Widener Students on Politics

by

Will Mayor Nutter make Philadelphia’s Environmental Dreams Come True?

by Aubrey Dangelo

Widener University Political Science Major

Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter recently unleashed a plan called Greenworks Philadelphia, which is aimed at creating environmental sustainability and lowering the city’s energy expenditures. Part of the plan involves a new law that has already been enacted called the Building Energy Benchmarking Law. This new legislation would require the owners of commercial buildings in Philadelphia that exceed 50,000 square feet to report their energy usage for online, public disclosure, and businesses in Philadelphia have until October 31, 2013 to comply with this law without the imposition of fines. This is all part of his strategy aimed at making Philadelphia the most environmentally friendly city in the United States by the year 2015. Among Nutter’s extensive list of objectives are claims to double the number of green jobs in the city between now and the year 2015, save taxpayers money, cut traffic congestion, clean the air, beautify neighborhoods, and improve Philadelphians’ diets. That’s quite an ambitious goal, if you ask me.

Whether or not Nutter fulfills all of these commitments, his plan is sure to have a significant impact on Philadelphia’s environmental practices, and some progress has already been made. Some recent accomplishments that Mayor Nutter boasts are a reduction of energy use in government buildings by 7 percent, an increase in alternative energy use from 2.5 percent to 14 percent, and nearly 90,000 trees planted since 2008. While it is important that the people and businesses of the United States make some drastic changes to their environmental practices, it is somewhat ridiculous of Mayor Nutter to attempt to make Philadelphia the “greenest” city in the U.S. in such a short amount of time. School budgets are being slashed left and right, and out of the nation’s ten most populated cities, Philadelphia has the highest rate of deep poverty. People with incomes below half of the poverty line make up 12.9% of Philadelphia’s populace. Nutter’s goals are well-intentioned, but perhaps a bit hasty.

http://articles.philly.com/2009-05-09/news/25274642_1_sustainability-program-sustainable-development-green-initiative
http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-28/business/40834349_1_energy-efficiency-energy-star-greenworks-philadelphia
http://cityofphiladelphia.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/mayor-nutter-releases-greenworks-philadelphia-2013-progress-report/

by

Ex-Lawmakers Can’t Resist the Urge to Run Again

by Carrie McCullough

Widener University Masters of Public Administration Student

Congress’ approval rating is at one its lowest points in memory. This article compares the public’s opinion of Congress to that of their opinion of Lindsay Lohan; and with good measure. The public can only see deadlock, sequester, and bickering coming from the current Congress. What would make someone be interested in a job like that? Well, if you’ve already been there and done that, it may be more appealing.

Four notable ex lawmakers, Former Rep. Marjorie Margolies (PA), Former Rep. Bob Barr (GA), Former Rep. Joe Baca (CA), and former Rep. Robert Dold (IL) have all thrown their names back into the Congressional race once again, after many years away from politics. Additionally, party leaders believe at least 5 other candidates who lost in the last election will be considering running again in the upcoming elections. These individuals have spent a significant time away from the bickering and compromise of Congress, and are willing to give it another try. And why not? 9 ex-members won back their seats last year. These are experienced lawmakers, who know the ropes of Washington, and how to make things happen. The lure of the Washington spotlight, and getting their hands dirty seems to be very appealing to them. They’ve been there, and they’ve done that. For them, a re-election loss may not be the end of the road.

In my opinion, I believe Congress could use a little experience on compromise and lawmaking. These are candidates could bring a little bit of the “remember when” back into lawmaking that both parties seem to be nostalgic for.

by

Movie Stereotypes Are Sometimes Akin to Real Life

by Agnes Woebkenberg

Widener University Masters of Public Administration Student

Advise and Consent (1962) is an really interesting movie, although produced in 1960s its quite relevant to today’s public view of Congress.  The stereotypes of members of Congress and how things get done in Washington portrayed in the movie are the same ones we see today: back room deals, power plays, inner circles  and pursuit of one’s agenda at any cost.

The current bickering over Presidential appointments, even within the same party, is reminiscent of the movie.  All we have to do is to look at recent Presidential nomination of Chuck Hagel to the US Secretary of Defense post and the hostile style of questioning from Congress.   And let’s not forget the UN Ambassador Susan Rice whose name came up in the news as a candidate for the Secretary of State post and who was vilified by number of Congressmen for the Benghazi incident.  It’s clear that not much changed in the way we perceive the inner workings of Washington since 1960s but perhaps in current political environment, with Congress rated by the public lower than cockroaches, the stereotypes of ‘Advice and Consent’ appear tame in comparison.

by

Break the Banks!

by Jamar Phillips

After the financial fiasco on Wall Street known among many as the Crisis of Credit, people are still worried about the moral hazard of the Too Big to Fail mentality in government. Many other people on Wall Street worry about growing support to break up huge banks to prevent having to bail them out again. No matter how many bailouts banks get, are they really “vital” to our economy? When 60% of the US GDP is wrapped up in 6 financial institutions on Wall Street, why are we even thinking about leaving this anymore? BREAK’EM UP!

As long as you have so much wealth and so much of your resources in these 6 places, then whenever they screw up, WE ALL DO. There’s no way that the banking system is nothing short of a monopoly known as the financial sector. There’s no competition that occurs here. Who’s competing with you when 5% of your bank’s overall annual earnings dwarfs the size of Haiti’s entire annual economic output? When your bank fails and Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland are one minute from filing for bankruptcy, explain to me how the free market will fix that. These banks are not comprised of bad people. Don’t get it twisted. These are people that work hard and efficiently. They have no bad intentions. But what’s that saying again?

With all of government knowing this, they continue to be lobbied and I’ve learned enough in the past year to realize that politics has something to do with it. You know, if politics could rule everything, I bet Republicans would filibuster a bill to “End the World” and Democrats would argue that this isn’t fair to the dead people. Big Banks lobby so hard on their issues that its hard to tell if Senators have constituents that make less than $4 billion quarterly anymore. And then still have the gall to ask for tax breaks to create jobs. (Nobody hires people because they have extra money. They hire because the salary you pay someone should, in theory, dwarf the value of help they are to you.)

I say break these banks up. Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act and force the banks to hold more capital to stop them from running gambling arenas. There’s no way they’ll be able to say anything. What are they going to do? Never make a loan again? Then Great! Go out of business and get replaced by 3 other banks. Sounds fine to me. Free markets work when there’s a level playing field anyways. Funny thing is, the government won’t do it. The “Re-election Priority Act” is the 1st bill that passes every Congress and President at the beginning of every term. (Not a real bill.)

by

Boston Bomber to be Tried in Federal Court

By Greg Grossman

Widener University Political Science Major

The surviving brother of the Boston Marathon bombings is to be tried in Federal Court. Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the brother who attempted to shoot himself when cornered by police, is now in a federal medication detention center in central Massachusetts. He is charged with two counts of using a weapon of mass destruction. Conservatives were pushing for the younger brother to be tried in a military tribunal where harsher standards and more intense methods of interrogation could be used on the suspect. These military trials are hidden from the media and would put Tsarnaev under more stress and pressure.

Lots of activists in America are voicing their opinions stating that they support Tsarnaev’s right to a fair trial. Over 6,000 petitioners have signed a Change.org petition in support of the suspect getting his rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution. I believe that Tsarnaev should be tried in the Federal Court System and is innocent until proven guilty. Even if he is guilty, if our government cannot prove that he committed the crime, then he should be a free man and should be offered the highest condolences to him for his murdered brother. And if that should happen, our country should pressure our legislators to create laws that would enable us to better prosecute these criminal acts and ensure that the people committing them do not walk free.

by

Vote-a-Rama Part III: Wake Up, Congress

Several weeks ago the Senate held a “vote-a-rama” related  to amends to the federal budget. This is the third of a three part series of reactions to this event by Widener University students studying Congress this semester.

by Andrea Stickley

Widener University Political Science Major

Ladies and gentlemen, Congress has now found a way to act like a bunch of six year olds….and get paid for it! Introducing vote-a-rama, the newest invention that Congress has come up with that allows an all out debate and no compromise. It sounds like a word a six year old would come up with and sounds like how a six year old would act; and yet, it was created by our nation’s lawmakers. Something seems wrong with this picture. If Congress actually believes that they are going to accomplish something by holding this budget debate and comparing amendments, they’ve got another thing coming.

Wake up, Congress. Democrats and Republicans having different ideas is not a new discovery. The whole nation is aware of the fact that you guys can’t agree on issues. That’s not the problem. It’s the fact that Congress can’t come to a compromise. So, your solution to this is to hold a debate about the fact that you already know you have different amendments to request? Somehow this doesn’t seem like a smart idea or an effective use of time. Why not, instead of just rehashing all the things that you don’t agree on and will never agree on, you spend your time talking about things you can agree on? Wow, what a simplistic idea.

Unless, of course, there is nothing left that Congress can agree on…