Widener Students on Politics

by

Expanding Pre-School Education: An Issue with Federalism

by Katrina Kelly

Widener University Political Science Major

There has been much talk in Congress about Obama’s latest plan to expand pre-school education at the federal level. The President wants to use federal money to support state-based pre-school programs around the country by hiring higher paying teachers that undergo yearly evaluations and making it more affordable and accessible to people. The new early education plan by the President seeks to increase the number of children in pre-school, especially from low income households. This plan could cost up to ten billion dollars a year, which is almost a tenth of the entire current federal education budget. There is a major split in the House on this issue between Democrats and Republicans.

House GOP conservatives are worried that expanding an already large entitlement program is a slippery-slop towards even bigger government. One of the arguments against expanding this program is that there are already numerous early education programs at the state level as well as the federal level. Many in Congress want to know what exactly this proposed program will do differently than the ones that already exist. Another House GOP fear, justifiably so, is an increase in the ever expanding deficit by this program.  Many feel that there is not enough evidence that large-scale pre-school programs like the one Obama proposes will even be of much significance for children in the long run.

On the other side of the aisle, many House Democrats are supportive of Obama’s early education expansion program. Many agree with the President that high quality pre-school education makes a distinct and significant difference in children’s lives over the long run. Many feel that children are our future and we need to cultivate them starting at the earliest age possible. There have been numerous tests and studies shown that the earlier a child starts school, the more acclimated he or she in society as well an overall improvement in the long-run in terms of education and progressive development.

This comes down to the age old question in Congress between the Democrats and the GOP: how much or how little should government be involved? This program will be one of the biggest expansions of education at the federal level in over a decade. The conservative members of the House Republicans feel that this is a matter for the states to decide coupled with the fact that there are already many early education programs offered at the state and local level. Whereas, House Democrats feel that this is not an over-step by the federal government, more of a partnership with the states on an important issue. Federalism arguments at its best!

by

Phone taps…drone strikes…what next?

by Matthew Dugan

Widener University Political Science Major

What’s next on the executives list of ways to limit our rights in the name of national security? Under Bush we got the Patriot Act which allowed the government to tap the phones of suspected terrorists. Obama renewed this act by using an Autopen. Now under President Obama we have drone strikes on American citizens. He has completely ignored due process in the defense of national security, much to the worry of Democrats and Republicans. Senator Rand Paul, son of 3 time presidential nominee Ron Paul, has spoken out against Obama’s use of drones. He has been quoted saying that the use of drones on US citizens is opening “Pandora’s box” and is a slippery slope to something potentially much worse.

Republican leaders in Congress are taking a stand against the increasing use of these drones on US soil, not just for national security either. The EPA has proposed using unmanned drones to survey farms in order to ensure that they are adhering to clean water procedures. This over reach of government power is worrying congressional Republicans. And they should be worried. These proposals should be worrying any American who is concerned with their privacy. Years ago Democrats were very concerned with the Patriot Act. This is something far more intrusive and should receive more opposition from both sides. I’m not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, and I dont believe for a second that Obama’s or the EPA’s intention is to spy on the American people or to erode our rights as citizens. However, this is a very slippery slope that could potentially lead to a severe decline of privacy in American society.

by

Time to Restrict Congress’ Time

by Alexander Roux

Widener University Political Science Major

 For decades the issue of instituting term limits on Congressmen has been a hot topic for debate.  The issue comes up almost every new Congress but it never receives any real attention nor is it taken seriously.  The last major attempt for instituting term limits on our Senators and Representatives was in 1994 when Republicans took control of Congress and promised term limit legislation.  Legislation was introduced limiting Senators to two 6 year terms and House members to two 6 years terms as well.  The bill received support from both parties. However, there were not enough votes to secure the two thirds majority that is required for Constitutional Amendments.  The bill was defeated and since then no major attempt has been made to limit the numbers of years our Congressmen can serve.

I believe that if we found it necessary to restrict the number of terms for the President, then Congress and the Supreme Court should have the same restrictions.  Congress has had members of both houses serve 30 years in Washington.  The President has two shots to move the country in the right direction and effectively lead the nation. I believe that our Senators should enjoy two 6 years terms allowing them to work with 3 administrations and our House members should enjoy four 3 year terms, again allowing them to work with three administrations.  If they can’t effectively legislate in 12 years in Washington then they shouldn’t be allowed to keep their jobs.

Term limits might also help keep Washington lobbyists at bay considering they won’t have entire careers to corrupt our politicians.  As for our Congressmen a term limit might actually inspire them to work as hard as they can knowing that they can only be there for a max of 12 years and that eventually getting re-elected won’t matter. This will mean that what they’re doing for the people will be their own priority. I think that term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court are long overdue and that if we want to make our legislative body effective again term limits could certainly help make that a reality again.

by

North Korea WMD

by Gregory Grossman

Widener University Political Science Major

North Korea has launched another rocket with hopes to further their nuclear missile program. The United States, who has taken no concrete formal action against North Korea, is at the point where they must make a decision. China, one of North Korea’s closest “friends” in the region is also growing increasingly unhappy with their unpredictable neighbor continuing its tests amongst international protest. If North Korea possessed a missile that could reach North America it would be a direct threat against the United States.

With stringent party lines drawn in our Senate, we must come together now in order to stop North Korea from doing something that could be horrendously destructive. Nuclear experts say that the United States must engage in political relations with North Korea before it is too late and they possess a weapon of mass destruction that can devastate the continental United States. Unlike the fiscal cliff, or immigration, North Korea poses a threat to the safety of our citizens, and must be dealt with by bi-partisanship and selflessness in order to ensure our safety; North Korea is not the place to continue voting on party lines.

by

Let the Games Begin

by Andrea Stickley
Widener University Political Science Major
The gauntlet has been thrown down and a challenged issued.
In a time when Congress should be working together to pass legislation and get the country moving forward (anyone out there remember the fact that we have money problems and gun control issues) a division has ensued between the House and the Senate. House Speaker John Boehner says that he is tired of the Senate just sitting on their hands and not doing anything, so it’s time for them to step up to the plate. No longer will the House initiate legislation, and thus, take the fall when things go wrong. It’s now in the Senate’s court to start doing things.
I hate to break it to you boys, but you’re not actually on opposing teams. In case you forget, both the Senate and the House make up one Congress in one nation. Anyone catch the word one there, that appears twice in that sentence. This means you need to work together, not against each other. It seems that occasionally those in Congress forget that they’re all batting for the same team, the United States. Instead, they think it’s my team against yours to see who can get more accomplished and be liked more by the American people.
It doesn’t matter who initiates more legislation or is liked better. The key is to just keep working together to actually get things accomplished. It has to be a team effort. If the Senate decides not to do their job, then eventually people will be able to see that. However, if the House starts to just sit on their hands and not do anything, people will see that as well. There’s no I in team and no I in Congress. You can’t just decide to quit playing because you feel not everyone else is putting forth the same effort; that will only make things worse.
While the Senate maybe does need to pick up the pace and contribute to things, it doesn’t mean the House should back off their effort. So while Boehner may have issued this threat, it probably won’t last long or do that much good.
by

Increase Gas Tax to Fund Infrastructure Reform?

by Scott Hill

Widener University Political Science Major

With everything that is happening in the world, it is easy to lose sight of some of the important domestic issues. On Thursday, February 14th Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell asked Congress to consider a few options concerning our infrastructure. He suggested increasing the gas tax, allowing states to toll more on roads and providing more grants for multi-state projects that can help fund improvements to our infrastructure. Rendell says that “moving goods is one of the keys to American competitiveness, and we are getting our brains beat in”. Opponents to this are claiming that instead of looking for ways to cost-effectively improve conditions Rendell is jumping straight to increasing taxes. One controversial issue raised by Rendell is the institution of a user fee based on miles traveled in individual cars. This user fee can end up flirting with an invasion of privacy and will not be popular with working people who require a long commutes.

I think that it makes sense to use an increase in gas tax to fund infrastructure reform since transportation will be directly funding itself. I also see how a user fee can directly counteract the diminishing returns of a gas tax due to the increasing efficiency of cars. However, in-order to track movements in miles and to remove user error a tracking system will be placed in each car documenting movements, this can easily be viewed as an invasion of privacy. When it comes to increasing the gas tax however, Rendell says that “We need to figure out what is right…What we need for the future of this country…and accept the political consequences”. He goes on to say that there is not an American out there that does not want a better infrastructure, because each and every citizen benefits from it in some way.