SAF pay its costs for printing the newspaper. The university refused, citing funding guidelines that excluded religious and political activities from SAF support. \nRosenberger sued on the grounds that the university's refusal to fund WAP's activities violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Court agreed. The majority opinion held that Rosenberger's First Amendment rights had been violated because the university's refusal to fund WAP's religious activities constituted viewpoint discrimination, which it determined to be impermissible when directed against speech otherwise within the SAF's limitations. \nIU's current funding arrangement is virtually identical to the one that the court struck down as unconstitutional in Rosenberger. Here, some listed student organizations are entitled to apply for financial support from the University's Student Organization Fund, which is also composed of money collected through a mandatory student activity fee. IU's guidelines recognize three categories of student initiatives eligible to receive SOF money: Academic and Graduate, Cultural and Diversity and Environmental and Social. \nIU also has additional guidelines that exclude "partisan political" and "sectarian or religious" activities from support.\nAs was the case at the University of Virginia, initiatives of student groups that are within the SOF's limitations are prohibited from receiving SOF funding if they express views that are political or religious in nature -- a violation of the viewpoint neutrality requirement in Rosenberger. \nIn a more recent case, University of Wisconsin v. Scott Harold Southworth, the court further substantiated the holding in Rosenberger. Mandatory fees may be imposed to sustain extracurricular speech only if the principle standard of protection for objecting students is the requirement of viewpoint neutrality in funding support. IU's current mandatory fee program is not viewpoint neutral. It does not adequately protect the First Amendment rights of students required by the Court. \nIU's purpose is not only to prepare students for professional employment but also to leave us "with a sense of ethical and social vision, a love of learning, and a complex, nimble intellect," according to IUB's mission statement. Its discriminatory and inequitable mandatory fee program, which serves to suppress what is arguably some of the most valuable, if not controversial, student speech, is compromising its ability to fulfill that mission. In doing so, it is also compromising our rights.
(02/26/02 4:51am)
The IU Student Association works hard to represent students at IU. Over the years, its members have been responsible for changing state laws, shaping University policies, raising money for charity, lobbying federal and state legislators, and a variety of other things intended to make life easier for students.\nIn 1975, after an extensive lobbying campaign, IUSA convinced state lawmakers to appoint a student to the IU Board of Trustees. Determined members of the organization also campaigned for student representation on the Indiana Commission for Higher Education, which was added in 1990.\nLast year, concerned students came to members of the Student Body Congress with problems concerning early morning construction projects near the dorms. After taking the issue to the IU Administration, the University agreed to change its policies to prohibit loud morning construction in and around the residence halls. Members of IUSA also worked with students tired of paying high prices for E parking permits in order to park on campus after hours. Negotiations with Parking Operations yielded the new F pass, which now allows students to park on campus after 5 p.m. for less.\nThis year, IUSA's Student Rights Department established the Student Judicial Program in order to assist students going through the University's judicial system. When Sept. 11 changed our lives forever, IUSA worked with the Residence Halls Association, the greek community and other student organizations to raise over $5,000 to benefit survivors of the attacks.\nIn addition to all it does for students, IUSA made necessary changes to its outdated constitution for the first time since 1991. One significant change in eleven years is hardly evidence of a preoccupation with internal rules and procedures. There will always be more that IUSA can do for students, but that doesn't mean that all it does now is meaningless.
(02/25/02 4:10am)
Right now, 4,000 low-income school children in Cleveland are waiting for a verdict. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments last Wednesday in a landmark case that will determine their fate. \nAt issue is Ohio's school voucher program, which provides each of them with up to $2,500 to pay for tuition at some of the city's finest, if largely parochial, private schools. If the High Court rules that public financing of these schools violates the separation of church and state, required by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, each will be sent back to the city's failing public school system. If it is upheld, they will be free to receive the education their parents want for them but are unable to provide on their own.\nAlthough the court will have the final say on the issue when it makes its decision later this summer, legal battles and constitutional challenges to voucher programs have been waged in state courts for years. Only two other states, Wisconsin and Florida, have successfully managed to implement direct-voucher programs of their own. To avoid the constitutional questions and political obstacles that have stymied their efforts thus far, concerned parents and school-choice advocates have increasingly begun to search for new alternatives. \nA particularly innovative new approach is being pioneered in Arizona. Established in 1995, the Arizona Tuition Tax Credit Program provides a matching dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $500 for taxpayers who make voluntary contributions to school tuition organizations (STOs). Donations are subtracted from the amount owed in taxes at the end of the year. Individual non-profit STOs are required by law to allocate contributions to scholarships and grants for students to attend private schools. \nChildren from low-income households have benefited most from the program. Since financial need is the primary criterion used by most STOs to determine eligibility for scholarships, disadvantaged children who are the most likely to be trapped in poor-quality public schools are also the most likely to receive financial assistance. In 2000, Arizona taxpayers contributed $17.2 million to fund scholarships for nearly 15,000 students. \nEducational Improvement Tax Credits are also helping families in Pennsylvania. The program is different from the Arizona model in that only businesses may receive credits, but the maximum annual contribution limit is $100,000. Corporations can direct donations to scholarship organizations similar to STOs or to educational improvement organizations, which use the money to fund innovative education programs in the state's public schools. Pennsylvania has capped credits at $30 million a year, but already, 945 companies have committed to donate $25 million of that total.\nThe state neither directly allocates public money to private institutions nor endorses religious versus nonreligious schools in either case. School-choice advocates have so far been able to avoid the constitutional issues that have limited their efforts to expand traditional school voucher programs. Last year the Supreme Court declined to review Arizona's tax-credit initiative, paving the way for even more states to adopt its approach in the future. \nNo one should be forced to attend poorly-performing schools when there are others that can provide them with the kind of education they need. Voluntary tax incentives, like those now offered in Arizona and Pennsylvania, have finally given parents the freedom to choose. In doing so, they have also provided America's public schools with a powerful incentive to improve.
(02/18/02 4:01am)
After more than a decade of neglect and the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, America's national security is finally getting the attention it deserves. The Bush Administration's 2003 budget request, which was presented to congress earlier this month, contains the largest single increase in defense spending in 20 years. To accommodate the change, all non-defense and non-homeland security discretionary spending will essentially be pegged to inflation. National security doesn't come cheap, but as the events of Sept. 11 have shown us, it's worth every penny.\nDespite its $379 billion dollar price tag, the Department of Defense's wartime budget is only 3.3 percent of America's gross domestic product. Given that the United States spent closer to 5 percent of its gross domestic product on military needs during the post-Vietnam era of the late 1970s, everything included in today's budget comes at a relative bargain.\nIn addition to providing funding to cover the costs of the ongoing war in Afghanistan, the president's proposed budget would also fund a number of preventive operations to reduce the risk of conflict in the future. In particular, $3.5 billion would be allocated to aid countries fighting terrorism abroad. Of such funds, $121 million would be used to expand anti-terrorism and security training for other countries and $1.5 billion would be earmarked to expand efforts to reduce the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons systems.\nA portion of the 2003 budget would also be invested in the development of new technology and intelligence enhancements. Programs to further develop the kind of unmanned aerial technology that has already proven to be successful in Afghanistan would see a $146-million increase. An additional $1.2 billion would be allocated to further develop precision weapons designed to improve accuracy and minimize collateral damage on the battlefield. Further funding would go to improve the technology necessary to bring the president's proposed missile defense system online as soon as possible. \nIn an effort to prevent domestic terrorism on the scale that we saw Sept. 11, $37.7 billion would be used to shore up homeland defense. The new budget would more than double the spending level for this year. Most of the funds would be diverted to agencies charged with securing our borders. \nThe Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was clearly one of the most underprepared federal agencies last September, would receive a $1.2-billion budget increase from last year. The increase will allow the agency to double the ranks of its border patrol agents and develop a new $350-million computer program to track the entry and exit of the millions of non-citizens that enter the United States each year. The lack of such technology, it is believed, was what allowed a number of the al Qaeda terrorists to remain in the United States on expired visas prior to carrying out their mission.\nThe Customs Service and the U.S. Coast Guard would also be the beneficiaries of funding increases. The Customs Service would receive $619 million to increase its staff and upgrade equipment, while the Coast Guard would be directed to use its $282-million increase to develop new technology to secure our nation's harbors. \nThe primary function of government should always be to ensure the safety of its citizens. The Bush Administration's 2003 budget request is evidence that it is committed to doing just that. Without security, every other function of government is irrelevant. The changes that the president has proposed will require us all to make sacrifices, but we've already seen the alternative.
(02/11/02 3:18am)
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives will take another shot at campaign finance reform Tuesday. At issue will be legislation introduced by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) that calls for a ban on soft money donations from corporations, unions and other wealthy would-be campaign contributors. Although supporters of the bill claim that it will reduce the influence of money in politics, the Shays-Meehan legislation promises to be as ineffectual as it is unnecessary.\nDespite what you may have heard on C-SPAN or read in the newspapers, there is a fundamental problem with the concept of campaign finance reform. It rests on the false premise that the little guy has been silenced by wealthy special interests in Washington. While that seems reasonable on its face, it fails to hold up under scrutiny. But that hasn't stopped the bill's supporters from reaching out in desperation for just about anything to justify their favorite pet project.\nThe recent financial collapse of energy giant Enron is no exception. Over the course of the last few weeks, it has become a favorite cause célèbre among activists eager to use it to make their case. But Enron's duplicity isn't evidence of the necessity of campaign finance reform. It is an indication that bad people don't care much for rules.\nThe practice of making off-balance sheet transactions to hide debt and artificially inflate stock prices is illegal. It always has been. Money in politics didn't cause Enron to go bankrupt; unethical and illegal business practices did. No amount of campaign finance reform will ever be enough to make the Ken Lays of the world honest.\nThe influence that corporations like Enron may have exercised in the drafting of the Bush Administration's current energy policy has also been cited as evidence that politicians are controlled by special interest groups. But the fact that business people and a Republican White House happen to agree on an energy policy that is skewed heavily toward market forces and the private sector is hardly evidence of a quid pro quo.\nThat they were involved in the drafting of the proposal at all seems only to indicate that the Bush Administration sought advice on the subject from experts who shared its conservative political philosophy.\nOf course, adherents to the doctrine of campaign finance reform might still say that the influence of other powerful lobbying organizations with big bank accounts such as the NRA or the ACLU is undeniable. On this point, they are correct. But the strength of these organizations doesn't come from money; it comes from the members that finance their activities with membership fees and back them up at the polls in November. It is a testament to the strength of our democracy, not its failure, that politicians are so responsive to them in the first place. \nThe fact that advocates of Shays-Meehan have made it this far is itself evidence that democracy is alive and well. The disillusioned 20-somethings that almost put John McCain, the movement's most outspoken leader, into the White House in 2000 have flexed their muscle, and Washington is listening. Unfortunately, most of them are too busy railing against wealthy special interests to recognize their success. After all, their votes, not their money, are what have made campaign finance reform an issue at all.
(02/04/02 4:01am)
With mid-term elections fast approaching and health care becoming an increasingly important issue to most American voters, the Bush Administration should make health care reform a priority in the year ahead. The war on terrorism abroad and the current recession at home won't make doing so any easier. But the president's call to renew efforts to make health care more accessible during last Tuesday's State of the Union Address is a step in the right direction. \nWhile a number of different approaches have been suggested in recent months, Individual Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) offer the only effective way to reduce the cost of health care without limiting available services. Since their inception at the federal level in 1996 under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), they have proven that less really is more. Under an MSA health plan, individuals can set up their own individual health care savings account. The account operates much like a traditional bank account, but every dollar that is deposited is tax deductible and withdrawals can only be made to pay for medical expenses. \nSince federal guidelines currently require all MSA health plans to be used in conjunction with high-deductible insurance policies, account holders are responsible for paying for a larger portion of routine medical expenses. But insurance still protects against more expensive medical treatment resulting from catastrophic illness, prolonged hospitalization and other serious injuries. Health care consumers with MSAs get the best of both worlds. On the one hand, they pay lower monthly insurance premiums in return for shouldering greater responsibility to budget for routine medical expenses. On the other, they are protected against the kinds of catastrophic events that make health care worthwhile to begin with.\nThe use of high-deductible insurance policies with MSAs also reduces the cost of medical care itself. Limiting the role of third-party involvement to only the most serious medical treatment significantly lowers administrative costs for physicians. Simple Care, a Renton Washington-based health care agency, is one of many nationwide organizations that currently offers high quality medical treatment at prices that are 30-50 percent lower for individuals who are willing to pay in full at the time of service. MSAs eliminate much of the need for HMOs and other insurance industry middlemen. As a result, health care consumers can receive retail-quality medical treatment at wholesale prices. \nUnlike traditional employer-based health insurance plans, MSAs are also portable. For individuals with MSAs, losing a job doesn't mean facing the risk of temporarily going without health insurance. Every dollar invested in an MSA that remains unused at the close of each year conveniently rolls over to cover unexpected future health expenses, even during periods of unemployment. \nWith lower monthly costs and greater financial flexibility, MSAs have already brought health-care security to thousands of uninsured Americans. According to American Health Value, a private MSA administrator that currently manages more than 30,000 MSA accounts, almost 50 percent of its clients were previously uninsured. \nThe General Accounting Office (GAO) reported last July that by 2016, Medicare hospital outlays will exceed payroll tax revenues. America's experiment with socialized medicine has proven to be much too expensive and far too ineffective to sustain itself. It's time for the president and congressional leaders to expand the current MSA pilot program and return the power to make health care decisions back to the hands of private citizens where it belongs.
(01/28/02 3:58am)
Democrats in the U.S. Congress are like broken record players. Since Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's Jan. 4 economic policy speech, they have taken every opportunity to blame the president and last year's tax cuts for the current recession. But the seeds of our economic problems were sown well before Bush took office. Historical and empirical evidence also confirms that tax cuts actually soften the impact and shorten the duration of periods of economic contraction. How, then, can an entire political party deny reality and thrive under a banner of higher taxes and bigger government? As one notable democratic strategist might say, "It's the electorate, stupid!"\nOr is it the stupid electorate? Contrary to what you may have heard, money from wealthy campaign contributors hasn't corrupted politics, but ignorance has. Believe it or not, politicians actually listen to their constituents. Campaign contributions don't mean much if you're voted out of office. The problem is that most people, especially the ones who vote, have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to issues of public policy. Anyone who has ever watched one of C-SPAN's call-in talk shows knows what I mean. The Tom Daschles of the world know what good fiscal policy is, but since their constituents don't, they have no choice but to pander to the lowest common denominator.\nSo why is nearly half of the electorate clueless? It's part of human nature to choose the path of least resistance. That's why most people can tell you more about their problems than they can about solutions. It's easy to turn on the television or look out the window and see that people are homeless, school shootings are rampant, people are losing jobs and that our public school system is failing. But it is much more difficult to understand why massive government entitlement programs, draconian gun control regulations, trade restrictions and flowery rhetoric about smaller class sizes and higher teacher salaries fail to address the roots of these problems. \nInstead of engaging the issues, learning them for themselves and drawing their own conclusions, most are content to base their opinions on little more than what they hear on the evening news or read in their local newspapers. For them, the world is a very simple place. It is a place where Republicans are cold, heartless statisticians who only care about the wealthiest 1 percent. It is a place where money can solve all of our problems if only we can get it to the government fast enough. It is also a place where our friends, the Democrats, can claim that tax cuts are bad for an economy in recession. \nBut things are very different when you scratch beneath the surface and find the truth for yourself.\nThere will always be a supply of Democratic politicians to meet the demands of an electorate that isn't willing to put in the time to understand how things work in the real world. If you don't already read the national newspapers, pick two and get to work. If you don't know much about taxes or monetary policy, e-mail the economics department and ask them if there is a class you can take or a book you can read to learn more. If you think you know all there is to know about a particular subject, keep looking, there's more. The issues we care about deserve more than our cursory understanding. It's time to get to work.
(01/14/02 4:08am)
Enron was back in the news last week when new information regarding the firm's recent financial collapse was made public. As the investigation of the company's potentially illegal business dealings have gained momentum, congressional leaders and political pundits have increasingly turned their focus to the Bush administration and its ties to the now-defunct former Fortune 500 energy trader. But investigators should be careful not to allow what seems, at least preliminarily, to be a strictly financial matter from degenerating into a full fledged political circus.\nAs of late last week, the early stages of political scandal were already brewing in Washington. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill disclosed Jan. 10 that Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay had contacted him late last year along with other administration officials to alert them to the firm's financial difficulty. House Governmental Reform Committee ranking member Henry Waxman told The New York Times Jan. 11, "It is now clear the White House had knowledge that Enron was likely to collapse but did nothing to try to protect innocent employees and shareholders who ultimately lost their life savings."\nWhat Waxman failed to mention is that absolutely no evidence exists to suggest that any such telephone conversations involved discussions of information that hadn't already been made public. Even if members of the Bush administration did know that the company was headed toward financial disaster, it is unclear what, if anything, they could have done to prevent it. \nIf they had accepted Enron's alleged request that the government intervene on the firm's behalf, Democrats would have been the first to cry foul. But since preliminary evidence suggests that all of Enron's millions of dollars in campaign contributions to the Bush administration failed to buy them political favors, Democrats like Waxman have been forced to change strategy.\nQuestions about the administration's ability to properly investigate the matter and comparisons to the Clinton administration's Whitewater scandal have also surfaced in recent days. Former Clinton pollster Mark Penn raised the issue last Thursday on CNN when he asked "Can (people) trust the administration to get the right answers? And would they trust an administration-sponsored investigation? I don't think so." \nWhile the concept of an independent investigatory agency sounds good in theory, Kenneth Starr's handling of the now-infamous Lewinski affair, provides ample evidence that independence from political interests and influence is unrealistic in practice. \nRather than allowing the nation to be dragged through another fruitless political witch hunt by an "independent" investigator with partisan intentions and unlimited power, the president and the American people should rely on the host of investigative bodies that have already begun to examine Enron's failure. \nThe Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission and five congressional committees had already begun investigating the matter by Jan. 11. The president has also ordered an investigation into federal law governing employee 401(K) accounts in order to develop ways to protect workers in the future. \nEnron's collapse raises serious issues that deserve a serious and thorough investigation. With war in Afghanistan and recession at home, the country can't afford to be mired in another political scandal. Baseless claims of the Bush administration's implicit involvement in the matter at such an early stage in the investigation only suggest that some Beltway politicians care more about politics than people. The American public deserves better.
(01/08/02 6:12am)
While most Americans have been watching the War on Terrorism unfold on CNN, Congress has been quietly debating an important piece of trade legislation. The issue at hand is whether to grant President Bush Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Without question, TPA is essential for the president to eliminate costly barriers to trade that hurt U.S. consumers and stunt economic growth. When Indiana\'s Senators consider the Trade Promotion Authority Act later this year, they should support TPA.\nDespite the claims of organized labor, agricultural interests and a handful of other producing industries in the U.S.; freer global trade is good for consumers. In the absence of trade restrictions, consumers will have access to a wider variety of products at lower prices. Competition will ensure that firms in trade-sensitive industries will no longer be able to charge high prices for goods that can be produced and sold for less by foreign competitors. \nMultilateral trade agreements, such as the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), will also stimulate domestic production and create more jobs for U.S. workers. These agreements expand the scope of the market for U.S. goods abroad. With access to new potential buyers in other countries and cheaper imported intermediate and capital goods from trading partners, U.S. businesses lower costs and produce more in order to satisfy the demands of a larger total number of consumers. That is why even traditionally protectionist industries such as manufacturing typically see output and imports rise together.\nFreer global trade also creates jobs in poorer developing countries.\n"Jobs in export industries and foreign-owned affiliates generally pay significantly higher wages than do jobs in non-trade-related industries," said Daniel T. Griswold, the associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the CATO institute.\nThe World Bank also notes that developing countries engaged in trade have an average of 5.1 percent per-capita income growth annually. Isolated countries usually see per-capita income decline each year. If the less developed world is to pull itself up out of poverty, it must be able to participate in the global economy. Tariffs and quotas that protect U.S. producers deny them that opportunity.\nFinally, trade provides the most effective means for improving worldwide labor and environmental standards. This is because nations that are open to trade tend to grow faster and achieve higher incomes than do less-open nations. Those with higher incomes tend to maintain higher labor and environmental standards.\nThe U.S. should encourage free trade and investment flows so that low standard countries can develop more rapidly. Then they will adopt the kind of meaningful labor and environmental standards that the developed world has already accepted.\nHoosiers shouldn\'t have to pay for the benefits that protection accrues to a handful of select U.S. industries. Government restrictions on trade only destroy jobs, support artificially high prices, and deny developing nations the opportunity to participate in the global economy.\nWrite to Senators Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh and tell them to stand up to special interests and do what's right for consumers. Indiana supports free trade!
(01/07/02 3:57am)
Earlier this month, Texas became the second most populated state in the nation to begin deregulating its electricity markets in order to promote competition and reduce prices for consumers. Despite the results of California\'s failed attempt at deregulation, legislators say they have learned from past mistakes and taken steps to ensure a smooth transition to retail competition in the future. While it is still uncertain whether such measures will guarantee success, Texas is headed in the right direction and should be congratulated for seeing California\'s experience for what it was: an example of how not to deregulate, not a failure of deregulation itself.\nDiminished investment in electric power generating capacity was a leading factor that contributed to high prices and power shortages in California. The state's rigorous environmental regulations were largely to blame. Given the hostile regulatory climate, investors were reluctant to build new generators in order to work through the state's bureaucracy, doing so required an average of seven years. In the 10 years prior to deregulating, not a single new power plant was constructed in California even as demand increased.\nIn Texas, thirty new power plants have already been built in just the last six years. Instead of taking seven years to bring new power generating capacity online, the process has been streamlined and takes only two or three years. The state\'s current electrical supply already exceeds demand by 23 percent, according to an article in the Jan. 3 edition of the New York Times. Without the heavy hand of government to interfere with the construction of new generators, investors will be able to adapt more quickly to changes in demand and protect against power shortages in the future. \nA flawed market design also caused problems for California\'s deregulation. The state\'s wholesale and retail markets were de-coupled. This exacerbated the existing shortages. As wholesale prices skyrocketed in response to climbing demand, the state imposed retail price caps. The caps prohibited retail rates from rising with higher wholesale costs. Without higher prices to encourage conservation, the gap between available supply and unchecked demand continued to widen.\nIn Texas, wholesale and retail markets have been deregulated together. This will allow consumers to receive more accurate price signals that will reflect changing wholesale costs of electricity. During peak hours, when demand is highest, higher prices will encourage consumers to use less. This, in turn, will help moderate price fluctuations for buyers who can't afford to reduce consumption.\nCalifornia\'s centrally controlled bidding process mandated that utility companies buy power only through short term contracts. This further contributed to the state\'s energy problems because it left utilities vulnerable to upturns in wholesale prices. In Texas, utilities will be permitted to enter into long and medium term contracts to limit their exposure to short term price increases. This will allow them to reduce costs and more effectively compete to provide consumers with the electricity they demand at the lowest possible price. \n Although electric utilities might never be completely deregulated, there is a much larger role for the private sector in the industry that has yet to be fully realized. The process of shifting ownership from government to the private sector will be difficult, as California has shown. But Texas legislators seem to be on the right track. \nIndiana would do well to follow their lead when legislators reconvene today for the 2002 legislative session. After years of consideration, it's time for us to deregulate, too.
(10/25/01 5:46am)
For months, I have read on the pages of the IDS and heard privately from friends about the danger that the Genocide Awareness Project would present to the campus community upon its arrival in Bloomington. But after visiting the GAP display last Wednesday at the Sample Gates, it became clear to me that the only thing students really have to fear is the threat that student organizations like IU Reacts To GAP pose to the free expression of ideas and to the promotion of intellectual debate on our campus.\nWhile members claim to support free speech, I found it particularly ironic that their number one piece of advice to students in their "Call to the IU Campus Community," was "Do not engage in any acts of protest." Instead of encouraging students to confront what many may view as offensive speech with counter speech, IU Reacts To GAP chose to advocate silence and submission. In doing so, they cast the student body as victims of the GAP, incapable of intelligent debate and the free exchange of ideas.\nBut most students would only be compelled to express their opinions if they had actually seen the GAP display in the first place. That, of course, would have required them to disregard IU Reacts To GAP's second piece of advice, which encouraged students to "Avoid all GAP displays, lectures and presentations." Apparently, the group believes that the GAP should be free to present their ideas to the student body, but students shouldn't listen. How thoughtful of IU Reacts To GAP to decide what is and is not appropriate for the rest of the student body to view. Instead of advising students to engage the issue and come to their own conclusions about the strength and validity of the GAP's position, IU Reacts To GAP decided to use the opportunity to protect their decidedly pro-choice views from scrutiny. After all, any individual or student group advocating a solid, well-reasoned position would not be intimidated by the kind of opposing viewpoint that the GAP display presented.\nThe most patronizing advice from the group came later in their "Call to the IU Campus Community" when they suggested that "If you become angry, leave the scene. Look out for those who are becoming angry and upset. Offer them a hug or words of support." In other words, when confronted with an opposing argument or point of view, leave immediately and find a friend's shoulder to cry on. In addition to inferring that students on this campus are nothing more than a bunch of weak-minded, emotionally fragile individuals incapable of viewing the disturbing images of the GAP display, the group also undoubtedly furthered the already pervasive and destructive view among many college students that, in the face of an objectionable opinion, students should not engage the issue at hand for fear of being offended.\nOf course, IU Reacts To GAP will claim that the subversion of free expression and the prohibition against the free exchange of ideas that they advocate so assertively are all in the interest of preserving safety and order on our campus. But as Benjamin Franklin once correctly remarked, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." IU Reacts to GAP should have recognized that freedom of expression is necessary to the strength and vitality of the IU Community and offered more constructive advice in accordance with the spirit and intent of the 1st Amendment rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
(11/02/00 3:51am)
Contrary to claims made in the Oct. 19 IDS staff editorial, "Tax-free books lofty goal for IUSA," tax-free textbooks can be a reality. Substantial progress has been made, and IUSA's campaign to eliminate the tax on textbooks will be successful if students support our efforts. \nAlthough it will be an uphill battle, it will not be one that students haven't fought before. Tax exemptions similar or identical to the one that IUSA is seeking to obtain have already been granted to students in nine states. Legislation is still pending in four others. \nIUSA is not breaking new ground. Instead, we are simply following the trend. \nYes, this is not a new concept, as stated in the editorial, and, as a result, thousands of college and university students throughout the country enjoy lower textbook prices and a more affordable cost of education. \nStudents have also been successful in Indiana. Despite their claims that "no substantial progress can be observed," the editorial board of the IDS failed to mention that in 1999, the first IUSA effort to eliminate the tax on textbooks produced a bill that would have made textbooks tax exempt. \nFor one reason or another, the bill was never voted on in committee, but the issue was raised and substantial progress was made toward achieving our goal. This previous attempt has laid the foundation for this year's effort and will undoubtedly make it less difficult for IUSA to be successful during the 2001 legislative session this January. \nWhile a great deal of time and energy was put into the 1999 campaign, this year's efforts are far more comprehensive. In 1999, we did not have signature gathering campaign, and only a handful of student governments participated. \nThis year, signature gathering campaigns have already been organized at 14 other schools and campuses around the state. We continue to contact new schools every day, and it is likely that every college and university in Indiana will participate in this effort in some way before the January legislative session. \nChanging state law will certainly be a difficult process, but it is important for students to recognize that substantial change often requires sustained, long-term efforts to produce. Such long-term efforts were responsible for the administration's decision to build the Student Recreational Sports Center. \nAlthough it was a long and difficult process, aggressive lobbying by the Student Recreational Sports Association, IUSA and concerned students eventually persuaded the administration to build the facility in 1995. Student representation on the board of trustees was also achieved through similar long-term efforts. \nIf IUSA had not continued to pursue the issue after our initial failed attempts, we would still probably be without a student trustee today.\nThis year's IUSA is working hard to address student issues and concerns. Our campaign to eliminate the tax on textbooks is just one of the many projects we have taken on this semester. \nBut, our success is dependent upon the degree to which student's support our efforts. If you believe in what we are doing, don't assume that someone else will sign the petitions or bring your concerns to our attention. \nAs students, it is your responsibility to tell us what you want and to support us when we do address your concerns. Thousands have signed our petitions in support of tax-free textbooks, but thousands have not. If you support our efforts, take a few seconds to put down your name. Together, we can make tax-free textbooks a reality.