RamPost Volume I, Issue One

Volume I, Issue One Election 2012

RamPost

RamPost

In this Issue:

v Illegalize Abortion? v What to do with Iran? v End Foreign Aid to Israel? v Keep “Obamacare?” v And more…

Plus: Political Cartoons and Puzzles (and more)

1

By Dan Korff-Korn ’14

The 2012 Presidential Race is nearing its end,

with Election Day just two weeks away.

November 6th, 2012 will decide who becomes

this country’s next president, and the question

burning in everyone’s mind is: who will it be?

Will it be Democratic incumbent Barack Obama,

or Republican hopeful, Governor Mitt Romney?

However uncertain the outcome may be, what is

certain is the high significance of the issues

discussed in this election. From domestic issues

like healthcare and tax reform to foreign policy

issues like Iran, and the teetering European

economy, both candidates have been conveying

their plans and intentions to the American

people so that we can elect the candidate we

think will best lead us for the next four years.

What makes this election’s issues so intriguing

is that they come at a time when the nation is

more polarized than any time since the Civil

War. While the issues themselves are very

different, what unites them all is that their

resolutions will have an effect on the country for

years to come.

2

To simplify this rather hectic political situation,

this first edition of RamPost, the publication of

the Ramaz Politics Society (RamPo), breaks

down many of these pivotal issues. In this edition,

we present a variety of policy positions. We do

this with the hope of showing you the legitimate

arguments presented on both sides. On behalf of

the Ramaz Politics Society and RamPost, I urge

you to read on into the stimulating world of

American Politics. ENJOY.

A Publication of the Ramaz Politics Society


RamPost 2

1

By Alex Weinberg ’14

As a nation we provide universal health coverage. That’s indisputable, and we’ve done so for ages and are unlikely to stop anytime soon. Think about it, if you were to see someone lying on the street ill would you check if they had insurance before calling 911. No, of course not, our American values tell us to save the person regardless of their insurance situation. Since, as a nation, we already provide universal health coverage the question transitions to: What is the best way to provide universal health coverage?

For me at least, the most logical way of providing cost efficient care is to focus on preventative care. Emergency room treatments are incredibly expensive and leave the patient incapacitated for long periods of time after his or her care. By providing insurance we allow primary care doctors to get a jump on medical care and detect health issues before the problem gets out of hand and requires emergency action. Tens of millions of Americans whom were previously uninsured prior to the passage of the PPACA now are covered. Nobody disagrees that this is great news, rather that the vehicle “Obamacare” is a poor one.

Obamacare definitely is not perfect, I would agree that in an ideal world this sort of legislation would be enacted on a state-by-state level but we live in the most polarized time in our nation’s history since the civil war. State-by-state health care simply wouldn’t work, regardless of the noble aspirations. So we need a federal solution that gets the job done.

And Obamacare most certainly gets the job done. 32 million people now insured. Medicaid expanded. Medicare strengthened. (The $716 Billion taken from Medicare towards Obamacare will not effect services provided to seniors but is saved through fraud reduction and elimination of redundancies.) Insurance companies can no longer deny care to children or those with pre-existing conditions. Children can remain on their parent’s health care plan until age 26. The donut hole created by a Bush prescription drug program will be closed by 2020. Best of all, none of these additional benefits come at the expense of fiscal responsibility. (continued on page 3)

Keep Obamacare?

1

By David Schwerdt ’13

Lately, Mitt Romney has been under attack for his policy on Healthcare (he vowed to repeal ObamaCare, if elected, on his first day in office, and put his own plan into effect). Amidst this media attention, many rumors have been floating around about Obamacare, Romneycare (Romney’s plan from his days as governor of Massachusetts), and the ‘similarities’ between the two. Here’s how I see it: The Obama camp claims to have finally achieved an ideal Health Care system. That is not true. In fact, the plan seems to have provisions in it that could potentially be harmful for the American healthcare system and the economy. Let me point out some of the flaws: First, one in three doctors won’t accept the new program! That means, out of the 17 million Americans that will be covered under the program 5.6 million won’t be able to find a doctor. Second, in order to pay all the expenses for the program, ObamaCare cuts $716 billion out of Medicare – a system that is already in trillions of dollars of debt. Third, ObamaCare does not include an “opt-out” provision, and does not exempt religious employers from paying for contraception and abortion, despite moral objections to doing so (this is not an argument against contraception or abortion, it is just meant to highlight the lack of flexibility within the ObamaCare plan). Finally, ObamaCare calls for an extra $1.68 trillion over the next ten years, and even with all this spending, leaves 30 million Americans uninsured.

Now on to RomneyCare: Romney has been under heavy criticism for his Massachusetts healthcare plan, both by liberals who argue that it’s a flawed plan, and by conservatives who complain that it resembles ObamaCare. First of all, RomneyCare has certainly accomplished its goal in Massachusetts, of providing care to all MA citizens without raising taxes. Under the plan, half a million people in MA who were previously not covered received access to affordable care, and the overall costs of the program to the state have not exceeded expectations. RomneyCare also remains extremely popular among MA residents. Second, while there are similarities between the Obama plan and the Romney plan, there are also key differences. Obama’s bill is 2,100 pages and (continued on page 3)


RamPost 3

2

(continued from page 2-Schwerdt)

includes in it heavy federal government regulation, while Romney’s bill is only 70 pages and intended as a market driven solution. ObamaCare would raise taxes significantly ($500 billion) and cuts Medicare (as mentioned), while RomneyCare required no new taxes and only added 1% to the state budget. Finally, Obama’s plan is not very popular and has no bi-partisan support, while Romney’s plan does (even though it is often publicly criticized, mostly by Republicans). Clearly, the two plans differ significantly and Mitt Romney’s vision for future healthcare is much stronger and clearer.

2

(continued from page 2-Weinberg)

The CBO predicts that Obamacare actually bring down the deficit by $143 Billion in fewer than 9 years.

With these benefits, why wouldn’t we want Obamacare?

Did you know?

By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the Affordable Care Act will have extended

coverage to 33 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured.

www.cbo.gov


RamPost 4

1

By Eli Mendelson ’13

The President has successfully led the world in agreeing to the strictest economic sanctions against Iran that have ever been put in place. In contrast, President Bush put in place NO NEW comprehensive sanctions against Iran. Best of all President Obama’s sanctions have worked. The Iranian economy has been decimated and the Rial has plummeted. The countries enforcing these economic sanctions believe that the destruction of the Iranian economy will lead to the inability of Iran to continue to fund its nuclear program as well as put pressure on the Iranian government to end the program. Common thought is that Israel believes that more needs to be done to stop Iran, and they believe military action is necessary to stop Iran. However, many military experts, including Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad, believe that Iran’s nuclear facilities are too far underground for bombs to destroy them. Therefore, any attack on Iran would have to be long-term, possibly a war. Any war against Iran would have to be funded by the United States, and possibly involve the United States Army.

Considering how much effort the U.S. has put into getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not think it is advisable to start another war in Iran. If the U.S. does not go to war, one might suggest that the U.S. should fund Israel to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threats. The U.S. has given Israel over two billion dollars in military funding per year for each of the past ten years, and considering the costs of war, and how we are trying to put our own financial house in order, it would not make sense to start funding Israel to attack Iran.

One might say that economic sanctions are not doing enough to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions given the fact that Iran is continuing in its efforts towards nuclear weapons capability. I would answer that if the economy in Iran continues to worsen, Iran would have trouble continuing to run their nuclear plants. One reason for this is because the Iranian people will protest against their government, especially after seeing the recent Arab Spring. Recent events concerning new negotiations (continued on page 5)

Iran: What to Do?

1

By Dan Korff-Korn ’14

Iran is a serious threat, not only to Israel, a country and ally so vital to the United States and the Jewish people, but also to this country’s national security. It is estimated that by Spring 2013, Iran will have 90% of enriched material required to produce a nuclear weapon. What is definitely not estimated though, is that with each day that passes without the United States acting, Iran gets closer to possessing a disastrous nuclear capability.

United States sanctions on Iran and sanctions from the international community have proved unsuccessful. Sanctions have either been ignored by Iran or their effects have not been convincing enough to induce Iran to abandon its nuclear program. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions in 2006 demanding that Iran suspend all nuclear enrichment related activities. Guess what? Iran did not listen. In 2007, the UN called for an arms embargo and a freeze on Iranian assets. Iran still continues to enrich uranium. Those UN resolutions are just a few among a plethora of demands that have simply gone ignored or have had little impact.

The United States has not been much better in persuading Iran to drop its nuclear program. Although the President has imposed a near total economic embargo on Iran, with the freezing of Iranian assets, harsh sanctions on Iran’s once highly profitable oil trade, and sanctions on American companies, which do business with the Islamic Republic, Iran’s nuclear program has yet to show any signs of slowing down. Even though Iran’s economy has certainly declined a bit, its nuclear program certainly has not, and is enriching more uranium than ever before.

Now, how should this issue be resolved? Take out Iran’s nuclear reactors. Clearly, it is easier said than done, however, waiting around until Iran takes the first shot is not an option. Sanctions, whether economy, military, or energy related, have not had any direct impact (continued on page 5)


RamPost 5

2

(continued from page 4-Korff-Korn)

on Iran’s nuclear program, one that is growing, and is on the brink of achieving weapons grade capability.

The question then arises: if the United States attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, then wouldn’t a full out war develop? The answer is straightforward. The United States possesses a stronger military than Iran does, and we can overpower Iran in ANY militaristic instance. That is precisely the reason why I am not concerned that a “full out” war with Iran will develop. Our military (and with the possibility of a joint strike with Israel’s military), would quickly and easily be able to crush a counterattack by Iran.

To put it simply, a military engagement to eliminate Iran’s nuclear facilities must be undertaken BEFORE it is too late. That is, before Iran has the ability to enrich weapons grade uranium.

Sanctions have not worked the way they were intended to do so. Iran continues to grow and strengthen its nuclear program, and is well on its way to reaching its envisioned goal of the capability to produce weapons grade uranium. It is up to the United States, a country that has the duty to protect itself and its allies abroad (namely Israel), to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. It must be done, because as in the words of Governor Mitt Romney, “it is inappropriate for [Iran] to have the capacity to terrorize the world.”

2

(continued from page 4-Mendelson)

between the Americans and Iranians have also come to light. The economic and diplomatic pressures have forced Iran to the negotiating table.

For these reasons, I see it in the best interest of the United States government to continue economic sanctions on Iran, and to not go to military lengths, either via funding or actual fighting, against Iran at the moment especially considering the recent events concerning new negotiations with the Iranians.


RamPost 6

1

By Daniel Gutkind ’16

At a time when the backbone of the American economy was the middle class families who worked for large companies such as Ford, Proctor and Gamble, U.S. Steel, and G.M., the statement “What's good for General Motors is good for America,” could hardly have been truer. Between the years 1950 and 1980 the number of manufacturing jobs in our economy grew from 12 million to slightly below 20 million, and from the early 1980s up until the early years of this century there were about 17 to 18 million people employed by the manufacturing industry, providing steady jobs to a large segment of the American populace. Then an interesting trend began around the year 2000: the amount of jobs in the manufacturing sector began to drop, reaching levels not seen since the end of World War II. This drop in manufacturing employment coincided with a huge increase in the growth of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) jobs over the same period; in fact, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, growth in STEM jobs over the past 10 years was three times as fast as growth in non-STEM jobs. These two patterns in job growth are indicative of the fundamental changes in the American economy over the next decades. That very same Department of Commerce report called STEM jobs “a critical component to helping the U.S. win the future.” Yet if one were to look at the state of American education and the way this generation is scoring on standardized tests, it would seem that we are getting further away from that goal by the day. Only 45 percent of U.S. high school graduates in 2011 were ready for college work in math and 30 percent were ready in science. In 2009, just 34 percent of U.S. 8th graders were rated proficient or higher in a national math assessment, and more than one in four scored below the basic level. In almost every state, children get less time for science in elementary school than they did 15-20 years ago. In order to create jobs for both now and the future, the American government needs to begin to invest in the education of its workers, (continued on page 7)

How to Solve the Country’s Job Crisis

1

By Eddie Mattout ’15

With the presidential election only weeks away, one of the major topics of conversation has been fixing unemployment. No president has met re-election with unemployment greater than 8 percent. Mitt Romney has promised to lower the unemployment rare to 6 percent by the end of his first term. The question is, HOW?

The first thing that must be done is to adjust policies on retraining workers and reevaluating current unemployment resources. The federal government must strengthen their current retraining programs and give these programs to state control under a block grant. The government must create personal reemployment accounts and linked programs for unemployed individuals. These accounts would contain funds to be put toward retraining for eligible individuals. Such accounts, which were piloted during George W. Bush's administration, would also place individuals directly into companies that provide on-the-job training.

The government must also lower taxes on small businesses. This would give more money to small companies, which would encourage the hiring of more jobs.

The country must also focus on the trade market. The government must look at new markets, build stronger ties with Latin America and encourage free enterprise around the world. With a shortage of high- skilled laborers, immigration policies must be readjusted in order to allow current visa holders to obtain citizenship if they have a current job offer from a U.S. company. Lastly, the government must reduce the overall size of the federal workforce by 10 percent. Federal resources must be put where they will be most effectively used.


RamPost 7

22

(Continued from page 6-Gutkind) both present and future. Gone are the days in which one could enter the workforce with simply a GED and do well on a Michigan assembly line. Those jobs are going to China, Indonesia, Mexico, and a whole host of other counties with workers who are happy to earn far less than their American counterparts. In order to be relevant in today’s day and age, American laborers must have college degrees and years of experience and training. Workers in the U.S. are no longer the ones assembling the cars and laptops that once provided decent wages to millions of employees. The only way for this country to continue its growth is for it to begin to engineer those automobiles and PCs. Washington should not limit its response to this shift by improving upon and investing in our education system (although a comprehensive reform is in due order). It should continue to invest in sectors that will provide countless jobs in the future, such as clean energy, computer programming, electronics, and engineering. In order to fuel economic growth over the next decades, the government should eliminate the tax credits for the wealthy that were toted by the Bush administration as “job creating” but have only created a larger deficit and replace them with deductions for the small businesses and STEM industries that will form the new backbone of this economy in the years to come. The Obama administration should not let the overblown coverage of the Solyndra failure deter it from helping these important sectors get on their feet. Providing tax credits for industries to create STEM jobs in America will help spur investment and consequently lower the unemployment rate. While this approach will almost certainly add to the federal deficit, this is a blow that is needed for the U.S. to continue to grow long term in this century. The additional spending can be softened by some much-needed Social Security reform as well as tax reform. While the conservative luminaries Milton Friedman and F.A. von Hayek are right in their aversion to too many directly supported government jobs, Washington should most certainly begin to invest in the education of future generations of Americans and the industries they will one day occupy.

A Ramaz Politics Society poll conducted at Upper School club fair, September 20, 2012


RamPost 8

1

By Daniel Gutkind ’16

“I think that from my point of view [relations with Israel] are extremely good, extremely deep and profound…I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing in regard to our security more than anything that I can remember in the past.” –Ehud Barak, Israeli Defense Minister

“When I look at the record of President Obama concerning the major issues, security, I think it’s a highly satisfactory record, from an Israeli point of view.” –Shimon Peres, President of Israel

These quotes are clear validations that the Obama administration views Israel as a critical ally in the Middle East and is ready and willing to give it America’s fullest support. Despite the constant Republican claims that Obama has betrayed Israel and treats it as a foe rather than an ally, the opposite could hardly be truer. Throughout his term in office, Obama has stuck to his campaign promise of providing $30 billion in assistance to Israel over 10 years, beginning with his first year in office. In fact, for the 2013 budget the President requested over $3 billion in Israeli foreign aid, nearly $1 billion more than the next country on the list. Just this July, he signed legislation that reinforced relations with Israel and offering $70 million in funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system.

The President’s support for Israel goes far beyond just money, however. During his annual appearances at the AIPAC summit in Washington as well as during policy speeches throughout the year, he consistently reaffirms his, and America’s, support for the Jewish State, and has put these words into actions over his term in office. He has implemented crippling sanctions against Iran that have sent its currency’s value tumbling and shown his seriousness in deterring Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. He has bolstered the American military presence in the Persian Gulf, showing Iran that, as the President himself has said, (continued on page 9)

Israel

1

By Noam Kornsgold ’13

Over the past four years, President Obama has done more for defense for Israel than any other president in the history of the U.S.-Israel relationship. This is an undisputed fact and has been acknowledged by Israeli officials. However, to say that Obama has been good for Israel is absurd. Many defenders of the president’s record on Israel will point to the $3 billion to Israel that President Obama puts in his budget every year. This is true but does not show the whole story. The reason that Israel gets a large amount of aid from America is because of the 10 Year Memorandum of Understanding, a document which says that the United States will give Israel $30 billion in aid over the next 10 years, that was signed under President George W. Bush. It is the pro-Israel Congress, not the president, who ensures that the aid continues to go to Israel.

I can go into a page-long laundry list as to why Obama has been absolutely horrific for Israel. Instead, I will only highlight some of Obama’s failures regarding Israel. If you want to see the full impact of Obama’s terrible policies, check out the Republican Jewish Coalition’s new documentary “Perilous Times”

In 2009, the president set preconditions upon the Israeli government before beginning negotiations with the Palestinians. By requiring this, the president gave the Palestinians yet another excuse to refuse to come to the negotiation table. In 2011, the president called for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that would be based on the borders of 1967 even though it is universally accepted that those borders are indefensible (and it was never a border, it was just an armistice line). Congressman Steny Hoyer (D), the House Minority Whip, said, “Israel’s borders must be defensible and must reflect reality on the ground,” in response to President Obama. In November 2011, the president also said disparaging remarks about Prime Minister Netanyahu in the presence of then French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Most recently, in July 2012, the White House had refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Finally, Barack Obama has handled (continued on page 9)


RamPost 9

2

(continued from page 8-Gutkind)

he would “take no options off the table,” including military action.

Furthermore, under Obama’s direction, the U.S. blocked Mahmoud Abbas and the P.A.’s attempt to achieve U.N. acknowledgment as a member state; as well as using its veto on blocking an anti-Israel Security Council resolution.

In response to the claims that Obama does not support Israel because he never took the time to visit; about the only thing that LBJ and Ronald Reagan had in common is that they both never visited Israel either! Even George W. Bush, considered a strong supporter of Israel, only visited for the first time in the eighth year of his presidency. The President’s avoidance of a formal trip to Israel should not mask his steadfast support for the Jewish State. In the words of Obama himself, “There should not be a shred of doubt right now: When the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.”

2

(continued from page 8-Kornsgold)

and continues to handle the Iran situation poorly. At the beginning of his presidency, Obama thought he could sit down and negotiate with Iranians. It took him two years to realize that this approach can’t work. For the past two years, he has spent his time pressing sanctions upon Iran. This is good, but sanctions and talk are not enough. The president needs to make the Iranians, Ahmadinejad, and the Ayatollah realize that America means business and if that if the Iranian nuclear program is not stopped, then military action will be taken.

It is no surprise that Barack Obama is the first president that has an approval rating of under 50% in Israel. Mayor Ed Koch (a Democrat) has said, “I do believe that the President has embarked upon changing the foreign policy of the United States by 'dissing' the state of Israel as he did at the White House with Prime Minister Netanyahu.”

Israel needs a strong leader in the White House who is willing to lead the international community against the world threat of Iran, a country that has promised to wipe Israel off the map. Israel needs an American president that respects the Prime Minister of Israel and will be willing to work hand-in-hand with him. Israelis do not trust Barack Obama to protect their interests. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a candidate that has promised on multiple occasions to be a great ally to Israel and to be on the same page as Prime Minister Netanyahu. Mr. Romney, as president, would be a world leader who is capable of taking on Iran and who would be supportive of Israel’s endeavors to ensure its own security. Romney says that under his administration, there will “not be an inch of difference” between Israel and America.

I am personally very fearful as to what will transpire if Obama is reelected as president. His record has on Israel is already abysmal. If Obama is elected, Israel will be in a far more dangerous position than it is now.

Pictured above is the Iron Dome, the missile defense system jointly

developed by Israel and America


RamPost 10

1

By Esti Flamenbaum ’14

Women’s rights is a big issue in this year’s election, and I’m baffled as to why; I thought we had settled these issues in the last century. Evidently that is not the case as women’s rights over their own bodies are still being debated.

Many politicians, mainly severely conservative ones, are trying to deny women the right to affordable birth control. They don’t want it to be mandatory for contraceptives to be included on health care plans, rather to allow employers to choose whether or not to cover birth control based on their own beliefs. This is a dangerous sentiment because if we allow providers to deny contraception based on personal beliefs, then shouldn’t employers be allowed to deny western medicine if they only believe in alternative medicine? Most of all, it’s ridiculous that these religious institutions provide sexual health medicine to men in the form of Viagra but not to women in the form of contraception.

Many conservatives also support cutting off government funding to Planned Parenthood, an organization that has the reputation of spending all its resources giving women abortions. In truth, Planned Parenthood is an organization dedicated to providing reproductive health care and sex education to those who need or want it. They treat men, women and teenagers, and often practice family planning. In many communities, they provide a greatly needed service, one often overlooked. To cut off their funding would be to commit a huge disservice to America.

Let us get to the most contentious issue- abortion. Conservatives don’t support a woman’s right to an abortion, and they especially don’t support federal funding to help a woman get one. In the GOP party platform, it says that they “affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life.” That’s preposterous. In this situation, the only way to “affirm the dignity of women” would be to allow them to make their own decisions regarding their bodies. The government should trust that women actually put tremendous (continued on page 11)

Allow Abortion?

1

By Jacob Bergfeld ’13

Abortion has become a very hot topic in the election cycle. Liberals maintain a "pro-choice" view on abortion, giving women the freedom of abortion, if done through a government approved clinic. The conservative point of view, commonly referred to as "pro-life" is that abortion should be almost always be illegal, however, my point of view on abortion is that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother. I also believe that the government should definitely not fund abortions either. From a moral perspective I think that killing an innocent being is the morally wrong thing to do and it should be illegal to do so. I cannot think of a being who is more innocent than a future human who is yet to enter this world. Some might argue that human beings in their embryonic stage are not yet considered "people". I strongly disagree with this because regardless of the developmental stage of the fetus it is still a future life or a least the potential for future life and therefore must be treated as human child. Whether the child is in the mother's womb as a fetus or out of the mother's womb as a human child, we are still dealing with a life. I view abortion as equivalent to murder. However, there should be exceptions to illegalizing abortion. Among these exceptions is the case of rape, in which the mother did not give consent. Another is the case of incest. In addition, it should be legal to get an abortion in order to save the mother's life. Out of all of the abortions performed in the US only about 7% are because of these exemptions. This means that 93% of abortions are performed for social reasons. Social reasons include the mother being too young to take on the responsibility of raising a child, as well as monetary reasons and relationship complications. Having a baby and raising a child is no small task and requires a lot of responsibility and sacrifice from the parents. That is precisely why young people should not be engaging in sexual intercourse until they are married and are with someone that they are ready to raise a child with. 65% of abortions are performed on never-married women, 52% of abortions are performed on women under the age (continued on page 11)


RamPost 11

2

(continued from page 10-Bergfeld) Of 25 and 20% of abortions are performed on teenagers. A young, unmarried teenager is most probably not ready to raise a family and therefore should not be engaging in premarital sexual relations. When society as a whole allows for abortion, they are saying to young unmarried teenagers that they have the freedom to kill an unwanted child. Even more so, when the government of the United States of America funds institutions that provide abortion services it does not convey a message that people need to take responsibility for their actions and that life should be protected and cherished. A baby is not like a new pair of shoes. You cannot just get rid of it if you don't like it or if it is inconvenient. An unborn child is a human life, something that should not be terminated.

2

(continued from page10-Flamenbaum)

thought into whether or not to get an abortion- it’s not just a whim. Not only would outlawing abortion be an insult to women, it would be dangerous too. Women would still get abortions just like they did way back in the dark ages when they were illegal. The only difference would be in whether or not the abortions are safe.

There are many issues to consider when voting in this year’s election, and women’s rights are, sadly, on the list. We won’t know for sure whether women will retain their rights until election day, but I for one am hoping to retain my rights over my body. This is still America, right?


RamPost 12

1

By Cyril Putzer ’14

Immigrants built America. Everyone that lives here (excluding Native Americans) are immigrants, or are descendants of immigrants. Not only do immigrants comprise one of the most hardworking groups in America they are also beneficial to our economy. With all of these benefits, why do so many people want to kick them out and keep them out?

There is a wide held belief in this country that immigrants want to come to America and reap all the benefits provided to them by the government, get a good job, and live here tax-free. This is untrue. Most undocumented immigrants pay income taxes. An estimated 75% of undocumented immigrants receive a formal salary. Like any other American, local, state, and federal taxes are deducted from their paycheck in order to pay for Medicare and Social Security. However, without documentation, these immigrants aren’t even eligible for the programs that they are paying into. In addition, many immigrant families live below the poverty line, and so, should pay no federal income tax. However, most of them never file for a refund because they are afraid of deportation. So, immigrants actually give the government free money every year.

Another claim some make is that immigrants are stealing good jobs from American workers. The truth is that most undocumented immigrants work long hours in horrible conditions with little pay. Since they are here illegally, they can’t file complaints against their employers without the threat of immediate deportation. Few Americans would be willing to work under the often-degrading conditions where many undocumented immigrants work. So, the claim that immigrants take away jobs from legal Americans is also largely false.

Illegal immigrants make up a large number of the American workforce. Currently, there are about 11.5 million illegal immigrants living in the US. The US economy could not function without these illegal immigrants because they are huge contributors. The answer to our illegal (continued on page 12)

The Immigration Issue

By Ari Abrahams ’14

In a perfect world, the US would grant citizenship to all who want it. In a perfect world, everybody across the globe would have the same natural rights and opportunities that we possess here in the United States. However we don’t live in that perfect world and until we do, it is important for us to attempt to perfect our own country. How can we possibly do this? One of the many ways to accomplish this is by limiting visas and enforcing our policies on illegal immigrants. Legal immigration, specifically via student visas, is anti-patriotic and therefore should be restricted. Furthermore, there is no reason why state colleges should take foreign students (with the exception being foreign exchange programs), because every one of them deprives an American tax paying resident a spot in the college. Government should simply limit the number of student visas made available because we as a country need to take care of all of our citizens before even considering those on the outside.

Illegal immigrants are the perfect victims. They are aspiring, hardworking and sympathetic figures who in some cases have risked their lives in order to get into this country. Despite that, we must deport and refuse to employ illegal immigrants because they harm our American lower middle class. Illegal immigrants work for practically nothing and devalue the position and lower the wages on factory working jobs and construction jobs that decades ago enabled the lower middle class to sustain a family. The wages of the American lower middle class have been diminished, due to the increased supply of illegal immigrant laborers. In turn, our lower class is becoming more and more reliant on the government to provide benefits such as food stamps and welfare. To conclude, we as a nation must restrict immigration in all forms in order to help our American born citizens, and America as a country, prosper.


RamPost 13

2

(continued from page 12-Putzer)`

immigration “problem” cannot be deportation. A mass deportation of 11.5 million people would not be possible. The strain it would place on the economy (due to the sudden lack of laborers), not to mention the cost of such a large deportation would be disastrous.

However, we also cannot just ignore the illegal immigrants. If we do, they will continue to face unfair treatment in the workplace. They will not be able to receive any of the benefits they are buying into by paying taxes. They will continuously live in fear of prosecution by the authorities. They will continue to live as second-class citizens in a country that is supposed to have equality for all people, citizen or not. So what should be done?

If we want to correct these injustices, then lawmakers need to introduce legislation, which would allow an increase in legal immigration, and allow illegal immigrants to attain legal status, in order to fully contribute to society. Today, the slow and arduous process to a better immigration system is starting to take hold. The DREAM Act is receiving more and more support from federal lawmakers. If enacted, this law would allow millions of illegal immigrants who were brought to the US as children to attain full citizenship, attend university, and become full members of society. However, this is just the first step. We need to totally reform our immigration policies. We need to encourage immigrants to come to America, and not defer them. They are truly the backbone of the American economy, and without them, we would not be the economic superpower that we are today. Almost all Americans are familiar with the Statue of Liberty. However, few of them know what is inscribed on it. Engraved on a bronze plaque, is Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus”. When Emma Lazarus wrote, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”, she really meant it. We must continue to remain true to our immigrant heritage and the US must continue to be a country of immigrants. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists”.

Did you know?

58% of the illegal immigrant population is from Mexico.

Pew Research Center


RamPost 14

By Yona Kornsgold ’15

The United States should bring home our boys in Afghanistan as soon as possible. The United States entered Afghanistan on October 11, 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks. We have killed Osama Bin Laden and other top Al Qaida members. We have helped build up the Afghanistan National Army to 100,000 members. We have instilled the seeds of democracy. We have fought 11 years. We have spent over 500 billion dollars on this war. And we have lost 2,140 soldiers in a foreign land.

There are many reasons we should bring home the troops, chief among them the casualties we are suffering. We are losing too many young men and women who have fought for our country. 2,140 men and women have died fighting. 2,140 children, brothers, sisters, friends have lost out on their futures. It is enough.

Everyday the Afghan Army grows stronger and more prepared to defend democracy from the Taliban. Even if they aren’t up for the job, ultimately we have spent enough money and lives on this war. We killed the man responsible for the death of almost 3,000 innocent people on 9/11. There are only an estimated 50 - 100 Al Qaida members left in Afghanistan. We have been successful in that part of the war.

Afghanistan is a country unfavorable towards invasion and we never should have gone there in the first place. Some of the negative effects include a strained relationship with the Arab world (especially Pakistan) and strife with our allies. We need to return the remaining troops back home to their families because the one definite thing that has happened in Afghanistan is already 2,140 people won’t be coming home.

U.S. Involvement with Afghanistan By Aaron Kohl ’13 The war in Afghanistan was in President Barack Obama's words, "the war we need to win," as he stated in a crucial speech examining foreign policy he gave on his journey to becoming president of the United States. For many, the war in Afghanistan is reminiscent of a past war America fought overseas trying to spread democracy, namely the war in Vietnam. The wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan both required heavy spending from the American government and large amounts of American troops to also be sacrificed. Why should American citizens pay increasing taxes because some people in the government feel as though we must change every society in the Middle East into a Democratic Republic and have every nation modeled after our wondrous country? When Obama took office in early 2009, he immediately sent more troops into Afghanistan. To me, this seemed like a rather pointless effort because we were sending more troops to a war that was never-ending and any possible ending only involved much more fighting. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that this war never had an intended reason; rather there was a specific point to pull out our troops and formally end the war. Another issue with the war in Afghanistan is the approach in which we continue to fight and show our presence in the Middle Eastern country. We continually send teams of Navy Seals to try and educate the Afghans and possibly help create a democratic system. America entered this war as egotistic as they ever have fought a war. The world can often be recalcitrant and can clearly not be accepting of our arrogance and democratic ways. We must figure a way to be a more modest force and be a more persistent force rather than acting solely on impulse as is evident from this war.

A Ramaz Politics Society poll conducted at Upper

School club fair, September 20, 2012


RamPost 15

Political Fun

“Presidential Debate Fact Checkers” Courtesy of www.caglecartoons.com

“In a Perfect World…” Courtesy of www.caglecartoons.com


RamPost 16

Political Crossword

Courtesy of: www.whenwecrosswords.com


RamPost is a nonpartisan newsprint, and is the publication of the Ramaz Politics Society (RamPo). All views expressed are strictly the views and opinions of their writer and do not reflect the opinions

of the newspaper itself.

Contact Us:

[email protected]

Dan Korff-Korn ’14 (Co-President and Co-Founder)

Noam Kornsgold ’13 (Co-President and Co-Founder)

Cyril Putzer ’14 (Co-President and Co-Founder)

David Schwerdt ’13 (Co-President and Co-Founder)

Alex Weinberg ’14 (Co-President and Co-Founder)

Editor in Chief

Dan Korff-Korn ’14

Alex Weinberg ’14

Staff Writers

Ari Abrahams ’14

Jacob Bergfeld ’13

Esti Flamenbaum ’14

Daniel Gutkind ’16

Aaron Kohl ’13

Noam Kornsgold ’13

Yona Kornsgold ’15

Eddie Mattout ’15

Eli Mendelson ’13

Cyril Putzer ’14

David Schwerdt ’13

Faculty Advisor:

Mr. Hillel Rapp

17

Documents

RamPost Volume I, Issue One