Ignoring the Poor

“The politicians will remain stuck on the middle class, because poor people for the most part don’t vote in their mind. And second, both are tied to Wall Street, and Wall Street has a classic indifference when it comes to most poor people. We Americans should be ashamed when we look at the level of poverty among our fellow citizens … But poverty has always been high in America …. That means not that we’ve lost our soul that means we want to able to do something about it but our political system is so broken that the will of the people cannot filter through. It’s dominated by big money, big banks and big corporations who have their way…”–Cornel West.

With the 2012 presidential election now days away, candidates have only briefly touched on the number of Americans on food stamps and those out of work. The subject of poverty has yet to rear its head during the presidential debates or on the campaign trails.

According to a 2012 report by the US Census Bureau, the nation’s official poverty rate for 2011 was 15.0%, estimating that 46.2

ivarfjeld.wordpress.com

million Americans live in poverty, which has no statistical difference from 2010 following a three consecutive year increase. Furthermore, the percentage of families in poverty is 11.8%, an estimated 9.5 million families; 6.2% of married-couple families, 31.2% families with female householders and 16.1% of families with a male householder are living in poverty.

According to an eye-opening study by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), with such an alarming poverty rate being reported by the US Census Bureau, the issue of poverty has been an invisible subject to the US media in their coverage of the 2012 election. Furthermore, the study found that poverty has barely registered as a campaign issue. Only 17 out of the 10,489 campaign stories considered the problem of poverty in any remotely substantial way.

This conscious decision by the US media and presidential candidates to ignore the problem of poverty has come at a critical moment when more and more Americans are moving towards the poverty threshold or already below it. It is unclear why politicians ignore or fail to discuss an issue that is affecting millions of Americans. However, if politicians were to discuss such an issue it would receive a great deal of attention and perhaps be bombarded with the accusation of class warfare.

Moreover, there is a great perception among politicians that the poor do not vote in large numbers. However, according to a recent Gallup poll 50% of people below the poverty threshold are registered as Independents, 32% Democrats and 15% Republicans. It is further perceived that the poor give little or no contribution to campaigns or the super PACs, leaving the voice of the poor as a mere murmur, while our politicians focus on more ‘important’ factors such as votes and media ratings or hits.

usdailyreview.com

The concern over poverty in this great nation seems to be a nonexistent political issue in this upcoming election. It is as if people with no resources or food security are overlooked by a country that seems to have other priorities.

Furthermore, neither candidate has attempted to make poverty even a minor issue on their campaign trail. Such stands by our leaders demote millions of struggling Americans to mere invisibility.

In this election where the economy and foreign policy are among the most important issues, despite concerning facts by the Brooking Institute who predicted approximately 10 million people and 6 million children being forced into poverty by 2014. Our leaders must show concern that the US has more people in poverty than any other developed nation.

What can be done you ask?

Nothing, unless our leaders decide to at least address an issue that concerns us all.

——————-

Other reports: Brookings Institute – Simulating the Effect of the ‘Great Recession’ on Poverty

The New Lawyer: Free Legal Work Becoming Mandatory for Joining State Bar in New York

What does this mean for new admits to the profession of law?

By David Chapinski

Starting next year, New York will become the first state to require lawyers to perform unpaid work before being licensed to practice.

Photo credit: http://www.jjie.org

The state’s Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman made the announcement recently, describing the rule as a way to help the growing number of people who cannot afford legal services.

Also referred to as ‘Poor 3L Suckers,’ in some crowds, the rule will require the approximately 10,000 lawyers who apply to the New York State Bar each year to prove that they have performed 50 hours of pro bono work before they are admitted.

Judge Lippman has said that the move was intended to provide about a half-million hours of desperately needed legal services to those with urgent problems, like foreclosure and domestic violence. But who is he kidding?  This sounds, to me, more like a ‘big business’ move.

The need for legal services has grown exponentially in recent years as the economic crisis delivered what advocates for the poor call a triple attack. More people are struggling financially and more people need legal services to cope with foreclosures, evictions, credit and employment problems that could push them into long-term poverty. Meanwhile, state and federal funding for legal services has dropped considerably.

For example, The Legal Aid Society, the nation’s largest provider of free legal services, turns away eight out of every nine persons

Photo credit: americanprogress.org

that seek help with civil legal matters. Since the economic downturn began in 2008, requests for legal assistance has jumped 40 percent for health care issues, 54 percent for unemployment insurance and work-related problems, 16 percent for domestic violence and a stunning 800 percent for foreclosures. While criminal defendants have a constitutional right to free legal representation, defendants in civil cases, as well as people who need legal help for essential needs like applying for disability benefits do not.

During his three years at the top of the state’s court system, Judge Lippman has made New York a national model and has been praised in the legal profession for addressing what he calls the ‘justice gap.[i]’ He helped to allocate millions of dollars from the courts’ administrative budget for free legal services and made it easier for retired lawyers to take pro bono cases. Judge Lippman and the court administrative board have the power to do so because, unlike in many other states, the New York court system, and not the bar association, set the requirements.  Many worry about poor people with lawyers who don’t want to be there. Lawyers do not like to be told what to do.

But this latest measure may prove more controversial, some of his proponents say, because it enters into a fierce debate among lawyers over whether mandatory pro bono service is the right solution. There are also those who argue that the rule could empty the pockets of young lawyers at a time when they are struggling to find jobs.

If poor people in NY have trouble securing legal services, what better way to assist them than to force similarly situated people to come to their aid?

Instead of relying upon existing attorneys to offer assistance to those that are in need, Judge Lippman has chosen to force the task upon those who have no choice but to obey. I believe that Chief Judge Lippman has a good idea, but it is a bit misplaced.

If we are fair to the law student, we should be discussing what the new pro bono requirement means for them. Opponents argue that this proposal imposes a tax on attorneys and is preferable to proposals taxing a broader tax base for the same thing. Others argue that this is indentured servitude, not pro bono service.

The real issue here, some would say, is that Chief Judge Lippman has done his ‘job’ in improving New York’s “justice gap,”[ii] but his pro bono requirement for new admittees hasn’t exactly followed suit.

Endorsers of the approach say it will ensure that new lawyers have real-world experience while helping hundreds of thousands of people in the civil justice system that do not have a lawyer. To put it in perspective, if every state in the country were to join in, that would mean at least two and a half million hours of additional pro bono work. What a positive impact on persons and communities of limited means and organizations that would gain from this immersion of pro bono work. Only 20 percent[iii] of the need for civil legal services is currently being met. State lawmakers this year approved $25 million for civil legal services, double the funding from last year. But there isn’t enough money in the world to meet the need, according to Judge Lippman. There is still the need for the continued individual efforts of lawyers.

Yet, the requirement for mandatory pro bono will not extend to the approximately 160,000 lawyers the American Bar Association estimates are already admitted to the state bar and living in New York. Admittedly, mandatory pro bono for the entire bar is not workable because there are so many different categories of lawyers, differences in geography, and hundreds of lawyers who can’t make a living on what they are doing now.

Many think Judge Lippman’s initiative is wrong on so many levels that it’s easier to respond to it with ignorance than to even begin to point out its flaws. Like the fact that recent law school graduates have a difficult road ahead. Many of them have six figures of student debt to mine and bankruptcy is not a solution. Why not expect more of people who have already been admitted to the bar? Yes, pro bono is a real “core value” of the profession in New York. And New York would probably be better served by an amendment to the state’s own ethical code than this new requirement.

On its face this seems like a great idea. Let’s help students learn, let’s get services to those in need, lets help people who can’t afford counsel. But, a true win-win-win?

New York has one of the top two hardest bar exams in the country. So let us take a state that is already viewed with fear and apprehension and make it that much harder to get a license to practice in.  Make that license contingent upon 50 hours of work, an additional source of torment for anyone who decides midway through their third year of law school to take the New York bar exam but didn’t go to law school in New York. Those applicants are deeply affected.

Is it possible to place 50 pro bono hours on the summer you are studying for the exam so you are now punishing anyone who did not ‘plan ahead’ even though the decision of where to take the bar exam is dependent upon things out of their hands?

Many argue that if the state of New York really cared about providing legal services to those that can’t afford them they would require that lawyers who have already passed the bar provide the services. Lawyers have to renew their licenses; they have to attend continuing legal education, so why not add a pro bono work requirement?

Maybe let them trade 10 hours of continuing legal education for 10 hours of pro bono work. Then you have ‘real’ lawyers dedicating their time to people who need it and you don’t have already trepid law students trying to help someone in their most desperate hour of need.

As an outside student of public administration looking in, I believe the role of the judiciary as well as national and state bar associations should be to provide a de minimus framework. Govern what we can’t do in order to avoid individuals risking licenses. Outside of that, professional associations should be a source of professional support and information. It is not the job of associations to legislate or mandate how an individual should aspire to be a better person or lawyer. Nor should they tell people that he/she must give away their services. But that is where they are heading.

Many still believe in freedom of professionalism. This ‘solution’ has been approached before in many different ways by many different groups. It seemed inevitable that someone would find a politically pleasing solution that would remove the option from the hands of the American Bar Association and put it in the hands of the judiciary.

I believe that a struggling economy has given the perfect opportunity to implement this mandate and it has now found its supporters – myself not one of them.

Photo Caption: jjie.org

---

[i] Cardozo Law. Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the Sate f New York, to Deliver Cardozo School of Law’s 2012 Commencement Address.  April 4, 2012.

[ii] Law Day Ceremony. Law in the 21^st Century: Enduring Traditions, Emerging Challenges. Court of Appeals. Albany, New York.

[iii] Thomas Reuters – Lippman announces pro bono requirement for prospective attorneys. May 2, 2012.

Oil Prices & Natural Gas

By David Chapinski

PhD student, Rutgers University

How does the New Jersey natural gas proposal help in public management?

In many states, a local utility company within a protected service area controls electricity and natural gas supply and delivery.  Pricing guidelines and other controls are set and monitored by the state in which they operate but for the most part, customers do not have a choice in supplier or price.

Today, 28 states have deregulated the supply of energy, encouraging competition and offering customers a choice of supplier, price and contract term. Electricity and natural gas are traded on the open market as a commodity so prices fluctuate with the supply and demand just like stocks.  Depending upon your risk threshold, you may elect to lock into a guaranteed price for a specific length of time or you may choose another pricing plan and term that may fluctuate with the market in hopes of increasing your savings.

As a local natural gas distribution company, New Jersey Natural Gas (NJNG) provides regulated retail natural gas service to nearly 500,00 customers.  I believe what makes the NJ Gas Proposal unique is that the interest in natural gas vehicles has been growing from both the private and public sectors.  This is especially the case for organizations with large fleets, portions of public and private bus companies and trash haulers like New Jersey Junk Removal.

Fleets are replacing older, more highly polluted diesel and gasoline vehicles.  Sure, there are underlying and intertwined goals of ensuring economic and employment growth while encouraging energy efficiency but we must remember what tradition means for New Jersey.  The traditional reliance on petroleum-based fuels for transportation has accelerated security, economic, air quality, health and environmental challenges in our country on a whole. But in New Jersey we are seeing the need for addressing a proposal like NJNG in 2012.  I believe there is a need because NJNG committed to upgrading the Clean Natural Gas (CNG) refueling equipment of two company locations (Lakewood and the Maude Service Center). That work was completed by January 2012.

But why is it so terribly important for supporters to try and gain traction?

Recently, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) approved a proposal by New Jersey Natural Gas (NJNG) to implement a pilot program that would help stimulate the state’s natural gas vehicle (NGV) market.  Investing up to $10 million over the next 12 months, NJNG will build between five and seven compressed natural gas (CNG) refueling stations at host facilities throughout its service territory.

I have often wondered at the phenomena along the eastern seaboard, which seems to get hit harder than the rest of the country when it comes to rising petroleum prices.  Last year gasoline prices in New Jersey peaked in May when the average per-gallon cost reached $3.88.

I find it  interesting that prices actually jump annually in the spring or summer in New Jersey, as companies change the blend of fuels to meet federal requirements. This often signals that good news is sure to follow.

I also believe that New Jersey has potential to lead the way to price stability. I do not believe New Jersey residents, like myself, believe that gasoline prices will be as high as they were in Connecticut in 2011 at $4.20 a gallon in 2012. Even if they are, we can adapt because we made it through a very tough recession and are still standing together as a whole.

When we look at alternative scenarios for the future of energy in New Jersey, we must not lose sight of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) June release of our nation’s Annual Energy Outlook, 2012 (AEO2012).

In addition to the reference projections, consumption, technology, and market trends and the direction they may take in the future, the report also shows how New Jersey will be taking one ‘on the chin’ for a very long time if we do not prove to the rest of the country that installing company-owned refueling sites offer many advantages.  I feel that there has been much less major highway experimentation taking place on natural gas in New Jersey in the last decade.

If we take a look at Table 4-10 below, the numbers are still showing the disillusion there can be any quick turnaround through natural gas proposals. The number of total alternative fuels has basically increased less than 4 percent the year prior in 2007.

Table 4-10: Estimated Consumption of Alternative and Replacement Fuels for Highway Vehicles

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009	2008		1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
TOTAL fuel consumptiona	177,697,941	180,698.532	182,185,778	184,810,803	185,593,715	176,509,233 (R)	50	161,210,087	163,032,407	165,201,691	169,983,219	177,697,941	180,698,532	182,185,778	184,810,803	185,593,715	(R) 176,509,233	172,518,178
Alternative fuels, total	402,941	428,532	420,778	417,803	414,803	430,329	23,790	302,287	322,037	348,421	378,589	402,941	428,532	420,778	417,803	414,715	430,329	431,107
Liquefied petroleum gases	223,697	211,883	188,171	173,130	152,360	147,784		209,817	212,576	215,876	223,143	224,697	211,883	188,171	173,130	152,360	147,784	129,631
Compressed natural gas	133,222	158,903	166,878	172,011	178,565	189,358	72,412	79,620	86,475	104,496	120,670	133,222	158,903	166,878	172,011	178,565	189,358	199,513
Liquefied natural gas	13,503	20,888	22,409	23,474	24,594	25,554	5,343	5,828	7,259	8,921	9,382	13,503	20,888	22,409	23,474	24,594	25,554	25,652
Methanol, 85%b	N	N	N	N	N	N	1,212	1,073	585	439	337	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Methanol, neat	0	N	N	N	N	N	449	447	0	0	0	0	N	N	N	N	N	N
Ethanol, 85%b	26,376	31,581	38,074	44,041	54,091	62,464	1,727	3,916	12,071	14,623	17,783	26,376	31,581	38,074	44,041	54,091	62,464	71,213
Ethanol, 95%b	0	N	N	N	N	N	59	62	13	0	0	0	N	N	N	N	N	N
Electricityc	5,141	5,269	5,219	5,104	5,037	5,050	1,202	1,524	3,058	4,066	7,274	5,141	5,269	5,219	5,104	5,037	5,050	4,956
Hydrogen	2	8	25	41	66	117	N	N	N	N	N	2	8	25	41	66	117	140
Other Fuels	0	0	2	2	2	2	N	N	N	N	N	0	0	2	2	2	2	2
Biodiesel	18,220	27,616	93,281	267,623	367,764	324,329	N	N	6,816	7,076	16,917	18,220	27,616	93,281	267,623	367,764	324,329	325,102
Oxygenates
Methyl-tertiary-butyl-etherd	2,368,400	1,877,300	1,654,500	435,000	0	0	,400	3,402,600	3,296,100	3,352,200	2,383,000	2,368,400	1,877,300	1,654,500	435,000	0	0	0
Ethanol in gasohol	1,919,572	2,414,167	2,765,663 (R)	3,729,168	3,729,168	4,694,304	500	950,300	1,085,800	1,143,300	1,413,600	1,919,572	2,414,167	(R) 2,765,663	3,729,168	4,694,304	6,442,781	7,343,133
Traditional fuels, total	177,295,000	180,270,000	181,765,000	184,393,000	185,179,000	176,078,904 (R)	4,360	160,907,800	162,710,370	164,853,270	169,604,630	177,295,000	180,270,000	181,765,000	184,393,000	185,179,000	(R) 176,078,904	172,087,071
Gasolinee	135,330,000	138,283,000	138,723,000	140,146,000	140,646,000	134,644,492	9,000	125,111,000	125,720,000	127,768,000	131,299,000	135,330,000	138,283,000	138,723,000	140,146,000	140,646,000	134,644,492	134,385,175
Dieself	41,965,000	41,987,630	43,042,000	44,247,040	44,533,000	41,434,412 (R)	,360	35,796,800	36,990,370	37,085,270	38,305,630	41,965,000	41,987,000	43,042,000	44,247,000	44,533,000	(R) 41,434,412	37,701,896

Expect NJNG’s natural gas proposal to make the necessary investments in CNG re-fueling infrastructure at locations where a company has or plans to use Natural Gas Vehicles, thus accelerating their development in the state of New Jersey for years to come and removing much older, more polluted diesel or gasoline vehicles from service. NJNG’s proposal will provide the necessary capital for constructing the re-fueling stations on the host company’s site, recovering those costs through the Clean Natural Gas Vehicle Infrastructure Program.

In other words, the company managing the quality assurance will also be required to make the Clean Natural Gas station available to the public. This is huge because we need accountability on a project of this magnitude in New Jersey.  By establishing the structure as such, I believe the Clean Natural Gas Infrastructure Program serves to accelerate the Natural Gas Vehicle market for both the anchor and company managing host area companies interested in moving away from traditional-based fuels, but unable to justify the infrastructure costs associated with installation.

Lastly, through the NJNG proposal and CNG Infrastructure Program, NJNG proposes to offer the managing company a turnkey Clean Natural Gas refueling station that will be available for their use.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Total fuel consumption is the sum of Alternative fuels, Gasoline, and Diesel. Oxygenate consumption is included in Gasoline consumption.

^b The remaining portion of 85% methanol, 85% ethanol, and 95% ethanol fuels is Gasoline. Consumption data include the Gasoline portion of the fuel.

^c Excludes gasoline-electric hybrids.

^d Includes a very small amount of other ethers, primarily tertiary-amyl-methyl-ether and ethyl-tertiary-butyl-ether.

^e Gasoline consumption includes Ethanol in gasohol and Methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether.

^f Diesel includes Biodiesel.

America in an Orwellian State of Mind

An Orwellian society, as describe by George Orwell, is the destruction of the welfare of a free society in which there is an invasion of privacy by constantly monitoring its citizens. Moreover, it is the encouragement of “doublespeak” which refers to misleading the masses to accept inconsistent policies. A great example of this is seen when the American people gave up their civil liberties and freedom in the name of national security.

On December 31, 2011, while many Americans celebrated bringing in the New Year, President Obama was busy signing into law the $662 billion funded National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which focuses on the defense of the United States and its overseas interests.  Although the NDAA addresses US national security programs and the Department of Defense health care costs, it becomes controversial when addressing counter-terrorism. Title X, Subtitle D, Section 1021 of the NDAA, which is labeled counter-terrorism, authorizes the military to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial if the government suspects their involvement with terrorism or connection to a terrorist organization. To date, there has been no law in the legislative history of the United States other than the Patriot Act which has given the President such unlimited power.

As a result of this provision the act has been seen as both a violation of international law and the laws of war. In defense of the Act, the President has assured that his Administration will not engage in any sort of unjust citizen detention. At the signing of NDAA the President stated, “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” He further went on to state, “My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” However, such statements do not prevent future Heads of State from acting in a different manner, and may result in America in fact being one step closer to becoming an Orwellian society, whereby a totalitarian government will dominate and oppress our civil liberties by fighting an endless war on terror.

The NDAA also gives the military the power to exercise firm and repressive control over the population, which in turn gives the military the power to operate outside the boundaries of our Constitution by constantly monitoring citizens’ activities to seek out persons of suspicion. Similarly, during the Bush Administration’s war on terror, the issue of detaining suspected terrorist for an indefinite period of time was brought before the US Supreme Court.  The Court held that no government has the power or the legal premise to hold a person for an indefinite period of time.

It becomes apparent that the signing of the NDAA goes against the very philosophy of our Founding Fathers who purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one governmental branch supersedes the other. With the NDAA authorizing the President and military to exercise an unprecedented amount of power unopposed, that system is rendered ineffective.  Realizing that such legislation is unjust, the Virginia Senate has taken the opportunity to stand up against the unreasonable application of government authority by passing a bill that prevents state agency from participating or assisting in the detention of US citizens.

Ultimately, although the NDAA was designed with national security in mind, it may be a grave mistake to allow the executive branch of the government to have such an unprecedented amount of power and authority. If such legislation remains, one can only imagine the abuse of power of future leaders who would allow America to closely mimic countries that use policies and mass surveillance to control their citizens. Thus, if this Act is left unchallenged we can only expect the slow destruction of our welfare, and the systematic eradication of our basic freedom and civil liberties, inevitably leading us closer to becoming an Orwellian society.

Student Loans – The Business

A common statistic quoted by many colleges is that Americans with a college degree will earn $1 million more in their lifetime compared to persons with high school diplomas. The notion that a college education is the ticket to receiving higher wages is a fallacy. For decades, this miscommunication has been used to mislead college-aged kids all over the country. Every year, the number of high school graduates and Americans that enroll in college grows. According to the US Census Bureau for the 2010-2011 school year it was projected that the number of students enrolled in college is 19.7 million, an increase from 14.4 million 20 years ago.

Growing alongside the rise in the enrollment rate of college students has also an increase in college tuition, which is causing the majority of students to turn to private and federal loans in order to pay for college. In an attempt to make college education accessible to everyone, the government provides low interest loans to college students. In the past, paying for a higher education was solely dependent on private funding; however, to support the increase in enrollment in the late 1950s the federal government took over and created cheap student loans for lower income students.  However, the application process is often less rigorous than the commercial lending process. So students, regardless of credit history or certainty of repayment, often graduate with thousands of dollars in debt.

Similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in which the government made housing affordable, the government’s new business venture is giving easier access to college loans. However, this is having an adverse effect and is becoming the new financial crisis. Like the collapse of the real estate market, which led to a financial meltdown of US financial institutions, the current student loan bubble is going to have similar effect on the US economy. According to FinAid.org currently, the student loan debt is $997,137,000,000, (and will continue to surge above $1 trillion). This is even higher than the national credit card debt figure.

Every year millions of dollars are being paid in student loan interest. Currently, the Obama Administration is fighting to lower the interest rate on student loans, but instead should focus on stopping college tuition from increasing beyond the price of inflation. It becomes apparent that lowering the interest rate on student loans will result in students borrowing more money than is needed, which will inevitably increase the debt figure bringing the nation one step close to another financial meltdown.

Today, the student loan bubble is one of the largest looming financial crises in US history, and is caused by the willingness of the government to provide cheap and easy student loans. It is the notion for many students to think that a student loan is an investment in the future, and that college is a better place to invest in, but what many fail to realize is that the value of a college degree is declining faster than the skyrocketing cost of college tuition. This notion is causing millions of Americans to graduate college with mortgage-size loans while living with their parents.

Furthermore, adding to the propaganda, colleges are advertising the guarantee of job placement upon graduation. A prime example is law schools, in which thousands of students graduate with an average debt of $100,000 or more. However, upon graduating with such debt there are no jobs available for these law students as a law degree is slowly losing its value.

A college education is not worthless, but if Americans are going to overpay for education, then that education needs to be of some value upon graduating. Investing in a college education can be a smart investment; however, with the government’s willingness to provide cheap and easy loans to students, such an investment becomes wasted because the business of student loans is resulting in millions of students becoming indenture servants to the federal government for majority of their lives.

Cyber Bullying – A Question of Punishment

Thirteen- year- old Megan Meier from Missouri struck up an online relationship with a sixteen- year- old named Josh who claimed to live in a nearby town.

The two communicated for several weeks through MySpace. Megan developed a strong connection to Josh; several weeks later, Josh posted that he no longer wanted to be friends with Megan because he had heard she was not a nice person and said that “the world would be a better place” without her.

On October 17, 2006, Megan hung herself. Shockingly, several weeks later, authorities revealed that Josh did not exist; he was a fictitious person created by Lori Drew, the mother of one of Megan’s former friends. 

Bullying, a widespread and serious problem is no longer limited to the schoolyard. In today’s society which is so technologically advanced, cyber-bullying, which consists of posting offensive posts on social networks, sending harassing emails or text messages, or revealing personal information about a victim without their consent, is now the new form of bullying.

Moreover, cyber-bullying often occurs under the cover of anonymity, since cyber bullies usually have aliases which make it easy to hide one’s true identity.

In recent years, cyber-bulling has lead to tragic and heartrending outcomes such as the victims committing suicide or suffering from severe depression. In schools particularly, cyber-bullying is on the rise.

According to a report of the 2006-07 school year, the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) revealed that:

• 8,166,000 students or 31.7 % of students between the ages 12 – 18 reported they were bullied at school
• 940,000, or about 3.7 %, reported they were the victims of cyber-bullying on or off school property

Also in recent years, cyber-bulling has increased in terms of tragedies and awareness. As a result, most states have implemented cyber-bulling laws, like California which makes it a misdemeanor to impersonate someone through a website or other electronic means with the intent to harm, intimidate, or threaten. However, the question presented is should cyber-bullying be made a federal crime, thereby invoking a harsher punishment?

In the case of Megan, Lori was convicted of computer fraud in 2008 but the court’s decision was overturned in 2009. In the case of Tyler Clementi, a freshman of Rutgers University who died and was the victim of an internet hate crime, his roommates faced charges of invasion of privacy. These punishments lead to a public outcry for more severe punishment for cyber-bullying.

In an attempt to put an end to the outcry, in 2009 California U.S. Representative Linda Sanchez introduced the Megan Meier Cyber-bulling Prevention Act which makes it a federal crime to use electronic devices to “coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person” or to “support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior”. However, the bill never became law.

Making cyber-bullying a federal crime will be a difficult task, since our legal system is based on a retributivist system where the punishment must fit the crime. Moreover, punishment should not be implemented based on the public outrage. Although cyber-bullying has serious consequences, which in some cases ends in suicide, this should not influence or cloud the judgment of a prosecutor.

Also, there is the question of society’s role in cyber-bullying. We live in a virtually connected society, in which we are encouraged by social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter to post our every thought and whereabouts online, at the same time sacrificing our own privacy for connectedness. Therefore, society needs to be mindful of the level of responsibility required when posting on these social media sites.

Cyber-bullying is a dangerous act that has serious consequences, and living in a society that is ruled by social media, i.e., Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc., gives us an immense amount of publishing power. However, with such an increase in power there also comes an increase in responsibilty, a thought that may not be on the minds of the current and upcoming social media generation.

In terms of making cyber-bullying a federal crime or having a harsher punishment for cyber-bullies, in the words of the great philosophers John Mills and Jeremy Bentham, “the punishment must fit the crime.” However, if cyber-bulling leads a victim to commit suicide, a question society needs to answer before public outrage is “what is the actual level of influence of these cyber-bullies?”

Reforming Corporate Tax

Upon entering 2012, many Americans thought of a New Year’s resolution and being optimistic, they also hoped that Congress did so as well. After constantly kicking a bucket filled with failed attempts, for example the 2011 super-committee, it is time for Congress to put forth real effort in fixing the U.S. debt problem and promote economic growth in 2012.

Looking back on 2011, one truth that should be highlighted is the commonality between the top 1% and the remaining 99%. Regardless of the tax bracket they fall into, the American people are frustrated with how slowly our weak economy is recovering, and hope to see a major boost in 2012 especially in the area of job growth. Being that the 2012 presidential election is a mere nine months away, presidential candidates are now focused on discussing the issues that are of social and economic significance such as income-tax, health care, jobs, etc. One pertinent issue which has had bipartisan support since 2011 is reducing and restructuring the corporate tax code.

Currently, the U.S. federal corporate tax rate is 35%, which is the highest corporate tax rate among industrialized and developing nations, and has hindered the United States from competing globally. Moreover, with the numerous amounts of legal tax loopholes which corporations are taking advantage of, many companies are getting away with not paying the entirety of what they owe in taxes, and in some cases, pay almost nothing at all. A 2008 Congressional Report indicated that nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations pay no federal income tax. They accomplish this by using techniques such as industry subsidies, stock option packages, and moving assets overseas in order to avoid corporate taxation on profits. In a recent analysis of 265 profitable U.S. Fortune 500 corporations done by Citizens for Tax Justice, these corporations avoided paying a total of $42.7 billion in state corporate income taxes between 2008 and 2010. In addition, 68 of these corporations avoided paying no state income tax in at least one of the years from 2008 through 2010. Some of these corporations include Dupont, Pepco Holdings and Rockwell Collins, etc.

In 2011, Americans grew tired of these unfair practices and the Occupy Wall Street Movement protested that the big corporations need to pay their fair shares of taxes, which is correct. However, in spite of this, the real problem lies within the institutions and the incentives corporations get for exploiting the system, which results in federal revenue being lost. Additionally, it should be understood that most corporations are made up of middle and lower class employees, and not millionaires; however, when people think of corporate taxes, there is little to no consideration of the negative effects that inadequate tax revenue has on middle class wages, consumer prices and employment. Hence, it is evident that our political leaders need to become more conscious of the fact that the U.S. corporate tax does not make a distinction between rich and poor; it takes from everyone of potential wealth.
In hindsight, Congress needs to have as their focal point the distribution of the economic pie. In turn, corporations can help with such distribution and the expansion of this pie. Therefore, there needs to be major talk of reform; a reform that provides a lower tax rate which will open the door to global competition and put an end to all corporate tax loopholes. The idea is to have a reform that is very substantial in raising revenue and constitute fairness. A reform of reduction and restructuring of the corporate tax rate which will allow all parties to benefit; from members of the 1% to those of the 99%. This stand is neutral, for the simple fact that it lowers the corporate tax rate while expanding the base, which will lead to an increase in revenue by increasing economic growth.

If our political leaders fail to reduce the high U.S. corporate tax rate, corporation’s ability to hire will continue to be extremely limited, which in turn leads to more outsourcing and low returns on investment. As a result, we can only expect unemployment to remain high and the US to be unable to compete with industrialized and developing countries in terms of attraction and the retentions of major corporations.

With millions of unemployed Americans looking for work and the Occupy Wall Street movement protesting, our leaders should be welcoming to the idea of reforming corporate tax. The reality of the issue is that the government is taking a considerable piece of the economic pie, which is not helping the economy. In hoping that Congress did make a New Year’s resolution and with the 2012 Presidential Election around the corner, lowering corporate tax rate and eliminating the loopholes will be a notable first step in establishing economic growth.

College Students Denied Voting Rights

On March 23, 1971, Congress passed the 26^th Amendment. It was ratified and went into effect on July 1, 1971 and states, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age”.

Although the 26^th Amendment clearly express that our young adult population has the right to vote, student-voting registration in particular has long been an issue. Furthermore, in recent years states have implemented voting laws that are more complex, confusing and restrictive; unfairly targeting college students since this group often has trouble establishing residency where they live and attend school.

Instead of policy makers encouraging college students to participate in America’s democratic voting process, they are making the practice of basic civil rights extremely difficult. Such is the case for the upcoming elections. Thousands of college student will be attempting to register to vote, but will be turned away because they either have an out-state driver’s license or told that their college ID is not valid to cast their vote, among other reasons. It has also become very evident that Republican state lawmakers are openly doing everything possible to prevent students from voting in the 2012 presidential election simply because college students tend to be more liberal.

New Hampshire, among other Republican states, has already passed strict voting ID laws that will bar thousands of college students from voting in the community in which they live and attend school. New Hampshire Republican House Speaker, William O’Brien, in a recent speech to a Tea Party group stated, “They’re foolish, voting as liberals. That’s what kids do.” He also stated, “Students lack life experience and they just vote their feelings.”

It has become apparent that an objective of the Republican Party is to restrict the voting rights of certain demographic groups that tend to vote Democrat. One way of achieving this is stop college students from voting by claiming that stricter ID laws are necessary to prevent fraudulent voting. Unfortunately, with the severe federal penalties imposed on fraudulently voting there are hardly any cases to cite.

Opponents of the restrictive voting ID laws are citing Newberger v. Peterson, a 1972 Federal District Court case, stating that the state cannot bar college students from voting in New Hampshire on the basis that they intend to leave after graduation, and that such policies are a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Moreover, in United States v. Symm, a 1979 Supreme Court case ruled that states must allow students to vote in the communities where they attend school. In a 5-4 decision, the Court stated that, “it cannot conceive of any reason why it should not be presumed that student applications for voter registration, like any other applicant, have made their application to register in good faith.” Furthermore the Court stated that “. . . there is no requirement that a student, in order to establish that he is a resident of the place where he wishes to vote, establish that he intends to remain there permanently or for any particular period of time”

However, despite precedence being set, states are still denying students their right to vote. Nevertheless, students do understand the importance of exercising their civic duty, their right to do so, and their role in shaping the future. In the 2008 presidential election approximately two million young adults voted. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) in the 2008 election youth voters’ turnout between the ages of 18-29 rose to 51%, which is an increase of 2% from the 2004 election. Furthermore, in the 2010 midterm election, CIRLCE reported that an estimated 24% of young people between the ages of 18-29 voted. Such an increase in youth voters can be attributed to the increase in awareness students now have about the importance of voting. Moreover, statistics show that younger votes tend to choose Democratic candidates over Republican by a margin of 57%-40%.

 It is clear that college student voters’ participation is on the rise and our political leaders should be celebrating and continues to encourage our educated young adults to participate in the country’s election. Instead, college students are witnessing a state-by-state effort in erecting new barriers and laws in a blatant attempt in making it harder and harder for college students to vote, which is clearly against their constitutional rights as citizens of the United States. Therefore, imposing these restrictions to win elections will only make a generation of college student cynical about their experience with the democratic election process.

The Skyrocketing Cost of College Education

By Wiha Powell

Most Americans view higher education as the key to social advancement and the ticket to a middle class lifestyle.  However, in this current economic downturn, the rising cost of college is putting higher education out of the reach of many Americans. According to the College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, the cost of the average public four-year college education has doubled in the last decade, and is rising faster than the cost of the average private four-year college education. In their 2011-12 report, the College Board Advocacy and Policy Center stated that over the decade from 2001-2011, published tuition and fees for public four-year colleges and universities have increased at an average rate of 5.6 percent per year beyond the rate of general inflation. Moreover, the report stated that for 2011 in-state tuition and fees for public four-year and public two-year universities had increased by 21 percent and 37 percent respectively.

Universities are claiming that the increase in college tuition is a reflection of the weak economy and states’ funding which have failed to keep up with the growth in college enrollment, causing the tuition cost for four-year public universities to be higher than the increase in cost of private universities.

Nevertheless, with the cost of college education increasing faster than the median household income, it is greatly affecting lower and middle class families, leaving many without a college education. Moreover, the amount of financial aid available to students has been impractical, since the maximum government subsidized student loan has remained at $23,000 for over a decade for a four-year education. With such a great disparity between income and the rising cost of tuition, families are either shortchanging their retirement fund to send their children to college or  are cutting down on their children’s college education experience by opting for them to attain a two-year degree rather than a four- year one. Regardless of the choice, there is great sacrifice now more than ever in sending one’s child to college.

On the other hand, there are those students who fund their own education and are graduating with a considerable amount of debt. Over the past years, the outstanding student loan debt is approximately in excess of $1 trillion, which exceeds national credit card debt. On average, students graduating from a public university are about $25,500 in debt with an even higher figure for those graduating from private universities. This high debt figure coupled with an already high unemployment rate and low starting salary makes it very difficult for students to repay their loans. Moreover, with the accumulation of late fees and interests on student loan debts, it is becoming a deadly financial medium– worst than the mortgage crisis. With so many students, owing more than what their degree is worth, and losing the capability of repaying their student loan debt, the financial bubble of student loan debt will inevitably burst.

As a solution, the Obama Administration recently announced that they are implementing new programs that will ease the repayment of student loans by changing the income based repayment program for the upcoming year to allow lower monthly payments and shorter durations for low-income borrowers as well as offering a slight lower interest rate for borrowers who consolidate their loans. In addition, in 2009 the Obama Administration increased the funding of the federal Pell Grant Program and tied annual increases to the Consumer Price Index in order to increase grant aid each year.

These solutions, however, do not address the issue of college education affordability. It is time the federal and state government work with universities on limiting the drastic, continuous increases in college tuition in order to avoid the impending ‘bubble’ from bursting. Without such intervention, such increase will eventually result in the next financial catastrophe.

 It is apparent that with the mounting cost of college education the stakes and the warning signs of a serious crisis are also increasing. The day of reckoning for higher education is drawing near, and if our leaders continue to ignore the warnings signs allowing the cost of college to keep rising, this will undoubtedly results in higher education being farfetched for many Americans.

Is the American Dream Over? The Disappearing Middle Class

By Wiha Powell

America: a country founded on liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the ideals of life. The notion of the American middle class is centered on four pillars: a chance to retire at age 65, a chance to send their children to college, work in order to afford a comfortable lifestyle, and access to good medical care. However, the current financial and economic crisis, and the constant increase in unemployment are causing millions of middle class families to lose their homes or become jobless. As a result, this crisis is steadily chipping away at the four pillars that built the American middle class, which eventually will cause it to sway and sooner or later come to an end.

Can you imagine America without its middle class?

The American middle class is slowly being wiped out. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2010 there were 46.2 million Americans living below the poverty line – an increase from 43.6 million in 2009 (a poverty rate of 15.1% in 2010, an increase from 14.3% in 2009). Moreover, the Census reported that the current 2010 poverty rate of 15.1% is the highest rate in 52 years.

As of today, there are 13.9 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. There are millions of individuals and families who cannot afford to make the minimum payment on their credit cards; there are also millions who have now defaulted on their mortgages or facing foreclosure. Presently, a record number of people are currently receiving food stamps and thousands of Americans are filing for bankruptcy every month. Furthermore, the devastating economy is wiping out billions of dollar in pension and savings funds, leaving millions of middle class families struggling to make ends meet, and this, is only a few of the misfortunes facing the current middle class.

This slow, but undoubted depletion of the American middle class started in or around 1970, where there was a rise in productivity, but the average wages for full-time employees remained stagnant. Currently, the household median income is at a measly $49,455, and with the price of household expenses inflating daily, middle class families are now spending twice as much on their mortgages, food, daycare and health insurances causing them to struggle in order to keep their heads above water. Even in two-income households, the constant increase of essential goods and services is suffocating; as a result, there is hardly any money to save for a ‘rainy day’.

Presently, it is not only extremely expensive to live a middle class lifestyle, but it is also quite costly to get there. Moreover, the notion that a college education is the meal ticket for higher wages and a better lifestyle is no longer true, not with the increasing cost of education and the substantial amount of people with college degrees being underemployed.

In the midst of the burden facing the middle class, the American Dream is experiencing a dramatic change. Fewer people are buying homes causing more young people to postpone their independent lives since there are no jobs available for college graduates. If the younger generation is unable to get their feet off the ground, this poses extreme challenges for the middle class and the economy in the future.

With today’s expenses on the rise, setting aside money for children’s college fund or even putting away money for retirement has now become a distant dream for many middle class families. This ongoing economic and financial crisis of America is forcing millions of once secure and affluent middle class families to live from paycheck to paycheck, while watching their debts increase. The result: millions of middle class families worrying that they too will soon be getting a pink slip or a health scare that will send them over the economic precipice.

So, can you imagine America without its strong middle class?

The once sturdy and sound foundation of the American middle class is now shaky, thus the middle class is slowly dying, and once it is gone, it is extremely hard to restore.