2014 Midterm Elections

Today is Election Day in America and if you ingest any form of media you know it’s the only thing anyone cares about….except that is not true at all.  About 75% of American citizens are registered to vote and in 2012 only 59% of those people filled out a ballot.  As seen below, the turnout for elections like today’s midterms are even more pitiful looking.

In fact, midterm voting turnout has dropped steadily since the 1840’s – the problem isn’t new but it’s more pressing than ever.  No matter how you want this election to turn out (basically who you want to be in charge of making sure nothing happens), the fact so few people turn out to vote should be troubling to citizens of a democracy because a democracy is only as strong as the amount of people who vote and help steer decisions.  Interestingly, the American government is very hands off when it comes to getting people to vote.  Perhaps it’s due to government skepticism but when compared to other countries America should be doing more.

How the World Votes:

In Sweden more than 95% of their population votes.  This is achieved through automatic enrollment for all citizens in a national database (somewhere someone in a bunker shouted, ‘I knew it!!”) which is linked to tax records.  When it’s time for elections, Swedes can easily pop in and out of their local polling stations.

Going a step further is Australia which made voting mandatory.  There’s even a $20 fine for those who didn’t vote. America would never be able to pull off anything that strict but the current hands off approach is simply not working.

There are those that say voting doesn’t matter, one vote won’t make a difference, and nothing’s going to change anyways.  This apathy with the system may have some value, but this self defeating mentality is cancerous to the preservation and growth of the nation.

A million reasons can be given as to why a particular person doesn’t vote.  They are too busy, don’t care, or can’t find time around their jobs.  This can easily be solved.  Make Election Day a federal holiday.

You can picture it now – a day of patriotic fervor that extols the message that America truly is the world’s greatest democracy.  Having an entire day devoted to voting will give the message to those disillusioned with the process that the government and the people it represents take this system very seriously.  If you need to bribe them a bit with the chance to sleep in, is that a bad thing?

Every single citizen should be proud to vote.  America is so proud of being proud of itself that this holiday should easily become a reality.  During the 109th Congress John Kerry and Hillary Clinton introduced legislation to this end but it did not pass.  How un-American.

Fine.  In this business obsessed society we live in, the ability to have one extra day off every two years might be asking a bit much. Alternatively, America could do what over 50 other nations do: hold elections on the weekend.  Ever wonder why America votes on Tuesdays?  Travel back to 1845 for the answer.  The preferred day, Monday, was not viable since travel by horse took so long you could not make the trip to vote in the same day – of course there was no traveling on the Sabbath.  So Tuesday became the day.

This antiquated reason for Tuesday voting should be a sign that the process needs to evolve.  Holding elections on a holiday or the weekend would increase turnout.  Or a truly novel idea comes from a recent New York Times opinion piece by David Schanzer and Jay Sullivan which calls for a constitutional amendment to increase House terms to 4 years thus eliminating midterm elections.  This idea is compelling but unlikely to occur anytime soon.  Maybe someday sooner America will adopt online voting – you wouldn’t even have to leave bed to elect the people that run the world.  Now that sounds like a good deal.

The Risk of Saving Americans

These days, and perhaps it has always been this way, President Obama can do nothing to impress the ravenous denizens of Washington, aside from resigning. The latest issue plaguing the president is the rescue of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Bergdahl was held prisoner by the Taliban in Afghanistan for five years, but through talks and a swap of prisoners, he was released back to his country. There are many questions left unanswered about this entire ordeal, but the main complaint is that President Obama negotiated with terrorists, which is a maxim that has become indoctrinated into the American psyche. As will be shown, this blanket statement is untrue, unwise, and unhelpful.

The return of a missing in action U.S. service member is normally a cause for celebration, but that celebration was short lived and Bergdahl has not become an American darling. According to notes sent home to his family, the young sergeant had become disillusioned with the war and questioned America’s involvement in it. What happened next is still undetermined, yet Bergdahl left his post, either on accident or on purpose. While this is a military crime, thinking he did not deserve rescuing for such a notion, goes against every utterance of “leave no man behind’. There is the fact that soldiers died looking for Bergdahl which is heartbreaking, but did he deserve to be left with his captors for such reasons?

Obama’s Balancing Act:

President Obama is consistently called weak by his opponents, yet when he makes a strong move to save an American citizen, he oversteps his boundaries. Obama doesn’t even live on a razor’s edge between right and wrong, because that would imply there is actually a middle ground, free from criticism. Bergdahl was also criticized for his negative views on America and the ‘War on Terror’. The fact that someone in a war, began to hate said war, is as common as soldier’s being afraid of dying. Bergdahl is protected by the sanctity of the first amendment, but because of what he said, he is somehow seen as a “bad” American.

The legal ramifications of Obama’s actions have been received as more troubling than his moral ones, however. Bergdahl was traded for five Taliban members who had been in Guantanamo Bay prison since 2001. This move is being heralded as irresponsible, since the terrorists were reintroduced to the wild and, of course, their next step is to bring revenge against Americans. While this may or may not be true, let’s make an educated bet that America can stop this threat. Regarding all the bravado that is American exceptionalism, politicians act scared whenever there is talk about enemies testing our defenses. America’s military, defense, domestic and international surveillance budgets are astronomically high, so let’s hope they are good enough to stop five washed up terrorists.

There is also the fact that Congress must be told about the removal of Guantanamo prisoners 30 days in advance. The White House apologized for going it alone, a bad precedent to set, but one that meant something will actually get done, since Congress would have shut it down immediately. That is, after all, the only thing they are good at these days. The major foil here is the almighty “the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorist” clause. At face value this seems like an easy mandate to follow, but why has this become the norm?

To Deal with Terrorist or Not To Deal with Terrorists:

The historical record shows that the American government has dealt with terrorists in the past to ensure the end of the Iranian hostage crisis as well as many other situations similar to the Bergdahl case. This clause is supposed to show how America is too strong and clear of concious to deal with such dirty enterprises, but this is an unhelpful sentiment. A good foreign policy means that all options are open because American safety is paramount. Time will tell if the President’s decision will cause any more danger, but the immediate results have made one American safer.

Another facet of this issue is the dulling of the warhawk’s notions that every enemy is completely evil. The Taliban are terrible, and have committed atrocities, but this small sign of decency adds a dash of humanity to their image and, for most Americans, it is a lot easier to fight monsters. The Taliban should not be off the hook for all they’ve done, though perhaps this swap has credited the smallest bit of goodwill that could blossom in the future.

It’s hard to call this a shrewd political move because of all the fallout, except President Obama did accomplish some political goals with the swap. The issue of the prison at Guantanamo Bay has been a sore reminder of failed initiatives that candidate Obama endorsed. Yet, Obama has lessened the amount of prisoners currently being held indefinitely, while saving an American soldier. If more deals like this could be made to end the human rights violation that is Gitmo Prison, while saving Americans abroad, the decision should be repeated. But in such a toxic political climate, this was probably the first and last time.

Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers call him a deserter and want him court martialed. Politicians on both sides of the aisle criticized the President’s decision to protect his citizens. Yet, an American’s life was saved. It’s sad that a scared young man, who has been through unspeakable hells, might have been better off in the clutches of terrorists instead of back in his country.

Reign in Student Loan Debt

Lazy Activism has already covered the epidemic of student loan debt in America, and now a fresh piece of legislation hopes to bring some of that $1,200,000,000 in debt to heel. The Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren, has proposed The Bank On Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, the entire wording of which can be found here.

Education Without Penalty:

With student loan debt making up one of the largest portions of personal debt in America, it is abundantly clear that something needs to be done to fix this problem. Many students, fresh out of high school, sign their lives away to loans they barely understand. This action ensures them an education, as well as debt for years to come.

Getting an education should not have a harsh penalty of high loans with immense interest rates attached to it. The high cost of colleges is another matter entirely, but Senator Warren’s latest effort goes after the rates at which these loans are signed. Warren is not alone, since 23 other senators have also signed on. For those of you keeping score at home, that’s 24% of the United States Senate approving such actions. It really is a simple bipartisan issue, but of course, in this current politically toxic environment, nothing is ever truly as easy as it seems.

Lowering Past Debt:

According to the Project on Student Debt, 71% of ambitious people who graduated college in 2013 have student debt. The problem is real, large, and fixable. In an initial bipartisan effort, Congress lowered interest rates for new borrowers. A great first step, but what about all of the old debt out there?

That’s where Warren’s new plan kicks in. Her new bill would allow everyone with student loan debt to refinance to the lower prices used for last year’s congressional endeavor, and the Buffett Rule would provide the funds needed to accomplish this goal. The Buffett Rule, named for the famed, responsible billionaire, Warren Buffett, states that no household making over $1 million dollars a year should pay a smaller share in taxes than a middle class family pays and is a testament to a progressive tax system. The difference in interest rates will be made up by using the money earned from providing a fair tax code.

While tax increases for the rich are anathema in an America where income equality is reaching upward into historic levels, they are necessary to help the future of this country start their professional lives on the right foot. By refinancing their loans, students will save money that will be invested back into the economy, and not just into the pockets of those already making fortunes off of loans.

When the tax increase portion of the bill was announced, bipartisan support vanished as fast as expected but there’s a second issue that Republicans will scoff at.

The government saying you can refinance government loans is within their purview, but when the government says you can refinance loans held by private insurers is where things get messy. Government intervention into business is nothing new but still remains controversial, and even combative to a segment of the population. Yet, government action is needed to protect consumers from exorbitant loans and rates. For many Americans, a strong notion is instilled within them that, if they do not go to college after high school, they will make less money and have a worse life. So if a student was faced with the decision to either go to college with the help of a predatory loan or skip higher education, how can one blame the student for wanting to get an education?

No one should greatly profit off of an education other than the person being educated. High interest rates and high amounts of debt don’t just affect those fresh off campus, they are a burden on the economy because it bars recently graduated students from buying new cars, houses, or investing their wages. If all it takes to invest in America’s students, who are the future, is a bit of refinancing, and a modest increase in taxes by those who do not have to worry about paying for an education, how can the country morally say “no”? The final details of Senator Warren’s bill will be haggled over, but the core issue seems so simple, you wouldn’t even need a college education to agree with it.