The presidency of George W. Bush contained many unwise policies and some catastrophic ones – particularly the executive-sanctioned use of torture. Yet the last two years of the Bush presidency have not been as bad as the six preceding. Three policies, in particular, stand out as likely to be positively reviewed by future scholars: Bush’s efforts to reduce the prevalence of malaria and infectious diseases in Africa, his sacking of incompetent foreign policy advisers and his support for faith-based organizations.

Recent results from the Pew Global Research Survey have shown that the only world region where people have a positive approval rating of President Bush (leaving aside outlier countries, such as Albania, in regions generally hostile to Bush) is East Africa, the region centered around Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda. There, President Bush literally handed out hundreds of bed nets during his February 2008 visit to the region. He has also encouraged the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct clinical research in sub-Saharan Africa, providing jobs and modern health care to regions lacking in both. He has also shown increased flexibility in his HIV/AIDS prevention policies, abandoning much of the strident anti-condom rhetoric that prevailed early in his administration. Millions of Africans are leading healthier, more active lives right now thanks to President Bush’s foresight and initiative.

Bush has also brought a modicum of responsibility and pragmatism back to U.S. foreign policy. The State Department, under the direction of Condoleeza Rice, has had the freedom to embrace diplomatic solutions to thorny relations with global bad apples like Syria, North Korea and Venezuela. General David Petraeus has brought sanity to our chaotic occupation of Iraq, and now stands poised to apply his theories, as commander of CENTCOM, to Afghanistan. Robert Gates has so thoroughly repudiated the disastrous tenure of Donald Rumsfeld, while building on the idea of a leaner, more surgical U.S. military, that many pundits speak of his likely retention under an Obama presidency. President Bush may have made most of the mess, but he deserves credit for beginning the long and arduous task of cleaning it up.

Last, I strongly supported President Bush’s creation of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, and I continue to do so. Religion plays a vital role in American life, not least as a provider of social services. In the economic downturn that is only getting worse, the need is all the greater. I periodically volunteer at St. Benedict’s, and I can reliably report that attendance at the Community Meal has gone up 20 percent over the past year. Federal support for these programs underscores the pivotal role of congregations in the provision of basic needs and encourages people to do good for their neighbors beyond mere weekly worship services.

President Bush is not a monster; he has damaged America’s credibility in many spheres, but he has enhanced it in the three ways mentioned above. The good that he has done ought not to be lost in an angry mob ready to kick him out the back door of the White House. Being a President is no easy task, and eager supporters of Barack Obama ought to keep this in mind over the next four years.

Related posts

• YES - Should the U.S. close the School of the Americas? (0)
• YES - Should the government bailout mortgage companies? (0)
• Wiretaps promote freedom (0)
• Tap a keg, not our phone calls (0)
• Should there be a student on the board of trustees? - No (0)

The first could be the plummeting economy. During a bad economy people often automatically blame the president, seeing his role as more legislative than executive, despite the fact that the president does not actually exercise direct control over the economy. Since Bush has been the president during a period of major economic instability he will likely have a negative reputation, even after he leaves office.

Another element that will tarnish Bush’s historical reputation is, of course, the Iraq War. Immediately after we entered Iraq, many Americans wondered why we were engaged in a nation that had little connection to terrorism. Afghanistan had direct and undisputed links to Al Qaeda; Iraq did not. In the case of the Iraq War, we were never directly attacked by Saddam Hussein and his army prior to invasion. America was the aggressor. Nobody in the Bush administration was able to give a satisfactory explanation of what America gained from the Iraq War, except for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be non-existent. Some will still maintain that, in the long run, the Iraq War will be seen as a critical component of the War on Terror. However, there is no consensus on whether or not the conflict in Iraq has actually contributed to stopping terrorism. If anything, it has contributed to causing more terrorist activity in an already destabilized Iraq.

When Bush ran for his first term, he ran on a platform of morality and Christian values, and people generally consider Bush to be strong on pro-life and pro-family issues. However, his record does not show strong evidence of this. Although he did help illegalize partial-birth abortion, there are a variety of different avenues that one can still take to obtain a partial-birth abortion. He opposed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, although he did not outlaw embryonic stem cell research. Since pro-family legislation has been left to the states (for now), Bush has had no serious effect on issues concerning homosexuality. Overall, Bush has had no serious legislation in favor of moral issues important to conservatives. So, it is not likely that the Christian conservative base will remember Bush as a great moral leader.

Still, Bush supporters might point out that he has kept our country safe. While it is true that our country has not been attacked since 9/11, we have to ask at what cost? Besides the actual monetary costs that a war requires, what else have we sacrificed? For starters, our freedoms and civil liberties have been compromised through the enactment of The Patriot Act which President Bush advocated. The Patriot Act forces us to surrender our civil liberties guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights. Many would argue that sacrificing our liberties is essential to national security. When confronted with this argument one might remember the words of John Stuart Mill who said: “A people may want a free government, but…if by momentary discouragement or temporary panic, or a fit of enthusiasm for an individual they can be induced to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions…they are more or less unfit for liberty.” Republicans will often characterize those who don’t support The Patriot Act as liberals, dismissing their arguments as partisan politics. However, Woodrow Wilson, the first modern liberal president was behind the Committee of Public Information, a very similar policy to that of the Patriot Act. Also, Franklin D. Roosevelt had a similar policy in World War II. Many American realize that The Patriot Act is a dire subversion of American freedoms, which is uncharacteristic for a GOP president to support. As a result, Bush’s legacy is likely to be stained in the eyes of both traditional conservatives and liberals for his support of The Patriot Act.

The ultimate question is: how will Bush be remembered? Will he be remembered for getting America into a war its citizens did not support? Causing an economic crisis? Letting down the Christian right? Or, will he be remembered for revoking the civil liberties of Americans? While one cannot blame President Bush for everything negative that has occurred during his two terms, there are many policies he has initiated that Americans detest. With all of this in mind, Bush will not be considered a great president as he has no outstanding qualities or credentials which warrant our favorable attention. Many of the most prominent things he has accomplished are not popular, and while he was not a terrible president, he will never – and should never – be compared to Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.

Related posts

• YES - Should the U.S. close the School of the Americas? (0)
• YES - Should the government bailout mortgage companies? (0)
• Wiretaps promote freedom (0)
• Tap a keg, not our phone calls (0)
• Should there be a student on the board of trustees? - No (0)

Obama will do more for Marquette students. He will do more to hold the federal government and the financial sector accountable. He will thoroughly expose George W. Bush’s abuses of executive power. He rose by merit, not family connections like Bush and McCain. His administration will be more transparent and efficient. He understands that free markets are not free when actors with privileged information make a mockery out of equal access. He will be the more fiscally responsible President. He lives by his Christian faith. Most of all, he projects a realistic vision of a great America.

Obama has proposed an annual, fully refundable American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000 for every U.S. student. To receive this credit, students will invest 100 hours of service to our communities. This is laudable for two reasons: first, it helps to show that Obama is not a stereotypical “something for nothing” Democrat. Second, it would get students out of the “MU bubble” and doing something about the real needs existing all around Milwaukee and thousands of other college towns nationwide.

Obama will do better than John McCain to protect Americans at home and our military forces abroad. In the vice-presidential debate, Gwen Ifill asked the candidates whether Iran or Pakistan was the greater threat to U.S. security. Sarah Palin, speaking for McCain, said Iran was the greater threat.

Conversely, Joe Biden, speaking for Obama, said Pakistan was the greater threat because it already has deployed nuclear weapoans, most likely harbors Osama bin Ladin and other senior al-Qaeda leaders and is a new democratic regime in need of our support. These are convincing arguments if we are serious about controlling the spread of nuclear weapons and hunting down al-Qaeda. Focusing on a country that is several years away from obtaining nuclear weapons, is vulnerable to multilateral sanctions, and does not harbor senior al-Qaeda leaders is a preposterous policy.

Obama also supports letting Iraqis determine the destiny of Iraq. He does not support McCain’s policy of leaving an American colonial edifice in Iraq for an indeterminate amount of time.

General David Petraeus, in his September 10, 2008 testimony before members of Congress, underlined the key role of Iraqis in choosing to say no to sectarian violence in their own country: “The tribes and the sheiks decided to say no more to Al Qaeda. They were tired of the indiscriminate violence, tired of the Taliban-like ideology and the other practices. They are Sunni Arabs rising up against a largely Sunni Arab Al Qaeda in Iraq.” Iraqis are a responsible, mature people. They do not need foreign tutelage to defend their lives and property. The billions of dollars that John McCain proposes to spend there are best spent at home.

Those billions are better spent on affordable health care for every American. In the second presidential debate, McCain spoke of health care as a responsibility; Obama spoke of it as a fundamental right. The teachings of the Catholic Church are on Obama’s side. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ statement Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship states, “Affordable and accessible health care is an essential safe- guard of human life and a fundamental human right.” Insurers are only too willing to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, leaving me to reluctantly conclude that only national health care can overcome the problem of moral hazard – the systematic pattern where the healthy can readily find insurance and the sick struggle to get basic coverage. Unequal access to health care shows unequal regard for human life.

Many Catholics, Christians and voters of goodwill support McCain for his alleged “pro-life” platform. Leaving aside the self-evident truth that warfare and healthcare are life issues, let’s look at abortion and stem-cell research. I am quoting a posting that I made on an external website devoted to Catholic issues:

Abortion is abhorrent and repulsive. At the same time, we have a systematic breakdown in family life and sexual morality in this country. Would making abortions illegal, right now, universally in the U.S., change this? Would it not enable wealthy mothers to travel abroad and poor mothers to risk death? Would an abortion ban keep schools from failing? Would it keep fathers from abdicating their Godly calling to familial leadership? Would an abortion ban bring blue-collar jobs back into America’s cities from Bangladesh and Mexico and enable one parent to stay home with their children? Would it keep teens from absorbing and internalizing the message of their DVDs, TV series, iPods and websites that casual sex is fun, feels great and has no lasting, eternal consequences?

Which candidate is married and faithful to one wife? Which one stands before God in adultery, according to the teachings of the Church? Which vice-presidential candidate rebounded from great tragedy to rebuild his family and take time out of a busy official schedule to be present for his children? Which one cannot discipline her children from having unsafe sex, and then obliges her daughter to marry the father for political cover? Think about whose values Catholics should applaud.

Embryos are discarded en masse every day, so why not use them for stem-cell research? Do you want to pretend that embryos are never being discarded, or should an unwanted embryo preserve the life of another intrinsically valuable human being? Or are you neo-Gnostics who care only about the soul and deny the body?

Senator Obama stands for rebuilding America’s reputation abroad, reconstructing America’s broken domestic economy to bring prosperity back to our parents and our own pocketbooks, rethinking our mixed record in the Middle East and renewing the American belief in a better life through hard work. He deserves your vote on Election Day.

Related posts

• John McCain should be the next president of the United States (0)
• Yes We Can…Move Forward As One Nation (1)
• YES - Should the U.S. close the School of the Americas? (0)
• YES - Should the government bailout mortgage companies? (0)
• Wiretaps promote freedom (0)

Both candidates will bring to Washington different policies than that of the Bush administration. However, I believe Senator John McCain will bring appropriate changes to the District of Columbia and set our nation on the correct course.

The economic crisis in this country is the primary concern of most voters, and justifiably so. Both candidates agree that Wall Street needs more oversight and both parties have been guilty of deregulating Wall Street over the past fifteen years. The last time regulations were stiffened followed the Savings and Loan fiasco of the late eighties and early nineties. Under Clinton in 1999 and under Bush, the regulations on Wall Street have been loosened considerably. Since both candidates have pledged to attack the Wall Street issue in much the same manner, the biggest points of difference will come in the form of taxes.

It is both justifiable and equitable that the wealthier pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the poor. However, this is already the case – today, those earning more than $250,000 pay much more in taxes than most people earn in a year – and raising their taxes even more will not increase tax revenue. By raising their taxes, the biggest losers will be small businesses owners, who are taxed on their business’s profits as their own income decreases under Senator Barack Obama’s proposed tax increases. This has a proven and noticeably negative effect on the creation of new jobs and economic growth, and any tax plan that would check growth even a little bit – as Obama’s would – is something the U.S. cannot afford at this time. There is also much I disagree with in Obama’s proposed tax credits for lower income Americans. When the Obama campaign says tax credit, what they really mean is a handout, because the plan makes these ‘tax credits’ ‘refundable’ meaning you can get one even if you have ZERO income tax liability in the first place. That is to say, you can pay zero dollars in taxes and still receive theses ‘credits.’ Here are a few proposed by Obama (Source: Wall Street Journal, Review and Outlook 10/13/08): a $500 dollar tax credit for those making less than $75000 dollars. A ‘savings’ tax credit of up to $1000 or 50%. A $555 ‘earned income tax credit’ for single workers. A child care credit of up to $6000. The problem with this, according to the Wall Street Journal, is that under Obama’s plan, 63,000,000 Americans (44% of all taxpayers), would pay NOTHING in income taxes and the vast majority of these would receive the afore mentioned credits, the cost of which would be more than $1.05 Trillion dollars over the next ten years. (Source: WSJ, Review and Outlook, 10/13/08). In a time of exploding debt and economic difficulties, taxing the people who drive economic growth more and then handing their money to people who pay no taxes would place severe hardship on the economy, stunt economic growth and borders on socialism, rather than the free market capitalism that created America’s wealth in the first place.

McCain also has a clear edge on Obama in the area of foreign policy. The Bush Administration made their latest foreign policy “whoopsie” – State Department lingo for a major screwup – by removing North Korea from the state sponsor of terror list without demanding access to possible nuclear sites that have been reactivated in the last few weeks – essentially reaching an agreement to delist North Korea in exchange for permission to stroll the countryside near Pyongyang where there are no weapons. In the coming years, the U.S. is sure to face challenges from Iran, Russia and probably Venezuela. Kowtowing to North Korean demands in exchange for nothing makes the tasks to come that much more difficult. McCain has shown resolve in foreign affairs while taking a firm stand on the use of force being a last resort. His extensive foreign experience is necessary as new threats to world peace emerge (Venezuela, Iran)and old ones resurface (Russia).

Obama has no military experience, no foreign policy experience and has repeatedly hedged and fudged on his positions. He gave two separate speeches containing conflicting stances when traveling between the Israelis and Palestinians and waited a significant period of time before finally deciding that it was, in fact, not acceptable for Russia to invade Georgia. This approach to foreign policy creates an inability for other nations to understand what the US stands for and encourages others to test the limits of U.S. power.

Ever since the dubious vote, approved by the majority of both parties, to invade Iraq in 2003, McCain has been consistently right in his criticism of the Bush Administration. Obama voted against the surge that has worked ‘beyond his wildest dreams’ and has advocated pulling out all U.S. combat troops in 16 months. Obama’s claim to foreign policy expertise is that he was against the war in 2003, but in 2003 Obama was an Illinois state senator who saw no intelligence briefings, received no counsel from the U.S. military and, in short, knew as much as you and I did. Those who actually were in the know were overwhelmingly in favor of the war. Since then, McCain has advocated what the Bush administration has, finally, come to do: use the successful strategies of Generals Petraeus and Mattis to put more troops on the ground. That having finally been done, the U.S. is closer than ever to achieving its mission, and will likely be able to withdraw in a few short years for good, leaving behind a functioning Iraq.

Another major advantage to a McCain administration would be health care. The U.S. has the best health care system in the world. Other countries, such as Great Britain and France, that have followed proposals similar to Obama’s now face multi-month waits to get surgeries and are advocating a return to private medicine. McCain’s plan, to use tax incentives of up to $5000 to insurance companies, would create a huge increase in the number of insured, improving health care’s availability while avoiding the pitfalls of socialized medicine.

There are dozens of other pressing issues facing the candidates in this election. McCain presents a legacy of resolve, courage and experience, as well as a rejection of the status quo partisanship in Washington. Partisanship is a good thing; it ensures the minority opinion is not trampled. As a lifelong holder of some minority opinions, I am grateful, but partisanship should never impede productivity as it has the last ten years. McCain has vowed to place Democrats and Republicans alike in his cabinet, and has worked in D.C. with both sides successfully. Sending McCain to Washington will set America on a positive track, correcting recent mistakes, encouraging economic growth and, God willing, will help keep America in its position as a beacon of freedom.
No matter which candidate you support, take a moment to make an informed decision and then use your hard won freedom to vote for whichever candidate you see fit. Happy Voting!

Related posts

• Barack Obama should be the next president of the United States (2)
• Yes We Can…Move Forward As One Nation (1)
• YES - Should the U.S. close the School of the Americas? (0)
• YES - Should the government bailout mortgage companies? (0)
• Wiretaps promote freedom (0)

There is little doubt or debate that the School of the Americas in its original guise, between 1946 and 2001, condoned and encouraged the use of tactics that were fundamentally demeaning and uncivilized. When the Pentagon released training manuals from the School into the public domain in 1996, outsiders were shocked to read the brutal interrogation methods of these manuals. They involved practices such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, targeting of family members and similarly abhorrent tactics. Joseph Kennedy II, the son of Robert Kennedy, then serving as a Massachusetts Congressman, said, “These manuals taught tactics that come right out of a Soviet gulag and have no place in civilized society.” Surely the United States would not stoop to Stalinist tactics as a matter of course – but it did.

I do not doubt that WHINSEC has remedied the most egregious errors of the School of the Americas. Also, I recognize that since narcotics trafficking is so pervasive in many Latin American countries, we ought to share policing best practices with our allies in the Organization of American States (OAS). Still, there are alternative venues, such as Interpol, to exchange our policing best practices without the historical baggage of the School of the Americas. Also, the closing of WHINSEC would make a lot of sense in the course of a holistic re-examination of American foreign policy in the 21st century.

Barack Obama said in the first presidential debate, “In the ‘60s… the ideals and values of the United States inspired the entire world. I don’t think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same.” (Source: CNN.com transcript). If Senator Obama is elected, it seems that a major re-evaluation of our foreign policies is in store. Our policy towards Latin America is a big component.

During the Cold War, United States policy towards Latin America was single-minded. It had one goal: prevent Communist regimes from sprouting in the region by any means necessary, including aiding and comforting military thugs who brutalized and tyrannized their people. The end of the Cold War didn’t change the single-mindedness of U.S. policy towards Latin America, only the target. Instead of preventing Communism, we now prevent the drug trade and ally with anybody who can help us in the endeavor.

The heavily regulated legalization of marijuana, the reduction of draconian penalties for the possession, use and import of harder drugs, and the comprehensive reform of our broken immigration policies along the lines suggested by Senator John McCain would take our foreign policy towards Latin America off of a “War on Drugs” footing, enable us to focus on economic development and the reduction of trade barriers with Latin American countries and give U.S.-trained leaders a humane image in their home countries. To achieve these worthy ends, WHINSEC should be speedily closed.

Related posts

• NO - Should the U.S. close thea School of the Americas? (0)
• YES - Should the government bailout mortgage companies? (0)
• Wiretaps promote freedom (0)
• University hosts annual Sexual Violence Awareness Week (0)
• The beginnings of a great tradition of compassion in Milwaukee (0)

It is undeniable that a handful of the graduates of the School of the Americas took part in crimes against humanity. The school trained Special Forces and police of many Central and South American nations in an effort to give those nations the means to successfully prevent hostile or abusive regimes in the region. The manuals given to students, however, contained methods to control a population through fear, rewarding the death of enemy combatants with bounties and methods that could be (and were) used to torture the populace of those countries. These policies are abhorrent and were a mistake on the part of the United States, the Department of Defense and the graduates of SOA that used them. However, this is indicative of the need to change those policies, not of a need to abandon the entire plan. To that end, in 1992 the Department of Defense retracted the offensive manuals, officially declared them to be contrary to the policy of the United States and stopped teaching things that violated human rights.

The School of the Americas was created during the Cold War to prevent the spread of communism to this hemisphere. This was consistent with the policy of the US government since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 declared that the US would not tolerate interference of European powers in the Western Hemisphere. Aiding and training friendly governments remains the policy of the US to this day. America and the Western Hemisphere is dramatically different today than it was in the Cold War, but the threats to freedom are no less significant and the needs of our allies are no less real. Venezuela, under the leadership of Hugo Chavez is moving ever closer to dictatorship status and it is influencing other governments to follow suit - Bolivia is a prime example under “President” Evo Morales. Venezuela has also threatened the security of a real democracy in the area in Columbia. Columbia is a good example of WHINSEC graduates appropriately using their training. The leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia rebels (FARC), allegedly supported by Venezuela and the Drug Cartels, have been kept in check thanks to the training the Columbian military has received at SOA. Drug Cartels themselves have seen their power decrease markedly since the days of Pablo Escobar and the Cali Cartel’s army of mercenaries ruled half of Columbia, thanks in large part, to US training and assistance.

Closing the School of the Americas would be a grave mistake and would jeopardize the security of a region that more than ever needs to be able to protect itself. To be clear, SOA should not train its graduates to manipulate people through fear or to torture victims. However, it should provide true Democracies with a level of security available through a trained military, because the change in the world order has not removed the threat to freedom that continues to thrive where people are least able to protect themselves.

It is morally right and tactically sound to provide democracies committed to freedom with troops trained for excellence and imbedded with traditional values associated with Democracy and the US Military. No one can argue that the policies of SOA were abhorrent and demanded change. But if changes have been made and similar threats remain, abandoning the policy would be foolhardy and not in the best interests of the United States. The need for improvement is not grounds for the dismissal of a program. WHINSEC needed improvement, and it got it. It is probably true that there are many things that it could still do better, and if changes can be made to improve the end result created by SOA then let’s make them. No program in this country is perfect, nor is this country by any means perfect. The continual quest to better ourselves is a large part of what makes this country great, and it is a quintessential component to what it means to be an American. So let’s improve the SOA. Let’s teach not just skills and tactics, but values and decency. Let’s choose our allies with care and not out of fear or convenience. Ultimately, let us carry on the American tradition of continually seeking betterment and support the School of the Americas as a means to protect freedom and ensure the safety and security of this nation and our neighbors.

Related posts

• YES - Should the U.S. close the School of the Americas? (0)
• YES - Should the government bailout mortgage companies? (0)
• Wiretaps promote freedom (0)
• University hosts annual Sexual Violence Awareness Week (0)
• The beginnings of a great tradition of compassion in Milwaukee (0)

I will not deny that the ham-fisted policies of the Bush administration got the United States into this mess. But, as the Berenstein Bears said, “It’s never too late to correct a mistake.” The consequences of doing nothing – millions of students unable to repay their loans, scores of banks unable to redeem depositors’ withdrawals – can never be underestimated.

The more interesting question before financial markets is not “Why?” but “What next?” Economics students understand the concept of moral hazard. Fannie and Freddie last week and AIG this week got so big that the government had to bail them out or risk chaos. But the expectation of being bailed out if the water got too hot encouraged firms’ executives to place risky bets that failed shareholders and the public interest writ large. How the incoming Obama or McCain administration deals with the moral hazard topic will be one of their sternest economic policy tests. Stabilizing the plummeting value of the dollar in international currency markets is not far behind.

It runs counter to the Warrior’s core principles to have the federal government owning major lending and insurance companies, except in desperate moments when a ripple effect of failure could infect the global financial infrastructure, wiping out hard-working Americans’ life savings. Now that Uncle Sam has taken a heavy burden onto his shoulders, we need to demand transparent federal procedures for the rehabilitation of wounded and bankrupted firms. Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, has suggested a second Resolution Trust Corporation (the agency that un-raveled the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s). Volcker’s plan is wise even though it raises the question, “Who will regulate the regulators?”
Philosophical speculations on these questions are necessary and important in the long term. Now, though, is time to act quickly.

The intricacies of financial markets may not touch the day-to-day lives of most Marquette students, but a financial panic leading into a systemic depression would certainly hurt all of us in the MU community. Prompt action by the federal government has averted this horror. As Halloween draws near, we hope that the horrors before us are limited to the make-believe world.

Related posts

• YES - Should the U.S. close the School of the Americas? (0)
• Wiretaps promote freedom (0)
• Tap a keg, not our phone calls (0)
• Should there be a student on the board of trustees? - No (0)
• Shady agreements – “Like Nothing Else” (0)

The sub-prime mortgages – loans made to people who can’t quite afford to repay them – have been bundled together and sold as asset backed securities in the form of CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations) and SIVs (Structured Investment Vehicles). Large investment banks have been turning a profit on these CDOs and SIVs for years because mortgages are a comparatively safe bet. Sure, a mortgage will fail here and there, but the equity in the loan and the value of the foreclosed asset ensures that losses are small and most people manage to avoid defaulting on their mortgages. The problem began when banks made poor lending decisions, offering loans to people who could not pay them back, banking on the fact that if they defaulted, the foreclosed home’s value would recoup the bank’s losses. The problems were compounded when, because of lacking regulation, they were able to bundle these sub-prime mortgages with prime mortgages and sell the whole lot of them in SIV’s and CDO’s rated as ‘AAA’ (The highest rating). No one can now tell how many bad loans are in the SIV’s in which they have invested. Imagine buying barrels of oil that you are told may contain a little bit of water – the catch is you won’t know how much water is in the barrel until you buy it and open it up. It could be 20% water, or it could be 80%, and there is no way to tell in advance, you just may end up with a worthless barrel of oil.

The problem continued when people began to default on the mortgages, driving up interest rates and abruptly halting the housing boom, lowering the value of homes as the supply of buyers evaporated. Now, the house the bank forecloses on and the equity in the loan is insufficient to cover the amount of the loan the bank initially made, and losses begin to pile up. The large investment banks around the world are now stuck with trillions of dollars in SIV’s that may not be worth the paper they are printed on. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae owned approximately half the mortgages (approximately $5,000,000,000,000) in the US and faced collapse if the government did not bail it out. If Freddie and Fannie did not get a bailout then the banks that made the initial loans would almost certainly fail, causing runs on banks and most likely a depression. The investment banks insured their investments with companies like AIG, who easily possessed the capital to shield the bank from the expected number of defaults but did not anticipate the immense number of claims they received, bringing it to the brink of collapse as well. Because the underwriting behind their investments is worthless, the bank is fully exposed to all of the losses and faces collapse.

What it all boils down to is that companies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (public companies operating for profit) were allowed to take too much risk and hold the Federal Government hostage for a bailout because the alternative would be to risk a depression and catastrophic failure of the banking industry. The government has now used your money to cover the backsides of people who royally messed up and have escaped the normal market consequences of such a failure. It is illogical that the government should be responsible for the health of private financial institutions outside of its control. The government should get out of the loan guarantee business as soon as is now feasible and establish regulations that control the following: A.) create concrete lending guidelines to prevent sub-prime mortgages in the future. B.) Stop public funding for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It is a conflict of interest for a publically backed company to operate for profit and the government doesn’t belong in the industry. C.) Regulate the bundling of CDO’s and SIV’s so that the risk associated with each SIV is uniform and easily discernable. D.) Create guidelines for companies that established a ceiling for the risk institutions take if their survival is crucial to the well being of the United States. E.) After the situation is stabilized, stop making bailouts to non-essential businesses immediately and allow the market to right itself. F.) Hold accountable executives who make greedy decisions that undermine the US economy and screw their shareholders and fellow taxpayers.

You and I have many needs the government must help to provide: defense, education and affordable health care to name a few. Underwriting Joe Smith’s mortgage in Fargo, North Dakota and giving $85 Billion to an insurance company that underwrote more risk than it can afford is not something the government is obliged to do. No matter what happens in the next few weeks, you can be assured there will be inflation, higher taxes and a burden on you and your fellow Americans for years to come because of the events of the past couple years. It is time that companies faced the music for their decisions, and part of getting this second chance means making right what they did wrong in the first place. They should pay back the American people and the American people should not be saddled with their mistakes in the future.

Related posts

• YES - Should the U.S. close the School of the Americas? (0)
• YES - Should the government bailout mortgage companies? (0)
• Wiretaps promote freedom (0)
• Tap a keg, not our phone calls (0)
• Should there be a student on the board of trustees? - No (0)

The age old debate regarding the drinking age has once again appeared in the media over the last couple months. Many universities’ chancellors and presidents have recently signed the Amethyst Initiative, requesting a public debate on the drinking age.
In short, the universities feel the higher drinking age has failed to work and has instead created a dangerous environment that encourages binge drinking. Opponents to the initiative argue that high school drinking is down since the drinking age was changed to 21 in 1984 and that alcohol related fatalities, particularly on the road, among 18 to 20-year-olds have decreased.
When the legitimate pros and cons to both sides of this issue are weighed, a logical and feasible solution is to establish the drinking age at nineteen. Nineteen would preclude high school seniors from buying alcohol and thereby continue to restrict the availability of alcohol in high schools.
The vast majority of college freshmen choose to drink upon their arrival on campus regardless of the drinking age. Because underclassmen cannot legally drink, there is an underground, unregulated binge drinking movement that has been seen and noted by many education professionals across the country.
If the drinking age were set at nineteen, at some point during their first year away from home college freshmen could begin to drink openly and away from the pressure to drink to intoxication that is common in illicit drinking situations.
An 18-year-old is considered mature enough to make intelligent choices regarding elections and tobacco, and is permitted to join the military at great personal risk, so it seems absurd to say they are still too immature to drink responsibly.
Advertisements for alcohol products are everywhere. Given the consistent reinforcement of pro-alcohol messages, it is to be expected that young adults will want to drink. When they cannot drink openly until they are three years removed from their homes, opportunities to teach responsible drinking are missed completely and young adults arrive at college with no idea about tolerance levels or responsible drinking. If the drinking age were nineteen, seniors in high school could receive timely alcohol education courses similar to driver’s education offered shortly before students turn sixteen.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and other organizations also argue that underage Driving Under the Influence (DUI) arrests are down. This is largely a separate issue – law enforcement has done an admirable job cracking down on drunk drivers.
Proper alcohol education in high schools could further attenuate DUI’s and being able to drink openly lends itself to being able to drink responsibly.
It’s much easier to arrange a ride or make plans to stay somewhere when someone can be open about the fact that they are going to be drinking. Considering the fact that most underage people choose to drink regardless of the law, it does not make sense that allowing them to do so openly would in turn promote illegal behavior.
Those who make the selfish decision to put others at risk by driving drunk will, unfortunately, probably continue to do so regardless of the drinking age. Proper education and more crackdowns seem to be much more sensible ways of combating drunk driving.
While there are legitimate concerns on both sides of the drinking age debate, the age of nineteen seems to be a logical compromise. It still effectively keeps high school students from purchasing alcohol and would allow parents and high schools to offer timely drinking education classes and advice.
Being able to drink openly would encourage respect for the law and allow young people to openly arrange for rides or places to stay to avoid driving drunk.
And perhaps most reasonably, if someone is judged fit to go into combat and choose the next president of our country, I certainly hope they can handle having a beer.

Related posts

• YES - Should we legalize alcohol for minors? (0)
• Beyond Busch Light: Latin drinks (0)
• Womens tennis begins to take shape (0)
• Why call it “Student Development?” (0)
• Whiners should embrace convergence (0)

The legal drinking age in the United States, all things considered, should be 16. I’m neither off my rocker nor a paid spokesman for Miller Brewing Company. I mean it.
Almost everybody – even a government official or police officer as long as they are off-duty – agrees that the current national standard of 21 is a farce. It breeds disrespect for the law and legal order. It creates a culture of evasion, binge drinking and selective enforcement. It detracts from the educational mission of the United States’ best colleges and universities, Marquette among them. It encourages drunkenness and the use of cheap, inferior beers and spirits. In contrast, we should seek sophisticated appreciation of Wisconsin-brewed craft beers and fine wines from around the world.
More than 100 college presidents from across the United States have recognized that the 21-year-old standard is broken and have signed the Amethyst Initiative, a proposal to reduce the legal drinking age to 18. This initiative includes two
Jesuit universities, Santa Clara University and St. Joseph’s University.
This is laudable, but not far-reaching enough. As long as underage drinking is a “forbidden fruit”, it will never end. A legal drinking age of 18 will shift the problem of underage drinking from colleges to high schools. High school seniors being able to buy alcohol legally means freshman, sophomores and juniors will drink too.
I support a drinking age of 16 because 16-year-olds are far more likely than 18-year-olds or 21-year-olds to have a parent or responsible adult supervise their drinking. Readers who have studied and traveled abroad in Germany can testify that widespread social chaos does not happen with so low a drinking age.
“What about drinking and driving?” you might ask. Of course, it’s madness to allow 16-year-old rookie drivers to drink – and I agree! I propose a zero-tolerance policy for drinking and driving: all 16-to-21-year old drivers caught with any amount of alcohol in their system, even a 0.02, lose their license for 18 months, on the spot, no whining. The standard, at age 21, would be “relaxed” to existing drunk-driving laws at 0.08 on up.
All said a drinking age of 16 is an eminently sensible idea. Don’t you agree?

Related posts

• NO - Should we legalize alcohol for minors? (1)
• Womens tennis begins to take shape (0)
• Why call it “Student Development?” (0)
• Whiners should embrace convergence (0)
• What it would take to bring D-1 football back (0)