Rosie the Riveter on the $10 Bill: Adding to the Discussion

In January, the U.S. Mint announced that it would “feature a notable woman” on a newly designed $10 bill (set for release in 2020).  As a part of the vetting process, Jacob Lew, the U.S. treasury secretary, has asked the public to chime in with suggested candidates for this honor.  In an Asbury Park Press article, Gerald Thomas argues that the U.S. Mint should place an image of Rosie the Riveter on the $10 bill.

Thomas makes a number of good points in advocating that the U.S. Mint replace Alexander Hamilton with this World War II era image.  He is spot on when he states that Rosie the Riveter, “demonstrates the perseverance, fortitude and strength of the nation, exemplifying the wartime contributions of women coast to coast.”  He also makes a valid point when notes that the picture speaks not only to the accomplishments of women, but to the perseverance of Americans in general (military veterans and others) during times of war and strife.

Thomas does an excellent job in advocating for Rosie’s inclusion on the $10 bill; however, I think that an individual, by delineating a few other key points, can strengthen the case for her inclusion on the currency note. With that in mind, here are my thoughts on the matter:

• The Person Who Portrayed Rosie the Riveter is Deceased: The U.S. Mint will not place a living person on a currency bill.  Mary Keefe, the model who portrayed Rosie the Riveter on the government billboards and posters, passed away in April of this year (2015).  Hence, the government could place Rosie on its $10 bill.

• Excellent Way to Transmit Values/Ideals: I would imagine that almost every American will use these new $10 bills and thus view the portrait, located on this note.  Most of these people will see the image numerous times.  As a result, the federal government has an opportunity to use the currency to convey important values and beliefs regarding women.  I think that it can more clearly and effectively transmit these messages by using the image of Rosie the Riveter than it could via utilizing the portrait of a notable American woman.  In the former case, a viewer, even one who does not know anything about American history, will clearly understand that Rosie the Riveter is a symbol of empowerment for working class women (and indeed all women).  The image conveys this message through her rolled up sleeves, her flexed biceps, the serious face, the work shirt, etc.  I do not think that a portrait of Susan B. Anthony, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, or any other woman would convey such clear, symbolic messages. 

• Add a Little Flair: I also think that the government could add a little flair to its overly staid paper currency by opting for Rosie the Riveter over a formal portrait.  Perhaps the U.S. government could follow in the footsteps of Canada (and other countries) and even add a little color to the bill.

-- Anthony Hopper (author of Using Data Management Techniques to Modernize Healthcare)

#TheNew10 #money #politics #womensrights #history

2012 Commentary on the Supreme Court's Healthcare Decision

Abstract: The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act might not be popular. However, I believe the justices made the right decision in leaving it up to the American people to choose whether or not to keep the healthcare legislation intact.

U.S. Supreme Court Building at Dusk (1)

According to Yahoo News, on Thursday, June 28, the Supreme Court upheld most of the provisions in The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (usually shortened to Affordable Care Act). Importantly, by a 5-4 vote, the justices stated that the individual mandate is constitutional. This portion of the legislation allows the federal government, with some exceptions, to collect fees from uninsured individuals. Per The Hill, a majority of the public wanted the Supreme Court to throw out all or part of the health care act. However, I believe the justices made the right decision in this case.

Many Americans, including me, might have reservations about the Affordable Care Act; however, they have to admit that the legislation was crafted by popularly elected officials in the House and Senate. That is the way it should be. The fate of the Affordable Care Act should be determined by elected representatives, who are beholden to the voters, and not by appointed officials. The Supreme Court's ruling ensures that this will be the case. The American people will now decide, via their votes in November, whether or not the Affordable Care Act is repealed.

And while the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the individual mandate might not be popular, it is preferable to a scenario in which the justices threw out this portion of the healthcare bill but left everything else intact. As I noted in a previous article, the latter outcome would have created a potential nightmare situation that required federal and state government agencies to provide insurance coverage to all Americans without allocating the funds necessary to achieve this result.

Finally, The Washington Post notes that Republicans are supportive of some parts of the current healthcare law. If that is the case, the Supreme Court's decision is in the best interests of the American people. Whichever party wins in November will find it much easier to repeal sections of the Affordable Care Act it dislikes than to go through the agonizing task of trying to create sweeping new healthcare legislation to replace the current bill. Such a process would not only run the risk of failure, it would waste taxpayer dollars on redundant research and debate. Just as important, it would divert legislators' attentions from other, important issues like immigration reform and Iran.

The Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act might not be popular. However, I believe the justices made the right decision in leaving it up to the American people to choose whether or not to keep the healthcare legislation intact when they go to the polls in November.

1. Noclip. (2007, May 7). Supreme Court - Front: At Dusk. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons.
         The author has placed the image in the public domain without restrictions.


The author is a freelance writer. He has worked in the health care industry for almost a decade and has interned with a health policy think tank. He has a M.S. in Health Systems Administration from Georgetown University.

-- Anthony Hopper

#SupremeCourt #law #ACA #ObamaCare #AffordableCareAct #healthcare #health #medicine #legal

Five of the Most Athletic U.S. Presidents

Abstract: You might be surprised to learn that many of our beloved U.S. presidents were excellent athletes. Here are five former presidents who excelled in sports.

Gerald Ford - 1933 (1)

When we conjure up images of past U.S. presidents, we usually envision them standing behind a podium or sitting in a high backed chair in the Oval Office. We are not likely to imagine these men playing football, engaging in wrestling bouts or going a few rounds in a boxing ring. We would be surprised to learn that many of our beloved former U.S. presidents were excellent athletes.

Here are five U.S. presidents who excelled in sports:

Andrew Jackson: The nation's seventh president reportedly excelled at wrestling; however, he makes this list because of his skills as a duelist. Some people might not consider dueling to be a sport; however, it does take a certain amount of skill to successfully shoot at your opponent while trying to avoid being shot yourself. Jackson must have been very skilled indeed. He participated in numerous duels and survived them all.

Abraham Lincoln: Lincoln is best remembered for leading the nation through the Civil War; however, he was reportedly also one of the best wrestlers in Illinois during the 1830s. Standing 6 feet 4 inches and with disproportionately long arms, Lincoln would have presented a challenge for any wrestling opponent.

Theodore Roosevelt: The nation's 26th president may not have been the best athlete, but he exemplified the athletic spirit. Roosevelt worked very hard to keep himself in shape and was not afraid to engage in rough sports like boxing and wrestling. The president in fact participated in a wide range of sports ranging from swimming to fencing. He was an excellent hunter.

Dwight Eisenhower: Eisenhower is probably best remembered as the commander of the U.S. forces during World War II; however, the former president was also an excellent athlete. Eisenhower played collegiate football in 1912 while at West Point. He had tremendous potential and might have gone on to play professionally had he not suffered a career-ending knee injury.

Gerald Ford: The former president was an outstanding athlete. He played linebacker for the University of Michigan--one of the most storied football programs in the country. In 1934, Ford was the MVP of his team. Very few Americans, much less presidents, can boast of doing something similar.

Sources:

Peter Grier. Which President Was the Best Football Player? The Christian Science Monitor.

Jennie Cohen. How the U.S. President Became the Nation's Star Athlete. The History Channel.

1. Photographer: Unknown
    Date: 1933
    Title/Description: Gerald Ford on the football field at the University of Michigan (1933).
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Courtesy Gerald R. Ford Library. Public Domain (No usage     fees, no permission required).

The author has a B.A. in History from Roanoke College and is an avid sports fan. His favorite teams are the Pittsburgh Steelers (in football) and the Atlanta Braves (in baseball).

-- Anthony Hopper

#USHistory #history #Americanhistory #Ford #president #USPresident #sports #football #dueling #boxing #wrestling

Theodore Roosevelt as Manager of the Atlanta Braves

Abstract: If you had to choose a past U.S. president to manage the Atlanta Braves, who would you select? You could probably think of a number of worthy individuals. However, few of them would be more qualified to manage the Braves than Theodore Roosevelt.

Mt. Rushmore, Theodore Roosevelt closeup (1)

If you had to choose a past U.S. president to manage the Atlanta Braves, who would you select? You could probably think of a number of worthy individuals.

However, few of them would be more qualified to manage the Braves than President Theodore Roosevelt.
Roosevelt served as U.S. president from 1901-1908. He may be best remembered for his role in building the Panama Canal. However, he accomplished a number of other important objectives while in the Oval Office, including the creation of national parks, the regulation of industry, and the successful mediation of international disputes. The traits that enabled Roosevelt to succeed as president would have also allowed him to excel as the manager of the Braves.

Here are five reasons why Roosevelt would have performed admirably as the Braves' skipper:

Leader: Like any other MLB team, the Braves need a manager who can command the respect of his players. During his lifetime Roosevelt proved to be an excellent leader. Before becoming president, he successfully commanded a regiment in the Spanish American War. More important, he excelled in the most esteemed leadership position of all -- U.S. president. When Siena College asked historians to rank the American presidents from best to worst, they placed Roosevelt in second place.

Hard Worker: MLB managers need to be willing to work extremely hard during the season. Roosevelt would have no problem putting in 12-hour days at the office. He was renowned for his work ethic. During his lifetime, Roosevelt raised a family, founded charitable ventures, ran a ranch, fought in a war, served in public office, authored over 35 books, and composed more than 150,000 letters to friends and acquaintances.

Popular Guy: A manager for the Braves has to win more games than he loses if he wants to keep his job. However, it does not hurt if he is also able to endear himself to the fan base. Roosevelt would have excelled in this category. Though Roosevelt had a lot of enemies, he also found a way to win over large swaths of the American populace. Braves fans would love him.

People Person: A successful Braves manager needs to be able to work with a wide variety of stakeholders. He not only has to lead his players, he also has to successfully interact with his other managers, the Braves front office, the media, Braves fans and advertisers. Roosevelt would excel in this area. He was able to succeed as a president in part because he could forge relationships with people from a variety of backgrounds and professions.

Courageous Individual: A MLB manager has to have the courage to punish his players (especially the superstars) when they do something wrong and to critique their poor play. He also needs to be willing to stand up to management from time to time. Roosevelt would be up to the task. The former president did not lack for courage as demonstrated by his participation in the Spanish American War, by his African safaris and by his decision to continue with a public speech even after being shot.

Sources

Michael McHugh. A Day in the Life of a General Manager-Tim Pupura. MLB.com.
The Ohio State University. Multimedia Histories Section.
The University of Virginia's Miller Center.
Theodore Roosevelt Association.

1. Photographer: Scott Catron (Zaui)
    Date: May 30, 2004
    Title/Description: Mt. Rushmore, Theodore Roosevelt closeup
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
    (click on the title or the caption to see the photo, credits, and permissions).


-- Anthony Hopper

#baseball #MLB #Atlanta #Braves #AtlantaBraves #presidents #history

2012 Commentary: This Virginia Voter is Unhappy with Republicans and Democrats

Abstract: I live in the battleground state of Virginia. I recently decided to vote for a third party candidate in the upcoming presidential elections. I give my reasons for this choice in the article.

I live in the battleground state of Virginia. I recently decided to vote for a third party candidate in the upcoming presidential election. I do not feel that I can support either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney for president. Neither candidate has shown me that he can work with Congress to solve our nation's problems. At the same time, I want to publicly voice my displeasure with both parties over their inability to work together to pass important legislation.

I do not think that either candidate would be able to craft bipartisan legislation if he were elected president. Obama has already demonstrated that he is unable to convince Republicans to work with him on important issues. I do not feel that Romney would have any more luck than Obama when it comes to handling the opposition. He would have immense difficulty creating legislation that would appeal to moderate Democrats without alienating staunch conservatives. I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate if I do not believe he can push important, bipartisan bills through Congress.

To some extent, neither candidate is to blame for this problem. Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate too often are unwilling to compromise on issues that are vital to the nation. Even the most capable leader might find it difficult to get the two sides to work together.

I have a responsibility as an American citizen to let both Republicans and Democrats know how I feel about the gridlock on Capitol Hill. I think the best way for me to voice my opinion is through my vote. I realize that my third party candidate (whoever I choose) will not win. Nonetheless, the two parties might take notice if enough people in battleground states vote for a third party candidate. If nothing else, I can take pride in the fact that I had the courage to vote my conscience.

So after many months of careful thought, I have decided to vote for a third party candidate on Election Day. I realize that he will not win; however, I cannot in good conscience vote for either Obama or Romney. I also feel that I can use my vote to voice my displeasure with both Republicans and Democrats for creating the gridlock on Capitol Hill.

-- Anthony Hopper

#politics #president #Obama #Republicans #GOP #Democrats #opinion

2012 Commentary: A Virginia Voter Looks at How Campaign Advertising Has Impacted His Vote

Abstract: I live in Virginia; a battleground state that has received a lot of attention from both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I discuss how campaign advertising has impacted my vote. CONTENT:

I live in the battleground state of Virginia. I am in my late 30s and am currently searching for a job in the health care field.

I am amazed by the amount of attention that supporters of both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are giving to Virginia. Whenever I watch television, I encounter a barrage of advertisements supporting one candidate or the other. I have received several fliers in the mail from both parties urging me to vote for their candidate, and I see campaign posters and signs seemingly everywhere. Some of my family members, who have land lines, have been inundated with campaign related phone calls.

Over the past few months, I have seen a wide variety of candidate commercials and campaign paraphernalia. However, none of them has impacted my vote. I feel it is my responsibility as a U.S. citizen to carefully review both candidates' positions on the issues before making my decision. I rarely learn anything new from a 30-second television ad or a one sentence campaign poster. At this point, even if I did espy a truly thought-provoking advertisement, I probably would not pay attention to it. I have seen so many presidential adverts of one sort or another in the past few months that I have become desensitized to their messages.

I recently decided to vote for a third-party candidate in November. I cannot support Romney or Obama; I do not feel that either of them would do a good job while in the Oval Office. No amount of political advertising will convince me to change my vote.

-- Anthony Hopper

#elections #presidents #Obama #Romney #advertising #politics #Republicans #Democrats #GOP

2012 Commentary: Romney Might Want to Reconsider His China Policy

Abstract: Mitt Romney has promised Americans that he will force China to "play by the rules." The Republican candidate, if he becomes president, may want to reconsider taking a hard-line approach to China.

Mitt Romney's views on China have come to the forefront over the last few days. Throughout the campaign, Romney has accused the Chinese government of using unfair tactics to keep its country's exports high and to entice companies to move jobs out of the United States and into China.

Romney has assured Americans that he will force China to "play by the rules." Recent media stories have hinted that the Republican candidate, if elected president, would not keep one of his key promises -- to label China as a "currency manipulator." Perhaps Romney should reconsider his entire China policy, as it contains some serious flaws.

Romney has accused China of engaging in a number of unfair economic practices, including currency manipulation, fraud, and theft of intellectual property. He asserts that China's policies have harmed U.S. companies and have cost many Americans their jobs. Romney is almost certainly correct in his assessment. Bloomberg News estimates that American job losses resulting from the U.S. trade deficit with China may be as high as 2.7 million.

The next president should work with China to correct these abuses. However, he will need to proceed carefully. For one thing, China plays a key role in keeping U.S. borrowing costs low. The country holds more than $1 trillion in American debt. At the same time, China is a key player in the world economy. If China's manufacturing sector were to slow down, it would negatively impact numerous countries, including the United States. Finally, many Americans benefit from the current status quo, which provides them with access to affordable goods.

Romney has stated that he will use sanctions, tariffs, and other harsh measures to pressure China to "play by the rules." If the Republican candidate becomes president and follows through on this promise, he might end up harming the U.S. economy instead of helping it. Romney's policies, if successful, could cause the Chinese economy to stall, thereby hurting the world economy. American families (especially those living near the poverty line) might also suffer, as the price of Chinese made goods would almost certainly increase. In the worst case scenario (however unlikely), China could retaliate by selling American bonds en masse and by refusing to buy more. Romney would then have a real crisis on his hands.

If he is elected president, Romney must pressure China to "play by the rules." However, he needs to proceed carefully. He cannot treat China too harshly, or he risks harming the U.S. economy instead of helping it.

-- Anthony Hopper

#presidentialelections #GOP #Obama #Romney #Republican #Democrat #China #Asia #economy

2012 Commentary: Obama Should Address Medicare, Increase Funding for Medical Research

Abstract: During his second term, President Barack Obama needs to focus on an important issue facing our nation-the graying of the American populace. He can fix this problem by increasing federal funding for medical research and by reforming the Medicare system. CONTENT:

Biodesign buildings at Arizona State University (1).

 I congratulate President Barack Obama on his election night victory. I hope that he will be able to put partisanship aside and work with both parties in Congress to deal with an important issue facing our nation: the graying of the American populace. Obama can ameliorate this problem by keeping a 2008 promise to increase federal funding for medical research and by reforming the Medicare system.

The Census Bureau estimates that around 40 million Americans are currently older than 65. That number will increase dramatically, to 88.5 million people, by 2050. This senior citizen boom will place a serious burden on the U.S. health care system. As worrisome, some experts predict that the burgeoning senior population will bankrupt Medicare by 2024 if nothing is done to address the issue.

The president can help address the problems associated with the senior citizen boom if he keeps a 2008 promise to increase federal funding for medical research. Specifically, Obama should allocate billions of dollars toward the study of age related diseases. Armed with increased resources, scientists can make a concerted effort to find cures (or at least better treatments) for Alzheimer's disease and other debilitating, age-onset illnesses.

Obama should also work with Congress to make sure that Medicare does not go bankrupt in the foreseeable future. He can ensure Medicare's viability by increasing funding for the program or by restructuring it. Whichever method he chooses, the president must do something. Americans of all ages need to know that Medicare will be there for them when they retire. The issue is too important to be put aside.

1. Photographer:  Nick Schweitzer
    Date: January 15, 2007
    Title/Description: Biodesign buildings at Arizona State University.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic
                                     license (click on the title or caption to see the photo, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#politics #Obama #president #PresidentObama #Democrats #opinion

2012 Commentary: Republicans Need to Accept Scientific Teachings on Evolution and Global Warming

I would be more inclined to vote for a Republican candidate in the next election cycle if he or she agreed to accept the scientific evidence in favor of evolution and global warming. By affirming these two theories, Republicans would demonstrate to me that they are willing to use the best available data to inform their decisions.

Our nation's leaders should use rational methods and rely on objective data whenever possible. I agree with some of the Republican Party's positions on key issues. However, I hesitate to vote for Republicans because they too often make decisions based on intuition or on unproven dogma.

Case in point: Many Republicans refuse to acknowledge that global warming is real and that humans are at least partly responsible for this phenomenon. The party adheres to this position even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I feel GOP members are harming this nation by refusing to vote for climate-control measures, which might help stop global warming from causing widespread damage to U.S. crops and to coastal infrastructures.

Many Republicans also support the teaching of intelligent design in U.S. public schools even though there is no scientific evidence for this hypothesis. Researchers have conclusively shown that evolution is responsible for creating different species. It is worth noting that one of the largest faith-based denominations in the world, the Catholic Church, believes there is enough evidence to support the teaching of evolution in schools.

As a voter, I ask the Republican Party to reconsider its views on these issues. If Republicans would affirm the scientific theories surrounding global warming and evolution, I would be more willing to vote for them in the next election.

-- Anthony Hopper

#Republican #Republicans #politics #Congress #Senate #US #globalwarming #science #evolution

2012 Commentary: Virginia's Leaders Should Focus on Three Key Issues in the Coming Months

ABSTRACT: Virginia’s elected officials should focus their efforts on three key issues over the next year. These issues revolve around the fiscal cliff, the state's health insurance exchange, and the 2013 gubernatorial election.

Virginia's elected officials should focus their efforts on three key issues over the next year. Perhaps most importantly, they must plan ahead in case the fiscal cliff scenario becomes a reality. Additionally, the governor and state delegates need to work together to create a blueprint for Virginia's health insurance exchange. They also need to pass legislation to ensure that the 2013 gubernatorial election runs smoothly.

Plan for the Fiscal Cliff

The president and Congress have until Jan. 1 to broker a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff -- a series of preset tax increases and budget cuts. If they are unable to reach an agreement, the federal government's 2013 budget will be cut by approximately $109 billion. The cuts will hit Virginia hard; federal spending accounts (directly or indirectly) for around 33 percent of the state's economy. A George Mason professor estimates that more than 207,000 Virginian workers will lose their jobs in 2013 if the federal cutbacks occur. Virginia's elected officials have begun to prepare for this event. They have set aside $30 million, which can be used to help citizens impacted by the fiscal cliff, and the governor has asked state agencies to prepare in advance for federal cutbacks. However, Virginia's elected officials should devote even more attention to this issue in the coming weeks.

Draft a Blueprint for the Health Insurance Exchange

The Affordable Care Act mandates that states, including Virginia, need to have operational health insurance exchanges in place by 2014. In 2011, Virginia passed a law declaring its intent to create an exchange. However, the governor has so far refused to work with state delegates to finalize a blueprint for the exchange. State officials have to submit this plan to federal authorities soon if they want Virginia, and not the U.S. government, to run the state's health insurance exchange when it becomes operational in 2014.

Ensure the 2013 Gubernatorial Election Runs Smoothly

Many Virginians waited in long lines to cast their votes in the most recent election. They also had to deal with issues relating to the new state voter I.D. law. Virginia officials need to work to correct these problems before the gubernatorial election on Nov. 5. They have a number of options open to them, including hiring more election-day workers and adjusting absentee voting rules.

-- Anthony Hopper

#Virginia #history #politics #opinion

2012 Election Commentary: Neither Candidate Has Proposed a Real Solution for Illegal Immigration

Abstract: Both President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have mentioned illegal immigration. On Friday, President Obama even granted partial amnesty to some illegal immigrants. However, neither candidate has really delved into the issue.

On Friday, President Barack Obama announced he had signed an executive order permitting some young, undocumented immigrants to remain in the country legally. According to the Chicago Tribune, Obama's decision will allow illegal immigrants who are younger than 30 and have lived in the U.S. since they were children or teenagers can apply for temporary work permits. Whatever his motivations, the president's decision has made the topic an important one for his campaign. As an independent, it forces me to re-examine my views on illegal immigration.

As Obama's announcement suggests, illegal immigrants are a varied group. Many of these individuals entered the U.S. years ago and have developed roots within a specific community. Some of these people came to the U.S. as children and have spent a good portion of their lives here.

In other cases, adults who are undocumented immigrants have kids who were born in the U.S. and are American citizens. If our government simply deports everyone, it will have significant ramifications not only for the adults who intentionally immigrated to the country illegally but also for large numbers of other, innocent stakeholders. Any national immigration policy should be sensitive to that fact.

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, there were approximately 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. in 2009. While a large majority of these people are from Latin America, more than 1 million hail from Asia, Africa, Europe or Canada. Some reside in cities and others in rural areas. I think it would be difficult to devise any cost effective method (legal or illegal) that would allow authorities to identify and deport a large percentage of these individuals.

I have only to look at a map of the U.S. to notice how difficult it would be to secure our southern border. A 2007 article in the San Francisco Chronicle estimated 700 miles of fencing along the border would cost as much as $49 billion. Given the entire southern border is 1,952 miles long, that would translate to as much as $137 billion to fence off the whole area.

Any national immigration policy must address these three issues in some detail. They are complex conundrums that will not yield to executive fiat or to facile legislation. I am still waiting for either presidential candidate to be honest with me and acknowledge the difficulties he would face in effectively dealing with illegal immigration.

-- Anthony Hopper

#politics #elections #Obama #Romney #opinion #US #UnitedStates #politics

2012 - What Matters in Arizona This Election Year? Unemployment, Housing, Illegal Immigration

Abstract: Both President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, hope to grab Arizona's 11 electoral votes in the upcoming presidential election. The final outcome of this battle may hinge on three, key issues.

Over the next few months, President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, will spend inordinate amounts of time and money to secure Americans' votes in the upcoming presidential election. Both sides will focus a lot of attention on Arizona.

According to Real Clear Politics, Republicans have won every presidential election in the state since 1996. However, per the Census Bureau, the state's Hispanic population has been growing steadily over the last decade. It accounted for 29.6 percent of Arizona's population in 2010, up from 25.3 percent in 2000. This is an important trend, given that, per Bloomberg, a large majority of Hispanic voters favor Obama. According to Real Clear Politics, the president believes that, with the help of the Latino community, he can grab the state's 11 electoral votes in the November election.

Obama still has some work to do if he wants to collect Arizona's electoral votes. Real Clear Politics compiled data from three polls taken between April 10 and May 20, which show Romney ahead of Obama by 6 percent. The most recent of these polls, taken between May 17 and May 20, has Romney in front of Obama by 7 percentage points.

However, there are still almost five months to go before voters go to the polls, and a lot can change in that time. The final outcome may hinge on three, key issues.

Unemployment

The unemployment rate will be a major issue in all of the battleground states, including in Arizona. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released its May unemployment estimates and the news is positive. 8.2 percent of the state's citizens were unemployed in May, down from 8.6 percent in March of this year. However, that figure is still quite high when compared with the state's unemployment rates for most of this century. Additionally, per the Mohave Valley News, some areas in Arizona, such as Yuma County, are dealing with double digit unemployment rates.

The Housing Market

Per a National Association of Realtors report, the housing market crash impacted large numbers of Arizona homeowners. Many people saw their home values drop significantly while others were forced to abandon their residences. The current market outlook is not rosy, but it is improving. According to The Wall Street Journal, housing prices in Arizona have remained relatively stable over the last year, which is a welcome relief after several years of falling home prices. In another sign of growth, the Phoenix Business Journal notes that Arizona ranked third among states with regards to its year over year increase in May construction jobs.

Illegal Immigration

Obama recently signed an executive order allowing some young, undocumented immigrants to remain in the country legally. Per the Bloomberg article, a June 17 poll indicates that the president's actions have boosted his standing among Hispanic voters in Arizona and in other swing states. Also of note, per Hispanic Business, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Arizona's stringent immigration law by June 25. Per the article, the justices' decision with regards to this statute may significantly impact the presidential race.

-- Anthony Hopper

#Obama #Romney #elections #voters #housing #unemployment #president

2012 Commentary - Court Ruling Could Benefit Egyptians in the Long Run

Abstract: On Thursday, June 14, Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court ruled that the nation’s recent parliamentary elections were unconstitutional. The court's decision might end up benefiting Egyptians in the long run.

On June 14, Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court ruled that the nation's recent parliamentary elections were unconstitutional. According to the Los Angeles Times, the judges also decided that Ahmed Shafik, an "ally of deposed leader Hosni Mubarak," could run for president. Many Egyptians have condemned the court's actions. Per the New York Times, they claim that the judges' decisions threaten the nascent democratic processes which are just beginning to blossom in Egypt after decades of autocratic rule. As important, the court's actions threaten to throw the nation back into turmoil. However, in the long run, the judges' rulings could spur the growth of democracy in Egypt.

In the short run, Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court, whatever its actual motives, likely hindered the growth of some democratic processes when it nullified the existing parliament. The decision sends a signal to Egyptians that their votes do not count for much when their wishes can be countermanded by non-elected judges. As the New York Times notes, the court's two rulings also imply that allies of ousted dictator, Hosni Mubarak, still have a significant amount of control over government decisions.

The judges' decisions will almost certainly bring about a new wave of street protests in major Egyptian cities. More worrisome, per The New York Times, Islamists (including the Muslim Brotherhood), who control the vast majority of seats in the current parliament, have said they will not dissolve the legislative body. The Islamists' actions set the stage for a potentially bloody confrontation with the allies of Mubarak. The tensions between the two groups may reach a boiling point if Shafik defeats the Islamasist candidate in this weekend's presidential elections.

While the high court's decisions will negatively impact many Egyptians over the next few weeks (and perhaps longer), it might end up benefiting them over the long run. Per the Los Angeles Times, Islamists currently control 70 percent of parliament. It is unclear how these people will govern if given the chance; however, when Islamists gained power in Afghanistan and in Iran, they severely limited the rights of women and other groups. Per CTV Canada, at least some of the Islamist groups who control Egypt's parliament want to curtail individual freedoms.

If that is the case, the Supreme Constitutional Court might have unknowingly aided the cause of democracy in Egypt by nullifying the current parliament. Assuming the situation in Egypt remains relatively stable and new parliamentary elections are held, it is quite possible that the Islamasists will not secure as many seats, especially since, per the Los Angeles Times, the court stated that one third of the parliamentary spots be "reserved for independents." As a result, it can be hoped that the new Egyptian parliament will be more moderate than the previous one, and thus more likely to protect individual freedoms.


-- Anthony Hopper

#Egypt #Muslims #Sunni #court #legal #opinion #politics

Virginia Politicians Need to Safeguard the State's Transportation Budget - 2013

ABSTRACT: Virginia politicians need to put a plan in place in 2013 to ensure that the Virginia Department of Transportation does not suffer any budget shortfalls in the near future. Here is why.

I live in Roanoke, Va. I believe that state politicians need to put a plan in place in 2013 to ensure that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) does not suffer any funding shortfalls in the near future. Virginia's political leaders passed legislation in 2011 to address this issue. However, they need to do more to help VDOT. The agency recently announced that its revenues over the next six years might be as much as $700 million less than previously projected.

VDOT is one of Virginia's most important government agencies. Among other things, it plays a vital role in maintaining and improving the state's transportation infrastructure.

Some of VDOT's proposed improvement projects will provide a substantial benefit to Virginia residents. For instance, parts of I-81, which runs through my hometown, are extremely congested. As a result, drivers have to spend more time commuting to work, and truckers take longer to deliver their goods to stores and other facilities. The traffic snarls also pose safety issues. VDOT plans to fix these problems by widening I-81. The agency might have to delay this project if it experiences funding shortfalls.

Virginia's politicians will have to deal with a lot of issues in 2013. However, they should take the time to put a plan in place to protect VDOT's budget. Gov. Robert McDonnell has already started the conversation. He wants to slightly increase the state's sales tax (while eliminating the gas tax) and earmark the additional revenues for transportation projects. Hopefully, Virginia's legislators will keep the discussion going.

-- Anthony Hopper (January 25, 2013)

Opinion: Marco Rubio vs Andrew Cuomo in the 2016 Presidential Election - 2013

ABSTRACT: The next presidential election is not until 2016, but pundits are already discussing which candidates have the best chance of winning their party’s nomination. I believe that Marco Rubio and Andrew Cuomo will square off against each other in 2016.

The next presidential election is not until 2016, but political pundits are already debating about which candidates have the best chance of winning their party's nomination. After carefully reviewing the data, I believe that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio will secure the Republican nomination in 2016 and will square off against the Democrat's choice, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Republican Nominee: Marco Rubio

I believe there are several reasons why Rubio will secure the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. For one thing, the senator's home state of Florida ranks fourth among states in regard to population. Rubio can use this fact to his advantage in securing funding and in building his presidential campaign infrastructure. More importantly, the Florida senator is staunchly conservative; both fiscal and social conservatives admire him. He reaffirmed his conservative credentials by voting against the fiscal cliff compromise. Rubio's most important political asset might be his Cuban heritage. Republicans will opt for Rubio in part because they believe that he will appeal to Hispanic voters.

Rubio also possesses something that many of his competitors lack. He is a charismatic speaker who can tug at people's heartstrings as well as appeal to their intellects. Some Republicans lovingly compare him to Ronald Reagan.

Democratic Nominee: Andrew Cuomo

I think that Cuomo will win the Democratic nomination in 2016. His current job as governor of New York and his political pedigree -- his father, Mario Cuomo, is a former governor -- helps to boost his name recognition.

As a case in point, Public Policy Polling asked voters about their familiarity with potential Democratic presidential candidates. In the poll, Cuomo ranked third behind only Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
Like his potential Republican opponent, Cuomo lives in a populous state, which will help him in collecting donations and in organizing his campaign. Most importantly, Cuomo, as governor, has demonstrated that he can work with politicians from both parties. Democratic voters will find this trait appealing, especially in light of the current gridlock on Capitol Hill.

-- Anthony Hopper

#MarcoRubio #Rubio #presidentialelection #president #election #Cuomo #AndrewCuomo #NewYork #NY #Florida #2016president #2016

2012 Commentary: No End in Sight to the Syrian Civil War

ABSTRACT: The civil war in Syria has been dragging on for over a year now. While Friday's massacre in Houla, Syria might prompt Bashar al-Assad's allies to put more pressure on him to sue for peace; it is unlikely to bring an immediate end to the conflict.

Map of Syria (1)

On Friday, armed gunmen massacred 108 people, many of them women and children, in the Syrian town of Houla. An Associated Press article puts the blame for these killings on troops loyal to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Even some of Assad's allies, like Russia, have condemned the attack. Per the Los Angeles Times, U.N. special envoy Kofi Annan stated that "the crisis was 'at a tipping point.'" Annan might be correct; the Houla massacre might prod reluctant nations like Russia and China to join with the United States and others in putting pressure on Assad to enter into peace talks with the Syrian rebels. However, even if that is the case, the crisis will likely not be resolved anytime soon.

Per Albawaba, both the Chinese and Russians have condemned the Syrian massacre and have called on both sides in the struggle to adopt Annan's peace plan. According to CNN, the plan, which both Assad and the rebels have nominally accepted, calls for a "cease-fire by all combatants," "access for humanitarian groups," and a mediated political settlement. However, the Associated Press article notes that while Russia and China may put more political pressure on the Assad regime to accept a cease-fire (and perhaps to step down from power), the two countries, at least for now, are unlikely to condone the use of either economic sanctions or force to end the conflict.

Without the help of Russia and China, the current American and European backed economic sanctions against Syria might not be enough to convince Assad to negotiate with the rebels. As the Associated Press article notes, Russia and China will also block any attempts by the U.N. Security Council to use military force to remove Assad. The United States and other countries could decide to act on their own to end the fighting, as they did in Libya; however, that might be unlikely given that President Barack Obama is in a tough re-election fight and probably does not want to do anything to hurt his poll ratings.

Given these facts, the Syrian civil war might drag on for months or even longer. Bashar al-Assad still has enough backing from his allies to continue the conflict, and the Syrian rebels are unlikely to surrender.

1. Photographer/Owner: CIA
    March 27, 2005
    Title/Description: Map of Syria.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - U.S. government document (click on the title/link
    (to see the map, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#Assad #Syria #war #Sunni #Shia #opinion

2012 Commentary: The U.S. Presidential Election Could Be Upended by These Five Game Changers

Abstract: These five game changing events could radically alter the U.S. presidential landscape between now and Nov. 6 when Americans go to the polls.

The media is intensely focused on the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Many of the articles attempt to parse through current data to determine who will win in November. Other stories try to gauge how future changes in one potential issue, such as the economy, will impact the final vote. While this information is valuable, it is worth remembering that the presidential election is still almost six months away. Any of a number of future occurrences might significantly alter the election landscape. Few if any authors provide readers with a list of these issues. With that in mind, here are five potential game changers.

The Weather: Per Reuters, the hurricane season, which "officially runs from June 1 through Nov. 30," kicked off a little early this year with the formation on Saturday of the season's first tropical storm, Alberto. It is possible that a large hurricane will hit the U.S. in the next few months. Such an event might radically alter President Obama's re-election chances for better or worse.

The Middle East: To say that the region is unsettled would be an understatement. There are a host of simmering disagreements between the U.S. and hardline regimes like Iran, between Israel and its neighbors, and amongst Sunni and Shiite Muslim sects, that could suddenly erupt into a full conflagration at any time in the next few months. Per a Log Cabin Democrat article, the Iranian nuclear issue may be close to reaching this tipping point.

Healthcare Legislation: The Supreme Court will soon render its verdict on President Obama's healthcare legislation. The Los Angeles Times notes that this decision will have a significant impact on the presidential election. However, it is unclear which candidate will benefit from the Supreme Court's decision.

The European Financial Crisis: Many Americans assumed that the Europeans had the crisis under control only to see it flame up again in recent weeks. As Yahoo Finance notes, if the situation deteriorates further, it would have obvious consequences for the American stock exchanges and perhaps for the economy as a whole. Per The Week, "[t]he White House views the crisis, and its potential impact on the U.S., as one of the biggest challenges facing Obama's re-election bid."

Immigration: According to USA Today, the Supreme Court will decide in June whether or not to uphold a controversial Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration. If the justices decide to keep most or all of the law in place, it will likely thrust the immigration issue onto the national stage.
Each of these events has the potential to impact the U.S. presidential election contest in significant yet unpredictable ways. To use an old cliché, it is still anybody's game.

-- Anthony Hopper

#politics #elections #opinion #Obama #Romney

2012 Commentary: What Matters in Virginia This Election Year? Housing, Unemployment, Gay Marriage

ABSTRACT: Virginia is one of the key battleground states that will play a decisive role in determining who wins the presidential election. Here is a look at some of the issues that are important to Virginia's voters.

Over the next few months, President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, will spend inordinate amounts of time and money to secure Americans' votes in the upcoming presidential election.
Both sides will focus a lot of attention on the Commonwealth of Virginia, a swing state whose 13 electoral votes are very much in play.

PBS calls the state a former "Republican bastion." Virginians voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election from 1964 to 2008. Over the past few years, that has changed, as large numbers of Democratic-leaning voters have migrated to Virginia from other areas. This group helped Obama carry the state in 2008. Either party's candidate could win in Virginia in 2012.

- Real Clear Politics compiled data from six surveys taken between March 13 and May 2, which shows Obama ahead of Romney by 3.2 percent.
- In the most recent poll, sponsored by The Washington Post, Obama leads Romney, 51 percent to 44 percent.

In short, the state's electoral votes are still up for grabs. The outcome may hinge on three, key issues:

Unemployment

The unemployment rate will be a major issue in all of the battleground states, including in Virginia. According to a May 14 Reuters article, Virginia's doing very well. In March (the most recent month for which there is state level data), it had a 5.6 percent unemployment rate, which was well below the national average of 8.2 percent. However, a Bureau of Labor Statistics report indicates that only certain areas of the state are benefiting from this hiring boom. Parts of southern and eastern Virginia are still dealing with double-digit unemployment rates.

The Housing Market

The housing market crash impacted large numbers of Virginia homeowners. Many people saw their home values drop significantly while others were forced to abandon their residences. While the current market outlook is not rosy, it is improving. Per Reuters, year-over-year home prices increased by 2.4 percent in the first quarter of 2012 for the state of Virginia as a whole and 5.94 percent in heavily populated northern Virginia. Even more importantly, the Virginia Association of Realtors reports that residential home sales increased by 4.3 percent in the first three months of this year as compared with the first quarter of 2011. The Reuters article notes that the housing rebound may aid Obama's chances of winning Virginia in November.

Gay Marriage

Obama recently decided to publicize his support for gay marriage. According to The Washington Post, the president's announcement might not sway large numbers of voters one way or the other; in a recent poll, Virginians ranked gay marriage as the least important "among the 10 policy issues that were included in the survey." However, the article notes that the issue could be decisive in a tight race, though it is unclear at this time which candidate will benefit the most. Obama's support for gay marriage will likely galvanize younger voters while at the same time "motivate[ing] evangelicals who might otherwise be tepid about [voting for] former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney."

-- Anthony Hopper

#politics #Obama #Romney #elections #opinion

2012 Commentary: U.S. Needs to Do More to Help End Drug-Related Violence in Mexico

Abstract: The recent murder of 49 people in Mexico is just the latest in a string of drug related violence which has claimed the lives of approximately 50,000 people in that country since 2006. Americans have an obligation to help Mexico curtail this violence.

Mexican Drug Cartels and Their Areas of Influence (1)

Mexican authorities recently announced that they located a mass grave containing the mutilated corpses of 49 people. The government stated that a local drug gang, the Zetas, claimed responsibility for the killings. These deaths are likely related to a conflict between the Zetas and "rival groups for control of smuggling routes." Amazingly, per a Reuters article, this type of drug related violence is a routine event in Mexico, as "more than 50,000 people have fallen victim to the conflict [since 2006]." These deaths serve as a reminder that America's drug war has consequences for other countries.

Americans who use drugs should take a moment to consider how their actions are impacting other nations. Per an NPR article, U.S. consumption of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines helps to buttress a violent drug trafficking network that stretches throughout Mexico and into adjacent countries. Americans' demand for these drugs might provide employment to some people in these areas but at a high cost, as the 50,000 drug-related deaths (in Mexico alone) testify. These murdered men and women are not the only casualties of this war. Their families are left without brothers, sisters, and parents. Additionally, it is likely that many times this number of individuals live in fear of the local drug cartels. Per MSNBC, as a result of the drug trade, "the country is one of the most dangerous to be a journalist, [sic] kidnapping and extortion are rife."

At the same time, U.S. state and federal politicians should remember that the decisions they make with regards to the nation's drug war have consequences for other countries. They should periodically assess whether or not the U.S. is winning this conflict. If, as the MSNBC article implies, the U.S. is not making any headway in curtailing drug use among its citizens, politicians should either dedicate more money to enforcement efforts or discuss potentially legalizing (and strictly controlling the use of) some drugs. Either way, Americans should not settle for the status quo if it is not producing results; they owe that much to their brothers and sisters who are dying as a result of the drug cartel wars in Mexico and in other Latin American countries.

Americans are partly to blame for the violence in Mexico that has claimed the lives of approximately 50,000 people since 2006. They owe it to the people in Mexico as well as to themselves to work harder to curtail drug use in the U.S. by whatever means is most feasible.

1. Creator: U.S. Congress, Committee on Foreign Relations
    Date: 2007
    Title/Description: The Merida Initiative, a U.S. Counter-Narcotics Assistance to Mexico.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - U.S. government document (click on the title to see the
    artwork, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#crime #drugs #Mexico #US #United States #politics #opinion

2012 Commentary: Republican Sponsored Student Loan Bill is a Brilliant Political Move, but Not in Americans' Best Interests

Abstract: Today, the Republican led House passed a student loan rate extension bill that calls for eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund. It is a brilliant political move by the GOP; however, the decision is not in Americans' best interests.

Today the Republican led House of Representatives, by a vote of 215-195, approved legislation that, per Yahoo, "would extend the low 3.4 percent rate on government-subsidized student loans [for one year]." One controversial aspect of the bill is its requirement that the federal government eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a key feature of the Affordable Care Act. The money saved by this move will go towards offsetting "the $5.9 billion shortfall that comes with an extension of the low rate." The Republican Party's decision to fund the extension in this way is a politically savvy move. However, it does a disservice to Americans of all political persuasions.

The GOP's decision to sponsor a student loan bill that calls for the elimination of the Prevention and Public Health Fund is a brilliant political move. On the one hand, Republicans can appeal to the millions of Americans who have (or will soon incur) student loan debt by pointing to the fact that they voted to keep interest rates low. At the same time, the Republican bill is anathema to Democrats who are opposed to the elimination of the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Democrats will likely use their influence to get the Senate to veto or table the bill, thereby risking the ire of people who have large amounts of student debt. As an ABC News article implies, Republicans will achieve a major victory if the extension expires on July 1 of this year without a new agreement, as Democrats will likely be blamed for allowing the rate to double to 6.8 percent.

While the Republican Party's move may be politically savvy, it goes against the interests of millions of Americans of both parties who have government subsidized loans. Many of these individuals are already struggling to pay down their student loan debt, and it will be even more difficult for them to achieve this goal if the rate doubles. At the same time, according to an article from a Fox News affiliate (Fox 34 News), many Americans are already under a lot of duress do to issues related to the weak economy. They do not need to deal with the added stress resulting from the uncertainty over whether or not student loan rates will be extended. Finally, these men and women are likely to spend less money over the next few months, as they wait and see what happens to student loan rates. Their decision to retrench might negatively impact the economy.

Both political parties claim that they are committed to keeping student loan rates at 3.4 percent, at least for another year. If that is the case, Republicans and Democrats should work together to craft a bill that is palatable to both sides. At the very least, the parties should agree to extend the current student loan rate until after the November elections. This is one issue that neither side should play politics with.

-- Anthony Hopper

#studentloans #Congress #Republicans #Democrats #Obama #GOP #politics