2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the editor
Issue date: 4/11/08 Section: Editorials
College Republicans must reconcile ideals with costs
I would like to thank the College Republicans for opening a forum on Congressional appropriations by including a "Pork Barrel Spending" day this week. The Bush Administration and Republican leaders in Congress have argued against the practice of earmarking bills for special projects-in essence claiming it as a disease afflicting Congress-and vehemently criticizing its practice. It is interesting then to learn that last year, Republican members of Congress, traditionally proponents of fiscal responsibility, collected the largest amounts of money for special projects.
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, collected $774 million worth of earmarks in 12 spending bills. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Ala.), the second-ranking Republican on appropriations, secured $502 million. Stevens is also infamous for his support of the famed "Bridge to Nowhere." A project like this can typically be hidden from public knowledge and the only reason it became known was because members of Congress attempted to divert funds from the bridge project to reconstruction projects in areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina. This altruistic attempt was met with stiff opposition from Stevens.
It is also interesting that the Republican Party has retained the most funding through earmarks, even though its members have become the minority in Congress. As a result, they have seen their share of the federal spending reduced by one-third. The majority party typically gets to allocate 60 percent of the federal funds set aside for special projects such as waterworks, roads, defense contracts and housing. Members of the minority have 40 percent to divvy among themselves. In this climate of marginalization, senior Republican appropriators still manage to procure more funding for their pet projects than senior Democrats. Within the Democratic Party, there is a greater equitable divide of earmarks throughout the ranks. To believe it is the duty of the American taxpayer to shell out more of their hard earned income to fund picayune projects in Alaska is sheer blind hypocrisy and boasts of confident self-interest. It is a blatant attempt on the part of Congress to leverage personal prosperity against the vested interests of the nation, to focus parochially instead of nationally. As one Senate Republican aide said in an interview with The Hill, the GOP appropriators are "not only the kings of pork, they're outright hogs."
Now, to paint the Republican Party as the sole perpetrators of pork barrel spending is clearly an exercise in hyperbole. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee's chairman, secured $162 million in funds last year alone. It is clearly a bipartisan problem, a balancing act between representing and rewarding one's own district and pandering to one's own idiosyncratic agenda. Still, it is hard to ignore the fact that according to the Cato Institute, pork barrel spending expanded roughly 10-fold under Republican Congresses since 1995.
I would like to ask you, while savoring your sausage this Friday, to keep in mind that April 15, you will be submitting taxes. Because of pork barrel spending, your money won't be going to reduce the devastating costs of attending college or making it easier to purchase gasoline. No, if trends continue as they are, our duly elected representatives will continue to focus on their personal interests over what policies benefit all Americans and will always continue to build bridges leading nowhere.
Sean Wright
Miami University College Democrats
Communications Chair
Wrights7@muohio.edu
Threat of Islamo-fascism should not be ignored
This Tuesday, Intercollegiate Studies Institute of Miami (ISI) and Miami Students for Israel teamed up to bring the documentary "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." The documentary featured, among others, Khaled Abu Toameh, a Palestinian journalist who recently came to Miami's campus, who warned of the grave threat radical Islam poses to Western society. The film was made available to ISI by the Leadership Institute as part of its national "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week." This week has become quite controversial, no less because of the terminology used to describe radical Islam. In our political and social culture, "fascism" is equated with evil and many are aghast to use the prefix "Islamo" to describe this radical ideology, seemingly linking the religion of peace to the fanaticism of terrorists. As the documentary explicitly shows, there is a direct link between the Nazism of the 1930s and the Islamic fundamentalism of today.
Their ideology is permeated through society by schools, the media and religious leaders which encourage the destruction of America and other Western nations, praise suicide bombings and terrorists and propagate false beliefs, such as Jews make matzo from the blood of Christian children. Just like fascism in the 1930s, this is an ideology whose dangers we have been ignoring, and more often than not, our own media and academia tend to blame America's actions for the terrorist threat instead of focusing on the reality of an ideology that grew out of fascism from 70 years ago. We need to have a true understanding of Islamo-fascist ideology and the threat it poses, and a good start is by watching "Obsession."
Matt Hebebrand
Hebebrmj@muohio.edu
Andy Card's career, life should be fully examined
My letter is in response to the campus lecture, sponsored by the College Republicans, by Andrew Card, the former chief of staff to President George W. Bush. Universities are obliged to welcome speakers from across the political spectrum, and given his role at the highest levels of the current administration, Card clearly has experience and perspectives that are "newsworthy" for many people on campus. However, his presence on campus-and, no doubt, his lavish fee to speak-leave him open to objections from those, like me, who take issue with his record, especially so in a time of war and intense international discord.
As a large body of meticulous journalism has documented (e.g., "The Greatest Story Ever Sold," by Frank Rich and "Hubris" by Michael Isikoff and David Corn), Card bears significant responsibility for what is now known to be an elaborate, consciously orchestrated and largely fraudulent campaign to lead the United States into the disastrous war in Iraq. It was Card, of course, who famously said in a Sept. 7, 2002 New York Times interview that "from a marketing point of view, you don't roll out new products in August" to explain why the Bush White House waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on war against Iraq.
Furthermore, Card took part in multiple meetings in which intelligence estimates at odds with administration claims were either dismissed or buried before receiving a fair public airing. The war plan that Card helped to sell and justify, in his role of public trust, has now killed or maimed many thousands of Americans-to say nothing of Iraqi civilians-whose deaths are estimated to number between six to 10 times more than were killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The public, only now apprehending the magnitude of this tragedy, has yet to hear any acknowledgment of Card's errors of fact or judgment.
Those in the Miami community who decided to invite and enrich Card should make no mistake that, despite his high office and proximity to power, he is by a large and growing consensus a figure of international and historical disgrace.
Chris Wellin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of
Sociology & Gerontology
wellincr@muohio.edu
I would like to thank the College Republicans for opening a forum on Congressional appropriations by including a "Pork Barrel Spending" day this week. The Bush Administration and Republican leaders in Congress have argued against the practice of earmarking bills for special projects-in essence claiming it as a disease afflicting Congress-and vehemently criticizing its practice. It is interesting then to learn that last year, Republican members of Congress, traditionally proponents of fiscal responsibility, collected the largest amounts of money for special projects.
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, collected $774 million worth of earmarks in 12 spending bills. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Ala.), the second-ranking Republican on appropriations, secured $502 million. Stevens is also infamous for his support of the famed "Bridge to Nowhere." A project like this can typically be hidden from public knowledge and the only reason it became known was because members of Congress attempted to divert funds from the bridge project to reconstruction projects in areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina. This altruistic attempt was met with stiff opposition from Stevens.
It is also interesting that the Republican Party has retained the most funding through earmarks, even though its members have become the minority in Congress. As a result, they have seen their share of the federal spending reduced by one-third. The majority party typically gets to allocate 60 percent of the federal funds set aside for special projects such as waterworks, roads, defense contracts and housing. Members of the minority have 40 percent to divvy among themselves. In this climate of marginalization, senior Republican appropriators still manage to procure more funding for their pet projects than senior Democrats. Within the Democratic Party, there is a greater equitable divide of earmarks throughout the ranks. To believe it is the duty of the American taxpayer to shell out more of their hard earned income to fund picayune projects in Alaska is sheer blind hypocrisy and boasts of confident self-interest. It is a blatant attempt on the part of Congress to leverage personal prosperity against the vested interests of the nation, to focus parochially instead of nationally. As one Senate Republican aide said in an interview with The Hill, the GOP appropriators are "not only the kings of pork, they're outright hogs."
Now, to paint the Republican Party as the sole perpetrators of pork barrel spending is clearly an exercise in hyperbole. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee's chairman, secured $162 million in funds last year alone. It is clearly a bipartisan problem, a balancing act between representing and rewarding one's own district and pandering to one's own idiosyncratic agenda. Still, it is hard to ignore the fact that according to the Cato Institute, pork barrel spending expanded roughly 10-fold under Republican Congresses since 1995.
I would like to ask you, while savoring your sausage this Friday, to keep in mind that April 15, you will be submitting taxes. Because of pork barrel spending, your money won't be going to reduce the devastating costs of attending college or making it easier to purchase gasoline. No, if trends continue as they are, our duly elected representatives will continue to focus on their personal interests over what policies benefit all Americans and will always continue to build bridges leading nowhere.
Sean Wright
Miami University College Democrats
Communications Chair
Wrights7@muohio.edu
Threat of Islamo-fascism should not be ignored
This Tuesday, Intercollegiate Studies Institute of Miami (ISI) and Miami Students for Israel teamed up to bring the documentary "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." The documentary featured, among others, Khaled Abu Toameh, a Palestinian journalist who recently came to Miami's campus, who warned of the grave threat radical Islam poses to Western society. The film was made available to ISI by the Leadership Institute as part of its national "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week." This week has become quite controversial, no less because of the terminology used to describe radical Islam. In our political and social culture, "fascism" is equated with evil and many are aghast to use the prefix "Islamo" to describe this radical ideology, seemingly linking the religion of peace to the fanaticism of terrorists. As the documentary explicitly shows, there is a direct link between the Nazism of the 1930s and the Islamic fundamentalism of today.
Their ideology is permeated through society by schools, the media and religious leaders which encourage the destruction of America and other Western nations, praise suicide bombings and terrorists and propagate false beliefs, such as Jews make matzo from the blood of Christian children. Just like fascism in the 1930s, this is an ideology whose dangers we have been ignoring, and more often than not, our own media and academia tend to blame America's actions for the terrorist threat instead of focusing on the reality of an ideology that grew out of fascism from 70 years ago. We need to have a true understanding of Islamo-fascist ideology and the threat it poses, and a good start is by watching "Obsession."
Matt Hebebrand
Hebebrmj@muohio.edu
Andy Card's career, life should be fully examined
My letter is in response to the campus lecture, sponsored by the College Republicans, by Andrew Card, the former chief of staff to President George W. Bush. Universities are obliged to welcome speakers from across the political spectrum, and given his role at the highest levels of the current administration, Card clearly has experience and perspectives that are "newsworthy" for many people on campus. However, his presence on campus-and, no doubt, his lavish fee to speak-leave him open to objections from those, like me, who take issue with his record, especially so in a time of war and intense international discord.
As a large body of meticulous journalism has documented (e.g., "The Greatest Story Ever Sold," by Frank Rich and "Hubris" by Michael Isikoff and David Corn), Card bears significant responsibility for what is now known to be an elaborate, consciously orchestrated and largely fraudulent campaign to lead the United States into the disastrous war in Iraq. It was Card, of course, who famously said in a Sept. 7, 2002 New York Times interview that "from a marketing point of view, you don't roll out new products in August" to explain why the Bush White House waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on war against Iraq.
Furthermore, Card took part in multiple meetings in which intelligence estimates at odds with administration claims were either dismissed or buried before receiving a fair public airing. The war plan that Card helped to sell and justify, in his role of public trust, has now killed or maimed many thousands of Americans-to say nothing of Iraqi civilians-whose deaths are estimated to number between six to 10 times more than were killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The public, only now apprehending the magnitude of this tragedy, has yet to hear any acknowledgment of Card's errors of fact or judgment.
Those in the Miami community who decided to invite and enrich Card should make no mistake that, despite his high office and proximity to power, he is by a large and growing consensus a figure of international and historical disgrace.
Chris Wellin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of
Sociology & Gerontology
wellincr@muohio.edu
Be the first to comment on this story