1. Universal Health Care *2 2. Affirmative Action *11 3. Legalization of Marijuana *15 4. Malpractice Lawsuit Caps *18 5.

CIA-LED Coups *20 6. Fat Tax *23 7. Social Security Privatization *23 8. Unions *27 9. Term Limits *33 10. Death Penalty * 34 11. U.S. Role as Worlds Policeman *38 12. U.S. as sole Power *39 13. Mexico Border Fence *41 14. Oil Windfall Profits Tax *42 15. Legal Immigration *43 16. DREAM Act/Path to Citizenship for Illegals *46 17. Value-Added Tax/National Sales Tax *51 18. School Vouchers *56 19. Required Testing in Schools *59 20. U.S.-U.N. Involvement *61 21. Taxing the Rich *64 22. Civil Liberties in Wartime *65 23. Physician-Assisted Suicide *69 24. Balanced Budget Amendment *72 25. Same-Sex Marriages *73 26. Minimum Wage *76 27. Abortion *80 28. ANWR Oil Drilling *83 29. Terrorist Prisoner Torture *83 30. War with Iran *87 31. Gun Control *91 32. War in Iraq *91 33. Missile Defense *97 34. War with North Korea *

35. War Protesters-Un-American? *100 36. Dividend Tax Cut *103 37. Iraq Troop Withdrawal *106 38. Three Strikes Law *111

1. Universal Health Care It's no secret that health care costs are spiraling out of control in this country. On average, we now spend more per person on health care than both food and housing. Insurance premiums are multiplying much faster than inflation, which prevents economic growth and leaves businesses with less money to give raises or hire more workers. While the quality and availability of medical care in the United States remains among the best in the world, many wonder whether we'd be better off adopting a universal government-controlled health care system like the one used in Canada. The Obama administration passed a health care bill that takes the U.S. part of the way towards a government-controlled system. How far it takes us is up for dispute. The new law is sure to be debated and modified for years to come. This debate discusses whether a complete government takeover of health care should be undertaken.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The number of uninsured U.S. residents has grown to over 45 million (although this number includes illegal immigrants, etc.). Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. Patients with pre-existing conditions can still get health coverage. 1.

No
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. The health-care industry likely will become infused with the same kind of corruption, back-room dealing, and special-interestdominated sleeze that is already prevalent in other areas of government. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

2.

3. 4. 5.

7.

6.

7.

8. 9.

10. In an effort to cut costs, price & salary controls on drugs, medical equipment, and medical services are likely to be put in place, meaning there is less incentive to pursue medical-related research, development, and investment, nor pursue medical careers in general. 11. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. 12. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. 13. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. 14. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. 15. Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government. 16. Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. 17. Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment. 18. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

Yes
1. The number of uninsured U.S. residents has grown to over 45 million (although this number includes illegal immigrants, etc.). Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums. In all fairness, the 45 million uninsured number has been called into question since in includes illegal immigrants, people making over $75K who choose not to buy

coverage, and others who have options for coverage but choose not to get it. The true number of people without options is closer to 15 million. 2. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery. 3. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. Think back to all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical history, answering the same questions over and over. Think about all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our current health care system generates an enormous amount of overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be submitted, an approval department has to go over the claim, checks have to be mailed, patients are sent co-pay bills, and so on. The thing that's especially wasteful is that each doctor's office usually maintains their own record-keeping system. A universal healthcare plan would allow us to build one centralized system. There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking and postal areas alone would be worth billions every year. 4. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Most doctor's offices maintain a separate recordkeeping system. This is why you always have to fill out a lengthy health history whenever you go to a new physician. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all, it's wasteful of both time and money. Second of all, patients may lie, forget, or do a poor job of explaining past medical problems. Doctors need accurate information to make a proper diagnosis. Last of all, separate systems means we have a tougher time analyzing data at a national level. For example, are incidents of a certain disease dropping? How often is a certain illness associated with a specific set of symptoms? A centralized national system would allow us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible, leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis efficiency. The main argument against a centralized database is that certain insurance providers may deny coverage if they find certain past medical problems. However, if the government is paying for everything, that should never be a problem. 5. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical 4

headaches. A simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an already mentally-draining profession. 6. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. Because many people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high deductibles, Americans often forego doctor visits for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. Thus, health problems that could be caught at an early stage or prevented altogether become major illnesses. Things like routine physicals, mammograms, and HIV tests could prevent major problems. This not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost of the system, since preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full blown disease. A government-provided system would remove the disincentive patients have for visiting a medical professional. 7. Patients with pre-existing conditions can still get health coverage. One of the biggest weaknesses of our current health care systems is that patients with a past or current medical condition such as cancer or asthma often cannot obtain affordable health coverage. Some insurance companies won't even give a policy to such individuals, or if they do, they will cover everything BUT their past diagnosed conditions. Anyone with an expensive illness or disease must then often face one of two choices: use up all their own money, or leave the condition untreated. In a universal system, no one with a pre-existing condition would be denied coverage. People could change jobs without fearing the loss of health insurance.

No
1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle 5

things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors. Consider the health care bill passed by the Obama administration in 2009--it's over 2000 pages and barely scratches the surface for how the law will be implemented! 2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it? 3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive. 4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of. 5. The health-care industry likely will become infused with the same kind of corruption, back-room dealing, and special-interest-dominated sleeze that is already prevalent in other areas of government. In President Obama's push for health insurance "reform", we saw firsthand how politics rears its ugly head. In order to secure 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats put in special payoffs for Nebraska (the "Cornhusker kickback"), Louisiana (the "Louisinan 6

Purchase"), and Florida in order to secure votes from reluctant senators. In other words, the merits of the bill and the good of the nation took a backseat to politics as usual. Another example was the proposed tax on "Cadillac Health Plans", which was one of the few things in the 2000+ page bill that economists predicted would actually help reduce overall costs. Unfortunately, Obama's biggest political supporters--big unions--were set to be hit. So of course, a deal was struck to exempt his union supporters, whereas non-union members in the same boat still faced the tax hikes. With something as important as health care, can we really have politicians and special interests taking power? How long before funding/regulatory decisions on certain drugs, treatments, research, etc. are decided based on those who give the most political support, as opposed to which will save lives and improve quality of life? 6. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections. 7. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant. 8. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care. 9. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your 7

lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't? 10. In an effort to cut costs, price & salary controls on drugs, medical equipment, and medical services are likely to be put in place, meaning there is less incentive to pursue medical-related research, development, and investment. Regardless of whether medical costs are paid for publicly or privately, the costs are extremely expensive and going higher every year. Rising costs of drugs, diagnostic tests, advanced treatments, physician & nurses' salaries, and so on all contribute to the skyrocketing overall cost. Politicians are likely to jump in and try to limit costs by putting in price caps on various items they deem "excively profitable." This de-incentivizes businesses from investing in new drugs or medical advances. As an example, new drugs often take over a decade to develop, test, and pass FDA standards. That means companies must spend sometimes millions of dollars over the development period without grossing dollar one! The only thing that keeps companies in the market at all is the potentially lucrative payout of that patent along with the ability to sell their new drugs at whatever cost the market will bear. Drug price controls, or even the mere threat of price controls, will likely dissuade many companies from taking on the new investment. Consequently, medical advances are likely to curtail. 11. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money. 12. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency. A recent study showed that nearly 1/3 of doctors would leave the profession if the Obama health care bill was put into law. 13. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, 8

and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying? 14. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or unhealthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free. 15. Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government. While a centralized computer health information system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the privacy of patients will likely become very difficult. The government would have yet another way to access information about citizens that should be private. Any doctor or other health professional would be able to access your entire health history. What if hackers get into the data? 16. Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, some ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated? If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, 9

or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you? Just think of the whole can of worms opened by the abortion & birth control issue? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members? 17. Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment. Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years for treatments that we can currently receive immediately in America. With limited financial and human resources, the government will have to make tough choices about who can treatment first, and who must wait. Patients will like be forced to suffer longer or possibly die waiting for treatment. 18. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.

10

2. Affirmative Action Affirmative action generally means giving preferential treatment to minorities in admission to universities or employment in government & businesses. The policies were originally developed to correct decades of discrimination and to give disadvantaged minorities a boost. The diversity of our current society as opposed to that of 50 years ago seem to indicate the programs have been a success. But now, many think the policies are no longer needed and that they lead to more problems than they solve. One notable example is a case argued a few years back in the Supreme Court concerning admissions to the University of Michigan. The school had a policy of rating potential applicants on a point system. Being a minority student earned you more than twice as many points as achieving a perfect SAT score. Three white students sued citing this as raced-based discrimination. School officials said that diversity is desirable and affirmative action is the only way to achieve true diversity. Another notable case in 2009 involved firefighters whose captain's exams were thrown out after it was determined not enough minorities passed. Several other cases involving affirmative action have followed similar arguments. The following sections explore the issue and show how things are much more complicated.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. Students admitted on this basis are often illequipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. It would help lead a truly color-blind society. It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability. Once enacted, affirmative actions are tough to remove, even after the underlying discrimination has been eliminated. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

No
Diversity is desirable and won't always occur if left to chance. Students starting at a disadvantage need a boost. Affirmative action draws people to areas of study and work they may never consider otherwise. Some stereotypes may never be broken without affirmative action. Affirmative action is needed to compensate minorities for centuries of slavery or oppression.

11

Yes
1. Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is designed to end discrimination and unfair treatment of employees/students based on color, but it in effect does the opposite. Whites who work harder and/or are more qualified can be passed over strictly because they are white. Contrary to many stereotypes, many minorities fall into the middle or upper class, and many whites live in poverty. Unfortunately, the way things are set up now, a poverty-stricken white student who uses discipline and hard work to become the best he can be can be passed over by a rich minority student who doesn't put in much effort at all. 2. Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. If a minority student can get into Harvard with a 3.2 grade-point average, why should she push herself to get a 4.0? Although some students or employees are self-motivated, most people need an extra push or incentive to do their very best. By setting lower standards for admission or hiring, we are lowering the level of accountability. We should reward hard work, discipline, and achievement; we shouldn't reward a student simply because he or she is a certain race, nor punish another student simply because he or she isn't. 3. Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. Imagine a AA minor league baseball player suddenly asked to bat cleanup in the majors, or a high school science fair contestant suddenly asked to take a rocket scientist job at NASA. There's a possibility of success in these situations, but it's more likely they will be in over their heads. Schools like Harvard and Yale have high GPA and SAT requirements because it is extremely difficult to graduate from them. Thus, when they're forced to lower standards to achieve a minority quota, some students can't keep up. This isn't to say these students are less capable, but chances are that if they can't meet minimum requirements, they probably aren't ready to go there. The far-lower graduation rate of minorities is testament to the fact that they are too often going to schools that don't match their ability. The original application criteria of schools were put in for a reason. We should adhere to them. 4. It would help lead a truly color-blind society. When you apply for a job or fill out a college application, how often are asked about things like your hair color, eye color, or height? Unless it's for a modeling or athletic position, probably never. Why? It's because hair & eye color or height don't have any effect on your ability to do a job or succeed at a school. There's no association between hair/eye color and intelligence, discipline, ambition, character, or other essentials. Thus, it's useless to even ask about the information. Conversely, there's no association between skin color and intelligence/discipline/etc. So why do we keep drawing attention to it? Wouldn't it be great if we one day lived in a society when skin color was ignored as much as hair & eye color? 5. It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. When you give preferential treatment to minorities in admission or

12

hiring practices, you're in effect saying "You're too stupid or incapable of achieving on your own, so let me help you". It is condescending and insulting to imply that minorities cannot achieve their goals through hard work and ability. 6. It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability. Ask Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, or Herman Cain how they got to where they are -- hard work or affirmative action? All achieved their positions through hard work, and because they're bright and articulate. My guess is that would all be offended if you said they got to where they were strictly because of affirmative action. The same can be said of minority doctors, lawyers, business leaders, etc. Too often, their achievements are demeaned by people who believe preferential treatment got them to their current positions. Minorities must then work twice as hard to earn respect. 7. Once enacted, affirmative actions are tough to remove, even after the underlying discrimination has been eliminated. Times change. Society learns and grows. Racist attitude can dissolve over time, as they have in this country. Even race extortionists like Al Sharpton have to admit that the country nowadays is world's ahead of where it was in the 60s. In almost all areas of the country, discrimination & racism are a thing of the past. The majority of the country voted a black man into the Presidency! Still, a number of affirmative action policies remain in place, even when the vast majority of people would agree they're no longer necessary. Unfortunately, lawmakers move slowly and must haggle over everything. It's tough to get hundreds of people and multiple branches of government to agree on anything. Also, as we all know, the agenda of politicians often don't match those of the people. Corruption and special interest groups can influence the government into inaction.

No
1. Diversity is desirable and won't always occur if left to chance. Part of the education process is learning to interact with other races and nationalities. Many students live very segregated lives up until the time they start college. Thus, opinions of other races and nationalities are based on stereotypes. Interaction allows students to learn that persons of the opposite race are people too, more or less just like themselves. The movie Remember the Titans, based on a true story, is an excellent illustration of this. In the beginning, the football players portrayed in the movie are heavily segregated and antagonistic to the other race. The coach forces them to room with a player of the opposite color as well as learn some essential facts about each other. To make a long story short, they become lifelong friends and accomplish an undefeated season. Since this diversity is desirable, we want to make sure colleges represent a wide range of backgrounds. Unfortunately, without affirmative action, this diversity is much less likely to occur. It's possible schools with become segregated like in past decades. Elite schools may become increasingly dominated by majority students. Diversity is so important; we can't leave it to chance.

13

2. Students starting at a disadvantage need a boost. Minority students, generally speaking, start out at a disadvantage in their college or job application process. They usually come from lower income families and have less opportunity to go to private schools as white students. Some inner city youths must also live their childhoods in high crime, drug-infested areas. Sincere, hardworking minority students are every bit as capable as white students, but because of these disadvantages, they may not have the same paper qualifications. Affirmative action evens the playing field a bit. 3. Affirmative action draws people to areas of study and work they may never consider otherwise. Whether it's men being brought into nursing, women brought into technology fields, or minorities brought into Ivy League schools, it is always desirable to bring people to areas of study or work that they may not have considered otherwise. The more we change stereotypes, the less we'll need affirmative action in the future. 4. Some stereotypes may never be broken without affirmative action. For decades blacks were considered less capable than whites. It took affirmative action to give blacks the opportunity to show they are every bit as capable. These and other stereotypes have started to change and will continue to change with the help of affirmative action. 5. Affirmative action is needed to compensate minorities for centuries of slavery or oppression. The first several centuries of the U.S.'s existence saw whites enslave and oppress blacks, Native Americans, and other minorities. Minorities gave decades of unpaid labor, had land taken from them, were subject to brutal punishments, and were denied most of the fundamental rights provided by our Constitution. Affirmative action simply provides a way to compensate the descendants for the wrongs done to their ancestors.

14

3. Legalization of Marijuana A number of movements to legalize the use of marijuana have been gaining steam lately. There are places in California where it's already legal for medicinal purposes. Much of the American public now believes that the drug should be legalized (40 percent according to a Rasmussen International Poll) but others are still concerned about health damage and other adverse affects.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. The drug generally isn't more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation. 2. Limiting the use of the drug intrudes on personal freedom. 3. Legalization would mean a lower price; thus, related crimes (like theft) would be reduced. 4. There are medical benefits such as the those for cancer patients. 5. Street justice related to drug disputes would be reduced. 6. It could be a source of additional tax revenues. 7. Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes. 8. Drug dealers (including some terrorists) would lose most or all of their business. 9. The FDA or others could regulate the quality and safety of drugs. 10. Like sex, alcohol, or cigarettes, marijuana is one of life's little pleasures for some people. 11. Aside from recreational drug use, Cannabis has several industrial and commercial uses, as over 25,000 products can be made from the crop. 12. Drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns them into lifelong criminals. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

No
Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs. Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased. Some consider use of the drug as morally wrong. Legalization would increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids. Because of drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more serious crimes can be taken off the streets. Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug. More widespread use would increase the dangers of secondhand smoke-damage to bystanders. Legalization of marijuana could eventually lead to the legalization of harder drugs or all drugs altogether.

Yes
1. The drug generally isn't more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation. As you'll see by reading research studies from the related links section at the bottom of the page, the studies of the harmfulness of marijuana are inconclusive and contradictory. Most doctors would agree that it's not very harmful if used in moderation. It's only when you abuse the drug that problems start to occur. But isn't abuse of almost any bad substance a problem? If you abuse alcohol, caffeine, Ephedra, cigarettes, or even pizza, health problems are sure to follow. Would you want the government limiting how much coffee you can drink or how much cheesecake you take in? Most doctors believe that marijuana is no more addictive that alcohol or tobacco. Limiting the use of the drug intrudes on personal freedom. Even if the drug is shown to be harmful, isn't it the right of every person to choose what harms him or her? Marijuana use is generally thought of as a "victimless crime", in that only the user is being harmed. You can't legislate morality when people disagree about what's considered "moral".

2.

15

3.

Legalization would mean a lower price; thus, related crimes (like theft) would be reduced. All illegal drugs are higher in price because the production, transportation, and sale of the drugs carry heavy risks. When people develop drug habits or addictions, they must somehow come up with the money to support their cravings. Unless a person is wealthy, he or she must often resort to robbery and other crimes to generate the money needed to buy the drugs. Legalization would reduce the risks and thus reduce the prices. There would therefore be less need for the secondary crimes needed to raise money. There are medical benefits such as the those for cancer patients. As detailed in the related links section, there are a number of medical benefits of marijuana, most notably in the treatment of patients undergoing chemotherapy. Others believe it helps in the treatment of depression. Certain states like California have brought initiatives to legalize the drug for at least medicinal purposes. Street justice related to drug disputes would be reduced. Currently, if someone in the drug trade screws you over, there's no police to call or lawyers to litigate. You must settle disputes yourself. This often leads to cycles of retaliatory violence. Legalization would create proper means to settle disputes. It could be a source of additional tax revenues. An enormous amount of money is raised through government taxation of alcohol, cigarettes, and other "sins". The legalization of marijuana would create another item that could be taxed. I'm sure the government would have no problem spending all that extra money. Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes. Many consider the War on Drugs an expensive failure. Resources for DEA, FBI, and border security are only the tip of the iceberg. You must add in the cost of police officers, judges, public defenders, prosecutors, juries, court reporters, prison guards, and so on. Legalization of marijuana would free up those people to concentrate on more important things like terrorism, harder drugs, rape, murder, and so on. In addition, an already overloaded civil court docket would be improved; thus, the wait time for other legitimate court cases would be reduced. Drug dealers (including some terrorists) would lose most or all of their business. Perhaps the biggest opponents of legalizing drugs are the drug dealers themselves. They make their enormous sums of money because of the absence of competition and the monstrous street prices that come from the increased risk. Legalization would lower prices and open competition; thus, drug cartels (that might include terrorists) would lose all or some of their business. The FDA or others could regulate the quality and safety of drugs. Many drug users become sick or die because of poorly-prepared products. After all, there is nothing to regulate what is sold and no way to sue anyone for product liability. By bringing marijuana into the legitimate business world, you can oversee production and regulate sales.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Like sex, alcohol, or cigarettes, marijuana is one of life's little pleasures for some people. All of us have our guilty pleasures. They are part of what makes life worth living. Several of these little pleasures--coffee, sex, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.--are potentially harmful if abused. Even legal substances like pizza and donuts can be harmful to a person if not consumed in moderation. Would you want to give up all these things for the rest of your life? Would you want someone else telling you what you can and can't have when it is only your body that is affected? 11. Aside from recreational drug use, Cannabis has several industrial and commercial uses, as over 25,000 products can be made from the crop. The plant used in making marijuana has a ton of alternative uses, including construction & thermal insulation materials, paper, geotextiles, dynamite, composites for autos, and insect repellent. As far back as 1938, Popular Mechanics deemed it the "new billion dollar crop", as over 25,000 products can be made from it. Unfortunately, the lack of legality in the U.S. and other countries has squashed the growth and development of these products. We shouldn't limit the use of such a diverse product because one use is found objectionable by some. 12. Drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns them into lifelong criminals. Imagine an impressionable teenager who is tired of earning minimum wage, who hates living in a poor ghetto area, or who needs to save money for college. He's offered the opportunity to make some decent money simply carrying some drugs across town. Then he's busted. He's thrown in jail as part of a

16

mandatory sentence. There, he spends his time and becomes friends with many other delinquents. He gets meaner in jail since he has to defend himself in a rough crowd. When he gets out of prison, his job and college prospects are slammed because of a felony record and/or disruption of school. This just makes the resumption of a normal crime-free life all the more difficult. Strapped for cash, he joins some of his new friends in a greater crime like robbery. Suddenly, you have someone who has started down the road of being a lifelong criminal. This story may seem farfetched, but it is all too real for some. The legalization of marijuana would remove another temptation that could lead a young impressionable individual down the wrong road.

No
1. Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs. Studies show that marijuana use often progresses to the use of harder drugs. In other words, people experiment with what is often thought of as a "harmless" drug. Then, after using it for a while, a bigger "high" is sought; thus, users then turn to the harder stuff like heroin, LSD, cocaine, etc. This is particularly a problem since most people will not directly start abusing the harder drugs that are generally understood to be harmful. Marijuana use may simply embolden them to experiment. Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased. Marijuana use isn't truly a "victimless crime" when you consider all the crimes that may be committed when the user is under the influence of the drug. Drunk driving is still a major problem in our society despite all the education and stiff penalties. "Driving high" would be even harder to detect. Unless the user has been smoking in the car, there isn't as distinctive of a smell as there is with alcohol. Also, there's always the possibility that the lapse in judgment caused by drug use will lead to harder crimes like rape or robbery. Some consider use of the drug as morally wrong. Many religions and moral codes prohibit the use of intoxicating substances. Marijuana is generally considered to fit into this category. Legalization would increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids. Even unhealthy legal items such as cigarettes and alcohol are prohibited from being sold to kids. This is because kids generally don't exhibit the same reasoning, responsibility, and judgment of an adult. And their bodies aren't as equipped to handle the intake of these substances. The problem is even worse for marijuana use. Developing brains and bodies can be dealt serious blows by the use of marijuana. Any time you make something legal, you increase the accessibility to children. All too often kids and teenagers get their hands on alcohol or cigarettes. We shouldn't let the same thing happen with marijuana. Because of drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more serious crimes can be taken off the streets. People who produce, sell, traffic, or use illegal drugs have already established themselves as people who will break the law. Anyone who commits drug-related felonies isn't likely to be constrained in committing other felonies, such as robbery, rape, murder, etc. If such people are in prison because of drug charges, they aren't able to go out and commit other crimes. Also, it often occurs that there isn't enough evidence to imprison felons for the serious crimes like murder; however, if they can be imprisoned for something, society is much better off. At a minimum, they will be off the streets, unable to wreak more havoc. Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug. Although some studies have been disputed, marijuana abuse has been tied to brain damage, cancer, lung damage, depression, amotivational syndrome, and even death. The brain damage has been shown to cause memory loss and difficulty in problem solving. It is the governments duty to protect the public from such dangerous drugs. After all, that's why the FDA was created. More widespread use would increase the dangers of secondhand smoke-damage to bystanders. The dangers of secondhand cigarette smoke are well-publicized. Common sense tells us that more widespread usage of marijuana increases the likelihood that other people would suffer the damage of inhaling other people's smoke. Public places like bars would expose innocent patrons. In the home siblings, roommates, kids, and spouses would all face increased exposure. Thus, the health damage to society becomes somewhat exponential. Even marijuana smoked at home can make it's way to others, such as in multi-level apartment complexes.

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

17

8.

Legalization of marijuana could eventually lead to the legalization of harder drugs or all drugs altogether. Culture shifts rarely happen overnight. Behaviors of society stay relatively stable, with only small incremental changes. Legalization of marijuana would further shift the culture to more of a "anything goes" mentality. Step-by-step, more drugs will gain acceptance, with advocacy of the legalization of harder drugs. Drugs like heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines, which we may view now as unacceptable for legalization may eventually be sold over the counter at every corner drug store.

4. Malpractice Lawsuit Caps Health-care costs are exploding out of control. Virtually everyone has noticed increases in premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. The number of uninsured Americans continues to grow. Much of the health care cost problems can be contributed to medical malpractice lawsuits. Astronomical verdicts have led to massive increases in the cost to doctors of medical malpractice insurance. Doctors must pay up to $200,000 per year in insurance, depending on their specialty. Doctors are forced to pass these costs to patients, which explains in large part the cost increases. A number of doctors have even gone on strike around the country to protest the rising malpractice insurance costs. When a patient sues a doctor for malpractice, he or she may recover monetary damages for lost wages, medical bills, and pain & suffering. In some cases, punitive damages can also be collected. Several politicians have proposed putting a cap of $250,000 on the pain/suffering and punitive portions of these damages (while keeping the medical bill & lost wages recovery unlimited). However, since the majority of Congresspeople are themselves lawyers by trade, in addition to the fact that at least one major political party receives a large portion of their campaign contributions from lawyers in the American Bar Association, the proposal is far from passing.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. It would help fight out-of-control health care costs. Heart-wrenching cases lead to excessively unfair verdicts. There's still no limit on damages for lost wages and medical bills. Doctors are starting to retire or walk out on the job in response to the exploding malpractice insurance costs. Doctors who want to provide free or discounted services are handcuffed by the insurance costs. Good doctors are penalized for a few mistakes by others. Doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine; i.e. they must focus on not getting sued rather than curing the patient. 1. 2. 3. 4.

No
Each malpractice case is different; thus, a judge and jury should decide the proper damage amounts. The cap would leave very little negotiating room for settlements. Pressure must be maintained on hospitals so that strong safety procedures are put in place and doctors are careful. Several patients may be discouraged from filing, which may free a poorly performing doctor from responsibility.

18

Yes
1. It would help fight out-of-control health care costs. There is no doubt that health care costs are spinning out of control. Health care has become the third highest monthly expense for the average family after housing and food. This wasn't near the problem even a decade ago. The nation didn't suddenly get much sicker. Other items must explain the exploding cost. One is the obvious impact of medical malpractice verdicts. Juries are given way too much leeway since pain & suffering is difficult to measure. Is a broken leg worth $100,000? Are two broken legs worth $200,000? Is lung cancer worth $300,000? The mood and the biases of the jury can lead to large verdicts, with unreasonable amounts going for such imprecise things as "mental anguish". By capping pain & suffering expenses, we can reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits and assign a reasonable limit to pain and suffering amounts. Heart-wrenching cases lead to excessively unfair verdicts. The main reason for massive verdicts is the sympathy juries feel for the plaintiffs. It's difficult to not feel sympathy when you see someone wasting away with cancer, wheeled in in a body cast, or horribly disfigured in their appearance. The purpose of tort lawsuits is to compensate the victim, not to punish the defendant. Unfortunately, the pain juries feel for the plaintiff lead them to reward excessively unfair verdicts. Juries see a poor, suffering victim beside a rich doctor & insurance company, and they think, it won't hurt anyone to give a big verdict to this person. The heart-wrenching pain will often cause juries to reward money even when the doctor isn't the least bit at fault. Medicine is such an imprecise science that there are literally thousands of cases where one doctor will think one thing and another doctor will think just the opposite. It's difficult for many people to grasp, but when someone dies or suffers tremendously, there often isn't anything today's medicine can do to help. There's still no limit on damages for lost wages and medical bills. The proposed $250,000 limit applies only to pain & suffering costs. Lost wages and medical cost compensation is still unlimited. Thus, if a mistake forces another operation cost $300,000 and puts you out of work for a year, you can still recover that $300,000 and a full year's salary (as well as up to $250,000 for pain & suffering). Doctors are starting to retire or walk out on the job in response to the exploding malpractice insurance costs. There have been some well-publicized doctor strikes to protest malpractice insurance costs that amount to as much as $200,000 per year, depending on specialty. We already are facing a major shortage of medical professionals. Unless we control the malpractice insurance costs, things will get worse. More doctors could become rebellious and go on walk outs. Many doctors have already chose retirement rather than pay the high costs. Then there are the less noticeable effects. Doctors are often unable to open small clinics since it's hard for a new businessperson to absorb that high of overhead right away. Instead, they are forced to work in large impersonal hospitals. Doctors who want to provide free or discounted services are handcuffed by the insurance costs. Many doctors are compassionate people who got into the profession to help people, not to make money. They want to provide free services to the poor or uninsured. Unfortunately, they may not be able to absorb the malpractice insurance needed so they can do the work. All it takes is one lawsuit to wipe out everything they own, so the insurance is a must. We constantly hear reports of the millions of uninsured around the country. In a society of so many brilliant doctors who want to help, this shouldn't be a problem. Good doctors are penalized for a few mistakes by others. It's unfair that a doctor can pay millions of dollars in malpractice insurance throughout his or her career without making one single significant mistake. The intense training and certification requirements in this country ensures that we have very few bad doctors. Unfortunately, a few mistakes by the bad doctors make everyone pay disproportional amounts. Doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine; i.e. they must focus on not getting sued rather than curing the patient. One lawsuit can in effect end a doctor's career. The already high cost of insurance grows tremendously with any lawsuits. Thus, doctors must take any and all steps to avoid missing anything. Their focus becomes on not getting sued rather than being the most efficient & effective doctors they can be. For example, a patient comes in presenting headache symptoms. After a thorough examination, the doctor is 99.9 percent convinced these are stress headaches. The threat of

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

19

being wrong & getting sued may nonetheless prompt him to order a CAT scan to test for a brain tumor. The result is an increase in cost and waste of staff resources.

No
1. Each malpractice case is different; thus, a judge and jury should decide the proper damage amounts. Putting a monetary cap on all lawsuits creates the impression that all of them are the same. The reason we have a judge and jury make decisions is that each lawsuit presents a different set of facts. Should the pain of brain cancer create the same damage limit as a broken bone? Certain doctor mistakes can lead to pain that lasts a lifetime, whereas other mistakes lead to little or no pain. It is arrogant and condescending to say that judges and juries won't be intelligent enough to decide the proper figure. The cap would leave very little negotiating room for settlements. In reality, very few malpractice lawsuits are decided by a jury. Most are settled out of court for far less than what could be won in a jury verdict. Plaintiffs will settle for far less to avoid a long drawn-out trial & appeals process and to avoid the possibility of losing & getting nothing. A cap on the verdict means a cap on the settlement amounts. Thus, victims may be forced to take far less for their pain & suffering. Pressure must be maintained on hospitals so that strong safety procedures are put in place and doctors are careful. The threat of an expensive lawsuit keeps doctors sharp and on guard. Extra pressure is applied to do a thorough, responsible job. Hospitals put in specific procedures to make sure they won't be sued. These additional procedures and pressure mechanisms benefit patients. They greatly decrease the possibility of a mistake being made. Several patients may be discouraged from filing, which may free a poorly performing doctor from responsibility. Filing a lawsuit is expensive and time-consuming. A lawyer won't take a contingency fee based lawsuit if there isn't a substantial verdict possible. Any kind of damage cap will deter many patients from filing. Thus, a doctor who has legitimately made a destructive mistake gets away with it. Any mistake may be indicative of a poor doctor who has made many mistakes. Who knows what will happen the next time he or she makes a mistake?

2.

3.

4.

5. CIA-LED Coups

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The risk of civilian deaths is reduced or eliminated. Internal coups lead to a more credible and internationally-recognized government than a foreign overthrow. Less damage is done to the infrastructure of the country. Fewer lives of American troops are put on the line. The financial costs are dramatically reduced. Popular support for an all-out war is usually impossible to achieve. Less resentment and anti-American sentiment is accumulated. At a minimum, it prepares efforts for military action that may be needed in the future. We can help counter anti-American propaganda from the inside. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

No
These actions lead to wild conspiracy theories, whether or not the CIA has a hand in things. The credibility of the U.S. and the intelligence community is damaged. A lack of democratic decision making could lead to corruption and bad decisions. Other countries could follow the same policies. It could lead to Saddam/Stalin-like internal crackdowns on the population.

20

Yes
1. The risk of civilian deaths is reduced or eliminated. In an all-out war, no matter how surgical the strikes and no matter how good the intelligence, there is always going to be a high risk of civilian casualties. As we've seen in Iraq, our terrorist enemies represent the lowest form of scum on Earth who will hide behind children, shoot people for failing to take their human shield post, and blackmail people into being suicide bombers. And even if our precision bombs are 99.9 percent accurate, it only takes one bomb to go astray and wipe out a civilian neighborhood. On the other hand, a CIA-led overthrow helps force a collapse from within. Usually the only people put at risk are the ones directly participating in the overthrow. Internal coups lead to a more credible and internationally-recognized government than a foreign overthrow. Whenever a foreign country uses military force to overtake another, you inevitably hear the word "occupation" and arouse consequential resentment. It will take a massive amount of time and diplomacy to get an internationally recognized government in Iraq. And even then, much of the Arab world won't accept it, instead labeling it as a puppet American government much like that of Afghanistan. However, if a nation's own people overthrow a government and install a democracy, the same problems don't occur. For example, imagine the differences of an Iran overthrow if we led another military invasion as opposed to leading the largely reform-minded people to take out the militant cleric leadership themselves. The same can be said of an internal overthrow of the governments of Syria, Libya, and a host of other terrorist and/or dictatorial states. Less damage is done to the infrastructure of the country. The massive power of the American military can achieve amazing goals in record time; however, even low-casualty operations usually result in damage to roads, bridges, buildings, etc. This damage is time-consuming and expensive to repair. If there's a way to achieve our objectives without using our military might, we should take it. Fewer lives of American troops are put on the line. As we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, our enemies are usually made up of corrupt, vicious leadership and a less-than-enthusiastic supply of soldiers. The same can be said for our current enemies in Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Taking out the leadership alone often means winning the peace. This is much better achieved from an internal overthrow than a foreign invasion. The financial costs are dramatically reduced. For a large-scale invasion, we must pay for troop salaries, bombs, fuel, food rations, and so much more. This is in addition to secondary costs such as increasing foreign aid to countries for basing rights. It's dramatically cheaper to do the overthrow internally. Popular support for an all-out war is usually impossible to achieve. Much of the world has grown uneasy about the growth of American power. Any military operation by the U.S. is going to face major opposition no matter how justified, necessary, or liberating it is. In the case of Iraq, we were dealing with one of the most brutal, aggressive, threatening monsters in human history; we were dealing with a man who had started unprovoked wars against 3 neighbors and ran a tortuous rule over his own people. If ever there was a good case for launching a pre-emptive strike, it was Saddam's Iraq. Even in this case, we couldn't get UN support. Imagine the chances of getting popular support for a war against Syria, Iran, or North Korea. Less resentment and anti-American sentiment is accumulated. Each time the U.S. uses its military to overtake a foreign enemy, the resentment and anti-American sentiment grows. If we can achieve our objectives without appearing to have a hand in the operation, we could avoid this problem. At a minimum, it prepares efforts for military action that may be needed in the future. A wealth of intelligence and internal contacts are needed to win a war quickly and with a minimum of casualties. It takes a long time to build up the information and contacts. If tensions worsen and we're forced to go to war in the future, it's best to be prepared well in advance. We can help counter anti-American propaganda from the inside. Most people don't realize the extent of communist-led or dictator-led propaganda campaigns right here in the U.S. For decades, Stalin and Castro communists paid off journalists and government officials to counter the democratic

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

21

capitalist ideals of our country. Saddam accomplished similar goals by paying off people from Al Jazeera, the British parliament, (possibly) former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, and others. The main cause of anti-American sentiment around the world is the one-sided, America-is-evil biased news coverage. If we get more CIA officials inside other countries, we can counter some of this onesidedness. Of course, in our case, we don't have to use "propaganda", but simply truth and reason.

No
1. These actions lead to wild conspiracy theories, whether or not the CIA has a hand in things. Conspiracy theorists flog the internet like never before. Rumors and falsehoods grow at exponential rates. Much of the Arab world still thinks the 9/11 attacks were engineered by the CIA and Israeli Mossad to create an excuse to attack Muslim countries. People who are undereducated and and those not trained in critical thinking skills are more likely to believe statements not based in reality, evidence, and logic. Unfortunately, if we start to involve the CIA in more operations, these conspiracy theories are only going to grow. Who knows how long it will be before the U.S. is blamed for creating hurricanes and tornados to wipe out our enemies? The credibility of the U.S. and the intelligence community is damaged. When the goal of the CIA to overthrow government becomes public, people have less faith in information that paints an enemy in a negative light. For example, Iran is obviously a country for which we'd like a regime change. That stated, when the CIA releases information that Iran is making nuclear weapons, it is harder to believe. A lack of democratic decision making could lead to corruption and bad decisions. Most of the operations in the intelligence community takes place in secrecy. In the interests of national security and the safety of agents, operations must often be hidden from the public, Congress, and press. Thus, when a decision needs to be made, the President or intelligence officers must make their own choices. This eliminates public debate and checks'n'balances control of power. We've seen throughout our history (e.g. Vietnam, Iran-Contra, Bay of Pigs, etc.) how this can lead to corrupt, ineffective, or bad decisions. Other countries could follow the same policies. Whenever we undertake a new type of military policy, we invite the same from our enemies. Even if terrorists cannot retaliate in the same way, the animosity may lead to more terrorist attacks. It could lead to Saddam/Stalin-like internal crackdowns on the population. Saddam Hussein and Josef Stalin were two examples of dictators who made several enemies and faced a constant threat of assassination or overthrow. The resulting paranoia prompted them to both crack down very hard on their own population through purges, torture, forced starvation, and more. The brutal environment of fear kept both of them in power for decades even with their vast unpopularity. When the CIA leads internal overthrows, there's always the chance the overthrow will fail, thus giving an excuse for the government to strike against its enemies. The resulting operation may cause much death and suffering, and ironically, keep the current government in power longer than it might have stayed without intervention.

2.

3.

4.

5.

22

6. Fat Tax

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. It helps discourage consumers from eating foods that aren't good for them. Health care costs of obesity are skyrocketing, and even non-obese people must share this cost burden. Additional revenue could be raised by the government to cover health care, medical research, and other items. 1. 2. 3. 4.

No
People are personally responsible for their weight, not the products. How would you decide what items to tax? Virtually any products can make you obese if abused. A tax would punish successful businesses for providing products that people want. Obese people don't live as long as healthy people, so health care costs are front-loaded, whereas healthy people generate health care expenses over several more decades. The government already taxes income, alcohol, gasoline, sales, and about everything else in our lives. Additional taxes can lead to job cuts in the affected businesses and contribute a degradation of consumer purchasing power.

5. 6.

7. Social Security Privatization Due to the aging of the baby boom generation along with increased average life spans of American citizens, the current system of social security is headed for bankruptcy, meaning it will no longer generate the funds necessary to meet its obligations to retirees. Democrats and Republicans debate the actual timing of this insolvency, but no one disputes the fact that changes must be made eventually to keep the system going. Because the system is severely underfunded, one of two courses must be made at some point: 1) raise taxes to increase revenue generated, or 2) cut back on benefits paid out. Former President Bush first popularized a new idea -- private accounts. Currently, employees pay 6.2 percent in social security tax, which is matched by another 6.2 percent paid by the employer. Under several Republican plans (or rather their adaptation of an idea that's been used in Britain, Argentina, Australia, and Chile and proposed in the past by President Clinton and Senate Minority leader Harry Reid), employees would be able to take a certain percent (e.g. 4 percent) and put it into a special private account they own, and for which the government can never touch (with the other 8.4 percent staying in the general trust fund). This private account could be invested in a number of mutual funds which could include stocks and bonds (in addition to no-risk investments such as treasury instruments). This private account would be transferable to next of kin upon death. Since investment in stocks and bonds are historically much higher than the return currently earned by the government system, advocates are convinced that the additional earnings of private investment will more than make up for the cutback in benefits.

23

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. It gives poor people a better chance to retire wealthy. It makes up for inevitable benefit cuts that must eventually be made to the system. The stock market should get an initial bump in value. People are given a personal stake in the U.S. economy, providing extra incentive to help their companies and the nation as a whole to do well. Personal responsibility and ownership are injected into citizens' plans for retirement. Stocks & bonds are historically safe in longterm diversified portfolios (as evidence by their existence in every major government/union/corporate pension & retirement fund). Individuals who die early and don't recover all they paid in can pass on funds to their next of kin. Billions of dollars will be injected into corporate investment, leading to an economic stimulus. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

No
Poor portfolio management could leave some retirees severely short of funds. Wide stock market price fluctuations could leave large groups of retirees in dire straits if their retirement occurs during a downturn. There are several less complicated fixes to social security available. This isn't the best time to address the problem (i.e. there are far more urgent issues). Even more money will be taken out of an already underfunded system. Current IRA's and 401k's offer essentially the same benefits as social security private accounts. The transition costs of setting up private accounts would be prohibitively high and severely add to an exploding deficit.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Yes
1. It gives poor people a better chance to retire wealthy. Americans living at the poverty level must usually spend every cent of their disposal income just to survive. Few in the lower-middle class have the funds available to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. Thus, they must rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement age. Unfortunately, the current social security payouts are at or below the poverty level. The money you earn in benefits based on what you pay in is less than what you'd earn in a passbook savings account. Talk to any person of wealth in this country. Do they have their money stuffed under a mattress? Is it in a taxable savings account earning 1 percent? Of course not. The majority of their money is going to be invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, and other wealth-building assets. The private accounts would provide a method of forced savings that would allow poorer people to participate in the advantages of stocks and bonds, allowing many to retire wealthy. For example, an individual or family that earns an average of $30,000 during their working lifetime (age 18-65) will accumulate $213,743 in their private account based on a very conservative return of 5 percent. If they earn an average return of 10 percent (which is close to the historical rate of return on the U.S. stock market), they will have accumulated $1,046,370 when they retire. That's right -- a family making only $30,000 per year would retire as millionaires just based on the private accounts alone! Remember that the private account is only part of the benefits paid out by social security. The other 8.4 percent of taxes would go to the general trust fund which would be used to pay additional monthly benefits outside of the private account. In addition, Americans still have options outside of social security to invest for retirement -- 401(k)'s, IRA's, pensions, and so on. Obviously there are no guarantees, but private accounts give every American a better opportunity to retire wealthy. It makes up for inevitable benefit cuts that must eventually be made to the system. As many Americans are starting to become aware, the social security "trust fund" is not a diversified portfolio of assets waiting to be distributed to future retirees. It is a bucket of worthless government IOU's. Social security is based on a pay-as-you-go system. Social security taxes collected from current workers are

2.

24

used to pay benefits of current retirees. As the baby boom generation reaches retirement and life spans increase, the number of workers paying in will shrink while the number of retirees collecting benefits will increase. The system is currently not sustainable on its present course. This means taxes will have to rise or benefits will have to be cut. Tax increases are opposed by the Republican-controlled House since it could stifle a fragile economic recovery. Thus, benefits will have to be cut; i.e. the start age of benefits will have to be extended or the monthly check reduced. Private accounts would allow a larger accumulation of wealth that will make up for the inevitable benefit cuts. In other words, new retirees can at least do well as they currently are. 3. The stock market should get an initial bump in value. Over 60 percent of Americans currently own stock in some form, most notably in 401(k)'s, IRA's, and pension funds. The implementation of private accounts would mean more money would be injected into the stock market. Thus, by the laws of supply & demand, the market should go up in value. People are given a personal stake in the U.S. economy, providing extra incentive to help their companies and the nation as a whole to do well. Many Americans feel disjointed from the success of their companies or the U.S. economy. In other words, if the stock market goes up or their company turns out record profits, they don't see an additional dime. They don't have a personal stake in the outcome. Thus, they are less likely to be motivated to do their best. After all, if they have no personal stake, it seems like they're just working to make rich people richer. The use of private retirement accounts would ensure that almost every American owned stock in some form. Thus, everyone would have a personal stake in the health of the U.S. economy. However small, this would lead to a greater motivation to give their best effort. More and more people would realize that the success of their company and the U.S. economy is good for everyone. Personal responsibility and ownership are injected into citizens' plans for retirement. It is unfortunate that the revolution of government programs instituted by FDR to help the less fortunate have led to a cradle-to-grave entitlement mentality. Too many Americans now believe that the government owes them a living. They are less motivated to work and save because the government is always there to bail them out. The whole idea of former President Bush's "ownership society" was the philosophy that if people reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of their own actions, the maximum benefit for society is achieved. Think about it from the perspective of yourself only. If you didn't have social security (or other entitlement programs such as unemployment compensation), would you be more motivated to save and invest? Would you be more willing to work hard to ensure employment security and success? Would you be more willing to take a less-than-perfect job if you were laid off? Private accounts force people to take a good hard look at their retirement planning. In other words, it returns personal responsibility to a system that badly needs it. If you want to see the negative effects of an entitlement mentality, take a good look at the double-digit unemployment rates in social welfare-rich countries like France and Germany. Stocks & bonds are historically safe in long-term diversified portfolios (as evidence by their existence in every major government/union/corporate pension & retirement fund). Any investment advisor will tell you that a diversified mix of stocks and bonds is very safe over the long term. Americans wouldn't have the option of withdrawing funds from their private social security accounts; thus, they'd be forced to invest long-term. In fact, almost every major government and union pension fund has a significant portion of its assets invested in stocks and bonds, which is the way its been done for almost a century. If stocks and bonds are so risky, why do almost all professional money managers continue to recommend them? Individuals who die early and don't recover all they paid in can pass on funds to their next of kin. A person who earns an average of $40,000 during their working life (age 18-65) will pay a total of $233,120 in social security taxes after you add in the business share. If that money had been invested in conservative investments that earned 5 percent, you'd have $883,472 by the age of 65. At a 10 percent return, that person would accumulate $4,324,995 by age 65! How much does that person get if he dies before collecting his benefits? Zero. The money belongs to the government. He has no power to leave it to charity or put it in a trust fund for a grandchild's college. Under the private account plan, you would own the money in your private account. The government could never touch it, and you'd be allowed to dispose of it in your estate just like any other asset.

4.

5.

6.

7.

25

8.

Billions of dollars will be injected into corporate investment, leading to an economic stimulus. Every economist will tell you that the key to growth is new investment. Economic growth leads to lower unemployment, lower inflation, and a greater standard of living for society as a whole. The implementation of private accounts would mean a significant amount of money would be invested into the private sector. And since money could be shifted around, the most efficient and successful companies would gain additional investment funds. One of the best "leading indicators" of a successful U.S. economic upturn or downturn is the U.S. stock market. Experts almost unanimously agree that the stock market would go up with the use of private social security accounts. One of the foremost economic experts in the world is Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan; he happens to support the idea of private accounts.

No
1. Poor portfolio management could leave some retirees severely short of funds. Although stocks and bonds have historically done well over the long term, as any investment advisor will tell you, past success isn't a guarantee of future success. At the turn of the millenium the Nasdaq lost over 60 percent of its value as a result of the "tech bubble burst". The Dow index, which includes 30 of the most stable and well-known companies in the country, lost 30 percent of its value. Ironically, a mutual fund made up of stocks from either index would be considered a "well-diversified portfolio". Indeed, the funds of younger workers would most likely be put into smaller growth stocks that make up most of Nasdaq. Thus, imagine a scenario where you spent 30 years accumulating $200,000 in a private account; then, in one bad year, the value of the account dropped to $80,000. This is precisely what would have happened five years ago if private social security accounts had been in place. Hopefully, investment managers have learned from the tech market burst. However, do we want to be risking our retirement livelihood? Another terrorist attack could occur, sending the market into a tailspin. Someone at or near retirement age doesn't have a lot of options if his/her funds are suddenly lost. The subprime mortgage crisis in 2009 caused the same type of catastrophic drop in the entire stock market. Wide stock market price fluctuations could leave large groups of retirees in dire straits if their retirement occurs during a downturn. Most stock market experts will point out that the long-term return on stocks has always been positive, despite temporary setbacks now and then. In other words, the market may go up 150 percent one decade, then down 50 percent the next, then up 60 percent the next, then down 25 percent the next. Overall, the return may be positive, but what happens to the retirees that hit age 65 during one of the downturns? Hopefully they were wise enough to gradually put most of their money in safer investments, but there's no guarantee they did the right thing. Consequently, the unlucky retirees may be forced to live with a much smaller nest egg than they planned. The Nasdaq index lost over 60 percent of its value five years ago. It may take 10 or 20 years for it to return to its high value. Unfortunately, the trading technology of today (online transactions, program trading, up-to-the-second information dissemination, etc.) have made the market extremely volatile, which is the very definition of risk. There are several less complicated fixes to social security available. The money, time, and bureaucratic complexity of private accounts aren't worth the effort and risk when there are much less complicated fixes available. Among these are the following: 1) Remove or raise the cap on taxes subject to social security tax (which currently hovers around $90,000); the social security tax is currently the only tax on income that's regressive. In other words, once your income exceeds $90,000, the more money you make, the less you pay in tax as a percent of income. For example, someone who makes $50,000 pays $6200, or 12.4 percent (including the business share). Someone who makes $100,000 pays about $11,000, or 11 percent. Someone who makes $200,000 also pays about $11,000, or 5.5 percent. 2) Extend the age that benefits begin to be paid out. When social security was first put in place, the average life span was about 67 years. Now, it's in the high 70s and continues to grow. For practical purposes, the age needs to be extended. 3) Use a hybrid of methods such as cutting benefits for upper income individuals, raising the amount of benefits subject to income tax, extending the cap on taxes subject to social security taxes, and so on. A bipartisan effort working with a set of economic experts should be able to craft some kind of effective, less risky plan. This isn't the best time to address the problem (i.e. there are far more urgent issues). We have several decades to address the social security problem. In the middle of the War on Terror, with tension

2.

3.

4.

26

in Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria....in a time of trillion dollar deficits, this is not the best time to tackle the problem. 5. Even more money will be taken out of an already underfunded system. We all know that the social security system is severely underfunded; it's headed for bankruptcy sometime in the 2040s. Implementing private accounts will take 4 percent of the 12.4 percent taxes from every worker out of the trust fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster. Current IRA's and 401k's offer essentially the same benefits as social security private accounts. All of financial benefits of private accounts--market investment, estate transferability, etc.--are already available in existing retirement investment vehicles. The main reason these options were set up in the first place was to supplement the social security system. Setting up private social security accounts will essentially provide a certain amount of redundancy, which isn't worth the cost and risk. The transition costs of setting up private accounts would be prohibitively high and severely add to an exploding deficit. As previously discussed, almost a 3rd of revenue generated from social security taxes would be removed immediately. In addition, the tax and bureaucratic headache of setting up such a system would be a nightmare. The transition costs of setting up private accounts could add over a trillion dollars to a deficit that is already at a $1.5 tillion-per-year level. This is way too much of a burden to leave future generations.

6.

7.

8. Unions Labor unions are binding agreements between workers where a selected group of representatives speak and negotiate with management on behalf of all employees. They usually require some periodic fee ("union dues"), with some professions or companies requiring membership in order to take a position. A "closed shop" requires union membership to obtain the job. An "open shop", which is more rare nowadays, gives an option of joining. Labor unions exist all over the world. They became popular in the era of the Great Depression, when companies regularly abused workers with low pay, long hours, unsafe working conditions, few (if any) fringe benefits, and condescending treatment. The Knights of Labor, Railroad Brotherhood, and Teamsters are among the unions from our history. Despite efforts of many business owners such as Henry Ford to squash their creation, labor unions grew as a way for employees to collectively bargain for better pay, benefits, and working conditions. Unions have always been able to use the ultimate power play--a strike--which can effectively shut down all production. Unions have largely been successful in their efforts to help workers. Nowadays a host of labor laws exist, such as a minimum wage, mandatory overtime pay, and minimum breaks. However, unions have had a host of negative impacts on society, as are discussed below. The issue of unions has become particularly important nowadays as governments all over the world try to rein in unsustainable spending by cutting back benefits of mostly unionized government employees. The governments of France and Greece are recent examples. In the U.S., the standoff between Scott Walker of Wisconsin and the state unions there touched off a controversy that dominated the national news.

In a Nutshell
27

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Unions protect workers from various company abuses such as unsafe/uncomfortable working conditions, long hours, arbitrary hiring & firing, and so on. They give workers a chance to speak at the same negotiating & power levels of the managers and owners. They allow workers to collectively bargain for wages, benefits, an acceptable work environment, and more. Unions prevent managers from having to address worker grievances one-by-one. Unions give workers more job security and piece of mind, reducing the stress of possible layoffs & wage/benefit cuts. Unions create a stable, long-term employment relationship between company and employee, which is good for both. 1.

No
Unions lead to higher prices for consumers since companies must pay more for wages & benefits, which are then passed on to customers. 2. Unions make the country less competitive since non-unionized companies in India, China, Taiwan, etc. can pay workers far less and therefore charge less and/or assign more workers per unit of product. 3. Unions often prevent more qualified workers from getting the jobs. Less proficient workers are often protected from layoffs or firing; thus, new positions open less frequently. 4. Society and companies are often held hostage to the essential services of certain unions (e.g. teachers, police, construction workers, air traffic controllers, etc.); thus, negotiation becomes less about fairness to workers than about companies meeting the demands of union extortion. 5. The State and Federal labor/discrimination laws, the threats of lawsuits, and the avoidance of poor publicity all make unions largely unnecessary nowadays. 6. Unions lead to job losses to India, China, and other overseas companies. Non-union shops have a major cost advantage in hiring. Plus, in unionized companies, owners & managers may simply choose not to hire at all since the cost of maintaining or laying off a new employee is too great. 7. Unions have become a source of political power and corruption. Since unions can offer a large block of voters, politicians will often curry favor from unions and screw over the taxpayers. Consequently, union representatives concentrate on helping their favorite politicians and political party rather than doing what's best for the members. 8. It prevents the firing of clearly incompetent workers. Several poorly-performing teachers on tenure as well as most government workers are clear examples. 9. Unions lead to less productivity and job motivation since pay levels are usually determined by seniority rather than performance. The lack of incentives such as increased pay or promotion, as well as the lesser threat of losing their jobs, leads to workers putting out less effort than they otherwise would. 10. It creates an "us" vs. "them" hostility between ownership and workers. 11. Unions focus on the needs of the members at the expense of non-union members & society, as evidenced by labor unrest all over the world as governments try to rein in unsustainable

28

spending. 12. For many types of jobs, union membership is required for the position, along with substantial cash dues on a regular basis. This is inherently anti-freedom. 13. It decreases the flexibility of both employee and employer in negotiating wages, benefits, and other items. Especially with the technological advances of today and multiworking families, employees often want to customize work hours & location, fringe benefits (e.g. more vacation time, no health insurance), and pay (e.g. per hour or per project vs. salaried). Unions tie the hands of both employee and employer in such situations. 14. Unions have in the past had ties with organized crime or communist organizations, which are fundamentally trying to harm the nation's free market system. 15. Unions reduce the investment dollars that are put into a company since investors are less willing to take on the risks of work stoppages, higher costs, decreased management flexibility, etc. 16. All employees have one bargaining chip that never requires a union--they can quit and go work somewhere else.

Yes
1. Unions protect workers from various company abuses such as unsafe/uncomfortable working conditions, long hours, arbitrary hiring & firing, and so on. In a rough economy, with workers needing their paychecks to pay for mortgages, food, car payments, etc., employers hold a lot of power in the employer-employee relationship. Consequently, management can pretty much set the rules on work environment. They can set impractical hours, create unrealistic work quotas, require work on holidays, fire & hire based on personalities, and so on. One individual often has very little bargaining power since they can easily be replaced. However, a group of abused employees can ban together to prevent management from carrying out such abuses. Unions became popular during the Great Depression, when a terrible economy allowed employers to essentially treat employees however they wanted. One of the most terrible work environments in American history was the result before unions came along. They give workers a chance to speak at the same negotiating & power levels of the managers and owners. One employee in a company of hundreds, if not thousands, of employees, usually has very little bargaining power. This is especially true when you consider the widespread unemployment around the world, along with the decline of wages. For most positions, one employment position is just an interchangeable part where another person can be brought in to fill the gap if a person quits. Thus, management doesn't always see the need to create a work environment that's favorable for employees. However, when workers ban together, they can wield the ultimate labor weapon--a strike. If one person walks off the job, it may be no big deal. If everyone walks off the job, it more or less shuts down production and incoming-generating ability of the company. Even if all the striking employees can be replaced, it's costly and time-consuming to do so. Thus, labor can talk at the same negotiating level as management. Both sides need each other equally, and both sides will be equally hurt by a dispute. They allow workers to collectively bargain for wages, benefits, an acceptable work environment, and more. Unions allow employees to appoint or elect representatives that go to management and

2.

3.

29

negotiate for all workers at once. Union reps can meet regularly to talk about wage levels, fringe benefits, and so on. The union also allows management and labor to sign contracts which put their negotiations on paper, a step that may be impractical on an employee-by-employee basis. 4. Unions prevent managers from having to address worker grievances one-by-one. Managers have their hands full trying to take care of marketing, production, competitor analysis, accounting, taxes, and so many other items. It's often unrealistic to take the time to address each employee grievance with wages, benefits, work atmosphere, etc.. A union allows management to address grievances of employees as a group, reducing time and stress on both sides. Unions give workers more job security and piece of mind, reducing the stress of possible layoffs & wage/benefit cuts. Members of unions are usually your every-day, middle-class individuals trying to make a living. Among other costs, they must pay mortgages & car payments, put food on the table, and pay to send their kids through college. It's difficult and stressful to plan for the future when you're not sure if you may lose your job in the near future, or if your wages, health care benefits, or whatever may be cut unexpectedly. A union allows contracts to be signed to give employees piece of mind that such things won't happen. Management can't just change employment on a whim when union power is protecting the workers. Unions create a stable, long-term employment relationship between company and employee, which is good for both. Union positions are usually stable and secure; thus, employees have more incentive to stay, to develop solid relationships with co-workers, and to do their best to make sure the company thrives. On the employer side, more stable employment means less time training new employees and less time recruiting replacements.

5.

6.

No
1. Unions lead to higher prices for consumers since companies must pay more for wages & benefits, which are then passed on to customers. The cost of labor is like any other for a business. It must be added to the expenses part of the income statement, which leads to reduced profit margins or losses unless prices can be raised to pass the costs onto consumers. Thus, when we buy American cars, purchase plane tickets, or buy any other product that comes from a unionized business, we all pay more at the cash register. Unions make the country less competitive since non-unionized companies in India, China, Taiwan, etc. can pay workers far less and therefore charge less and/or assign more workers per unit of product. We're no longer in a national economy, we're in a global one. Products & services which could be developed in America are now being made more cheaply in foreign countries, most notably India and China, which have vast pools of cheap labor. Saddling an American company with an unrealistic and inflexible labor cost per hour effectively makes it impossible for some companies to compete. For example, American automakers now must pay two-three times that of automakers in Japan, mostly because of union-required wages and benefits. In fact, China is now predicted by the IMF to pass the U.S. in economic power within 10 years. It's no wonder, when the American versions of the companies cannot compete on cost control. Unions often prevent more qualified workers from getting the jobs. Less proficient workers are often protected from layoffs or firing; thus, new positions open less frequently. Union contracts and protections often tie managements hands when it comes to replacing workers. Many employees are simply inferior at their job, whether it's lack of motivation, education, or natural abilities. Given the huge unemployment & underemployment rate of today, there is always a pool of potentially more talented or motivated workers that may be able to do the job better. Consider one of the most obvious examples--teachers. Teaching unions and the "tenure" system keep many poorly performing professors on the job far too long. This is only one of the reasons, despite leading the world in educational investment dollars, the U.S. has fallen behind much of the world in academic achievement. Meanwhile, every year colleges graduate tens of thousands of bright, motivated, technologically savvy, and welltrained Education graduates who can't find jobs. It's not only affecting the teachers but the ultimate product in this equation--the students and future of the country! On a lesser scale, the inability to replace less proficient workers hurts the U.S. in global competition since it drives up costs and decreases quality of products and services.

2.

3.

30

4.

Society and companies are often held hostage to the essential services of certain unions (e.g. teachers, police, construction workers, air traffic controllers, etc.); thus, negotiation becomes less about fairness to workers than about companies meeting the demands of union extortion. Certain unions yield way more power than that of shutting down for-profit production. That is, they can hurt society as a whole if they stop working. Imagine major highways under construction being shut down by striking workers. Imagine the crime and rioting if police walked off the job. Imagine all air traffic coming to a halt if controllers held out for more pay. The bargaining then becomes less about giving employees' deserved wages & benefits and more about paying off extortion. Companies or government offices have little choice but to concede to the demands, or society as a whole suffers the consequences. And who do you think the media will portray as the "victim" and the "evil, greedy" sides? The police, teachers, and other essential workers on strike, or the deep-pocketed companies & government officials trying to balance budgets or sustain minimal profit levels? In other words, responsible government officials or managers trying to keep their businesses from collapsing are the ones blamed, regardless of the cause or outcome, adding even more fire to the extortion racket. This is one key reason of many why government spending all over the world is completely out of control and unsustainable. The State and Federal labor/discrimination laws, the threats of lawsuits, and the avoidance of poor publicity all make unions largely unnecessary nowadays. Unions were definitely a necessary & useful part of society back in the early part of the 20th century when companies routinely paid employees low wages and did little to curb brutal working conditions. However, in the 21st century, unions have become outdated, burdensome, and unnecessary. Labor & discrimination laws at both the state and federal level nowadays provide all the worker protections that are needed. Consider all the laws that protect workers: minimum wage; mandatory vacation, breaks, overtime pay; antidiscrimination & disability laws; mandatory family leave; COBRA health care for laid-off workers; unemployment insurance, and so on. Plus, where state & federal laws fail, each individual has yet another option--lawsuits. Ask any human resources professional of any business of significant size if they have controls in place to prevent possible lawsuits. It's a worry all corporations must deal with. Lastly, corporations must also worry about their reputation. If their company gets a reputation as a sweat shop, as discriminatory, as greedy profiteers, etc., it hurts their bottom line. Management is smart enough to know that happy workers lead to more productivity and better sales. They don't need the union waving a stick at them to get them in line. Unions lead to job losses to India, China, and other overseas companies. Non-union shops have a major cost advantage in hiring. Plus, in unionized companies, owners & managers may simply choose not to hire at all since the cost of maintaining or laying off a new employee is too great. Due to lower standards of living and higher unemployment, many overseas companies are starting to take jobs from America, Europe, and Japan. Average hourly wages in India and China are already 1025 percent that of most Western Nations, and union-enforced wage floors only make matters worse. No wonder China and India are growing so quickly! The high costs of hiring and maintaining unionized employees often simply becomes a deterrent to hiring. Despite economic recovery in 2010 and 2011, hiring remains slow in America, in large part due to the high cost of bringing on new workers. Unions have become a source of political power and corruption. Since unions can offer a large block of voters, politicians will often curry favor from unions and screw over the taxpayers. Consequently, union representatives concentrate on helping their favorite politicians and political party rather than doing what's best for the members. It's no secret that unions are regular contributors to all levels of the Democratic, Communist, Labor, and Green political parties. Union leaders have the ability to convince their members to support certain candidates, as well as the organization structure to get groups of voters to booths on election day. Thus, certain politicians go out of their way to court unions. President Obama's connections to SEIU are well-known, and his governing reflects it. As an example, consider recent union exemptions in the health care bill. Countless books have been written about the political corruption of unions. Taxpayers, consumers, and often the union members themselves are the victims. It prevents the firing of clearly incompetent workers. Several poorly-performing teachers on tenure as well as most government workers are clear examples. Have you ever been waiting in line at a government office while three workers laugh & talk amongst themselves? Have you ever had a teacher who uses videos to do all their teaching, or does nothing more than read from the text for his or her "lectures"? These are only a couple of the examples of clearly incompetent employees with low

5.

6.

7.

8.

31

motivation who remain on the job because union rules make them too difficult to fire. Is it any wonder why governments continue to waste endless sums of taxpayer money on programs that show little or no results? Is it any wonder why the U.S. is so far behind academically behind many Asian nations despite spending far more on education? 9. Unions lead to less productivity and job motivation since pay levels are usually determined by seniority rather than performance. The lack of incentives such as increased pay or promotion, as well as the lesser threat of losing their jobs, leads to workers putting out less effort than they otherwise would. Every person has in them endless potential. Every person also has an element of laziness in them. So what makes us do a great job? Incentives! Higher pay, promotion, career advancement, accomplishment of something worthwhile are all examples. Conversely, what makes us go through the motions and not try very hard on the job. Answer--no incentives and/or little chance of losing your job! Union shops take out both side of the equation. Wages are normally set at tiered levels based on seniority, not performance. Be honest, if you had little or no chance of higher pay & promotion, and little chance of losing your job, would you put out your best effort? Now imagine hundreds of thousands of employees with the same mentality!

10. It creates an "us" vs. "them" hostility between ownership and workers. Labor unions create an artificial division between management and employees instead of what should happen, that is, both sides working together to make the company as good as it can be. Collective bargaining creates that "us" vs. "them" mentality, where individuals must take sides. Thus, if an employee disagrees with the union positions, he or she will still go along with it because they don't want to be perceived by coworkers as "not on our side". 11. Unions focus on the needs of the members at the expense of non-union members & society, as evidenced by labor unrest all over the world as governments try to rein in unsustainable spending. Governments of France, Spain, and Greece, as well as smaller governments in California, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts all illustrate recent examples of unions putting the good of their members ahead of society and the world as a whole. Government spending is out of control and completely unsustainable. Unrealistically high pensions and other benefits cannot be paid indefinitely without incurring further debt or taking resources from other areas like education and defense. However, any reasonable attempt to rein in these costs leads to protests, riots, strikes, and other labor unrest. 12. For many types of jobs, union membership is required for the position, along with substantial cash dues on a regular basis. This is inherently anti-freedom. Teachers, police, auto-workers, other AFSCME employees, and more are forced to join unions and forced to pay union dues if they want to keep their jobs. Is there anything more un-American and anti-freedom? Employees voluntarily banning together to form a union is one thing. Places that force union membership smells of corruption and/or communism. 13. It decreases the flexibility of both employee and employer in negotiating wages, benefits, and other items. Especially with the technological advances of today and multi-working families, employees often want to customize work hours & location, fringe benefits (e.g. more vacation time, no health insurance), and pay (e.g. per hour or per project vs. salaried). Unions tie the hands of both employee and employer in such situations. All of us have different family situations, different goals, different motivations, different needs & wants. So why should we apply a one-size-fitsall employment situation to an entire work force? Some of us may want more vacation time; some of us would rather have more money. Some of us would like to work four 10-hour days rather five 8-hour days. Some of us would want to work from home a couple days per week, which should easily be an option in most office settings given technological advances. Some of us would prefer incentive-based pay, while others want a steady, predictable paycheck. Some of us may want to work 80-hour weeks for six months of the year and take the other six months off to travel. The examples are endless. Unions make these kind of flexible arrangements nearly impossible. BOTH management and employee may desire different agreements, but union rules tie their hands. 14. Unions have in the past had ties with organized crime or communist organizations, which are fundamentally trying to harm the nation's free market system. The ties throughout history between unions and organized crime are well-known. Jimmy Hoffa, Al Capone, Andy Stern...any Google search connecting unions and corruption with turn up hundreds of thousands of links. Even the Corleones, in

32

one of the most famous mob movies of all time, the Godfather, famously discussed how their two biggest revenue generators were gambling and unions. Also, communists are prevalent throughout the history of unions and labor unrest. Communists feed on unrest of society, stirring up trouble in an attempt to undermine the entire Western capitalistic system. They're all too willing to throw a wrench in things whenever possible. Look into the next major labor or other protest. They almost always have some kind of communist front organization willing to call in trouble makers. 15. Unions reduce the investment dollars that are put into a company since investors are less willing to take on the risks of work stoppages, higher costs, decreased management flexibility, etc. Every business must rely at some point on an influx of capital investment dollars. People that do the investing mainly consider potential rate of return and the risks of losing their money. They analyze interest rate and other macroeconomic risks. They analyze cash-flow risks, competitive risks, and a host of other risks. Additional risk means they want higher potential return or they'll put their money elsewhere. Unions add another element of risk, since management has less flexibility to hire & fire in testing new markets. They have a floor of wages that can't be crossed. They must deal with the risk a strike may shut down production and all revenue-generating capability. On the flip side, unions cut into potential profits. When you add it all up--more risk, less profit potential-- investors often take their money elsewhere. Consequently, the company suffers as a whole. And the unionized workers so anxious to hang onto their jobs may end up laid off since a potential expansion opportunity was thrown out due to lack of capital. 16. All employees have one bargaining chip that never requires a union--they can quit and go work somewhere else. A common whine among political opponents that union supporters spout out is "Workers have no ability to bargain without a union." That is simply NOT the case. Every employee ultimately has the ability to take their skills and abilities elsewhere. It's the ultimate bargaining chip. Why do you think that over 90 percent of American jobs pay more than the federally-mandated minimum wage? It's because employers know they won't retain their employees for very long if they don't pay a marketable wage. The same goes for working conditions, benefits, respectful treatment, etc.

9. Term Limits

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. The current Congress is a dismal failure and is desperate need of new ideas, procedures, and influence. Political machines (local party voting infrastructure, redistricting power, media contacts, etc.) of incumbents make it very difficult to remove them from office. Lobbyists and big-money campaign contributors usually direct their efforts at those in power, making it difficult for a new candidate to get off the ground. Politicians are less likely to be focused on special interests and pork-barrel spending if they cannot stay in office indefinitely. Lack of term limits leads to a system of seniority, meaning those who have spent the most time in office gain more power (in committees, procedures, etc.); consequently, politicians focus on staying in office, districts & states don't receive equal power in Congress, and fresh new elected officials have limited ability to make changes. Term limits lead to a "citizen" Congress, rather than one filled with lawyers and career 1. 2.

No
Term limits kick out the good leaders who may deserve to stay in office for excellent work. Every job has a learning curve, and Congress is no exception. Any new politicians would have to go through that when they come into office. Politicians that leave office take with them a lot of experience and contacts that are essential to get things done. New leaders would have to develop these from scratch. Politicians who are in the last term of office are more likely to ignore the will of the people since they don't face the wrath of the electorate in the future.

3.

3.

4. 5.

4.

6.

33

7.

8.

politicians. There is less chance for corruption of government officials if time in office is limited; new politicians are less likely to have the knowledge to exploit the system for personal gain and are more skeptical of lobbyists & special interests. Politicians in their last term of office are more likely to ignore politics and media criticism to target what's best for the country, and they can work to establish tangible accomplishments that will build on their legacy.

10. Death Penalty The United States remains in the minority of nations in the world that still uses death as penalty for certain crimes. Many see the penalty as barbaric and against American values. Others see it as a very important tool in fighting violent pre-meditated murder. Two things have once again brought this issue to national debate. One is the release of some highly publicized studies that show a number of innocents had been put to death. The second is the issue of terrorism and the need to punish its perpetrators.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system. We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent. Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death. The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionallydraining appeals process. The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death. Mentally ill patients may be put to death. It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes. It often draws top talent laywers who will work for little or no cost due to the publicity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

No
The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. It creates another form of crime deterrent. Justice is better served. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.

7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

34

of the case and their personal beliefs against the morality of the death penalty, increasing the chances a technicality or a manipulated jury will release a guilt person. 14. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.

Yes
1. Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Most people don't realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more than keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life. How can this be? It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers. Do we really have the resources to waste? It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. Whether it's a firing squad, electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, or hanging, it's barbaric to allow state-sanctioned murder before a crowd of people. We condemn people like Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong Il when they murder their own people while we continue to do the same (although our procedures for allowing it are obviously more thorough). The 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents the use of "cruel and unusual punishment". Many would interpret the death penalty as violating this restriction. The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system. The U.S. court system goes to enormous lengths before allowing a death sentence to be carried out. All the appeals, motions, hearings, briefs, etc. monopolize much of the time of judges, attorneys, and other court employees as well as use up courtrooms & facilities. This is time & space that could be used for other unresolved matters. The court system is tremendously backed up. This would help move things along. We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance. The "eye for an eye" mentality will never solve anything. A revenge philosophy inevitably leads to an endless cycle of violence. Why do you think the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been going on for 60+ years? Why do you think gang violence in this country never seems to end? It is important to send a message to society that striking back at your enemy purely for revenge will always make matters worse. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Yes, we want to make sure there is accountability for crime and an effective deterrent in place; however, the death penalty has a message of "You killed one of us, so we'll kill you". The state is actually using a murder to punish someone who committed a murder. Does that make sense? Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent. For those of you who don't feel much sympathy for a murderer, keep in mind that death may be too good for them. With a death sentence, the suffering is over in an instant. With life in prison, the pain goes on for decades. Prisoners are confined to a cage and live in an internal environment of rape and violence where they're treated as animals. And consider terrorists. Do you think they'd rather suffer the humiliation of lifelong prison or be "martyred" by a death sentence? What would have been a better ending for Osama bin Laden, the bullet that killed him instantly, or a life of humiliation in an American prison (or if he was put through rendition to obtain more information). Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. It's no secret that anti-Americanism is rampant around the world. One of the reasons is America's continued use of the death penalty. We're seen as a violent, vengeful nation for such a policy. This is pretty much the same view that Europeans had of America when we continued the practice of slavery long after it had been banned in Europe.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

35

8.

Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death. Many states require any jury members to be polled during the pre-trial examination to be sure they have the stomach to sentence someone to death before they're allowed to serve. Even if they're against the death penalty, they still may lie in order to get on the panel. The thought of agreeing to kill someone even influences some jury members to acquit rather than risk the death. Some prosecutors may go for a lesser charge rather than force juries into a death-or-acquit choice. Obviously, in all these situations, justice may not be served. The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process. One victim's innocent family is obviously forced to suffer from a capital murder, but by enforcing a death sentence, you force another family to suffer. Why double the suffering when we don't have to?

9.

10. The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death. There are several documented cases where DNA testing showed that innocent people were put to death by the government. We have an imperfect justice system where poor defendants are given minimal legal attention by often lesser qualified individuals. Some would blame the court system, not that death penalty itself for the problems, but we can't risk mistakes. 11. Mentally ill patients may be put to death. Many people are simply born with defects to their brain that cause them to act a certain way. No amount of drugs, schooling, rehabilitation, or positive reinforcement will change them. Is it fair that someone should be murdered just because they were unlucky enough to be born with a brain defect. Although it is technically unconstitutional to put a mentally ill patient to death, the rules can be vague, and you still need to be able to convince a judge and jury that the defendant is in fact, mentally ill. 12. It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes. Criminals usually are looked down upon by society. People are disgusted by the vile, unconscionable acts they commit and feel tremendous sympathy for the victims of murder, rape, etc. However, the death penalty has a way of shifting sympathy away from the victims and to the criminals themselves. An excellent example is the execution a few years ago of former gang leader "Tookie" Williams. He was one of the original members of the notorious Crips gang, which has a long legacy of robbery, assault, and murder. This is a man who was convicted with overwhelming evidence of the murder of four people, some of whom he shot in the back and then laughed at the sounds they made as they died. This is a man who never even took responsibility for the crimes or apologized to the victims -- NOT ONCE! These victims had kids and spouses, but instead of sympathy for them, sympathy shifted to Tookie. Candlelight vigils were held for him. Websites like savetookie.org sprang up. Protests and a media circus ensued trying to prevent the execution, which eventually did take place -- 26 years after the crime itself! There are many cases like this, which make a mockery of the evil crimes these degenerates commit. 13. It often draws top talent laywers who will work for little or no cost due to the publicity of the case and their personal beliefs against the morality of the death penalty, increasing the chances a technicality or a manipulated jury will release a guilt person. Top attorneys are world-class manipulators. They know how to cover up facts and misdirect thinking. They know how to select juries sympathetic to their side. They know how to find obscure technicalities and use any other means necessary to get their client off without any punishment. Luckily, most criminal defendants cannot afford to hire these top guns; they must make do with a low-paid public defender or some other cheaper attorney. However, a death penalty case changes everything. First of all, a death penalty case almost always garners significant media attention. Lawyers want that exposure, which enhances their name recognition & reputation for potential future plantiffs and defendants. Second of all, thousands of attorneys have made their personal crusade in life the stomping out of the death penalty. Entire organizations have sprung up to fight death penalty cases, often providing all the funding for a legal defense. For an example, look no further than the Casey Anthony trial, in which a pool of top attorneys took on a high profile death penalty case and used voir dire and peremptory challenges to craft one of the stupidest juries on record, who ended up ignoring facts and common sense or release an obviously guilty woman who killed her daughter. After the "not guilty" verdict was rendered, defense attorneys such as Cheney Mason went into long-winded speeches for the media about the evils of the death penalty.

36

14. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life. Perhaps the biggest reason to ban the death penalty is that it doesn't change the fact that the victim is gone and will never come back. Hate, revenge, and anger will never cure the emptiness of a lost loved one. Forgiveness is the only way to start the healing process, and this won't happen in a revenge-focused individual.

No
1. The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Some family members of crime victims may take years or decades to recover from the shock and loss of a loved one. Some may never recover. One of the things that helps hasten this recovery is to achieve some kind of closure. Life in prison just means the criminal is still around to haunt the victim. A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members. It creates another form of crime deterrent. Crime would run rampant as never before if there wasn't some way to deter people from committing the acts. Prison time is an effective deterrent, but with some people, more is needed. Prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. Justice is better served. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, doesn't it make sense that the punishment for the perpetrator also be death? Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It's time we put the emphasis of our criminal justice system back on protecting the victim rather than the accused. Remember, a person who's on death row has almost always committed crimes before this. A long line of victims have been waiting for justice. We need justice for current and past victims. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. What about people already sentenced to life in prison. What's to stop them from murdering people constantly while in prison? What are they going to do--extend their sentences? Sure, they can take away some prison privileges, but is this enough of a deterrent to stop the killing? What about a person sentenced to life who happens to escape? What's to stop him from killing anyone who might try to bring him in or curb his crime spree? DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty is the possibility of error. Sure, we can never completely eliminate all uncertainty, but nowadays, it's about as close as you can get. DNA testing is over 99 percent effective. And even if DNA testing and other such scientific methods didn't exist, the trial and appeals process is so thorough it's next to impossible to convict an innocent person. Remember, a jury of 12 members must unanimously decide there's not even a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. The number of innocent people that might somehow be convicted is no greater than the number of innocent victims of the murderers who are set free. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. Perhaps the biggest reason to keep the death penalty is to prevent the crime from happening again. The parole system nowadays is a joke. Does it make sense to anyone outside the legal system to have multiple "life" sentences + 20 years or other jiverish? Even if a criminal is sentenced to life without possibility of parole, he still has a chance to kill while in prison, or even worse, escape and go on a crime/murder spree. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. Prisons across the country face the problem of too many prisoners and not enough space & resources. Each additional prisoner requires a portion of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time, and so on. When you eliminate the death penalty as an option, it means that prisoner must be housed for life. Thus, it only adds to the problem of an overcrowded prison system. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. The number of criminal cases that are plea bargained (meaning the accused admits guilt in return for a lesser sentence or some other concession) can be as

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

37

high as 80 or 90 percent of cases. With the time, cost, and personnel requirements of a criminal case, there really isn't much of a choice. The vast majority of people that are arraigned are in fact guilty of the crime they are accused. Even if you believe a defendant only deserves life in prison, without the threat of a death sentence, there may be no way to get him to plead guilty and accept the sentence. If a case goes to trial, in addition to the enormous cost, you run the chance that you may lose the case, meaning a violent criminal gets off scot free. The existence of the death penalty gives prosecutors much more flexibility and power to ensure just punishments.

11. U.S. Role as Worlds Policeman

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. Unstable regions can be havens for terrorists. Nations cannot grow and develop with constant threat of warlords and terrorists trying to gain power. 3. Humanitarian aid often cannot reach its intended recipients. 4. Genocide and atrocities can be avoided or lessened. 5. Citizens and governments are hesitant to invest in unstable countries, and they may be reluctant to donate hard-earned money to charities for which the money may not reach its intended targets. 6. Militant ideologies could expand without us, threatening the lives and resources of democratic countries. 7. Living with oppression and a constant state of terror throughout an entire population is worse than the risk of a few deaths. 8. It could eventually lead to a united, stable world. 9. We can protect U.S. interests (trading partners, military allies, countries with needed resources, etc.). 10. No other country in the world has the power to play this role. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

No
It could increase an already growing antiAmerican sentiment around the world. We could make many wrong decisions (e.g. when we armed & financed Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden). U.S. soldiers would be put in harm's way and could lose their lives in the process. Civilians would be killed on many of the missions. Much of a country could be destroyed in a liberation attempt, as modern weapons can be very destructive. The financial cost of being a world policeman is extremely high, and the world economy would be brought to its knees if the U.S. economy continues its spending path to bankruptcy. People from other countries have different cultures & values; thus, we must respect the rights of those citizens to determine their own government. Acting as a world policeman is not an enumerated power given to the federal government by the Constitution.

7.

8.

12. U.S. as sole Power With the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has become the one remaining superpower. Our GDP has surpassed 10.5 trillion dollars per year, dwarfing all other

38

countries. Our annual military budget roughly equals all other countries in the world combined. We clearly have more power and influence than any nation in history. However, while this is probably good for us, is it good for the rest of the world? Having this much power creates a lot of responsibility. Is the world better off with us as the sole superpower or would the world be better off with multiple world powers such as was the case during the Cold War, when the U.S. and Soviet Union shared superpower status?

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. Resources from countries can be diverted into feeding the world and improving civilizations rather than building up defense capabilities. No society in the world is as advanced and diverse as the U.S. Public opinion, the 1st Amendment, and checks & balances on government power are there to curb abuses. The international community is very integrated commercially and otherwise; thus, if we hurt the success of others, we also hurt ourselves. Western values are arguably the best, as evidenced by our diversity and success. 1. 2. 3. 4.

No
Absolute power inevitably corrupts. Jealousy and envy lead to anti-Americanism & hate no matter what we do. The rest of the world disagreeing with an action isn't necessarily enough to stop the U.S. World organizations such as the U.N. and International Criminal Court, which should be used to ensure world peace and prosperity, are instead turning into vehicles to thwart America.

5.

Yes
1. Resources from countries can be diverted into feeding the world and improving civilizations rather than building up defense capabilities. The U.S. is around to protect the world from rogue regimes. Thus, countries such as France and Germany can divert money that would have been spent on the military and instead use it for social programs. With one protector like the U.S., military funds from virtually all countries can be diverted to education, farming, technology-enhancement, housing programs, etc. Secondly, since you don't have several countries of roughly equal power competing to be the strongest, you avoid the inevitable arms races that drain national treasuries. No society in the world is as advanced and diverse as the U.S. There is no other nation in the world that has such a mix of races, religions, nationalities, and political parties. Women & minorities are provided with more rights and opportunity in this country than any other. Our technology is the best, our population is the best fed, and our human rights record is second to none. Coming to America is the dream of immigrants all over the world. We are what every nation would like to be and should be. Because the U.S. is the sole superpower, other nations copy us in an attempt to duplicate our success. It's much better to have the U.S. as the gold standard of nations than communist human-rights disaster China or other such nation. Public opinion, the 1st Amendment, and checks & balances on government power are there to curb abuses. The common fear among the rest of the countries in the world is that we will abuse our power. Conventional wisdom is that absolute power will eventually corrupt anyone. However, in the case of the United States, this abuse of power hasn't taken place. Since the Soviets fell from power, we haven't colonized anyone, we've used our military only to preserve the safety of us and the world, we've donated massive amounts of aid, and we've worked through world organizations such as the U.N. as much as possible. Some would argue with these statements, but think what we could have done with our power if we really wanted to. There is no more of a humanitarian nation in this world than the U.S. The truth is, we have plenty of internal controls on our power. The 1st Amendment freedoms

2.

3.

39

allow citizens to constantly criticize unpopular government actions. Our democratic structure allows us to vote politicians out of office for doing morally repugnant things. We have an elaborate system of checks and balances that prevents any branch of government from abusing its power. No other nation is as susceptible to the tides of world public opinion than the U.S., as evidenced by the Iraq War fiasco. 4. The international community is very integrated commercially and otherwise; thus, if we hurt the success of others, we also hurt ourselves. Commerce has become increasingly integrated in the last few decades. We have become a true world economy. Anytime one nation suffers a setback it affects the rest of the world. When the 9/11 attacks caused a downturn in the U.S. economy, it cascaded to downturns in the economies of Asia, Europe, Africa, and the rest of the world. When the Chavez-strike incident occurred in Venezuela, oil prices around the world increased, leading to further economic problems. One of the reasons so many nations are concerned with Middle East stability is its effect on the world's economy. Clearly, it's better for everyone to have a peaceful, stable, prosperous world. Thus, it is in America's interest to promote world peace and prosperity. It is also in America's interest to improve and maintain diplomatic relations with all other countries. The U.S. cannot abuse it's power without destroying its own economy. Western values are arguably the best, as evidenced by our diversity and success. Think about the values that define much of Western society--free speech, free press, free religion, freedom to protest, doing good things for others, education, equal rights for all, protection of minorities, opportunity, hard work, family, tolerance, etc. Is it such a bad thing to want other nations to adopt these same values? Maybe we should adopt the Arab values where women are treated as 2nd-class citizens, only one religion is accepted, and justice is doled out arbitrarily according to Islamic law. Maybe more nations should adopt the culture of hate, anger, and revenge prevalent throughout the Arab world. Maybe we should adopt the ruthless communist values of North Korea, where people are starved into submission, or China, where pregnancies are forcibly ended by the state as a means of population control. Maybe we should adopt the welfare-state socialist policies of Canada, where it takes 6 months to get certain doctor's appointments, or France, where the economy has been at double-digit unemployment for years. The truth is, we should be proud of what America stands for. We wouldn't be as diverse, successful, and stable if we weren't on the right track. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but we shouldn't be ashamed of our values and culture, which are second to none.

5.

No
1. Absolute power inevitably corrupts. Throughout history, virtually every nation that has acquired an unopposed level of power has abused it. Greek, Roman, Mongolian, French, Spanish, and German empires have demonstrated this. The U.S. is already starting to demonstrate an abuse of power. They've arbitrarily taken out the Taliban and Iraqi regimes. Who knows who it will decide is a threat next. The U.S. has pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, refused admission to the International Criminal Court, and invaded Iraq without definitive U.N. approval. Even if you trust the Bush administration, who knows what future administrations will do. It is never healthy for the world when one nation can do whatever it wants. Jealousy and envy lead to anti-Americanism & hate no matter what we do. Anti-Americanism around the world is at an all-time high. Most of the hate felt towards the U.S. however, is probably unjustified. Being #1 means you are the first to be criticized and attacked no matter what you do. We are what most nations want to be. Jealousy and envy feed the hate more than policies towards Israel or any other lame reasons others use to explain their anti-Americanism. President Clinton ran a rather benign, non-confrontational foreign policy and managed to make seemingly great strides in improving Israeli-Arab relations. He also signed the Kyoto treaty, passed NAFTA, and did virtually whatever the rest of the world wanted. Yet, terrorism grew throughout his presidency and climaxed in the 9/11 attacks shortly after he left office. Even though we fought one of the most despicable dictators in history, many nations and citizens have chosen to take the side of Saddam. Even though there is no one who needed to lose power more than Saddam, all people see is a bully beating up on a weaker nation. Thus, no matter how moral our cause, we will always be seen as an "evil aggressor". The rest of the world disagreeing with an action isn't necessarily enough to stop the U.S. As was the case with Iraq, even if most or all of the rest of the world disagrees with the U.S., it isn't necessarily

2.

3.

40

enough to stop us. Chances are that if everyone else disagrees with us, it's highly likely we're making the wrong decision. 4. World organizations such as the U.N. and International Criminal Court, which should be used to ensure world peace and prosperity, are instead turning into vehicles to thwart America. By working together, nations can virtually eliminate poverty, wars, terrorism, environmental deterioration, and other problems plaguing the world. Almost all nations recognize this, which is why such international organizations as the World Bank, U.N., and International Criminal Court have been created. The purposes of such humanitarian organizations is very noble. Unfortunately, these organizations have turned into tools to thwart America rather than those to accomplish the mission they were set up to do. For example, the main purpose of the U.N. is to ensure world peace by controlling rogue regimes. In the case of Iraq, 17 U.N. resolutions were passed against it, supported by 12 years of U.N. inspections. All were ignored by a brutal murderer who has one of the worst human rights record in history. There has never been a better case for the U.N. to take action than Iraq, yet France, Germany, Russia, and other countries were so blinded by their fear of what they perceived as rising American power, that they thwarted everything the U.S. tried to do. Thus, the prospect of one superpower gaining prestige caused the U.N. to fail miserably in its mission. Other world organizations aren't much different. Ironically, the country that can provide the most credibility to these world organizations is quickly losing all faith in them. After the Iraq fiasco, are any U.S. presidents going to trust the U.N?

13. Mexico Border Fence

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. With a skyrocketing national debt and annual deficits, the country can't sustain the drag on our economy and the entitlement cost increases that follow illegal immigration. We are a nation of laws; we can't choose which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore. Amnesty and other proposed fixes to the current illegal immigration problem can't even be considered until the border fence is in place, since a change in laws for a scheduled date could trigger a massive inflow of illegals like no other in history. A country that built a transcontinental railroad and put a man on the moon shouldn't have a problem building a simple fence, especially with billions of dollars of government "stimulus" funds available. It would cut off vehicle transport of illegals, forcing those who want to enter the country to pursue legal channels or cover potentially hundreds of miles on foot and overcome other difficult obstacles. It would create thousands of construction jobs while the fence is being built. In addition to discouraging or stopping much of illegal immigration, it would increase the number of apprehensions of illegal immigrants. It would help contain the illegal drug trade pouring into the country from Mexico and help keep the bloody drug wars outside the 1. 2.

No
The materials and labor cost necessary to build the border fence are something we can't afford right now. It damages the international view of the U.S., giving a propaganda weapon to our enemies, who may compare the fence to the Berlin Wall. A fence covering that long of a border will take a very long time to build and may not be very effective. The fence would disrupt the environment and wild life, as it may potentially cross rivers, sanctuaries, preservations, parks, etc. The costs and risks to humans crossing the border, including elderly and children, will dramatically increase. It might strain relations between Mexico and the United States. Because of the increased costs and risks of crossing, illegal immigrants that previously pursued seasonal work and then returned home may have to bring their families and live permanently in the country.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

41

9.

United States. The wall would provide additional protection from terrorist entry into the country.

14. Oil Windfall Profits Tax

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. Record prices for gas have been accompanies by record profits for the oil companies, punishing the little guy instead of billionaires. Rich oil executives are making millions in options and bonuses, even if their companies aren't very profitable. Money brought in could be put into an energy trust fund or alternative fuel research; it also could be put into other areas where we need funds such as defense, education, social security, etc. It ensures there won't be price gouging since unreasonable profits are taken. It provides a disincentive to the use of oil as an energy source, which may be a good thing since there are more environmentally-friendly sources, and you have less chance of problems such as the BP oil spill in 2010. 1. 2.

No
Gas prices will likely increase since oil companies will factor the tax into their prices. Less potential for large profit means less incentive to invest in exploration, drilling, and refinery development; thus, it will lead to supply problems and greater foreign oil dependence. Companies shouldn't be punished just because they are successful. Oil stocks, which are owned by many Americans in 401(k)'s and other critical investment portfolios, would likely plunge in value. Since almost all companies have transportation-related costs or purchase items that have to be transported, the tax would increase inflation, leading to higher prices on items unrelated to oil. Corporate profits of non-oil-related companies would tax a hit; thus, the decrease in corporate tax revenues would offset the money brought in by oil taxes.

3. 4.

4. 5.

5.

6.

15. Legal Immigration A political battle that has been heating up recently is the battle over immigration. Terrorism, the drug war, and the national deficit have all fueled interest in a long dormant debate. The U.S. population, fed largely by immigration, will grow to 420

42

million by the year 2050 (according to the U.S. Census). The Hispanic population alone should be over 100 million, which is especially relevant since over 60 percent of immigrants come from Mexico. Proposals have recently been put through by the President and House to deal with various aspects of illegal immigration, varying from amnesty for existing illegals, guest worker programs, deportation, fines for unpaid taxes, stricter border enforcement, and so on. However, very little attention has been given to legal immigration. Is immigration in general good for the country? Should we increase the level of people that are allowed to enter the country and work towards citizenship?

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. Some of the most intelligent and ambitious individuals, who are unsatisfied with their own countries, bring their skills to America. It increases the diversity and expands the culture of the country. Immigrants often taken the low-paying jobs (like food service & hotel cleaning) that most Americans don't want to do at such low wages. Decreasing or eliminating legal immigration will inevitably create more incentive to come to the country illegally, which leads to less assimilation and fewer taxpaying, law-abiding citizens. It improves the overall image of America internationally, as it is seen as an open, welcoming country; and immigrants who return home or maintain contact with family back home have a true image of America, not the one propagandized in much of the international media. Adding an additional group of cheap labor adds to the flexibility of business, leading to cheaper prices, better quality products, and higher profits. It gives struggling people all over the world an opportunity for a better life. This country was built on immigrants who sought opportunity, political & religious freedom, etc. 1. 2.

No
More immigrants means more opportunity for terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals to enter the country. Immigrants, especially the poorer ones, consume a high amount of government resources (health care, education, welfare, etc.) without paying a corresponding high rate of taxes. The national identity and language is disappearing. The great "melting pot" is being replaced by divisive multiculturism. The emigration to the United States hurts the home country, as much of the male population, workers, and top intellectuals often leave their country. Less-skilled American citizens earn less money and have fewer job opportunities because they must compete with immigrants in the job market.

3. 4.

4.

5.

5.

6.

7.

Yes

43

1.

Some of the most intelligent and ambitious individuals, who are unsatisfied with their own countries, bring their skills to America. Few countries offer the limitless opportunities that the United States offers. You can start your own business, learn a high-tech career, become a movie star, publish a best-selling novel, or be elected to office. People in other countries crave the same things we do: recognition, wealth, fame, and the feeling of making a difference. America offers endless ways for a "nobody" to become great. Many countries of the world limit educational opportunities, stifle entrepreneurship, and prevent individuals from reaping the rewards of their hard work. Consequently, such individuals -- the cream of the crop -- often come to America. In fact, our nation was founded by English and other European citizens that risked their lives to sail across the ocean to an unknown future. America can't help but become better from the influence of such people. It increases the diversity and expands the culture of the country. No country in the world has the diversity of races, religions, languages, and cultures. America is called the great "melting pot" because we bring together all sorts of people around the world. Diversity brings more tolerance for people that are, on the surface, different than us. It introduces new ideas, new perspectives, new music & food, different customs, new forms of entertainment, diverse strengths & skills, and a host of other advantages. Immigrants often taken the low-paying jobs (like food service & hotel cleaning) that most Americans don't want to do at such low wages. Few Americans like to wash dishes, bust tables, mop floors, pick up garbage, etc. These types of jobs must be done, but employers consistently have trouble finding regular employees to do the work. A wage of $5-$7 is usually too low to induce Americans to take and stay at such jobs. However, immigrants who may be lucky to earn $5 a day in their native countries are more than willing to work these jobs. Decreasing or eliminating legal immigration will inevitably create more incentive to come to the country illegally, which leads to less assimilation and fewer taxpaying, law-abiding citizens. Many individuals have only one true hope for a better life for themselves or their children -- emigrate to America. The enormous number of immigrants in this country show that they will try to get here whether or not there are laws to stop them. Illegal immigrants must hide their identities. Thus, they aren't going to be attending American schools, filing tax returns, or doing other things that typical Americans do. Plus, if they're already breaking the law by being here, what's to prevent them from breaking other laws we have? Legal immigrants, especially those who plan to stay permanently, must pay taxes and are more likely to attend school to learn history, English, and a marketable skill. Since they don't have to hide, they are more likely to assimilate with other Americans and adopt the culture. Lastly, they can eventually earn the right to vote and participate in our political process, meaning they can develop a decision-making stake in the future of our country. It improves the overall image of America internationally, as it is seen as an open, welcoming country; and immigrants who return home or maintain contact with family back home have a true image of America, not the one propagandized in much of the international media. It's no secret that the United States has a very unfavorable image around the world. Most American citizens are proud of their country and are happy to be here. So why do we have such an unfavorable image abroad? What percentage of the people in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East that have been sampled in these favorability opinion polls do you think have actually been to the Unites States for any significant amount of time? Think about it, for those that haven't lived here, their opinion of America is based almost entirely on the media. Thus, the socialists, communists, and propagandists that dominate the international news media may be most responsible for America's image. We can help alleviate the problem by allowing more people to enter the country. Real people can see what it means to have freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom to publish and assemble. They can see our diversity and our shunning of those who lack tolerance. They can sample our sports and our entertainment. They can meet for themselves the "evil Americans". As more people return home or communicate with loves ones, people around the world will increasingly learn what a great country we have. Adding an additional group of cheap labor adds to the flexibility of business, leading to cheaper prices, better quality products, and higher profits. Labor is one of a number of costs of doing business. When businesses have trouble filling low skill jobs such as washing dishes or cleaning rooms, they have only two choices: raise the wage rate high enough to fill the jobs or eliminate the positions altogether. While higher wages sounds good, it means businesses must either accept lower profit margins or they must raise prices to make up the difference. A hike in prices means we pay more

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

44

for restaurants, hotels, factory products, etc. while draining money from other segments of the economy (since we have less to spend). Lower profit margins mean lower stock prices in our 401(k)'s and less investment dollar inflow. The second choice of eliminating jobs is obviously undesirable for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that a willing worker could be denied a job that a business wants to offer. But also, when a business eliminates these jobs, it means lower quality products and services. For example, your favorite restaurant might want to carry three bus people for the Friday night shift, but because of a labor shortage, it may only be able to hire two bus people. The work will still get done, but is the cleaning of tables going to be as thorough? Do you think it will take the same amount of time to get a table on a busy night? These types of problems can be helped by increasing the labor pool through the increase of legal immigration. 7. It gives struggling people all over the world an opportunity for a better life. This country was built on immigrants who sought opportunity, political & religious freedom, etc. At some point in this debate we need to set aside the question of whether it's good for America and look at the point of view of the immigrant. Imagine you were in a place where you could be stoned to death for practicing your religion. Imagine you got paid the same regardless of how hard you worked. Imagine you were unable to study for a new career or start up your own business. Imagine you were forced to rely on government rationing of food to scratch out a living. Imagine the only access to medical care was physicians with only a few months of training who lacked vaccines and basic medical equipment. Would you want to live the rest of your life like this? Would you want your kids to live their whole lives like this? I'm guessing most people, if given a choice, would take the risk in coming to America to achieve something better. Our country was built and has grown on the backs of such people.

No
1. More immigrants means more opportunity for terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals to enter the country. As we discovered, many of the terrorists on 9/11 came to the country legally. And as any DEA official will tell you, most illegal drugs can be traced to Central or South America. Any additional opportunities to enter the country only increases the chances for terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals to expand their enterprises. Once these people are in, our open society allows them practically free reign to wreak havoc. Immigrants, especially the poorer ones, consume a high amount of government resources (health care, education, welfare, etc.) without paying a corresponding high rate of taxes. Almost all immigrants will start out earning very low wages, and unless they get additional education or training, they will likely be paid that way indefinitely. Unfortunately, our tax system is set up to keep lowincome people from paying taxes. Depending on how many kids and how many deductions they have, many families will pay ZERO income taxes on the first $20,000-30,000 of wages (above what a couple both earning full-time minimum wages brings in for a year). A large 10 percent bracket after that keeps additional taxes low. If they're eligible for the Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit, they may actually receive money back from the government without paying a cent in to it. Poorer individuals are also far less likely to have health insurance, a retirement fund, or backup savings in case of job loss. In other words, the level of government resources required for social security, health care, welfare, unemployment compensation, etc. will be increased heavily for a group that pays little or no taxes. The national identity and language is disappearing. The great "melting pot" is being replaced by divisive multiculturism. The United States used to be referred to as the great "melting pot" because immigrants adopted the customs, language, and culture of America. Thus, we were no longer ItalianAmericans, German-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. but instead were simply Americans. Unfortunately, this is quickly becoming a memory as schools and politicians continue to push "multiculturism", which motivates immigrants to maintain their own language and customs rather than assimilate into American society. How many times have you seen groups of immigrants traveling in packs while speaking their own language. When is the last time you opened a set of instructions written in English only? While we should do everything to help immigrants learn the language and get used to living here, the entrenched multiculturism is creating divisions that only increase with more immigration. Consider the mass protests that took place in this country when the immigration issue started to heat up. The protests featured hoards of Mexican flags, anti-American slurs, and a Spanish version of the national anthem. Is this what is needed to bring the country together?

2.

3.

45

4.

The emigration to the United States hurts the home country, as much of the male population, workers, and top intellectuals often leave their country. Unlike the the United States, most countries don't have an immigration problem. Many have the opposite problem; i.e. they are losing too many people that form the foundation of the economic and family structure. For example, when thousands of people come to the U.S. from Mexico, a family at home often loses one of its main breadwinners. Industries in Mexico also have a smaller pool to build an adequate workforce. Plus, the immigrants that come to America comprise more than just those that fill minimum-wage jobs. Top intellectuals often come for top white-collar job opportunities, religious freedom, or the endless other perks of living in the U.S. That means, for example, that the home country has a tougher time filling high-skilled positions like in medicine and technology. We often have trouble filling these positions in America, so imagine how hard it may be in other countries if the cream of the crop of their intellectuals leaves. Less-skilled American citizens earn less money and have fewer job opportunities because they must compete with immigrants in the job market. Despite the improving economy, we still have millions of citizens out of work. Whether it's lack of skills or lack of opportunities, many of those citizens will be forced to take the low-paying unskilled jobs. If you pump in millions of new workers seeking jobs, it decreases the amount of work available. Plus, the laws of economic supply and demand will push the wages down far from what they would be.

5.

16. DREAM Act/Path to Citizenship for Illegals

Illegal Immigration has become an explosive situation in the United States, where the country currently holds an estimated 13 million illegals, which costs the taxpayers an estimated 113 million per year. And these statistics are only going to get worse as children of illegal immigrants become U.S. citizens and put a further drain on social security, Medicare, Obamacare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs. There are two parts of the problem that need to be dealt with -- 1) Limiting the growth rate of illegals, and 2) What do we do about the millions of illegals that are already in the U.S.? Various solutions have been proposed to both problems, including deportation, building a U.S.-Mexico border fence, increasing the levels of legal immigration, and the topic of this discussion--a path to citizenship for illegals. Various political proposals have offered U.S. citizenship in return for fulfilling various requirements, such as acquiring a qualified job, paying back taxes or a fine, and passing a course on the English language. The question is, should any proposal give the million of illegal immigrants citizenship in the United States?

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. The foundation of the United States, as it describes on our Statue of Liberty, is immigration. Millions of illegal immigrants will stay in the shadows of society without some path to citizenship. It would generate additional tax revenues from both employers and employees as jobs are allowed to come into the open. We'd be able to count on the American justice system to protect wronged individuals and hold criminal immigrants accountable, whereas now illegals are afraid to be a part of the system due to possible deportation. It's inhumane to break up families that have built a life in America. It may be good for the U.S. economy since immigrants can fill jobs that most Americans don't want, often at a much lower cost to businesses. Homeland Security resources that focus on illegal immigrants can be redirected to tracking and finding terrorists. 1. 2. 3. 4.

No
A path to citizenship rewards people for breaking the law. It's unfair to the people who have followed the rules in their quest for citizenship. It will create a flood of illegal immigrants from everywhere who will try to get in before the law goes into effect. The program would add millions of people to the welfare rolls, who consume government resources such as health care, social security, and education while paying little or no taxes. Thus, the out-of-control government deficits would be pushed further to the edge of bankruptcy. It further erodes the English language and American culture in the United States. It would take away more jobs from current American citizens and drive down wages of remaining jobs. It would create an influx of voters who support the president & lawmakers that gave them citizenship at the expense of existing citizens.

5. 6.

5. 6. 7.

7.

46

8.

9.

The current legal immigration path to citizenship is costly, time-consuming, inefficient, and limited. Thus, people seeking entry into the U.S. often have no choice but to do so illegally. It brings freedom and a path to selfsufficiency that isn't available to billions of others around the world who aren't lucky enough to be born in the United States.

8.

It would lead to further overpopulation and crowding of American cities. 9. Terrorists, drug dealers, and other foreign enemies will exploit any open border or amnesty policies put in place. 10. Plenty of better solutions exist, such as increasing legal immigration limits and reforming worker visa programs.

Yes
1. The foundation of the United States, as it describes on our Statue of Liberty, is immigration. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore...." Those are the powerful words on our own Statute of Liberty. America was founded by citizens from all of the world who were unsatisfied with their home country and sought better opportunity for freedom and wealth in the New World. Where would our country be if we slowed or stopped immigration after we gained our freedom in the 1700s? Where would we be without the contributions of Albert Einstein, Andrew Carnegie, and so many other brilliant immigrants? Nothing was going to stop our ambitious ancestors from being successful in the New World. We should not turn away our current crop of immigrants seeking a better life and opportunity for success. Millions of illegal immigrants will stay in the shadows of society without some path to citizenship. Think about all your interactions with society & government-drivers licenses, taxes, unemployment insurance, school, marriage, banks, small claims court, police, etc. When you're an illegal immigrant, you're separated from all these. Illegal immigrants stay hidden from all these since public exposure of any kind may mean deportation of they and their families. And the living-in-the-shadows has a cascade effect. If you can't get a driver's license, you can't vote. You'll have trouble buying a car or getting insurance. If you don't have a verifiable source of income, you're unlikely to be able to obtain any credit. If you must stay hidden, you usually cannot attend American schools. In short, your opportunities are extremely limited. It would generate additional tax revenues from both employers and employees as jobs are allowed to come into the open. Since illegal immigrants aren't technically allowed to have jobs in the U.S., their work must be handled under the table, usually in cash. If they were allowed to be part of the legitimate working world, they would pay social security, Medicare, state, local, and federal income taxes. Not only that, but employers would be forced to paying matching social security & Medicare taxes along with unemployment taxes. We'd be able to count on the American justice system to protect wronged individuals and hold criminal immigrants accountable, whereas now illegals are afraid to be a part of the system due to possible deportation. Illegal immigrants are in effect all fugitives from the law. They always face the possibility of deportation of not only themselves, but their families. Thus, they can't go to police if they're wronged. What if an employer doesn't pay them the money owed for their work? What if an immigrant is raped or robbed? What if someone close to them is murdered? What are there options? To use the American justice system, they have to expose themselves to deportation. So there are really only two remaining alternatives. One is to suffer from the injustice with no viable recourse. The second is to take the law into their own hands through vigilantism. Plus, if an illegal immigrant is already a fugitive from the law, what's to stop him or her from committing other crimes? Deportation may be worse than prison for some. In other words, both American citizens and illegal immigrants suffer. It's inhumane to break up families that have built a life in America. It's very often the case that illegal immigrants bring their spouses or families over the border. If they're caught and deported, they may protect their families from the same fate; consequently, they must be separated indefinitely from their loved ones, often with limited ability to communicate. Another separation situation occurs when children are born in the United States. Because they're born here, they gain automatic U.S. citizenship. However, the same cannot be said for the parents, who still face the risk of deportation. Think how

2.

3.

4.

5.

47

your life may be different if your parents were dragged away when you were young, and you didn't know when or if you would see them again. The illegal immigrants may want their children to stay in America and have a better life, so they may separate to make sure that happens. 6. It may be good for the U.S. economy since immigrants can fill jobs that most Americans don't want, often at a much lower cost to businesses. There are plenty of low-paying, low-rewarding, physically-demanding or boring jobs that most Americans will not take. Certain farming jobs, digging sewers, washing dishes, cleaning hotel rooms are only some of the examples. People coming from Mexico or other poor countries will often be thrilled to get any kind of work, especially one that pays a minimum wage rate. Overall, this helps American companies be more competitive. Not only are they able to fill the less desired jobs that need to be completed, all wage rates will likely come down due to the millions of new resources in the workforce. It's a simple economics rule of supply and demand. The supply of available workers would increase, therefore wages would drop. If wages and costs to businesses in America drop, profits and competitiveness increase. Successful companies usually mean growing companies, in which case more jobs will open up to all Americans. If labor costs drop, consumer prices generally fall, which is yet another way society benefits. Homeland Security resources that focus on illegal immigrants can be redirected to tracking and finding terrorists. Homeland & border security personnel have their hands full with protecting us from both foreign and domestic terrorists. Drug dealers have been gaining power and fighting bloody battles along the Mexican-U.S. border. Organized crime units still operate all over the country. Hackers continually plant viruses and probe security holes in our computer networks. Do we really want to monopolize many of our important Homeland Security resources for tracking down and deporting innocent immigrants who are simply trying to improve their lives and feed their families? The current legal immigration path to citizenship is costly, time-consuming, inefficient, and limited. Thus, people seeking entry into the U.S. often have no choice but to do so illegally. The immigration requirements for entering the United States are long, complex, and time-consuming. You usually need a lot of money (investor visa), specialized skills (work visa), or some kind of family/spousal relationship to a current U.S. citizen. Even then, you must receive medical clearance as well as fulfill other requirements. If you're not rich, superskilled, or connected to someone in the U.S., about the only way to citizenship is luck in the lottery selection system. So imagine you're poor & uneducated and you know no one in the U.S., yet you still are desperate for a better life. You're forced to either suffer in your home country with little opportunity for wealth & success, or hop the border illegally. It brings freedom and a path to self-sufficiency that isn't available to billions of others around the world who aren't lucky enough to be born in the United States. Most people born in the United States don't appreciate the gifts we've been given by being born in the U.S. We have a wide array of educational choices; we have freedom of religion, freedom to say what we want, the ability to vote, a free press to keep our political leaders in line, a usually fair and thorough justice system. Most people can find some kind of paid position if they want to take it, and when people are temporarily unemployed or can't feed themselves, charities and government programs are there to help. In short, we have endless opportunities to be wealthy, educated, and successful in the United States. What about people from other countries? If you come from a country with primitive educational institutions, few businesses operating, massive unemployment, and few options to improve your life, what are you going to do about it? What if you come from an Arab country where they might torture or kill you for being a Christian? What if you live under the boot of a dictator like Castro, Chavez, or Kim Jong Il? What if you're an Arab women who may be stoned to death for speaking out or showing your face in sunlight? America was founded by the ambitious people that would tolerate their home country no longer, who threw caution to the wind and put everything into a life in the New World. How can we possibly turn away so many others that are trying to do the same thing?

7.

8.

9.

No
1. A path to citizenship rewards people for breaking the law. While it's true that we are a "nation of immigrants", America was founded and grew to be the great country it is through the efforts of legal immigrants. We have laws for a reason--without them, there would be chaos! However, an unenforced law is essentially one that doesn't exist at all. A path to citizenship would reward lawbreakers who

48

ignored our laws, while punishing those who are trying to emigrate to America using proper channels. How will our society change if we have a constant influx of people who's first interaction with the U.S. involves breaking the law? What other of our laws will they choose to ignore? 2. It's unfair to the people who have followed the rules in their quest for citizenship. There is no country in the world that people would like to live than the United States. We have freedom, wealth, opportunity, entertainment, and diversity that exceeds all other countries of the world. So many lawabiding individuals want to come to the U.S. and go through the proper channels to do so. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy and limited immigrations amounts can take time to overcome. We want to reward the people that follow legal channels to get here. It will help encourage future immigrants to do the same. It will create a flood of illegal immigrants from everywhere who will try to get in before the law goes into effect. If your a foreigner who wants to become a citizen of the U.S., and you're many years away from having a possibility through legal channels, what are you going to do if a path to citizenship makes it through Congress for illegals? You will do your best to get over the border before it happens! Thus, we'll have a tidal wave of people from all borders that try to find a way into the country and streamline their path to citizenship. China, Japan, India, and many other countries are so overpopulated that it's difficult to live and breath. Traffic, crime, pollution, and overall stress increases as the population increases. Do we want to happen in the United States? The program would add millions of people to the welfare rolls, who consume government resources such as health care, social security, and education while paying little or no taxes. Thus, the out-of-control government deficits would be pushed further to the edge of bankruptcy. Any credible economist and American politician will tell you that if we follow our present course of spending far more than we take in in revenue, we're headed for bankruptcy and a disastrous collapse of the world economy. The American national debt is already over 7 times the revenue brought in for one year. We're spending over $3.5 trillion every year while only taking in around $2 trillion. These numbers don't even account for the looming financial headaches of social security, Medicare, Obamacare, and other government entitlements. Providing a path to citizenship will add over 10 million people who make little or nothing and will likely need to rely partially or wholly on government benefits. If the whole economic system doesn't collapse with the current course of action, it surely will if we add another 10+ million (and potentially their future kids) to the welfare roll! It further erodes the English language and American culture in the United States. The U.S. is called the great "melting pot" because immigrants of the past adopted the American culture and learned the English language. Despite our diversity, we did our best to become as one, uniquely American. In the era of multi-culturism, where schools often teach in both English and Spanish, where millions of jobs go to people who can't speak English and have no incentive to, our American culture is fracturing. Adding millions of foreigners who don't feel any need to join the melting pot will only erode that culture further. It would take away more jobs from current American citizens and drive down wages of remaining jobs. It is a total myth that Americans won't work the jobs that illegal immigrants work. The truth is they may not do the work for the low pay that immigrants are often given. If illegals are given citizenship, they become subject to our labor laws. Thus, minimum wage, health care benefits, etc. would all go into effect. There are always Americans ready to fill such jobs. Teenagers and college students alone, who take the vast majority of minimum wage jobs, would be affected most. Counting teens that have given up looking for work, the teen unemployment rate has hovered between 40 and 50 percent! When McDonald's added 50,000 jobs in April of 2011, there was basically a stampede of applicants looking for any work they could find. Adding over 10 million illegal immigrants to the workforce only makes the job search harder for Americans. It would create an influx of voters who support the president & lawmakers that gave them citizenship at the expense of existing citizens. If you gather an intelligent set of educated advisors-economists, immigration officials, security personnel, international relations experts, etc.--you could probably craft a well-thought-out solution to the immigration problems we face. However, when you add politics to the mix, intelligent solutions turn to mush. Just think what the government has done in the past with the tax code, health care system, and social security. If you give citizenship to 13+ million illegal immigrants, that creates a whole new voting block that will likely support your party in the

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

49

future. Since most illegals are Mexican, current citizens of Mexican descent would likely also support your party. Consequently, politicians will do what they always do--focus on their own re-elections rather than the good of America and the world as a whole. Indeed, they may know a path to citizenship will cause major problems, but if it gets them re-elected, who cares? 8. It would lead to further overpopulation and crowding of American cities. Have you ever been to Beijing, Tokyo, Mumbai, or so many of the massively overpopulated cities of the world? Traffic, crime, stress, pollution, and other hardships inevitably come into the big-city environment. As you have more and more people living in a small area, the number of available jobs dry up and housing shortages develop. Most big cities simply do not have the ability to house, feed, and employ such a large number of people. Do we really want that to happen in the United States? An amnesty policy could essentially add tens of millions of people and their future children, who will seek out cities that have jobs available, at least in the beginning. Terrorists, drug dealers, and other foreign enemies will exploit any open border or amnesty policies put in place. The Mexican Drug War has ensnared thousands into bloody battles by the U.S.Mexican border. Americans will always be the most profitable customer group for the Drug Cartels not only in Mexico, but around the world. Disciples of Osama bin Laden are constantly looking for ways to cause mass deaths and/or bring the U.S. economy to its knees. Communists in Russia, Venezuela, China, and Cuba spew their communist propaganda inside the U.S. as another step to their goal of destroying free capitalism. Do we really want to make it easier for all these groups of enemies to penetrate our country? The sky is the limit of what they could achieve if they added citizenship to their arsenal. One example--a terrorist would be subject to all our Constitutional protections, meaning Gitmo or other enhanced interrogation technique would be impossible.

9.

10. Plenty of better solutions exist, such as increasing legal immigration limits and reforming worker visa programs. There are so many better solutions to the immigration problem that haven't really been tried. We could really tighten the borders, deport all illegals that are caught, and cut off all benefits for illegals until foreigners are discouraged from even entering the country. We could expand and streamline legal immigration so people are more likely to come here legitimately. We could expand work and education opportunities for emigrating to the U.S., rather than handing outright citizenship. Perhaps most of all, we could amend our Constitution to make it so that children of illegal immigrants that are born here do not automatically become U.S. citizens! Until several other proposed solutions have at least been attempted, we shouldn't do anything so drastic as grant amnesty to tens of millions who've broke the laws of our country.

17. Value-Added Tax/National Sales Tax

50

It is estimated that the cost to Americans of complying with our incredibly complex system is over $200 billion per year as well as over 7 billion hours of time (Source: The Tax Foundation). Many complain that our tax system punishes hard work, investment, and success while encouraging consumption. With out-of-control government debt and deficits, one of the ideas currently being considered is a national sales tax, or "Fair Tax". A similar tax called the "value-added tax" hits businesses at each stage of production, which ultimately hits the consumer through increased prices of goods and services. In other words, you would be able to keep your employment earnings but would have to pay an additional amount whenever you buy something (e.g. 15 or 20 percent tax). A compromise system would likely tax consumer items at different rates with complete exemptions for necessities such as food. This is a debate of the merits of a sales-tax system over an income tax system.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. A national sales tax discourages consumption, leading to a conservation of resources. The removal of an income tax encourages saving and investing, which is the key to job growth. Individuals would have an extra incentive to work hard and earn income, leading to a far more productive nation. A sales tax would be a much simpler system, eliminating the need for individuals to comply with complex tax reporting requirements and freeing up all the money & time lost on the income tax process. Tax rates can be targeted to encourage or discourage the consumption of certain items. Consumer prices of certain items would fall since labor and tax compliance costs would be cheaper to businesses. It would allow a greater collection of tax money from those carrying out illegal transactions, since their income is hid from the income tax system but will be taxed when they spend it in a sales tax. It's a tax system consistent with a free society; i.e. Americans have a choice regarding their taxes, unlike our current confiscation system. Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and other government spending has put the federal budget on an unsustainable path, so we have to try something new before America is totally bankrupt. If the U.S. can't pay its bills, the rest of the world will also be thrown into chaos. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

No
A sales tax would be a regressive tax; i.e. lowincome individuals would pay a much higher share of their incomes than wealthy individuals. A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc. Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend. Many incentives built into our tax system (such as education, home ownership, charity, etc.) would be eliminated. Hundreds of thousands of attorneys, accountants, and human resource workers would likely lose their jobs due to the simpler tax system. Real estate values would likely plummet since the tax advantages to ownership would vanish. Mortgage and other consumer debt would likely explode since consumers would be forced to finance the taxes also. We would have to come up with another way to raise or set aside funds for social security. The transition costs of such a change would be extremely expensive. Tax evasion and instances of black market purchasing would likely skyrocket. Consumer prices of many items would go up by a much greater rate than the sales tax rate since raw materials would also be taxed. Retirees and others who have earned the majority of their life income have already had their money hit with income tax; thus, they will pay extra sales tax with money already subjected to income tax. A sales tax is more insidious; i.e. it's easier for the government to raise taxes without the people knowing it, as opposed to an income

5. 6. 7.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

8. 9.

13.

51

tax which shows up on the W2's and 1040's every year.

Yes
1. A national sales tax discourages consumption, leading to a conservation of resources. One of the biggest complaints other countries around the world have about the U.S. is that we consume more than 25 percent of the world's resources despite comprising less than 4 percent of the population. Especially when it comes to scarce, non-renewable resources such as oil, few people would argue that we need to cut wasteful consumption. The basic economic law of supply & demand says that as prices go up for an item, demand will go down. Thus, as a society, our national consumption should decrease with a national sales tax. The removal of an income tax encourages saving and investing, which is the key to job growth. The national savings rate is currently a putrid 4 percent of income. When Americans increase saving & investing, interest rates go down and the economy expands since banks and corporations have more funds to invest in new projects, new stores, new businesses, etc. A national sales tax would encourage increased saving & investing for two reasons: 1) Earnings from investments wouldn't be taxed; thus, the effective rate of return would increase; 2) Americans are never taxed unless they spend money, which they would have to do on much more expensive consumer goods; thus, they have extra incentive to refrain from frivolous spending. Individuals would have an extra incentive to work hard and earn income, leading to a far more productive nation. Our tax system is completely backwards when you consider the fact that the majority of government revenues come from tax on our earned income. National employment drives the productivity of the country. Since we tax personal incomes, we are actually punishing people for working. What's worse is that we have a "progressive" tax system, meaning rates go up as you make more. This in effect punishes the most successful and the hardest workers. Corporations, which provide the greatest amount of national jobs, are even taxed twice: once at the corporate level plus a second time when earnings are distributed to shareholders. If you take away the income tax, you give every worker in America a raise (except those that don't pay an income tax), which encourages citizens to work more hours. Think about it, if your take-home pay was $20 per hour instead of $14 per hour, would you be willing to work more hours? A sales tax would be a much simpler system, eliminating the need for individuals to comply with complex tax reporting requirements and freeing up all the money & time lost on the income tax process. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent every year and billions of hours wasted complying with the incredibly complex American income tax system. Replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would free up all the resources necessary to fulfill those tax requirements. Only businesses that sell goods would be required to file federal tax returns, and the system would be much simpler since they would only have to multiply each sale by the specified rate. As a nation, we would no longer have to waste time & money figuring out depreciation recapture, itemized deduction phase-outs, alternative minimum taxes, charitable deduction caps, and so on. Think about how happy the environmentalists will be when they hear about all the trees that will be saved from the elimination of all those tax forms & schedules! Tax rates can be targeted to encourage or discourage the consumption of certain items. A national sales tax doesn't mean one standard rate for every consumer good sold in the country. We can customize the rates to help the poor provide for basic necessities as well as discourage or encourage the consumption of certain items. For example, food and lower-priced clothing could be tax-free. Gasoline, cigarettes, fast food, alcohol, and fuel-guzzling automobiles could face steep tax rates. Hydrogen & electric-powered cars, equipment used in a business, and home improvement material could be given minimal tax rates. Get the picture? Once again, the economic law of supply & demand will increase/decrease consumption of particular items. Consumer prices of certain items would fall since labor and tax compliance costs would be cheaper to businesses. Every cent that goes into producing a product or service is reflected in it's

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

52

price. For example, if a law firm pays a clerk $25 per hour to service a client, it must charge the client at least that much to avoid losing money. Any business will usually add a certain markup to ensure an adequate profit for the effort and risk. Thus, if you cut the underlying cost, you cut the final price charged to consumers. Elimination of the income tax means a reduction in payroll taxes for businesses as well as the elimination of the need for much of the human resource & payroll departments. Consequently, the cost of offering related products & services drops. 7. It would allow a greater collection of tax money from those carrying out illegal transactions, since their income is hid from the income tax system but will be taxed when they spend it in a sales tax. Drug dealers, prostitutes, black market dealers, and bookies are examples of people who earn income illegally. Since these and others engaging in illegal transactions obviously don't want the government to know about their activities, the income generated won't be reported on income tax returns. Thus, none of that money is subject to tax. However, with a sales tax, it doesn't matter how money is earned, since the tax is collected immediately by the seller. It's a tax system consistent with a free society; i.e. Americans have a choice regarding their taxes, unlike our current confiscation system. Our Founding Fathers went to war with England in large part to get away from a stifling tax system like that which we currently face. The U.S.A. is supposed to be a free country with little government interference. However, in our current tax system, we must pay a significant portion of our earnings regardless if we use government services or not. Since our income is taxed and we all have to generate earnings to survive, we don't have a choice. If we institute a national sales tax, the amount of tax we pay is completely up to the individual. We aren't taxed a penny until we go out and spend. Thus, a national sales tax is consistent with the very idea and foundation of America. Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and other government spending has put the federal budget on an unsustainable path, so we have to try something new before America is totally bankrupt. If the U.S. can't pay its bills, the rest of the world will also be thrown into chaos. The Federal government is running deficits over a trillion dollars per year; that's an annual increase in debt that's equal to about half of what we take in for the full year! Think of what it'd be like if a family of four that brought in annual income of $100,000 was spending $150,000 every year and already had $700,000 in debt. How long do you think it'd be before that family could no longer pay the bills? How long do you think it'd be before banks stopped extending credit to that family? The cost of all the bloated government programs such as Medicare are simply unsustainable. Now we're adding a behemoth like Obamacare to the top of that. There never seems to be political will in any of the major parties to cut discretionary spending. Much of the spending can't be reduced because of contractual commitments. We have no choice but to try something new that will increase government revenues. More or less the entire world economy is dependent on America. If our economy suffers, it cascades and hits all other countries of the world.

8.

9.

No
1. A sales tax would be a regressive tax; i.e. low-income individuals would pay a much higher share of their incomes than wealthy individuals. Food, housing, clothing, medical attention, and other basic necessities eat up a portion of every American's income. However, with lower-income individuals, these basic necessities already use up almost all of that income. For upper-income individuals, they use up only a small percentage of their income. In other words, all of the discretionary spending of the poor is going to be hit by a national sales tax, but only a small portion is affected for the rich. Thus, a sales tax would be regressive, meaning the percentage of your income that's eventually taxed is at a much higher rate for lower-income individuals, who have much less ability to pay, and the rate decreases as your income increases. Our current income tax system forces you to pay a certain percentage of your earnings, and this percentage increases as you earn more. One of the main benefits of a national sales tax is that the increase in sales tax paid is offset by a decrease in the income tax paid. However, tens of millions of the working poor currently pay zero income tax (Remember that the standard deduction, personal exemptions, tax credits, etc. prevent many Americans from paying anything for federal taxes). In other words, eliminating the income tax provides no benefit at all to those low-income citizens. Thus, a national sales tax would amount to a net increase in total taxes on the poor.

53

2.

A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc. According to the Congressional Budget Office, our current tax system brings in over 2 trillion dollars in revenue per year. On top of that, we're already running a trillion dollar deficit. There is no way to accurately predict how much revenue a sales tax will generate. There is no way to accurately predict what sales tax rate will generate the most revenue. What happens if we only generate 500 billion dollars of revenue in the first year? Does that mean we tolerate 3 trillion dollar annual deficits while we wait for the system to work? Does that mean we cut vital funding for education, social security, the military, homeland security, etc.? The value of the U.S. dollar has already plummeted in the last few years. What would happen to it if our economic viability is put in question? Think about how high interest rates will rise if we're running 3 trillion dollar deficits, along with the stifling effect it has on our economy. In the middle of a war, with the U.S. economy just beginning to recover, this is not a good time to be taking such a risky action. Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend. Would you spend $3000 for a big-screen TV with DVD and surround sound? Maybe, maybe not. How about if the same TV cost $4000? How about if it cost $5000? It's possible that you may buy the TV even if it's $5000, but there's no doubt that you are less likely to buy if the price is $5000 than if it's $3000. That's basic economic supply & demand. Elimination of the income tax would mean that Americans could invest all their money tax-free. Why should they go out and spend money on unnecessary items when they can accumulate unrestrained wealth by saving? While saving & investing are definitely a good thing, consumer spending is also necessary to drive economic growth. For example, if you buy a car, the automaker makes money, as well as the raw material companies that sell tires, radios, car batteries, etc. The shareholders of the auto company can then spend their earnings on other items like computers, furniture, home improvement projects, etc. Consumer spending has a positive chain reaction effect on the economy. A national sales tax may stifle that. In Japan, the national savings rate is about 25 percent of earnings, yet it has been in an economic funk for over a decade. This is largely due to the fact it doesn't have potent consumer spending to add some juice to its economy. Many incentives built into our tax system (such as education, home ownership, charity, etc.) would be eliminated. There are numerous incentives in our current tax system that benefit the individual as well as society as a whole. Education credits provide an incentive for continuing education, leading to a highly-trained population, which is vital in the technological environment of today. Home ownership, which is rewarded in our tax code, leads to stability, stronger families, and better maintained property. The list goes on and on. Businesses are given credits for using renewable energy, for hiring disabled or low-income individuals, and for investing in new equipment. Individuals are rewarded for giving money to charity, for holding investments long-term, and for setting aside money in retirement accounts. All those incentives would instantly go down the drain with the elimination of the income tax. Hundreds of thousands of attorneys, accountants, and human resource workers would likely lose their jobs due to the simpler tax system. Millions of Americans have trained and devoted their work lives to implementing our current tax system. A national sales tax would mean all those citizens would likely be out of work or have to start all over, and their years of training would be wasted. Real estate values would likely plummet since the tax advantages to ownership would vanish. The value of any investment is basically determined by two things: 1) its risk, and 2) its rate of return. In fact, any real estate appraiser or investment analyst will factor these two items into a model that determines the value. If you eliminate the tax deductions of real estate, you reduce the annual return produced by the investment. Thus, the price of all real estate will drop. Think of it this way: if you rent a 3-bedroom house, you may have to pay $700 per month in rent. However, if you buy that house, the mortgage payment & property taxes would likely lead to a monthly cost of $1200 or more. So why would people spend that extra money? By far the biggest reason is that they get to deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes against other income. The whole "ownership society" philosophy would go right down the tubes with the elimination of the income tax. There would also be far less incentive for businesses to build more malls, apartment buildings, etc., leading to a further depressive effect on the economy. Mortgage and other consumer debt would likely explode since consumers would be forced to finance the taxes also. It's common knowledge that Americans aren't very disciplined when

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

54

controlling their spending; the vast majority of citizens have some kind of debt outstanding. This debt will likely increase since every purchase will reflect a cost for the item itself plus the additional taxes. For example, if you buy a house for $200,000 and assume a 15 percent tax rate, you'd have to pay an additional $30,000, which most people would simply have to mortgage. Over a 30 year loan you might end up paying $60,000 for the taxes after you factor in the interest. The situation is much worse when credit cards come into the equation since interest rates can be as high as 20 percent. 8. We would have to come up with another way to raise or set aside funds for social security. The amount of social security tax collected for each individual is determined by his or her income. If we eliminate the income tax, how are we supposed to collect the funds for social security? If we continue to require businesses to collect the tax, we partly eliminate one of the advantages of a national sales tax; that is, reduced complexity. The transition costs of such a change would be extremely expensive. Here are some of the changes required with a national sales tax replacement of income tax: the entire Internal Revenue System would have to be eliminated or reorganized; tax software would have to be re-written; accounting packages such as QuickBooks & Peachtree would have to be redesigned; accountants, lawyers, payroll clerks, and human resource workers would have to be retrained or find new employment; a new tax collection auditing system would have to be created; new tax forms & instructions would have to be created and distributed. I could go on, but you get the idea. Our current tax system has had almost 100 years to become entrenched. It won't be easy to make such a drastic change.

9.

10. Tax evasion and instances of black market purchasing would likely skyrocket. With our current system, it's relatively easy to track down most individuals who don't pay their taxes. If you work for an employer, your income is reported to the government. If you invest money with a bank or stock broker, your income is reported to the government. If you earn large amounts of cash without reporting it, an IRS agent can audit your bank statements and ask you to explain every deposit. However, for businesses, the process isn't so easy. Small businesses and independent contractors have by far the highest rate of audit precisely because it is so easy to hide their income. For example, consider a small bar & grill business. Such a business is almost entirely cash-based. Assume they take in $4000 for one night of sales. What's to stop that business owner from pocketing $1000 of the money and telling the government he took in sales of $3000? If you institute a national sales tax, the entire tax compliance burden shifts to businesses, which are in the best position to cheat. In fact, a sales tax would add even more incentive to cheat than already exists since the tax is on revenue, not profit. You're also going to increase the instances of black market purchasing. For example, assume the cost to produce a certain box of cigars is $1.00 per box, but the tax per box is $9. If you legitimately sell the item at $12 per box, you make a $2 profit. If you illegally sell the cigars at $6 per box, you make a $5 per box profit. The incentive exists to sell illegally since you make more money, plus the incentive also exists to buy illegally since you only have to pay half the cost. Consequently, an "underground" economy develops. Examples of this type will only increase with the implementation of a national sales tax. 11. Consumer prices of many items would go up by a much greater rate than the sales tax rate since raw materials would also be taxed. If you put a 10 percent national sales tax on automobiles and one you want normally costs $10,000, it's logical to assume that the total price including tax will be $11,000. However, it's not that simple. What about the sales taxes the carmaker must pay on the raw materials that make up the automobile? Is there a tax on the tires? How about the battery, windshield wipers, glass, spark plugs, CD player, and so on? If there's a tax on each of those items the cost of the entire car is likely to go up proportionately. Assume the total price of that car now goes up to $14,000. Now imagine a business like Hertz Rent-a-Car. The cost of its inventory now goes up and consequently, their rental rates go up. Now all business travelers must pay a higher rental car rate, which will be passed on as higher prices to the customers they serve. The chain reaction continues. This is only one example. Virtually every business will be forced to raise prices to cover increased costs. A national sales tax will in effect change the whole pricing structure of the economy. 12. Retirees and others who have earned the majority of their life income have already had their money hit with income tax; thus, they will pay extra sales tax with money already subjected to income tax. While the reduction or elimination of an income tax will help Americans pay the extra sales tax, it's not going to help older Americans who have earned the majority of their lifetime income. Many retirees are living on a fixed income or funds drawn from savings. A decrease in income tax is going to increase the disposable income of those that are still working, but it won't help those who've

55

already had their income taxed. Consequently, older Americans will bear an incredibly high burden of the new tax load. 13. A sales tax is more insidious; i.e. it's easier for the government to raise taxes without the people knowing it, as opposed to an income tax which shows up on the W2's and 1040's every year. It's fair to say that the majority of the public doesn't pay much attention to politics and current legislation. After all, how do you think we went from a 1 percent flat tax rate at the time of the 16th Amendment to the incredibly complex & expensive system we face today? One advantage of being taxed on incomes is that you know exactly how much more government is taking if rates go up. You can look at pay stubs, W2's, and annual tax returns to determine precisely how much the government is confiscating. However, sales tax are tough to track. Can you name how much you paid in sales tax last year? How about the year before? Do you know how much sales tax is currently charged on a pack of cigarettes or gallon of gasoline? Government officials have an unquenchable desire to spend money, and that spending fetish must be fed with more revenue. A national sales tax will only make it easier to raise taxes without you knowing about it.

18. School Vouchers The first amendment of the Constitution says in part that the U.S. government cannot establish a state religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. This clause has been interpreted over the years to mean there should be an impenetrable wall between church and state. As far as the educational system is concerned, it means that government cannot forcibly introduce religion into studies or subsidize its teaching. Many Americans disagree with this interpretation. The issue has once again come up for debate in various school choice programs. This allows parents to choose which school their children attend regardless of religion. Public schools are already fully funded by the government with U.S. tax dollars. If the parents choose a private school in the area, a "voucher" is given to the family which pays the cost of tuition at the private school. The program was developed due to the failure of public schools in many urban areas of the country. These programs have already started up in areas such as Cleveland and Milwaukee.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. Rich parents have a choice of schools for their kids; poor parents should have the same choice. Competition between schools is increased, leading to greater efficiency and results in all schools. Private schools have a better history of getting results in teaching information and values than public schools. Those parents who send their kids to private schools must in effect pay twice; i.e. their taxes pay for public schools that their children don't even attend. More private schools would provide opportunities for specialization; for example, schools could provide extra expertise in math, science, sports training, liberal arts, college preparation, and so on. Providing private school access to everyone 1. 2. 3. 4.

No
Since most of the schools in the program are religious, government funding violates the 1st Amendment separation of church and state. Vouchers take funds away from already under-funded public schools. Private schools aren't subject to as rigorous of oversight (other than from the market for schools); thus, they may not act responsibly. Public schools must accept everyone regardless of disabilities, test scores, religion, or other characteristics; private schools can show favoritism or discrimination in selecting students. The quality of education at the private schools may be brought down by new students that aren't as gifted.

5.

5.

6.

56

7.

8.

will increase diversity. More money is put back into the private sector rather than squandered at the Department of Education and other wasteful government bureaucracies. The parent makes the choice between religious or non-religious schooling; thus, the government isn't imposing religion.

Yes
1. Rich parents have a choice of schools for their kids; poor parents should have the same choice. In all but the smallest areas of the country, parents have a number of options for their child's education. Various religious and non-religious schools are available. Unfortunately, the private schools are not free. They are often very expensive. Rich parents can and do often choose the school which has the best reputation and results. However, poor parents who can't afford the private tuition usually have only one option--the public school in their area. That one choice may be a crime-ridden school that fails in all measures of academia. Is it fair that only rich parents can send their children to the best schools? Competition between schools is increased, leading to greater efficiency and results in all schools. For too long, public schools have been able to coast along with no level of accountability. When you're the only ones providing a subsidized education, you in effect have a monopoly; thus, you don't have as much of an incentive to improve efficiency. Competition has been the key to success in every area of business. How good would GM cars be if GM didn't have competition from Chrysler, Ford, and foreign operations? How good would Dell computers be if Dell didn't have competition from Gateway, IBM, Apple, and others? Competition will force public schools to squeeze out every bit of efficiency and start emphasizing the teaching of values such as hard work, discipline, and respect for others. Private schools have a better history of getting results in teaching information and values than public schools. Private schools can cost a significant amount of money. Yet, even with the cost, people with the means will usually choose private over public schools. Why? It's because the reputation and results of private schools are so much better. Measures of both character and academic success are almost always better at the private schools. Private schools have accountability; if they don't do a superior job, they won't have any students (unlike public schools which will have students no matter how bad of a job they do). Private schools are allowed to be more flexible in their teaching methods. Most of all, private schools focus more on teaching lifelong values that are often tied to religion (e.g. respecting your neighbor, not lying or stealing, working hard, etc.). Those parents who send their kids to private schools must in effect pay twice; i.e. their taxes pay for public schools that their children don't even attend. Regardless of where their children attend school, parents must pay taxes. These taxes are used to pay for the public school. Because private schools charge tuition, those parents that send their children to private schools are in effect paying twice. More private schools would provide opportunities for specialization; for example, schools could provide extra expertise in math, science, sports training, liberal arts, college preparation, and so on. College students are given thousands of choices of schools to continue their education. The choice often is determined by a school's reputation and/or areas of expertise. For example, they can target MIT for a technology-based career, John Hopkins for a medical career, or Harvard for a law career. Kids should have some of the same options if possible. Parents can often identify special talents in their children, which should be honed as soon as possible. This would also provide schools additional incentive to develop special expertise areas. Providing private school access to everyone will increase diversity. There is little debate that there's an income disparity between whites and other races. The option of expensive private schools often

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

57

leads to schools that are somewhat segregated. Offering vouchers would introduce more diversity to the all schools since choice would no longer be a factor of income. 7. More money is put back into the private sector rather than squandered at the Department of Education and other wasteful government bureaucracies. Government size and debt increases every year. The annual deficit is approaching 1.5 trillion! The U.S. already blows away every other country in the amount spent on education per student, yet we continue to get mediocre results. Clearly the system in place is not working. Let's give the private sector and the market a chance to let the best and most efficient rise to the top. Remember, the government is the only organization that continually gets awful results yet experiences increases in funding. The parent makes the choice between religious or non-religious schooling; thus, the government isn't imposing religion. Each and every parent would have a choice of religious and non-religious school. Thus, the government would in no way be violating the 1st Amendment establishment clause.

8.

No
1. Since most of the schools in the program are religious, government funding violates the 1st Amendment separation of church and state. The fact is that over 95 percent of all school vouchers go to religious schools. The Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment was put in specifically by the framers to avoid the abuses that inevitably come about in state-sponsored religious education. Centuries of religious wars in Europe plus the Middle Eastern wahabism serve as painful examples of religious dogma in schools. Religious ideas are invariably based on opinion & centuries-old teaching rather than scientific proof. Thus, they don't belong in the classroom, but in the home. Once government starts funding religious schools, it might start funding other religious institutions. Eventually, we have a religion-dominated society which can lead to discrimination (against gays, women, etc.) and take away individual freedoms (such as pornography, alcohol, etc.). Vouchers take funds away from already underfunded public schools. One of the biggest reasons public schools are failing is that they can't keep up with the ever increasing cost of books, teachers, computers, security, etc. If we start subsidizing private schools, much-needed funds will be diverted from the public schools. This will only make bad schools worse. Private schools aren't subject to as rigorous of oversight (other than from the market for schools); thus, they may not act responsibly. Public schools are subject to government oversight and more rules & regulation. Thus, tighter control is placed on the teaching methods and system of education. With little or no oversight, we don't know how well private schools will perform. Only the marketplace can govern their actions; in other words, the only means of oversight is the ability of parents to take their children elsewhere for an eduction. Public schools must accept everyone regardless of disabilities, test scores, religion, or other characteristics; private schools can show favoritism or discrimination in selecting students. Private schools can establish any criteria they want for selecting or rejecting students. Thus, they can discriminate or make eligibility standards much more difficult for poorer students. Public schools on the other hand must accommodate all types of students regardless of what challenges they present. Government funds should be kept with the public schools that take on these challenges rather than private schools that may discriminate. The quality of education at the private schools may be brought down by new students that aren't as gifted. Although it may not be politically correct to say, sometimes the students at certain private schools are there because of high achievement or parents that are passionately devoted to their education. Parents who send their kids to expensive private schools aren't always rich; some parents do it because they see special talent in their kids. Also, parents who spend extra money on education are often more motivated to see their kids succeed, since they don't want their money wasted. If less gifted students enter a school, teachers must spend extra time to discipline or assist them, which detracts from the rest of the class.

2.

3.

4.

5.

58

19. Required Testing in Schools Former President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act outlined extensive new testing and accountability requirements. Students are be required to take standardized read, math, and science tests. Some would argue the act should go even further into other subjects of study. The idea behind the act is to provide tougher standards to push students and to prevent children who clearly don't meet the requirements of a certain grade level from advancing. The debate centers on whether or not this improves the education level of students and whether the requirements are fair.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. It improves the accountability of students and schools, including the teachers. It motivates students to really learn the material rather than just memorize for tests. Knowledge is cumulative, so a student doing poor early can end up behind indefinitely. Comparative performance can be tracked to gauge improvement between classes and students. It allows parents and teachers to identify students who have a special gift in some area of study. 1. 2. 3. 4.

No
Standardized tests can be biased or unfair. Students in failing school districts will be punished with less funding, making the problem worse. It lessens the flexibility of teachers. Learning material for tests means other material receives less emphasis.

Yes
1. It improves the accountability of students and schools. Virtually all of us sometimes need a push to study and do our best. Unfortunately, schools and teachers around the country have relaxed their standards for two main reasons: 1) To end the disparity between the best achieving students and the worst, 2) To be more popular. In other words, teachers want to be well-liked by their students and don't want the bottom part of the class to feel bad. Unfortunately, these relaxing of standards dissuades students from doing their best. If a student can do very little studying and still get an A, why would they try harder? Mandatory testing ensures that students are required to learn a minimum amount of material no matter who their teachers are and no matter which schools they go to. Mandatory testing also improves the accountability of schools. If an inordinate amount of students from a certain school are failing the tests, if gives the government an idea where it should concentrate its time and resources. We can find underfunded schools. We can also reward the best schools. Simply publishing the overall scores of certain schools would give parents an idea which schools are best. This would lead to competition, and we all know that competition is always better for the consumer, in this case the student. It motivates students to really learn the material rather than just memorize for tests. American students at all levels have become specialists at memorization. Cramming the night before a test has become the norm rather than the slow, methodical approach that yields more lasting results. If students know they have to take a standardized test at the end of the year, they have added incentive to focus on really learning the material rather than just learning enough to get a good grade in their class. Since they will face future standardized exams, it will open their minds to different study techniques that ensure the knowledge will stick. Not every student is going to change their approach, but any additional source of motivation is beneficial. Knowledge is cumulative, so a student doing poor early can end up behind indefinitely. To learn to read, you must understand the alphabet and phonics. To learn history and English, you need to

2.

3.

59

understand how to read and write. To learn algebra and geometry, you must know how to add and subtract. To learn chemistry, you have to understand algebra. Knowledge of school material is cumulative. If you struggle with a subject such as math yet pass anyway, chances are you're going to struggle in algebra. The problem might not be that algebra is particularly difficult, but that you don't understand the basic math part of it. In this country, it's become an all too common of a practice to advance students to the next grade level despite the fact they don't have minimum understanding of the material. Because of the cumulative nature of their studies, students find school tougher and tougher as time goes by. Students fall further behind and become more discouraged. Standardized testing would ensure that students aren't pushed into a grade level they aren't ready for. Isn't it much better to have a student repeat one year than end up behind the rest of his or her school career, and be discouraged from learning in the process? 4. Comparative performance can be tracked to gauge improvement between classes and students. Every year, teachers would have an objective grading system to see how they did. Thus, they could compare teaching techniques from one year to the next. So if they experimented with some new system or assignment, they could immediately see the results. Not only that, but students could track their improvement from one year to the next. It allows parents and teachers to identify students who have a special gift in some area of study. With the usual letter grading, especially in an era of widespread grade inflation, it's tough to identify which kids are reall gifted in certain areas. For example, if a 1/3 of the glass has gotten straight A's in all math classes, how do you know if it's a result of too easy of grading and/or having some truly smart future mathematicians? A standardized test would allow a comparison with students at a national level, free from the biases and grade inflation of local teachers.

5.

No
1. Standardized tests can be biased or unfair. Standardized tests often open up the possibility of bias. SAT exams, for example, have been accused for years of being culturally biased. An example is in English. If a question asks for the proper English "The man got himself a dog" vs. "The man got hisself a dog", inner city youth may pick the latter, which may be how most of the people around him speak. Sometimes terms, e.g., "suburb" and "Mardi Gras", may be familiar to a certain segment of the student population but not others. Often, immigrants from Mexico or Native Americans may face words and sentences that are completely foreign to them. These students may then do poorly on tests not because they don't know the material but because they don't understand the questions. A students ability to advance to the next grade or get into a good college shouldn't be affected by a potentially biased, unfair exam. Students in failing school districts will be punished with less funding, making the problem worse. Not every student has the privilege of living in a district with a top-notch public school. Many inner city youth are subjected to horrendously bad schools that provide pathetic environments for learning. Drugs, gangs, guns, disruptive students, poor teachers, underfunded curricula, and other problems prevent these students from getting a quality education. Even if the student is sincere, hard-working, and disciplined, he or she may be held back by the poor learning environment. Is it really fair that students in these situations be held back from advancement simply because they weren't lucky enough to be born in a richer or safer area? It lessens the flexibility of teachers. The best teachers are those that can connect with students and inspire them to want to learn. The best teachers use a variety of techniques to make learning interesting and fun. Introducing standardized tests reduces the flexibility of teachers, who may be forced to go into mindless bouts of lecture and quizzes. Each student and situation is different. We should leave the teacher with as much leeway as possible in designing a curriculum. Learning material for tests means other material receives less emphasis. Each student and teacher has different priorities. The government is not necessarily the best organization to determine those priorities. Standardized tests mean schools must focus the curricula on what the government wants to the detriment of other areas of study that may be more important.

2.

3.

4.

60

20. U.S.-U.N. Involvement Conventional wisdom says an orderly world body is needed to ensure world peace and prosperity. The United Nations is the closest thing the world has to that concept, and it is considered a representation of the "court of world opinion". Recently the U.N. has come under fire for it's inaction and ineffectiveness. The U.N. has been accused of being anti-American, as evidenced by the French, Germans, and others thwarting America's attempts to build world support for a war with Iraq. Seventeen resolutions had been thoroughly ignored by Saddam Hussein over the course of of 12 years, yet the U.N. refused to take action. The U.N. has failed to act in other hotspots like Rwanda, Bosnia, the Congo, Indochina, etc. leading to millions of deaths. Many accuse the U.N. of turning into a version of the ineffective "League of Nations" that allowed Hitler to overtake Europe and start a war that cost 55 million people their lives. Many accuse the U.N. of turning into a meaningless debating society. The question remains, should the U.S. act outside the wishes of the U.N. when action is necessary. This question becomes especially relevant as we begin to confront Iran on its nuclear program.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. Member countries act in their own interest rather than the common good, leading to bad decisions. 2. No one else is going to look out for the security and interests of the U.S. 3. Countries will disagree and obstruct just to thwart the U.S. 4. We often have intelligence that the U.N. doesn't that we can't release. 5. Debate takes too much time and leads to inaction. 6. The tough but necessary actions are often the most risky and unpopular. 7. The veto and chairmanship procedures of the U.N. administration has become somewhat of a joke. 8. We need to maintain a threat of acting alone to push the U.N. to not make anti-U.S. decisions. 9. There are some world problems that only the U.S. is willing to deal with (e.g. North Korea). 10. The U.N. is not a true democratic institution since many of the countries are communist or dictatorships. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

No
Anti-Americanism will continue to grow. It creates the impression that the U.N. is irrelevant, and other countries may feel they too can act alone. Different perspectives of other nations can show us our actions may be wrong. The U.N. process forces us to use diplomacy and enhance relationships. Ignoring the U.N. makes us sound hypocritical since we condemn Iran and others for the same reasons.

61

Yes
1. Member countries act in their own interest rather than the common good, leading to bad decisions. As we saw through the whole Iraq debacle, countries don't act for the good of the world when they make their decisions. Who has the biggest Iraqi oil interests? France and Russia. What vetowielding nations put up the most resistance? France and Russia. The former German leader Schroeder was narrowly elected on an openly anti-American/anti-war platform. Thus, no matter how much evidence is revealed concerning Iraqi atrocities, he couldn't change his stance and politically survive. So he put his own interests ahead of his nation and the world. Not a single security council member denied or questioned whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Yet, he didn't declare any banned weapons and didn't turn over any biological or chemical weapons. If nations weren't acting in their own self-interests, the U.S. may have had full support. Other conflicts and concerns of the U.N. follow the same pattern. Each country's political situation, business interests, petty differences, and security interests mean more to the individual country than world peace or the common good. No one else is going to look out for the security and interests of the U.S. The U.S. should take a higher moral ground unlike other self-interested countries as often as possible. That said, we still have to look out for the interests of the American people. No other country is as concerned about our economy, security, productivity, and general well-being than the Americans themselves. No one is going to think, "Hmmm, this security policy will help us a lot, but it may hurt the Americans; therefore, we should reject it." Countries will disagree and obstruct just to thwart the U.S. The U.S. remains as the only superpower in the world. This frightens a lot of other countries. The U.N., other world organizations, & global treaties have turned more into checks on U.S. power than world betterment organizations. No other situations illustrate this more than the Iraq conflict. France, the most nationalistic of any of the U.N. members, sees itself as a counterbalance to U.S. power. Despite being our "ally", they have done everything possible to whip up anti-U.S. sentiment and make life difficult for U.S. diplomats. And who's side did they line up on? Saddam Hussein. France, China, Russia, Germany, and others have become so blinded by their fear of American power that they were willing to support the brutal Iraqi dictator. Other world agreements like the Kyoto Treaty and International Criminal Court were clearly put in place partially to check U.S. power, which is one of the reasons why Bush refused to join them. We often have intelligence that the U.N. doesn't that we can't release. The U.S. government often has a lot more information to make a decision than the rest of the U.N. Most people don't understand how the intelligence business works. You rarely get clear, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence on items of interest, and even if you do, the intelligence often becomes obsolete in a matter of days. You get pieces here and there, which when added up, send a clear signal of what's going on. Unfortunately, CIA credibility has been harmed from questionable actions in the Cold War era. In addition, even when the evidence is clear and convincing, we may not be able to release it for two reasons: 1) It may compromise our sources; in other words, it may get agents who have collected the information killed, or it may cause the enemy to change it's patterns and methods; e.g. when Osama bin Laden discovered we were monitoring his cell phone transmissions, he simply stopped using them; 2) The enemy may move the sensitive item, making us unable to destroy it in a war; thus, we may have knowledge of the location of a bioweapons lab and plan to hit in a war, but if we release the intelligence, the lab is moved. Debate takes too much time and leads to inaction. Look back at all the U.N. Failures over the years: Cambodia, Rwanda, Iraq, Kosovo, Ivory Coast, and so on. Time is often of the essence in solving a crisis. Thousands of people may be suffering or dying daily. Diplomats and politicians are outrageously slow in coming to a decision. You have hundreds of nations with vastly different interests and viewpoints all trying to be heard. The diplomatic situation in Iraq took over 12 years, yet diplomats still wanted more time. Unfortunately, the U.N. has essentially turned into the League of Nations, a powerless debating society. The tough but necessary actions are often the most risky and unpopular. Sometimes you have to take risky, dangerous actions to deal with all the murderous thugs that come along from time to time. Often you must sacrifice hundreds or thousands of lives to save millions. Whenever you put lives on the line, it's a difficult decision. Most nations don't have the courage to make these decisions, especially

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

62

when it puts their political popularity on the line. As we saw on 9/11, you can't just wait forever and hope that all problems work themselves out. 7. The veto and chairmanship procedures of the U.N. administration has become somewhat of a joke. The administration structure of the U.N. has become increasingly ridiculous. Five nations all have the ability to veto resolutions, possibly going against the opinion of hundreds of other nations around the world. And one of these nations is France, a confrontational nationalistic nation that has a weak military and was recently ranked as 30th in the world in financial power. India has the 2nd biggest population in the world; Japan is the 2nd strongest financial power; yet neither has a veto and neither has the ability to even vote on a critical resolution such as the war in Iraq. On the other hand, small nations like Chile and Cameroon held the cards in a decision that affects the whole world. Libya, ruled by the brutal heartless dictator Qadafi, has chaired the Human Rights committee along with Sudan, whose government carried out ethnic cleansing. Iran was recently chair of the Weapons Nonproliferation committee. This would be funny if such important decisions weren't made through these committees. Do we really want to hold ourselves to decisions made by such an organization? We need to maintain a threat of acting alone to push the U.N. to not make anti-U.S. decisions. As we've discussed, the U.N. is going to make decisions solely to thwart or weaken the U.S. By acting now and then without U.N. consent, we send a message that if you don't respect our needs and don't make a sensible decision, you can count us out. This pushes the diplomats to work out a solution. If George W. Bush didn't threaten to act without U.N. consent, do you think any of the final resolutions against Iraq would have been made it through? Clinton couldn't get anything passed after Saddam threw the inspectors out in '98 because many countries in the U.N. believed he was too politically weak to act. There are some world problems that only the U.S. is willing to deal with (e.g. North Korea). Isn't it interesting that with Iraq everyone wants us to take a multilateral approach, but when we ask to do the same thing with the North Korea situation, everyone tells us to deal with it ourselves through direct talks? Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea, who are the nations most affected by Kim Jong Il's irrational behavior, don't want to even discuss the situation. It's America's problem. The U.N security council doesn't want to vote on anything related to North Korea, despite the fact they've restarted a nuclear program and pass out weapons to other countries like hotcakes. They recently sold ballistic missiles to Yemen, a heavily Islamic nation that could easily be hostile to the U.S. in the future. North Korea is such an impoverished nation that it would probably be willing to sell anything to anybody, including terrorists. Yet, this is only America's problem. Once again, the U.N. has shown how useless and hypocritical it can be.

8.

9.

10. The U.N. is not a true democratic institution since many of the countries are communist or dictatorships. Some say it's hypocritical to push the spread of democracy yet ignore the "democratic" pronouncements of the U.N. Unfortunately, the U.N. isn't really a democratically-run institution. Think of all the countries with a voice in the organization -- Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, China, and so on. These are not countries that have free elections, open debate, unlimited candidates, a system of checks'n'balances, and all the other things that ensure the people have the ability to choose their leader. Thus, for example, when a country like Iran votes No on a resolution, it doesn't necessarily reflect the wishes of the millions of Iranians but instead the wishes of a small group of Islamic extremist thugs that managed to seize power. Imagine if the U.S. mob gained control of the entire country and put a new government in place managed by one "Don", and all future power was passed down to his sons. If that mafia family sent representatives to the U.N., should the rest of the world follow their wishes because they "represent the United States"?

No
1. Anti-Americanism will continue to grow. Much of the resentment towards America is caused by the impression that we think we are above everyone else, that we can arrogantly flaunt global treaties, the international criminal court, U.N. resolutions, etc. because we feel like it. We seem hypocritical when we push for democracy in other countries but don't want to follow the decisions of the democratic U.N. institution. We seem hypocritical when we tell Saddam and Kim Jong Il to follow U.N. mandates but don't follow them ourselves. It's no wonder that anti-Americanism continues to grow. We then find that even when we want to do a noble and necessary thing like disarm Saddam, the loss of good will causes

63

countries to oppose us. We have to start working towards countering anti-Americanism. This can only happen if we start following the procedures of the U.N. 2. It creates the impression that the U.N. is irrelevant, and other countries may feel they too can act alone. When we disregard the decisions of the U.N., it sends a message to other countries of the world that the U.N. and world opinion are irrelevant. If we can do things like attack Iraq without U.N. approval, why shouldn't India invade Pakistan? Why should North Korea stop it's nuclear program? Why should Hamas and Islamic Jihad cease their terrorism? Consistently following U.N. pronouncements is the only way to ensure it's relevancy in the future. Different perspectives of other nations can show us our actions may be wrong. The U.S. government is obviously not always right. The future is impossible to predict, and the U.S. is often no better than any other country in making those predictions. People from different backgrounds and political systems can offer us valuable opinions. Who knows better how the Arab world works better than Arabs themselves? Who knows the North Korean situation better than South Korea? If the rest of the world is telling us we're wrong, just maybe we are wrong. The U.N. process forces us to use diplomacy and enhance relationships. World peace and prosperity depends on nations interacting and working together. The U.N. processes ensure that diplomats must constantly be in contact. Veto and council structures ensure bargaining and give & take diplomacy. We need to continue all efforts in building a new world order, and the U.N. process is the key. Ignoring the U.N. makes us sound hypocritical since we condemn Iran and others for the same reasons. One of the constant arguments against Saddam was that he ignored 17 U.N. resolutions. Bush said repeatedly that Saddam has "thumbed his nose to the international community". Doesn't it make us look like hypocrites if we do the same thing? How can we have any credibility in citing resolutions against North Korea or others in the future if we ourselves "thumb our nose at the international community"?

3.

4.

5.

21. Taxing the Rich

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. Revenue for defense, education, health care, social security, and so many other needs must come from somewhere. The rich already have enough money to live a great lifestyle; it won't hurt them as much to increase their taxes. The skyrocketing national debt, compounded with the unsustainable federal deficits, have the potential to topple the U.S. and world economy if more isn't done soon. Government can use taxes as a means of redistributing wealth to the poor and less fortunate. The power of rich individuals such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros, must be contained by limiting their wealth. 1.

No
Since the rich always alter their spending, investment, work, and tax behaviors in response to rate increases, the amount of revenue brought in to the federal government can actually decrease, which is explained by the economic principle known as the Laffer Curve. Tax increases usually have a negative effect on the economy, since consumers have far less money to spend and invest; slowing the economy consequently decreases revenue (since incomes are smaller) and increases spending (due to increased entitlement spending on unemployment, welfare, etc.). As we've seen recently with the Alternative Minimum Tax, inflation eventually brings incomes up to the point that the middle class is hit by taxes originally targeted for "the rich". Taxing the rich does nothing more than shift money from the private sector, where it is usually invested and spent efficiently, to the

2.

4. 5.

3.

4.

64

5. 6.

7.

8.

government, where it often ends up going to special interests or campaign contributors, or where it's inefficiently squandered in government bureaucracies. It provides less incentive for government to cut spending and reduce its size & intrusion into our lives. If marginal rates get too high, it might motivate some of the richer people to move to another country, taking with them all of their potential tax revenues. It's yet another way of dividing Americans; class warfare misdirects anger at the government and life circumstances by turning the lower & middle classes against the rich, and the rich (who increasingly resent paying an increasingly greater share of the tax bill) against the poor and middle class. Lower taxes means higher potential profit, so individuals are more likely to invest and start new businesses.

22. Civil Liberties in Wartime The large scale of the 9/11 attacks exposed some obvious security flaws in our system. Terrorists slipped through immigration and airport checks and managed to live, train, and plan in the U.S. for several years. Fears were justifiably raised of several other groups of terrorists (called sleeper cells) waiting and planning for the order to commit their designated terrorist attack. Congress almost immediately passed the Patriot Act, which gave the government substantially more powers to track down these terrorists. Security has been tightened at airports, ports, borders, etc. and a Department of Homeland Security has been created to oversee the efforts. As more government power has been added, many have charged that our privacy and civil rights are being slowly taken away. For example, people are being locked up without a trial or access to a lawyer. Another example is the integrated system, called Total Information Awareness (TIA), which is in the process of being created to track data on everyone in the country, including credit card purchases, library book checkouts, group affiliations, cell phone records, and gun ownership. Also, the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration before it, undertook certain domestic NSA spy operations on Americans without court oversight. Civil rights advocates say a dangerous form of government "Big Brother" is being established that threatens to destroy the American way of life. Dubious wartime efforts throughout our history, such as Japanese internment, the Palmer raids, and Cold War McCarthyism, have been cited as justifiable reasons for these fears. Many of the policies continued under President Obama, including other techniques such as setting up wiretaps without a court warrant. The question remains, how much should our civil rights and privacy be reduced to fight the war on terror? What is the proper balance?

65

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. Terrorists often don't commit crimes until they carry out the terrorist act itself. Thousands or millions could potentially be killed if we fail in our efforts. The economic damage of attacks can put many people out of work and destroy wealth. Intelligence and circumstantial evidence can lead agents to the identification of a likely terrorist, but they may not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. We would have additional tools for fighting non-terrorism related crimes such as drug trafficking and racketeering. A certain amount of trust has to be put in the hands of the government if we are to accomplish anything. Terrorists will be forced to re-organize and plan around all the new anti-terror methods, which can be expensive and time-consuming. New methods of data collection can help law enforcement increase the probability of zoning in on the guilty people and avoiding harassment of the innocent ones. Our American system of checks-n-balances prevents the government from going too far. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

No
Taking away civil rights essentially destroys the very definition of what it means to be an American, which in effect gives the terrorists a victory. Constitutional protections are being violated. There is a potential for abuse by this administration or future administrations. It could lead to racial profiling and other methods of discrimination & harassment. The government could use the information for non-terror political purposes (e.g. blackmail, embarrassment of rivals, etc.). Abusing the rights of moderate Muslims and certain other groups may push them to the side of extremists, possibly taking away a source of tips on finding existing terrorists and also possibly creating new terrorist recruits.

5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

Yes
1. Terrorists often don't commit crimes until they carry out the terrorist act itself. In our current system of justice, people must commit a crime before they can be arrested. Unfortunately, the first time a terrorist commits a crime may result in thousands of deaths (as we saw so vividly on 9/11). Many terrorists are so fanatical that they will sacrifice their lives for their cause. When that's the case, we don't have much of a deterrent. Al Qaeda manuals even describe how to blend into society as a "lawabiding" citizen. Thousands or millions could potentially be killed if we fail in our efforts. Over 3000 people died on 9/11/01. This is a small number compared to the number that could die if a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack was carried out. Terrorists have made no secrets about their desire for such weapons. Is there any doubt they would use the weapons if they could? For example, Jose Padilla was arrested for planning to build and disperse a nuclear "dirty bomb". He may not have technically committed a crime--yet. Does that mean we should have waited until he finished the bomb and used it against a city like New York? If we had information the 9/11 terrorists were about to strike, but they hadn't committed a crime, should we have arrested them? The economic damage of attacks can put many people out of work and destroy wealth. The 9/11 attacks cost our economy untold billions. And since economic aid and the world economy is so dependent on the success of the U.S. economy, people around the world suffered. There is more to consider than just number of lives saved or lost. You also have to consider quality of life. When the American economy weakens, thousands are put out of work. Thousands or millions around the world are brought closer to poverty/starvation levels. The costs of inaction are usually far higher than costs of action.

2.

3.

66

4.

Intelligence and circumstantial evidence can lead agents to the identification of a likely terrorist, but they may not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Intelligence collection is a very inexact science. You get pieces of information here and there, which individually don't mean much, but put together, identify very likely terrorist suspects. Most elite terrorists have become experts at avoiding any actions that could lead to arrest, and it's likely that agents will be unable to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt", especially when the terrorist acts haven't been committed. For example, consider a suspect who is from Iran, regularly visits a militant Islamic mosque, has checked out books on chemical weapons, has sent e-mails mentioning the "next ground zero", and has been seen with Al Qaeda members now in custody. None of these suspicious activities constitute a crime, but shouldn't agents be able to at least watch or investigate such a person? We would have additional tools for fighting non-terrorism related crimes such as drug trafficking and racketeering. Fighting the war on drugs, curbing organized crime, tracking kidnappers, etc. often necessitate the same tracking of information as the war on terror. Thus, we would give law enforcement another tool in fighting these things. This is become extra important as the drug war in Mexico continues to spill over the border. A certain amount of trust has to be put in the hands of the government if we are to accomplish anything. Dubious actions and scandals from the past such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica-gate, Teapot Dome, etc. have weakened the trust in the U.S. government. Indeed, it's probably hard to find any government official that hasn't lied or misled at some point is his or her career. Still, things aren't like the past. There is so much media attention to everything officials do or say that they can't get away with the same misdeeds. Government officials are people too and generally want to do the right thing. The media brings thunder-and-lightning attention to the slightest of government misdeeds, but these acts are only a small percentage of the total work done. We have to give officials a little trust in doing their jobs. Government officials need to be able to concentrate on answering the question "How best do I get the job done?" rather than "What do I have to do to cover my butt?" or "What do I have to do to draw the least amount of criticism?" Terrorists will be forced to re-organize and plan around all the new anti-terror methods, which can be expensive and time-consuming. The terrorists that were able to carry out the 9/11 attacks and the ones that have been able to elude law enforcement up to this point are highly sophisticated. They probe for weaknesses and change as necessary. This causes delays and creates additional expenses. For example, when Osama bin Laden realized we were monitoring his cell phone transmissions, he simply stopped using them and resorted to hand-delivered messages. This obviously takes more time and is more expensive. Advanced systems such as Total Information Awareness (TIA) would force a wave of changes and re-organization. For example, if TIA monitors library book checkouts, terrorists may start buying books instead of borrowing them. If we monitor all credit card transactions, terrorists will start carrying more cash. If we monitor all Google searches, terrorists may start using Yahoo or Bing. New methods of data collection can help law enforcement increase the probability of zoning in on the guilty people and avoiding harassment of the innocent ones. The United States houses close to 300 million people. It's impossible for law enforcement to check out and monitor everything about everyone. Improved techniques of data collection such as TIA would allow officers to focus on the suspicious characters and not waste their time on innocent ones. For example, consider a database of 250 million people. You do a search on Muslims over age 14 who are originally from a hostile Arab country (Iran, Syria, etc.). This may bring your total down to 500,000. Next, you do a search on people that have checked out books on weapons of mass destruction who are members of militant groups such as Nation of Islam. Now, you're down to 5,000. Law enforcement would continue similar searches until they have a group of people who fit a likely profile for terrorism. Sure, there will be some innocent ones that turn up in the search, but more in-depth background checks and brief surveillance can easily establish a person's innocence. Bottom line--those that have done nothing wrong (and who don't plan to do wrong) have nothing to worry about; those who protest the loudest are often those with the most to hide. Our American system of checks-n-balances prevents the government from going too far. Giving the government unchecked power to invade privacy and spy is indeed a good reason for paranoia, but it doesn't sit with reality. Hysterics in the media cite similar abuses of Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein, but there's a huge difference in the case of our country--our system of checks-n-balances. First of all, the courts can overrule any actions by the President or by Congress. Secondly, officials can be voted out of

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

67

office for their abuse. Third, public opinion can raise an uproar that prompts the government to modify or overturn laws. Lastly, we have an enthusiastic media that combs through every word and action of the people in power. Given all this oversight, the American people always have the ability to pull back the reins on the people in power.

No
1. Taking away civil rights essentially destroys the very definition of what it means to be an American, which in effect gives the terrorists a victory. One of the things that makes our country great is the ability to live a life free of government interference, whether or not you are in the majority and whether or not you agree with the government. The erosion of civil rights breaks down the very essence of what it is to be an American. There is no better way to award the terrorist actions than to destroy our way of life. Constitutional protections are being violated. The U.S. Constitution is one of the most enduring, intelligently-written documents of all time. It is the main reason our nation has become the most successful nation on Earth. It is the reason that people from all over the world long to emigrate here. Unfortunately, the War on Terror is eroding the force of the Constitution. People can be tracked at their place of worship (1st Amendment violation); they can be held without a trial (7th Amendment violation); and they can be prevented from consulting a lawyer or facing the witnesses against them (6th Amendment violation). In addition, the right to privacy (long implied from amendments 1,3,4,9 and others) has been deeply violated. It has been said the U.S. Attorney General, in his fight against terror, has the U.S. Constitution in one had and a scissors in the other. There is a potential for abuse by this administration or future administrations. The "War on Terror" is a war that has potentially no end. Unlike nation-vs-nation wars, there will never be a cease fire or peace treaty signed to officially end the war. To enhance government powers, various wartime emergency clauses have been cited as justification. Thus, normal rights like a trial-by-jury are being taken away, even for U.S. citizens, on the grounds of being a "time of danger". That leaves the door open for years of civil rights abuse. You may say "Fine, I trust the Obama administration to do the right things", but what about future administrations? If we have more large-scale terrorist incidents, how bad are things going to get? Could we end up in the type of paranoid police state that many Middle Eastern countries live in? It could lead to racial profiling and other methods of discrimination & harassment. There are many Arab-Americans, nuclear scientists, Muslims, bioweapons experts, immigrants, etc. that are lawabiding loyal Americans. Should they be subject to abuse or harassment simply because they fall into a certain category? We've come a long way in correcting the many civil rights abuses of the past. We shouldn't go backwards by singling out new minorities to discriminate against. The government could use the information for non-terror political purposes (e.g. blackmail, embarrassment of rivals, etc.). While the War on Terror may be a good reason for implementing steps such as the Total Information Awareness system, there's a lot of potential for the government to abuse the information they learn. For example, imagine the party in power learns a rival candidate used his credit card to buy admission to a homosexual movie theater. The government could somehow leak the information to help its members in the next election. Not only could information by used to embarrass or blackmail political rivals, it could also be used to destroy anyone who decides to speak out against the country. Virtually all of us have something damaging from our past, especially when it may be taken out of context. The government could use their new powers to spy on anyone they don't like. This provides way too much potential for abuse. Abusing the rights of moderate Muslims and certain other groups may push them to the side of extremists, possibly taking away a source of tips on finding existing terrorists and also possibly creating new terrorist recruits. There are plenty of Muslims and other Americans who, while not exactly loyal citizens, don't believe in the vicious tactics taken by terrorists. These moderates are in the ideal position for providing tips to law enforcement officials on existing terrorist cells & plans. However, a wave of abuse of their civil rights may increase their dislike for the country to the point that they start to sympathize with the terrorists. Thus, it may take away our best source of information,

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

68

and at worst, create a new breed of terrorist recruits that will perpetrate more horrendous acts against innocent civilians.

23. Physician-Assisted Suicide For years, doctors have been prohibited from assisting patients in taking their own lives. Dr. Jack Kevorkian gained world attention by assisting in several suicides to dying patients; he was sentenced to over 60 years for his efforts, despite the gratitude of the patients and their families. Recent laws in Oregon and the U.K. have started a trend of legalization. But some, most notably the U.S. Attorney General's office, are determined to prevent the laws from going through.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. Tremendous pain and suffering of patients can be saved. 2. The right to die should be a fundamental freedom of each person. 3. Patients can die with dignity rather than have the illness reduce them to a shell of their former selves. 4. Health care costs can be reduced, which would save estates and lower insurance premiums. 5. Nurse and doctor time can be freed up to work on savable patients. 6. Prevention of suicide is a violation of religious freedom. 7. Pain and anguish of the patient's family and friends can be lessened, and they can say their final goodbyes. 8. Reasonable laws can be constructed which prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life. 9. Vital organs can be saved, allowing doctors to save the lives of others. 10. Without physician assistance, people may commit suicide in a messy, horrifying, and traumatic way. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

No
It would violate doctors' Hippocratic oath. It demeans the value of human life. It could open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides and other abuses. Many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others. Doctors and families may be prompted to give up on recovery much too early. Government and insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure. Miracle cures or recoveries can occur. Doctors are given too much power, and can be wrong or unethical.

7. 8.

Yes
1. Tremendous pain and suffering of patients can be saved. Numerous ailments such as certain types of cancer result in a slow, agonizing death. Doctors have enough knowledge and experience to know when a patient's days are numbered. What purpose would it serve to suffer endlessly until the body finally gives out? Imagine what it would be like to spend six months vomiting, coughing, enduring pain spasms, losing control of excretory functions, etc. Then you must consider the psychological suffering; i.e. the knowledge that a patient knows he's definitely going to die and the pain is only going to get worse. Wouldn't it be more humane to give the patient the option to say when he's had enough? The right to die should be a fundamental freedom of each person. Nowhere in the constitution does it state or imply that the government has the right to keep a person from committing suicide. After all,

2.

69

if the patient and the family agree it's what they want to do, who's business is it anyway? Who else is it going to hurt? In a country that's supposedly free, this should be a fundamental right. 3. Patients can die with dignity rather than have the illness reduce them to a shell of their former selves. Dying patients sometimes lose all ability to take care of themselves. Vomit, drool, urine, feces, and other indignities must be attended to by nursing assistants. Alzheimer's patients suffer from progressively worse dementia that causes memory loss and incoherent rambling. Virtually all people want others' last memory of them to be how they once were, not what they ended up being. For example, Ronald Reagan died of Alzheimer's. He and his family would like people to remember the brave man that stared down the Soviets, told Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall", and as the "The Great Communicator", provided historic leadership. Other patients and families have the same wishes for themselves. We should let people die with their dignity, pride, and self-worth intact. Health care costs can be reduced, which would save estates and lower insurance premiums. It's no secret that premiums on health care have took a major jump in costs over the last decade. Some workers around the country are going on strike simply to protest the increase in health care costs. We regularly debate how to provide cheaper prescription drugs, care for the uninsured, and fight the skyrocketing costs. Anything we can do to reduce that burden helps. Consider the huge cost of keeping a dying patient alive for several months. You must pay for x-rays, lab tests, drugs, hospital overhead, medical staff salaries, etc. It is not unheard of for medical costs to equal $50,000-100,000 to keep some patients alive. We have to ask ourselves, is this the best way to spend our money when the patient himself would like to die? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the patients that can be saved? You also have to consider the drag on a dying patient's estate. Most people want to be able to leave their children and grandchildren with something when they die. Medical costs eat into that estate. It's totally unreasonable to pour this kind of money into patients that just want to end their suffering. As Medicare, Medicare, and other government programs accelerate the United States towards bankruptcy, anything that causes a decrease in total costs must be a consideration. Nurse and doctor time can be freed up to work on savable patients. We face a critical shortage of medical staff in this country, especially nurses. Recent studies have confirmed the obvious--that understaffed hospitals make more mistakes and provide lesser quality care. And things are only going to get worse as the baby boom generation gets older and life spans increase. We have to ask ourselves if attending to dying patients (who want to die immediately) is the best use of medical staff time. Think of how many lives we can save if that nurse & doctor time is freed up. Think of how much the quality of care would increase. Prevention of suicide is a violation of religious freedom. A significant part of religious beliefs involves what happens in the afterlife. By preventing suicide, the government is imposing its religious belief that suicide is a sin. No one knows for sure what happens after we die; it should be up to the individual to determine what he or she believes. The government cannot legislate morality. Pain and anguish of the patient's family and friends can be lessened, and they can say their final goodbyes. Friends and family of the patient often suffer as much or more pain as the patient himself. It's difficult to see a loved one in such anguish for so long. It's emotional and physically draining to have the stress drawn out for so long. And when the patient does eventually die, it's often sudden or it follows a period when the patient has lost consciousness. Doctor-assisted suicide would give the patient a chance to say his final goodbyes and end his life with dignity. Reasonable laws can be constructed which prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life. Opponents of a doctor-assisted suicide law often cite the potential for doctor abuse. However, recent Oregon and UK laws show that you can craft reasonable laws that prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life. For example, you can require the approval of two doctors plus a psychologist (who verifies the patient has the capacity to make the right decision). You can proscribe waiting periods, get the additional sign-off of family members, and limit the procedures to certain illnesses. States should have the rights to pass laws that take into account the values and wishes of the people of that state. Vital organs can be saved, allowing doctors to save the lives of others. We have long waiting lists for hearts, kidneys, livers, and other organs that are necessary to save the lives of people who can be saved. Doctor-assisted suicide allows physicians to preserve vital organs that can be donated to others

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

70

(assuming the patients are organ donors). However, if certain diseases are allowed to run their full course, the organs may weaken or cease to function altogether. Once again, we have to put the needs of the living ahead of the needs of the dying. 10. Without physician assistance, people may commit suicide in a messy, horrifying, and traumatic way. A common myth is that teenagers have the highest rate of suicide. However, in actuality, the elderly have by far the highest rate. Older Americans often see nothing ahead of them but loneliness and pain. So if these people are going to commit suicide, which is better--controlled, compassionate doctor-assisted suicide or clumsy attempts like taking sleeping pills, jumping off a building, or firing a bullet into one's head? If you were a family member, which would be more traumatic--saying goodbye to a loved one at the hospital or coming home to see his head and brains splattered against the wall from a bullet? Unfortunately, if people truly want to die, nothing is going to stop them. If that is the case, let's be humane and orderly about it.

No
1. It would violate doctors' Hippocratic oath. Upon receiving a medical degree, each doctor is required to take a Hippocratic oath, which says among other thing, "First, do no harm". Assisting in suicides would be a violation of that oath, and it would lead to a weakening of doctor-patient trust. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. A weakening of that oath may cause patients to wonder. It demeans the value of human life. In this country, human life means something. For each death, we have 1-2 days of ceremonies, elaborate burials, and months of mourning. When 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, donations poured in from all over the country. We donated money, blood, time, prayers, and tears. And we will probably always mourn the annual anniversary of the attacks. In other countries around the world, life isn't so sacred. Wars are fought constantly for disputed territories and old grudges. People celebrate having their sons and daughters blow themselves up and kill scores of civilians. The Iraqis, Communists, Nazis, and others have shown us that human life is to some, nothing more than a science experiment or political resource. The thing that elevates Western society above others, generally speaking, is the value we put on each and every life. To stomp out a life because it's not convenient or it's expensive demeans that value. Human life is much more that just a cluster of biological cells. It could open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides and other abuses. Any loosening of the assisted-suicide laws could eventually lead to abuses of the privilege. For example, patients who want to die for psychological or emotional reasons could convince doctors to help them end their lives. Attitudes would loosen to the point that certain states may decide that any person can commit suicide at any time. We can't let our values shatter this way. Many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others. The most basic commandment is "Thou shall not kill". Virtually all religions have a law against killing. We need to protect the morality of not only the patients but the doctors that must extinguish their lives. Doctors and families may be prompted to give up on recovery much too early. If a patient is told that he has, for example, six months left to live with progressively worse pain, he may decide to end things before things start to get worse. This wipes out valuable time that can be spent with family and friends; it also denies the slim chance of a recovery or the possibility of discovering a doctor error. Government and insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure. Health insurance providers are under tremendous pressure to keep premiums down. To do this, they must cut costs at every turn and make tough decisions. Many doctors are already prevented from give patients certain tests or performing certain operations despite what the doctor believes is truly necessary. Legalizing assisted suicide would likely invite another set of procedures as to when life-sustaining measures should be undertaken. We shouldn't give the insurance companies any more power over human life. Miracle cures or recoveries can occur. You can never underestimate the power of the human spirit. A cheerful, never-give-up attitude can often overcome the longest of odds and the worst of illnesses. You

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

71

also have to consider the constant medical and pharmaceutical advances that just might lead to a miracle recovery. We should never get to a point where we spend more time looking for a way out of life than for a way to sustain life. 8. Doctors are given too much power, and can be wrong or unethical. Patients put their faith and trust in the opinions of their doctor. If doctors tell a family there's absolutely no chance for a patient to survive, the family is likely to believe them. This is a problem for two reasons. First of all, doctors make mistakes just like any other people. A wrong diagnosis could lead to the suicide of a savable person. Second, doctors have the ability to play God and decide who they encourage or discourage on the prospects of recovery. For example, imagine a doctor who believes there is too much of a shortage in medical staff & resources to pour extra time & money into elderly people. He may always lean towards the side of "no hope" when the odds are sketchy. Decision-making ability on matters of life and death should stay where it belongs--with God, not doctors.

24. Balanced Budget Amendment

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. The U.S. economy already has a near $15 trillion debt and is on a path for bankruptcy, and politicians from both major parties have shown they don't have the discipline and political will to make the tough decisions needed to balance the budget on their own. The mere act of passing the budget is likely to save the country's AAA credit rating, ensuring low interest rates for investors and consumers, while keeping interest costs from being a prohibitive proportion of the country's annual budget. It diminishes the ability of politicians to add their own pork barrel projects to unrelated bills, decreasing the amount of horse-trading for votes and forcing politicians to vote on the merits of bills rather than whether or not it benefits their election district. It adds accountability to expenditures, as every dollar of spending in a tight budget is scrutinized, and projects & agencies that don't show results are more likely to be discontinued. Since new spending will be very difficult to implement, elections will be more focused on character of the politician and how we'll they'll govern rather than how much they can do for special interest groups or campaign contributors. The amendment will constrain the growth of government, as increased spending always leads to more agencies, regulations, bureaucrats, and encroachment on our freedoms. 1. 2.

No
An uncertain future, possibly involving war, terrorism, economic depression, or other crises, demands that maximum flexibility be available to the government. Keynesian economists believe deficit spending can help turn a bad economy around (although this is hotly contested by other economists). The timing of many expenditures are out of the control of the government (for example, unemployment compensation costs increase during a recession and revenues decrease due to fewer people working & paying taxes). A balanced budget likely cannot be achieved without very painful changes, such as increased taxes or a major cut in entitlements including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It would likely give unelected courts certain powers over the budget, as any Constitutional amendment is subject to extensive judicial review. Judges always have the power to rule something "unconstitutional" based on their own interpretations.

2.

3.

3.

4.

4.

5.

5.

6.

25. Same-Sex Marriages

72

Traditionally in this country, marriage has been defined as a religious & legal commitment between a man and woman, as well as the ultimate expression of love. Homosexual relationships are increasingly gaining acceptance in this country; however, these couples have not been permitted to marry. Some states have considered a new form of commitment called a "civil union", which essentially is marriage without using the word "marriage". Many politicians have said they are against gay marriage but think it should be left up to the states to decide. However, the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution says that if one state makes a law, other states must recognize it. Thus, if one state allows a gay marriage and that couple moves to another state, the other state must recognize that marriage. This in effect allows one state to make same-sex marriage legal in the entire country. Many politicians are calling for amendments to their state constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Many areas of the country such as San Francisco have performed marriage ceremonies in defiance of the law. Lost in all the legal battles and political maneuvering is the basic question "Should we allow gay couples to legally marry?"

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence strongly supporting biological causation. Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create (although some might see an increase in gay adoptions as an argument against same-sex marriages). It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles. The same financial benefits that apply to manwoman marriages apply to same-sex marriages. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

No
Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next). It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, and only a man & woman can pro-create. The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.

8. 9.

Yes

73

1.

Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). The main reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that all major religions consider homosexuality a sin; however, the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should. What's next, should we make taking the Lord's name in vain a criminal activity because Christians consider it a breaking of a commandment? Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples. Marriage is more than a legal status. It affects many things in society such as tax filing status, joint ownership of property, insurance benefits, and agency law. It affects critical medical decisions. For example, if one member of a gay couple that has been together for 20 years gets critically ill, visitation may not even be allowed since the other isn't considered a "spouse or immediate family member". Also, critical medical decisions must often be made when one person is incapacitated; e.g. should a certain surgery be done or not? It is completely unfair to deny these privileges to people because their relationship doesn't fit the state's definition of one. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence strongly supporting biological causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos" where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not a genetic one, but a biological one. The easiest way to think of it is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and lesbians you've seen. Not always, but most times, some secondary sexual characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual males often have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches. And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!" Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a lifetime. Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. America was founded on the concept that the majority should rule, but the rights of minorities should be protected. It is the main reason we have a Bill of Rights as well as anti-slavery and equal protection amendments. Denying marriage to a homosexual couple is no different than denying marriage to Hispanic or black couples. It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. A marriage is a relationship between two people. How does it hurt society or people not involved in the marriage? It is a personal commitment that really is no one else's business. Society shouldn't be dictating what two people can or can't do when no one else is hurt in the process. If the church or certain groups disapprove, that's their right, but it isn't their right to stop it. The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. The number one reason that heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filing of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. They marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another. Marriage is a commitment that says "I love you so much that I want to live the rest of my life with you. I want to share the ups and downs, forsake all others, and be together until death do us part." Should it matter that the couple doesn't fit into what society is used to? Some people talk about living wills and other legal contracts that can give homosexuals essentially the same rights as a married couple. If that is the case, why don't all heterosexual couples use these legal maneuvers instead of marriage? Just maybe there's something more to it. The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create (although some might see an increase in gay adoptions as an argument against same-sex marriages). Like any heterosexual couple relationship, a same-sex marriage may fuel the desire for a family. Since gay couples cannot have kids naturally, this will likely increase the desire to adopt. Since there are so many kids around the country in need of adoption, this is a good thing. However, others believe a child

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

74

reared in a same-sex marriage do not develop ideally. Evidence at this point is inconclusive since same-sex adoptions have yet to become widespread. 8. It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles. One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it would further erode family values; however, the opposite is true. The problems related to sexuality in our society such as STD's stem from carefree, frivolous lifestyles; in other words, having frequent, unprotected sex with many partners. Marriage encourages people to settle down and to give up that type of lifestyle. Married people commit themselves to one partner and work to build a life together. Isn't that the type of behavior we want to encourage? The same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages apply to same-sex marriages. In today's economic environment, it often takes two incomes to live. A married couple shares rent, utilities, and other bills, which are often difficult for one person to take on alone. This is especially truly if a dependent person is involved such as a child. In addition, a married couple can often financially support each other when times get tough, such as when one of the two is out of work. The other can continue to pay the bills until the unemployed person gets back on his/her feet. Owning a house is often impossible without another person to share the financial burden, and owning a home is not only part of the American dream, it promotes stability and community pride.

9.

No
1. Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, terrorist attacks, a Great Depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision. It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, and only a man & woman can pro-create. Children learn about expectations and gender roles from society. It's difficult to teach the importance and traditions of the family when such confusion is thrust upon them. Only a man and

2.

3.

4.

5.

75

woman can bear children, and for thousands of years, a man & woman headed household has carried generations of people through life. 6. The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged.

26. Minimum Wage In presidential and Congressional campaigns, the issue of raising the minimum wage workers is often brought up. Most Republicans and many Democrats oppose a rise in the minimum wage. Some economists believe it should be abolished altogether; in other words, businesses would be able to pay $1 or $7 per hour if they wanted, assuming they could find people to hire at the specified rate. This analysis examines the pros and cons of the economists' suggestion.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs. 2. Teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage. 3. A low-paying job remains an entry point for those with few marketable skills. 4. Abolishing the minimum wage will allow businesses to achieve greater efficiency and lower prices. 5. When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper. 6. Non-profit charitable organizations are hurt by the minimum wage. 7. The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business. 8. A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans. 9. Cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a universal minimum wage difficult to set. 10. Elimination of the minimum wage would mean more citizens and fewer illegals would be hired for low-pay hourly jobs, leading to greater tax revenues and less incentive for illegal immigration. 11. The minimum wage creates a competitive advantage for foreign companies, providing yet another obstacle in the ability of American companies to compete globally. 12. The minimum wage law is just another 1. 2. 3. 4.

No
Adults who currently work for minimum wage are likely to lose jobs to teenagers who will work for much less. Workers need a minimum amount of income from their work to survive and pay the bills. Businesses have more power to abuse the labor market. It forces businesses to share some of the vast wealth with the people that help produce it.

76

example of government condescendingly controlling our actions and destroying personal choice. Citizens do have the ability to say no to a lower wage.

Yes
1. The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs. The most fundamental principle of economics is 'supply and demand'. In the case of labor, this means that the supply of workers goes up as wage goes up, and the demand for workers by employers goes down as the wage goes up. For example, imagine a janitorial job was advertised for hire. If the wage is $100 per hour, thousands of people would want the job. If the wage was $1 per hour, you probably wouldn't find anyone to do it. Conversely, if the government forced the employer to pay at least $7 per hour, the employer might decide not to hire a janitor at all, instead opting to have other staff pick up the duties. Thus, a job would be lost because of the minimum wage. Another example is restaurant employment. A manager might have $10,000 in her monthly budget to hire bus persons. If the wage is set at $7 per hour, the manager may only be able to hire 10 bus people instead of 15. Setting a mandated wage limit disrupts market forces of supply and demand. Just because there is no minimum wage doesn't mean companies can pay whatever they want. Would you work a dishwashing job that paid 25 cents per hour? Would anyone? If they raised the wage to $4 per hour, they might be able to hire a high school student. Consider some highly skilled jobs such as accountant, lawyer, and engineer. Do these people make $5.15 an hour? Obviously, the answer is no. Market factors of supply and demand determine how many jobs are available and what each job would pay. In summary, as the minimum wage goes up, the number of people employed goes down. When the minimum wage goes down, the number of people employed goes up. Keep in mind: the minimum wage only applies if someone is employed. Teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage. Over 95 percent of minimum wage jobs are taken by the groups named above. You cannot make a living and support a family on a minimum wage job. These jobs are typically positions requiring little or no training that can be filled by almost anyone. Many students, part-timers, and other young workers are willing to take much less than minimum wage, especially if it is a fun or educational job. We all know that having a paying job when you're young teaches values such as discipline, hard work, and responsibility. It teaches young workers how to handle money and deal with other people. Thus, as a society we want to maximize the number of young people that work, even if it's for small wages. In fact, earning low wages provides extra motivation to go to college or acquire advanced job skills by some other method. Raising the minimum wage to $7 or more will definitely help some people trying to support a family, but it will hurt the group that holds almost all minimum wage positions. It will simply mean fewer low-skill jobs for those that actually need them. However, in some cases, this downside of the minimum wage can be minimized by applying a multiple-wage structure, allowing a lower minimum wage if you fit into one of these groups. In 2009, thanks in large part to a higher minimum wage, brought the national teenage unemployment rate to record highs--over 25%! A low-paying job remains an entry point for those with few marketable skills. Almost no one wants to work a minimum wage job for the rest of their lives. We all want the higher paying and more interesting jobs. But how do you get one? Even if you've acquired a college or technical degree, you may not be able to get the job you want. The most common question in a job interview is "What experience do you have?" Jobseekers are then faced with the no-win situation "I can't get a job without experience, but how can I get experience without a job?" If you allow businesses to pay smaller entry wages, they will offer more opportunities to jobseekers with no experience. Thus, it's a win-win situation. The business can take on additional workers for a reasonable price. The jobseeker can gain valuable experience that can be used to get a decent, high-paying job later on. In the next decade we face a major shortage of highly skilled workers in technology, health care, and other complex fields. We need to provide people as many opportunities to learn and gain experience as possible.

2.

3.

77

4.

Abolishing the minimum wage will allow businesses to achieve greater efficiency and lower prices. Anytime you give businesses more flexibility, you will increase efficiency and lower prices. Let me give you some examples. Say a McDonald's franchise has a budget of $70 per hour to pay worker wages (without considering benefits and taxes). If that McDonald's must pay $7 per hour, it can hire 10 workers. If it must only pay $5 per hour, it can hire 14 workers. If you go to get a burger, in which situation are you more likely to get it faster? Consider the same situations for a Wal-Mart. In which case are you most likely to find an employee that can take you to an item or answer questions? Thus, businesses can be more efficient and provide better customer service with a lower wage. Another example: imagine three competing coffee shops. All three need to make a certain profit margin to stay in business and make their effort worthwhile. So they all will lower their prices as much as possible while still covering that necessary profit margin. If one of them tries to charge more, customers will simply go to the competitor shops. Now assume the minimum wage is eliminated and each shop can now reduce labor costs by 25 percent. If each doesn't reduce its coffee prices by a proportional amount, it will lose customers to the other two competitors. So by lowering the minimum wage, the public now has to pay less for their espressos. This is obviously a simplistic example, but the principle applies to all businesses. A company cannot simply charge whatever it wants for a product or service. It must always charge a reasonable multiple of its cost; otherwise, it is heading for bankruptcy. When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper. There has been a lot of attention lately on the subject of job "outsourcing", where U.S. companies hire foreign workers instead of Americans. When businesses outsource American jobs, they're not doing it because they hate America; they're doing it because they're trying to cut costs. When you increase the price of labor in America, you create an additional incentive for businesses to hire Canadian, Mexican, or other foreign workers. The best way to stop outsourcing of jobs is to provide the best conditions for doing business in America. A minimum wage just makes things tougher for companies to do business in America. Remember that American companies may have no choice but to outsource with the high cost in the U.S.--they may go out of business entirely if they can't cut costs to a level that's competitive with foreign competitors. Non-profit charitable organizations are hurt by the minimum wage. Keep in mind that minimum wage laws apply to more than big businesses, they apply to government and non-profit organizations. Charitable organizations are among those most likely to benefit from the elimination of the minimum wage. Let's take an example. Consider a domestic violence shelter. This type of shelter normally needs workers to clean, collect & organize donations, counsel & assist residents, monitor help-lines, provide legal assistance in such things as obtaining restraining orders, and so on. Volunteers help relieve some of the duties, but it's often tough to find dedicated ongoing volunteers to do the job. After all, volunteers still have to earn a living, raise a family, etc. However, if the charitable organization were able to pay some amount, even a few dollars an hour, it would better be able to build a more steady set of workers. A non-profit organization may simply not be able to afford a $7 per hour pay rate. Thus, non-profits have only two solutions: dissolve their organizations or hire fewer people to provide the charitable service. The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business. Many people believe businesses have endless supplies of cash and can easily withstand minimum wage increases or other cost increases. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case. Over 90 percent of businesses fold within the first few years. Every time there is a recession, thousands of businesses go under. Restaurants, which pay wages at or near the minimum wage level, have the highest rate of failure of any business type. Anytime you increase the costs of businesses, you push them closer to the edge. Let's take an example. Imagine a small neighborhood hardware store. This hardware store isn't going to have the logistics and economy of scale advantages of say, Wal-Mart; thus, it must charge more. It probably makes up the price difference with better service. When you raise the minimum wage, it increases the operating costs for that hardware store even more. Thus, it must raise it's prices to cover costs. Eventually, prices get so high that customers conclude that shopping there isn't worth the additional cost. Slowly, the local hardware store is driven out of business. A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans. Most businesses, especially in the manufacturing and retailing area, have many mundane tasks that need to be done, such as running a cash register or tightening a bolt on an assembly line. One of the reasons the manufacturing sector has not been part of the job recovery is that businesses have

5.

6.

7.

8.

78

found it's much cheaper to use machines to do tasks that were previously done by people. Whenever businesses automate any task, they usually must spend a lot of upfront money and time in order to save down the line. Because of the minimum wage, spending the upfront time & money seems more worthwhile. For example, Wal-Mart is in the process of adding automated check-outs to almost all of its stores. Thus, all those cashier jobs will disappear. Imagine what would happen if the minimum wage was raised to $8-10 or more, as some politicians want. Do you think Wal-Mart will be more willing or less willing to add more automated checkouts? 9. Cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a universal minimum wage difficult to set. Obviously, $7.15 an hour isn't enough to support a person who lives in the cities of New York, Washington, or Los Angeles. However, it may be more than enough to support people living in rural areas or small towns. What is it real estate agents always say about real estate values? Location, location, location. That is why a 1-bedroom rundown apartment in the city may cost 5 times as much as a well-kept 3-bedroom apartment in a small town. And of course, housing is only a small part of the cost of living. Consider how much more gas costs for a commuter than it does for a small town worker who can walk to work. The list goes on. Thus, a $7 minimum wage may be more reasonable in New York, but it would be ridiculously high in certain small town and rural areas.

10. Elimination of the minimum wage would mean more citizens and fewer illegals would be hired for low-pay hourly jobs, leading to greater tax revenues and less incentive for illegal immigration. There are several low-paying jobs such as housekeeper and nanny that are often filled by illegal immigrants. The employer doesn't want to pay a citizen the higher rate along with required employer payroll taxes, so they hire someone off the books, e.g. at $5 per hour. For such a position, there are no federal, state, or social security taxes withheld. Thus, overall tax revenues for the country are reduced. If you eliminate the minimum wage, you therefore increase revenues. Also, with fewer jobs available for illegals, there is less incentive to break the law and come to the country in the first place. 11. The minimum wage creates a competitive advantage for foreign companies, providing yet another obstacle in the ability of American companies to compete globally. The U.S. trade deficit increases every year, which means we're exporting less than we're importing. In an increasingly global economy, it's important to give American companies every chance to turn out the cheapest and best products. A minimum wage only applies to workers in the United States; foreign companies can pay what they want. There are two direct components that go into the price & quality of a product -- raw material and labor. Thus, when you set a minimum cost level for the labor component, you cause a competitive disadvantage in two ways. First, the cost per hour of direct labor potentially goes up. Second, in some cases, you force companies to hire fewer workers, which may affect the quality of the final output. Add it all up and American companies must work harder to compete with foreign companies, which in the long run costs us jobs, profits, and prestige while damaging the reputation of American products. One of the reasons we have such a major trade deficit (where outflows of goods & services exceeds inflows) is the competitive disadvantages to business such as the minimum wage. 12. The minimum wage law is just another example of government condescendingly controlling our actions and destroying personal choice. Citizens do have the ability to say no to a lower wage. Why is it that politicians continue to insist that we're too stupid to take personal responsibility for our own lives? If someone offers us $1 per hour to wash dishes, my guess is that 99.9 percent of us would emphatically say no. But for some reason, politicians think we need a law to say businesses can't even make that offer. Has there ever been a time in your life where you thought, "I'd do that job for free!". Maybe that job is Playboy photographer or it's practice assistant for the Green Bay Packers. Maybe it's a job you know would look great on a resume but can't get because you lack experience. Personal choice and freedom is what this country is supposed to be built on, so why should we do anything to limit that?

No
1. Adults who currently work for minimum wage are likely to lose jobs to teenagers who will work for much less. Many adults trying to make a living are forced to work minimum wage jobs. If you take away the government-mandated minimum wage, companies will often be able to hire teenagers for a fraction of the price. A business isn't going to pay $5.15 or $7 to an adult factory worker when it can

79

pay $3.50 to a high school student who likely can do the job just as well. Remember that minimum wage jobs usually require little or no training, so it won't be that hard to replace those workers who are displaced. The end result of a minimum wage abolishment is that teenagers, who often are only looking for supplemental income to pay for cars, parties, etc. take work away from those who are trying to pay the rent or support a family. 2. Workers need a minimum amount of income from their work to survive and pay the bills. Someone working 40 hours per week at $7.15 an hour will make about $1000 per month after taxes. Rent alone can take almost the whole paycheck, especially in high-cost areas of the country like New York and Los Angeles (some states have higher minimum wages than the federal one specifically for this reason). Then, you add in utilities, food, insurance, car payments, credit cards, and on and on. How can a person possibly survive on less? Businesses can better afford the money than citizens scratching to make ends meet. Businesses have more power to abuse the labor market. History shows that businesses left unchecked will abuse their power. Why do you think labor organizations like the Teamsters, United Auto Workers, AFL-CIO, etc. have come into existence? A tight job market, especially during recessions, give citizens the choice of accepting the terms of business or starving. A minimum wage gives business a reasonable floor that should be paid for the labor of others, whether skilled or unskilled. It forces businesses to share some of the vast wealth with the people that help produce it. American businesses take in trillions of dollars every year. Is it too much to ask that they share a pittance of it with the people responsible to bringing it to them? We've all read or heard stories of executives with multi-million dollar bonuses, even with companies that lose money. A few dollars extra per hour for the poorest of the poor shouldn't hurt that much.

3.

4.

27. Abortion
No social issue in America since slavery has ever been so divisive as that of abortion. No issue brings out so much passion and hatred of the other side. Any court decisions related to abortion regularly bring protestors from both sides. Polls show Americans are split almost evenly on the issue. Every presidential election brings out the pro-life side on the right and the pro-choice side on the left. Abortion often makes it into the debate on other issues. For example, funding of Planned Parenthood has been discussed in reining in the out-of-control federal budget. Another example is Obamacare, where final passage was held up by a few senators who didn't like the abortion language of the bill. Which side is right? Are there any shades of gray in this dispute?

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. Abortion is a form of murder and demeans the value of human life. Other birth control is readily available; thus, abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control. The societal contributions of a potentially valuable human being are wiped out. Women who have abortions often suffer major psychological damage from the experience along with, in some cases, the father of the child. The advances of genetic testing may prompt more abortions (to avoid having the non-ideal child). There are many couples who spend years on waiting lists trying to adopt a child. The abortion decision is often made by minors or young adults, who don't have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions. 1. 2. 3.

No
Government gets to control a woman's body. "Back alley" abortions would increase if it were made illegal, leading to increased risk of young women dying or becoming sterile. It's arguably better for society to have babies aborted than have them be brought up poor and neglected, where not only will the child suffer but society when that child develops a higher attraction to crime, welfare, etc. One brief mistake can take away a woman's childhood and trap her for life. Giving up a child for adoption can be just as emotionally damaging as having an abortion. Carrying and delivering a baby can be painful & dangerous to the mother, and a number of complications can develop. Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus has developed into a

4. 5. 6. 7.

5. 6. 7.

80

8.

People have the right not to see their tax dollars go to something they find immoral. 9. Abortion eliminates legal rights of the unborn child. 10. Abortion exposes women to various health risks and the danger of losing fertility. 11. Abortion is against doctors' Hippocratic Oath.

human person.

Yes
1. Abortion is a form of murder and demeans the value of human life. When a pregnant women feels a kick in her belly, she doesn't say "Oh, the fetus kicked" or "Oh, the mass of cells that hasn't become a person kicked", she says "The baby kicked." Yes, after conception you have a real human being waiting to enter the world. Why should taking someone's life when they're in the womb be any different than taking their life when they're a baby in the crib? Pro-choice advocates claim this isn't a real baby only to justify their wrong acts in their own minds. Even if you don't believe abortion is murder, it still demeans the value of human life, since women can so callously stomp out a living being simply because they're inconvenienced. Other birth control is readily available; thus, abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control. There are dozens of birth control methods that can keep you from becoming pregnant, including the 100 percent effective one: abstinence. Maybe if abortion wasn't available, people wouldn't be so careless in the first place. The societal contributions of a potentially valuable human being are wiped out. What would the world be like if the mothers of Abe Lincoln, George Washington, or Thomas Edison had had an abortion? Just maybe a woman has become pregnant despite all birth control attempts because the child is destined to do something great. Women who have abortions often suffer major psychological damage from the experience along with, in some cases, the father of the child. Many women who have abortion in their younger years end up living the rest of their lives in perpetual guilt. Even if that women doesn't consider it murder at the time, that may change as she matures. Even Jane Roe (not her real name), the original woman behind the famous court decision, has completely changed her mind on abortion. She filed a petition to have the decision overturned to help relieve the guilt of hundreds of thousands of needless deaths she blames on herself. Also, let's not forget that there are two parents of every aborted child. The father may feel just as guilty. The father may even want the child, but he has no choice if the mother chooses abortion. The advances of genetic testing may prompt more abortions (to avoid having the non-ideal child). All of us who have or want kids imagine them growing up to be doctors, senators, sports stars, or whatever. But what would you do if you knew the child would have Down's Syndrome? What would you do if you knew the child would have an intelligence level lower than that required to enter public school? What if the child had a strong risk of schizophrenia? Would you still have the child or would you want an abortion? As genetic knowledge continues to grow, we are able to determine more and more about what a child will be like as an adult. Legalized abortion could turn babies into science experiments. There are many couples who spend years on waiting lists trying to adopt a child. The number of couples out there who cannot have a child of their own for physical reasons are too numerous to count. The waiting list for adopting babies can be 5-10 years or more. Young women in their teens are right to be concerned that they're not ready to effectively raise a child. However, if that is the case, there are plenty of wonderful people out there who are. Not only would you be bringing a valuable life into the world, you'd also be making the dream of a childless couple come true. The abortion decision is often made by minors or young adults, who don't have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions. There's a good reason why we don't allow people to drink

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

81

alcohol, smoke, or drive until they're a certain age. It's because they haven't matured enough to make good, sound decisions. We've all made bad decisions in our younger years that provide us with life experience to make sounder judgment in the future. The one skill that seems to take the longest time to develop is the ability to consider the feelings and needs of someone besides ourselves. Why should such a life or death decision as abortion be made by a person who probably hasn't developed that capacity? 8. People have the right not to see their tax dollars go to something they find immoral. Abortion is a medical procedure that must be performed by a doctor. The government contributes to many health care institutions such as Healthcare for the Homeless, Planned Parenthood, free clinics, etc. All of us who pay taxes have the right to prevent that money from going to something we consider murder. The Obamacare bill passed in 2009 almost guarantees that taxpayers will be paying for abortion when the law takes effect. Abortion eliminates legal rights of the unborn child. The documents of our founding fathers state that we are all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By legalizing abortion, we take those rights away from a future American citizen. Just because the babies can't speak for themselves doesn't mean they have no rights. If a 1-month old is murdered, it that really different than abortion as far as protecting an American's life? If a person shoots and kills a pregnant woman, shouldn't the punishment be more severe? If you legalize abortion, it would tell the courts there is no difference.

9.

10. Abortion exposes women to various health risks and the danger of losing fertility. Abortion exposes woman to a number of health risks including, but not limited to, infection, sterility, and in rare cases, death. A number of short-term symptoms such as bleeding, fever, nausea, and vomiting are also common. 11. Abortion is against doctors' Hippocratic Oath. Every American doctor must take this fundamental oath, which says "First, do no harm". It threatens the very fabric of the entire medical field if doctors start using their own personal philosophies on life to decide who should or shouldn't be harmed. Whether or not you think abortion should be allowed, it cannot be disputed that a doctor is harming a living organism. Killing a human being doesn't serve any higher medical purpose and is therefore a violation of the oath.

No
1. Government gets to control a woman's body. By making abortion illegal, you're introducing a slippery slope that gives government control over a woman's body. You're taking away a personal freedom. Who knows what other controls the government may legislate in the future. Will it have the power to force sterilization? Will it have the power to make motherhood mandatory? Will it next take away the right to use other birth control methods such as The Pill? "Back alley" abortions would increase if it were made illegal, leading to increased risk of young women dying or becoming sterile. Regardless of what laws are in place, there will always be young women out there who want to have an abortion. They may not want to face the wrath of their parents, the embarrassment at school, or the lifetime responsibility of motherhood. If we criminalize abortion, many woman will simply look for other ways to get rid of the child. They could starve themselves or seek unlicensed "back alley" abortions. So instead of getting an abortion in a controlled environment where there is one last chance for counseling on options, women may subject themselves to a potentially dangerous situation. These type of methods often lead to sterility or other harm, even death. It's arguably better for society to have babies aborted than have them be brought up poor and neglected, where not only will the child suffer but society when that child develops a higher attraction to crime, welfare, etc. This is probably a controversial point but it has to be said. Without legalized abortion, a lot more women will become parents whether or not they want to be and whether or not they're ready to be. Raising a child properly is a full-time labor intensive process. The children who are neglected or abused are usually the ones that grow up to be drug addicts, lifelong government aid recipients, and criminals. Do we want to subject the child to such misery? Do we want to saddle society with the added burden? Some people say, "What if Abe Lincoln's mom had an abortion?". You could also ask, "What if Adolf Hitler's or Osama bin Laden's mom had an abortion?"

2.

3.

82

4.

One brief mistake can take away a woman's childhood and trap her for life. We all make mistakes in our life, especially when we are young. The pressure to have sex at an early age is fierce in today's society. Even a girl who lives a good, responsible life can have one slip up. But that one slip-up can take away all her life plans and trap her. She may have planned to go to medical school, train for the Olympics, travel the world, or just have fun while she's still young. All this can be thrown down the drain with one brief mistake. We shouldn't penalize someone for life. Giving up a child for adoption can be just as emotionally damaging as having an abortion. Women develop an emotional bond with a child when they carry it through the full term and go through the experience of delivery. Giving up that child for adoption might be the only reasonable option for a young girl too immature or poor to raise a kid. However, the women now has to live with a feeling of abandoning their child for the rest of her life. Why do you think so many adoptive parents seek out their kids when they're grown? There's no doubt that some women suffer psychological damage from having an abortion; however, the damage done from giving a child up for adoption is much worse. Carrying and delivering a baby can be painful & dangerous to the mother, and a number of complications can develop. Any woman who has ever been pregnant will tell you that is not always very pleasant. Weight gain, edema, back pain, morning sickness, and constipation are among the common complaints. After delivery, postpartum depression & psychosis, stretch marks, varicose veins, and other problems sometimes follow the woman. And of course, during delivery, a number of complications can develop that could cause permanent harm or kill the mother. Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus has developed into a human person. A fetus doesn't become a real human being until it is physically delivered from a mother's womb. If you define a fetus as a human, are you going to go back and say a sperm or egg is a human? Should we ban birth control altogether then since we'd be killing a "human"?

5.

6.

7.

28. ANWR Oil Drilling

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The proceeds from drilling could dramatically lower the price of oil, leading to another economic boom. It would lessen our dependence on foreign oil, especially in the Middle East. Drilling could easily be done without disrupting the refuge or damaging the environment. It would dramatically help the economy and the people of Alaska. The drilling and land development would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Alternative energy sources are the future, but for right now they're too expensive and underdeveloped; oil from ANWR could help fuel the world economy in the meantime. Every dollar we spend on oil from the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela only strengthens the communists and terrorists trying to harm the United States. 1. 2.

No
It takes the focus off the real cause of the oil shortage -- our excessive consumption. A wildlife refuge could be disturbed by humans, with animal lives possibly changed in the process. The drilling may not yield much of anything. It could take years or decades before any significant amount of oil is ready for use. The reserve can be saved as a last resort decades from now when we've exhausted other supplies.

3. 4. 5.

29. Terrorist Prisoner Torture Since the War on Terror began on 9/11, we've captured hundreds of Islamic terrorists along with the capture of Saddam Hussein himself. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan brought in thousands more prisoners with potential knowledge of upcoming terror attacks.

83

Captives like Saddam Hussein and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "CEO of Al Qaeda", have intimate knowledge of operations in Al Qaeda and of locations of terrorist cells around the world. Iraqi prisoners often have knowledge of terrorist attacks planned against American soldiers. Unfortunately, when a capture of this magnitude is publicized, terrorists quickly change locations, plans, and communication methods. Thus, any intelligence we can gather from such captures is only good for a short time. The question becomes, should we torture these captures to obtain the information while it's still good? (Another question is "What constitutes 'torture'?", but that is a separate argument). In an attempt to prevent another 9/11, should we resort to the gruesome level of torture employed by the Saddam-led or Osama-led organizations themselves? A less intense form of questioning that causes no permanent damage to the body, such as waterboarding, is often referred to as "enhanced interrogation." CIA chief Leon Panetta credited such methods as helping track down and kill Osama bin Laden himself.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. Timely information is needed to break up cells, capture wanted terrorists, and prevent thousands or millions of deaths; this information can be obtained in a more timely manner by administering torture. These specific terrorists deserve a little extra punishment for the death and misery they've caused. Anything we do to our captives will still be nothing compared to what they do to our soldiers when captured. Terrorists under duress may give us information that we didn't even know to ask. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

No
It lowers us from the moral high ground to the level of the terrorist. It leads to a weakening of international law, which could lead to torture retaliation for our prisoners. Torture can lead to made-up information as prisoners say anything to stop the pain. It could widen anti-American sentiment if word of the torture got out. It creates sympathy for people who would otherwise be scorned and shamed. Other non-torture methods can be just as effective, if not more so. Terrorists might choose death over capture more frequently, possibly costing lives and eliminating a potential information source. There's always the chance that an innocent person may be subjected to the torture.

2. 3. 4.

Yes
1. Timely information is needed to break up cells, capture wanted terrorists, and prevent thousands or millions of deaths; this information can be obtained in a more timely manner by administering torture. If we were able to stop the 9/11 attacks, thousands of lives would have been saved, along with

84

billions of dollars in economic damage. Intelligence agents had information that Osama bin Laden was up to something, but they had nothing specific as to place and time. Today, the FBI and CIA are in the same situation. The next attack could involve a nuclear "dirty" bomb, an anthrax or smallpox bioweapons attack, or a poisonous chemical attack. The 9/11 attacks were bad, but the devastation of a mass destruction weapons attack could be tenfold. Intelligence information is only good for a short time. When Saddam was captured, Al Qaeda and Fedayeen cells scattered. Thus, any intelligence gained after a short initial period was outdated. Torture ensures we get the information on a timely basis. Of course torture itself may not be moral, but we're talking about the lives of thousands, possibly even millions. Even if mass destruction weapons aren't involved, low-level attacks like a homicide bombing could cause the loss of many Americans lives. What is more important--protecting an evil, hateful terrorist from a little pain or saving scores of American lives? You may hear or read "expert" opinions in the media that torture isn't effective for getting information. But use the logical part of your brain. How long would you be able to withhold your secrets if you were deprived of several days sleep, drugged, had limbs broken, given electric shock, etc. There are many reasons NOT to torture someone, but efficacy isn't one of the them. There are far more humane ways to get information than the ones listed, but as we've seen, terrorist apologists, who whine about things like loud music pumped into the cell, will define anything short of country club conditions as "torture". 2. These specific terrorists deserve a little extra punishment for the death and misery they've caused. Mounir al-Motassadek, who was accused of being a member of a terrorist organization and being an accessory to the deaths of more than 3,000 people on 9/11, was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a German court. He's lucky he wasn't convicted of killing 100,000 people; the court may have sentenced him to 20 years! The justice system has become somewhat of a joke in democratic societies. Even in America, where punishment is tougher than mainland Europe, the punishments aren't all that bad, relatively speaking. When you contribute to the death of thousands, a punishment of painless death or life in prison just doesn't cut it. We're talking about people that will kill Americans no matter where they are or who they are, and they show no remorse for their actions. Maybe a little torture is fitting for someone like Saddam Hussein. Anything we do to our captives will still be nothing compared to what they do to our soldiers when captured. As we saw with the American POWs in Iraq, it doesn't matter how well we treat prisoners, our soldiers will always be faced with brutal torture or death. Consider the terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay. The prison there holds some of the most evil, hate-filled, venom-spewing men in the world. Yet, we feed them well, allow them books & prayer time, and refrain from beating them. Several prisoners released from there have said they were treated well and fed better than in their own country. Yet, the media distorts the treatment, showing us getting a little rough with some combative prisoners. Many in the media speculate we're torturing prisoners whenever we come up with useful information, despite the fact they have no proof (or their "proof" is the statements of the terrorists themselves). The point is, it doesn't matter if we torture prisoners or give them the royal treatment, much of the media and world opinion will believe what they want to believe. Terrorists under duress may give us information that we didn't even know to ask. There is so much information a high ranking terrorist leader could have--plans, names, locations, computer passwords, financiers,...the list goes on and on. A professional interrogator can usually come up with a wide arrange of questions, but there will always be more that he can't think of--information that save millions of lives! Think what information anyone would be willing to give up if his bones were breaking, his body was burning from electricity, his nails being plucked, his hands being soaked in acid, or whatever the case may be.

3.

4.

No
1. It lowers us from the moral high ground to the level of the terrorist. We have seen the brutality and utter lack of regard for human life exhibited by the kidnappers of WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl, the Saddam Hussein regime, and Osama bin Laden. The things that put us above these monsters are our high value we put on human rights and our Bill of Rights freedoms. We shouldn't lower our moral ideals to the point where we're no better than the terrorists. It leads to a weakening of international law, which could lead to torture retaliation for our prisoners. There are some enemies of ours out there that still have some regard for human life and they

2.

85

wouldn't want to see their prisoners tortured. However, if we make torture a policy, other nations may respond in kind. Thus, those countries that originally may have followed Geneva laws regarding prisoners may decide to resort to torture themselves. 3. Torture can lead to made-up information as prisoners say anything to stop the pain. People in extreme pain will say anything to stop the pain, whether its true or not. People will confess to crimes they haven't committed and throw out any information that pops in their heads in order to stop the torture. When we have false information, we're led on wide goose chases that waste time and expend resources. It could widen anti-American sentiment if word of the torture got out. Muslims, Europeans, and others are increasingly anti-American in their views. They look for anything to reinforce their beliefs that Americans are evil, imperialistic, oppressive, etc. Even mild indiscretions like showing an Afghan prisoner with a hood over his head has brought worldwide condemnation. We saw the overblown outrage when a few soldiers did some humiliating things to Iraqi prisoners. Can you imagine the outcry if we actually made torture a policy? It creates sympathy for people who would otherwise be scorned and shamed. Somehow we've come to a point in history where much of the world calls terrorists who bomb school buses with nailpacked bombs "freedom fighters". Terrorism doesn't work unless you have effective public relations spin the actions to that of some kind of oppressed underdog, which is exactly what has happened. When you torture prisoners, you blur the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong. Any acts of human brutality inevitably creates sympathy for monsters who would otherwise be scorned or forgotten. Other non-torture methods can be just as effective, if not more so. There are plenty of other methods for extracting good information that don't require physical torture. Mind control drugs, sleep deprivation, good cop-bad cop techniques, and verbal intimidation are only a few. Not only are these methods more humane, but they also can yield better information. Terrorists might choose death over capture more frequently, possibly costing lives and eliminating a potential information source. Imagine you could go back in time and while fighting in a war, you were about to be captured by the Vietcong, the Taliban, or the Saddam Hussein regime. Would you contemplate killing yourself or fighting to the death rather than subject yourself to the unbearable torture that awaits you? If we get a reputation for torturing prisoners, enemies may be less willing to surrender. When enemies fight to the death, there's a greater chance we may sustain further casualties to our brave soldiers. And while we may get little information from a captured enemy combatant, we will get no information from a dead enemy combatant. There's always the chance that an innocent person may be subjected to the torture. For the most part, expert security personnel and intelligence officials know when they have a terrorist enemy of the U.S., but what if they're wrong? What if they capture someone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? What if they capture a Muslim-American who dislikes the United States but believes in peaceful protest? One of the great things about America is that we go to great lengths to protect the innocent. Torture would only chip away at something that makes our country special.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

30. War with Iran For the past four decades, the fundamentalist Islamic regime of Iran has been a militant hotbed of anti-American and anti-Western terror in the Middle East. Many consider it to be the true birthplace of modern Islamic terror. In the late 1970s, Ruhollah Khomeini 86

led a fundamentalist takeover of the pro-Western government, leading to, among other things, the storming of the U.S. Embassy in November of 1979. Fifty hostages were taken and held in captivity for 444 days. The rulers of Iran have been feverishly antiAmerican ever since, right up to the current head, a man by the name of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is known to be actively pursuing the illegal construction of nuclear weapons, and who has said that he believes the entire state of Israel should be "wiped off the map." Iran is known to actively sponsor Islamic terror groups such as Hezbollah and has been accused repeatedly by the U.S. military of aiding terrorist insurgents currently trying to thwart the creation of a democratic government in Iraq. Given Iran's nuclear ambitions and history of terrorist support, President Bush has turned up the heat lately. A concerned international community has largely joined in the effort. Countries such as Britain, France, and Germany, among others, have tried for years to negotiate a diplomatic solution. Various levels of sanctions have been attempted, but tougher sanctions that might truly put some pressure on Iran have been opposed by Russia and China, who are both intertwined in the Iran economy. The drumbeats of war are starting again. Is a military solution the right way to deal with Iran?

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. Iran is the biggest state supporter of terrorist groups in the world. 2. It is openly defying the world in building nuclear weapons, and fanatical religious powers are less likely to be deterred than a secular power. Iran could also pass this new technology to the terrorists they support. 3. Iran has openly called for the destruction of the U.S. and Israel, saying more than once that Israel should be "wiped off the map". 4. Iran is supporting the Iraqi & Afghanistan insurgencies and is making stabilization there near impossible. 5. The U.S. military may never again be so strategically placed, with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, covering both sides of Iran. 6. The Iranian people deserve a chance at peace and democracy. 7. Iran runs one of the most repressive regimes in the world, especially towards women and non-Muslims. 8. A legitimate threat of force may be the only way to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program peacefully. 9. It would send a forceful message to Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and other anti-American regimes around the world. 10. Iran is funding the spread of hate towards America and Israel, and beginning with the Islamic Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini, is as responsible as anyone for the current War 1.

No
Many U.S. soldiers would be killed and wounded. 2. A large number of civilians would likely be killed and wounded. 3. World opinion, which is already heavily antiAmerican, would only get worse, with Iran garnering sympathy. 4. With a largely fundamental Muslim population, an Iran guerilla war could be ten times worse than what it is in Iraq. 5. Younger pro-American & pro-democracy parts of the Iranian population may turn against us as they rally to defend their country. 6. The U.S. military is already strained and occupied in Iraq & Afghanistan. 7. There are less costly solutions like deterrence and sanctions. We could also allow Israel to do our dirty work or battle covertly through the CIA. 8. Rogue regimes like North Korea are more likely to stir up trouble with the U.S. military tied up in Iran and Iraq. 9. The cost to the U.S. taxpayer would likely be in the hundreds of billions, money which could be spent on education, homeland security, etc. 10. Iran has close connections to terrorist groups around the world and is likely to unleash these groups in the event of an invasion.

87

on Terror.

Yes
1. Iran is, without a doubt, the biggest state supporter of terrorist groups in the world. Many consider Iran to be the birthplace of state-sponsored terrorism. Rogue regimes like that in Iran have no way to compete militarily with powers such as the United States, so they often funnel money and intelligence information to psychopathic groups like Hezbollah that are committed to the destruction of Israel and other Western-style democracies. The leaders of Iran are all devout Shiite Muslims that publicly support the methods of terrorists such as those that attacked America on 9/11. If ever there was an appropriate target for the "Bush Doctrine", which promises action not only against terrorists but the states that sponsor it, it is Iran. It is openly defying the world in building nuclear weapons, and fanatical religious powers are less likely to be deterred than a secular power. Iran could also pass this new technology to the terrorists they support. It seems that every day, Iran claims to reach a new milestone in its quest to build nuclear weapons. Some people think this isn't a big deal since several countries have nuclear weapon technology. However, the big difference between these countries and Iran is that all the current nuclear powers are either stable, rational democracies or are countries that can be deterred by mutual assured destruction. In other words, North Korea isn't stupid enough to ever use its nuclear weapons since they will be wiped out by a retaliation. However, in the case of Iran, death is glorified. Killing in the name of Islam is seen as a cause for reward in the afterlife for the fanatics. The 9/11 terrorists reveled in the fact that they were soon to be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven. In a culture where death is glorified, what is there to deter the Iranian leadership? An even worse scenario may be if Iran passes this technology to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbollah. What is there to deter these groups from using them? How will we even be able to trace the originator of a terrorist bombing that involves nuclear weapons? Iran has openly called for the destruction of the U.S. and Israel, saying more than once that Israel should be "wiped off the map". It's no secret that Iran and pretty much every Muslim terror group is committed to destroying Israel and regaining what they view as their land which is currently "occupied territory". Ahmadinejad has even used the exact words that Israel should be "wiped off the map". Is it reasonable to put nuclear weapons in the hands of such a person? After witnessing millions of death in the Nazi Holocaust, does such a potential scenario seem so far-fetched? Anti-Semitism is as prevalent in the Muslim world as breathing. Iran is supporting the Iraqi & Afghanistan insurgencies and is making stabilization there near impossible. Iran is in effect fighting a proxy war against the United States already by aiding terrorist insurgents in Iraq. The fundamentalists in Iran vehemently oppose Western-style democracies, along with the values they provide such as religious freedom, women's rights, freedom to criticize the government, and so on. If Iraq grows to be a foothold of democracy in the Middle East, it could lead to even more democracies of neighboring countries. A large segment of the pro-Western younger generation would likely demand more freedoms, threatening those in power. It's not hard to see why Iran is doing so much to promote Iraq instability and to kill as many American troops as possible. The U.S. military may never again be so strategically placed, with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, covering both sides of Iran. The logistics of a war with Iran can get complicated. Having adequate bases and strategic options is critical in a war that requires such pinpoint accuracy. The military will likely focus on taking out specific targets such as nuclear facilities and command'n'control locations. Right now, we have plenty of bases & troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Afghanistan. There will never be another time when our military is so strategically placed for an attack. The Iranian people deserve a chance at peace and democracy. Western culture and freedom is popular with a young generation of Iranians. Protests for democracy have been held by people who are risking their lives and freedom for such actions. Yet, as long as the current Islamic fundamentalist regime is in power, Iranian civilians will never have an opportunity to taste the freedoms we take for granted here in America. Don't you think that Iranians should have a choice as to how their country

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

88

should be run? How would you like it if free elections as well as 1st Amendment freedoms of speech and religion were taken away from you? 7. Iran runs one of the most repressive regimes in the world, especially towards women and nonMuslims. Christianity is persecuted in Iran. Women aren't allowed to vote, must remain servile to their men, can be stoned to death for breaking Islamic law, and must stick to standard styles of dress. The press is government controlled. Protestors are imprisoned or beaten. Much of western-style clothing or music is banned. The list goes on and on. What's worse is that Iranian citizens don't really have any way to change things--ever. Foreign intervention may be the only way things ever improve. A legitimate threat of force may be the only way to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program peacefully. Perhaps the best and most often-cited reason for a military strike on Iran is to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weapons. However, Iran has laughed off every attempt at punitive action in the past largely because there is no real threat against it. However, a legitimate threat of war may actually lead to a prevention of war. If the Iranian leadership truly sees that the U.S. plans to attack, it may reverse course and abandon its nuclear program in an effort to prevent or postpone war. In the case of a psychotic leadership like that in Iran, it's a long shot at best, but who knows? It would send a forceful message to Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and other anti-American regimes around the world. American credibility is quickly disintegrating. Rogue regimes like the one ran by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela have learned that a weakened U.S. government seems to be incapable of taking action when they misbehave. Chavez has dissolved the former democracy of his country and taken power. How long before other power-hungry leaders do the same? How long before there's another Saddam-type invasion? An invasion of Iran sends a forceful message that we are serious and that we will take action when international law is broken, as with Iran's nuclear program.

8.

9.

10. Iran is funding the spread of hate towards America and Israel, and beginning with the Islamic Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini, is as responsible as anyone for the current War on Terror. More than anywhere in the world, the burning of American flags and the chants of "Death to America" were born in the fundamentalist regime of Iran. Indeed, the roots of modern Islamic terrorism can be found in the country of Iran. Some argue that Iran has been fighting a proxy terrorist war against the West for almost three decades by funding Mosques that preach hate, by designing curriculum for kids that preach destruction of the U.S. and Israel, by providing money, weapons, and intelligence information to groups such as Hezbollah, and by countless other methods such as the current perpetuation of trouble in Iraq. The truth is that striking groups like Al Qaeda is more of a Band-Aid approach to fighting terrorism. If we wipe out one terrorist, there's almost always several others to take his place. If we take out the power structure of a group like Al Qaeda, another group will popup to take its place. To truly wipe out or minimize the growth of terror around the world, we need to strike at its source, and that is above all, the state of Iran.

No
1. Many U.S. soldiers would be killed and wounded. An already exhausted U.S. military has already lost thousands of men and women in a war that's likely to be much easier than that of attacking Iran. Most of the technology that's being used to kill American troops such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs) is being supplied by Iran. How many soldiers will be killed if this technology is used first hand by the masters? Iran is likely to be better financed, more organized, and better prepared to fight than Iraq; thus, things are likely only to get worse for the U.S. military. A large number of civilians would likely be killed and wounded. There are a wide range of estimates as to the number of civilians killed in Iraq. Some reach the hundreds of thousands. Do we want to repeat this scenario, especially when so much of the population is young and pro-Western? World opinion, which is already heavily anti-American, would only get worse, with Iran garnering sympathy. Most countries in the world view the Iraqi invasion as an illegal war. The U.S. is frequently seen as an imperialist bully forcing their will on the rest of the world. As we've seen with Saddam Hussein, what happens before the war is likely to be completely forgotten or overlooked. Since the war started, how many news stories can you remember seeing chronicling life of Iraqis under Saddam? Saddam ran one of the most vicious regimes in history, yet the Americans are still largely

2.

3.

89

seen as the villains in this whole war. Thus, an invasion of Iran is likely to generate more hatred for the United States and generate sympathy for the evil, destructive regime of Iran. 4. With a largely fundamental Muslim population, an Iran guerilla war could be ten times worse than what it is in Iraq. The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s proved more than anything just how fanatical the Iranians can be if their country is invaded. Hundreds of thousands died fighting the superior military power of Iraq as human waves of "martyrs" were sent to sacrifice themselves against the approaching tanks. Iran is very much a fundamentalist religious population, unlike the secular society that dominates in Iraq. As such, death and sacrifice is glorified far more. Thus, a guerilla war fought in Iran is likely to get far worse than the already difficult situation in Iraq. Younger pro-American & pro-democracy parts of the Iranian population may turn against us as they rally to defend their country. Western culture and values are popular with the younger generation. Iranians that escaped the repressive regime of Iran tell of a largely pro-American population that longs for democracy. However, like almost all people around the world, Iranians are patriotic. They may turn against America and defend their own country in the event of an invasion. The U.S. military is already strained and occupied in Iraq & Afghanistan. It took a "surge" of American troops in 2007 to really start getting any results in the rebuilding of Iraq. Troops are already spread thin to not only Iraq, but Afghanistan and other hotspots around the world. Recruitment of new soldiers has plummeted. How can we possibly take on a military task that could be far worse than the war in Iraq? There are less costly solutions like deterrence and sanctions. We could also allow Israel to do our dirty work or battle covertly through the CIA. War should always be the option of very last resort. It would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. Far cheaper options are available such as sanctions and a CIA-led covert war. Sanctions that cut off oil, military, and other resources going to Iran are by no means a quick fix. They take time to be effective, as they wear down the will of those that are punished. Because so much of the population is pro-American, a covert war led by the CIA and internal Iranian groups opposed to the current regime may be able to topple the government from the inside. A combination of other solutions seriously need to be tried before we undertake such a destructive step as another war. Rogue regimes like North Korea are more likely to stir up trouble with the U.S. military tied up in Iran and Iraq. We've already seen how Hugo Chavez wiped out democracy in Venezuela while we were occupied in Iraq. What's going to happen to other shaky governments and rogue regimes when the U.S. military is tied up fighting in two Middle Eastern countries? Their main deterrent threat would be somewhat powerless to stop them. Would this mean the toppling of more democracies? The invasion of other countries? The ignoring of several treaties and U.N. mandates? The cost to the U.S. taxpayer would likely be in the hundreds of billions, money which could be spent on education, homeland security, etc. The United States has already spent in the hundreds of billions in Iraq. That cost may eventually reach or exceed a trillion dollars. Who knows how much a war with Iran would cost, as well as the inevitable retaliation? We have so many other needs to address such as a social security system approaching bankruptcy, a 9-trillion dollar national debt, a strained military that needs to be built back up, a worsening education system, and on and on. We simply can't afford another war, nor can the rest of the world which is so heavily dependent on the U.S. economy.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Iran has close connections to terrorist groups around the world and is likely to unleash these groups in the event of an invasion. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of a war with Iran is what would happen if Iran unleashed all its terrorist resources to Western nations? In other words, what would happen if the individual members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, and countless other Islamic terrorist groups were unleashed in the United States? We haven't had a terrorist attack in America since 9/11, but how would you like to see suicide bombers blowing themselves up in shopping malls? How about busloads of kids exploding on the way home from school? How about stinger missiles being launched against civilian aircraft? How about rockets fired randomly into civilian towns? All of these are popular attack methods against Israel but has yet to be brought to the United States. The endless possibilities are too terrible to imagine.

31. Gun Control 90

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. Most violent crimes are committed with guns; thus, restricting gun ownership will likely reduce the number of such crimes. Lunatics, bullied school kids, disgruntled workers, and others can inflict mass casualties with guns that otherwise wouldn't be possible. A crime victim who has a gun may be in more danger than an unarmed person since the criminal may kill in perceived self-defense. Suicides and crimes of passion are higher with gun availability, as it's much easier to act immediately on your impulses when a gun is available. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution was targeted towards militia, e.g. the National Guard, rather than individuals. Crimes that may have been less harmful can be made more dangerous by adding a gun. Legalized gun ownership means guns have a greater chance of falling into the hands of kids, potentially resulting in some deadly accidents. Terrorism, school shootings, and other modern circumstances make guns more dangerous nowadays. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

No
Criminals will always find a way to obtain their guns, leaving law-abiding citizens without any weapons to use in defense. Crimes are often prevented by the deterrent effect of the possibility of victim gun possession. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protects the individual's right to gun ownership. Woman and weaker individuals may have no means of self-defense from rape or other crimes, especially in the inner city. Guns in the possession of citizens are an added protection against government tyranny. Police are often too overwhelmed to protect all citizens from violent crime. Banning guns will create another potentially large source of organized criminal revenue, as a black market for guns will surely develop. Banning guns will take away yet another piece of our liberty, which is one more step to socialism and totalitarianism. Reasonable gun control & education steps can be put in place, so an outright ban is unnecessary.

5. 6. 7.

8.

32. War in Iraq Saddam Hussein has run a brutal dictatorship of the country of Iraq for over 20 years. He has started wars against neighboring countries of Iran and Kuwait, leading to the death of about 1.5 million Muslims. The Persian Gulf war of 1991 was a U.S.-led campaign to expel Saddam from oil-rich Kuwait, which had been invaded and taken over by his army. In a lopsided victory, the U.N. forces were able to defeat Saddam within a couple of months. Saddam was allowed to stay in power if he fulfilled a number of conditions, most notably, getting rid of all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Twelve years and 17 resolutions later, world opinion is near-unanimous that he hasn't gotten rid of his weapons or fulfilled the conditions of the cease fire. With Saddam's history of connections to terrorism and his history of brutality & defiance, the U.S. and much of the Western world considers him a threat to world peace. A U.N. resolution was unanimously passed a few months ago mandating full disarmament. Saddam still appears to be defying the order. The current disagreement involves essentially how Saddam should be disarmed--by force or by continued U.N. weapons inspections.

In a Nutshell
91

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Saddam's human rights record is among the worst in the world and in history. Saddam is a major threat to stability of the Middle East. Saddam is connected with terrorists and may supply them with weapons of mass destruction. It would send a forceful message to other dictators and would-be state sponsors of terrorism. A model democracy could be set up in the Arab world, possibly leading other Arab governments to follow suit. Oil prices could dramatically drop with a short, successful campaign. We can remove our troops from Saudi Arabia and much of the Arab world if he's gone. We would have Iran and Syria, perhaps the biggest terrorist sponsors, surrounded by U.S.friendly governments. Most Arab governments want Saddam gone; the public opinion backlash may not be as great as portrayed in the media. Saddam continues to fire on U.S. and British planes enforcing U.N. no-fly zones. Saddam refuses to return the booty he stole from Kuwait during the Gulf War or account for hundreds of prisoners. The cost in lives and dollars of containment is higher than that of war. The credibility of President Bush and the U.S. is at stake. Saddam deserves to be punished for the death & misery he's caused to the world. The credibility and relevancy of the U.N. is on the line. 1.

No
Many soldiers & innocent Iraqi civilians will be killed. 2. The financial cost of executing the war may be prohibitive. 3. Weapons of mass destruction could be launched at Israel or other allies. 4. Anti-American sentiment could grow in the world, creating new potential terrorist recruits. 5. Hard evidence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction still hasn't been found. 6. The post-Saddam Iraq situation could be unstable and destructive. 7. A pre-emptive attack is against what the U.S. stands for. 8. Saddam can be neutralized without the brutality of a war. 9. With the economic and domestic security problems we have, this is a bad time to go to war. 10. Saddam could torch oil fields, leading to even higher oil prices, world recession, and an environmental disaster. 11. Retaliatory strikes from Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorists could occur. 12. U.S.-friendly Arab governments could become unstable.

Yes
1. Saddam's human rights record is among the worst in the world and in history. Saddam runs a totalitarian regime similar to that of Josef Stalin (who incidentally he considers his idol). He regularly tortures and murders political dissidents and anyone he arbitrarily decides is a threat to his power. Iraqi defectors have detailed such abuses as rape, torturing children in front of their parents, electric shock, mutilation of body parts, burning with acid, and starvation. Allegations have been made that he watches videos of his enemies being tortured as a form of entertainment. He has even used chemical weapons to poison thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq. In wars, he has used "human shields" to protect his military (e.g. by placing weapons and soldiers in mosques, hospitals, and civilian residential areas). Saddam has tested his chemical & biological weapons on prisoners, including Kuwaitis captured in the Gulf War. Do we really want to trust someone with such a low regard for human life potentially with weapons of mass destruction? If you want to learn the true brutality and oppressiveness of a totalitarian regime, look no further than the former communist Eastern European bloc. People of these countries remember what it's like and not coincidentally are overwhelmingly in support of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

92

2.

Saddam is a major threat to stability of the Middle East. Saddam is driven by power and conquest. He has attacked Iran and Kuwait in the past in an effort to monopolize much of the world's oil supply. These wars have led to the deaths of at least 1.5 million Muslims. During the Persian Gulf War he launched numerous Scud weapons at Israel in an attempt to draw Israel into the war. Since the war, Saddam has repeatedly made threats of invading Kuwait and attacking others in the region. He is obsessed with the pan-Arab movement, which is a movement to unite the Arab world into one power to oppose Israel and the Western world. He sees himself as a great king in history destined to destroy Israel or make some other great impact. Frequent Arab-Israeli wars have occurred since Israel was reestablished by the British. The region always seems one step away from a large, destructive conflict. Saddam is just waiting for his chance to spark that conflict. Imagine how much worse it would be if Saddam had nuclear weapons to blackmail the West. He could one day invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia and threaten to launch if we retaliate. We're in a similar situation with North Korea right now, but our options are limited because of its nuclear deterrence. most international intelligence experts estimate Saddam will have nuclear weapons in 1-5 years. Wouldn't it be better to act before he does? Saddam is connected with terrorists and may supply them with weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has had a history of connections with terrorism although the way from Carlos the Jackal to Al Qaeda. He was tied to a foiled assassination attempt in Kuwait on the first President Bush. He publicly supplies $25,000 payments to the families of any Palestinian suicide bomber. His government has threatened a wave of suicide bombers being sent to the U.S. if we attack. And given this man's history, can we really doubt he would use terrorism anywhere, anytime. What's particularly troubling is the possibility that he may give nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons technology to terrorists. Terrorists such as Osama bin Laden wouldn't hesitate to use these weapons if they got them. And because the terrorists would be carrying out the attacks, Saddam could attack the U.S. without us having the ability to trace it back to him. Although there is scant evidence, many suspect Saddam of supplying intelligence or financing to those men who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Imagine the damage a clandestine attack using biological weapons could do. Weaponized Ebola or Smallpox could be spread person to person for days or weeks before we discovered the attacks. Millions could die. Many could also die in a nuclear "dirty bomb" attack. This is in addition to the damage to our economy. As we saw on 9/11, one set of small attacks can cause billions of dollars of damage and contribute to a recession. And since so much of the world economy is integrated with the U.S. economy, people all over the world would suffer the unemployment & poverty fallout. It would send a forceful message to other dictators and would-be state sponsors of terrorism. One of the most important factors in fighting terrorism is deterrence. People all over the world hate us and will continue to hate us because of our success and superpower status. Nothing is easily going to change that. But hate and terrorism aren't necessarily threatening to us without rich state sponsors to provide finance, intelligence, and basing. Taking out Saddam would send a message to countries like Syria, North Korea, and Iran--if you sponsor terrorism, we will be coming after you! History has shown that totalitarian governments do not respond to "good intentions"; they only respect force or the threat of force. Saddam hasn't even given the hint of compliance with U.N. resolutions without the backing of U.S. forces. A model democracy could be set up in the Arab world, possibly leading other Arab governments to follow suit. Virtually the entire Arab world is ruled by governments where power is concentrated in the hands of relatively few. Democracy and freedom of speech & religion are foreign concepts to them. Most of the press in the region is controlled by the government. Indeed, perhaps the biggest cause of anti-American sentiment in the region is a lack of understanding of the U.S. along with fair & balanced discussion of U.S. policies. By unseating Saddam, we have a chance to set up a model democracy with elections, 1st amendment freedoms, and a free market economy. We can show the Arab world how successful such a system can be, and perhaps it will inspire the citizens of other countries in the area to demand similar reforms. In may be a stretch, but this could be the beginning of democracy throughout the one part of the world that has resisted it the most. A common complaint when the U.S. talks about Saddam's human rights violations is that many of our supposed allies like Saudi Arabia have just as bad or worse of a record. But unfortunately, we don't really have the luxury of changing regimes wherever we want. World opinion is already against us now, and we're going against Saddam! Can you imagine the public opinion fallout if we went after Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? A model democracy and a subtle push for change in other countries is probably the best we can do for now.

3.

4.

5.

93

6.

Oil prices could dramatically drop with a short, successful campaign. Fundamental supply/demand rules of economics show that a short, successful campaign could lead to dramatically lower oil prices. U.N. sanctions and obsolete facilities have led to drastically low output of oil from Iraq. A new government with modernized equipment and free of sanctions would lead to a major increase in oil being pumped from Iraq. The U.S. would likely be first in line for most oil contracts because of the gratefulness of the Iraqi people. Lower oil prices would likely lead to lower unemployment, lower business costs, and another economic boom. We can remove our troops from Saudi Arabia and much of the Arab world if he's gone. Much of the Arab world, including Osama bin Laden, resents the continued presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, where the two Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina are located. Our continued troop presence in the region is mainly to protect from the threat of Saddam. Taking out Saddam would allow us to eventually remove our troops from Saudi Arabia and perhaps the whole region. Not only would that relieve some of the anti-American feelings, it would also allow us to deploy troops to other regional hot spots such as the Korean peninsula. We would have Iran and Syria, perhaps the biggest terrorist sponsors, surrounded by U.S.friendly governments. One of the most fanatical, fundamentalist governments in the world is found in the country of Iran. Many of us remember the storming of the U.S. embassy and the taking of hostages in the 70s. In the Iran-Iraq war, fanatical soldiers, hoping to gloriously die in jihad, were sent in human waves to sacrifice themselves. Humans soldiers were sacrificed without regard, sometimes being sent ahead to die exploding mines (so the tanks would have a clear path). The fear of the Iran threat prompted governments such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Britain, and the U.S. to actually provide arms and aid to Saddam, who was, believe it or not, the lesser of two evils! Nowadays Iran is still one of the world's leading sponsors of terrorism, including the sponsor of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Like Iraq, the human rights record of Iran is one of the worst in the world. By taking Iraq, Iran would be surrounded by two liberated, U.S.-friendly countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). From such a position, we could exhibit a large amount of pressure to stop their sponsorship of terror. A similar position could be made against neighboring Syria. Most Arab governments want Saddam gone; the public opinion backlash may not be as great as portrayed in the media. If you've been watching the news or reading the newspaper lately, you'll notice there's very few vocal protests coming from governments in the Arab world. Most of the public criticism for the war is coming from Europe. Saddam has completely lost credibility in the Arab world. His invasion of Iran, his use of chemical weapons on the Kurds, his scorched-earth policy in Kuwait, and the committing of other atrocities have turned public opinion against him. If so many Arabs didn't fear a U.S.-dominated Middle East more than a Saddam-dominated one, this would be a moot point. There have even been anti-Saddam protests in Iran (although these protests seem to be noticeably absent from the U.S. and Europe). About the harshest criticism you'll hear coming from Arab governments is that Saddam is a Muslim and therefore should be removed by Muslims. Of course, public opinion is what counts, and the governments don't necessarily reflect the attitude of the people. However, unlike the first Gulf War, Al Jazeera is around now to get the message out of Saddam's atrocities. Muslims will be saddened by the loss of innocent Iraqi life, but they sure won't shed a tear for the loss of Saddam's government.

7.

8.

9.

10. Saddam continues to fire on U.S. and British planes enforcing U.N. no-fly zones. After the Gulf War, areas of northern and southern Iraq were set up which prohibited any Iraqi military flights. These areas were set up to prevent Saddam from slaughtering the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south. Since then, Saddam has continually tried to shoot down Western planes enforcing the zones, even with the threat of war looming. In any other situation, this would be an obvious act of war. Most of the world, including Americans, have been dismissive, but one has to wonder if that attitude would change if Saddam actually shot down & killed an American. 11. Saddam refuses to return the booty he stole from Kuwait during the Gulf War or account for hundreds of prisoners. Saddam's army confiscated numerous treasures & wealth from the small nation of Kuwait during it's invasion 12 years ago. The cease-fire agreement demanded he return these items. Predictably, he has refused. Hundreds of Kuwaiti families have suffered not knowing what happened to their loved ones who were taken prisoner. Saddam refuses to acknowledge whether they're dead or alive. Allegations have been made that the prisoners were used to test his bio and chem weapons. What would be the reaction if hundred of American soldiers were in this situation?

94

12. The cost in lives and dollars of containment is higher than that of war. The sanctions imposed on Iraq due to Saddam's refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions has taken a heavy tolls on the economy and people of Iraq. Starvation and unemployment occur on a massive scale. Removing the sanctions would just give Saddam more money to spend on his palaces and weapons. Not only are the resources of Iraq being taxed, the U.S. military is also spending a tremendous amount of troops and money putting the pressure on Saddam. The cost of continuing these policies far outweigh going to war. 13. The credibility of President Bush and the U.S. is at stake. Bush has said "You are either with us, or you're with the terrorists" as part of a new policy some dub the "Bush Doctrine". The idea is to strike any nation that supports terrorism pre-emptively and discourage such actions in the future. We've spent most of the last year talking about forcing Saddam to disarm. If after all this talk and all this military buildup we decide to back down, no country will respect or fear us in the future. Osama called the U.S. a "paper tiger". Saddam himself has said that given enough time the U.S.-British coalition will surely fracture. It's obvious that monsters like these will never back down if we pull out now. 14. Saddam deserves to be punished for the death & misery he's caused to the world. As we've detailed in previous points, Saddam's atrocities are every bit as gruesome and brutal as Hitler or Stalin. Beyond just freeing the Iraqi people from such torture, we should punish Saddam for his actions. Justice would not be served if Saddam was able to stay in power or go into exile somewhere. 15. The credibility and relevancy of the U.N. is on the line. This is a critical moment in history for the U.N. Saddam has made a mockery of the entire U.N. process. In his mind, the 17 U.N. resolutions passed against him are nothing more than toilet paper. The U.N. is an important institution necessary to ensure peace and stability in the world. To continue to pass unenforced resolutions sends a message to all countries & terrorists that its word means nothing. Prior to World War II, the League of Nations (a precursor to the U.N.) faced a similar situation. Adolf Hitler was following a series of aggressive courses of action. The League of Nations could have stopped him early but instead chose to engage in endless debate and appeasement. The result -- over 50 million deaths and the near takeover of the world by Nazi rule. Saddam may or may not be that big of a threat, but wouldn't it be better to stop him before he has the means to match his hatred and thirst for power. We can ensure that U.N. resolutions have some teeth and that the organization doesn't evolve into what the League of Nations was -- a meaningless debating society.

No
1. Many soldiers & innocent Iraqi civilians will be killed. No war is ever totally predictable, and in this case, the number of lives lost could be catastrophic. Saddam is likely to use his chemical and biological weapons. In addition to the number of potential soldiers killed, many unprotected Iraqi civilians could fall victim to the attacks. Saddam has never shown any regard for the lives of his people; thus, he is likely to put weapons and soldiers in crowded civilian areas. Saddam also is likely to try to draw U.S. soldiers into dangerous street fighting. He knows we'll do everything in our power to avoid killing civilians, so he'll use that in every way to his advantage. Saddam may even deliberately kill thousands of his own people and blame the U.S. in an attempt to turn world opinion even more in his favor. No matter how you look at it, things don't look good for the average Iraqi citizen. You also have to consider the lives of Iraqi soldiers. Many of them have been forced into service and will be slaughtered if they put up a fight (and murdered for treason if they desert). The financial cost of executing the war may be prohibitive. Paying soldiers, dropping "smart" bombs, launching Patriot missiles, etc. costs an enormous amount of money. Unlike the first Gulf War when countries such as Saudi Arabia and Japan picked up much of the tab, the U.S. will bear the brunt of the cost. Estimates of cost have ranged from 30 billion to the 100s of billions. And that's just the execution of the war. You also have to add in the cost of occupying & re-building Iraq. Then you throw in all the money we have to dish out to countries like Turkey to ensure their support. This is money that could be spent beefing up homeland security, improving education, extending unemployment benefits, and more. With record deficits already projected, we have to consider if we really can afford this. Weapons of mass destruction could be launched at Israel or other allies. Saddam launched several conventional Scud missiles at Israel during the 1st Gulf War in an effort to draw Israel into the war and fracture a fragile coalition. He didn't load the Scuds with any chemical or biological weapons then, but

2.

3.

95

this time that may not be the case. Even in defeat it's possibly Saddam may want to go out with one final act for history by trying to kill much of the Israeli population. These weapons have the potential to misfire and hit citizens in Jordan or other neighboring countries. Biological weapons can spread person-to-person and perhaps engulf the whole region. Nations such as Kuwait and Turkey that are helping us could also be victims. In the last Gulf War, we convinced Israel to stay out of the war. This time, Israel has vowed retaliation. Israeli strikes could inflame Arab opinion and snowball to a larger Arab-Israeli fight. 4. Anti-American sentiment could grow in the world, creating new potential terrorist recruits. AntiAmericanism has been growing rapidly lately, as evidenced by the war protests and public opinion polls around the world. Any significant death & destruction in a war would likely be blamed on the United States. Hatred of the U.S. has already led to numerous terrorist attacks. Many Iraqi civilian casualties could lead to thousands of little Osamas being recruited around the world. The best way to end terrorism and ensure safety is to not make enemies. This war isn't going to help matters. Hard evidence of Saddams' weapons of mass destruction still hasn't been found. Any reasonable, informed person knows that Saddam has these weapons (or at least has the technical capacity to mass produce them at any time). Vast amounts of former U.N. inspector information, defector tips, and Saddam's own admissions attest to that. Few world leaders dispute the fact that he has the weapons. However, the populations of countries around the world remain unconvinced. The only way to change that is to find that evidence. Further inspections are the only way to do that. The post-Saddam Iraq situation could be unstable and destructive. You have an independent Kurdish minority in northern Iraq, the ruling Sunni minority in Baghdad, and the Shi'ites in the South. Iraqi exile groups agree that Saddam must go but haven't decided how to rule the post-Saddam Iraq. The Iraqi people have never known democracy. It's very risky to assume they'll be able to form a functioning, efficient democracy. There's always the potential for civil war, power struggles, and other problems. Many in the country will probably want retribution against anyone who remotely supported Saddam, which opens up the potential for more violence. All in all, the situation is extremely complicated and likely will take an expensive, long-term effort by the U.S. to straighten out. A pre-emptive attack is against what the U.S. stands for. In past wars, the U.S. has usually been able to claim the higher moral authority. We've attacked only after first being attacked by others. A new doctrine of preemption would give credibility to those that describe the U.S. as an aggressive, imperialistic nation. Granted, if you wait to be attacked by terrorists, you risk the lives of thousands or millions as well as great economic damage. However, this is a dangerous precedent when you're the most powerful nation in the world. Other nations such as India and China may use the doctrine of preemption to attack their enemies of Pakistan and Taiwan, respectively. A peaceful world can only be assured if sovereign nations never attack each other. Saddam can be neutralized without the brutality of a war. With constant threats of force and a large number of inspectors in Iraq, we can keep Saddam from expanding his weapons and power. We can eventually find most of the weapons if allowed enough time. The cost of keeping the forces in place are great, but probably are nowhere near the costs of going to war. With the economic and domestic security problems we have, this is a bad time to go to war. The stock market is close to it's lowest level in 5 years, unemployment is relatively high, and we will soon be generating record deficits. We also are on high alert for terrorist strikes from Al Qaeda. One has to ask if this really is the best time to go to war in Iraq, especially when Saddam doesn't seem to be an imminent threat to the U.S.?

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Saddam could torch oil fields, leading to even higher oil prices, world recession, and an environmental disaster. During his retreat in the Gulf War, Saddam's troops set fire to numerous Kuwaiti oil fields. There is every indication that Saddam will do the same thing to Iraqi oil fields this time. The Kuwaiti scorched earth policy led to large economic losses and fires that raged for years. The environmental damage from the fires is still being calculated. Now, Saddam may be setting fire to even larger deposits of oil. This time we're better prepared to handle the fires, but the price of oil could skyrocket. As we saw in the 70s and early 90s, high oil prices can contribute significantly to world recession.

96

11. Retaliatory strikes from Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorists could occur. It's very doubtful that Al Qaeda would refrain from attacking us again if we didn't go to war to Iraq, but this may give them a reason to immediately attack. The bigger problem is organizations like Hamas that have only attacked Israel in the past. Hamas has already threatened to unleash suicide squads against the U.S. if we attack Iraq, and they usually follow through on their threats. Aside from the loss of human life and economic damage caused by such attacks, a Hamas attack and U.S. retaliation could lead to a large cycle of violence similar to the one going on between Israel and the Palestinian terrorists, which would do nothing to help an already anti-American Middle East. 12. U.S.-friendly Arab governments could become unstable. Governments such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are all friendly to the U.S. and considered "allies". Unfortunately, the sentiment of the citizens is very different. Fundamentalists in all the countries want to take over the government and impose Taliban-style Islamic regimes. Support from allies or simply their silence could anger the people even further, especially if the war doesn't go as planned and tens of thousands of Iraqis die. That anger could lead to an overthrow of a U.S. friendly government, possibly creating another terrorist state. If this seems far-fetched, look no further than the country of Iran and it's Islamic revolution in the 70s. Do we want another regime like that to deal with?

33. Missile Defense The Cold War, which produced tens of thousands of nuclear weapons capable of blowing up the Earth several times over, ended in the early 1990s. Prior to the end of that war, President Reagan started work on the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a research program designed to construct an anti-nuclear defense system. Some of the system would be space-based; it would be designed to lock onto a target and destroy it before it hit the ground. By admission of former Russian President Gorbachev, the fear of American technology advances and the exorbitant cost of trying to match Reagan's defense spending both led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. The highly controversial project was discontinued by President Clinton while he was in office, but President Bush revived the program. President Obama and most Democrats would like to end the program. With the Cold War over, the controversy has grown. In an age of terrorism, do the security benefits justify the massive cost, which will likely reach into the hundreds of billions?

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. It may eventually protect us one day from a nuclear attack by a rogue or terrorist nation such as North Korea or Iran. Similar weapons systems (such as the Patriot Missile Defense used in Gulf War II) can be advanced from the technology improvements. It can defend us against missile delivery of chemical or biological weapons. The psychological impact on enemies is more powerful than the defense system itself. Military and scientific jobs are created from the project. Funds spent on the project are pumped into the economy. Military technological advances and research often lead to valuable civilian advances (e.g. the Internet). 1. 2. 3.

No
The system has little chance of success against a massive scale attack or against a terrorist strike. The towering costs for a system that may never be used would be better spent on fighting poverty, improving education, etc. Spending large amounts of money on these types of projects leads to unwinnable, useless arms races.

97

8.

The missile defense system may discourage terrorist nations from even trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Yes
1. It may eventually protect us one day from a nuclear attack by a rogue or terrorist nation such as North Korea or Iran. The threat of a full-scale retaliatory response kept the U.S. and Soviets out of nuclear war for decades; however, we live in a new era of terrorism. Deterrence is no longer an effective strategy. We're dealing with a new level of hate and fanaticism that seeks more to destroy than gain power. Does anyone doubt that Osama bin Laden would have launched a nuclear weapon if he had it, even if we threatened to retaliate in kind? North Korea, a communist nation desperately on the brink of starvation, already has a couple of nukes. Iran, ran by fanatical anti-American clerics and a president who has promised that Israel will be "wiped off the map", is actively developing nuclear weapons. Who knows what other groups or countries are out there developing these weapons? Also, with such as massive stockpile of Russian missiles out there, it's always possible that one of those missiles will fall into the wrong hands. Similar weapons systems (such as the Patriot Missile Defense used in Gulf War II) can be advanced from the technology improvements. The SDI project isn't just building a nuclear missile defense, it's building knowledge and technology. Much of that technology was used to develop the Patriot defense system. These systems performed to near perfection in defending Kuwait from Scud missiles launched by Saddam in Gulf War II. The U.S. military is far superior to the military of every other country in the world largely because of our technology. We should always do everything we can to maintain that advantage. It can defend us against missile delivery of chemical or biological weapons. Saddam Hussein held several missiles capable of delivering chemical weapons. Other nations and terrorist groups could also get their hands on these type of weapons. The SDI technology would provide yet another protection besides that against nuclear weapons. The psychological impact on enemies is more powerful than the defense system itself. As pointed out by former Soviet leader Gorbachev, the SDI project was part of what brought down the Soviet Union. The U.S. military has recently rolled over Saddam and the Taliban in record time. Much of the world is in fear of U.S. technology. Think about it from the viewpoint of a rogue country like North Korea. They know the U.S. already has the power to wipe their country off the face of the Earth in a matter of minutes. The U.S. then develops a missile defense shield that can effectively take out the North Korean nuclear deterrent. Even if the system really can't fulfill all the hype, the possibility is enough to force these rogue countries to the negotiating table. Military and scientific jobs are created from the project. The economy can always use a jolt when it comes to jobs. A massive project like this requires the services of a large number of personnel. Funds spent on the project are pumped into the economy. Yes, this project costs an enormous amount of money; however, it isn't if all that money vanishes into thin air. Although much of the money is lost in testing the defense, most government spending goes to workers and contractors, who can then in turn spend the money on other things in the economy. Military technological advances and research often lead to valuable civilian advances (e.g. the Internet). The focus of military research is always on fighting wars and defending the nation. However, the technology developed inevitably leads to unexpected civilian advances. The Internet was started as an American military project designed to provide a backup means of communications in the event of a nuclear war. Obviously, it developed into much more than that. The military is often the only organization with the funding and motivation to pursue ambitious research goals. Who knows what other uses will come from the SDI project?

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

98

8.

The missile defense system may discourage terrorist nations from even trying to develop nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was created to stop the spread of such weapons. Unfortunately, as demonstrated in the case of North Korea, it's impossible to get every nation to abide by the treaty. However, the development of a nuclear missile defense may just stop the spread of the weapons. Nukes take years of development and testing along with massive amounts of funds. If the U.S. has a system to effectively neutralize the weapons, what is the point of developing them in the first place?

No
1. The system has little chance of success against a massive scale attack or against a terrorist strike. A missile strike from Castro's Cuba would take 5 minutes to reach Washington. If a terrorist hit us with a nuclear device, it would likely be from inside the country, rendering a missile defense useless. Any massive level strike from Russia, China, or North Korea sometime in the future could unleash hundreds or thousands of missiles. Is it realistic to think a missile defense could protect us in any of these situations? Even if we managed to shoot down all the missiles, we'd still have to deal with the radiation and other fallout problems. We can simulate many situations and test for various scenarios, but the only way to truly test the effectiveness is in a war. What happens if things go wrong once we're forced to use them for real? The towering costs for a system that may never be used would be better spent on fighting poverty, improving education, etc. The cost of this project may one day reach a trillion dollars. Is it really worth spending this much money on a system that has such a limited chance for success? Money is a finite resource. If we spend it on missile defense, we have to take it away from other things we could spend it on; for example, education, homeless shelters, food programs, AIDS initiatives, health insurance, small business investment, tax cuts, etc. Spending large amounts of money on these types of projects leads to unwinnable, useless arms races. The nuclear arms race led both the U.S. and Soviet Union to keep building more and more nuclear weapons, even after both countries had accumulated enough to wipe the other country off the map. When you have that much destructive power, what's the point of continuing? The SDI and other weapons projects leads countries to get into useless competitions. We don't need another arms race.

2.

3.

34. War with North Korea

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. North Korea likely has nuclear weapons and 1.

No
World opinion would grow even more anti-

99

has repeatedly threatened to use them. They are spreading weapons around the world recklessly; e.g. the missile sale to Yemen. 3. They could give nuclear or other WMD to terrorists. 4. North Korean civilians are starving and oppressed, with little hope for a better life. 5. It would be inconsistent to not attack North Korea after the Iraq War, giving more substance to the Blood-for-Oil argument. 6. It would act as a further deterrent to other would-be dictators and terrorist sponsors. 7. Kim Jong Il has created many atrocities, such as the kidnapping of Japanese citizens. 8. North Korea's desperate financial situation may leave it no other choice but to sell nuclear technology. 9. Kim Jong Il has repeatedly provoked us (e.g. entering DMZ, locking on to a recon plane, breaking treaties, etc.) 10. It's better to strike now with nuclear capacity at a minimum than to wait for them to build 100s or 1000s of nukes. 11. No peace agreement can ever be trusted after they wouldn't even live up to the one-sided oil-for-ending-nuclear-program Clinton deal. 12. It would back China into a corner as the only significant remaining communist power. 2.

2. 3. 4. 5.

American. A great number of U.S. soldiers and Korean civilians would likely die. There are plenty of diplomatic routes left to try. A nuclear catastrophe, possibly on our own soil, could occur. Unlike Saddam, the current regime of North Korea has never attacked anyone with a WMD; thus, nuclear ambitions are likely for deterrence only.

35. War Protesters-Un-American? The war on Iraq has spurred millions around the world to protest. A vocal segment of Americans also joined in on the protests. However, the techniques and messages coming from the protesters have come under almost as much criticism as the war itself. Protesters have been accused, among other things, of being anti-American.

Yes
1. Many of the protests have been organized by openly communist, socialist, and other anticapitalist groups. Mass war protests on the scale we saw before the Iraq War just don't spontaneously erupt. They all have to have an organizer--someone to get the word out on the Internet, set a time, mobilize interests groups, find people to give speeches, create signs, and so on. Protests are made up of a diverse group of people; some are patriotic Americans, some are not. But if you look behind the scenes to find out the groups who organize the protests, they almost always are groups that are openly anti-American or have some other related cause to promote. Some of the groups that organized protests during the Iraq War buildup include Stalinists, Trotskyites, Socialist Worker parties, Nation of Islam members, anti-Semitic groups, 'Bush-didn't-win-Florida' zealots, anti-capital-punishment militants, and so on. Even when these groups aren't the organizers, they still often set up information desks during the demonstrations. This is not to say that all protesters fall into these categories, but it is clear that a significant portion of the crowds were using the protests to object to capitalism and the American way of life, not the war in Iraq. Most protesters are uninformed about the issues they're protesting. As was discussed in the War on Iraq issue page, the decision to go to war was an extremely complicated one. There was no easy answer, and there are always many reasons not to go to war. However, how many of the protesters

2.

100

were really informed on the issues? How many knew the history of Saddam and Iraq? How many knew about biological and chemical weapons, or what the daily life of an Iraqi was like? Even those that were somewhat informed usually only knew the points on one side of the issue, and if you brought up a point on the other side of the issue, they would normally justify, divert, or explain some paranoid conspiracy. If a person has made a solid analysis of both sides of the issue and still disagrees with the government, they should protest. However, I'm betting if you gave all protesters a remedial test of the facts surrounding the issues (or a remedial test of world history), only a very small minority would be able to pass. 3. The participants are often taking part in the protests because it's fashionable or trendy rather than because they really believe in what they're protesting. Just like during the Vietnam war, protesting has become the "cool" thing to do for a lot of people. You'll notice that much of the protester makeup was actors/actresses as well as college students, many of whom were just seeking social approval or publicity. It's an unwritten rule in Hollywood that you have to be liberal in your political views if you want to work in that town. When an actor maybe be blacklisted for taking a conservative stance and when all his or her acting buddies are ultra-liberal, it follows then that he or she is going to speak out against the war. Compare these protests to those during the Vietnam war. It's debatable how many of the protesters were sincere. Pop culture revolved around the war protests. Numerous anti-war songs, TV shows, Vietnam movies, etc. kept the anti-war movement popular. Nowadays, you can throw in the Internet as another method of promoting trendy or fashionable things. Protesting in this country is a right, but when it turns into a social event, we have a problem. Protesters send a message of weakness and indecisiveness to foreigners, thereby thwarting our causes. It's ironic that the existence of the peace movement in effect forced us to war. When you have American leaders saying one thing and media-glorified protesters saying another, it sends a message to all foreign governments that we're weak and indecisive. Osama bin Laden attacked us (among other reasons) because he perceived us as a "paper tiger" that couldn't stomach casualties and would always back down easily. It's became the same thing with Saddam Hussein. Our only chance of getting Saddam to back down would have been to send a clear message that this country was united and the international community was united. Obviously, that didn't happen, so Saddam chose to play games. Although he had no chance to win militarily, he went ahead with war because he felt he could inflict enough casualties to further split the international community and to get America to back down. The current terrorists in Iraq are trying to do the same thing. Many of the signs and chants attack Bush & America rather than the issues. As mentioned previously, most protesters are uninformed on the issues surrounding the war. However, even if they did understand, many protesters use the protests to bash President Bush and America rather than the war effort. Just take a sampling of signs at any protest to see the truth, "Bush is Hitler", "Stop American Imperialism", "No Blood for Oil", "Bush Stole the Presidency", "Bush is a Terrorist", "Stop Bush and Enron from Destroying the World". Do any of these signs reflect the good reasons for not going to war detailed on the War on Iraq issue page? The Bush administration may turn out to be completely wrong on it's war policy, but are any of these signs based in reality? One of the most wellknown protestors is Cindy Sheehan, a mother of a soldier killed in the Iraq War. Rather than focus her wrath on the terrorists who killed her son, she has chosen to focus her campaign on Bush and America. She has met & praised Communist thug Hugo Chavez, called Bush the "biggest terrorist in the world", and said "America is not worth fighting for" while repeatedly comparing the Bush administration to the Nazi regime. I guarantee you that if you visit any anti-Iraq War protest, you'll hear and see a similar round of attacks. The protests send a negative message to soldiers risking their lives every day. Young men and women are risking their lives daily to protect their country and the freedom of the people. They are subjecting themselves to artillery, street gunfire terror, roadside bombs, and mines. Many will come back dead or wounded, and even if they don't agree with the war, they still have to follow orders to do their duty. The protests send a message to soldiers that the country doesn't support them and what they're doing is wrong. Whether or not that is truly the case, that's the message being sent. In fact, these brave men and women put their lives on line just so people have the freedoms to do things like protest. It's disgusting that we can't stand behind our soldiers at a time like this! The vocalness of the protests mislead the world as to the true level of opposition; pro-war advocates rarely protest. Polls showed varying support for the Iraq War ranging from 45-72 percent

4.

5.

6.

7.

101

of Americans during the buildup. However, the protests got a lot more media attention than any polls. This misled the country and the world into thinking the level of dissent in the U.S. was a lot higher than it was. Pro-war advocates are rarely going to march, and even when they do, the media usually glances over them without making much of a fuss. Counts of war protesters also come from fantasy land. We hear stories of 500,000 here or a million protesters there. How are they counting these numbers? The media will usually take the word of the organizers as to the turnout without questioning or checking up on the figures. The San Francisco Chronicle and others that do independent counts using aerial shots usually demonstrate that peace advocates will take the actual number of people and double or triple it. But let's assume that these counts are correct (a wild assumption). Even then, the counts represent less than 1 percent of the population. Does 1 percent of the population truly represent the thinking of the mainstream public? 8. Protesters rarely show up to protest Saddam, Kim Jong El, or other atrocious governments. Noticeably missing in the signs of protesters were signs speaking out against Saddam. Wouldn't it be as appropriate, if not more so, to say "Stop Saddam's Atrocities", "Saddam Must Comply with U.N. Resolutions", "Stop the Proliferation of WMD", "Rescue the Iraqi People from Saddam", and so on. The United States have not always been the most moral nation throughout our history, but our weaknesses and mistakes don't even begin to compare to those of regimes like those of Iraq and North Korea. Human rights records of countries throughout the Communist and Arab worlds are atrocious (how soon we forget what women went through under the Taliban). We should be protesting and correcting these problems before we start criticizing America.

No
1. Freedom of expression is the very definition of America. It seems self-evident that freedom of speech and assembly is a core value in America. It's spelled out after all in the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Throughout our history, protests have been a way to get the folks in Washington to listen to the people. Protests have taken place during the Vietnam war, at abortion clinics, during unpopular court cases, and more. Let's not forget the Million Man march and other historic events. In fact, the country itself was founded because colonists were unhappy with the tyranny of a government 3,000 miles away. To say protesters are un-American is ridiculous. There is nothing more American then speaking your mind when you disagree with the government. Protests could keep the U.S. from making big mistakes and save the lives of American soldiers. War protests contributed in large part to the ending of the Vietnam War, a conflict that ended the lives of over 50,000 Americans and over a million Vietnamese. This is just one example of how protesters can keep the government from making a big mistake. The future is always uncertain. The war in Iraq carries enormous risks with it. Just maybe the protesters will turn out to be absolutely correct. And even if the protesters are wrong and the majority of the population supports the president, the next event in history that causes protests may be different. You should never discourage protests because no one can predict the future. Protests show foreigners that the people don't always support the government, leading to hatred of American policy rather than hatred of the American people. We regularly see on the news the burning of American flags and chants of "Death to America" by radicals around the world. AntiAmericanism has been around for a long time. However, by protesting war, we show the international community that the people don't always agree with their government. This is often reflected in the attitudes of citizens around the world. More and more, you will hear "I have nothing against the American people, but I hate the policies of the U.S. government." This is a much more benign attitude than the "death to all Americans" attitude that could be more prevalent. Protests are a way to ensure the voices of the people are heard by the government. We vote for senators every 6 years, representatives every 2 years, and presidents every 4 years. Obviously, voting is the best way to make your voice heard. However, there isn't an effective way for the people to communicate their dissatisfaction in between elections. If we call, e-mail, or write letters to our leaders, the messages are likely to be buried among thousands of others. Impeachments or recalls are almost always impractical. And it's not like we can personally approach and discuss our views with politicians. Protests are perhaps the only way to effectively express dissent and actually be heard. For this reason, protests should never be discouraged.

2.

3.

4.

102

36. Dividend Tax Cut When corporations earn an annual profit, they must pay a corporate tax to the government. However, when the remaining corporate profit is distributed to the individual shareholders, it is once again taxed. Thus, you have in effect a "double taxation" of the same income. President Bush was able to drastically reduce the rate of taxation on dividends. However, his dividend tax cut is only temporary and some say it should be eliminated altogether.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. It would lead to more responsibility in the accounting and administration of corporations. Retirees and others living on fixed incomes would have more take-home pay. It would stimulate more investment in the stock market, along with great business investment spending. More money in the hands of consumers means more money can be spent to get the economy going. It makes the expansion of small businesses easier. Consumers & private investors know how to handle money better than the government. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

No
Most of the tax savings will be going to the wealthy. It discourages the investment of stocks in retirement accounts. Companies may slow down capital spending so they can pay out more dividends. Cutting taxes would be risky since we need the money for homeland security, education, and other priorities. There are ways to cut taxes that are more immediately stimulative to the economy. It would raise the interest cost of borrowing for state & local governments.

Yes
1. It would lead to more responsibility in the accounting and administration of corporations. We have been hit with a barrage of corporate scandals in the recent past--Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, and so on. Billions of investor dollars have been lost, and confidence in the corporate world is very low, which contributed heavily to the last recession. We are finding out more and more how easy it is for corporations to dupe investors by manipulating accounting numbers to give the appearance of greater profits and wealth. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, is a complicated system that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Stock investors make money in two ways--one, through gains on the sale of the stock, and two, dividend income. Most tech companies and those hit by scandal have focused on putting up good accounting numbers so the price of stock would go up; they have focused less on paying dividends. In fact, most tech companies don't pay dividends at all. By cutting the individual tax on dividends, this focus on stock price would start to change. Investors would demand more of the profits be paid out in cash dividends. Since managers would have to ensure a steady supply of cash, they would have to put more effort in generating cash, which all for-profit businesses should be doing. Also, it's much more difficult to hide and manipulate cash flow. Thus, businesses would start to emphasize tangible cash flow results rather than meaningless paper income and balance sheet numbers. Retirees and others living on fixed incomes would have more take-home pay. Over 50 percent of seniors in this country currently receive some form of dividend income. Cutting the individual dividend tax would increase their disposable income and supplement a social security system which pays out poverty-level amounts. It would stimulate more investment in the stock market, along with great business investment spending. Americans have a lot of money to invest; much of this money is in investments such as bonds, savings accounts, CDs, T-bills, and money market accounts. However, most of these safer

2.

3.

103

investments offer low returns and are taxed. By removing the dividend tax, investors would start moving that money into stocks (since the risk-return ratio would be reduced significantly). First of all, this infusion of capital would give corporations funds that could be used for investment and expansion, leading to more economic growth and jobs. Second of all, the movement of money into the stock market would cause 401(k) and other portfolio balances to increase substantially. You could argue that the last economic slowdown was one of confidence. Individuals are less willing to spend and invest when their savings are so perilously low. If people see their retirement account balances recovering, they are more likely to go out and buy a car, take a trip, start a new business, etc. Why do you think "Consumer Confidence" numbers are so often quoted in the financial press? And with the stock market indices returning to higher levels, businesses won't be so squeamish about investing and expanding. 4. More money in the hands of consumers means more money can be spent to get the economy going. Whenever you have a tax cut, the money doesn't suddenly disappear into thin air. The money simply goes to someone else; in this case, it would be the individual taxpayer. We are a consumerspending driven economy. When individuals have more take home pay, they have more money to spend on computers, home improvements, cars, etc. This is just what we need to put more steam into the economy. It makes the expansion of small businesses easier. Businesses much choose a form of legal ownership for their operation. Among the many choices are partnerships, limited liability companies, and corporations. Each form of ownership has its advantages and disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage of a corporation is the double taxation of income. Many businesses will delay or avoid altogether the forming of a corporation for this specific reason. Unfortunately, the best way to raise funds for expansion and investment is through the sale of corporate stock shares. Whereas it may be next to impossible to find two investors to invest $500,0000 each, it may be easy to find 10,000 investors to invest $100 each. Cutting the double taxation of dividends would therefore eliminate the main disadvantage of the corporate form of ownership. Big businesses often get a bad rap in this country, but let's not forget that big corporations are able to use the economics of scale to achieve greater efficiency; they provide a number of valuable goods and services; and they are the main source of jobs. For example, Wal-Mart alone employs hundreds of thousands of workers around the world. Eliminating the double taxation would remove this obstacle to growth. Consumers & private investors know how to handle money better than the government. Can you think of one single government service that's provided efficiently? The DMV? The Social Security Administration? Virtually everyone has a horror story of dealing with government waste and bureaucracy. Over 73 cents of every dollar set aside for welfare goes for administrative costs. Only in America can the government buy a hammer for the bargain price of $800. Entire books have been written on government waste. Who do you think would do a better job of getting value for their dollars-individuals or the government? Who do you think should decide where the money is spent-individuals or the government? The fact is that almost any tax cut is good for America. Remember, the money is not disappearing into thin air; it's simply being put in the hands of someone else--the people who have earned it.

5.

6.

No
1. Most of the tax savings will be going to the wealthy. With much of America struggling, personal debt growing, and savings accounts dwindling, we have to question whether we want to cut taxes for the people that have the fewest financial problems. In order to receive any significant dividend income, you have to have a lot of money already invested in stock. People working minimum wage jobs and living paycheck to paycheck aren't going to have much money invested in stock (if any). This tax cut will in effect mostly benefit those that don't need the money. It discourages the investment of stocks in retirement accounts. Most of the stock wealth in this country is concentrated in 401(k), IRA, and other retirement accounts. Dividend income is already taxfree in these accounts. Thus, the dividend tax change would only affect investors who held stock outside of retirement accounts. In fact, it will likely create an incentive to shift retirement fund allocations from stocks to bonds (because of the risk-return ratio). Therefore, the net increase in stock market indices will probably be negligible. It may also prompt many investors to put less money into the retirement accounts in the first place. Think about it--if you can receive tax-free dividend income in

2.

104

non-retirement stocks where you have total control over your money, why would you put the dollars into a retirement account that is locked in until your 60s? Some people might want the discipline of not being able to touch the money until they retire, but others who want the flexibility to access the money before then will opt for investing in non-retirement accounts. With a social security system on course for bankruptcy within 25 years, do we really want to remove another incentive for retirement savings? 3. Companies may slow down capital spending so they can pay out more dividends. The current double taxation of dividends creates an incentive for corporations to retain their earning. That retained earnings is used to finance investment and expansion, leading to jobs and efficiency growth. Eliminating the individual tax on dividends will motivate investors to demand more cash dividends. Removing the cash from the hands of corporations means there could be a slow down in capital spending, or possibly a greater reliance on debt financing. Neither option is appealing. Cutting taxes would be risky since we need the money for homeland security, education, and other priorities. We're at a critical point in our history. War, terrorism, crime, failing educational institutions, and other problems demand our constant attention. We have to ask, is this really the best time to be cutting taxes? We are already projected to have record deficits in the coming years (in real dollar amounts rather than as a percentage of GNP). Cutting taxes will likely increase those deficits. Ronald Reagan massively cut taxes in the 80s. Although revenues eventually doubled due to the economic expansion, there's no guarantee the same thing will happen this time around; and even if government revenues do go up, it will likely take some time for that to happen. In the meantime, deficits will continue to grow, which could lead to higher inflation and interest rates. Right now, there are so many areas where we need to spend money. Homeland security is the most obvious. Cutting the dividend tax is an unprecedented experiment, and a risky one at that. There are ways to cut taxes that are more immediately stimulative to the economy. As discussed previously, the dividend tax cut is risky, and it may or may not stimulate the economy. There are better, less risky alternatives that provide immediate benefits. One is to allow an accelerated tax write-off of depreciation. Depreciation tax deductions result from the year-by-year write-off of the cost of capital investments like machines, buildings, and computers. Accelerating these write-offs would create incentives for business to start investing immediately, and the tax paid in would be the same (although the tax revenue would come in at a later time). Other tax cut alternatives include widening the 10 percent bracket or cutting social security taxes. Any extra money in the hands of lower income individuals is likely to be spent immediately in its entirety. Thus, the increased consumer spending leads to economic expansion, without the risk of a dividend tax cut. It would raise the interest cost of borrowing for state & local governments. State and local governments around the country are in a major cash crisis, most notably in the states of California and New York. There is no sign of this crisis going away any time soon. An advantage these governments have in borrowing money however is that their bonds are usually tax-free. This tax-free status prompts many Americans in higher tax brackets to buy the bonds. However, if dividends are made tax-free, individuals will start to shift money from these municipal bonds to stocks. With less demand in the bonds, the interest rates will go up, thereby adding to the cash problems of the governments.

4.

5.

6.

37. Iraq Troop Withdrawal American troops have been in Iraq for several years now. Although the defeat of Saddam and the Iraq military was relatively easy, the stabilization of the country in the aftermath has been anything but easy. Thousands of American troops have died, and Iraqi civilians continue to get caught in terrorist and cross-cultural attacks on a daily

105

basis. The U.S. continues to progress in its attempt to help the Iraqis become politically and militarily self-sufficient, but most Democrats and much of the American public has lost patience for what they perceive as a never-ending task that offers costs too high to bear. So the questions remains, does the U.S. cut its losses and withdraw now, or should it stay and try to complete an extremely difficult task which may take years or decades?

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. It would save the lives of many American troops and allow them to return home. 2. It may motivate terrorist insurgents to stop attacking innocent civilians in Iraq. 3. It will free up billions of dollars in funds that can be used for education, social security, renewable energy research, etc. 4. It will push Iraqi lawmakers to come to more agreements in running the new democracy. 5. World opinion of the United States will continue to get worse until we withdraw. 6. Much of the Muslim world resents the presence of American troops, and it is an easy source of terrorist recruitment. 7. Troops can be redeployed to Afghanistan and other areas where they're needed. 8. Iraq is no longer the direct threat to the U.S. that it was under Saddam, and we have no business fighting in its civil war. 9. We can help the new Iraqi government without providing troops; for example, we can provide arms, money, and training. 10. More troops in Iraq means we have less available in the U.S. to help out in natural disasters and domestic threats to security. 11. We need to turn our attention to Iran, North Korea, and other threats to world peace. 1. 2.

No
A true Sunni-Shiite civil war could ensue, resulting in ten times the current bloodshed. The longer we stay, the more time Iraqi politicians have to work out government structure differences, and the more time Iraqi troops & police have to train. We may have to re-invade if we don't stabilize the country since it could become a terrorist haven or could bring to power another Saddam. The bloodshed currently confined to Iraq could spread to neighboring countries, resulting in not just an Iraqi civil war, but a Sunni-Shiite regional civil war. It gives the U.S. military a chance to hunt down and kill terrorists. It would give Al Qaeda a symbolic victory and become the basis of future recruiting propaganda. It would invite similar terrorist/guerilla tactics in future wars since the tactics resulted in a victory that a conventional military couldn't achieve over the U.S. military. As long as we stay, Iran (the leading terroristsponsor state) will face the pressure of being surrounded by American troops, and Iraq will provide another launching base if we're forced to invade. It's giving American troops valuable guerillawar training that may be useful if the U.S. must engage terrorists in other hot spots around the world. If we withdraw, the terrorists currently fighting American troops will likely be dispersed to civilian Western targets. Iraqis who have supported and helped Americans could face death or torture. American troops remain in the heart of the terrorist breeding ground, the Middle East, and can thus be easily deployed to Syria, Iran, etc. if the need arises. Iraqi civilians may fear retribution once American troops leave and will therefore be unwilling to help us further in our battle against terrorist insurgents. Oil prices could skyrocket if Iraq becomes more unstable, leading to $5/gallon gas prices

3.

4.

5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

10. 11. 12.

13.

14.

106

and a major recession of the world economy.

Yes
1. It would save the lives of many American troops and allow them to return home. Thousands of America's bravest have already been killed, with tens of thousands more wounded. Those tragic figures will only continue to grow the longer we stay in Iraq. And the troops that haven't become casualties grow weary and long to return to their families back home. It may motivate terrorist insurgents to stop attacking innocent civilians in Iraq. Although terrorist insurgents are constantly trying their best to kill American soldiers, they have discovered that it's much easier to kill innocent, unarmed civilians. Terrorist insurgents can only win if the American public grows war-weary enough to push lawmakers to retreat from Iraq. Thus, it's critical for them to keep negative news about attacks & death in the top stories of Western media outlets on a daily basis. If American troops withdraw, it takes away the terrorists' ability to continue to manipulate gullible media people. Thus, Iraqi civilians will stop suffering at such a high rate. It will free up billions of dollars in funds that can be used for education, social security, renewable energy research, etc. Hundreds of billions of our tax dollars have already been spent on this war, and the pace of spending is not likely to slow down. If lawmakers cut funding or make it conditional, it will likely be seen by the American public as not supporting the troops. Imagine what we could do with all that extra money. We could shore up education and infrastructure, ensuring high future productivity and job opportunities. We could shore up a social security system heading for bankruptcy. We could develop renewable energy sources, possibly alleviating our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. It will push Iraqi lawmakers to come to more agreements in running the new democracy. Much of Iraqi is still bitterly divided. Sunnis used to rule the country under Saddam. Now the Shiite majority has taken the bulk of power in the new democratic government. However, until government officials can learn to share certain powers and come to more agreements, a de facto civil war will continue. If American troops leave, it will push lawmakers to the negotiating table since the soldiers won't be around to suppress insurgencies. In other words, Iraqi officials will be forced to use more of a carrot approach than a stick approach. World opinion of the United States will continue to get worse until we withdraw. Poll after poll shows that world opinion of the United States has degraded. Although we cannot take back our decision to launch what many thought of as an illegal preemptive war, we can at least try to make the best of things from this point on. The United States is starting to be seen as an occupying power in the same way that Israel is seen as an occupying power of Palestine. It's time to reverse the plummeting tide of world opinion. Much of the Muslim world resents the presence of American troops, and it is an easy source of terrorist recruitment and anti-American propaganda. The lifeblood of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is propaganda. To ensure successful continuance of their war, they must replenish their losses with a steady stream of new recruits. They also must be able to manipulate the press and weak politicians. In short, they must make themselves look like "freedom fighters". As long as American troops are in Iraq, all they have to do is put together videos showing soldiers in Muslim lands, as well as videos of Iraqi civilians suffering in hospitals. It won't matter to Al Jazeera & other biased media "reporters" that almost all civilian deaths in Iraq are a result of the terrorist insurgent actions, the Americans will still get blamed. And a new generation of terrorists and America haters will continue to grow. Troops can be redeployed to Afghanistan and other areas where they're needed. The whole reason we started this War on Terror was to take out Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Much of the war remains unfinished in the place it started--Afghanistan. Any soldiers and resources that continue to be spent in Iraq will only take away what could be used there.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

107

8.

Iraq is no longer the direct threat to the U.S. that it was under Saddam, and we have no business fighting in its civil war. The main reason we went to war in Iraq in the first place was to take out the threat from Saddam and his WMD. Saddam was captured and executed a long time ago. His WMD programs are no longer a threat to us or anyone in the Middle East. We've done our best to help Iraq form a democracy, but the hate and bad blood between the citizens is too deep for us to do anything more. The bloodshed is something the Iraqis must work out on their own. We can help the new Iraqi government without providing troops; for example, we can provide arms, money, and training. Just because we'd be withdrawing troops doesn't mean we're completely abandoning the Iraqis. We can still provide weapons, money, and whatever help is needed short of troop deployment. We can still train Iraqi police and soldiers, just at locations outside the country. Several other countries would probably be more willing to help since the U.S. is no longer an "occupying force", as it's in almost everyone's best interests to secure stability in the region.

9.

10. More troops in Iraq means we have less available in the U.S. to help out in natural disasters and domestic threats to security. You never know when Katrina-type natural disasters are going to hit the country. In such situations, we need as much government resources available to help as possible. Also, you never know when the next terrorist attack is going to occur in this country. It's in our best interests to have National Guard available to respond to whatever emergencies occur. 11. We need to turn our attention to Iran, North Korea, and other threats to world peace. North Korea is already a nuclear power. Iran is close to become a nuclear power. Russia is murdering dissenters of its government in old Soviet-style killings. China has increased its military spending by 18 percent. Hugo Chavez remains a thorn in America's side. We have too many other threats to world peace to put all our defense eggs in the Iraq basket.

No
1. A true Sunni-Shiite civil war could ensue, resulting in ten times the current bloodshed. Although there is daily bloodshed in Iraq, American troops largely keep it at a fraction of what it could be. They provide security checkpoints, enforce curfews, train Iraqi police, raid terrorist insurgent strongholds, and do countless other tasks to help maintain security. In fact, the vast majority of the country is stable. The trouble remains almost entirely focused in the Sunni-dominated Baghdad area. In any case, if we pull out now, a new and relatively inexperienced Iraqi police force must take over security for the whole country, which is a task they are likely not yet ready to handle. If they aren't, a true civil war could break out and make the current bloodshed pale in comparison. The U.S. Civil War took the lives of over a half million Americans. Imagine what a civil war with today's weapons would look like, especially in an area with so many fanatical, suicidal terrorists. The longer we stay, the more time Iraqi politicians have to work out government structure differences, and the more time Iraqi troops & police have to train. Unlike the quagmire of Vietnam, we have a plan for the future of Iraq. We're trying to build a working democracy that grows and thrives. Unfortunately, such a monumental task takes time and patience. It took hundreds of years to get our own democracy working well! And that was without terrorists and countries like Iran try to sabotage the effort at every turn. Our first attempt at a constitution (the Articles of Confederation) was such a complete and utter failure that we threw it out and started over from scratch. Iraq is simply going through the same growth process. The longer we give them to work out problems, the more stable the country will be in the future. And if we give the Iraqi troops time to train and gain experience, they'll be better prepared to face the many challenges ahead. We may have to re-invade if we don't stabilize the country since it could become a terrorist haven or could bring to power another Saddam. Iraq's democracy is definitely fragile. History shows that weak governments can easily be overtaken by brutal, power-hungry thugs...Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Hussein...the list goes on and on. The whole terror war started because the ruthless Taliban took control of Afghanistan and gave shelter to Osama bin Laden as he planned the 9/11 attacks. If we leave too soon, Iraq may become the new haven for terrorists. It could also be taken over by another Saddam-type leader or by fundamentalist clerics such as in Iran. In any of these cases, it would only create a situation where we have to re-invade and start the process all over again. And next time, we likely won't have the military bases or any world support to launch an attack.

2.

3.

108

4.

The bloodshed currently confined to Iraq could spread to neighboring countries, resulting in not just an Iraqi civil war, but a Sunni-Shiite regional civil war. Remember, there are plenty of fanatical Sunnis and Shiites in neighboring countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc. The killing could easily spill over the border as Sunnis in these countries try to help their Sunni allies in Iraq, while Shiites try to do the same. Imagine the number of deaths that would result from a regional civil war where hundreds of millions of Muslims currently live. Can you think of any way the U.S. military could re-establish stability in such a scenario? It gives the U.S. military a chance to hunt down and kill terrorists. Whether you believe terrorists were in Iraq before the war or not, there is definitely no disputing the fact that they currently are there now. The many vicious, direct attacks on civilians are not the work of "insurgents". They are the work of bloodthirsty, heartless murderers who want nothing more than to impose their ruthless Taliban-style rule on the world. In Iraq, we have a chance to send armed, specially trained warriors to take them out where they live and breed. It would give Al Qaeda a symbolic victory and become the basis of future recruiting propaganda. Osama bin Laden's own recruiting videos cite the examples of Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia as evidence of America's tendency to cut-and-run when the going gets tough. The terrorist attacks on innocent Iraqi civilians have no other purpose than to manipulate the news media and weaken the will of the American public. If we retreat once again before the job is done, it would provide the best example yet of how terrorism works. It would reinforce the Al Qaeda propaganda that America is indeed a "paper tiger" that doesn't have the will to fight. It would invite similar terrorist/guerilla tactics in future wars since the tactics resulted in a victory that a conventional military couldn't achieve over the U.S. military. There is no military in the world that even comes close to matching the U.S. military. Our superior technology, training, and funds make it simply impossible for another conventional military to defeat us. Indeed, given the recent examples in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, it's very doubtful any country would even try. However, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have found a way that the American superpower can be defeated. If we cave once again, these brutal terrorist tactics will become the basis of all future wars. Murder and torture of innocent people will become the standard. As long as we stay, Iran (the leading terrorist-sponsor state) will face the pressure of being surrounded by American troops, and Iraq will provide another launching base if we're forced to invade. Think back to before the launch of this second Iraq War. One of the main reasons for invading was that Saddam kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors for several years. In 2002, he let them back in. Did he suddenly have a change of heart and wanted to do the right thing? Or could it have been the hundreds of thousands of American troops ready to move in if he didn't comply? Iran has become as least as big of a threat to world peace as Saddam. Obviously, it would be much better if we were able to stop its nuclear program and support of terrorist groups without another war. However, Iran needs a little bit of legitimate pressure to solve things peacefully. Otherwise, what is the incentive to stop its actions? As long as U.S. troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have the rogue country surrounded. Although we may currently have a limited capacity to invade, the worry is still in the back of the minds of Iranian leaders. It's giving American troops valuable guerilla-war training that may be useful if the U.S. must engage terrorists in other hot spots around the world. Conventional wars dominated by tanks, planes, and massive infantry forces are likely a thing of the past. Guerilla, terrorist street fighting is likely to become the norm. The Iraq War is giving American troops hands-on training for this new type of war. This training may become even more critical in the future if we are forced to invade Iran or if we must, God forbid, engage terrorists in this type of combat on our own soil. After 9/11, we all know that no area of the world is completely safe.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. If we withdraw, the terrorists currently fighting American troops will likely be dispersed to civilian Western targets. High-ranking Al Qaeda leaders have called Iraq their central and most important battle. Many of the most hateful, vicious terrorists in the world are engaged in Iraq. Which is better, having these terrorists target innocent civilians on our own soil, or having these terrorists engage armed, highly-trained soldiers in Iraq? Where do you think these terrorist insurgents will go if American troops leave Iraq? Will they start businesses, go to medical school, get 9-5 jobs, or make some other productive contribution to society? Just maybe there are some good reasons why we haven't

109

suffered a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Maybe these terrorists have something else occupying their time. 11. Iraqis who have supported and helped Americans could face death or torture. We wouldn't have been able to set up a democratic government or make the progress we have without the cooperation of many Iraqi officials. Unfortunately, if we leave too soon, these helpful citizens may face a backlash from the terrorist insurgents, and we won't be around to protect them. Remember, this is a population that lived in constant fear of Saddam retribution. 12. American troops remain in the heart of the terrorist breeding ground, the Middle East, and can thus be easily deployed to Syria, Iran, etc. if the need arises. The current Islamofascist War didn't arise from movements in Canada, Germany, or Australia. It grew in the heart of the Muslim world--the Middle East. As such, the wars we likely will have to fight now and in the future remain in that area. Having troops based in Iraq allows us easy access to Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Muslim-dominated countries stirring up anti-American hate. Just having the threat of American troops just a heartbeat away may by itself be enough to prevent the next great war. 13. Iraqi civilians may fear retribution once American troops leave and will therefore be unwilling to help us further in our battle against terrorist insurgents. The terrorist insurgents that are targetting civilians and stirring up trouble are tough to defeat simply because they are embedded in the population of Iraq. Unlike our enemies, we do everything we can to minimize the loss of innocent life. Thus, it is critical to find Iraqi civilians to tell us where to find these terrorists. However, if we leave Iraq in its precarious position, these helpful people are likely to become prime targets for torture or death. In fact, even the discussion of a premature troop withdrawal may be enough to keep Iraqis from helping us, making the stabilization much more difficult. 14. Oil prices could skyrocket if Iraq becomes more unstable, leading to $5/gallon gas prices and a major recession of the world economy. A war should never be fought simply for economic reasons. However, any person that has contact with reality no that Iraq plays a critical role in the price of oil and the world economy. Iraq is a gigantic supplier of oil. Thus, the laws of supply and demand say anything that negatively affects supply will drive the price up. If an all-out civil war erupts, oil prices may just skyrocket to the point that we must pay $5 per gallon for gas. Setting aside the huge impact of those gas prices on the average American family, imagine what that would do to the world economy. Inflation and interest rates would go through the roof. Consumer spending would plummet. Unemployment would rise, leading to bigger government deficits. And the negative effects on the U.S. and world economy would snowball from there. Economists will tell you one of the best "leading indicators" on the state of the economy is the U.S. stock market. Watch the price drop in the stock market that happens with every uptick in the price of oil. And remember, the economies of the world are no longer isolated; they are intertwined. Thus, we would likely face not only a U.S. recession in the event of an Iraqi civil war, but a world recession.

38. Three Strikes Law California has led the charge on a new concept of dealing with repeat offenders--the Three Strikes Law. Under this law, a person who is convicted of three felonies is given a mandatory 25-to-life sentence. A felony is defined as any crime punishable by 1 year or

110

more in prison. The law has been criticized for applying a one-size-fits-all sentence to repeat offenders. The often noted example is one young man who received the sentence after stealing a pizza. However, advocates of the law quote the large number of repeat offenders that always seem to slip through the justice system without the three-strikes law in force.

In a Nutshell

Yes
1. 2. 3. It provides a fix for a flawed justice system so that repeat offenders stay in prison. The law provides a very effective deterrent after the 2nd conviction. The media distorts the true effectiveness of the law by showing trivial cases (like someone stealing pizza) rather than the usual perpetrators. The law applies to 3 convictions, not 3 crimes (i.e. criminals may get away with several incidents). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

No
The law destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge. It is unjust in certain conditions (victimless crimes, young criminals, etc.). Criminals often plea bargain their first two convictions. It is a violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. An arrest of someone with two convictions almost guarantees the cost and time of a trial. The law adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive prison system.

4.

Yes
1. It provides a fix for a flawed justice system so that repeat offenders stay in prison. To many crime victims, the U.S. judicial system has become somewhat of a joke. Evidentiary exception rules, case backlogs, liberal sentences, plea bargaining, and a protect-the-criminal-rather-than-the-victim mentality has far too often let criminals slip through the cracks. Most of the crime nowadays is committed by repeat offenders. The three strikes law is a way to ensure justice is done even if the system otherwise fails miserably. The law provides a very effective deterrent after the 2nd conviction. Arguments always arise over what is the best deterrent. Is there a better deterrent than the knowledge you will definitely go to jail for at least 25 years if convicted again? This will not only discourage the more serious crime such as rape and armed robbery, it will discourage the more minor offenses of things like burglary. It's not like this law is secret or unknown to the criminals. The media distorts the true effectiveness of the law by showing trivial cases (like someone stealing pizza) rather than the usual perpetrators. The liberal media obviously has an agenda to push when it portrays poor, helpless felons in jail for the rest of their lives for stealing videos or pizza, or committing some other "harmless" crime. Unfortunately, the stories don't reflect the reality of repeat offender data. With thousands of cases, you're always bound to find exceptions like these. However, the law punishes rapists, armed robbers, extortionists, organized criminals, and more. An objective media portrayal would show the 3 victims of the three-strike criminal and the impact on them. The law applies to 3 convictions, not 3 crimes (i.e. criminals may get away with several incidents). We all know that in the real world criminals get away with many crimes. The police may not have any clue who committed the crime, the police may not have near enough evidence to prosecute, and the criminal may simply slip through the system with the aid of a slick lawyer. It's a major judicial accomplishment to get one conviction. Thus, when the three-strikes law is applied, it is often applied to a criminal who has committed far more than 3 crimes.

2.

3.

4.

111

No
1. The law destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge. Each criminal offender is different. Each set of crimes is different. The specific reason we have judges, juries, and lawyers is that each situation deserves a fair analysis and punishment. A one-size-fits-all system of judgment destroys the flexibility. It is unjust in certain conditions (victimless crimes, young criminals, etc.). There are always going to be cases like the stealing videos or pizza that are unjustly subjected to the three-strikes law. You may have an 18-year old who commits three crimes before he's mature enough to make quality decisions. You have 2-time convicted felons who may have been leading decent, upstanding lives being at the wrong place at the wrong time. You may have a sequence of lighter crimes such as burglary, breaking & entering, or stealing a car. Certainly committing these crimes are wrong and deserve punishment; however, is 25 years to life a reasonable punishment (in addition to whatever they were sentenced for the first 2 crimes)? Criminals often plea bargain their first two convictions. Plea bargains have become the overwhelming choice of prosecutors nowadays. The backlog of cases and high cost of a trial forces the state to use these. Defense attorneys (especially court-appointed ones) overwhelmingly talk their clients into these plea bargains, whether or not they suspect their client is guilty. However, whether a plea bargain is used or a full-blown trial is used, it still goes down on the client's record as a conviction. Offenders may not have agreed to the plea bargains knowing they may one day be subject to the threestrikes law. It is a violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The 8th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the use of "cruel or unjust punishment" by the state. Many would argue that certain clients' prosecution under the law violates the amendment. If just one case violates the amendment, the law is unconstitutional and should be overturned. An arrest of someone with two convictions almost guarantees the cost and time of a trial. If a 2time convicted felon is once again arrested, it's pretty much guaranteed that he will push for a trial. If he's guaranteed a 25-to-life sentence, what's the point of pleading guilty? It doesn't matter how many witnesses or how much physical evidence is available, the defendant will likely seek a trial. This adds more time and expense to an already overburdened court system. The law adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive prison system. It is expensive to keep a person in jail for life. Prisons are overflowing from the massive growth in their populations. Adding more prisoners (who may not even deserve to be there) to this system just makes matters worse.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

112