by

More of the Same? Or Romney’s 50 Nation Plan?

by Tori Remondelli

Widener University American Government Student

The first presidential debate was between an eloquent, enthusiastic speaker who beat around the bush and a supposed lock for the presidency who didn’t prepare as well as he should have. Mr. Romney, former governor of what he made out to be the best state in America, wants to give more power to each individual state in an effort to try and make them a little more like Massachusetts. It wasn’t very clear what Mr. President’s counter proposal was, so we can assume that nothing will change.

My mother who is a born and bred Republican believes that if you don’t like the way your state is run, then you should be able to move to a different state where the control will be different. But if the government sets regulations that every state must abide by, then you have no choice but to throw your vote into a pool of every American voter and pray you pick the same as the majority.

What I got from that debate was a choice between President Change’s same old ways or Romney’s 50 Nations policy. However, neither provided the details of their plan.  A choice is only as good as the reasons behind it and right now neither one of the candidate have provided enough reasons to merit one. Hopefully the next debate will bring more clarity, but only time will tell.

by

Federalism & the 2012 Vice Presidential Debate

Unlike the first presidential debate which included a number of issues relating to federalism and state and local politics – the VP debate did not address federalism. There was no real debate on education, medicaid or the health care reform. Consequently – we’ll have to wait until next Tuesday to discuss the issues related to this blog.

by

Using Super PACs to End Super PACs?

by Amanda Raimer

Widener University American Government Student

An article in the New York Times, “’Super PACs’ Finally a Draw for Democrats”, discusses how more donors are coming forward and giving large sums of money to the super PACs that support Democrats, like Priorities USA. However, they found that these newcomers were not the same categories of people who donated in the 2008 campaign, but instead are centralized to “pre-Obama” Democratic supporters such as trial lawyers, unions, and Hollywood. They also found that many of the new donors had previously been wary of super PACs as a source of unlimited funds and did not want to support these groups they felt were abusing the loophole developed in the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling.  Now, however, these people feel like the only way to shut down these super PACs is to use that power to elect officials who will change the law to eliminate these groups.

While the amount of money raised by super PACs shows that Republicans have been exploiting this track more than the Democrats, attempting to raise over three times as much money, I’m not sure that this tactic will take down the super PACs, it may make them more powerful than they already are. Giving money to these super PACs increases their power and pull in the campaign, and I think that officials, regardless of political party, will have a hard time giving up such a large source of money without being forced. Also, these groups are so important to the Republican campaigns that any campaign finance reform involving taking away super PACs will not get enough support in our federal government to establish a new policy. Giving money to these super PACs in an effort to get rid of them seems to only strengthen them further and establish an even more critical role for these groups in campaign finance.

by

Federalism and the October 3, 2012 Presidential Debate

by J. Wesley Leckrone

Assistant Professor, Political Science, Widener University

Federalism played a surprisingly important role in the first debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney on October 3, 2012. The roles of the federal government and states were addressed on the issues of education, Medicaid, and health care reform. There was even a mention of the 10th Amendment (a first in a presidential debate in the last 50 years?).  In general, Romney made a traditional Republican argument to allow states to make decisions for themselves, advocating for the consolidation of federal programs and devolving them to states. President Obama argued that the federal government had a role in ensuring minimum standards, thus supporting more grants to the states and opposing devolution.

Here’s a montage of their positions in their own words:

EDUCATION

President Obama:

” And when it comes to education what I’ve said is we’ve got to reform schools that are not working. We use something called Race to the Top. Wasn’t a top-down approach, Governor. What we’ve said is to states, we’ll give you more money if you initiate reforms. And as a consequence, you had 46 states around the country who have made a real difference.

But what I’ve also said is let’s hire another 100,000 math and science teachers to make sure we maintain our technological lead and our people are skilled and able to succeed. And hard-pressed states right now can’t all do that. In fact we’ve seen layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers over the last several years, and Governor Romney doesn’t think we need more teachers. I do, because I think that that is the kind of investment where the federal government can help.

It can’t do it all, but it can make a difference. And as a consequence we’ll have a better trained workforce and that will create jobs because companies want to locate in places where we’ve got a skilled workforce.”

“You know, this is where budgets matter, because budgets reflect choices. So when Governor Romney indicates that he wants to cut taxes and potentially benefit folks like me and him, and to pay for it we’re having to initiate significant cuts in federal support for education, that makes a difference.

You know, his — his running mate, Congressman Ryan, put forward a budget that reflects many of the principles that Governor Romney’s talked about. And it wasn’t very detailed. This seems to be a trend. But — but what it did do is to — if you extrapolated how much money we’re talking about, you’d look at cutting the education budget by up to 20 percent.”

Governor Romney:

“Well, the primary responsibility for education is — is, of course, at the state and local level. But the federal government also can play a very important role. And I — and I agree with Secretary Arne Duncan, he’s — some ideas he’s put forward on Race to the Top, not all of them, but some of them I agree with and — and congratulate him for pursuing that. The federal government can get local and — and state schools to do a better job.

My own view, by the way, is I’ve added to that. I happen to believe, I want the kids that are getting federal dollars from IDEA or Title I — these are disabled kids or — or — or poor kids or — or lower-income kids, rather, I want them to be able to go to the school of their choice.

So all federal funds, instead of going to the — to the state or to the school district, I’d have go, if you will, follow the child and let the parent and the child decide where to send their — their — their student.”

“Mr. President, Mr. President, you’re entitled as the president to your own airplane and to your own house, but not to your own facts. All right, I’m not going to cut education funding. I don’t have any plan to cut education funding and — and grants that go to people going to college. I’m planning on (inaudible) to grow. So I’m not planning on making changes there.”

MEDICAID

President Obama:

“It means that Governor Romney talked about Medicaid and how we could send it back to the states, but effectively this means a 30 percent cut in the primary program we help for seniors who are in nursing homes, for kids who are with disabilities.”

Governor Romney:

“I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.

And I remember, as a governor, when this idea was floated by Tommy Thompson, the governors — Republican and Democrats — said, please let us do that. We can care for our own poor in so much better and more effective a way than having the federal government tell us how to care for our poor.

So — so let’s state — one of the magnificent things about this country is the whole idea that states are the laboratories of democracy. Don’t have the federal government tell everybody what kind of training programs they have to have and what kind of Medicaid they have to have. Let states do this.

And, by the way, if a state gets in trouble, well, we can step in and see if we can find a way to help them.

But — but the right — the right approach is one which relies on the brilliance of our people and states, not the federal government.”

HEALTH CARE REFORM:

President Obama:

“… the irony is that we’ve seen this model work really well in Massachusetts, because Governor Romney did a good thing, working with Democrats in the state to set up what is essentially the identical model and as a consequence people are covered there. It hasn’t destroyed jobs. And as a consequence, we now have a system in which we have the opportunity to start bringing down costs, as opposed to just leaving millions of people out in the cold.”

Governor Romney:

“The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy.”

by

Retro Swagger?

by Fred Hew
Widener University American Government Student

The two Presidential candidates have a common view: that American politics and economic values should rule the world. The country found out about their difference in recent foreign policy speeches in New York. Romney is all about the hands on approach of conditioning countries to do the right thing. Rewarding ally countries, Israel, and condemning others, like Iran. Iran has been non cooperative in the past and if elected, Romney would place a military presence in Iran.

Obama is standing by his current policy of assisting Iran to see the light of American culture. The Iranians would be more likely to accept our political and economic system long term if they weren’t forced to adopt it, like Romney is suggesting. It is believed that if Romney were to win the election a lot of the swagger from the George W. Bush presidency would return to foreign policy. The hard-nosed, hands on approach would return to the White House and that’s something that appeals to many Americans, unlike Obama’s diplomatic approach.

Now which way is a smarter approach? Probably the Democratic method of thinking first, rather than running into a fire fight without any ammo. Romney’s way of forcing ourselves upon other allied countries like Egypt isn’t necessarily the right way to go about things. He could quickly make more enemies by his proposal of taking away aid from the Egyptians because they don’t share the same values as us. Either way, the two candidates have completely opposite views of how we should be viewed from the outside looking in. Romney believes we, as a country, can get anything we want in whichever way we please. Abusing our power isn’t something that Americans should strive to do, especially to allied countries.

by

New Voter ID Laws and Their Significance

By Nicole Crossey
Widener University American Government Student

To think of how far America has come, since its inception 236 years ago, is amazing! Voting rights have changed dramatically. The 15th Amendment gave everyone the right to vote regardless of race, the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, and the 26th Amendment allowed anyone 18 years and older to vote. Voting is an inalienable right. Allowing everyone’s voice to be heard in a federal republic is one of the United States’ shining attributes.

 However, is our voting system flawed? Does voter fraud exist?

 In Choicet and Valdes’s “New voting measures could deter Latinos, civil rights group says”, some believe “voter fraud is non-existent”. New voter ID laws are “trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and has a disparate impact on people of color”. However, voter fraud is a growing problem. The increase in absentee voting has garnered the concern of watchdog groups. Some people have voted twice in different states because absentee voting laws have been loosened in many states.

 It is only logical that the government wants to preserve the “integrity of the vote”. New voter ID laws require voters to “prove their citizenship or be purged from voting rolls”. Some efforts of these new laws include:  purging rolls of non-citizen voters, proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration, and photo ID laws.

What’s the big deal about these laws? Well, nearly “half of the nation’s states have instituted new voting measures” and these measures could limit minorities from “heading to the polls”. Some calculate that as many as “10 million Latinos will be prevented from registering and heading to the polls in the 2012 elections”. However, some postulate that this estimate is “ridiculous”.

This debate is “divided right down party lines”. Democrats believe that the “new measures limit minority turnout in crucial battleground states”, while Republicans believe that the new measures “fight fraud”. Historically, minorities lean towards being a Democrat so these new measures would hurt Democrats in the polls.

The notion of “discriminating” against the minority community led to a lot of controversy regarding the Pennsylvania voter ID law, which requires voters to present a state-issued photo ID. While this law was sent back to Pennsylvania’s lower courts to “assess alternative forms of identification and whether the new law disenfranchises voters”, the controversy remains and more questions arise. Some argue that this law “strengthens voting procedures and protects against fraud”, but others question how they will obtain the state-issued photo ID. This is harder than one may think. The poor, elderly, and handicapped will have a difficult time going to the DMV and paying for the new ID. This also inconveniences people who live in urban areas and who ride public transport because they probably will not have driver’s license.

Are these laws being supported on the basis of preserving the integrity of our government or in the best interest of the people? It seems as though the “arguments for the voter laws are based on analysis of government documents and data, media reports and scholarly works”—not thinking about the effects they might have on people. Some also argue the laws infringe on their inalienable right to vote.

Personally, I think that the new voter ID laws are just and well-founded. However, I think that the government DOES need to give people time and outlets to obtain the necessary identification. Therefore, I don’t think the Pennsylvania voter ID law should be enforced for this election. I think these new laws will scare some people of minority to not vote and, therefore, these laws will have a major impact on this election.