When Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown takes office later this month, he will give his party back the crucial forty-first senator needed to block any unwanted votes on legislation. His victory in the Massachusetts special election finally hands the Republican congressional minority a real voice in the legislative process for the first time since Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania defected to the Democrats last April. Even President Obama acknowledged the Republicans’ new power in his State of the Union address last week, telling the opposition that if they “insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.”

Yet the president’s challenge to Republican leadership meant next to nothing in terms of actually generating bipartisan support for his partisan policies. Instead, he sought to launch a preemptive strike in the blame game already playing out to decide whom voters ultimately will hold responsible for Congress’s record in the November elections. With the near-universal healthcare plan, the cap-and-trade legislation aimed at fighting global warming, and other key initiatives now facing likely failure or at least significant reduction in scope, Democrats hope to blame Republicans for the lack of major legislation this year.

With all due respect, however, I believe President Obama has it all wrong. Rather than blaming Scott Brown and the Republicans for gridlock, we ought to thank them for at least temporarily slowing the political sausage-making machine. Regardless of Obamacare’s propriety, its legislative history has been embarrassing. From the Democratic negotiations with healthcare corporations hoping to making even more profit by getting in on the deal to the special treatment included for Louisiana and Nebraska to secure the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, respectively, the appearance of corruption and insider deals marked every step in Obamacare’s progression from lofty campaign promise to the House and Senate bills. As for the president’s audacious campaign pledge to open healthcare negotiations up to the public, or at least the political junkies, by broadcasting the sessions on C-SPAN, the Democratic leaders now seem to believe that industry and union lobbyists and Democratic politicians represent our interests, so the people apparently don’t need to actually see the great ones at work.

Besides angering conservatives and many independents, the Democrats also disgusted and disappointed some genuine progressives, who watched their priorities, such as a separate floor vote on universal healthcare and a meaningful public option to compete with the corporate health plans, die in the negotiations. The corporations and Democratic political insiders, along with the Democratic leadership itself, have thus far succeeded in manipulating and defeating the people power movement of hope which gave the Democrats the presidency and the largest congressional majorities in decades. Likewise, the “Tea Party” movement, itself an angrier version of people power, may well sweep the Republicans into Congress this fall only to discover just how quickly the Republican power players manage to crush their anti-government dreams.

The healthcare reform process reveals the structural weaknesses of representative democracy, which remains what British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill called “the worst form of government except for all those other forms.” The voters arguably hold their representatives accountable in elections, but congresspersons rarely face serious reelection competition and can use their connections to raise significant amounts of money to fight off any legitimate challengers who emerge. Whether “conservative” George W. Bush or “liberal” Barack H. Obama sits in the Oval Office, and whether a Republican or Democrat holds the House Speaker’s gavel, the political realities remain the same. Most voters don’t have the time or interest to effectively organize, while the bureaucrats of Big Government and the lobbyists of Big Business and Big Labor have a much easier time making their voices heard. This fundamental collective action problem undermines democracy’s ability to represent the people and maintain limits on government power.

With the State’s machinery gridlocked through the 2012 elections, perhaps we can actually voluntarily work together to address our problems. President Obama and many of his Republican opponents operate on the simple premise, usually left unstated, that only the government can address major problems such as healthcare and so, despite the problems with special interests, we should rely on the government to fix healthcare, banking, the BCS, and anything other industries or activities important to us. By channeling our aspirations through the State’s system of control, we lose hope in our ability to meaningfully and concretely act on the status quo through our own consumption choices, boycotts, and voluntary organizations. The combination of political gridlock and voluntary action will not magically solve our problems, but it has to be better than waiting on our political would-be messiahs.

Popularity: 1% [?]

After multiple deadline extensions, Michigan’s governor, Jennifer Granholm, signed the newly proposed “Budget for Higher Education” bill. The bill contains legislation that will leave nearly 96,000 students scrambling to finance their college education.

The Michigan Promise Scholarship (Michigan’s Broken Promise as it has come to be known) and its predecessor, the Michigan Merit Scholarship, have been providing important financial aid to in-state Michigan students who show exemplary performance in high school on statewide standardized testing. This financial aid was provided under the conditions that the student was a Michigan high school graduate attending an in-state institution. The assistance totaled $4,000 per student in $1,000 installments the first two years and the balance paid after the completion of the second year. This program also provided assistance to students pursuing their associate’s degree.

Since mid-summer the Michigan Congress has been quarreling with the Governor’s office over the future of the Promise Scholarship. To many, the program was seen as a necessary cut to help fight Michigan’s ever-growing deficit. Governor Granholm, who signed the Promise Scholarship into existence, was reluctant to see it cut. “It’s upsetting that the education programs are the ones getting cut,” Christie Scott a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences, and Michigan native said.  “I’m afraid that this will be a defining moment, for those students, in their relationship with the government; one that will breed mistrust.” Scott, who had considered attending University of Michigan, expressed relief at the same time. “If I had chosen to go to U of M, I would be in the same situation that so many of my friends are in now.”

While programs like the Promise only help students who remain in their respective state, many students here could be facing the very same problems. Of the 10,000+ students on Marquette’s campus, a very high percentage rely on some sort of financial aid, be it federal, state or privately sponsored. What kind of cuts, in Wisconsin or across the nation, could affect our nationally diverse student body? At an institution like Marquette, losing any amount of financial assistance could result in disenrollment.

Some students will have to move to smaller, less expensive schools, at the cost of quality in their education. Others may be forced to drop out altogether, in hopes that they will be able to pay off any other loans they had taken out under the pretense of having financial aid. “Earlier in the year I found out that some of my expected aid would not be available. I was extremely lucky to find a grant that kept me here at Marquette,” said Scott.

As Wisconsin begins to look at its own growing deficit, could Michigan’s Broken Promise prove to be a bitter foreshadowing of what is to come? State officials have stood behind their collegiate scholars with bold slogans boasting, “Wisconsin values education – even in tough times.” The fact, however, is that the recent budget saw many cuts to the state’s K-12 school districts and, while  financial aid spending for technical colleges saw minimal increase, there’s no telling what could happen in 2011.  With other states, such as Ohio and Illinois, resorting to similar education and scholarship cuts, it puts into whether the state of Wisconsin could be next.

Popularity: 2% [?]

On Tuesday April 14, President Barack Obama delivered an economic and general policy speech in Georgetown University’s Gaston Hall.

Although the President’s economic policy is controversial, to those familiar with Gaston Hall, something else seemed slightly off. In a move that came as more or less (depending on how much you know about Georgetown University) of a shock, Georgetown University officials decided to comply with the White House request to cover up the gold IHS symbol and cross adorning the stage where the President gave his speech.

??a?a?? ?????a???? ????? ????? ????????

IHS, simply translated, is the first three letters of Jesus’ name in Greek. It has also been associated with Iesus Hominum Salvator, or Jesus savior of humanity, and with the Jesuits in the United States.

In what seems to be their official stance on the issue, Georgetown Associate Vice President Julie Green Bataille responded to multiple news agencies by saying “the White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they’ve done for other policy speeches. Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context.”
The University covered the IHS and cross symbol with a triangular piece of ply board painted black.

????? ???? ????????

The Washington Times’ Belief Blog published a response from Catholic University of America spokesperson Viktor Nakas.

Nakas said, “I can’t imagine, as the bishops’ university and the national university of the Catholic Church, that we would ever cover up our religious art or signage for any reason. Our Catholic faith is integral to our identity as an institution of higher education.”

Patrick Reilly, President of the Cardinal Newman Society, a large national Catholic organization, said, “It is such a sad commentary that Catholic universities are willingly hiding the most visible signs of their Catholic identity when hosting secular leaders.”

??????? ?????????? ????????? ???????

Georgetown University did not cover the dozens of other religious images present in Gaston Hall, just the two directly behind the President. The black ply board remained covering the name of Jesus for over a day after the event ended.

It is yet to be seen whether or not President Obama will wear the official graduation garb at the University of Notre Dame when he receives his honorary degree. The gown has references to Mary, as well as prayers and crosses on it.

Popularity: 6% [?]

In late April of 2007, then-Senators Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and Senator Barbara Boxer re-introduced overarching Federal legislation to reinforce the importance of Roe vs. Wade.

The Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA, as it is referred to, would effectively protect the right to abortion in the case of the Supreme Court ruling being overturned. The Bill has come to light again since the election of President Obama, especially since he carried the majority of the Catholic vote.

In a speech to Planned Parenthood while on the campaign trail last year, President Obama made a promise, “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”

Prior to President Obama’s inauguration, Cardinal Justin Rigali, in a letter to Congress, commented that the legislation would essentially make abortion a “national entitlement.” Those in opposition to the legislation, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, urged Americans to pray novenas for the unborn and in response to the impending legislation on January 11. This call for prayer led to an enormous amount of criticism from non-Catholics and Democrats in the legislative branch.

According to Cardinal Rigali, FOCA “would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.” According to the USCCB, “The church is resolute in opposing evil,” and the bishops are “completely united and resolute in our teaching and defense of the unborn child from the moment of conception.”

Under current legislation, doctors, nurses and hospitals have what is called a conscience right to deny performing an abortion. FOCA could require any doctor, nurse or hospital to perform an abortion. Even more startling, it would provide taxpayer-funded abortions as a fundamental right.

Many Catholic hospitals have spoken out against the passing of FOCA, and Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago said, “It could mean discontinuing obstetrics in our hospitals, and we may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely,” Paprocki said. “It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions. That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil.”

In a statement of policy and analysis from the USCCB, according to FOCA, “it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child [and] to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability.” Under existing case law, abortion is not a “fundamental right.”

According to the USCCB, if passed, “FOCA would like to invalidate a broad range of state laws, including:

Invalidation of informed consent laws
Invalidation of laws protection the conscience rights of doctors, nurses and hospitals
Invalidation of parental notification laws
Abortion clinic regulations, even those designed to make abortion safer for women
Invalidation of government programs and facilities that pay for, or insure childbirth or health care services excluding abortion
Invalidation of laws preventing the carrying to term of a cloned human embryo (sometimes known as bans on reproductive cloning).

If you are strongly opposed to the passing of FOCA, make sure to write to your Congressperson, Senator, pray the novena and check out the petition online.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Last week we saw the Federal Reserve taking greater steps to try and stem the tide of economic decline here in the United States. Interestingly, we also saw central banks around the world taking similar actions, with China and Norway cutting rates along with the United States.

It is also interesting to note that the Federal Reserve did not consider high inflationary pressures as a concern while cutting rates. It was the first time in months that inflation was not mentioned. Immediately following the rate cut, we saw the Dow Jones gain almost 300 points and the Nikkei up almost 3.5 percent. The Fed also indicated that there would be more rate cuts to come, saying “the downside risks to growth remain.”

What does all of this mean? Does the Federal Reserve really have any control over the stock market? How can rate cuts here affect the Nikkei index in Asia? What rates are we cutting? And who is this Ben Bernanke character? With rates approaching historic lows and the economy still on a slide, we at The Warrior thought it would be a good time to educate our readers on what exactly the Federal Reserve does.
Let’s start with rates. The Federal Reserve has direct control over two rates; the federal funds rate and the interest rate. The federal funds rate is the rate at which private depository institutions can lend federal funds to each other overnight. Banks are required to maintain a certain level of federal funds at the Federal Reserve. In essence, this rate is the rate at which banks can trade federal funds overnight with each other.

The actual rate is determined by the market; the rate the Fed sets is the target rate. The Fed will try and align the target rate with the actual rate by adding or subtracting from the money supply.

The interest rate is the rate at which banks and private depository institutions can borrow from the Federal Reserve. This rate generally follows exactly with the federal funds rate, but at 100 basis points (1 percentage point) above. This encourages private institutions to seek all other forms of borrowing before coming to the Federal Reserve.

So what? What does any of this have to do with the stock market? The amount of money in the economy and the availability of that money to consumers has a direct impact on consumer confidence and spending.

If banks are not encouraged to lend money to consumers, consumers will have less money to spend. If consumers have less money to spend, there will be less of a demand for many goods. Lower demand equals lower prices. Lower prices are good in a robust economy, but when people are looking for work it’s not such a good thing. So the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates when the economy is in a slow down.
You might be asking, what’s the downside to cutting rate? Well, if banks are encouraged to lend money, more consumers will have money. Take the train of thought in the above paragraph and reverse it; you’ll end up with higher prices at the end. Inflation is the major downside, and it’s something the Fed watches closely.

Now that you have a better understanding of how the Federal Reserve works, you can apply it to your life. Keep an eye on what the Fed is doing; it will have a direct effect on your life now and after graduation.

Popularity: 10% [?]

With November 4th drawing closer, campaign and election news has continued to intensify. In their fight for Wisconsin’s ten electoral votes, both major candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, have made frequent trips to the state. Campaign events have intensified right here on Marquette’s campus as well, with both sides reaching out to get the student body informed and involved. With the renewed voter excitement seen in the past few elections, more students than ever have an opinion about the candidates and are concerned with the election’s outcome.

For Marquette students who do not agree wholeheartedly with either candidate’s positions, there is hope. Coincidentally, this hope stems from a man who speaks of the feeling quite frequently: Barack Obama. In previous elections, support from one of the two major parties has been a requirement for a successful campaign. However, Barack Obama’s campaign took a truly revolutionary approach to campaigning, and found it successful. The risks he has taken on and the strategies he has employed have certainly helped him in his bid for presidency, but they have also opened up new corridors for future nontraditional, third-party candidates. By examining the steps Barack Obama takes in this election cycle, future third-party candidates can set themselves up for a successful campaign.

Obama’s historic campaign began with his victory in the Democratic primary. In early 2007, Hillary Clinton announced she would seek the party’s nomination. Although few then would say Clinton had the nomination in the bag, she certainly had many traditional advantages over Barack Obama. With over $100 million in funds for campaigning, Clinton was a well-known political figure and name in both the democratic party and amongst the general public, and at the start of the year, had the support of almost 100 super delegates.

Obama’s campaign centered on building a network of supporters. He realized he lacked many of the Clinton campaign’s resources and would have to build a network from the ground up. Furthermore, not only did he successfully establish this network, he did it cheaply. First, his campaign made sure Obama was freely accessible over the internet, not just via his campaign site, but by posting whole videos of his speeches or messages on sites like YouTube, which allows viewers to leave messages or respond with their own videos, enhancing interaction. Potential voters, who had for so long felt cheated by the minute sound bytes they heard on network broadcasting, could now listen to Barack Obama’s full message to their heart’s content. Obama created a transparency in his message that allowed voters to begin to trust and believe in him by using cheap methods, readily available to all future candidates.
Kathleen Scott, a junior in the College of Communications said, “I don’t think I would get this involved in another campaign. I’m drawn to politics, but I think that this is a really unique election for young voters because he [Obama] is so accessible to us.” Obama has been able to gain the trust and organize support of voters at an unprecedented speed, and their continued support stems from the feelings that they are invested in the campaign’s outcome. “I feel like his accessibility is the basis of his whole campaign; he makes everyone a part of it. Even if you do the smallest thing, making phone calls and such, it gives everyone an empowering part. And that’s one of the key things in his campaign, empowerment and empowering people to feel like they have an actual role,” Scott said.

Certainly, those deeply involved in any candidates campaign feel invested in the outcome of an election, but this sense of investment permeates almost all of Obama’s supporters. This sense of owernship stems from Obama’s fundamental message to voters. His message is not laced with the traditional promises of what Barack Obama is going to do for America. Rather is it full of proclamations about what Americans are going to do for America. His campaign promise is not “Yes, I Barack Obama, Can”, it is “Yes We Can.” Says Elizabeth Bailey, a junior in the College of Health Sciences and Obama volunteer, “The campaign officers are big on the volunteers owning the campaign.”

Obama’s supporters are so deeply involved in his campaign that any attack on Obama seems more of an attack on the whole campaign, on each of it’s collective members. Thus the criticism is distinctly personal, and Obama supporters react accordingly. In both the democratic primary and the general election, this sense of ownership has proven extremely beneficial, allowing him to deflect criticisms which might have otherwise brought down his entire campaign.

Obama has shown future candidates exactly how to overcome all of the so-called advantages that the two major parties bestow on their nominees. In the upcoming elections, candidates able to recognize and employ Obama’s strategies on their own behalf might not need the support of either major party. Marquette students currently disenchanted by both major-party candidates may find themselves with significantly more options in future elections.

Popularity: 10% [?]

This past Friday afternoon, President Bush set a historic precedent when he signed into law the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The bill, referred to by many as the “bailout bill”, is the culmination of two weeks of bipartisan work in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It allows the federal government to purchase up to 700 billion dollars worth of troubled assets, specifically mortgaged-backed securities, in hopes of stabilizing the economy and improving investor confidence. Ultimately, the government hopes to resell the purchased assets at a profit ensuring, according to President Bush, that “the cost to taxpayers will be far less than the initial outlay.”

But what exactly is “far less” than $700 billion? And as a Marquette student, who does not own a home nor have significant amounts of money invested in freefalling stocks, you may ask yourself, why am I being asked to pay to stabilize a situation in which I seem to have so little invested?

Many students at Marquette recognize the transient nature of their residence in Milwaukee, so they rent apartments, rather than purchase homes. They take on demanding course loads, which leaves few students time enough to maintain full-time employment. The lack of a full-time job certainly leaves most students without an excessive amount of disposable income, but it also means that they don’t have life savings, our future children’s college funds or our own retirement funds tied up in plummeting stocks.

So, as someone who is not watching their home value decline or their life savings evaporate, as someone who could have very well continued on with daily life oblivious to any sort of fluctuation in the stock market, turning on the television and hearing President Bush proclaim that America was in an economic “crisis” seemed a bit dramatic. Few Marquette students, if any, were glued to the television as the bailout bill was debated in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and very few singled out the bill as their sole topic of conversation. Blame what some students and faculty refer to as the ‘Marquette bubble’, but around campus, there did not seem to be an extreme amount of concern for recent economic events, and certainly nothing approaching panic.

However, the contents of this bill and the precedents its passage has set are of grave importance for all Americans. Never before have taxpayers been asked to become so deeply involved in the events of Wall Street. To many Americans, intense government participation in the private business sector seems fundamentally against the principles of capitalism upon which this country’s economic system are founded. Yet this bill forces all Americans to become invested, through their tax dollars, in the fates of private businesses, and in doing so sets a dangerous precedent for future levels of government involvement in the private business sector.

Most Marquette students are at the mere dawn of their tax-paying careers; for many, their investment in the federal government will only increase. With the federal government long operating in the red, the passage of an additional $700 billion bill adds further burden to the already unenviable position of young American taxpayers. However, the real issue is not the $700 billion check that Congress just forced taxpayers to sign. Unfortunately, this piece of legislature is a mere symptom of some fundamental problems in this country’s economic system.
According to Dr. Abdur R. Chowdhury, professor of economics in Marquette’s College of Business Administration, the current economic problems were created by inadequate regulation of private businesses. “It started with the housing market. Lenders gave out mortgage loans without looking at buyers income or wealth.” And although there were laws that regulated the actions of these lenders, “…they were never effectively enforced.” Thus many Americans were approved for loans on homes that they could not really afford. The lack of oversight allowed lenders to make these risky loans, which lead to an increase in demand for mortgages and an apparent increase in property value.

However, most lenders knew and chose to ignore the fact that the recipients of their loans would not be able to pay them back. These lenders accumulated millions of risky mortgages and used falsely inflated property values to back up the assets of many non-housing related companies. Many unqualified buyers soon began to default on their loans, increasing the number of foreclosures. Property values began to decline as more and more homes became available, leaving many homeowners owing more on their mortgage than their house was actually worth.
Furthermore, the investments backed by these mortgages began to collapse and affect assets of non-housing related companies, such as Lehman Brothers and AIG. The decline of mortgage-backed assets has drastically decreased these firms’ capital and liquidity. Across the country, banks have become wary of lending money and often impose extremely high interest rates on the loans that they do grant. The recent sudden withdrawal of credit has paralyzed businesses that rely on daily credit use, and driven many into bankruptcy. The entire financial institution is currently taking the hit for the reckless business strategies of mortgage lenders. The federal government has tried to remedy the situation by buying up the mortgage-basked assets from banks. This will release banks from their ties to these impaired assets and hopefully encourage further lending between banks to eventually stabilize the financial market. Ultimately, the sheer enormity of the $700 billion bailout bill is indicative of just how grave America’s economic troubles have become. To Americans heavily invested in the fate of the market system, the bill still does little to soothe the well-founded fears about their investments. To every American, the passage of this bill should drive home the message that this country’s future economic security is far from guaranteed.

Though many Marquette students are not part of the group that is heavily invested in the fate of the market, we will still see the effects of the current economic situation in many different areas. Marquette students nearing graduation will enter a job market drastically different from just five or ten years ago.

According to Chowdhury, “Business firms have been affected by the lack of liquidity. Firms will take on a waiting attitude; they will not invest, expand, hire.” Indeed, a government report issued last Friday reveals that September was the ninth straight month of job loss in the United States, and the largest monthly job decline in the past five years. This means that unemployment rates, already at 6.1%, will likely continue to rise. For companies looking to scale down their budgets, paid internships are usually the first things to get cut. That means many of the jobs Marquette students held last summer might not be available come this May, or might not be paid positions. Marquette seniors graduating this year will likely find themselves entering a job market with fewer opportunities and far more competition. This trend will also affect graduates applying to graduate school; as fewer people are able to find jobs, more and more will choose to go back to school, increasing competition for entry into the school, for scholarships and for grants.

One of the more immediate and most relevant concerns for many Marquette students will center on student loans. Recently, there has been a drastic decrease in the market’s liquidity. This means that banks are unable to or are extremely cautious about lending money, which is typical behavior in a recession. As credit institutions become increasingly wary of lending money, the opportunities for funding student loans diminishes. Students receive either federal loans, such as a Stafford or a Perkins Loan, or private loans, from private banks or companies such as Astrive Student Loans and Sallie Mae. Of the two, private loan institutions are the first to be affected by changes in the market. The federal government does not guarantee these private loans, so banks run the risk of students defaulting on their loans. Companies like Sallie Mae, which grants both private and federally backed loans, grant private loans by borrowing money from other investors and lend that money out to students. The companies make a profit when students pay back their loans plus interest.

However, with less money available for lending, there is widespread fear that the initial rate at which these companies borrow money will be higher than what they will earn from lending this money out to students. Investors in these private companies are becoming increasingly unconvinced that companies like Sallie Mae will be able to turn a profit, and thus increasingly unwilling to invest in them. Indeed, Sallie Mae reported over 1.5 billion dollars in losses at the end of last year and, despite a stronger performance this year, has still watched its market value plummet over 50 percent in the past four months. To address these investors’ fears and the financial losses these companies have experienced over the past months, many companies such as Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo have made large cuts in the number of student loans they grant, or have stopped making private student loans entirely. The companies that continue to grant students private loans are raising interest rates and tightening restrictions on which applicants receive loans, decisions that will no doubt affect Marquette students who rely on private loans.

However, even Marquette students who rely on federal, not private, loans to assist them in paying for tuition may eventually feel the effects of the nation’s economic situation. These federal loans are far more common than private loans. In some cases, the loans that Marquette students receive passes directly from the federal government to the university and then to the student. In 75 percent of cases, students receiving a federal student loan receive a second type of loan, one that is funded by private capital and made available through private companies such as JP Morgan Chase or Citibank. However, the federal government guarantees these loans, so banks assume no risk of student default. Furthermore, the federal government guarantees the interest rate on these loans, so any change in the rate would require a change in federal law. This further removes their interest rates from influence of the market, and makes it less likely that student with federal loans will see increased rates. Last year, Congress approved legislation to secure money for federal student loans through the 2009-2010 academic year, so students relying on these loans appear to be safe for now. However, if the national trend of decreased capital availability continues, even federal loan lenders could find themselves unable to secure money for student loans. For Marquette students with federal loans who will not graduate before July 2010, the fate of the federal loan program remains an issue.

The recession will undoubtedly be felt right here on campus as well. Many states are already trimming down educational costs by cutting courses, programs and other student activities. As a private university, many of these government cuts will not have an effect on Marquette. However, that does not mean the university will not be influenced by market changes. On the contrary, Marquette’s status as a private university requires that it rely heavily on private donations. Though many of the large donations that we hear about—the $25 million and $50 million donations to the engineering college this past year, for example—are made in anonymity, it is important to remember that these donors are not just nameless entities, infinitely wealthy and impervious to economic changes. They are real people, Marquette alumni and friends, and their gifts create the experiences that all current Marquette students share. Their donations cover the 38 percent of the cost of education not covered by yearly tuition. They have created and continue to sustain scholarships like the Raynor and Ignatius Scholarship, as well as Marquette’s student-athlete scholarships. These donations also contribute to campus safety programs and access to and improvement of student computer labs, as well as sustain numerous extracurricular activities.

From just that brief, incomplete overview of how donations benefit the lives of Marquette students, it is obvious that the extent upon which the university relies on the generosity of these donors cannot be overstated. As the country’s economic situation continues to decline, these donations will unquestionably drop. Speaking at the MUSG-sponsored forum on September 30, Father Wild acknowledged the donors’ vital role in maintaining and developing the university, and admitted that the “environment for fundraising is a lot tougher than it’s been.” To the many Marquette students who benefit from the university’s current donor-sponsored programs, that is an extremely concerning statement. Obviously, the university will have to respond to the decrease in donations, and how they address the situation will assuredly impact the lives of students However, Marquette University has weathered troubled economic times before, and for all those students anxious about how the university will address the problems of the coming recession, it is reasonable to examine how the university handled itself in a previous financial crises.

In 1931, the university was set to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its founding. Father William Magee, president of the university since 1928, was in the midst of planning a large celebration and a fundraising drive when October 24, the infamous black Thursday, came and sent the country spiraling into what is now known as the Great Depression. Federal student loans as most Marquette students know them had not yet been created, and as more Americans fell upon hard times, many families could not afford full tuition. Thus the number of full-time Marquette students decreased. The rise in unemployment also meant increased competition for any work, and the part-time jobs once available to students became scarce. As private donations used to fund undergraduate scholarships decreased, the awards and the students who relied on them disappeared from campus.

The decrease in students put further financial strain on the private, tuition-dependant university. Aside from canceling both the celebration and the drive for funds, Father Magee was forced to take other actions to keep the University from closing. Cuts were first made in the arts; the College of Music was officially closed in the summer of 1930 and the radio station disappeared in 1934. Student publications, including the Marquette Tribune, the Hilltop and the Marquette Journal were more than once threatened by a lack of funding, and all were forced to significantly reduce their size. Periodical subscriptions and the amount of new book purchases in the library were slashed, as were faculty salaries. As the budget grew increasingly tight, Marquette began to hire more and more Jesuit priests to save money on faculty salaries.

Since the nature of Marquette University as a private, tuition-dependant institution has not changed, previous responses to an increasingly tight budget are still relevant to students today; if the University falls upon hard times again, students can expect to see the same sort of actions taken in the past. Ultimately, it seems increasingly unlikely that students and the university will remain unaffected by the current economic troubles. Certainly those poised to graduate and move beyond the Marquette campus will be forced to address those troubles sooner than some other students. However, this recession will eventually have profound affects on all of us, and the university, as well as each individual student, must be prepared to address what are sure to be difficult times ahead.

Popularity: 20% [?]

Across the globe, Marquette graduates are making important contributions to the world around us. Far away in the Asian nation of Georgia, Marquette alumnus John Tefft is currently serving as the United States Ambassador. As the ambassador to a foreign nation, Tefft acts as the personal representative of the President of the United States. Promoting United States foreign policy in Georgia, ensuring all United States Embassy work follows that policy, and educating the government in Washington on Georgian issues are all part of Ambassador Tefft’s position.

Tefft’s career began when he graduated from Marquette with a bachelors degree, and went on to earn a master’s degree in history from Georgetown University. His career in Foreign Services began in 1972, and he has since served in numerous posts around the world. Tefft was not new to his role as ambassador when he was appointed to Georgia. Prior to his July 2004 appointment, he had served the United States for three years as Ambassador to Lithuania. Before his service as Lithuanian Ambassador, he spent extensive time serving the United States in Europe and Asia. Tefft witnessed the breakdown of the Soviet Union while employed as the United States’ Deputy Director of the Office of Soviet Union Affairs. Afterwards, he continued to work in Russia as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

Tefft’s extensive knowledge of Russia became increasingly important this past August, when fighting broke out between Georgian and Russian troops in the disputed Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The majority of international governing bodies, including NATO and the European Union, consider both South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be within Georgian territory. However, the territories have been defiant to Georgian rule since the country’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, and both regions are recognized as independent states by Russia and Nicaragua. Though Russia has recently signed a ceasefire and removed its troops from Georgian soil, its actions were perceived by many around the world as attempt to regain both territories. Press releases from Tefft’s embassy reiterate the United States’ strong support of Georgian territorial integrity.

Despite the ceasefire and withdrawal of Russian troops, Tefft’s recent days have been far from calm. Last week, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and other NATO permanent representatives traveled to the Georgian capital of Tbilisi to speak with Georgian elected officials about the country’s bid to become a NATO member. Georgia, with the support of the United States, has been seeking NATO membership throughout Tefft’s tenure as Ambassador, and has set this year, 2008, as it’s target year for membership.

This visit highlights a culmination of over two years of US Foreign Mission work to ensure Georgia presents itself as a suitable candidate for NATO membership. Of greatest concern has been fulfilling NATO’s requirement that Georgian military and government be under democratic control. Tefft called evidence of a fully democratic nation a “critical part of Georgia’s establishing that it is in fact a good candidate to be a member of NATO and to contribute to NATO.” Consequently, the United State’s embassy has become involved voter-education campaigns and agreed to participate in a parallel vote tally to ensure fair results for Georgia’s recent parliamentary and presidential elections.

Although he expresses his full support for peaceful and democratic rule in Georgia, Tefft recently reiterated that the majority of the responsibility lies with Georgians.
“Fundamentally the future of Georgian democracy depends on both sides, the opposition and the party in power, being able to find out and resolve these problems themselves,” he said.
Thus the challenges continue for Tefft and the nation of Georgia. Yet despite the difficult challenges and high stakes of his position as an Ambassador, Tefft declares, “I have high hopes for myself and my team at the Embassy in helping Georgia build a democratic nation.”

Popularity: 11% [?]

The Warrior sent our Catholic Beat Writer, Remington Tonar, to New York City for Pope Benedict XVI’s first visit to the United States. He begins this piece by giving an account of the Papal trip and then assumes a first person perspective when reporting on his experience in New York City.

“Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and mats so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on one or another of them…and they were all cured” (Acts 5:15-16). In early Christianity, people crowded the streets to see Saint Peter, hoping to be cured or blessed by touching him, or even by standing in his passing shadow. Not much has changed in two-thousand years, as Pope Benedict XVI’s apostolic visit to America demonstrated. The pope, who is the 265th successor of Saint Peter, brought hundreds of thousands of Catholic faithful from all over the nation to Washington, D.C. and New York during his apostolic visit to the United States.

His Holiness, along with the Bishops of the United States, chose “Christ Our Hope” as the theme for this historic visit, which marks Benedict’s first visit to the United States as pope. In his advance message to the United States before his arrival, the Pope noted that his mission in coming to America was to, “proclaim this great truth: Jesus Christ is hope.” This visit of hope comes in the wake of the much publicized sex abuse crisis, which has ravaged and devastated the Catholic Church in America, and amidst a culture of increasing secularism. The Pope told reporters onboard what has been dubbed Shepherd One, the Papal airplane, that he was “deeply ashamed” of sex abuse by priests and that he would, “do everything possible to heal this wound.”

His Holiness landed in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday April 15, where he was met at Andrew’s Air Force Base by President Bush. It was the first time Bush greeted a head of state outside the White House. Here, he was greeted by multi-lingual renditions of Happy Birthday, to celebrate the Pontiff’s 81st birthday on the April 16. After a short meeting with the President, the Pope retired for the evening. On his birthday, Wednesday, he journeyed to the White House for a more extensive meeting with Bush, and he was greeted by 12,000 guests on the South Lawn. Following this reception, the Pope met with the Conference of Catholic Bishops at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington. In his address to the Bishops of the nation he acknowledged the deep fervor for faith in the U.S., and prompted them to continue their fight against materialism, relativism and secularism. He also encouraged the Bishops to be proactive in combating sex abuse, and affirmed some of the new programs adopted to help combat abuse, but noted that, “the policies and programs you [the bishops] have adopted need to be placed in a wider context.” He tied these words into the need to educate children on authentic and moral Christian sexuality and the need to fight pornography and the “crude manipulation of sexuality” that plagues American youth today.

The following morning the Pope celebrated Mass at Nationals Park for almost 50,000 in attendance, telling the faithful in his homily to be a “leaven of evangelical hope in American society, striving to bring the light and truth of the Gospel to the task of building an ever more just and free world for generations yet to come.” Also on Thursday, the Pope visited the Catholic University of America, and addressed Catholic educators from around the nation. In his speech he noted that, “first and foremost every Catholic educational institution is a place to encounter the living God.” Beyond this, the Pope also affirmed that Catholic identity does not depend on statistics, nor can it “simply be equated with orthodoxy of course content.” Rather, Catholic identity should be measured by more, “namely that each and every aspect of your learning communities reverberates within the ecclesial life of faith.” The Holy Father concluded by making it clear that while academic freedom is vital and important, using academic freedom to teach things contrary to the faith causes one to “obstruct or even betray the university’s identity and mission.” Thus, the Pope said, “teachers and administrators, whether in universities or schools, have the duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice.”

Marquette’s own president, Rev. Robert A. Wild, S.J., was in attendance. Wild spoke with The Warrior and outlined some of the highlights of the Pope’s address. Wild applauded the Pope’s encouragement of those present to not be complacent in the search for truth, which manifests itself in Jesus Christ. He highlighted faith as an integral part of Marquette’s mission believing that Marquette does a good job of executing that mission of authentic Catholic faith.

“There are areas that we can do better in,” admits Wild, but the “search for truth is not an easy business,” and it is something that Marquette continues to strive for.

The Pope also held an interreligious prayer service on April 17 and met with leaders of the Washington, D.C.. Jewish community.

On April 18, the Pope traveled to New York City, where he addressed the United Nations in both French and English, speaking of the need to protect religious freedom and human dignity. The Pope also held a meeting of leaders from different Christian denominations at St. Joseph’s Church in New York where he expressed his desire for Christian unity and reaffirmed the existence of objective truth, as well as the need for not only spiritual, but doctrinal unity.

“A clear convincing testimony to the salvation wrought for us in Christ Jesus,” the Pope noted, “has to be based upon the notion of normative apostolic teaching: a teaching which indeed underlies the inspired word of God and sustains the sacramental life of Christians.”

A PERSONAL ACCOUNT

While the Pope was busy spreading his message of hope in New York, I was in the back of a full twelve passenger van traveling to see the Pope on Saturday, April 19. With us were Marquette students Scott Emerson and Matt Shireman, as well as other people not affiliated with the University. We embarked Thursday afternoon and spent that night in South Bend, Indiana, and arrived in New York City late Friday night and settled in at the Crotona tutoring center in the Bronx for the evening. The next morning we awoke early for Mass and then, after a short breakfast, made haste to St. Joseph’s Seminary where the Pope would be speaking later that afternoon in a rally of seminarians and young faithful from across the nation. During that time, His Holiness was celebrating Mass for clergy and religious at St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

When we arrived, the field behind St. Joseph’s Seminary was mildly populated; Secret Service, state and local police were heavily present. We found a place on the lawn about thirty feet from the stage where the Pope would be speaking exclusively with the seminarians, who had preferred placement right in front of the stage, in front of us. The next few hours were spent watching and listening to the music and dance performances that had been arranged for entertainment. Some of the more notable acts included the Christian groups Third Day, Salvador, Toby Mac, and priest-rapper Stan Fortuna. The festivities concluded with a brief performance by Kelly Clarkson, who would later appear again before the Pope’s departure to sing Ave Maria to His Holiness. Despite our tickets coming with free food passes, our group collectively fasted, in fear of losing our plot of lawn if we moved to get food. Our hunger, in conjunction with the 70 degree heat which was exacerbated by the increasing number of spectators, made the several hours of waiting for the Pope rather arduous.

“The youth rally was a long day of being out in the sun, without food and with little water, surrounded by tens of thousands of other people,” says Matt Shireman, a senior in Engineering with whom I traveled. “But it was incredible to be a part of the crowd when the Holy Father arrived.”

Upon arriving, His Holiness first visited the seminary chapel where he blessed handicapped children in a gesture of the Church’s love for all persons, even those on whom secular society places less value. After this, he traveled via Pope-mobile down to the field where 20,000 seminarians and youth awaited him. While at St. Joseph’s, the Pope encouraged youth to model their lives after those of the saints. He poignantly urged that America’s youth develop a personal relationship with Christ and realize the expansive wonder and awe found in the Christian faith, stating that, “sometimes, we are looked upon as people who speak only of prohibitions. Nothing could be further from the truth! Authentic Christian discipleship is marked by a sense of wonder. We stand before the God we know and love as a friend, the vastness of his creation, and the beauty of our Christian faith.”

“The Holy Father spoke directly to the hearts of young American Catholics,” notes Shireman. “It was all a bit surreal.”

Being able to experience the presence of the Pope, the successor of Saint Peter upon whom Christ built the Church (see Matthew 16:18), at St. Joseph’s Seminary was indeed a surreal experience. An even more surreal experience, however, was being able to attend Mass celebrated by him. The following day, Sunday, we again awoke early to make our way to Yankee Stadium, where the Pope would be celebrating Mass. Close to 60,000 people were in attendance, and the enormous volume of people made getting to the appropriate gate assigned on our tickets difficult. Our seats were not as spectacular as those we had the previous day at the seminary; however we had a great view of the elaborate stage and altar that had been erected for the Pope’s visit. When His Holiness finally arrived at Yankee Stadium, driving around the edge of the field in the Pope-mobile, the excited crowd rose with jovial applause and shouts. Indeed, it was an exciting moment, to be part of a vast number of Catholic faithful who were all united in a very special way in the presence of the Vicar of Christ on earth.

“Mass with the Pope was an awesome experience,” says Scott Emerson, a sophomore in Engineering, who was also among my traveling companions, “just to be in his presence, along with thousands of other Catholics who are all cheering and exited about their faith…it’s amazing.” Emerson points out that the Pope’s homily was as inspiring as it was intellectually challenging. “We have to remember that this Pope is a scholar. His speeches and homilies are very intellectual, as well as deep and insightful.”

In his homily at Yankee Stadium, the Pope challenged the faithful to follow Christ’s footsteps, telling those present that, “true freedom…is found only in the self-surrender which is part of the mystery of love. Only by losing ourselves, the Lord tells us, do we truly find ourselves.”

On his last day in the United States, the Pope visited Ground Zero, where he prayed for God to grant eternal light and peace to those who had perished in the September 11 attacks. After his stop at Ground Zero, the Pope made his way to JFK International Airport, where Vice-President Dick Cheney awaited him as he finished his apostolic visit to America. He thanked America for its hospitality and professed his joy in the faith of the American Catholic community. Bidding farewell to our nation, he took his leave and asked that Americans remember him in their prayers, leaving us with the words: “God bless America.”

Popularity: 28% [?]

Sara Taylor, Political Director for the Bush Administration, urged Americans to recognize the President’s achievements and support his current efforts as she spoke to approximately 60 Wisconsin Republicans at the University Club in Milwaukee, October 25.

Taylor, 30, is the youngest political director to serve in political history. A native of Iowa, she gained notoriety as a pollster before entering the White House.
Continue Reading

Popularity: 10% [?]