PR M

eetngs
Wednesdays
8:00 pm
BRNG 1222
purduereview.com
Review
T h e P u r d u e
A JournAl of ConservAtive thought And opinion
www. purduerevi ew. com
On the Inside
4
Bill Ayers Speaks
A domestc terrorist came
to Purdue under the guise
of “educatonal exper-
tse”.
12
Richard Mourdock
Indiana’s State Treasurer
takes on the highest
court in the land.
9
Exchange Student
Traveling to a foreign
country is excitng - just
make sure the lid is tght
on your toothpaste.
14
Recycling: A Scam?
Sure, it makes you feel
good, but does it actually
beneft anyone?
Volume 7, Issue 1 September, 2009
19
Diversions
Fun things for your not
so fun classes! Watch out
for bicycles on your way
home.
2
September, 2009 The Purdue Review
Letter From the Editor
Subscribe to the Purdue Review
The Purdue Review is funded completely by donations and
advertisements. We receive no funding from Purdue University,
the Republican Party, or any political organization for that mat-
ter. Without the generous donations from readers like you, the
Purdue Review would not be possible.
If you are interested in supporting The Purdue Review and
our cause, please consider making a fnancial donation. Dona-
tions can be mailed or made online. Checks should be made
out to the Purdue Review. Mail subscriptions are free and can
be ordered on our website by contacting the Publisher.
www.purduereview.com
publisher@purduereview.com
The Purdue Review
PO Box 931
Lafayette, IN 47902
Join The Purdue Review
The Purdue Review is looking for staff writers, columnists,
photographers, section editors, copy editors, layout editors, and
web designers.
All Majors Welcome
If you’re interested in joining the Purdue Review, please con-
tact the Editor in Chief, Jay Wood at editor@purduereview.com.
Review
T h e P u r d u e
Jay Wood, Editor in Chief
Scott Sowers, Publisher
Rohan Johnson Managing Editor
Aaron Anspaugh Features Editor
Chris Ellison State/Local Writer
Jordan Hebbe U.S./World Editor
Dave Siukola Layout Editor
Josh Teasdale Editor at Large
Amanda Thayer Editor at Large
Jennifer Haywood Staff Writer
Tyler Martin Staff Writer
Adam Sikowski Staff Writer
Bhuvi Nirudhoddi Staff Writer
Morgan Ikerd Staff Writer
Nathan Murphy Staff Writer
Ashley Hobbs Assistant Publisher
Dirk Schmidt Assistant Publisher
Supriya Dabholkar PR Director
Stewart Simpson Graphic Artist
Rebecca Dirkse Graphic Artist
Andrew Nguyen Photographer
Greg McCoy Photographer
Lauren Trancik Photographer
Sean Horoho Copy Editor
Anne Charlton Copy Editor
Board of Directors: Nathan Arnold, Chair
Chase Slaughter, Adam Rusch, Jeff Schultz, Mary Sparks,
David Bridges, Jan Payne, Vicki Burch
MISSION STATMENT: The editorial staff at The Purdue Review will utilize the medium
of print to entertain, educate and enlighten the student body at Purdue University
as well as the entire Greater Lafayette community.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed within these pages are the views held express-
ly by each respective writer. The opinions of these writers do not necessarily
refect the opinions of any of the other writers in this publication nor by Purdue
University. This paper is in not affliated with Purdue University; however, the staff
is comprised entirely of Purdue students. This paper is distributed by the Univer-
sity Conservative Action Network (U-CAN). The frst copy of this issue is free, at
distribution sites. For additional copies, contact the Publisher, Scott Sowers at
editor@purduereview.com
editor@purduereview.com
Greetings,
Thank you for picking up our September issue of The Purdue Review.
This is our first issue of the Fall 2009 semester and my first as Editor in
Chief. The Purdue Review was founded in January 2006 with the vision
of providing a distinct conservative voice not only to Purdue, but to the
entire Greater Lafayette community. Our publication is not a newspaper,
rather our analysis of the events that are shaping our lives.
A great deal has happened in America since our last issue. Michael Jack-
son died. A drunken Kanye West stormed the stage and made a fool of
himself… again. A police officer did his job and got to drink beer with the
President. Brett Favre and Michael Vick returned to the NFL. The Tea Par-
ty movement remained strong in the face of a heated health care debate.
As Hillary headed to the Congo, Bill headed for Las Vegas. Hmmmmmm.
With a strong recruitment effort, The Purdue Review has assembled a
wonderful staff and we look forward to serving you all year long. In a time
when more and more Americans are demanding a reduction in the size
of government, we are incredibly proud to be on the front lines offering a
conservative message to our readers. So from everyone here at The Pur-
due Review, we wish you the best this harvest season.
God Bless,
Jay A. Wood
Editor in Chief
jay.wood@purduereview.com
3
The Purdue Review September, 2009
Editorial on Healthcare
On September 25th of this year,
Senator Chuck Schumer, a member
of the Senate Finance Committee,
stated in reference to recent Demo-
crat healthcare efforts: “The first
week showed Democrats laying out
a plan to achieve better health care
for American families while Repub-
licans tried to score political points
that will do nothing to make the av-
erage American’s life better. Repub-
licans have no plan of their own.”
Is there really not a Republi-
can plan for healthcare reform in
America? Many within the realm of
liberal politics repeat this line in ev-
ery cable interview and blog entry.
The Democrats in Congress would
lead Americans to believe that the
only option other than Obama’s
“plan” is that of doing nothing. Re-
publicans are said to be fighting for
“the status quo” as opposed to any
other health plan. But is this really
the case?
Currently, Democrats have con-
trol of the White House, 59 seats
in the Senate (including the Inde-
pendents who vote with the Demo-
crats), and almost 60% of the seats
in the House of Representatives.
One of the main reasons that only
Democrat proposals are getting
coverage is that only Democrat
proposals have any chance of pass-
ing. Republicans don’t even have
enough votes or sway to get bills
out of committee, much less voted
on or signed in by the President.
This does not mean that conserva-
tive ideas do not exist for health-
care reform.
To understand solutions, one
must first understand the prob-
lem. Democrats attempt to direct
America to believe that American
healthcare is below standards of
countries with government-run
systems. In actuality, Americans
have the best quality of care in the
world. That is why people in need
of urgent treatment come to Amer-
ica from countries like Britain and
Canada, which both have socialized
medicine. Democrats also claim
that the lack of health insurance
equals a lack of healthcare access.
This ignores the fact that many
people choose not to purchase in-
surance and instead pay for treat-
ment as needed. We also have laws
that force emergency rooms to give
life-saving care to anyone who en-
ters, regardless of their insurance
situation.
The true issue with America’s
healthcare system today is that the
consumer is not involved enough
in the loop of price, which means
there is very little opportunity for
competition to impact the market.
Competition is the mechanism that
lowers costs in a free-market sys-
tem. The compounding side effect
of this problem is the rising costs
of healthcare on every front, which
is the actual problem of American
healthcare today. Presented below
is a list of conservative ideas to im-
prove our current healthcare situa-
tion by lowering costs:
1. Make insurance available
across state lines
As mentioned earlier, compe-
tition is the tool within the free
market that lowers costs by forcing
producers to fight for the dollars of
consumers. Currently, Americans
can only buy health insurance with-
in their state. This leads to monop-
olization within states. Obama’s re-
sponse to this problem is to include
a government-run “public option.”
Since the public option would not
have to compete within the mar-
ket, this would do nothing to lower
prices in the market. A true op-
tion to increasing competition is to
abolish laws that force individuals
to purchase insurance within their
state. This would open up an abun-
dance of options for consumers, in-
creasing competition and lowering
prices. Another benefit is that in-
surance companies would be able
to make national-scale plans, not
tailored to any specific state. This
would lower the costs for insur-
ance companies, which would then
be passed on to consumers.
2. Allow individuals and small
businesses to form “health-in-
surance groups”
One major advantage that com-
panies have in purchasing insur-
ance for employees is that they get
group rates. Just like how a single
roll of toilet paper costs more per
unit than toilet paper in bulk, indi-
vidual and small-business health
insurance costs more per person
than insurance purchased by a
huge company. The advantage
comes in the quantity of insurance
that is purchased by larger compa-
nies. Currently, there is no way to
simulate that quantity in order to
get cheaper policies. If individuals,
families, small businesses, or even
communities could all pitch in and
buy a group policy, they would be
able to obtain that group rate to
which large companies now have
exclusive access. This would lower
costs per person and increase ac-
cess to affordable health insurance.
3. Low-income tax credits
One side effect of the rising costs
of health insurance (caused by the
rising costs of healthcare in gen-
eral) is that certain low-income in-
dividuals make too much money to
qualify for Medicaid (health-insur-
ance for the poor), but they make
too little money to purchase an in-
dividual insurance plan. One option
that the government can take is of-
fering a tax credit of some moder-
ate dollar value ($3K to $10K) to
low-income individuals. This tax
credit MUST be put toward health-
care costs, or it would be lost. One
method of portability for this tax
credit is the option of putting the
money onto a debit card that can
only be used for approved health-
care costs. The benefit of these
options is that people would have
a limited amount of money and
would be forced to try to stretch
their dollar, thus increasing compe-
tition. This also would allow low-
income families to pay for some of
their healthcare if it goes over the
tax credit limit, thus giving the con-
sumer more impact on the demand
side of the market.
4. Health-savings accounts
If a tax credit is put onto a debit
card, it could essentially be con-
sidered a type of health-savings
account. This concept originated
as a way to allow individuals or
families to save money specifically
for healthcare costs so that the
costs don’t have to be paid directly
out-of-pocket every time. There
are several options for how these
savings accounts would be imple-
mented. Individuals could opt into
one of these plans, either through
their employer or on their own, to
take a certain amount out of each
paycheck to put into the account.
Employers could also provide one
of these accounts as an alternative
to traditional health insurance. The
benefit of this idea is that people
would end up paying for most
health treatments without having
to rely on insurance. If insurance
stops being used as “unlimited
healthcare” and becomes what it
was originally intended to be, cov-
erage against catastrophic costs
ONLY, then costs will drop substan-
tially.
5. Tort Reform
Some people refer to our time
as the “Age of Litigation” in Amer-
ica. People sue everyone for ev-
erything, and doctors are a prime
target for expensive malpractice
lawsuits. Even if a doctor ends up
winning in a malpractice tort, they
still have to deal with the enor-
mous cost to cover the lawsuit. To
help protect them from these type
of costs, doctors have to purchase
malpractice insurance. While it
isn’t as expensive as the multi-
million dollar lawsuits they may
encounter, malpractice insurance
costs tens of thousands of dollars
annually to buy this insurance. To
help fix this problem, it needs to
be more difficult for people to sue
their doctors. This is the basic idea
behind tort reform.
One option to implement this is
to change the way doctors are
judged. If a special court of medical
personnel oversees the malprac-
tice lawsuit, they would be better
able to decide whether the doctor
is at fault. Another option is to lim-
it the amount of money that a tort
could seek against a doctor for mal-
practice, which would help with in-
surance against the multi-million
dollar torts. A third option is to al-
low doctors to recover lawsuit
money from people who unsuc-
cessfully sue them. This would save
doctors money and reduce the
amount of malpractice lawsuits.
These options would lower costs
by lowering malpractice signifi-
cantly over time. Doctors would
also be less likely to do extra tests
just to cover their butts, thus allow-
ing patients to save money on un-
necessary treatment.
4
September, 2009 The Purdue Review
Bill Ayers: Not “Just Some Guy in the
“I don’t regret setting bombs. I
feel we didn’t do enough.” That is
what University of Illinois at Chi-
cago education professor Bill Ay-
ers, a self proclaimed communist,
had to say on September 11th,
2001 when he was questioned
about his own acts of terrorism
some 30 years prior. Bill Ayers
helped lead a radical domestic
terror group, the Weather Under-
ground Organization, which was
active (in at least some capacity)
from 1969 to 1981. Emmy award
winner and best-selling author
Jack Cashill accurately described
the Weather Underground as “an-
ti-capitalist and anti-American.”
The terrorists, known as “Weath-
ermen,” attacked several locations
across the country. Their primary
bombing targets included police
stations, banks, and government
buildings/offices.
On May 21st, 1970, Bill Ayers’
wife, Bernadine Dohrn—a fellow
Weather Underground leader,
current Northwestern law school
professor, and ACLU Advisory
Board member—made a declara-
tion of war against “AmeriKKKa”.
Earlier that year, on March 1st,
1970, the Weather Underground
bombed the U.S. Capitol building.
Jack Cashill pointed out that the
Weather Underground “moved to-
wards blowing up things, not peo-
ple.” Aside from the U.S. Capitol
building bombing, other notable
attacks included a bombing of
the Pentagon on May 19th, 1973
and a bombing of the U.S. State
Department building on January
29th, 1975.
What business, then, would
a terrorist like Bill Ayers have
here at Purdue? He was chosen
to be the first speaker as part of
a larger guest lecture series. This
year, Robert and Carolyn Perrucci
began the first annual lecture se-
ries for three fields of study: So-
ciology, African American Studies,
and Women’s Studies. The topic/
theme of the lecture series is
Class, Race, and Gender Inequal-
ity. One speaker is to be chosen
each year from one of the three
fields of study (they alternate).
This year, the speaker was chosen
by the Sociology Department.
According to Irwin “Bud”
Weiser, the Dean of the College of
Liberal Arts, a committee of three
to five faculty members was ap-
pointed last spring to come up
with ideas for a speaker for the
inaugural Perrucci lecture. The
number of people considered for
the speaking role and the iden-
tity of the candidates remains
unknown. Their anonymity is im-
portant, particularly in this case.
It would seem that in the interest
of sparing people from consider-
able shame, it is best that these
individuals not know that Bill Ay-
ers was chosen instead of them.
The lecture was intended to
be a small event. It took place in
a classroom in Lawson (capacity
100). The event was not adver-
tised, although it was not sup-
posed to be “quiet” either. “Quiet
is the wrong word,” said Chris Sig-
urdson, Purdue’s Assistant Vice
President for External Relations,
“No one was hiding anything.” It
is unclear whether or not the fac-
ulty committee had anticipated
the tremendous outrage from stu-
dents, faculty, alumni, and com-
munity members that came as a
result of the selection of Ayers as
the speaker.
No taxpayer money, tuition
money, or alumni donation was
used to pay for the event. The
lecture was funded by the private
endowment established by the
Perruccis. Regardless, any cam-
pus group (student or faculty) is
allowed to bring whomever they
want to speak. The debate is not
over the right of the Sociology De-
partment to host Bill Ayers. They
acted within the rules established
by Purdue University. The debate
revolves around the merit of Ay-
ers as the speaker.
If another set of faculty mem-
bers was formed, would they take
Bill’s terrorist involvement into
account and ultimately choose a
different speaker? I would cer-
tainly hope so, but there is no way
of knowing. Had the decision been
mine, I would have chosen an in-
dividual who does not have a his-
tory of domestic terrorism, even if
it meant sacrificing a potentially
distinct and topically valuable
message from someone like Ay-
ers who is regarded as an expert
in education reform. If Pentagon
attackers are the standard, will
we invite Osama bin Laden and
tell everyone he is an expert on
recruitment strategy (Either that
or hide and seek)?
Come to find out, Bill Ayers has
visited Purdue before. He came
prior to the 2008 Presidential
Campaign when he was relatively
unknown. Ayers was brought in
to the national spotlight during
By JAY WOOD
5
The Purdue Review September, 2009
the 2008 campaign because of his
close ties with Barack Obama. The
widespread recognition of Ayers
and his militant past undoubtedly
led to the large turnout of protes-
tors at the Perrucci lecture. The
event was protested by students
and adults alike. According to
Captain Tim Potts of the Purdue
Police Department, “The protest-
ers were a spirited group, but
they complied with the rules.”
Before the event, word had
spread that the police would be
searching the building for bombs.
My first reaction (half kidding) to
that news was, “Are there bombs
being set by or against Ayers.”
Captain Potts said that there were
between 12 and 15 police officers
for the event, including shift offi-
cers and the bomb squad sent by
Tippecanoe County.
He went on to explain that it
was routine for officers to check
the location for anything suspi-
cious before a speaker comes to
campus. In other words, the bomb
squad was not sent in just be-
cause Bill Ayers is a terrorist who
used bombs as his medium of de-
struction. One protestor pointed
out that it was ironic that police
officers were assigned to protect
a man who had so much disdain
for the Badge that his terrorist or-
ganization bombed several police
stations.
Some of the protestor’s signs
targeted the school specifically
by saying “Shame on you, Pur-
due.” Others targeted Ayers com-
munist values and his ties with
Obama. However, the overarching
theme appeared to focus on Ay-
ers as an unrepentant domestic
terrorist. The question loomed,
“Why did Purdue invite a terror-
ist to speak?” Chris Sigurdson
explained that Bill was invited
because of his expertise in educa-
tion. Entertaining a similar ques-
tion, Dean Weiser told the press,
“If universities aren’t places
where anyone can speak, we’ve
lost our way.”
Near the beginning of speech,
Ayers said, “Purdue endorsing my
past and my politics is false.” He
was there to speak about educa-
tion and he stuck almost exclu-
sively to that topic. He started by
explaining that in order to bring
about change of any kind, indi-
viduals must take it upon them-
selves to act and not stand by and
expect others to do bidding for
them. Ayers discussed the impor-
tance of how one frames issues of
education. He denounced the no-
tion that education is a commod-
ity that can be bought. Instead,
he believes it is a right (as stated
in the UN Declaration of Human
Rights).
He emphasized that he strong-
ly believes in the “incalculable
value of every individual” and that
schools should foster “imagina-
tion, courage, and entrepreneur-
ship.” Most of all, Ayers stressed
that a successful curriculum is
one in which students are allowed
to engage and question. After his
prepared remarks came a ques-
tion and answer session.
All comments and questions
pertained to education. In an-
swering those questions, Ayers
expanded on his earlier points
saying, “Anything can be the ob-
ject of interrogation… be critical
by asking questions.” In response
to a question about engaging in
the classroom, he said, “The chal-
lenge of being a teacher or parent
is seeing things from the child’s
perspective.” He continued on
with his emphasis on allowing
children to participate and ask
questions.
Between the questions that
were asked and a handful of
cheers during the speech, it be-
came clear that the audience was
overwhelmingly unphased by Bill
Ayers’ past terrorist activities. In
fact, before asking her question,
one woman (referring to the pro-
testors) told Ayers, “We regret the
unfortunate incidents outside.”
All I could think was, “Who’s we?
Do you have a mouse in your
pocket?”
Neighborhood”
6
September, 2009 The Purdue Review
Field Trip to Washington: Taxpayer Style
By CHRIS ELLISON
On September 12, 2009, I was
fortunate enough to be in Wash-
ington, D.C. After pulling past a
suburban subway station in Vi-
enna, Virginia, I looked outside
and saw a line of several hundred
people waiting to get a train tick-
et. These were regular folks from
all over the country visiting their
nation’s capital. But on the 12th,
they weren’t interested in a tour
or going sightseeing. On the 12th,
it was all about making their
voices heard.
Tens of thousands of protes-
tors flocked to a Taxpayer March
in D.C. on 9/12, primarily to pres-
ent their concerns against the
growing influence of federal gov-
ernment. People carried creative
signs and waved Gadsden flags
saying “Don’t Tread on Me,” as
they marched down Pennsylvania
Avenue toward the Capitol Build-
ing. The march was the last stop
of the “Tea Party Express,” a series
of 34 protests across the country
sponsored by the Our Country
Deserves Better PAC. These tea
parties, as the protests are called,
are an act of symbolism. Today,
many Americans are now stand-
ing up against a government that
they believe has been gaining
power and acting out of political
interest for the last several years.
This is a modern day representa-
tion of the American colonists in
Boston who rebelled against the
British government’s growing oc-
cupation and taxation on Decem-
ber 6, 1773. The “Tea Party Ex-
press” movement was a follow-up
to the hundreds of tea party pro-
tests that took place nationwide
on tax day-April 15th.
The significance of the Septem-
ber 12th date was important for
many Americans as well. On this
date in 2001, Americans remem-
ber putting aside their political
differences and coming togeth-
er as a country after the tragic
events of 9/11. The idea was the
same at the D.C. rally. Many peo-
ple who attended the march be-
lieve that politicians need to put
aside their special interests, fight
waste and corruption, and work
together for the people.
Over 50 speakers briefly pre-
sented their views in front of the
massive crowd. Due to the large
numbers, it was difficult for me
to make my way to the front and
see everyone. However, I did get
the opportunity to hear a power-
ful message from James Ander-
er, an entrepreneur and former
car salesman. Anderer clearly
seemed to be concerned about
the growing presence of the gov-
ernment in the economy and
what it meant for the car indus-
try. Before the government bail-
out of Chrysler, Anderer owned a
profitable Jeep dealership in Lin-
denhurst, New York. Even though
Chrysler executives were having
trouble, his dealership was doing
fine. His sales were in the top 2%
of country. Nevertheless, Ander-
er’s lot was one of 789 Chrysler
dealerships across the country
that were shut down as a result
of the company’s bankruptcy. In
his speech, Anderer stated, “The
judge who presided over the
bankruptcy hearing interpreted
the current bankruptcy laws not
as they were written or intended
to be used, but to conform to the
Obama administration’s agenda.”
Anderer went on to claim that
he received no compensation for
his loss and his dealership was
given away for free. It was quite
clear that Anderer felt that the
government was misguided and
irresponsible when determining
how to handle the Chrysler bank-
ruptcy. The crowd cheered and
applauded when Anderer pro-
claimed, “I stand before you an
angry man...I am living proof of a
government out of control.”
Among the topics being pro-
tested at the 9/12 rally were high
taxes, wasteful spending, poor
handling of the national debt,
government-run healthcare, and
the appointments of czars. Sev-
eral people also picketed signs
that criticized partiality in the
media. Media bias was a concern
at the protest only because many
of the protestors have felt mis-
represented or downplayed by
the mainstream media. To these
people, it was another chance to
get their views out and hopefully
be represented fairly.
Most healthcare protestors
supported some reform, but
President Obama’s vision of
a government-run option has
caused many people to have great
concerns. Rebecca Prettyman of
Wheeling, West Virginia held a
sign that read “I am a nurse who
says no to Obamacare.” After talk-
ing to Mrs. Prettyman, I discov-
ered that she had been in nursing
for over 35 years. She is highly
concerned about the quality of
care that a government-run op-
tion would provide and the abil-
ity of bureaucrats to handle deci-
sions regarding End-of-Life Care.
Don Camby, from Spartanburg,
South Carolina is a 68 year old
man who traveled to Washington
to voice his opinion about health-
care insurance. He believes that
politicians are overstating the
problem of the current insurance
system. “A lot of people that don’t
have insurance choose not to
have it,” exclaimed Camby. He be-
lieves that allowing insurance to
be sold across state lines will in-
crease competition in the indus-
try, give consumers more health
care options, reduce overall costs,
and provide better quality reform
than a government-run policy.
Some of the most creative
signs came from the protestors
who showed the dissent for czars
in the U.S. government. The ap-
pointment of czars as presiden-
tial advisors dates back to Rich-
ard Nixon, but the expansion of
czars under former President
Bush and the record appointment
of 44 czars (now 43 in office) by
Obama has troubled many Amer-
icans. Tom Hill of Connecticut
held up a sign stating that czars
were “Unelected, Unaccountable,
and UnAmerican.” Many agree
with Mr. Hill about presidentially
appointed czars, which are not
called for in the United States
Constitution.
Even though most of the pro-
testors were middle aged or
older, there was certainly no ab-
sence of future taxpayers. Several
children at the rally were holding
signs saying “Stop Spending My
Future.” Other college students
held up signs reading “Future
Surgeons against Obamacare.”
Joey, a young man from Ren-
burne, Alabama explained that
he was concerned about the mis-
guided progressive trends in the
government. He is worried about
more socialized policies and what
it means for the future.
7
The Purdue Review September, 2009
government-run healthcare, and
the appointments of czars. Sev-
eral people also picketed signs
that criticized partiality in the
media. Media bias was a concern
at the protest only because many
of the protestors have felt mis-
represented or downplayed by
the mainstream media. To these
people, it was another chance to
get their views out and hopefully
be represented fairly.
Most healthcare protestors
supported some reform, but
President Obama’s vision of
a government-run option has
caused many people to have great
concerns. Rebecca Prettyman of
Wheeling, West Virginia held a
sign that read “I am a nurse who
says no to Obamacare.” After talk-
ing to Mrs. Prettyman, I discov-
ered that she had been in nursing
for over 35 years. She is highly
concerned about the quality of
care that a government-run op-
tion would provide and the abil-
ity of bureaucrats to handle deci-
sions regarding End-of-Life Care.
Don Camby, from Spartanburg,
South Carolina is a 68 year old
man who traveled to Washington
to voice his opinion about health-
care insurance. He believes that
politicians are overstating the
problem of the current insurance
system. “A lot of people that don’t
have insurance choose not to
have it,” exclaimed Camby. He be-
lieves that allowing insurance to
be sold across state lines will in-
crease competition in the indus-
try, give consumers more health
care options, reduce overall costs,
and provide better quality reform
than a government-run policy.
Some of the most creative
signs came from the protestors
who showed the dissent for czars
in the U.S. government. The ap-
pointment of czars as presiden-
tial advisors dates back to Rich-
ard Nixon, but the expansion of
czars under former President
Bush and the record appointment
of 44 czars (now 43 in office) by
Obama has troubled many Amer-
icans. Tom Hill of Connecticut
held up a sign stating that czars
were “Unelected, Unaccountable,
and UnAmerican.” Many agree
with Mr. Hill about presidentially
appointed czars, which are not
called for in the United States
Constitution.
Even though most of the pro-
testors were middle aged or
older, there was certainly no ab-
sence of future taxpayers. Several
children at the rally were holding
signs saying “Stop Spending My
Future.” Other college students
held up signs reading “Future
Surgeons against Obamacare.”
Joey, a young man from Ren-
burne, Alabama explained that
he was concerned about the mis-
guided progressive trends in the
government. He is worried about
more socialized policies and what
it means for the future.
After interviewing several
protestors about why they made
the trip out to Washington, I dis-
covered that the march was not
about power or politics. Until
recently, most people at this pro-
test were not regular picketers or
activists. Instead, they were rep-
resentative of everyday people
in America who have gotten fed
up with the excessive spending
and corruption that has been go-
ing on in Washington for several
years now. In general, the Taxpay-
er March on D.C. was a significant
day for hardworking Americans
who feel like their government
has lost sight of the people.
In the meantime, the tea party
movement shows no signs of
slowing down. According to
teapartyexpress.com: “The Tea
Party Express will kick-off [a
new] tour with a rally in San Di-
ego, California on October 25th
and wind up the tour with a rally
in Orlando, Florida on November
11th (Veteran’s Day).
8
September, 2009 The Purdue Review
Candidate Obama vs. POTUS
By JOSH TEASDALE
Symbols inexorably, but often in-
accurately, defne our perceptions of
the world in which we live During
the 2008 presidential election, Barack
Obama’s supporters were incredibly
effective in using catchy slogans, post-
ers, imagery, and rhetoric to portray
their candidate as the solution to all of
America’s problems. The now famous
“Hope” poster by Shepard Fairey has
become so universally recognized and
ubiquitous it has evolved into its own
style duplicated by many in order to
support the president, criticize other
candidates, or simply to entertain. The
Fairey design transformed the Obama
campaign into a movement.
Eight months into President
Obama’s frst term, the country is
coming off the rhetoric of the cam-
paign, and supporters of the President
have lost much media attention to de-
tractors of the President and his move-
ment is in the ditch Detractors of the
President have brought with them a
new set of imagery, rhetoric, and a
caricature of the President. The emer-
gence of pictures of President Obama
altered to resemble Health Ledger’s
portrayal of the Joker in last year’s
“The Dark Knight” introduced a clear
challenge to the messianic image pre-
ferred by the President’s supporters.
The opposition has gone further, por-
traying the President as anything from
the reincarnation of Hitler himself to a
radical socialist
Of course, neither of these char-
acterizations is correct In our current
culture of 24/7 media and news, it is
often only the extremes which are ca-
pable of gaining widespread attention.
The biggest problem with using sym-
bols for mass communication is that
inevitably you end up sacrifcing some
level of accuracy and nuance in your
message. Over the past 8 months, Pres-
ident Obama’s actions have revealed
that he is far from a messiah or a devil
Although many feel the President has
taken steps to concentrate an incred-
ible amount of power in the executive
branch, on many issues he has sim-
ply outsourced policy to Democrats
in congress In addition to letting the
Democratic leadership set legislative
policy, he has been more than willing
to bend to international organizations
and other countries when it has come
to foreign policy. Although the Presi-
dent possesses a bold, powerful, and
persuasive persona when it comes to
giving a speech, when it comes to ac-
tually governing he has shown a com-
plete lack of willingness to engage on
the details and make decisions which
would risk alienating people.
The healthcare reform debate in
the country has shown the most light
on the President’s ability to effectively
govern than any other issue we have
dealt with in the last 8 months After
numerous press conferences, inter-
views, a “full Ginsburg” on the Sun-
day shows and even an address to a
joint session of conference, there is
no “Obama Healthcare Plan.” Instead
the president has given a broad outline
for what he thinks healthcare reform
should look like. There is, however,
no bill which meets his guidelines
Without a bill to champion, President
Obama can’t point to what he actually
believes, but he seems more worried
about having to defend the nitty-grit-
ty details Giving a broad outline is
the easiest part of drawing up a bill.
Tough decisions on the details and
how to pay for it are what determine
whether a bill makes it from a brain-
storming session to the President’s
desk. When it comes to doing the real
work, the President instead fees to the
nearest late night show to try to boost
his poll numbers.
When President Franklin Roos-
evelt was drawing up his plans for the
Social Security system, he brought
together offcials from throughout
his administration to draw up the bill,
under a director from an advisory
committee made up of the relevant
congressional leaders In bringing
together administration offcials who
he could infuence and congressio-
nal leaders who he had to convince,
FDR was able to get a bill to his lik-
ing and actually pass it swiftly after
it was drafted President Obama has
displayed no such leadership on any
proposal.
More than policy, personal lik-
ability, knowledge, connections, or
speaking skill, it is probably leader-
ship which determines whether a poli-
tician, and especially a president, is
successful in enacting his or her ideas
Leadership demands a person take
risks and put his or her reputation on
the line. Having not even completed a
single term in the US Senate upon be-
ing elected to the Presidency, Barack
Obama hasn’t gone through the rigors
of having to put himself on the line
in order to accomplish his goals. In-
stead, he remained relatively green
and inexperienced in his approach to
politics. Perhaps the greatest image
of his leadership came recently when
chairing the United Nations Security
Council. Certainly a powerful image,
the frst US president to chair the Se-
curity Council, with the world’s most
powerful leaders surrounding him, he
boldly declared a pursuit to a nuclear
free world. But what was the outcome
of this meeting, of this powerful im-
age: a non-binding resolution from a
body where even the binding resolu-
tions are practically meaningless.
The “big table of debate,” how-
ever, remains President Obama’s
idea of good governance. It seems
he believes that if he can simply
get political actors to sit at a table
with him, through his own personal
greatness, he will convince them to
take on his policy goals. This notion
is, of course, too naïve to be believ-
able. Good leadership demands not
big tables and lofty debate, but of-
ten “trench warfare:” debating the
nuance of policy, standing firmly for
something, and fighting those who
oppose you. Despite the fact that
President Obama has surrounded
himself with many people who are
skilled in these areas, his goal ap-
pears to remain to be liked, not ac-
complished. It is, however, possible
that he realizes he must moderate
his views, and the views of those
who surround him in order to main-
tain a respectable approve rating.
Perhaps President Obama’s biggest
problem is he has no legitimate oppo-
nents to fght, demonize, blame, and
defeat when it comes to political and
policy battles. With 60 seats in the US
Senate, and close to 60% of the seats
in the US House, there is no legitimate
organized opposition in the US Gov-
ernment Yet on a number of issues,
such as Healthcare, Cap and Trade,
Card Check, he lacks the support of
a majority of Americans. Perhaps the
President realizes the unpopularity
of these issues and therefore refuses
to strongly stand behind a single
specifc bill or draft one of his own.
This should serve as reassurance to
the many Americans deeply disturbed
by what they perceive as a far left
agenda: even with total control of the
political branches of the US Govern-
ment, the people of the United States
themselves serve as an effective check
on power.
President Obama is neither a devil,
nor a messiah. Both these extremes
have something in common: signif-
cance. So far in his presidency, at
most, President Obama has merely
taken the role as the naïve mouth of
Democratic leadership. Recently, pic-
tures surfaced of the President play-
fully wielding a lightsaber while host-
ing US Olympic fencers at the White
House. After reviewing these pic-
tures, it would be diffcult for anyone
to imagine the President as an evil, so-
cialist revolutionary, but it is equally
hard to imagine him a strong, effective
leader either…Perhaps that is exactly
his problem.
9
The Purdue Review September, 2009
The Life of an Exchange Student
There is more to a person than just their country! By JENNIFER HAYWOOD
After four planes, two delays,
and a layover in Canada, I finally
arrived in America 24 hours later
than expected. I hadn’t eaten any-
thing in 32 hours, apart from the
cardboard food they now serve on
planes. I was tired, hungry and ner-
vous! After catching the Lafayette
Limo, I was dumped outside the
PMU with all my suitcases and told
to find the residence halls myself.
Luckily I live in Hawkins, so I did
not have to walk far.
Once I arrived, I was given a key. I
didn’t know where to get food from;
where to sign up for BGR; where
my RA was; how to get a bank ac-
count; buy a mobile phone; how to
sort out internet; and where any-
thing was on campus. Believe me,
all these seemingly simple things
become immensely difficult when
you are alone in a foreign country.
At this point, I was about to pack it
all in, but to make matters worse, I
opened my suitcase to discover my
toothpaste had leaked all over my
‘goodbye cards’ and photographs
from my friends and family. So I sat
in my room and cried. Sounds pa-
thetic I know, but all I wanted to do
was go home and erase the last 32
hours from my memory. Luckily my
story does get better.
An exchange student is some-
what different to an international
student who comes to Purdue as
a freshman. Exchange students
have already studied in their home
country for a couple of years and
then they go abroad to study for a
year and finish their degree back
in their home country. There are
many exchange students here at
Purdue from all over the globe, and
likewise many Purdue students
have gone abroad to study.
There is a society called Pass-
port, which is for all exchange
students, and it meets informally
every Friday. You can check out
the group on Facebook. It is not
just for international exchange stu-
dents but also Americans who have
studied abroad and/or who are
thinking of doing so. This is a great
way to meet people from the same
country as yo, or from the country
you are planning to study at.
We all embark on this ‘study
abroad’ adventure with high hopes.
We get excited about making lots
of new friends, joining different
societies and embracing the differ-
ent cultures, but we forget about
the realities, the things that are
left out of the ‘study abroad’ hand-
book! Sometimes it is the little in-
significant differences that you are
unprepared for which make life
difficult. For example, in England
lemonade is Sprite, elevators are
called lifts, sidewalks obviously
pavements, cell phones are mobile
phones, rain boots are known as
wellington boots, and pants are of
course trousers!
Please, don’t get me wrong, I
love it here; the people are very
friendly, the university resources
are amazing and the amount of
clubs and societies you can join is
incredible. I am having the time of
my life and I am so lucky to have
had this opportunity to study in
America for a year. I have only been
here for six weeks, but I have expe-
rienced so many fantastic things
thanks to the exchange programme
at Purdue. For example, I saw my
first American football match here;
had my first ‘pop quiz’; drank from
those famous solo cups; visited the
wonder that is Wal-Mart (and it is
true, you really can buy everything
there); did the fountain run; ate
biscuits and gravy (which won’t be
repeated).
However, the one thing that is
missing from this whole experience
is the fact that it is not home. Every
day, I am constantly reminded that
I am international and sometimes
all I want to do is fit in. I love talk-
ing about England and being an ex-
change student, because I think it is
a fantastic opportunity that I want
everyone to experience. However,
sometimes I would like people
to ask me ‘what music I like’ and
‘what I do in my spare time’ rather
than what music is like in England,
because my tastes and a whole
country’s tastes are not going to be
the same.
To fully understand what it is
like to be an exchange student you
have to live it, because words can-
not do the experience justice. It
is, without question, the hardest
things I have done in my life, but
at the same time, it is the most re-
warding thing. To say that you have
lived in another country by your-
self, and embraced their culture,
is one of the proudest feelings you
will ever feel. All the difficult times
have been over shadowed by the
fantastic experiences and friends
I have made. I truly am having the
time of my life and, apart from my
initial arrival, I would not have
changed anything.
I urge everyone to study abroad
because you not only discover dif-
ferent cultures, but you also discov-
er yourself. It is only when you are
taken from everything and every-
one that you know where you truly
find out what makes you tick. It is
not too late, if you want to share my
experiences, go to the study abroad
office and sign up. It will be the
most amazing adventure you will
ever experience, and it will look ex-
cellent on your resume. So do
something exciting and study
abroad!
get political actors to sit at a table
with him, through his own personal
greatness, he will convince them to
take on his policy goals. This notion
is, of course, too naïve to be believ-
able. Good leadership demands not
big tables and lofty debate, but of-
ten “trench warfare:” debating the
nuance of policy, standing firmly for
something, and fighting those who
oppose you. Despite the fact that
President Obama has surrounded
himself with many people who are
skilled in these areas, his goal ap-
pears to remain to be liked, not ac-
complished. It is, however, possible
that he realizes he must moderate
his views, and the views of those
who surround him in order to main-
tain a respectable approve rating.
Perhaps President Obama’s biggest
problem is he has no legitimate oppo-
nents to fght, demonize, blame, and
defeat when it comes to political and
policy battles. With 60 seats in the US
Senate, and close to 60% of the seats
in the US House, there is no legitimate
organized opposition in the US Gov-
ernment Yet on a number of issues,
such as Healthcare, Cap and Trade,
Card Check, he lacks the support of
a majority of Americans. Perhaps the
President realizes the unpopularity
of these issues and therefore refuses
to strongly stand behind a single
specifc bill or draft one of his own.
This should serve as reassurance to
the many Americans deeply disturbed
by what they perceive as a far left
agenda: even with total control of the
political branches of the US Govern-
ment, the people of the United States
themselves serve as an effective check
on power.
President Obama is neither a devil,
nor a messiah. Both these extremes
have something in common: signif-
cance. So far in his presidency, at
most, President Obama has merely
taken the role as the naïve mouth of
Democratic leadership. Recently, pic-
tures surfaced of the President play-
fully wielding a lightsaber while host-
ing US Olympic fencers at the White
House. After reviewing these pic-
tures, it would be diffcult for anyone
to imagine the President as an evil, so-
cialist revolutionary, but it is equally
hard to imagine him a strong, effective
leader either…Perhaps that is exactly
his problem.
“I have also embraced the song ‘Don’t
Stop Believin’ by Journey (which makes
every single American stand up and sing
for some bizarre reason).”
“I urge everyone to study abroad
because you not only discover different
cultures, but you also discover yourself.
It is only when you are taken from
everything and everyone that you
know where you truly find out what
makes you tick.”
10
September, 2009 The Purdue Review
Europe: Unshielded Against Missile Attack
By ADAM SIMKOWSKI
On September 17th, President
Obama decided to discontinue for-
mer President George W. Bush’s
missile defense shield plan for Po-
land and the Czech Republic. The
blueprint for the project entailed a
radar system in the Czech Repub-
lic and ten missile interceptors in
Poland aimed to intercept possible
missile attacks from Iran and other
aggressive Middle Eastern coun-
tries or groups. It would protect
both Europe and the United States
from attacks from long-range mis-
siles.
Obama’s decision to discontin-
ue this plan is a mistake for many
reasons. The first being that he
introduced a new missile defense
plan, which, according to him, “will
be ready faster, work with exist-
ing technology and provide better
missile defense than the program
proposed by President George W.
Bush.” Obama’s plan entails mobile
(sea based) defense systems to pro-
tect Europe from short to medium
range ballistic missiles. The truth is
that he is scrapping part of a larger
plan that was initially set in place
by the former administration and
NATO and discarding a long-range
missile threat from Iran. This now
leaves both Europe and the United
States vulnerable to long range
missile attacks.
The whole missile defense plan
is aimed at stopping missile attacks
from North Korea and the Middle
East, as mentioned above. Radar
and anti-missile defense systems
are currently based in California,
Alaska, and in the U.K. A plan for
a radar station in Greenland was
in the works, along with 130 mo-
bile-based interceptors on ships.
George W. Bush had initiated the
plan for the project to continue in
Poland and the Czech Republic and
to be fully operational in 2012. This
plan was going to cover a “hole” in
the defense plan so that Europe
and the United States could combat
any missile attack.
Obama, Defense Secretary Rob-
ert Gates, and their intelligence of-
ficers trust the mobile defense too
much for comfort. They argue that
it is much more accurate than the
proposed plan. Although the mo-
bile defense has racked up a cost
of $100 billion since its creation, it
has yet to be proven stable in real-
istic conditions. Independent sci-
entific committees have said dur-
ing tests that defense testers were
given detailed positions of routes
of the missiles, and the results were
not perfect. George W. Bush’s plan
proposed a new more accurate
technology. So, it seems Mr. Obama
and Mr. Gates were either misled
or lying. Why they would not want
to invest into a new more accurate
technology is vacuous. The pro-
posed cost of the Eastern European
plan was $4 billion, which is only a
tiny fraction of the total stimulus
package Obama passed earlier this
year. If only he could have added
that small fraction in to help pro-
tect the United States and its allies.
Although Obama’s plan will cost
an additional $2.5 billion, it is ir-
rational to cut national security for
a few billion when hundreds more
have already been spent on less sig-
nificant components.
His decision to cancel these
plans has also placed mistrust
and disappointment in many high
ranking Polish and Czech officials,
including Lech Walesa, Polish na-
tional hero for helping overthrow
communism, Polish President Lech
Kaczyski, head of Poland’s National
Security Council, Aleksander Szczy-
glo, and Former Czech Prime Minis-
ter Mirek Topolanek. Recently, after
Bush’s announcement of the plan
for Eastern Europe, the Russians,
feeling threatened, announced a
plan to place short and medium
range missiles in Kaliningrad, the
small piece of Russia between Po-
land and Lithuania. Former Presi-
dent Bush insisted the missile de-
fense was for protection against
the Middle East, but it seems Rus-
sia still wants influence in their for-
mer Soviet satellite countries.
For Polish officials in particu-
lar, the missile defense system had
been less about a threat from Iran
than it was a mechanism to secure
a permanent deployment of U.S.
soldiers on its territory. Specifically
to help build up their military and
economy through defense with an
American base there. Now, Poland
will have nothing except a possible
land missile defense base in 2015.
It is doubtful that will happen since
Obama has only briefly mentioned
it. They still could possibly have
short to medium range Russian
missiles near their border if Russia
decides to follow through. Bartosz
Weglarczyk, foreign editor of the
leading Polish daily Gazeta Wybor-
cza and supporter of the original
plan stated, “Poland wanted a per-
manent US military installation
in this part of Europe because it
would mean the real end of the
iron curtain,” in an interview with
the BBC. Russia also claimed that
the radar could be used as an espi-
onage weapon against them. Quite
frankly, Russia’s actions toward
this whole ordeal are unaccept-
able; apparently the word “former”
in reference to their Soviet satel-
lites is meaningless.
Obama has put Russia before
important, and most loyal NATO
allies, and for what? Although the
Russians are praising Obama’s
decision and Russia’s Deputy De-
fense Minister Vladimir Popovkin
claims that they are going to cancel
their missile plans, his statement
was later dismissed by the chief
of the Russian military’s General
Staff, Gen. Nikolai Makarov and the
Kremlin who said “Such important
statements can’t come from a low
level.” Obama has appeased the
Russians, and the United States
will receive nothing in return. The
newspapers in Russia headlined
a military and diplomatic victory
when Obama cancelled the plans.
Now, a resurgent bully nation has
gained momentum and America
has taken a step backward in its
national defense and foreign rela-
tions.
The fact of the matter is, Obama
should have never scrapped this
idea in the first place. Yes, short
and medium range missiles are a
threat and investing in new mobile
defense systems are great, as they
were a part of the original plan.
However, leaving Poland and the
Czech Republic unsecure with no
defense (until 2015 at the earliest),
even though they were promised
by 2012, and appeasing Russia
were large mistakes. The largest
mistake was putting our national
security at risk. Iran is working to-
ward long range missiles everyday
as a confirmed by recent report
from the International Atomic En-
ergy Association which stated that
Iranian experts are building a new
generation of centrifuges which
help split isotopes for nuclear
weapon development. Hopefully
this doesn’t prove to be a severe
mistake.
“Now, a resurgent bully nation has
gained momentum and America has
taken a step backward in its national
defense and foreign relations. “
11
The Purdue Review September, 2009
All the Presidents Czars
By TYLER MARTIN
Historically, one would be quick
to associate the term ‘czar’ with
the tyrannical monarchs who ruled
upon the Russian motherland for
centuries. Since then, the term has
shifted to a meaning of less ma-
lignancy as countries around the
world have taken on more demo-
cratic forms of government. So
what could this country possibly
have to do with the term? Is there
a hidden room under the White
House where secret, unelected,
sneering, leaders run the country
as the President has a drink on the
White House lawn? In a realistic
sense, that description seems to
hold some truth.
Many are unaware that all presi-
dents since Franklin Roosevelt
have taken part in the practice of
appointing and having “czars” on
their staff. From Reagan to Obama,
these presidents have been from
the extremes on both sides of the
aisle, although some Presidents
have been more apt to appointing
and using them than others. Many
questions can be raised about their
role in the government. Among
these include: constitutionality,
increasing number and power un-
der the Obama administration, role
and level of power, and what, if
anything, could or should be done
about them.
Article 2, Section 2, of our Con-
stitution swiftly sums up the con-
stitutionality of presidential czars.
In short, the President can “by
and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate” make all appoint-
ments, even those not specifically
mentioned in the constitution (i.e.
czars). This begs the question,
“How many of these czars have
been appointed with Senate ap-
proval?” The exact number can be
subjective, the criteria to qualify
for the title of czar can vary. For
this reason, I will refrain from nam-
ing specific numbers of czars, but it
is in the dozens, and a majority of
those go without senate approval.
Ergo, we have presidential appoint-
ments, who are not confirmed by
the Senate, but still get the position.
This is clearly and blatantly uncon-
stitutional, so one should not hesi-
tate to assume that the number of
czars under Obama is on the higher
end, likely the highest of any presi-
dent so far.
This brings up striking similari-
ties between the Obama and Roos-
evelt presidencies. Both occurred
during economic crisis, and both
have been significant in expand-
ing the concept of executive czars.
It seems as if the more the govern-
ment intervenes in affairs, the more
czars that are necessitated by the
President. Roosevelt had the New
Deal program, and Obama had the
stimulus bill,
both of which
needed to be
overseen by
czars. In stark
contrast, the
last time there
were merely
few czars was
during the
time of Reagan
and Bush Sr.,
a period of a
smaller, more
conservative
government .
But here we are today, and Obama
is continuing the trend of govern-
mental expansion started under
George W. Bush.
Another factor is not just how
many czars we have, but how much
power those czars have. Having
many czars with slight power and
influence is no different from hav-
ing a handful who possess greater
power in those areas. A large pro-
portion of current czars have been
appointed to overseeing executive
programs related to the economic
situation. Obama has appointed
them to oversee the restructur-
ing of the automotive industry, as
well as TARP plan to bailout fail-
ing financial institutions, among
other significant responsibilities.
One example is the man appointed
to the first category: the car czar.
Although he has a myriad of sub-
stantial credentials, this man, Ron
Bloom, is one of the crucial play-
ers involved in the auto recovery
act and will be given a significant
amount of power. There is a bal-
ance between electivity and power
granted, and I think that in many of
the cases with Obama’s czars, the
amount of power that they receive
does not warrant their appoint-
ment, especially without senate ap-
proval.
To delve further into the sub-
ject of Ron Bloom, he is a Harvard
graduate, with a solid background
in business and politics. Yet, what,
from that resume, warrants him
being in charge of one of the gov-
ernment’s major economic inter-
ventions of our time? This is where
the idea of czars becomes slippery.
These individuals are picked by
the President, and go under ab-
solutely no scrutiny by the people
or Congress. The system of checks
and balances that this country re-
lies upon to prevent any one entity
from becoming too powerful can-
not be used to directly regulate
them.
In the future, if a president
wants to continue using czars to
help organize the staff and push the
agenda, he or she should do so with
either congressional approval or
use some means of limiting their
power to reasonable levels. Obvi-
ously, the option also exists for
czars to be done away with alto-
gether and allow the President to
use traditional means of organizing
his staff. Where will the trend go
from here if no action is taken? Is it
possible that the problem will con-
tinue to expand out of control, like
cancerous cells in the human body?
Or, if the right people get into office,
maybe they will be appropriately
reduced in size until we return to
the smaller government ideals that
this country was founded upon.
“Is there a hidden room under the White
House where secret, unelected, sneering,
leaders run the country as the President
has a drink on the White House lawn? In a
realistic sense, that description seems to
hold some truth.”
Ron Bloom, Car Czar
12
September, 2009 The Purdue Review
Indiana State Treasurer Mourdock Takes on
By SCOTT SOWERS & AMANDA THAYER
Picture this: You’ve been stand-
ing in line for dinner at the Wiley
Dining court for more than a half
hour because it’s steak night. You
finally make it to the front of the
line and swipe your card twice. It’s
expensive, but it will be worth it—
it’s steak, after all.
After waiting another eternity,
you’re now three people from get-
ting your mouth-watering steak.
Then the cook announces there are
only five steaks left. No problem.
You’re fourth in line. But then the
cook does something unprecedent-
ed; something outrageous. Ignoring
decades of tried and true cafeteria
protocols and traditions, the cook
arbitrarily decides that the group
of kids still waiting in line outside
and wearing IU apparel will get the
steaks!
You lost a steak, for which you
waited and paid for, to someone
who didn’t deserve it. Still in disbe-
lief, you are forced to settle for the
day-old meat loaf.
This situation seems absurd,
but this is exactly what happened
to the State of Indiana as a result
of the Chrysler bankruptcy. Only
President Obama was the lunch
lady and the United Auto Workers
(UAW) and Fiat were the IU kids
who ate your steak.
In the summer of 2008, the
State of Indiana purchased secured
debt of Chrysler with a face value
of $42.5 million for a sum of $17
million. Invested in this debt were
three funds in Indiana, the Major
Moves Construction Fund, the Indi-
ana State Police Pension Trust, and
the Teachers’ Retirement Fund of
Indiana.
Beginning in early 2009, the
U.S. Treasury Department began
to force Chrysler into a Chapter 11,
Section 363 bankruptcy procedure.
This would be the largest bank-
ruptcy procedure in the history of
the U.S. and more importantly, the
details of the procedure would be
unprecedented.
The Obama Administration an-
nounced that for the first time in
American history, secured credi-
tors (i.e. bond holders) would re-
ceive less than unsecured creditors
(i.e. stockholders). The unsecured
creditors, including the three Indi-
ana funds mentioned above, would
only receive 29 cents on the dol-
lar while the unsecured creditors,
which included the UAW, would re-
ceive 71 cents on the dollar.
A majority of Chrysler’s secured
debt, nearly $6.3 billion, was held
by some of the largest financial
institutions in the country, includ-
ing JP Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman
Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. The re-
maining secured debt was held by
private equity funds and pension
funds in states like Indiana, Califor-
nia, and Michigan.
The financial institutions men-
tioned above intended to file objec-
tions to the proceedings but were
convinced by the U.S. Treasury to
accept the 29 cents on the dollar for
their investments. One can imagine
the executive of these corporations
being called to the Whitehouse and
told “We gave you $90 billion of
TARP funds. We’ve got your back.
You’re too big to fail. Give it up.”
And indeed they did. They even re-
quested the courts to seal their fil-
ings to protect their identities.
The only one left standing in the
fight was Indiana State Treasurer
Richard Mourdock, the fiduciary
responsible for the three Indiana
funds.
At 10:00 a.m. on Monday, May
18th, the US Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York
notified Mr. Mourdock that he
had until 4:00 pm the next day to
file objections or claims on behalf
of the Indiana funds and provide
proof of ownership of those funds.
Indiana filed their objection on
Tuesday, May 19th claiming, as
Mourdock stated in an interview
with the Purdue Review, that Indi-
ana “did not want the sale to go for-
ward because the rights of secured
creditors were being walked on.”
The State of Indiana made three
legal arguments before the New
York bankruptcy court. First, that
bankruptcy laws and rules cannot
be made up on the fly by the Execu-
tive Office, a violation of Article I,
Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution
which states that “Congress shall
have the Power… to establish… uni-
form Laws on the Subject of Bank-
ruptcies throughout the United
States.” Also, it was argued that the
pace of the proceedings was a vio-
lation of the “due process” clause of
the Fifth Amendment.
Secondly, that TARP funds pro-
vided to Chrysler were “clearly ille-
gal and against Congress’ intent of
the use of TARP funds.” This point is
reinforced by U.S. Treasury Secre-
tary Timothy Geithner’s testimony
before the House Appropriations
Financial Services Subcommittee
on May 21st that “We do not be-
lieve that TARP, as current legisla-
tion, provides a viable solution to
this specific challenge, [Using TARP
money to stabilize state bond rat-
ings]…. We are restricted to giving
to financial institutions.”
Third, Indiana argued there
can’t be a sub rosa or “under-the-
table” bankruptcy. In a normal
bankruptcy, a potential bidder
would never be allowed to evaluate
the assets up for auction or negoti-
ate the terms of the bankruptcy. Yet
this is exactly what the U.S. govern-
ment did. According to Mourdock,
“[The U.S. Government] was doing
all of this to put a package together
that would be sold at auction. In
this auction, it was clear that there
would only be one bidder, and that
bidder would be the U.S. Govern-
ment.” To ensure that there would
be no other bidders, the U.S. Gov-
ernment required any potential
bidders to submit a $600 million
non-refundable bid deposit. Big
surprise, no one else showed up to
bid!
The New York Bankruptcy court
declined to hear the case but noted
the points of law raised by Indiana
“had merit.”
The case was then appealed be-
fore the U.S. Second Circuit Court
July, 2008
Indiana buys $42
million of Chrysler’s
secured debt for
$0.43 on the dollar
May 18,
2009, 10 am
Indiana St Treasurer
Mourdock notfed
has untl 4pm Tues-
day to fle objectons
May 19,
2009, 4 pm
Objecton fled on
behalf of 3 Indiana
funds invested in
Chrysler
Chrysler fles for
Chapter 11 Bank-
ruptcy
Apr 30,
2009
13
The Purdue Review September, 2009
of Appeals, who suggested they
lacked jurisdiction but issued a
stay on the sale until 4:00 pm on
Monday, June 15th. This court later
ruled that Indiana had no standing
to file a claim but that the funds
“raise interesting and unresolved
constitutional issues.” Interesting.
Indiana then appealed the case
before U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg who issued a
stay until 7:00pm on Tuesday, June
16th. The Supreme Court then is-
sued an order per curiam removing
the stay and allowing the bankrupt-
cy sale to proceed because Indiana
failed to meet all of the conditions
required to stop the sale. Justice
Ginsburg noted, “A denial of stay is
not a decision on the merits of the
underlying legal issues.” Judicial ac-
tivism at its finest.
In less than 48 hours following
the removal of the stay, the sale
of Chrysler took place and all of
Chrysler’s assets were auctioned
off to—you guessed it—the U.S.
federal government, the same en-
tity which set the value of those as-
sets. It is estimated that the Indiana
funds lost more than $6 million in
the process.
A $400 million stake in Chrys-
ler was immediately sold to Fiat,
which would not have been so
bad had Fiat been required to pay
$400 million for those shares. In
fact, Fiat will never have to pay for
those shares. Not a penny. “We now
have a government whose policy
is to support foreign corporations,
”Mourdock noted, ”while Indiana
and American pensioners are los-
ing their money and getting ripped
off to pay for it. And it is appalling!”
President Barack Obama called
anyone who would object to the
sale of Chrysler “unpatriotic,”
“greedy speculators,” and “unwill-
ing to sacrifice.” We now live in a
country where the President be-
lieves educators and law enforce-
ment officers are un-patriotic and
unwilling to sacrifice. One could
also imagine Obama believes they
have “acted stupidly.”
The amount of money lost by
Indiana pensioners is troublesome,
but the circumstances which al-
lowed this to happen are even more
disconcerting. The scope and mag-
nitude of the legal consequences of
the Chrysler bankruptcy is nearly
unimaginable.
The way in which this bank-
ruptcy, the largest and most com-
plex bankruptcy in U.S. history at
that point, was handled was unlike
anything we have ever seen. Will
this set a precedent for large bank-
ruptcies in the future? The answer
is most likely, “yes.” In an e-mail to
Chrysler executives, the U.S. Trea-
sury Department said that Chrysler
was to be the “guinea pig” for what
they wanted to do with GM. One
could imagine they wish to do this
for other sectors of the economy.
Additionally, the term “secured
creditors” was completely rede-
fined by the judiciary, which is a
branch of government that the Con-
stitution states cannot make laws.
Wealth was taken (from teachers
and police officers)
without the due pro-
cess guaranteed by
the Fifth Amendment.
“The speed at which
this whole process
was rammed through
made a mockery of
due process of law,”
Mourdock rightfully
noted.
If rules are made up
on the fly, who is going
to be willing to invest
in the United States?
If there is no guaran-
tee that investors will
receive what they de-
serve in bankruptcy
proceedings, they will
take their money else-
where. There will be
a flight of capital out of the United
States by foreign investors and our
credit rating will be destroyed.
Make no mistake, the precedent
set by the Chrysler bankruptcy
proceedings is dangerous, indeed.
When President Obama announced
the week before he was elected
that he was out to “fundamentally
transform America,” he meant it.
Congress and the Obama adminis-
tration is determined to transform
the U.S. economy (the strongest,
most resilient economy in the his-
tory of the world) into a model as
they see fit. “I think that the ad-
ministration,” Mourdock said, “is
deeply visceral, hostile to the very
basic tenets of capitalism that state
that some will survive and some
Chrysler and Federal Government
May 20,
2009
Southern Bank-
ruptcy Court of New
York denies stay of
Chrysler sale
June 5,
2009
Stay issued
by US Second
Circuit Court
of Appeals
June 8,
2009
Stay issued by
US Supreme
Court Justce
Ginsburg
June 9,
2009
Stay lifed by
US Supreme
Court at 7pm
June 10,
2009
Chrysler sold
to US Fed-
eral Govern-
ment
will fail.”
Because Justice Ginsburg issued
the stay of the sale of Chrysler’s as-
sets, Indiana has 90 days to file an
appeal. They did so on September
2nd. They will not argue that they
or the other creditors be paid the
amount typical in a bankruptcy. As
Mourdock has stated, there is no le-
gal way to do that. Rather, they will
be arguing the basic points of law
that the courts claimed to “have
merit” raise “interesting and unre-
solved constitutional issues.”
Citizens should be thankful that
there are still elected officials such
as Indiana State Treasurer Richard
Mourdock who are willing to stand
up for the Constitution and citi-
zens’ rights.
IN State Treasurer, Richard Mourdock
14
September, 2009 The Purdue Review
Disposing of Recycling
By ROHAN JOHNSON
In 1987, a garbage barge by the
name of Mobro 4000, spent two
months moving through the Atlan-
tic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico
looking for a landfill to dump its
load. The captain of the barge was
originally planning on dumping in
a cheap landfill in Louisiana. But
with the hopes of cutting transpor-
tation costs, he attempted to sway
Jones County, North Carolina to ac-
cept the trash. The Mobro pulled
into the dock before the deal could
be finalized, causing landfill of-
ficials to assume that the Mobro’s
load posed a threat. Thus, the Mo-
bro was turned away, and the me-
dia lunged at the story like a chee-
tah on its prey.
This over-exaggerated story
prompted people to believe that
we are actually running out of land-
fill space in the United States. The
EPA jumped on the opportunity to
put itself in the spotlight. They re-
leased a document titled “The Solid
Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Ac-
tion”. In this widely read document,
they stated that “We are rapidly de-
pleting our landfill areas” and “re-
cycling is absolutely vital”. Jay Win-
ston Porter, an administrator in the
EPA, made a public statement de-
claring that the citizens of the Unit-
ed States needed to increase total
recycling by 25%; otherwise, we
would run out of landfill space. But
rather than calculating remaining
landfill capacity, the EPA calculated
the number of remaining landfills
(not taking into account the recent
growth in landfill sizes). Hence the
modern recycling movement was
born.
Why do we recycle? Recycling
feels good because we’re “help-
ing” the world. But how exactly
does this process, in which many
of us take part, help the world? We
are told that we are saving money
when we recycle because we’re not
spending as much on raw materi-
als. We’re ensuring that our very
limited resources don’t run out any
time soon by reusing materials.
We’re prolonging the time until the
impending doom that is an eventu-
al lack of landfill space in the Unit-
ed States comes to pass. Landfills
are harmful to the environment, so
by decreasing landfill space, we’re
saving our air and water supply. All
of these reasons are false. Unfor-
tunately, most of our rationale for
feeling good about recycling is not
justified. Let us break down all of
these aspects to determine wheth-
er or not recycling is actually help-
ing the world.
Does recycling save money? No:
for the most part, recycling is more
costly for firms as well as consum-
ers. On the surface, recycling may
not seem nearly as expensive as
it actually is. The reason for this
misrepresentation is the federal
government and its endless subsi-
dies. The government takes our tax
dollars and allocates it to recycling
agencies in the name of public in-
terest. The government does this
because they don’t trust us to do
what they believe is right without
their forceful hand doing it for us.
The government’s money isn’t re-
ally the government’s money. It’s
our money, and our representa-
tives are allowing subsidies to be
given to recycling agencies for the
simple reason that the majority
of people believe that recycling is
good. There have even been stud-
ies that show that more people in
the United States recycle than vote.
According to Daniel Benjamin, a
professor of economics at Clemson
University who’s done an exten-
sive amount of research debunk-
ing myths about recycling, most of
what makes people feel good about
recycling is based on misinforma-
tion. “They’ve been told since the
second or third grade that recy-
cling is wonderful for the environ-
ment, that it saves resources, and
that it’s going to save human kind
from itself. And so, based on this
misinformation, they think that
they’re doing the right thing.”
Where do all those tax dollars
go? According to the EPA there is an
average of 50 dollars spent per ton
of garbage being disposed, while it
costs an average of 160 dollars per
ton to recycle materials. It costs us
roughly three times more to recycle
than to dispose of materials. One of
the original benefits of recycling as
posed by the EPA was that after the
government subsidized recycling,
and the firms reproduced goods
out of the recycled material, a net
profit would be returned to the
government which could be used
to fund other projects. According to
Angela Logomasini, the Director of
Risk and Environmental Policy at
the Competitive Enterprise Insti-
tute, this concept has been proven
wrong throughout the last fifteen
years. “For fifteen years New York
has had a net loss every year, this
year alone New York has had a net
loss of 33 million dollars.”
One of the primary reasons
many environmentalists cite for
recycling is the myth that we are
running out of both renewable and
15
The Purdue Review September, 2009
nonrenewable resources. Whether
the source is trees, bauxite (ore
used to make aluminum), or oil, the
answer offered by environmental-
ists is to recycle. The truth is that
rather than losing resources, we
are actually gaining resources.
The long standing argument for
recycling paper products is quite
simple. The more paper we recycle,
the fewer trees that are chopped
down. This seems to make sense,
but what is often overlooked is the
kinds of trees that are used. The
truth is that most paper is made
from trees that are grown for the
sole reason of being used to make
paper. In fact, there are three times
more trees now than there were in
1920. Most of the virgin pulp that
goes into paper is grown on tree
farms. Those tree farms would
not exist if people did not buy, and
throw away paper. Logically, it fol-
lows that the more we recycle, the
fewer trees there are in the world.
Not only does recycling paper not
save trees, it creates more toxins
in the atmosphere. It’s a manufac-
turing process which creates gases
that pollute the atmosphere. After
all of the de-inking, burning, and
bleaching, there is actually more
harm done to the environment
than good.
But as trees are renewable re-
sources, what about nonrenewable
sources? The absolute best way to
measure the scarcity of nonrenew-
able sources such as oil is to use the
market prices. We can’t fully grasp
a global amount of materials with-
out looking at the world market.
Simple supply and demand teaches
us that if the price of a resource is
going up, the resource is becom-
ing scarcer. And if the price is go-
ing down, the resource is becoming
more plentiful.
Does recycling save energy and
resources? No, it increases energy
use in transport, sorting, stor-
ing, and cleaning, all of the things
needed to get the material back to
a useful state. All of these factors
actually add to wasteful consump-
tion of resources rather than de-
creasing it. While it may seem like
a paradox, the numbers show that
even as our consumption of natural
resources increases, the availabil-
ity of these resources also increas-
es. Much of this is due to human
innovation and our ability to adapt
to circumstances. As a species, we
have been able to continually dis-
cover new means of supply. The
beauty of the balance is the inverse
relationship between quantity of
resources and their respective pric-
es. The higher the price of a scarce
resource, the more innovation en-
trepreneurs and engineers strive
to achieve. There is no sign that we
will run out of any of the resources
which we now recycle in the fore-
seeable future. The majority of in-
dustrial products have seen a price
decrease of roughly 80% in the last
150 years.
After the exploited Mobro fi-
asco, panic about landfills began to
spread throughout the population.
Many people still believe that land-
fills are dangerous and that we will
soon have landfills in every front
and backyard of America. This
could not be further from the truth.
Studies have shown that if we so
desired, we could make a land fill
measuring 35 miles on each side
and it would have enough capacity
to hold the United States trash for
the next one thousand years. That’s
not to say we are going to create
one massive landfill, but it certainly
puts our amount of landfill space in
perspective.
In terms of danger, modern
landfills pose little to no threat to
the environment. Modern landfills
are founded with a thick layer of
clay that runs for yards into the
ground. Inside the clay layer there
is a filtering system which filters
out leachate, which is a toxic fluid
created in all landfills. On top of the
trash is a thin rubberlike layer that
keeps all gases from leaving the
landfill. The primary gas created by
the decomposing materials within
landfills is methane. Methane is an
energy gas, and we’ve come so far
as to use it as such! Modern land-
fills have a way of venting out the
methane and harvesting it as an en-
ergy source. This Methane gas is ef-
fective enough to provide energy to
multiple homes for several years.
The EPA quietly admits that the
chance of a modern landfill actu-
ally having any sort of a dangerous
effect on nature or humans is one
in a billion. We take much greater
chances of risk through out our
daily life with transportation and
food. The notion that landfills are
dangerous is simply not true. It’s
fear-mongering at its best.
From logistical analysis and just
pure common sense, we can deter-
mine that recycling actually does
more harm to the world than good.
How are we helping the world? We
are not. We are feeling good for no
reason, which may seem produc-
tive on a personal level for some
people. But a word of advice, if you
would like to have a feeling of ac-
complishment without really ac-
complishing anything positive, go
ahead and sit on a bar stool drink-
ing the day away. You are effectively
completing the same task, without
wasting 8 billion dollars.
The government’s money isn’t re-
ally the government’s money. It’s
our money, and our representa-
tives are allowing subsidies to be
given to recycling agencies for the
simple reason that the majority
of people believe that recycling is
good. There have even been stud-
ies that show that more people in
the United States recycle than vote.
According to Daniel Benjamin, a
professor of economics at Clemson
University who’s done an exten-
sive amount of research debunk-
ing myths about recycling, most of
what makes people feel good about
recycling is based on misinforma-
tion. “They’ve been told since the
second or third grade that recy-
cling is wonderful for the environ-
ment, that it saves resources, and
that it’s going to save human kind
from itself. And so, based on this
misinformation, they think that
they’re doing the right thing.”
Where do all those tax dollars
go? According to the EPA there is an
average of 50 dollars spent per ton
of garbage being disposed, while it
costs an average of 160 dollars per
ton to recycle materials. It costs us
roughly three times more to recycle
than to dispose of materials. One of
the original benefits of recycling as
posed by the EPA was that after the
government subsidized recycling,
and the firms reproduced goods
out of the recycled material, a net
profit would be returned to the
government which could be used
to fund other projects. According to
Angela Logomasini, the Director of
Risk and Environmental Policy at
the Competitive Enterprise Insti-
tute, this concept has been proven
wrong throughout the last fifteen
years. “For fifteen years New York
has had a net loss every year, this
year alone New York has had a net
loss of 33 million dollars.”
One of the primary reasons
many environmentalists cite for
recycling is the myth that we are
running out of both renewable and
16
September, 2009 The Purdue Review
Cap & Trade: The Wrong Prescription for a
By JORDAN HEBBE
Given the fact that many of our
readers may not be knowledgeable
on the cap and trade bill, I will pro-
vide a short explanation of it. Cap
and trade is a policy enacted by
government (red flag number one:
government program) in which a
restriction, or cap, is placed on the
amount of a certain pollutant that
can be emitted. Companies and
other groups are given allowances,
in the form of credits, which repre-
sent the amount of that pollutant
that they are allowed to emit. If a
company needs to produce more
goods, and therefore release more
emissions, that company must buy
extra credits from another com-
pany, which constitutes the trade
aspect of cap and trade. Energy
companies are the largest produc-
ers of carbon emissions and can ex-
pect to need the largest amount of
carbon allowances. In our case, the
cap and trade bill was introduced
into the House of Representatives
by Congressmen Waxman and Mar-
key.
As anyone with a fundamen-
tal understanding of economics
knows, our companies provide
jobs for Americans, which provide
American workers with income,
which they reinvest in the prod-
ucts produced by the companies
that employ Americans. It is really
a beautiful, self-sustaining circle,
when it is left alone to function
without government interference.
However, a basic understanding of
economic principles should also
trigger red flags with any person
who reads the President’s plan for
cap and trade. Of course, the bill is
so long that few have even had the
opportunity to read it. Due to the
current state of the economy, com-
panies have already been forced to
initiate pay cuts and lay-offs in or-
der to survive. It is safe to say that
if a new program which places re-
strictions on companies is enacted,
it will further depress the economy.
At this point, companies cannot
take on the added expense of car-
bon credits without raising prices,
or making significant production
cuts and additional layoffs, both
of which would cause even more
problems for the economy. With
each year the program is in place,
emissions standards will become
stricter and stricter, and companies
will not be able to keep up with
production demands and afford to
purchase additional credits at the
same time. While this sounds like
an absurd program to enact while
we are in the throes of an economic
crisis, it is exactly what President
Obama and most of his fellow Dem-
ocrats want. As stated by Obama
himself, the intention of the cap
and trade program is to put a clamp
on American companies and pro-
duction, which will no doubt crush
innovation, employment, and our
private sector: “What I’ve said is
that we would put a cap and trade
system in place that is as aggres-
sive, if not more aggressive, than
anybody else’s out there. I was the
first to call for a 100% auction on
the cap and trade system, which
means that every unit of carbon or
greenhouse gases emitted would
be charged to the polluter. That will
create a market in which whatever
technologies are out there that are
being presented, whatever power
plants that are being built, that
they would have to meet the rigors
of that market and the ratcheted
down caps that are being placed,
imposed every year.”
The cap and trade bill is being
auctioned off as a quick cure-all for
our environmental woes. In reality,
it is a program that is positioned to
seize wealth from the means of pro-
duction and bring the economy to a
screeching halt. The sole purpose
of the bill is to restrict Americans’
usage of energy. Energy compa-
nies, the largest producers of car-
bon, will almost undoubtedly be in
need of additional carbon credits.
When they are unable to afford the
credits, they will have to raise pric-
es, which will affect the American
consumer. In order to afford their
energy bills, people will begin to cut
back on their usage. This will deal
another blow to the energy compa-
nies, which are already struggling.
As one can see, this vicious cycle
will continue until prices skyrocket
out of control and/or the energy
companies begin to fail. At which
point, the government will either
plan a bailout or just seize control
of the companies entirely, all at the
taxpayers’ expense.
As an interesting aside, it should
be noted that Goldman Sachs, a
key player in the mortgage melt-
down that perpetuated our cur-
rent economic crisis, has invested
heavily in the carbon emissions
trading company, Chicago Climate
Exchange. The company was cre-
ated in anticipation of the gold rush
that was expected to occur as a re-
sult of the Kyoto protocol, which
implemented a worldwide cap and
trade system. However, President
Bush backed out of the program,
leaving the Chicago Climate Ex-
change high and dry. At this time,
Chicago’s Joyce Foundation came
onto the scene to save the floun-
dering company. The foundation,
17
The Purdue Review September, 2009
whose board members included
Barack Obama, gave millions to
keep bail out the CCE (a practice
our President has grown quite fond
of). Since the company’s recovery
and subsequent name change to
Climate Exchange Ltd., Goldman
Sachs has taken an 18% stake in it.
Another interesting shareholder of
Climate Exchange stock is Genera-
tion Investment Management. This
is another company involved with
energy trading that was curiously
co-founded and owned by Senator
Al Gore, one of the largest support-
ers of cap and trade legislation, and
Hank Paulson, who is a former US
Treasury Secretary, as well as the
former CEO of Goldman Sachs. The
web of connections surrounding
cap and trade cannot be ignored.
The Chicago Joyce Foundation,
chaired by Obama, saved the Chi-
cago Climate Exchange from bank-
ruptcy. Goldman Sachs bought up
an 18% stake in the company, and
Al Gore and Hank Paulson’s com-
pany purchased a 10% share. Dur-
ing the 2008 elections, Goldman
Sachs was Obama’s largest private
campaign contributor, and also do-
nated 73% of their earnings to get
other Democrats elected. These
enormous donations explain Gold-
man’s need for bailout funds, given
to them by Obama, to the tune of
$12 billion taxpayer dollars. Can
this all really be a coincidence?
The cap and trade bill will trans-
fer power from capitalist compa-
nies into the greedy hands of the
federal government. During the
program’s first year, it is expected
to earn a total of $78.7 billion dol-
lars. That is money that would oth-
erwise be used to pay employees or
to develop new technology, but in-
stead, Obama claims that it will be
put towards funding the massive
socialist healthcare overhaul that is
being planned. According to the
Heritage Foundation’s estimates,
energy prices for the average fami-
ly of four can be expected to rise
17% yearly from 2020 to 2035, re-
sulting in a 263% total increase.
During the first days following the
bill’s introduction into the House
Energy Committee, Republicans
proposed three separate amend-
ments to provide a type of safety
net for American consumers. They
asked that the program be sus-
pended if one (or all) of the follow-
ing three things were to occur: Gas
reaching $5 per gallon, electricity
prices rising 10% above 2009 pric-
es, unemployment rate climbing to
15%. Not surprisingly, the Demo-
crats voted down each of these eco-
nomic safeguards. Add this fact on
top of the abundant amount of evi-
dence already presented, and it be-
comes clear that the sole purpose
of this bill is to send our economy
into a depression the likes of which
this country has never before seen.
Make no mistake, our government
can and will rip the free market
economy we know and love direct-
ly out from under us, if we but give
them the chance. The stage is al-
ready set for them to transform us
into a socialist state, and steps have
already been taken to do so. If we
allow this measure to be passed,
health care will soon follow. And
one by one, we will watch our free-
doms slip away until we are read-
ing by candlelight and growing our
own food for survival. America:
wake up.
Dirty Planet
18
September, 2009 The Purdue Review
Steve Buyer’s Town Hall
By JOSH TEASDALE
Town Halls: They are the craze
which has swept the country for
the month of August, when citizens
from many Congressional districts
and states had the chance to ques-
tion their Congressmen and Sena-
tors about healthcare reform and
other topics. If you are lucky, vari-
ous shenanigans place you on TV
either for stumping your Congress-
men, being accused of being “Astro-
turf” or actually getting beat up by
the real Astroturf.
On September 12th, residents
of Tippecanoe County got their
second chance to listen to Con-
gressman Steve Buyer and ques-
tion him about his various stances
on Healthcare, Cap and Trade, and
government spending. Despite only
being scheduled to last an hour, the
town hall ended up lasting closer to
two and a half hours, in which the
Congressmen attempted to answer
all the questions and comments
posed by the audience, including a
lightening round of rapid questions
and answers.
First in addressing health care,
the Congressman warned that the
Democratic leadership in Congress
is trying to eliminate some health-
care programs and spending such
as Medicare advantage in order to
pay for new spending on broad cov-
erage. Medicare Advantage allows
those receiving Medicare benefits
to receive their benefits through
private insurers, giving people
more options in how they receive
healthcare. Many Democrats have
sought to eliminate this program
out of fear that it is too expensive.
However, the new spending Demo-
crats are proposing to be paid for
by eliminating Medicare Advantage
is very dynamic, and costs for pro-
posed programs are high and could
be much higher outside the current
CBO’s 10 year projections.
Many opposing viewpoints were
present at the meeting, ranging
from individuals passionately in
favor of a “Public Option”, to those
very much opposed to any new gov-
ernment involvement in healthcare
or new government spending. The
Congressman expressed his oppo-
sition to a public option or any at-
tempt by the government to move
towards a system which would in-
volve government central planning
of healthcare benefits. One of the
reasons he gave for his opposition
to a public option was that a gov-
ernment-run program would have
advantages over private insurance
plans, such as exemptions from
local, state, and possibly federal
taxes. With such an advantage, gov-
ernment-run healthcare could un-
fairly monopolize healthcare and
reduce healthcare options, compe-
tition and innovation.
Our healthcare system, how-
ever, does need reform. Although
he opposes plans to extend gov-
ernment-run healthcare,
he expressed support for
other ideas such as risk-
pooling, which would al-
low individuals and busi-
nesses to pool themselves
together to buy a policy.
Catastrophic coverage,
which allows individuals
to cover only healthcare
emergencies with unbear-
able costs, is also an area
the Congressman is inter-
ested in addressing within
a healthcare reform bill.
Congressmen Buyer
expressed disapproval of
Former Alaskan Governor
Palin’s characterization
of end-of-life planning
as death panels, saying
that making plans for end of life
issues is a critical way to provide
guidance to family and healthcare
professionals. While encouraging
everyone in the audience to talk
to their doctor about these issues,
he expressed his opinion that such
discussions should not be mandat-
ed by the government, but instead
should occur only between doctors
and patients.
Unlike some town hall meetings
covered by the news, audience
members remained largely re-
spectful towards both the Con-
gressman and each other. The Con-
gressman, in closing, expressed his
thanks to the audience for showing
their respect for each other and for
remaining calm despite their pas-
sions. In contrast to other town hall
meeting across the country this
summer, this town hall was neither
unruly nor violent. While this kind
of debate probably won’t make the
national news because of its lack of
sensationalism, perhaps it should
in order to set an example on how
to have a debate over an issue
which affects all our lives without
getting lost in acrimony.
Audience Members, Intent on Getting Their Questions Answered
Congressmen Buyer (R-IN) Answers Constituents’ Questions
19
The Purdue Review September, 2009
Mallard Fillmore by Bruce Tinsley
Sudoku
Easy
Fiendish
Kakuro instructions: The object is to fll all empty
squares using numbers 1 to 9 so the sum of each horizon-
tal block equals the clue on its left, and the sum of each
vertical block equals the clue on its top. In addition, no
number may be used in the same block more than once.
Sudoku instructions: The object is to fll all empty
squares so that the numbers 1 to 9 appear exactly once in
each row, column and 3x3 box
Stickey Wicket by Stewart Simpson
Campus diversions for Kombating Mr. Sandman
Sudokus provided by http://www.sudokuoftheday.com
that making plans for end of life
issues is a critical way to provide
guidance to family and healthcare
professionals. While encouraging
everyone in the audience to talk
to their doctor about these issues,
he expressed his opinion that such
discussions should not be mandat-
ed by the government, but instead
should occur only between doctors
and patients.
Unlike some town hall meetings
covered by the news, audience
members remained largely re-
spectful towards both the Con-
gressman and each other. The Con-
gressman, in closing, expressed his
thanks to the audience for showing
their respect for each other and for
remaining calm despite their pas-
sions. In contrast to other town hall
meeting across the country this
summer, this town hall was neither
unruly nor violent. While this kind
of debate probably won’t make the
national news because of its lack of
sensationalism, perhaps it should
in order to set an example on how
to have a debate over an issue
which affects all our lives without
getting lost in acrimony.
20
September, 2009 The Purdue Review
Bo’bama, First Dog in Tights
Woof, woof ! Greetings, my
name is Bo. I am a Portuguese
Water Dog, and I live at the White
House. I was lucky enough to be
chosen out of all the other dogs
in this world to occupy the home
of the Commander-in-Chief of our
nation. I had no qualifications
whatsoever, and was endorsed by
the Kennedys, but experience isn’t
what matters. I brought ideas of
hope and change to Washington
for dogs all across this great na-
tion. As a special treat to all my
underlings, I am going to take you
through a normal day as First Dog
of the USA.
When I am woken up by my ser-
vants early in the morning, I make
sure to take my owner, Barry, on a
walk. It is good exercise, but I can’t
ignore my press! Dogs across the
country love me due to my com-
passion for humans, such as my
owner, so I make sure to drag him
out any chance I get. He doesn’t
seem to mind the limelight much
himself.
Later on in the day, I usually
try to do something to benefit the
poorer dogs in America. Just last
week, I took it upon myself to feed
a stray. I saw him begging and
pleading for food, but all those
greedy Americans refused to feed
him. One of them even told him to
“find a home”. Do you know how
hard it is to find a home to provide
for you when you don’t have a per-
manent address? Park benches
don’t count, you know. Unless it is
used for voting for my owner…
Anyway, I knew I had to do my
part as First Dog of the USA and
find some food for this mutt. I
looked out across the neighbor-
hoods on my walk and was ap-
palled at all the lavish doghouses
and toys that some dogs had. It
just isn’t fair that all these things
are not distributed equally. First, I
“taxed” a couple chew toys from a
middle-class family on Wisconsin
Avenue, and then took a “fee” of a
couple bags of gourmet dog food
from a small business owner on
South Capitol Street. It is so great
to keep these dogs honest by mak-
ing sure they don’t have too much
for themselves. After redistribut-
ing these items to the stray dog, I
knew I had done my part for the
day. As I enjoyed my Filet Mignon
and Lobster later that night, I
wondered if anyone could ever be
as good a leader as me.
My current goal as First Dog
involves the promise of free vet-
erinary care to every animal in
America. It just isn’t fair that some
dogs get wonderful care, like me,
and others have to live out on the
streets. That’s why I proposed my
Veterinary Reform bill. This bill
would cut costs, increase servic-
es, make healthcare available to
more animals, and I’m told by my
loyal groomers it will even lower
the deficit. Sound too good to be
true? Well then you are thinking
too hard. The results don’t matter.
I just want everyone to think I’m
a good dog who cares about oth-
ers so that they let me stay in this
nice, big house for another four
years.
On some rare occasions, I do
have to deal with some of my own-
er’s embarrassing friends. They
like to sit around and scheme
about how they will take over
this industry or that industry, but
most of it is boring. Vice-Presi-
dent Joe is one the nicer ones. He
usually zones out in the middle of
meetings and ends up racing me
around the house. Then he gets in
trouble from my owner, but I don’t
see what the big deal is. It isn’t
like he has an important job to do.
This one woman, named Hill-
ary I think, scares the bejeezus
out of me. She is like a psycho dog-
catcher and a neutering expert
rolled into one. And I would know
all about neutering, having gotten
the snip right before I moved into
the White House.
Well, that about wraps it up for
one of my typical days. It is an ex-
hausting lifestyle, but I know I’m
the best dog for the job. Right now,
I’m off to my nice, cushioned bed
to dream up new ways to take
from the rich and give to the poor.
You know, I really should’ve been
named Robin Hood.
By AARON ANSPAUGH
Stealing the Purebred and Giving to the Mutts

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful