http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/11/the_us_house_of_presumptuous_meddlers_99099.html

Many young people, such as college students, do not worry about the implications of health care. We aren’t concerned by it because we don’t think that we’ll get sick. In fact, the exorbitant numbers we always here about how many Americans that don’t have health insurance are probably inflated just because of how many young people choose not to have it. They could afford it but choose not to because they don’t plan on getting sick, as a senior citizen would.
Even if we only have to tap into the health care system when we are older, we should be aware of what is happening in the Capitol building. No good can come of government takeover of health care. We as students need to be awake to these frightening realities.

Authority must always be questioned. It is simply inherent to a modern democratic society. As college students, we can certainly appreciate this sentiment and should act on it. Our system of government operates with the understanding that some of our basic liberties will be given away in order for the state to function. Laws impede some of our liberties since, by definition, they determine what people should and should not be allowed to do. Absolute liberty would result in anarchy where those with physical power oppress those without it.

Because our laws require a mechanism of enforcement, police are a necessary evil in a democracy. Their goals of ensuring safety and civility will often be at odds with personal liberty. The suggestion here is not that police are themselves detrimental to society but that their power will inevitably infringe on citizens’ rights. The police are needed to arbitrate disputes and to serve as a neutral authority to guarantee that all people are allowed to live as freely and safely as possible. It is the right and duty of citizens of a democratic system to be on guard as a check on those who are given power over us. We willingly hand over essential rights with the understanding that the police will provide fair protection and that laws will be upheld.

Nonetheless, police are human beings and therefore capable of overstepping their authority. This is why we must remain vigilant – when government is given power, it will not voluntarily return it to the people. That is why citizens must constantly and actively protect their rights. Citizens must defend liberty and democracy even in the event of popular complacency, as is visible in America today.

A blatant example of the police trampling the civil rights of an individual is the case of Cheye Calvo, who had his house broken into about a year ago by a SWAT team during a botched drug raid. Mr. Calvo was innocent of any sort of drug smuggling. The police broke down his door and shot his two dogs, which were allegedly non-hostile. Despite the egregious violation of his civil rights, Calvo is still fighting for compensation. This sort of behavior on the part of law enforcement is unacceptable.

The “no-knock” policy of many police and SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) organizations has been hotly contested in court, yet remains a widely-used practice. Are citizens and their privacy to be considered less important than ending the marijuana trade in this country? Nothing can be more important than these civil rights. We owe it to the men and women who died for this nation’s freedom to not accept these barbaric practices. Even the notion of a SWAT team is something that ought to be received with caution. Why is it necessary for nearly every county in America to be armed with a paramilitary organization? Several of these groups are involved with weapons and drug trading themselves. The most widely known of these cases is the police department of Hoboken, NJ, which dismantled their SWAT team after serious corruption charges emerged. The growth of these “militarized” police has increased at a frighteningly rapid pace in the last few years. According to the CATO Institute, the number of SWAT team deployments has jumped from 3,000 a year in the early 1980s to more than 40,000 a year by the early 2000s. This vast and deliberate militarization of police departments is unnecessary. Again, most police officers do their jobs with honesty and integrity, but we must be awakened to the reality that sometimes law enforcement will cause us to be less free.

Although most Lehigh students will not suffer such serious civil rights violations, we will undoubtedly experience or become aware of police crimes against liberty. As a student body, we must never become complacent in the face of infringements on our civil liberties. We need to be aware of police actions and speak out when they cross the line. An alert community is a democratic and free one. As Thomas Jefferson said: the government should fear and serve the people, not the other way around.

College students have a great and defiant history of fighting against the “man.” We led the charge against the Vietnam War. We have never hesitated to take up a cause that is important to us – even if we’re just whining about the drinking age. We need to make noise and use our voices, both in and out of the voting booth, in order to keep the authorities in check. Their job is to protect and serve, and we must continuously remind them of that.

We must also recognize the alarming trend towards government control over society. We are seeing how the government rescinds more and more of our rights for the sake of ‘security’. The ironically named Patriot Act and any similar legislation that restricts the rights of the people for the sake of collective ‘security’ should be contested and overturned. It is a travesty that we are selling away our liberties out of fear. As Benjamin Franklin put it, those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

The founding fathers would be ashamed of the unwillingness of the masses to put their liberties above all else. We must follow their example and lead the charge to defend liberty. Question authority and do not submit to injustice! Be defiant and recognize that you have certain inalienable and undeniable rights. Vigilance must be a hallmark of our society. When we witness injustice in any form, it is our duty as free persons to speak out against it. We can not call ourselves the heirs to the noble idea of America if we failed in this sacred duty to protect our liberties.

The cost of a college education is the bane of us all, and it isn’t about to get any easier to manage. This summer, tuition at Lehigh increased about 3%. This by itself is not particularly noteworthy as tuition increases every year, however, it should be recognized that a 3% increase in tuition over the course of four years adds up to an additional $10,000 in paid tuition. This increase is mostly to check inflation but it is still an increase. As registered students, we all received a pair of letters from President Gast informing us of both this adjustment and also of an increase in the amount of financial aid being given to students who apply for it. In this economy it is perfectly reasonable for this additional support of those students who cannot pay the tuition in full. The idea, however, of increasing the tuition of those who could afford it to pay for those you can’t brings up some interesting parallels to the economics that we are seeing on a national scale in our country today.

Karl Marx, in his famous Communist Manifesto, wrote, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” This sentiment summarizes a key idea in his socialist philosophy which espoused the equality of society. We have found since these famous words were written that a society that is given everything does not function as well as one that competes for excellence. From an economic standpoint, this mentality is essentially tantamount to communism. President Obama’s new economic direction for the country seems to be directed by Marx’s works. We are told that the presidency will be able to reform major national institutions such as health care. What we aren’t told is how exactly they plan to afford this sort of restructuring. The most common approach is to simply tax the wealthier citizens more to attain the needed funds. This approach works to an extent, but can’t be sustained. We are discouraging success with the message of, ‘Go to school, work hard so that we can take half of what you earn.’ This is a reality for many people who have worked hard to pull themselves up to a wealthy socio-economic status. Data presented by the New York Times from the Congressional Budget Office demonstrates this. “The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent. At the very top of the income distribution, the CBO reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.” This isn’t even including state or municipal taxes. Some citizens can literally find themselves paying about 50% of what they earn to the government, more and more of which is redistributed.

The average tuition cost of attending a 4-year private school, such as Lehigh, is about $37,000. Lehigh University charges slightly more than that, about $38,000 for tuition. This means that with all other costs included attending Lehigh costs about $51,000 a year. According to the College Board, 56% of students attending 4-year universities pay less than $9,000 a year. At the same time, only about 9% of students pay upwards of $33,000 a year for education. This payment system seems arbitrary and redistributive. In 2003, 51% of freshman received average grant of $17,677 according to College Handbook by College Board. This means today’s tuition of $38,330 is excessive. When Lehigh gets to the point that students can’t afford to pay this school’s inflated prices, students will simply go to universities that offer more prudently structured tuition. To be accurate, school’s should list tuition at $20,000 but place an asterisk referencing different pricing for those making more than a $X. Why not have 5% of the wealthiest students pay even higher tuition that will cover the costs of educating more of their peers? It seems Lehigh may be heading down this path. As mentioned above, Lehigh is already slightly above average in terms of cost, and we’re not getting any better. The school is getting more money from fewer students. Financial Aid director Linda Bell described how financial aid is receiving more money from the budget, which is primarily financed through student payments.

“The annual budget for financial aid is determined based on our current population of aided students adjusted for attrition and cost of attendance changes. Our model for determining the budget on an annual basis has provided sufficient resources to enroll an entering class as well as continue assistance to those who are already enrolled…As stated previously the cost of attendance increases are built into our model to determine the aid budget. A significant increase was made to financial aid entering into the 2008-09 academic year to accommodate the new initiative of eliminating or limiting loans in need based aid packages for middle and low income families.”

This redistributive system makes Lehigh less appealing in the eyes of prospective due to increased costs. Our attempts to try to include more potential students will probably have the unwanted affect of driving away those that can actually afford our prices in full. Lehigh’s already elevated price will start to look less and less appealing when compared to similar schools with lower prices, such as Lafayette, which charged about $36,000 for tuition this year.

The Brown and White recently ran an article in its September 25^th issue that covered the health of Lehigh’s endowment, which is surprisingly good considering the recent financial problems. I believe that rather than strengthening our endowment just for an ostentatious showing of financial strength we should use that money to support Lehigh students. Rather than bulking up our resources we should be fine with using money that we have and need to use during difficult economic times. Rather than charging some students more so others can pay less, let’s cut back in other areas and use the resources we have to educate the next generation of Lehigh students fairly and equitably.

It is clear that if we just keep charging the wealthy for being wealthy there eventually won’t be enough prosperity to pay for the rest of us. We cannot expect those in the very top socio-economic percentages to pay for the rest, no matter the situation. The wealthy will move away and prosperity and talent will walk away with them. It is necessary for the administration to understand the immense burden being placed on those who not only pay for their education but those around them. Lehigh will need to cut costs. Just as our government cannot rely on the wealth of some to fund their programs for the rest, Lehigh cannot rely on the tuition of some to cover the costs for everyone.

The letter’s reference to ‘strengthening our aid programs’ essentially boils down to the simple fact that some students will pay more so others can pay less. The mentality of charging ‘those who can afford it’ is one that will deplete needed resources and cannot be relied upon for long-term economic success. It is simply interesting to note the relations between our schools financial structure and our increasingly socializing nation. The application of Obama’s economics to the tuition structure at Lehigh University will have only harmful ramifications.

The Presidency of Barack Obama is a new age for America. It is also, quite possibly, the signaling of the death of capitalism in America. The very traditions and ideals that helped to make this country great are now being abandoned for special interests and instant gratification. Quick fixes are not the answers our nation needs in a time of fiscal uncertainty. We are witnessing, with each passing day, new powers being ushered unto the federal government without so much as a pause to question the legality of it all. Is our government supposed to be in the business of manufacturing cars and distributing home loans? We are moving so fast that everyone is asking whether the stimulus plan will work, not if it’s really permissible. The long-term repercussions of Obama’s economic policies are leading us down the road of socialism, which is especially bad news for those of us preparing to enter the workforce.

(more…)