RamPost Volume I, Issue Two

RamPost Volume I, Issue Two November/December 2012

RamPost Election 2012: Moving the Country Forward

By Dan Korff-Korn ’14

1

On November 6, 2012, America reelected Barack Obama as its President. For a year, Obama had been entrenched in a tough political battle with Republican hopeful Mitt Romney, and polls going into the election showed a virtual draw between the two candidates. The election, however, was not as close as originally thought.

Obama finished with 332 electoral votes to Rom-ney’s 206, essentially a landslide victory for Obama. Obama’s Electoral College success is at-tributed to his victories in eight of nine swing states, including Ohio and Florida. The popular vote, although closer than the electoral vote, went strongly in Obama’s favor. The incumbent gar-nered about 50.6% of the popular vote while the challenger, Romney, received about 48.0%. The Election, though, was not just about electing the

2

next President. Congressional seats were up for grabs and both the Democrats and Republicans were seeking to maintain a majority. In the Senate, the Democrats maintained a majority, after the Republicans lost two seats. The current position in the Senate is 54 Demo-crats, 45 Republicans, and one Independent. In the House of Representatives, the GOP maintained its ma-jority despite a net gain of 17 seats by the Democrats. The partisan gap in the House is currently 234 Republi-can seats to 201 Democrat seats.

In the next four years, it is critical that the political par-ties representing this country in Congress make deci-sions not driven by party allegiance, but rather by what will move us forward as a nation. Progress will be most achievable when partisan bickering is set aside, and Congress and the President cooperate on tackling the is-sues that limit and affect the country everyday.

Why did Obama Win? Why did Romney Lose?

Dr. Jucovy: Letter to the Editor

Election 2016

A Publication of the Ramaz Politics Society

In this Issue:

And more…

Volume I, Issue Two November/December 2012

2

1

By Aaron Kohl ‘13 Now that the election results have registered into peo-ple’s minds, one must ponder the question as to how our current president, Barack Obama, was successful in defending his vulnerable presidential seat. All polit-ical issues and opin-ions aside, in order to understand how Obama achieved vic-tory, we must ana-lyze closely which demographics Obama specifically targeted for his cam-paign. Mr. Obama lost In-dependents by 1% on Election Day and his campaign knew this was coming so to combat this loss the Obama camp focused on turning out groups that disproportionately support Obama. In addition, minority groups like Asian Americans, His-panics as well as Obama’s large support among wom-en secured the election for him.

2

Obama’s pro-abortion stances and policies gave him an edge with women over his rival, Mitt Romney, who was opposed to abortion in this election. Republicans in general have been suffering with their image among

women. The Hispanic vote was also crucial in giving Obama the victory. President Obama’s support of relaxed immigra-tion laws made him a favorite among the Latino community. His urging of Congress to pass the Dream Act, which would give young illegal im-migrants (brought to the US as children) citizenship if they graduate college or serve in the military, is a prime exam-

ple of Obama’s support of eased immi-gration laws. He has also offered two year

work permits to nearly 1.7 million immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children. These two groups, in particular, women and Hispan-ics, greatly swayed the election in favor of Barack Obama.

Crucial Demographics

How Important is Your Vote? Actually…

USA Today/Gallup

1

By Zach Klein ‘14 No Republican presidential candidate has won the election without winning the state of Ohio since 1900. That doesn’t mean that winning Ohio guarantees victory in the election, but it’s certainly rather hard to win without it. In theory, every person has an equal say in who wins the elec-tions. But not every vote is sought after with the same effort in each state. There are some individual votes in areas within swing states that do, in fact, swing elec-tions. When candidates win over these swing (continued on page 3)


3

1

By Ari Abrahams `14 Hurricane Sandy had a sizeable impact on the 2012 Pres-idential election. In the wake of the destructive storm, the political world was asking, “Did we just experience the 2012 October Surprise?”

The October Surprise is a late breaking news event or se-ries of events that shakes up the presidential race such as Henry Kissinger’s announcement that “peace is at hand” to boost Nixon’s reelection prospects. As to whether Sandy was the 2012 October Surprise, the answer is yes.

2

It could appear that Hurricane Sandy had a recog-nizable impact on the polls, as the polls swung 1.8% in favor of Democratic candidate Barack Obama af-ter the hurricane. On October 28th, the Sunday prior to Sandy, Republican candidate Gov. Mitt Romney was leading Obama by .9% (47.7% to 46.8%), but come Election Day, the Tuesday after Sandy, Obama was up by .7% in the polls.

(continued on page 4)

Who Did Hurricane Sandy Vote For?

Swing States Map

www.politico.com

2

(continued from page 2-Klein) votes, they win the election. In approximately 40 states it is already clear which party they will vote for even before each party selects their presidential candidate will be. For example New York hasn’t voted for a Republican candidate since 1984, and that isn’t likely to change soon. However, it’s not enough for a candidate to win just the states in their party’s column. That’s where swing states come in. The reason presidential candidates spend most of their time campaigning in swing states is because they know that winning them is key to winning an election. They spend so much of their money in these

3

places because they know they need to sway the vot-ers there. Even within swing states there are areas that can decide the states final vote. For example Hamil-ton Count, OH has received more of the candidates’ attention than the entire West Coast. Among the nine or so states that were considered swing states for this election, Obama won seven of them, netting a total of 66 electoral votes. All of this goes to show that voters living within these swing counties are the people whose votes win the elections. Even though people that vote in known blue or red states still get to cast their votes, theirs aren’t the ones that really change things. Presidential campaigns live and die by crucial swing state votes.


4

Donec interdum

Consectetuer:

www.gallup.com

3

(continued from page 3-Abrahams) Now, why and how in addition to damaging the eastern seaboard did Sandy also damage Mitt Romney’s lead in the polls? Because President Obama’s handling of the disaster (especially in hard-hit New Jersey) made him look like a worthier candidate than he once was, and perhaps, a worthier candidate than his opponent.

Obama’s quality handling of the crisis led Governor Chris Christie, one of the most partisan republicans, to earnestly thank President Obama for streamlining the usually tedious bureaucratic ordeal involved in getting federal funds for emergency management. He has since praised Obama’s name to the high heavens for the fed-eral government's help, and they have appeared to be political allies as they have toured the places most dev-astated by Sandy.

The thematic significance of Obama and Christie work-ing together is that it showcased Obama being a biparti-san president, capable of working with both parties to achieve something good. This, in effect, undercut the Romney campaign’s late push that Romney, unlike Obama, can work with both parties to get the U.S back to economic prosperity.

Furthermore, the aftermath of Sandy has taught the

4

American public that states can’t handle disasters such as these by themselves, and that most states would need federal help when coping with them. This contrasts with Romney’s position of severely limited federal government. Even more specifical-ly, Romney has said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which took a huge role in the aftermath of Sandy, should be reduced into many different state-run emergency man-agement agencies.

In conclusion, the paramount impact that Sandy had on the elections is the image value the storm’s handling gave to Obama, allowing him to look more presidential than ever. President Obama’s handling of the storm uplifted many hurt spirits and built a level of confidence not only in the re-building of damaged communities, but in the con-fidence of having this man as our president for another term. In addition, and perhaps just as im-portant was the public appeal of bi-partisanship in a time of gridlock. President Obama’s handling of Sandy also restored faith in the government’s ef-ficiency and usefulness.

President Obama embraces woman in Brigantine NJ, a coastal neighborhood hard hit by Hurricane Sandy www.usnews.com

President Obama greets NJ Gov. Christie in aftermath of Hurricane Sandy

www.usnews.com


5

Electoral College: Keep it or Kill it?

1

By Daniel Gutkind ‘16 “Never before in our political history did the Electoral College appear...to be so obsolete as in this year's Pres-idential election.” This quote came not from a 2012 partisan pundit on a late night cable news channel or a November 2000 opinion piece; rather, these words date all the way back to a 1936 New York Times Edi-torial, the year when Kansas Governor Alf Landon won some 36 percent of the popular vote and less than 2 percent of the electoral college. This discrep-ancy has persisted for many years, rearing its ugly head most notori-ously when Al Gore, despite winning the popular vote by 500,000 votes, lost the presidency to George Bush. Imagine how different, for better or worse, the United States would be if we had 8 years of Gore rather than Bush. In this most recent election, Mitt Romney won only 38% of the Electoral College, a sum far less than the 48% he won in the nationwide popular vote. This is not, however, the only problem with the Electoral Col-lege; in fact, it is far from it. Another of the major is-sues facing this archaic system is the fact that, because of the winner-take-all method used, presidential candi-

2

dates rarely, if ever, visit reliably red or blue states such as Texas or New York to campaign and get in touch with the people they are vying to repre-sent. If the candidates spend the majority of their

time canvassing a handful of crucial swing states for votes and ignoring the rest of the nation, then how can they ever understand the issues facing the all constit-uents of the office they seek to inherit? It is these problems, and a plethora of oth-er, smaller, ones, that are the reason that the Electoral College needs to go. Instead,

this country needs to replace it with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which, as the New York Sun put it, is “a kind of end-run around the [Electoral College]” that would force states to give their Electoral votes to the winner of the na-tional popular vote. Using this system would help right the wrongs associated with the Electoral College and introduce a more fair and democratic system.

Gridlock Again? Here’s why not

1

By Noam Kornsgold ‘13

Presidential politics completely overshadowed this year’s elections for the United States Congress. For me at least, it seemed that the only time that the con-gressional races got any real media attention was when a candidate said something inflammatory about a controversial issue (for example, Todd Akin’s gaffe about “legitimate rape” and Richard Mourdock’s comment about babies conceived from

2

a rape as God’s will). During this election, both parties sought control of both chambers of Congress. Before the election, the Democrats controlled the Senate with 51 seats to 47 seats (two Senate offices were held by Independ-ents). (continued on page 6)


6

4

recession, as drastic spending cuts and an expiration of the Bush tax cuts will automatically come into ef-fect on January 1st if the parties don’t reach a com-promise. The re-elected Democrats and Republicans of the 112th Congress now need to push their differ-ences aside if they plan to come up with an agree-

ment that will save the country. There is no room for partisanship over the next month and a half. Second, the Republicans suffered devastating losses in the House, Senate, and, of course, the Presidency. The Republican goal over the past fours years had been to ensure the Barack Obama did not get reelected. They blocked all measures that the President put forward in order to make him look bad. This strategy has clearly failed. I predict that the Republicans will come to terms with the fact that being overly and overtly partisan does not work as a political plan and they will moderate their views, to some extent, in order to actually get legislation passed in Congress. Note: All election results in this article were based off the elections that were decided as of the writing of this article.

3

(continued from page 5-Kornsgold) In the House of Representatives, the Republicans led the Democrats 240 seats to 190 seats. Based off of these numbers, it seemed like the Republicans had a much higher chance of taking the Senate than the Democrats did the House. In the end, however, the Democrats made gains in both cham-bers of Congress. They picked up two seats in the Senate (not including the newly elected Inde-pendent Angus King of Maine who will caucus with the Democrats) and 10 seats in the House. Doing the math, you’ll see that the Democrats retained control of the Senate with a 53-45 lead and the Republicans protected their solid lead of the House with a 233-200 lead. What is the significance of these results? The first item to note is that neither party controls both cham-bers. In addition, the Democrats were not able to in-crease their lead in the Senate to such an extent that they would have the requisite 60 seats (supermajori-ty) to break a Republican filibuster. Another conse-quence to note is that this 113th Congress has the same party makeup as the 112th Congress. This fact would lead some to believe that the same unyielding partisanship that characterized the previous two years will be just as prevalent in the upcoming two. I do not believe we’ll slip back into Gridlock for two major-reasons. First, our country is quickly approaching the fiscal ‘cliff’, which will plunge the economy back into a


7

2

the G.O.P have become more outspoken about deny-ing women the right to choose what they do with their bodies. Multiple Republicans have made disconcerting and disturbing comments about women. Including Todd Akin’s remarks about “le-gitimate rape.”

Mitt Romney, who in 1994 claimed to support Roe v. Wade, espoused the same views towards abortion and contraception as his con-servative cohorts during the election. This time around, Romney promised to fight Roe v. Wade and eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood. Romney also supported the Blunt amendment which permits health care providers to de-ny women contraception if their morals conflict. I find these extreme measures to stifle women’s sexual inde-

pendence repulsive, and obviously many women did too. This echoes what Susan B. Anthony so elo-quently stated, “no self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex”. The Republican Party has been trying to preserve a white male paradise that doesn’t exist and never will. What Mitt Romney failed to recognize is that his job is not merely to make money and to benefit people like himself. The nation is be-coming more culturally diverse (as the result of the influx of immigrants) and more progressive, and the country needs a leader who can make laws that are cognizant of these changes in the world. Romney alienated women, minorities, and the middle class, and I think that was his tragic mistake, and the reason he lost the election.

1

By Shoshana Edelman ‘14 Prior to his endeavors in presidential politics and be-fore serving as Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney acquired a reputation as a successful and skilled businessman. As co-founder of Bain Capital, Romney built one of the leading private equity firms in the country. Although he is considered by some to be a “fiscal genius”, the re-sults of the 2012 Presiden-tial election show that the American people were looking for more than just a C.E.O as a leader. The job of the President is not to approach the country’s affairs as one would ap-proach the affairs of a business, but rather to take care of its citizens. While embarking on his campaign, Governor Rom-ney was too fixated on pandering to the plight of rich white men and in turn, alienated the middle class, women, immigrants, and several other demographics outside of white male members of the 1%. Rom-ney’s fiscal plan clearly favored the top socio-economic bracket. If he had his way, the Bush in-come tax cuts would still be intact for the wealthiest among us and he would compensate by getting rid of mortgage deductions, repealing the Affordable Care Act, and other programs that aid the poor and the middle class. If it weren’t already abundantly clear that Romney had no interest in the plight of the mid-dle class, his notorious “47% comment” emphasized Romney’s indifference to their needs. This remark was extremely detrimental to his already unfavorable image among the Middle class. The issue that strikes a chord with me personally is Romney’s attitude towards women. There is a frightening trend in the Republican Party right now where (specifically male) members of

Why Did Mitt Romney Lose?


8

Mess in the Middle East

1

By Noam Kaplan ‘16

America is involved in the Middle East, yet it must remain wary and cautious as to not tread too much on one side of the issue. First off, country borders; the borders of many of the Middle Eastern countries like Syria and Iraq were made by Britain after their occupation of much of the Middle East. Britain divided up the land into separate countries based on politics, not based on geography, religion or natural ethnicity. For this rea-son, to retain the current borders without chaos, strong rulers need to control the land. As we know, when Saddam Hussein was killed the whole Iraq be-came overcome by civil war and in Syria, once As-sad had no power the country erupted in civil war. Second off, geography; everybody has always com-

peted for the Middle East. Since thousands of years ago there were fights over this land. The Phoenicians needed it for trade because of access to the sea and easy access to Africa, Asia and Europe. Nations al-ways knew that people coming from all continents used the Middle East for access to other continents. It was always full of traders and now even more so because it is a major source of petroleum. Third off, oil; In modern times, with the finding of

2

huge amounts of petroleum in the Middle East, Mid-dle Eastern countries can control a huge part of the global economy and can force other countries to give political support and benefits to them using tacit threats.

Fourth off, religion; The Middle East is believed to be a sacred place by many religions. The land has sites holy to Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Many Islamic terrorist and extremist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah will stop at nothing to obliterate Isra-el and to take it for themselves. Attacking these groups is very hard since they will sacrifice nearly everything to destroy every bit of Israel and because they fight terrorist style warfare; killing civilians. All these are reasons the Middle East is in such a

complicated situation and America’s involve-ment would be a serious mistake. Gas could be-come very scarce. Amer-ica would be fighting a terrorist war against peo-ple who fight using propaganda that could potentially hurt America. America could threaten the safety of Israeli civil-ians because the anger of the terrorists would be taken out on the Israelis. And it would be Imperi-alistic, which in the past has proved to be a fail-ure, especially in the Middle East; America

doesn’t know how to fight a war in a situation like the Middle East since it is so unique and it proved a problem in the second Iraq war. I’m not saying that America’s verbal support of Israel is bad, but Amer-ica should try to stay out of the Middle East as much as it can (as Obama is doing) without threatening it’s people, and its close allies.


9

1

By Amram Altzman ‘13 Although many would not recognize it as the most important issue in American politics — or even world politics — today, marriage rights for same-sex couples and rights for LGBT Americans took a cen-tral role in this recent presidential campaign. Alt-hough the issue of LGBT rights is not new to Presi-dent Obama, the issue of marriage equality took cen-ter stage when the presi-dent and vice president voiced their support for marriage equality in June. This president, and the country, have come a long way from signing the re-peal of the discriminatory “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” in December 2010, and thereby ended a policy that had previously re-quired that gay soldiers not be open about their sexuality while serving in the military. In July 2011, the White House an-nounced its support for the Respect for Marriage Act, which was intro-duced to repeal the De-fense of Marriage Act, a Clinton-era law that defined marriage as a the union of one man and one woman on the federal and interstate levels. Since then, both parties have addressed the issue of LGBT rights in their party platforms, and gay mar-riage has been a subject of debate that featured prev-alently during the Republican nominee debates at the beginning of the race (although, conspicuously, was absent from all four debates during the course of the general campaign). The Republican Party believes that marriage should remain between one man and one woman, and that a constitutional amendment be passed to that effect, while the Democratic Party supports marriage rights for same-sex couples, and opposes laws or propositions that would allow dis-

2

crimination based on sexual orientation. What is more telling of the changing attitude of rights for the LGBT community, however, is not the fact that both major parties in the U.S. have dedicat-ed part of their parties' platforms to the subject rather that for the first time in our history, a majority of

Americans now support marriage rights in some form for same-sex couples. This past Election Day, Americans showed their support for marriage equali-ty in Maryland, Maine, and Washington by voting to approve marriage rights for same-sex couples in those states. In Minnesota, voters blocked a pro-posed state constitutional amendment that would de-fine marriage as something solely shared between a man and a woman. This past Election Day marked the first time that marriage equality was passed by ballot initiative. While initiatives to extend marriage rights to gay couples have been on the ballots of thirty-two states since the 1990s, but, until now, all of those initia- (continued on page 10)

The Evolving Views on LGBT Rights in America


10

3

(continued from page 10-Altzman) tives had failed; in some cases (the most famous of which being California's Proposition 8, voted on in November of 2008), ballot initiatives to block same-sex marriages were voted into law. Whatever your stance on LGBT rights may be, our na-tion's attitude toward mar-riage equality has evolved immensely over the last dec-ade, and specifically over the last four years. As of now, Washington, Iowa, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Mas-sachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, and a myr-iad of other states, including Oregon, California, Nevada, Illinois, and others have laws that allow same-sex couples to enter civil unions (the

rights to which are determined on a state-by-state basis, and which might not necessarily include all of the rights granted to married couples). While we are not there yet, our country has shown that marriage equality is an issue that is important to them, as in-

4

dividuals and believers in equal rights for all Ameri-cans. Many refer to the gay rights movement as the Civil

Rights Movement of our generation. The movement that began in 1969 with the Stonewall Rights ends now. Now is the time to extend rights to a group of people who have previously been denied those rights. At a time when countries are passing laws that make homosexuali-ty punishable by lifelong im-prisonment or even death, I am grateful to be a citizen of a country which is rapidly

joining the ranks of Western countries which already allow same-sex couples to marry; I am grateful to be part of a country where civil rights are extended in the hopes that, one day, all Americans will treated as equals.


11

Necessary Evils

1

By Jacob Margolis ‘13 I would like to be very clear about my views in the following article. I do not question Israel’s right to defend herself. I am neither the director of Mossad, nor have I ever been traumatized by a rocket flying overhead, so I would feel inappropriate, to say the least, passing judgment on what is absolutely neces-sary for Israel’s defense. For the purpose of this arti-cle, I will assume the necessity of each of Israel’s at-tacks. That being said, I do feel that as an American, it is proper to explore what role the United States should have in the Israel-Gaza conflict.

I will speak for myself in saying that I occasionally find pro-Israel activism to be solely the disproof of particularly potent, false anti-Israel claims. I do not wish to address any of these claims, just to simply discern what INFORMED American position is most pro-America and most pro-Israel.

Whether or not it is better than the alternative, Israeli strikes come at great cost. Often the strikes have col-lateral damage, killing, injuring, or damaging the property of innocent Gazan civilians. Israeli strikes have shown to grow Hamas support among Palestin-ians, and based on Cast Lead the world opinion will precipitously side against Israel at the whiff of Israe-li aggression. This reality raises the question whether Israel is deserving of the previously mentioned con-sequences, or if the collateral damage is Hamas’ re-sponsibility. The classic response is to raise the issue that Hamas uses human shields. Does this entirely absolve Israel? Perhaps it does in the case where rockets are stored underground beneath residencies. But consider a Hamas operative commuting- if he uses public roads, is he responsible for endangering the public? If a Hamas operative lives and has lived in a densely populated area, as much of Gaza is, does Israel have the green light to send a missile into his house? The IDF certainly is not considered liable for rockets sent into say, Tel Aviv, but IDF soldiers there meld with the civilian population. At the very least, there are situations in which the blame for the collateral damage is fuzzy.

Perhaps Israel shares responsibility for Palestinian casualties, but without moral issue due to the neces-sary nature of each strike. This is to say that the

2

collateral damage is necessary for the mission’s suc-cess, or that in each strike the absolute minimum amount of collateral damage occurred. To Israel’s credit, she has made decisions to cancel missions be-cause of high collateral damage. However, north of 3000 non-combatants have been killed in Gaza since 2000, and over a third of those casualties were chil-dren. For comparison, less people died in the 9/11 attacks. Again, I am not questioning Israel’s deci-sions, just recognizing that Israeli attacks are awful, unfortunate responses, not solutions. As I see it, and it appears the Obama administration holds the same opinion, the only acceptable choice is an end to fighting.

America has many vested interests in the conflict. Is-rael’s strength and security translate into the influ-ence America and democracy have in the region, as well as support in preventing a nuclear Iran. America would also like to see a global community opinion not far from her own, but worldwide support for Is-rael drops with each strike and would drop steeply were a ground invasion to occur. Since long-lasting peace does not seem viable at this moment, the best way to stop fighting and keep global support is with a working ceasefire. America now supports the in-stallment of democracy in Egypt, and if Morsi can prove to also work in the interest of peace, that is a big win for America. All of the U.S.’s diplomacy seems to portray these interests, down to America making sure that Egypt took the leading role in the ceasefire agreement.

The controversy exists in whether what is best for America is also what is best for Israel; and it would seem so. America has backed Israel’s right to protect itself, while urging against a ground invasion: a re-minder that if the operation is not necessary, it is not good for anyone. America pushing Egypt to broker the ceasefire might have been no more than good press for Americans, but it is far more substantial for Israel. It creates trust that Egypt is reliable to choose democracy over destruction, as opposed to the fear many had and some will continue to have, that the Muslim Brotherhood is for the dismantling of Israel. So I commend our current administration for a su-perb handling of the recent Israel-Gaza conflict.

RamPost Volume I, Issue Two November/December 2012

12

1

By David Schwerdt ‘13 “This is my last election. After my election I’ll have more flexibility.” – This is a direct quote from Presi-dent Obama before the election, which he intended to say secretly to the former Russian president, but was accidently picked up by a microphone and sub-sequently leaked to the public. As we look to the fu-ture of our country, particularly Obama’s next four years in office, we ask ourselves what exactly this “flexibility” entails. In my opinion, the bulk of evi-dence seems to point to negative consequences re-sulting from the Obama victory, and that perhaps the immediate future of American government is not necessarily one to be excited for. Now that he's been elected to a second term, the President no longer needs to be worried about main-taining popularity. His actions will be less restrained than they were in his first term. President Obama now has the ability to issue executive orders and by-pass Congress without electoral repercussion. In-deed, he has frequently promised to do so. This most likely will lead to a rapid growth in executive influ-ence and power, which can have very negative polit-ical effects, and perhaps jeopardize our American principles of checks and balances. Let’s start with government expansion, most nota-bly, healthcare. ObamaCare, as it currently stands, is

2

likely not the end of the president’s plans for healthcare. This enlarged degree of government con-trol on healthcare could have serious consequences. In addition, the president will, in effect, change the law in favor of illegal immigrants by executive fiat, and through inter-agency directives. Many political analysts have pointed out his plans to grant de facto amnesty for millions of illegals. Specifically, he de-fines a member of a ‘vulnerable population’ (who is given special status) as any immigrant who has a salary, which includes many illegal immigrants who live in America. The president also might plan to take away border patrol power and set more limits on their ability to stop the inflow of illegal immi-grants. The Obama administration, at the beginning of the first term, promised to have a 13% increase over America’s 2008 GDP by 2012, yet the actual growth rate was much less. Just as his first term provided no significant recovery, Obama’s second term could prove equally unfulfilling for the economy. Obama, has added trillions of dollars to the national debt, and, in his pursuit of “economic fairness,” will likely continue to do so. And, instead of cutting frivolous government spending, he has specified his desire to continue to slash necessary military spending. In-

deed, the first term was only the beginning of the-se cuts. Obama has called for a 20% slash of ground and air force budgets.

From all this and more, I’m certainly afraid there is cause to worry about our president’s next term in office. Hopefully, how-ever, president Obama will change his course of action and lead America.

The Next Four Years: Looking Ahead


13

Predicting Election 2016

1

By Eddie Mattout ‘15 Even though the 2012 election was just decided, it's never too early to start looking ahead to the next presidential election. On the Democrat side, they’ll have the challenge of finding a legitimate successor to the first black president in US history. Vice President Joe Biden told reporters that he hadn’t cast a vote for himself for the final time in yesterday’s election. Biden, now 69, will be 73 by the time of the 2016 election, which would make him the oldest person elected to the presidency if he were to win. Still, Biden is an elder statesman of the party, and, if Obama ends his second term on a pop-ular note, Biden could be seen as a logical extension of the administration for four additional years. Hillary Clinton can be seen as another possible dem-ocratic candidate. The former Senator and Secretary of State has name recognition from her own distin-guished career and from her marriage to former President Bill Clinton. A third possible candidate for the democrats is our very own Andrew Cuomo. As governor, he has championed liberal social causes, legalizing same-sex marriage despite a Republican-controlled state Senate. Also, he showed fiscally conservative bona fides, resisting raising taxes and making cuts to balance the state budget.

2

On the Republican side, things are not certain either. While Mr. Romney has hinted all along that he would not run again for the presidency, his vice- presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, is only 42. While Ryan failed in his quest for the vice-presidency, he did retain his seat in the House of Representatives. Ryan is popular with a younger segment of the Re-publican Party and could well be a candidate in 2016. Chris Christie, the New Jersey Governor, is another potential candidate in 2016. Christie is popular with independents and is known for fiercely speaking his mind. A third, less recognized candidate, could very well be Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State under George Bush. Rice, who had been somewhat on the political sidelines prior to this year’s Republican Na-tional Convention, jumped back into national promi-nence with a popular speech at the convention. A fourth possible Republican candidate can be the Florida Senator, Marco Rubio. Just 41 years old and of Cuban descent, Rubio serves the face of a more diverse Republican party. He awed crowds earlier in 2012, both at the Conservative Political Action Con-ference and the Republican National Convention. Nonetheless, the 2016 election is still four years away.

Hillary Clinton

www.wikipedia.org

Chris Christie

www.wikipedia.org

Marco Rubio

www.wikipedia.org


14

Letter to the Editor: Dr. Jon Jucovy, History Dept. Chair

1

This is a response to the David Schwerdt article in the last RamPost opposing the Affordable Health Care Act (ObamaCare). David has done a very fine job of repeating talking points and bullet points found on the Internet on Republican web sites, such as RomneyHealthcare.com. My response is not a de-fense of the AHCA. Nor am I attempting to weigh the advantages or disadvantages of the AHCA or the Romney Massachusetts Health Plan. Rather, I would like respond to the misrepresentations, misunder-standings and outright falsehoods made by David in his article. First of all, I take issue with two debate tactics that David used to introduce his article. He refers to ru-mors about the Obama and Romney healthcare plans. I am not sure why David is beating around the bush with the use of the term rumors. The state-ments that have been made about the two programs are publically available. I suspect that David uses the term “rumors” as a tactic to convey an aura of some-thing mysterious and insidious. Then there is Da-vid’s use of the straw man tactic. He makes the ex-traordinary claim that some supporters of the AHCA claim that it created an ideal healthcare system. I challenge David to find ONE person in America who has described Obama's plan as IDEAL Its sup-porters, including the president, merely assert that the plan is the best solution to an alarming crisis in American health care that can be achieved in the present political circumstances. Of course, by mak-ing the false assertion that some people believe that this imperfect plan is “ideal,” David sets up an ar-gument that no one makes and that can be easily contradicted. That is a straw man argument. David also engages in statistical sleights of hand: He asserts that 1/3 of doctors won't accept patients any longer as a result of the AHCA. But, contra David,, that does not mean that 1/3 of patients won't any longer have doctors. First of all, this has not hap-pened yet and is mere speculation. There is no rea-son to believe this hypothetical situation will take ef-fect. At present, any doctor can choose to accept or not accept insurance. ObamaCare provides MORE people with insurance coverage. Suppose someone

2

has insurance and seeks a doctor now. He finds one. The doctor accepts the insurance company payment as her fee. ObamaCare does not change that. Suppose that someone has no insurance now and is poor. They go to a doctor. The doctor will not take them as a patient unless the person contracts to pay or pays up front. If you were a doctor, whom would you be more likely to take as patient? Some-one who is poor and has no insurance? OR someone who is poor and HAS insurance? (If you answered the latter, you just demolished David's argument). Second of all, David neglects the obvious possibility that some doctors will pick up the slack. Third of all, each doctor does not see proportional numbers of patients (1% of doctors do not see 1% of tients). So to make a bald assertion that reducing the number of doctors by 1/3 will reduce the number of treated patients by 1/3 is not statistically rate. But the most egregious part of this entire ar-gument is that the scientific study that David refer-ences never happened. For a thorough debunking of the "study" that this statistic is based on, please con-sult http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/03/17/media-falsely-attribute-doctor-survey-to-new-en/161783. David goes on to object to the $716 billion cuts to Medicare because the system is already trillions in debts. David is being misleading with this argu-ment, but he also seems to have some trouble with math. First of all, these cuts take place over 10 years and that bears mentioning, as it is less dramatic than a one-time immediate cut. Second of all, David is referring to cuts to spending. When spending goes down, debts (deficits) go down. So the word "al-ready" creates a false impression that this will in-crease the Medicare deficit. Additionally, if the tril-lions of dollars of debt is bad, then saving money is ordinarily regarded as a wise choice. Does David want the deficit to go up? Thirdly, and most im-portantly, David’s claim that the system has a debt is false! Medicare is funded in two parts. Part A is funded through a Medicare tax. Part A is fully fund-ed (revenues and existing balances) until 2024. (continued on page 15)


15

3

(continued from page 14-Jucovy) In other words, at present, the Medicare Fund has enough money to cover all its costs. AFTER 2024, revenues will still cover 90% of costs. But that has not happened yet and at present the system does NOT have a deficit (spending over revenues and funds)! Further, Part B is funded by individual in-surance payments (anyone who signs up for Part B Medicare pays a premium) and general revenues. It cannot have a debt. It is fully funded by the gov-ernment. This is like arguing that the US army is trillions in debt because it has not dedicated fund to pay its costs. But its costs are paid by general reve-nues. To repeat, David's point (presumably that Obama will increase Medicare debt) is not only mis-leading, it is outright false. Turning to the issue of opt-outs and contraceptive coverage, David is entitled to believe that the gov-ernment should impose the moral values of Catho-lics, among other religious groups, on others. I do not believe the argument needs to be responded to, beyond noting that in a free society, government does not impose the religious practices of one group on others. Thankfully, the AHCA permits individu-als to choose to make their own decisions about such matters and does not privilege any religious group. Concerning the numbers of uninsured that David brings up, estimates now are that 23 million Ameri-cans will remain uninsured (not 30 million). David was, perhaps, including illegal immigrants and other non-citizens in his estimate. Is he suggesting that we should provide medical insurance for these people? Among the most trite criticisms that was made of the AHCA was that it has more pages than Rom-neyCare. Is this a serious point? America also has more people than Massachusetts. Is the value of a law to be determined by its length? David claims that Obama's plan raises taxes $500 billion. David is incorrect. The total tax revenues are estimated to be $370 billion. And this is OVER TEN YEARS. Not quite as impressively scary. I should add that the revenues and costs of the plan will SAVE the Government money. But David was criticizing the plan for piling on debts. This is the opposite of what will happen. And, once again,

4

what does David want? In one case, he denounces deficits. In another case, he denounces steps to cut deficits. This inconsistency is the hallmark of an ar-gument that does not try to arrive at some truth, but just to win an argument. It is pure sophistry. The details of RomneyCare are not given in this arti-cle, just the claim that it is market driven. I am not sure what he means by that, since he did not bother to explain. David praises the success of the RomneyCare for leaving only 6% of the Massachusetts population un-insured. ObamaCare leaves 8% uninsured. Does David seriously think that this is a big difference? He praises RomneyCare for not costing money and not raising Mass. taxes. That is true, because Mas-sachusetts asked for and got money from the federal government (guess whose taxes would need to go up as a result?). Obama’s plan will also get money from the Federal Government (it is a federal plan). In other words, both plans get funded from the same source. RomneyCare establishes a board to determine insurance coverage, benefits. So does ObamaCare. And how is this a market solution? RomneyCare creates insurance exchanges. So does ObamaCare. RomneyCare penalizes those who don't buy insurance. So does ObamaCare. RomneyCare penalizes companies who don't buy insurance. So does ObamaCare. One major difference between the two plans that went unmentioned is that RomneyCare has no cost control mechanism and medical costs in Massachu-setts have risen faster than projected when the plan was passed. The AHCA does have cost control mechanisms to keep healthcare costs under control. The issue of American healthcare is one that touches upon every American. Designing a system that pro-vides affordable and reliable health care should be a goal that all Americans share. There are many pathways that have been suggested and pursued to achieve that goal. The issue is far too important to dismiss with a misleading, poorly researched article that seems more concerned with winning an argu-ment than uncovering the facts that would enable an informed citizenry make informed decisions.


16

Post Election Puzzle

RamPost is a nonpartisan and bipartisan editorial, and is the publi-cation of the Ramaz Politics Society (RamPo). All views expressed are the views 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

Amram Altzman ’13

Shoshana Edelman ’14

Daniel Gutkind ’16

Noam Kaplan ’16

Zach Klein ’14

Aaron Kohl ’13

Noam Kornsgold ’13

Jacob Margolis ’13

Eddie Mattout ’15

David Schwerdt ’13

Faculty Advisor:

Mr. Hillel Rapp

Answer:

Congratulations to President Obama

By Dan Korff-Korn `14

Documents

RamPost Volume I, Issue Two