Uncategorized

by

Social Liberal and Fiscal Conservative?

by Anna Miller

Widener University Student

Recently I was on a service trip to Belize.  It was interesting because we were staying at a mission house run by American missionaries who are generally considered to be conservatives due to their religious beliefs.  On the other hand, we were a group of college students who serve in a civic engagement program, which leads a lot of people to believe we are a group of liberals.  I have been on these kinds of service trips before and political dialogue has never arisen.  It just so happened, though, that the Wednesday of our trip elections were called in Belize, thereby sparking some political discussion.

The phrase that seemed to ring more loudly than all the others was “I’m a social liberal but a fiscal conservative.”  It was odd because our two groups would seem to the rest of the world to have a strong partisan identification.  In fact, all individuals uttering this phrase did in fact define themselves as either Republican or Democrat.  Does this two party system make sense when individuals find themselves registered in one of the two major parties with such conflicting ideas?  I think there is a flaw here, and I have no idea why it took traveling all the way to Belize to figure it out.  This social liberal/fiscal conservative phrase made me consider a few questions.  If people are pulled to the right in one respect and the left in another, how can they make decisions when it comes election time?  What draws the greatest importance between social issues and fiscal responsibility, and why, if so many people view themselves this way is there not a strong party for them to identify with?  It seems unfortunate, but these types of questions typically do not find answers.

by

Gingrich Trying to Regain Momentum

by Jocelyn Reinecke

Widener University Student

Gas prices have on the rise and Newt Gingrich is trying to regain momentum in the Republican Presidential Primary. He has begun to do this by promising that he has a plan to make gas prices go back down to $2.50 per gallon.  Although this proposal is going to catch attention among citizens following the campaign closely, a very important question arises: How is one politician going to influence something as big as the price of gas?

It is hard for politicians, such as a presidential candidate, to be able to make promises that will affect our economy not only in the short-term but in the long run as well.  During the Nixon Administration, price controls were created which turned out to be a complete disaster. This proposal is very likely to fail as well. Politicians have little control over how much the price of gas changes.  The only thing they can try and do is lower the tax on gas when it is imported. However the whole price of gasoline per gallon is based on how much a barrel costs and how much gas station owners have to charge to make some type of a profit. If gas prices were always set to the price of $2.50 but the price of the gas barrel was more than that price even with lower taxes on its importation, gas station owners with start to suffer because they will not make any profit. If gas station owners could not make any profit, their businesses would close and no one would have anywhere to go and to get gas even if its only $2.50.

Politicians have little to no control over the price of gas. Gingrich is really trying to just boost his presidential campaign trail because he has lost a lot of momentum. Gas prices being only $2.50 would be great and would really help Americans out, however it is nearly impractical to have the gas prices be that low because there are so many chain effect reactions that could happen and could really hurt our economy even more.