Clinton hopes for future with debt-free college experience

By Cirrus Robinson, Transcript Correspondent

Tuition for Ohio’s four­-year universities rose by five percent, or by $523, since 2008.

Pressure from college-­age voters and paying parents rests on the major 2016 presidential candidates to make shifts in debt percentages and the quality of higher education for future generations.

The elimination of tuition and a utopian future with debt ­free college is the vision that democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has prided herself on since the beginning of her campaign trail.

Facing much criticism, her administration laid a concrete plan to restore and expand Pell Grants to cover low and middle-class families in their possible debts, set an income requirement for those who would be exempt from tuition costs and to create on­-campus work mandates to help relieve the cost of student attendance.

Clinton looks to galvanize millennial voters to get the majority on board with her efforts for college students.

“What we’ve been basically doing on this campus is trying to register voters on campus and make sure they are registered at the right address,” said freshman Evan Williams, a contributor to OWU’s student efforts to increase student participation in the upcoming election.

OWU students seem to favor Clinton or Gary Johnson, Williams said.

“But our real goal is to make sure people have the right address and access to information they need,” he said.”

Republican candidate Donald Trump, however, has made less explicit notions about plans for higher education in terms of finance.

His administration has given few specifics, but hint that his stance during the fall campaign will greatly contrast that of the Clinton campaign in terms of debt­ free tuition.

He criticizes logical backing for her motives, particularly regarding funding and legislation for loans.

“Many of the ideas on which the Trump campaign is working involve a complete overhaul of the federal student loan system,” wrote Sam Clovis, policy director of Trump’s campaign, for Inside Higher Ed.

“Moving the government out of lending and restoring that role to private banks, as was the case before President Clinton partially and President Obama fully shifted loan origination from private lenders to the government.”

This outline would theoretically allow local banks to lend to students within their geographical reach, and to wield more power in deciding which students are deserving of dollars based on not only their current status, but also what they can hypothetically achieve in the future.

This would likely make loans more exclusive based on degree of need and prospective majors, as it works toward spending less federal money on loans that will not result in economic product.

Gary Johnson, the prospective third­ party and libertarian candidate, has stressed the elimination of Common Core and a majority of policies that give the federal government access to all standards of education.

He proposes terminating the Board of Education to give both secondary and higher education students the opportunity to be directed and given opportunities locally, rather than under federal mandates.

The upcoming fall election leaves room for all candidates to provide their final thoughts and proposals in the college controversy.

 

 

Clinton caged in cutout

By Liz Hardaway, A&E Editor

The Delaware County Republican Party headquarters has one message for people window shopping on Sandusky Street: Hillary Clinton is for sale and should be imprisoned.

Before entering the doors of the downtown Republican location, a cutout of Hillary Clinton in a cage is displayed, with a for sale sign plastered on the window, right across the street from their democratic counterpart the Ohio Together office.

“It’s the classic representation of what a lot of republicans think about Hillary Clinton,” said Alex Lutz, a junior and avid republican on campus.  

Holly Adams, an Ohio woman who supports Donald Trump and volunteer, agreed with the sign, stating how Clinton was not an appropriate role-model for young girls. Showing a chart, Adams pointed out the four factors that voters from both sides care about most: jobs, economy, terrorism, national security and healthcare.

Starting with jobs, Adams stated that Trump has created 200,000 jobs across the globe for over 50 years. According to an analysis conducted by CNN Money and PrivCo, which researches private companies such as the one run by Trump, there are only 34,000 jobs attributed to Donald Trump.

Adams also admired Trump for not owing other companies or big-business favors, compared to Clinton who asks her friends for money and uses ten percent of this money for charitable work and “takes the other 90 percent and she and her family and friends fly around the world,” said Adams. The American Institute of Philanthropy concluded, however that 88% of the funds are used for programs and charity.

“We think it’s really important as women that are raising smart, strong nice daughters to understand what kind of role model we want for her and Hillary Clinton is not it,” said Adams.

“She’s the only candidate that stands for access to women’s health care, closing the wage gap and confronting the issue of violence against women” disagrees Sarah Foster, a junior and volunteer for Ohio Together.

“[Clinton] even has a plan for addressing specifically campus-based sexual assault. She’s been a lifelong fighter for women’s rights as well as children’s,” Foster said. “And Donald Trump…has never been anything close to a fighter, for anything other than his own wealth…he runs a campaign based in bigotry and misogyny.”

Republicans, such as Lutz and Adams, admire Trump’s business ethic and think that is a strong asset for his campaign. For small-business owners especially, the re-negotiations of trade deals are believed to bring a lot money into the economy.

“When [Trump] first started running, I was excited that he was not a politician. He tapped into the frustration of the American people…everybody’s bought out by special interest groups” said Lutz.

Republicans are skeptical of Clinton’s involvement with Benghazi and her e-mail scandal.

“The conclusion that I’ve come to is that she was irresponsible with that information. That’s not a virtue of a president, not to mention her liberal policies do not align with how I think,” said Lutz.

Presidential election update

One of the 2016 USA presidential election posters. Image courtesy of www.unitedpatientsgroup.com
       Image courtesy of www.unitedpatientsgroup.com

Emily Feldmesser, Transcript Correspondent 

Republicans:

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump decided not to participate in the upcoming debate. The debate will be hosted on Jan. 28 by Fox News and Google, just a few days before Monday’s Iowa Caucus. Trump demanded Fox News anchor, Megyn Kelly to step down from moderating. When the network didn’t adhere to Trump’s request, he chose not to participate. CNN said Trump decided to boycott the debate, especially at Kelly’s helm, because “he didn’t believe he would be treated fairly.” According to The New York Times, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, after being booted off the previous debate stage, will be taking Trump’s podium.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, currently Trump’s most intense rival, offered to debate Trump “mano a mano,” according to CNN. Trump said instead of participating in the debate, he will host a fundraiser for “Veterans and Wounded Warriors,” Reuters reported.

Democrats:

Speaking of debates, there might be another chance for the three Democrats to come together. MSNBC and the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper proposed the seventh Democratic debate just a few days before New Hampshire’s Feb. 9 primary. However, the Democratic National Committee has no plans to sanction the debate, according to Reuters.

That means if any of the candidates participate, it could impact any future participation in the debates. So far, former Governor Martin O’Malley has been the first one to accept the invitation. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she would participate in the debate if it’s sanctioned and other candidates participate while Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said he wouldn’t participate in an unsanctioned debate, reported The New York Times.

Presidential election update

Photo courtesy of nmpoliticalreport.com
        Photo courtesy of nmpoliticalreport.com

Emily Feldmesser, Transcript Correspondent

Reporter’s Note: The 2016 Presidential election is barreling toward us with increasing speed. Since this election is shaping to be a contentious one, I thought it would be helpful for Ohio Wesleyan students to have a brief, weekly rundown of the race. 

The Republicans:

The sixth Republican debate took place on Jan 14 in South Carolina. Senator Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina were both kicked off the main stage due to their low poll numbers. Paul chose not to participate in the undercard debate, instead answering questions via Twitter and the video app Periscope.

However, the big news from the debate was the rancor between frontrunner Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. After a few weeks of agreeing with each other, the candidates became combative over certain issues. Trump has questioned whether Cruz, who was born in Canada, is actually eligible to run for president. According to CNN, the change in the relationship was due to Cruz catching up to Trump in recent poll numbers. Cruz said Trump “embodies New York values,” which refers to the city’s “famous liberalism,” said Reuters. Trump responded with how New York recovered after the September 11 attacks, according to CNN.

According to Reuters, viewers believed Trump won the debate with 37.3 percent. Cruz came in second with 26.6 percent and Senator Marco Rubio came in a distant third with 12.1 percent.

The Iowa caucuses are Feb. 1 and it’s the first time voters will be at the polls.

The Democrats:

The fourth Democratic debate was Sunday, Jan. 17, also took place in South Carolina. With only three candidates: Senator Bernie Sanders, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Governor Martin O’Malley, there was more opportunity for the candidates to have the floor.

Surprisingly, the Democratic candidates stayed away from attacking their Republican rivals, rather, they focused on each other, said CNN.

Clinton heavily aligned herself with President Barack Obama and his record, especially on gun control, health care and financial regulation, according to CNN. A contentious issue was health care, because just two hours before the debate, Sanders released details of his health care plan, according to The Washington Post. Clinton challenged the plan, and again threw her support behind Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

However, Sanders challenged Clinton’s strong ties to firms on Wall Street. O’Malley also questioned Clinton’s ties, according to The New York Times. Clinton shot back with Sanders’ weak record on gun control, saying he voted with the National Rifle Association. Sanders had no response.

House of Cards on the hill?

Photo courtesy of bgr.com.
Photo courtesy of bgr.com.

On Feb. 1, 2013, Netflix premiered a political drama series, House of Cards. Starring as the gruesome politician, Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood, the series shows the corruption and immorality that awarded Underwood the top seat in the White House.

Throughout the release of the three seasons, every year the series has led many American viewers to question as to whether or not the corruption taken place in the show actually occurs in present day politics.

In the most recent season, released on Feb. 27, Frank Underwood, as president of the United States, engages in both domestic and foreign politics just as every American president would. However, Underwood’s motives in engaging in the situations he often finds himself in, makes you question his intentions and motives.

From past seasons, one could easily make the connection that Underwood does not always make decisions based on the best interest of the people of the United States, but rather for his own benefit. Now that he has reached his goal of becoming president (that is on the resignation of the past president), now what would keep him from doing the best thing for the American people, rather than for himself?

This has left many Americans questioning whether the corruption taking place in the series is viable to the politics in Washington, D.C. today and if there is any truth to the corruption.

Frank Underwood with his wife Claire. Photo courtesy of screenrant.com.
Frank Underwood with his wife Claire. Photo courtesy of screenrant.com.

Particularly as the 2016 presidential election quickly approaches, viewers constantly question the validity of what politicians spew as they try to make a convincing and lasting impression on the Americans who watch the many debates. Trying to decipher what is fact and fiction is the ultimate goals when listening to both the politicians speak in House of Cards and on the Hill in Washington D.C.

Although it is evident that corruption does take place in politics, how severe and prominent is this corruption? I have heard many people that currently work on The Hill say that they refuse to watch House of Cards because it is too similar to American politics.

When Beau Willimon produced House of Cards, was he re-creating scenarios from past experience or events? Or did he create them just from fiction? Whatever the answer may be, as Americans, it is our job to not fall into the traps many politicians lay for us. We must keep a straight mind and focus on the main objectives in politics and what is best for the United States.

Stanford professor talks polarization, average voters and overreaching

Dr. Fiorina of Stanford University. Photo courtesy of aspenideas.org.
Morris P. Fiorina of Stanford University. Photo courtesy of aspenideas.org.

Over 100 people in a hot, crowded room applauded as The Benjamin F. Marsh Lecture Series on Public Affairs began Wednesday, March 25.

The applause – which engulfed the Benes room of the Hamilton-Williams Campus Center – was directed towards the keynote speaker, Morris P. Fiorina, a professor at Stanford University. Fiorina’s lecture was titled “Unstable Majorities, Polarization and the Contemporary American Electorate”.

The event was co-sponsored by the Ohio Wesleyan department of politics and government and the Arneson Institute for Practical Politics and Public Affairs.

Fiorina began the lecture by emphasizing that the political structure between democrats and republicans 50 years ago was not as extreme as it appears to be today.

“Democrats and Republicans now look at each other like they’re from different planets,” Fiorina said. “Democrats have moved left and Republicans have moved right, there is no middle ground anymore.”

For some in the crowd, that took a little while to sink in.

“I’m still trying to process it,” said sophomore Liam McNulty after the lecture. “I never truly realized that it hasn’t always been (polarized) like that.”

Fiorina continued by saying that polarization, in its most basic form, is not believed by some political scientists. He went on by presenting data that supports the claim that it isn’t as extreme as commonly thought.

The data showed that when it comes to key political issues, voters tend to hug the middle. This trend was also similar with the two major political parties.

Fiorina used the political issue of abortion to represent how some in the Republican Party have changed their view over the years, with many clinging to middle ground.

“It’s really interesting to see how polarization in congress isn’t really representation of the general population,” senior Robert Bartels said after the lecture.

Voter information

Fiorina showed via slideshow exactly how the American people get their political news: Of those getting their information from the extreme sides of the political spectrum, only 1 percent out of millions of viewers get their news from FOX News with just 0.3 percent getting it from The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC.

He then referenced a study done on 1.2 million Bing toolbar users, of which only 14 percent clicked on 10 or more news articles and only four percent on two or more opinion pieces.

“The real problem in America isn’t if they get biased news, it is if they get any news (at all),” Fiorina said.

Political Overreach

Fiorina finished the lecture with a theory as to why neither major political party can keep the Senate, House or presidency for consecutive years since 2000.

“We have very sorted parties and the result is they overreach,” Fiorina said.

He elaborated by saying that each party tries too much during their respective times in office and it is usually not what the American people want.

“There is a disconnect between what the American people want to work on and what the politicians address,” Fiorina said. “People never really think we are on the right track.”