columbia university roosevelt review 2015

ROOSEVELT REVIEWOF THE ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Roosevelt Insitute Journal Draft V.indd 1 4/10/15 3:03 PM

Roosevelt Review

3

Access to Justice: Improving Legal Representation for Public Housing Litigants using Non-Lawyer Advocates

8

Getting Out of Jail Free: Bail Bonds and Equal Justice

Warriors No More: On De-Militarizing American Police Forces

Participatory Budgeting as a Means of Increasing Civic Engagement for Urban Youth

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): An Analysis of Where We Are and Where We Need To Be

One Opportunity to Take One Step in the Right Direction With Iran

Missile Defense in the 21st Century: What it Means for US Security and Strategies for Future Safety

Monitoring State Responses to Communal Violence

A Permanent Fix for Immigration: � e Case for State Citizenship

Honorable Mention: Municipal Green Bonds: Uniting the Private and Public Sector to Fight Climate Change

By Susannah Cohen

By Ademali Sengal

By Elise Guarna

By Nikita Mary Singareddy

By Sahng-Ah Yoo

Equal Justice

Defense & Diplomacy

By Masih Babagoli

By Jay Rappaport

By Katie Hallern

By Edmund Brose

Contest Winner

By Samuel Place

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: New York City Solid Waste DisposalBy Ryan Elivo

Providing for Our Professors: Reducing Adjunct Positions as a Means of Improving Higher Education

36

Ful� lling America’s College Promise

Say No to Common Core

Outsourcing Information Technology Jobs

It’s Getting Personal: A Call to Regulate the Data Broker Industry � rough Economically Viable Reforms

Uprooting U.S. Farm Support Programs

Smart Growth: Tailored Infrastructure and Transportation Strategies in the Greater Washington Area

By Alicia Schleifman

By Allison Schlissel

By Jonathan Kroah

By Simon Shwartz

Economic Development

Education

By AJ Stoughton

By Kunal Shah

By Nicole Felmus

Public Parking in New York City: Where the Rubber Meets the Road with Policy and Participatory DemocracyBy Brit Byrd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11

13

16

19

25

28

30

33

40

45

47

50

53

58

60

63

55

Roosevelt Insitute Journal Draft V.indd 2-3 4/10/15 3:03 PM

Roosevelt Review

54

� e Right to Life: A liberal paternalist approach to promoting vaccina-tion without compromising civil liberties

� e Gulf Cooperation Council: How reforming GCC’s mandatory health care services will lead to a more sustainable Middle East

Drug Policy in America: An Educational Perspective

Gender Disparities in Clinical Trials

Healthcare

By Lauren Tomasulo

By Alexandra O’Keefe

By Rana Abuhilal

By Leah Reiss

Masthead

The Executive Board of the Roosevelt Institute Columbia Chapter

President - Brit ByrdVice President - AJ StoughtonOutreach Director - Allison Schlissel Secretary - Elise Guarna Treasurer - Nicole Felmus Creative and Media Director - Alex Chang

Center DirectorsAlexandra O'Keefe and Leah Reiss (Co-Directors of Healthcare)Edmund Brose (Director of Defense and Diplomacy)Kunal Shah (Director of Education)Nikita Mary Singareddy (Director of Equal Justice)Simon Schwartz and Jon Kroah (Co-Directors of Economic Development)Samuel Place (Director of Energy and Environment)

First Year Fellows - Ademali Sengal and Alicia Schleifman

Publication Staff

Editor-in-Chief - Lauren TomasuloLayout Editor - Spencer Cohen� e Nuclear Option

Ending the Exportation of Banned Pesticides

� e Role of Law in Fighting Climate Change

Picking up the PACE for Roo� op Solar

Energy and Enviroment

By Andrew Ascenio

By Charles Harper

By Daniela Lapidous

By Samuel Place

66

68

71

73

76

81

83

85


Roosevelt Review

76

Letter from the Editor� is is the seventh annual Columbia Roosevelt Review published by the Columbia University chapter of the Roosevelt In-stitute. We are proud to present twenty-six policy proposals written by Columbia University undergraduate students. � is year, we started an exciting new policy contest entitled “Modern Quagmires of the City.” � e parameters stipulated that the proposal must explain a problem that a� ects New York, while using the City as a case study to logistically implement solutions to that issue.

� e Roosevelt Institute has occupied a particular niche in the Columbia University intellectual community. As a stu-dent-run, non-partisan, progressive think-tank, we o� er students a unique opportunity to discuss current events, topics of public policy, and evaluate the e� ectiveness of proposals during our weekly discussions. Our discussions are both innovative and pragmatic, o� ering creative solutions to deep-rooted problems and considering all obstacles that must be overcome. � e remarkable variety of proposals is evidenced by proposals ranging from improving access to justice to the common education standards. � e scope and creativity of the policy proposals in this journal re� ect the Roosevelt Institute’s steadfast commitment to open-minded but rigorous discussion. � e proposals are organized within our six centers: Economic Development, Education, Energy and Environment, Equal Justice, Healthcare, and, lastly, Defense and Diplomacy.

I am honored to have served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Columbia Roosevelt Review in the 2014-2015, 2013-2014, and 2012-2013 academic years. It is truly a pleasure to present this publication that features policy solutions to the complex issues that nations face today. � ese problems may seem daunting to tackle, yet our writers face these multifaceted issues with artistry and ease. I hope you all enjoy reading it.

To all of our writers and executive board members, thank you for all your hard work. It has culminated in another successful issue of the Columbia Roosevelt Review.

Sincerely,

Lauren TomasuloEditor-in-Chief of the Columbia Roosevelt Review

Equa

l Jus

tice

Equal Justice From immigration to urban youth civic engagement, justice system reform to police demilitarization, EJ’s authors have posed solutions to break down the complex barriers to equity and equality. The Equal Justice Center strives to address these issues from all angles in order to develop pragmatic, actionable solutions that aim towards the core tenant of social justice—that one person’s prosperity should never come at the expense of another’s opportunity. I would like to expressly thank all the authors for their time and commitment to the Roosevelt Review. I’m pleased to present this fi ne collection of policy pieces from the 2014-2015 Equal Justice Center.

-Nikita Mary Singareddy


Roosevelt Review

98

AAccess to Justice: Improving Legal Repre-sentation for Public Housing Litigants using Non-Lawyer Advocates

mong the many disparities that exist in America, arguably the most important one is the disparity in Access to Justice. Access to justice, as a nationwide and in-ternational movement, can have an array of implications, signi� cantly the loss of an individual’s voice in the nation’s legal sys-tem. Access to Justice lays at the founda-tion of America’s political system, assum-ing that, in addition to expressing one’s opinions through voting, one can always look to the judiciary to seek legal redress.

However, this assumption is, in reality, far from true. Many marginalized groups in America are disadvantaged when attempting to navigate the justice system, with one of the largest reasons be-ing lack of money. A few statistics:

- 1:40—the ratio of lawyers available to the poor versus lawyers available for everyone.1

- 1.33—the national average number of lawyers for every 10,000 poor peo-ple.2 -63.6 million—the number of Ameri-can who quali� ed for LSC-funded legal aid during 2013: 1.8 million—the num-ber of people actually served, when in-cluding all people in the households of closed cases.3 - 50%—the percentage of Americans below the poverty line who seek civil legal aid are turned away4

1 http://www.justiceindex.org/fi nd-ings/attorney-access/2 http://www.justiceindex.org/fi nd-ings/attorney-access/3 http://www.lsc.gov/about/lsc-numbers-2013#CLIENTDEMO-GRAPHICS, http://www.lsc.gov/civil-le-gal-aid-ensuring-equal-access-justice

4 http://www.justice.gov/atj/civ-il-legal-aid-101

� ese discrepancies, o� en referred to as the “justice gap” are disturbing, and provide a glimpse into the deep chasm between how Americans of di� erent in-comes experience the justice system.

In addition to the “justice gap,” the proliferation of self-representation has be-come another recent trend in the Amer-ican legal system of signi� cant concern. While many people believe all American citizens have a right to council regardless of income, in fact, this right only applies to criminal cases.5 � e number of litigants without lawyers in civil cases has been in-creasing over the last few decades, with current estimates that 80% of all litigants in civil cases are self-represented.6 � is issue has become especially prevalent in Housing Court, as there tends to be a large di� erence in resources between landlords and tenants regarding Access to Justice. � e landmark Donaldson report in 1993 found that, in New York City Housing Court, 88% of tenants were self-repre-sented even though 65% are eligible for free representation (due to legal provider under-funding), while 97% of landlords had representation.7 According to cur-rent nationwide estimates, about 90% of landlords have representation while 90% of tenants are self-represented.8 Further-5 http://www.uscourts.gov/edu-cational-resources/get-involved/constitu-tion-activities/sixth-amendment/right-coun-sel/facts-case-summary-gideon.aspx 6 http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr39_4/CR39-4Hannaford.pdf, http://www.justiceindex.org/fi ndings/self-represent-ed-litigants/ 7 http://cwtfhc.org/wp-content/up-loads/pdf/donaldson.pdf 8 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/opinion/tipping-the-

By Susannah Cohen

more, an abundance of research has con-cluded that self-representation correlates highly with eviction, posing a serious threat to litigants and making Access to Justice that much more important.9

Beyond the e� ect on individual lives, these shi� s are also causing new in-stitutional problems. America’s adversar-ial, representation-based court model as-sumes that, in most cases, both sides will have access to representation; therefore, the system only functions when this pre-requisite is ful� lled. Looking speci� cally at Housing Court, this dysfunction has mo-mentous e� ects, toying with people’s basic human need of a stable home. Due to the nature of Housing Court, several speci� c issues arise as a result of a litigant-lacking representation: litigant dearth of informa-tion, inability to properly articulate in the courts, and inconsistency across Housing Courts in resources for self-represented litigants.10

� e Policy Suggestion:In order to adequately combat this

growing and pressing issue, we must take radical measures—we cannot simply try to add more lawyers or increase legal aid fund. For an institutional problem, we must seek an institutional answer. � ere-fore, we need to create a new class of professional that does not require a law degree, but rather is certi� ed in housing court procedures and can fully represent his or her client in court. � is individu-al would function as a lawyer, but could only practice in this speci� c area of law. � is concept has been theorized by many researchers, lawyers, and thinkers, o� en enumerated as “courtroom aides,” “nav-igators,” “non-lawyers professionals,” or “legal technicians”. I seek to solidify this concept under one name – non-lawyer advocates – and institute this professional de� nition nationwide. Non-lawyer advo-

scales-in-housing-court.html?_r=09 http://cwtfhc.org/wp-content/up-loads/2009/06/NYCLA_HC_in_21st_Cent.pdf, http://www.bostonbar.org/public-pol-icy/public-policy-archive/2012/03/02/bba-news-release-study-assesses-practi-cal-impact-of-legal-representation-in-evic-tion-cases, http://www.innercitylaw.org/homelessness-prevention/ 10 http://cwtfhc.org/wp-content/up-loads/2009/06/NYCLA_HC_in_21st_Cent.pdf

cates would be able to provide administra-tive information, legal advice, and in-per-son courtroom representation, only in the area of housing law.

Creating the training programs for non-lawyer advocates is the � rst major hurdle that must be surmounted in estab-lishing this new profession. � e American Bar Association, a university, or some oth-er organization could develop a training program that culminates in certi� cation, allowing these professionals to practice non-lawyer advocacy in Housing Court. While people with expertise in Housing Court and law education would determine the content of the curriculum, one major topic would be client interaction as these cases are o� en extremely sensitive. As many self-represented litigants in Housing Court lack of information, another cru-cial role for non-lawyer advocates is sim-ply to provide knowledge and guidance throughout the legal process. Helping cli-ents ful� ll the court tasks, fact-checking, and preparing a coherent testimony are simple responsibilities drastically alter the balance of power between landlord and tenant in court. Finally, a unique as-pect of Housing Court is the settlement, referred to as “hallway justice,” in which “[unrepresented litigants] meet with their adversaries’ attorneys in the hallways and sign stipulations of settlement dra� ed by the attorneys before meeting with a court attorney or the judge.”11 Of course, this system puts an unrepresented litigant at a massive disadvantage, so non-lawyer ad-vocates must be familiar with the de facto process and learn how to operate in the fast-paced, pushy, and o� en underhand-ed negotiations. � is sort of certi� cation program would ensure quality and knowl-edge in non-lawyer advocates without the burden of pro� ciency in other areas of law.

a certi� cate from an o� cial non-lawyer advocate training program.

� is new profession would provide a middle ground between full representation and no representation. Non-lawyer advocates would likely make considerably less than lawyers, although this should be decided on a state-by-state basis. � is � eld would provide an ex-cellent option for lower-income people

11 http://cwtfhc.org/wp-content/up-loads/2009/06/NYCLA_HC_in_21st_Cent.pdf

Equa

l Jus

ticeEqual Justice Eq

ual J

ustic

e


Roosevelt Review

1110

seeking legal help but unable to a� ord high lawyers’ fees. It would also create a new option for people seeking profession-al careers who cannot or do not want to spend vast periods of time in school. At a time when so many college graduates are desperate for meaningful ways to make an impact, non-lawyer advocacy seems like a perfect way to put what they have learned into practice.

� e Evidence: On the local level, many cities

have attempted to institute similar profes-sions in order to test their impact. Over-all, the results were extremely positive and showed that limited representation vastly improved outcomes for tenants over self-representation. � e Boston Bar Association conducted a “Civil Right to Council Housing Pilot” in the Northeast Housing Court of Massachusetts. � e pi-lot compared outcomes for tenants receiv-ing full representation to those receiving partial representation. � e study found that there was almost no di� erence in outcomes for tenants that were fully ver-sus partially represented – but most im-portantly, partially represented tenants remained in possession of their homes thirty percent more than self-represented tentants.12

In the San Francisco “Right to Coun-cil” pilot program provided full-scope and limited-scope representation to low-in-come people facing eviction. � e results determine that, while full-scope represen-tation tended to produce better outcomes, tenants who received either full-scope or limited-scope representation were more likely to avoid homelessness than un-represented tenants. Additionally, when looking at the e� cacy of the profession-als providing either full- or limited-scope representation, the study found that “‘re-peat players’ gain advantages from their developed expertise and knowledge,” such as “specialized knowledge of the substan-tive area of law as well as experience with the particular procedures of the venue and familiarity with opposing counsel and de-cision-makers.”13

� ese two studies show that, when

12 http://www.bostonbar.org/docs/default-document-library/bba-crtc-fi -nal-3-1-12.pdf13 http://www.sfbos.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=49157

Equal Justice

compared with no representation, limited representation is unequivocally bene� -cial to tenants and lowers the likelihood of homelessness tremendously. But even further, it is unclear how big of a di� er-ence exists between outcomes of full- and limited-scope representation. Due to the nature of Housing Court, full represen-tation may not be necessary to achieve client needs as intimate knowledge of Housing Court does not necessitate a vast arsenal of legalese. � ese studies, along with several others, bolster the claim that non-lawyer advocates are a proposal wor-thy of consideration in attempting to solve the problem of Access to Justice in Hous-ing Court.

“While many people believe all American citi-zens have a right to coun-

cil regardless of income, in fact, this right only

applies to criminal cases. The number of litigants without lawyers in civil

cases has been increasing over the last few decades,

with current estimates that 80% of all litigants

in civil cases are self-represented.”

RGetting Out of Jail Free: Bail Bonds and Equal Justice

ail bonds constitute a $14 billion industry in the US1. As the only developed nation to implement a private bail bonds sys-tem, the US stands in clear opposition to what the international community deems fair. � e functional purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant will be present for the date of their trial. In its tradition-al form, bail was release on recognizance (ROR)—a verbal oath to appear on the given date. In the modern American legal system, bail is justi� ed as a deterrent for future crimes, arbitrarily determined, and usually too costly for most accused people to a� ord. Today’s justice system functions in a way that the wealthy can pay for their release while the working class and poor cannot pay the full amount of bail. For those who cannot a� ord the full bill, the only alternative is to turn to bail bond-spersons.

Commercial bail bonds allow the ac-cused to pay a non-refundable 10 percent of the full bail amount to a bond agent and the bond agent pays the remaining 90 percent of the bail. � e bond agent then ensures that the accused is present on the trial date so they can receive the full bail amount. � is is a highly pro� table in-dustry with little risk. Indeed, bail surety companies only lose 1 percent of all rev-enue, which is far lower than any other insurance industry. � is system was � rst regulated by the Bail Reform Act of 1966 which states that the accused should be re-lease if there is reasonable assurance that they will be present at the trial and that in-formation should be collected in order to determine appropriate bail or alternative actions. Unfortunately, these proposed reforms have yet to be fully implemented.

� e Problem: � e central problem of this sys-

tem is its opposition to the presumption of innocence. Bail bonds are a prima facie violation of this basic principle of justice because they punish an individual before

guilt is determined. � is initial � aw in bail reveals that the practice should be admin-istered sparingly and only when necessary. � e notion that innocent persons pay for freedom is the most common reason why developed nations deplore bail bonds.

For nations that view monetary bail as a reasonable tool to ensure atten-dance in court the US system has an addi-tional set of � aws. � e US Supreme Court, in the 1983 Schall v. Martin case, justi� es bail as an insurance against bail-jump-ing—the traditional legal understand-ing—and a deterrent for future actions. In his vehement dissent, Justice Marshall argued that determining bail on possible, unrelated, future crimes was, “consistent with the usages of tyranny and the excess-es of what bitter experience teaches us to call the police state”.2 Bail is determined by the severity of the crime, criminal record, and judge digression. � e current system is susceptible to abuse and corruption. In many instances excessive bail is placed on the accused because of collusion between bail agents, judges, and police. Excessive bail is used to coerce the accused to agree to a plea deal rather than organize an ef-fective defense. Furthermore, bail agents have no incentive to discourage repeat o� ensives. � e modern American system encourages this quid pro quo corruption with pro� t rather than justice driving ac-tions.3

Additionally, the bail bond sys-tem relies on bounty hunters to track down defendants who jump bail. Bounty hunters are given great leeway in their use of force as civilians and can enter private property without a warrant and detain defendants across state boarders. � is ad-ditional expansion of the justice system is uniquely American and highly unregulat-ed. Bounty hunters are e� ectively a private police force used by an insurance compa-ny to collect a payment—something that most would view as unacceptable. Albeit

By Ademali Sengal

Equa

l Jus


ual J

ustic

e


Roosevelt Review

1312

the bail bond system is incredibly e� ective other systems could avoid legal infringe-ments and yield similar results.

Finally, the current system hurts the wrong people. Freedom under the sta-tus quo is determined by one’s ability to post bail. � e most vulnerable people in society are only further victimized in the bail bond system. � is compounds pun-ishment when considering statistical ten-dencies that those who remain in prison waiting for trial are three times as likely to be sentenced to prison and also receive three times as long a prison sentence. � is system only contributes to recidivism rates and an already overcrowded prison population. As a bene� t to tax payers and in order to maintain the principles of pre-sumed innocence policies should be for-mulated to correct the status quo.

Policy Solution: Although the for pro� t bail bond

system is e� ective in lowering the likeli-hood of bail-jumping, there are viable al-ternatives that do not violate rights or fall susceptible to abuse. � e least radical ac-tion would focus on reforming the current bail system to create fairer pricing of bail or no bail. An information-based analysis of the accused, with a particular focus on their community involvement, can deter-mine the likelihood that they jump bail. � e Vera Institute conducted extensive analysis of a personalized bail determina-tion and found that with more informa-tion about the person arrested judges were more likely to give a ROR instead of bail. Additionally, those given ROR were still just as likely to appear for their court date. � e accused persons who received ROR in their tests were more than twice as likely to be acquitted or have their case dismissed. � ose granted ROR were also found to serve signi� cantly less time in prison a� er sentencing with only 16 percent receiving any time in prison compared to the 96 per-cent for other accused who were unable to make bail.4 Collecting information about an individual from those who know them can better explain the likelihood that they would jump bail. For many bail would not be necessary if there is su� cient expecta-tion that they would appear before a court regardless.

In addition to risk assessment, courts can duplicate the e� orts of bail agents and maintain contact with the ac-

cused until their trial date with reminders that their presence is required. A direct relationship between the accused and the court can increase the likelihood that the accused will appear and does not rely on a third party to communicate with the accused. � is process can also clarify the penalties of not showing on the assigned trial date as a deterrent rather than us-ing monetary punishment for those who are likely already � nancially stretched. Multnomah County in Oregon is a prime example of successful implementation for this system. � e county has two pro-grams for monitoring the accused while they continue their lives out of jail. A� er a rigorous process of analyzing risk the county grants ROR and places low and medium risk accused people under su-pervision from the Pretrial Supervision Program or the Close Street Supervision, for higher risk accused persons. With con-stant phone contact, family contact, home visits, or even electronic monitoring, the county allows accused persons to contin-ue to participate in society without a mon-etary punishment.

Judicial systems are justi� ed in main-taining some people in jail until their court appearance, but the process of do-ing so is currently unjust. Forcing accused persons to remain in prison by raising the price of bail does not provide a legally clear line that they pose a threat and still allows for the possibility that they get out on bail. � e better procedure to uphold due process would be to use preventative detention if the accused is highly likely to avoid trial or poses an obvious threat to society. Furthermore, this is an import-ant legal distinction from the threat that the accused will commit another crime. � e status quo allows for higher bail if the accused is expected to commit a di� erent crime, which is unjust. E� ective reform would utilize risk assessment and preven-tative detention if the accused presents a direct threat to their family, community, or self. � e onus is on the Pretrial Release System to show clear threat and validate that threat before judges to determine whether preventative detention is neces-sary.

Funding for such projects would be made possible through a decrease in the cost of housing prisoners who are given excessive bail. Rather than keeping the ac-

cused in jail waiting for trial, money could be spent to more e� ectively determine the likelihood of trial attendance. � e four states that have banned for-pro� t bail bonds—Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, and Wisconsin—have been able to continue to fund their risk analysis programs.5 Ad-ditionally, these states maintain relatively average budgets for costs associated with the prison population. � e battle to over-turn the vested interests of the for-pro� t bail-bond industry will take much time and e� ort, but this battle is imperative in protecting the presumption of innocence. � ese reforms would allow accused per-sons to remain productive members of society and ensure an equitable execution of justice. (Endnotes)1 Big insurance behind bail bonds | Al Jazeera America. (n.d.). Retrieved March 24, 2015, from http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-lines/FaultLinesBlog/2014/5/23/the-big-insur-ancebehindbailbonds.html

2 Raifeartaigh, U. (1997). Rec-onciling bail law with the presumption of innocence. Oxford Journal of Legal Stud-ies, 17(1), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/17.1.1

3 Liptak, A. (2008, January 29). Illegal Globally, Bail for Profi t Remains in U.S. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/us/29bail.html

4 Fair Treatment for the Indigent: The Manhattan Bail Project. (2011). Fed-eral Sentencing Reporter, 24(1), 10–12. http://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2011.24.1.10

5 Bradford, S. (2012). For Better or For Profi t: How the Bail Bonding Industry Stands in the Way of Fair and Effective Pretrial Justice (p. 57). Washington, DC: Justice Policy Instutute.

JWarriors No More: On De-Militarizing American Police Forces

ust before 3 A.M. in May of 2014, a SWAT team executed a no-knock warrant on a house just outside of Atlanta, Georgia. Of-� cers made their way into the room where the Phonesavanh family was sleeping and, upon entering, threw a � ash-bang gre-nade that landed in the crib of the Phone-savanh’s infant son, Bou Bou. � e blast covered the nine-month old in third de-gree burns and blew a hole in his chest so deep that it exposed his ribs and collapsed a lung.

� e team was executing a search war-rant for Mr. Phonesavanh’s nephew—who was not a resident of the house—under suspicion that he had made a $50 drug sale. No guns or drugs were found in the house and no arrests were made. � e man in question was later arrested with-out incident and without a SWAT team. Despite the fact that there were children’s toys strewn across the front lawn of the house and children’s seats visible in the car parked in the driveway, o� cers claimed that they had no idea there may have been children in the house.1

Bounkahm, Bou Bou’s father, com-pared the experience to memories that he has of communist soldiers breaking down the door of his childhood home in Laos during wartime. Bou Bou’s mother, Ale-cia, said that her three daughters are now terri� ed of the police.2

Possibly the most disturbing part of the story is that the botched raid that dis� g-ured Bou Bou Phonesavanh is far from extraordinary. � e drastic militarization of American police forces over the past decades has resulted in a police o� cer that is trained as a warrior instead of as a protector, evidenced by the radical in-crease in the number and scope of SWAT deployments. In response to high crime rates and our country’s wars on drugs and terror, the federal government has poured both money and equipment into training local police forces as armies. However, this begs the question: if the police are an

army, are we the enemy? A Brief History of SWAT:While attempting to control the violent

Watts riots of 1965, LAPD o� cer Daryl Gates came to believe that standard police training was inadequate to deal with the snipers, random chaos, and guerilla tac-tics that characterized the Watts riots. In response, he created America’s � rst SWAT team.3

SWAT—which stands for Special Weap-ons and Tactics—was created as a means of responding to exceptional threats quickly and e� ciently, therefore minimizing risk to civilians and o� cers alike. � e highly trained SWAT teams were to be deployed in “hostage, barricade, and active shoot-er”4 situations to provide an appropriate alternative to what Gates termed police’s “usual indiscriminate shooting.”5

However, the “War on Drugs” initiated by President Nixon and championed by President Reagan changed the way that SWAT was used, turning what was once a tactic of last resort to a standard tool of law enforcement. � e war-like rhetoric that Nixon used even prior to o� cially “waging war” on drugs in 1972 exacerbat-ed domestic fears that crime—and spe-ci� cally drug-related crime—was a dire threat to national security and should be treated as such.6

Over time, this came to justify use of highly trained, militarized SWAT teams to execute search warrants for drugs o� en in low-level investigations. In 2014, the ACLU reported that 62 percent of SWAT deployments in 2011 and 2012 were for drug searches.7 � e radicalized view of drug-related dangers that policy makers continue to hold is summed up in a classi-� ed governmental memo written in 2004, which states that the War on Drugs “‘has all the risks, excitement, and dangers of conventional warfare.’”8

� is seemingly widespread belief that the War on Drugs does indeed have the same “dangers of conventional warfare”

By Elise Guarna

Equa

l Jus


ual J

ustic

e


Roosevelt Review

1514

has led policy makers to the conclusion that the men on the front lines of our drug wars should be armed with the same weaponry as our conventional militaries. In 1996, Congress introduced Section 1033 of the National Defense Authoriza-tion Act,9 which authorizes the Depart-ment of Defense to transfer excess mili-tary equipment to local law enforcement agencies free of charge and with relatively little supervision. With the onset of the War on Terror, the incentive to arm do-mestic police forces grew even greater. As of 2014, the Law Enforcement Support O� ce claims to have transferred $4.3 bil-lion worth of property through the 1033 Program.10

While it may, in fact, be necessary for local police departments to have an ad-vanced arsenal in the event of a legitimate threat, the equipment is more o� en used for routine police work. As a New Hamp-shire City Councilmember admitted, “Our application talked about the danger of do-mestic terrorism, but that’s just something you put in the grant application to get the money. What red-blooded American cop isn’t going to be excited about getting a toy like this?”11

� e Problem: So, what exactly is the issue? What is so

dangerous about arming our police o� -cers—the men and women who risk their lives to protect us every day—to the best of our ability?

As stated in a recent report from the ACLU, “the militarization of American policing…encourages them to adopt a ‘warrior’ mentality and think of the people they are supposed to serve as enemies.”12 More o� en than we would like to believe, this overzealous and militaristic approach to police work can result in the physical harm or death of innocent citizens, as in the case of Bou Bou Phonesavanh.

However, the less apparent danger is the exacerbation of already souring re-lations between the people and their po-lice. Betty Taylor, a detective in Lincoln County, MI, recalls a speci� c day on the job that exposed her to the true costs of militarized policing. She was asked to come along on a SWAT raid to stay with the children who the o� cers knew would most likely be in the house. Detective Tay-lor was directed to the bedroom where

SWAT had placed the suspect’s two young stepchildren. When Taylor entered, the eight-year-old girl immediately assumed a defensive position between the detective and her younger brother, asking, “What are you going to do with us?”

Looking back on the event, Taylor says, “Here I come…with all my SWAT gear on, dressed in armor from head to toe, and this little girl looks up at me, and her only thought is to defend her little brother. I thought, how can we be the good guys when we come into the house looking like this, screaming and pointing guns at the people they love?”13 � e search of the house turned up three joints and one pipe.

� e police can only serve as a legit-imate stabilizing force if they work in service of the people and ensure that all people feel safe in their communities and their homes. Each time SWAT is used for a task for which it is not required—such as executing a search warrant—resources are wasted, the possibility of accidental injury increases, and the overly aggressive front that the police show to the public widens the ri� between them and increases the people’s growing distrust for the force that is intended to protect and serve them.

� e Solution: � e rise of militarized policing is a

multi-faceted issue that requires a slew of policies addressing di� erent aspects of the problem. I will, however, o� er a few poli-cy proposals addressing the transparency, accountability and use of SWAT teams, in the hopes of ensuring their e� cacy as a law enforcement tool and improving the relationship between police and civilians.

Deployments: SWAT was created to provide highly coordinated responses to extraordinary, high-risk threats. � ey were never intended to execute search warrants and should not be used to do so unless there is a compelling and prov-en reason to expect an unusually high risk to o� cer or to uninvolved civilians that would be best countered by SWAT’s heavy-handed approach.

1033: Instead of being used as a pipe-line from the Department of Defense to our “red-blooded American” police o� -cers, 1033 should be repurposed to pro-vide appropriate quantities and types of weapons to departments that demonstrate a real need. Before being eligible to receive

“Each time SWAT is used for a task for which it is not required—such

as executing a search warrant—resources are

wasted, the possibility of accidental injury increas-es, and the overly aggres-sive front that the police show to the public wid-

ens the rift between them and increases the people’s

growing distrust for the force that is intended to

protect and serve them.”

equipment through the program, depart-ments should have to be deemed � t by the DoD, meaning that any o� cer that would have control over the weapons’ use should have to attend training that reviews when and how it is appropriate to use the equip-ment and clearly outlines inappropriate uses that would result in the equipment being taken back. Once equipment chang-es hands, the Department of Defense must then monitor its use and be held partially responsible if use of the weapons results in unnecessary harm to persons or property.

Recordkeeping: Departments should be required to keep a centralized database on SWAT activities—easily accessible by the public—that clearly record the num-ber of times SWAT is deployed, for what purpose, how many members are de-ployed, any injuries sustained during the raid (to o� cers, citizens, or even domestic pets), and what resulted from the raid (ar-rests, seizure of contraband, etc.).

Accountability: In the event that the wrong house is raided, or an innocent person is harmed during a SWAT raid, any expenses sustained by the innocent par-ties should fall on the police departments that called for the raid and formal apolo-gies should be issued to those a� ected. In addition, helmet cameras should be made standard for SWAT teams.

While these proposals do not address many of the deeper issues a� ecting rela-tions between the police and the people, they do o� er a way of introducing more checks into the system that should—and generally does—keep us safe.

Police o� cers put their lives in danger every day to keep us safe, and for that we are eternally grateful. However, the past decades have demonstrated the danger to the safety of our people and the health of our society posed by police departments’ reliance on excessively militant tech-niques. As the saying goes, when you’re holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. By instituting these fairly simple policy reforms and opening local police departments up to greater civilian and federal oversight, we can begin to reverse this worrisome trend.

(Endnotes)1 M. Alex Johnson, “’Militarized’ SWAT Teams Under Scrutiny as Toddler

Equa

l Jus

tice

Recovers From Grenade,” NBC News, July 7, 2015, http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/militarized-swat-teams-under-scruti-ny-toddler-recovers-grenade-n150246. 2 American Civil Liberties Union, War Comes Home: The Excessive Mili-tarization of American Policing, Special Report (New York, NY: ACLU Foundation, 2014), 15.3 Radley Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces (New York: PublicAffairs, 2013), 53. 4 War Comes Home, 2. 5 Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop, 60. 6 Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop, 73. 7 War Comes Home, 2. 8 War Comes Home, 26. 9 Taylor Wofford, “How Ameri-ca’s Police Became an Army,” Newsweek, August 13, 2014, http://www.newsweek.com/how-americas-police-became-ar-my-1033-program-264537. 10 War Comes Home, 26. 11 War Comes Home, 25. 12 War Comes Home, 3.13 Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop, 241.

Equal JusticeEqual Justice Eq

ual J

ustic

e


Roosevelt Review

1716

NParticipatory Budgeting as a Means of In-creasing Civic Engagement for Urban Youth

ational studies have shown that youth civ-ic engagement has weakened over the past three decades. Comparing the activities of young Baby Boomers to present-day Millenials, there is a noticeable downward trend in m etrics of political participation such as voting, informal e� orts to solve community problems, a� liations with non-political associations and religious institutions, and volunteerism.1 � is gen-erational decline does not bode well for the long-term health of American democ-racy. Dwindling civic participation clearly means fewer opportunities for state and local governments to understand the con-cerns of young constituents – especially those of urban minorities. Research exhib-its that low-income youth of color are the most disengaged, an extremely problem-atic � nding given that group di� erences in civic participation can lead to disparities in citizen in� uence over legislation as well as the unequal distribution of social ben-e� ts.2 Undoubtedly, there is a crucial need to address, enhance, and sustain urban youth engagement. Cities have found that participatory budgeting (PB) e� orts with high schoolers demonstrate positive, con-tinual impacts for historically underrepre-sented youth.3 PB can be instrumental in making the allocation of public resources more inclusive and equitable by promot-ing public access to revenue and expen-diture information. With the institutional and sociopolitical challenges presented by an inner city environment, this piece pres-ents public budgeting as a highly innova-tive mechanism to involve urban ethnic youth in civic decision-making and sow the seeds for future engagement.

Urban youth of color (16-24) are less likely than their white middle-class coun-terparts to display important characteris-tics of citizenship. “Democracy for Some: � e Civic Opportunity Gap in High School,” a study by the Center for Informa-tion and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, measured civic engagement

using ten factors including attendance at religious services at least monthly, reading newspapers at least once a week, voting, contacting a political party, working on a community project, attending club meet-ings, and believing that the government is trustworthy. Data from the nationally rep-resentative sample of almost 3,000 high school students found that middle-class white youth displayed higher levels in all ten factors than urban youth. � ey were four times as likely to be part of campaign work and twice as likely to contact elect-ed o� cials. Furthermore, urban youth were twice as unlikely to protest and three times as unlikely to report participating in service activities than whites.4

� e statistics are particularly salient when coupled with studies from devel-opmental psychologists. Professor Ju-dith Torney-Purta, Professor of Human Development at the University of Mary-land, has noted that, in comparison to middle-class white youth, youth of col-or from low-income families tend to feel more “alienated” from their communities and generally have a lower sense of “po-litical e� cacy.”5 � is suggests that civic involvement is possible only when young people have acquired knowledge about their communities as well as opportunities to participate in them; connected youths are more likely to feel a sense of connec-tion and responsibility to their communi-ty. However, research indicates that youth living in urban contexts are more likely to encounter obstacles depriving them of knowledge about their communities or access to opportunities to participate.6 Of-ten ethnicity, SES and geographically-de-� ned neighborhoods are negative vari-ables for urban adolescents developing their civic identity. � is line of argument is also supported by researchers who have documented limited opportunities for in-ner-city civic participation byway of de-clining volunteer and church institutions as well as decaying community supports.7

By Nikita Mary Singareddy

Consequently, many urban youth have less faith in traditional forms of political engagement.8

Solution:With increasing levels of distrust in the

e� cacy of government, urban youth are especially eager to participate in actions where they can represent themselves and see tangible results. According to statistics from the Participatory Budgeting Con-ference held in San Francisco earlier this year, civic activities outside of traditional political institutions are important ways for youth to make their voices heard.9 Giv-en the political gridlock and mainstream narratives that highlight the failures of government, young people are increasing-ly focused on their local communities and innovative collaborations to solve local issues.

Participatory Budgeting (PB) can be an innovative mechanism to involve citizens, especially the youth, in the decision-mak-ing process of public budgeting. PB can be instrumental in making the allocation of public resources more inclusive and equitable by promoting public access to revenue and expenditure information. PB e� ectively increases transparency in � s-cal policy and expenditure management, thereby enhancing government credibil-ity and citizen trust.10 It is important to educate and empower urban youth to be civically-minded decision-makers. Using the cities of Greensboro (NC) and Valle-jo (CA) as case studies, there is substan-tial evidence that participatory budgeting o� ers urban youth the chance to increase their engagement and e� ectively solve key issues in their local communities.

Greensboro, a 50% African Ameri-can neighborhood in North Carolina, launched its � rst participatory budgeting e� orts in 2014.11 In an ongoing commu-nity-driven collaborative project with � e University of North Carolina, led by Dr. Spoma Jovanovic, Dudley High School and the Greensboro Municipal govern-ment teamed up to help educate the com-munity about the PB process and the po-tentially positive impact it can have on historically underrepresented urban com-munities. Dudley students researched and developed their own mock-PB proposals that were used to educate the communi-ty about the PB process. With $500,000 at stake, several students stepped up beyond

idea formulating and into the formal plan-ning stages as budget delegates. Although the city has yet to pass participatory bud-geting proposals, Greensboro became the � rst city in the South with PB.12 Looking out West, Vallejo is the largest city in So-lano County, California, United States. In 2012, it had an estimated per capita in-come of $23,334 and 75% minority ethnic make-up.13 � at same year, the urban City of Vallejo made history by becoming the � rst U.S. municipality to approve partic-ipatory budgeting (PB) city-wide. In its � rst year of PB, Vallejo residents created and approved 12 public projects, from community gardens to youth scholar-ships to park rehabilitation. Survey data demonstrated that 9% of assembly attend-ees were 16 years of age or younger; addi-tionally, 11% were 18 years or over the but not registered to vote, suggesting that PB engaged residents of all ages that were typ-ically not involved in civic a� airs. In terms of voting on PB proposals, youth voters (16-17 years of age) accounted for 18% of the total votes cast, higher than PB youth engagement in Chicago and New York.14

In interviews with members of the PB Vallejo Youth Committee, they assert-ed PB presented itself as an e� ective way to engage with the community. Jennifer Aguiar, a Hispanic senior at Jesse Bethel High School and PB youth delegate, came to her � rst PB Vallejo assembly for the free pizza, but stayed when she saw an oppor-tunity to make a change. She signed up to be a delegate on the Youth Committee.15 In collaborating and working diligently in the PB youth committee, Aguiar was ini-tially surprised by the enthusiasm of oth-er youth delegates; but soon, she saw the power of her fellow urban youth when two of their 2012 ballot initiatives – college scholarship funds and funding improve-ments to the local Boys and Girls Club facility – passed with almost 1,000 votes each.16 Re� ecting on participatory bud-geting in Vallejo, Aguiar thought it had discernibly empowered the youth:

In some parts of the Vallejo commu-nity there was a stronger sense of unity that has emerged from PB. Personally, it just opened my eyes to what it was like to actually do something that means some-thing to people, if that makes sense. A lot of the youth don’t realize the power they can possess to make a better change in

Equa

l Jus


ual J

ustic

e


Roosevelt Review

1918

Vallejo by taking part in the PB process. I now know I have the ability to help not just this community, but many more, and it is in part due to getting involved in the PB process. I want to see Vallejo progress towards a better future where people can say they were proud to grow up here.17

� ese examples explain how urban youth have and would continue to bene-� t from civic engagement measures like participatory budgeting. First, PB has provide urban youth a sense of empow-erment as exhibited in Vallejo. Many mi-nority youth experience marginalization and alienation because of systemic racism and oppression; through PB participation and youth organizing to solve commu-nity problems, urban youth have the op-portunity to demonstrate their strengths and realize their rights as contributing members of their community.18 Greens-boro and Vallejo have demonstrated that PB activities provide youth the oppor-tunities to lead, to take ownership of the programs, and to develop a sense of com-munity with peers. Research indicates that such empowerment in political e� cacy is related to positive outcomes for civic en-gagement in the future.19 Additionally, PB might bene� t urban youth because par-ticipation in civic activities limits time for youth to be involved in risky behavior. PB connects youth to supportive adults who can provide them guidance and enhances the opportunity for youth to develop rela-tionships with peers who value justice and change.20 And lastly, civic engagement like PB provides adolescents with opportuni-ties to develop their skills that have been underdeveloped by experiences in schools and other public institutions. � ese prov-en, positive e� ects of PB in youth civic en-gagement make it critical to further devel-op participatory budgeting e� orts in even more urban cities.21

(Endnotes)1 Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of Amer-ican Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Print.2 Judis, John B., and Ruy A. Teixei-ra. The Emerging Democratic Majority. New York: Scribner, 2002. Print.3 http://www.participatorybudget-ing.org/blog/learning-democracy-by-do-

ing-participatory-budgeting-in-schools/4 Khane, John. “Democracy for Some: The Civic Opportunity Gap in High School.” Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning and Engage-ment (2008). Web.5 Torney-Purta, Judith. “Links and Missing Links between Education, Political Knowledge, and Citizenship.” American Journal of Education105.4 (1997): 446. Web.6 Kirshner, Ben, Karen Strobel, and María Fernández. “Civic Involvement Among Urban Youth: A Qualitative Study of “Critical Engagement”.”John W. Gard-ner Center for Youth and Their Communi-ties Stanford University (2002). Web.7 Ibid.8 http://www.participatorybudget-ing.org/blog/learning-democracy-by-do-ing-participatory-budgeting-in-schools/9 http://www.pbconference.org/10 http://www.participatorybudget-ing.org/who-we-are/mission-approach/11 http://www.city-data.com/city/Greensboro-North-Carolina.html12 http://greensboropb.org/tag/dud-ley-high-school/13 http://www.city-data.com/city/Vallejo-California.html14 http://www.ci.vallejo.ca.us/com-mon/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=6523715 http://www.timesheraldonline.com/general-news/20130509/participa-tory-budgeting-vallejo-vote-aims-to-bol-ster-community-pride16 http://www.ci.vallejo.ca.us/com-mon/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=6523717 http://www.timesheraldonline.com/general-news/20130509/participa-tory-budgeting-vallejo-vote-aims-to-bol-ster-community-pride18 Sanchez-Jankowski, Martin. 2002. “Minority Youth and Civic Engage-ment: The Impact of Group Relations,” Applied Developmental Science, vol. 6 (4), 237.19 Ibid.20 Daniel Hart and Robert Atkins. 2002. “Civic Competence in Urban Youth,” Applied Developmental Science, vol. 6 (4), 229.21 Khane, John. “Democracy for Some: The Civic Opportunity Gap in High School.” Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning and Engage-ment (2008). Web.

O

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): An Analysis of Where We Are and Where We Need To Be

n August 15, 2012, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began formally accepting ap-plications to their new executive deferral program: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). � e DACA directive is an act of prosecutorial discretion that o� ers a temporary solution to a growing human rights issue on how the United States handles immigrants. Described as a “smart enforcement policy,” DACA prior-itizes deportation of criminal immigrants over law-abiding, young, productive im-migrants, helping to unclog deportation courts and enabling a DACA grantee to bypass many obstacles that had prevented them from being incorporated into soci-ety in a humane and productive way.

Only a subset of the undocumented population is eligible for DACA. � e lim-itations are based on (1) age (under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012), (2) years of residency (have continuously resided in the United States since January 1, 2010), (3) presence in the United States (were physically present in the United States since June 15, 2012 and at the time of � ling the DACA application; were in the United States before 16th birthday), (4) education-al attainment or military service (high school diploma), and (5) clean criminal record (no felony, no serious misdemean-or, three or less misdemeanors).

In its � rst year alone, more than 573,000 people applied for DACA relief with 430,000 of these applicants accepted. Evidently, more than half the people im-mediately eligible for DACA applied for the program in fewer than 12 months – a remarkable feat that emphasizes the de-mand for the program as well as the work-ing infrastructure that has allowed the program to process such a large number of applications e� ciently. By the two-year

mark, USCIS had collectively accepted 702,485 di� erent residents, almost double the previous year.1

It should come as no surprise that there is such high demand; the facets of DACA include an Employment Authorization Document, an o� cial photo ID card from the government that demonstrates your work eligibility to employers, and per-mits individuals to obtain a social security number and card from the Social Security Administration.2 Moreover, according to a study published by the American Im-migration Council at the one-year mark, approximately 60% of DACA recipients surveyed had obtained a new job, 49% had opened their � rst bank account, and 57% had obtained a driver’s license since receiving DACA status. � ese bene� ts have allowed young adult immigrants to widen their educational and employment options.3

While the bene� ts of transitioning from undocumented to “DACAmented” are clear, and though a signi� cant number of people have bene� ted from DACA al-ready, the data also indicates that DACA is not reaching its entire target popula-tion. According to estimates made by Mi-gration Policy Institute (MPI),4 as of July 2014, only 55% of the 1.2 million youth who are immediately eligible have applied for relief from deportation.5 Who is not applying and why not?

A brief analysis reveals holes in the program’s success that o� er a somewhat comprehensive answer to that question. � is investigatory piece allow us better insight into the inner workings of the de-ferred action program and targets for the United States in providing undocumented immigrants (temporary) relief from de-portation and access to better life in the United States.6 But, perhaps more im-

By Sahng-Ah Yoo

Equa

l Jus


ual J

ustic

e


Roosevelt Review

2120

portantly, the answers to these questions can begin to tell us how much further we need to develop the program to � t the true needs of our nation’s most silent and pow-erless residents.WHERE WE ARE

� is paper analyzes USCIS data on ap-plication numbers alongside various in-depth research conducted by independent immigration political think tanks. � e published data tells us the following:

Which state you live in matters.We can partly understand why half of

the immigrants immediately eligible for DACA status have not applied by looking at individual state demographics and their respective policies. Table 1 below shows the top � � een states based on the largest immediately eligible populations in 2012. 7

From the data in table 1, it is clear that DACA is not being implemented as uni-formly or as greatly as it could be. Evi-dently, Arizona (66% application rate) has certain factors that push immigrants to apply for DACA bene� ts while New Jer-sey (37%) does not.9 What, then, makes Arizona more appealing to eligible candi-dates?

� e data also shows that the current sum of eligible DACA recipients and the number of them who actually apply are not highly correlated. California, while having three times the number of Texan eligible immigrants, falls far behind in application rates. While one might expect that a larger eligible population would in-duce better resources as a collective mo-tivation towards higher application rates, which is simply not the case here.

What is more signi� cant than the eligi-bility estimate is the history of immigra-tion in each state. � e top four states with application rates (60%+) are Texas (2), Arizona (9), Colorado (11), and Nevada (15), all of which have signi� cantly lower DACA eligible population estimates than states like California or even New York. Located in the Southwest, these four states have experienced a rapid rise in their im-migrant populations during the past 10-15 years. On the other hand, the three states with the lowest application rates include Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, all of which are generally located on the East Coast, which has not experienced any particular rise in undocumented im-migrants in the past decade.

Di� erences in recent immigration his-tory have led to di� erent policies adopt-ed by each state. � is is compounded by existing regional di� erences in political leanings and communal attitudes to-wards immigrants. Generally speaking, the states on the Northeast coast tend to be more liberal, with more forgiving im-migration policies, whereas Southwest states have a more racially divided history and conservative stances on government aid programs. States with more restric-tive policies a� ecting immigrant access to

postsecondary education, driver’s licens-es, and other bene� ts – as well as those that have higher levels of immigration enforcement – may have higher DACA application rates because the burdens and risks of unauthorized status are especially high.10 Moreover, an increase in media at-tention on the mass in� ux of immigrants has caused more needed resources to en-ter the states, by means of nonpro� t im-migration help and pro bono-committed law � rms.WHERE YOU COME FROM MATTERS

Another way to understand the dis-crepancy between eligibility and appli-cations is by looking at countries of ori-gins. Except for Maryland, Massachusetts, and Virginia, Mexico heads the list of top countries of origin for the undocumented population in each state, far above many other countries. Table 2 compares the top ten origin countries from which immedi-ately eligible youth come from.

� e data in table 2 shows a geographical correlation with the application rates. � e top three origin countries with highest application rate include Honduras (68%), Peru (61%), and Mexico (52%), which are Latin and South American countries, whereas the lowest three application rates come from Asian countries: Philippines (26%), Korea (24%), and China (10%). At the end of 2013, the application rate for Asian origins was 17.9%, meaning that over 90,000 youths have yet to be served.12

� e physical distance between the United States and the origin country may be encouraging or discouraging, depend-ing on the direct foreign government in-volvement in the advertising and advising of DACA to the undocumented popu-lation. � is, in turn, may be in� uencing the awareness and resources immigrants have to apply for DACAship. For example, experts believe that Mexican-born appli-cants are less likely to be denied DACA status due to the strong role that the Mex-ican consulate has played in facilitating DACA applications: hiring new employ-ees, extending hours, and providing other services to help DACA applicants identify documents and make a signi� cant amount of public outreach to raise awareness of the program.13 As a policy solution, how-ever, foreign involvement in promoting the DACA directive will be unfeasible. China, for example, does not have the po-

litical history or geographical immediacy to motivate action that Mexico does. � e complicated but long history between the United States and Mexico, especially with NAFTA, in addition to the robust presence of family members who remain behind in Mexico, allows for more open government consideration to aid the people who � ed from their country and lifestyle.

Another factor might simply be the immigration history that exists for each group within the United States. If Mexi-co shocks with its high number of eligi-ble and applying immigrants, China is surprising for the opposite reason. Listed as the 7th most DACA eligible applicants, Chinese immigrants have consistently applied in such low numbers that people have called their single-digit application rates14 as negligible.15 China is not even listed as one of the top twenty countries of origin of DACA applicants.16 � is may be due to a U.S. history marred by insti-tutionalized discrimination against for-eigners from centuries past. In 1882, the federal government created its � rst explic-it discriminatory law that prohibited en-try of a speci� c ethnic working group on the premise that it endangered “the good order of certain localities.” � e Chinese Exclusion Act targeted Chinese “skilled and unskilled laborers” from entering the country for ten years under penalty of im-prisonment and deportation. � e Act also a� ected Asians who had already settled in the United States; any Chinese who le� the United States had to obtain certi� ca-tions for reentry and Chinese immigrants were excluded from the path to citizen-ship, permanently alienating them from this country even as life-long residents (Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882). When the ten-year period was over, nativist culture hadn’t died down. In 1892, Congress ap-proved renewal of this Act - it wasn’t until decades in 1943 during the height of Jap-anese xenophobia that the Chinese gained a more favorable status for the Act to be reconsidered and somewhat rejected. � is nativist culture still lives on in the 21st century compounded with an unhealthy lack of public and private discussion in this area. According to Betty Hung, “In the Chinese community, there is such a community culture of silence about this.”17 � is raises the possibility of lingering dis-trust with the U.S. Government.

WHERE WE NEED TO BE� e bottom line is that depending on

the nationalities of the immigrants and the states in which they live, the resources available greatly in� uence the number of applicants to the USCIS. Other resources that may have a hand in the low application rate include the cost-prohibitive � ling fee of $465, inability to present acceptable evi-dence that prove their continued presence in the country, lack of awareness about the program in rural areas, and extreme fear of deportation for themselves and family members. For any of these problems to be � xed, we need to focus our attention to each of these problems in a speci� c and focused way, dedicated to alleviating the root of the problem. In the following sec-tion, two proposals are presented to tackle some of the discussed problems – namely, low Asian DACA applications and prohib-itive high application fee.

POLICY #1: Raise Asian DACA Applica-tion Rates

As stated above, Asians have been re-luctant to apply for, and especially so with the recent controversy raised by a federal judge who put a hold on Obama’s planned expansion of the deferment program. Judy Chu, California Democratic Representa-tive noted that Asian immigrants are cur-rently very wary of sharing personal in-formation with the government and have doubts about whether the program will last. � ere is particular emphasis in the fa-milial concern of what could occur if one member of the family formally appears before the government as undocumented and the risks they pose to others.

Much work must be done to reach out and assure the Asian undocumented pop-ulation of the worth, safety, and bene� ts of applying for DACAship. � is e� ort must take place at all levels of the program. On the personal level, conversations on DACA and its variations should become a household conversation that is easy to have with correct information � owing mouth-to-mouth. � is starts with a new approach to the DACA campaign, which has so far, been focused on the internet, radio, and certain community social jus-tice centers. What needs to happen is a di-rect insertion of people who know the in-formation into the communities that have

Equa

l Jus


ual J

ustic

e

Table 1. Fifteen states with highest estimates of eligible DACA applicants8

Table 2. Ten origin countries with highest estimates of eligible DACA appli-cants11


Roosevelt Review

2322

previously been le� out of the conversa-tion. For example, a hot line for Chinese immigrants who have questions about de-ferred action has been implemented on a case-by-case basis, by the zeal of too few people educated enough on these topics within these communities. A more gen-eralized, money-backed systematized re-source would be ideal.

On an international level, both home and host countries should work together (much like how Mexico and the United States have) to create a better transition for these immigrants and put more pres-sure on the United States to implement roll-out programs that favor Asian Amer-ican immigrants as they do other demo-graphics. One of the reasons that Latinos have had a much better turnout is because Spanish is spoken in most of the Latin American countries, whereas speaking to Asians requires multiple languages and, thus, multilingual versions of the same resources, requiring time, knowledge, and man power. As convincing as this reason may sound, it is by no means an excuse. Spending time and resource to properly reach out the Asian American population will help create a better implementation of this program.

But mostly, there needs to be a special concern taken by the United States, on a national level, to create a more inviting and con� dential space that will dissuade fears from immigrants, like the Chinese, who have historically been oppressed in and rejected from the United States.

POLICY #2: Financial Aid/Sensitivity to Applicants

� e undocumented population’s expe-rience with poverty in America takes the innate problems in our nation’s social sup-port system that plague our own citizens and worsens it with complex legal issues that enhance the limitations and prohib-its undocumented workers from � nding any form of relief. According to the Ca-reer Equity Resources Center18, the aver-age income of undocumented families is 40% lower than that of either native-born families or of legal immigrant families and nearly 40% of undocumented children live below the federal poverty level, compared with 17% of natively born children.19 � is can be attributed to the low-paying jobs they hold and to their susceptibility to be-

ing paid below minimum wage. In 2008, undocumented immigrants made up 25% of farmworkers, 17% of construction workers, and are likely to hold low-skilled jobs20 such as cleaning services21.

Given these circumstances, the $465 � ling fee for both initial applications and renewal requests can be impossible for many undocumented immigrant, becom-ing yet another roadblock in their paths to DACAship. Yet, there is no fee waiver for those applying for employment autho-rization. And those who are applying for DACA without the employment authori-zation application must go through an ar-duous fee waiver application that includes submission of a letter and documentation that proves an income of less than 150% of the US poverty level and an accumulation of $10,000 in debt due to medical expens-es – in other words, proof of quali� cations that are too speci� c and random.

� is raises a couple policy points. First, the renewal application should be accept-ed without any additional fee – they’ve paid once to be in the system; another fee will quickly outweigh any work ben-e� ts that come from being DACA status. Second, if USCIS � nds no way to reduce the high application fee due to processing costs, it should work for increased aware-ness of certain � nancial support programs that help DACA eligible immigrants to apply. Some examples include lending circles and speci� cally DACA-population targeted loans. Many organizations have established lending circles, including Mis-sion Asset Fund in San Francisco22, which provides 0% interest credit-building loans. Community Trust, another � nancial orga-nization located in California, provides individual loans for up to $465, with a rel-atively low interest rate a� er 6 months.23 � ese two organizations and many of the others should be placed as resources on the main website and should, in general, receive more attention from the adminis-tration as it ups its e� orts to communicate accessibility and safety to DACA eligible populations for them to begin using its services. Moreover, returning to our dis-cussion on state-by-state resource di� er-ences, the federal government should pro-vide incentives for the states other than California to follow suit and implement strong � nancial support programs.

CONCLUSIONWhether members of our community

like it or not, undocumented immigrants have become a crucial part of our society and are here to stay; DACA is the � rst of many steps that must be taken for us to move forward together towards a more productive and inclusive society. But it has not been a perfectly executed directive. We must work towards making this program much more available to those already el-igible and should begin to reconsider the repercussions of dividing the undoc-umented population by age, education, and other somewhat random factors. � e top � ve states with the highest estimates of number of undocumented immigrants do not match the top � ve states with the highest estimates of number of DACA-el-igible immigrants. � is observation rais-es pointed questions to the e� ectiveness of the relief DACA gives. � e success of DACA relies on our ability to reach out to the entire eligible undocumented popu-lation and assuring them of the safety in con� dentiality and from deportation. But this sort of emotional and political safe-ty may not be felt by our immigrants by policy changes, instead resting on a more cultural change on the part of the Amer-ican people toward immigrants. To keep our nation’s core humanitarian ideals and democratic values, we should create more permanent and safer laws and public pol-icies that allow these immigrants to come out of the shadows and live the normal lives of free human beings.

Endnotes1 US Citizenship and Immigration Services. (September 2014). Number of I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals by Fiscal Year, Quarter, Intake, Biometrics and Case Sta-tus: 2012-2014. USCIS.

2 Lenahan, K. (2015, January 20). Deferred Action Iniatives, including DAPA and DACA: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved January 22, 2015, from Avvo: http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/deferred-action-for-pa-rental-accountability-dapa-answers-to-fre-quently-asked-questions

3 Gonzales, R., & Bautista-Chavez, A. (2014). Two Years and Counting:

Equa

l Jus

tice

Assessing the Growing Power of DACA. Washington, DC: American Immigration Council.

4 Batalova, J., Hooker, S., Capps, R., & Bachmeier, J. (2014). DACA at the Two-Year Mark. Washington, DC: Migra-tion Policy Institute.

5 “Immediately eligible” refers to those who fulfi ll all the requirements and can apply immediately

6 In May of this year, USCIS has planned to roll out a second deferred action program, in conjunction with DACA, called the Deferred Action for Parent Accountability (DAPA), aimed towards providing parents of US citizens or lawful permanent residents brief amnesty to care for their children and family. This program will have signifi cant effects on the liveli-hoods of mixed families (families with both documented and undocumented members) and should be interesting to study after a few months of its release.

7 while there are some changes in the eligible population estimates from 2012 to 2014, generally, the states have remained within the top fi fteen states

8 Batalova J. , Hooker, Capps, & Bachmeier, 2014

9 Application rate here refers to the ratio of initial applications accepted for processing to the immediately eligible or potentially eligible DACA populations.

10 Wong, T., García, A., Abrajano, M., FitzGerald, D., & Ramakrishnan, K. (2013). Undocumented No More. Washing-ton, DC: Center for American Progress.

11 Batalova J. , Hooker, Capps, & Bachmeier, 2014

12 Wong, García, Abrajano, FitzGer-ald, & Ramakrishnan, 2013



15 Cohn, D., & Passel, J. S. (2009). A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States. Pew Hispanic Center.

Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.

16 Batalova J. , Hooker, Capps, Bachmeier, & Cox, 2013

17 Semple, K. (2013, December 9). Advocates struggle to reach immigrants eligible for deferred action. The New York Times.

18 Career Equity Resources Center. (2010). Promoting Academic Success with Undocumented Students. New Jersey: Rutgers University.

19 Gonzales, 2009

20 Cohn & Passel, 2009

21 Oakford, R. L. (2013). The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and. Center for American Progress. Wash-ington, D.C.: Center for American Prog-ress.

22 Lending Circles. (2014). Re-trieved February 26, 2014, from Mission Asset Fund: http://missionassetfund.org/

23 Community Trust. (2012). Who Are We? Retrieved February 26, 2015, from Community Trust: https://www.self-helpfcu.org/communitytrust/about-us/who-are-we-

Equal Justice Equa

l Jus

tice


Roosevelt Review

2524

Defense and DiplomacyThis year’s Defense and Diplomacy Center section contains a variety of policy solutions that perfectly mirror the diverse

areas that encompass modern day national defense and international diplomacy. The section contains an article with a new take on the classic issue of nuclear proliferation, and another that articulates the argument for reaching a nuclear accord with Iran. Even with the initial framework agreed to in Switzerland, the article outlines why both sides must still follow through in order to benefi t all the parties involved. The other two pieces are concerned with issues of citizenship and how communities interact within and outside of borders; a constantly evolving issue in the United States and abroad. One piece seeks to fi nd solutions to ethnic violence, and the other a pathway for citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. Indeed, the defi nition of who is a legal citizen in the United States has huge impacts on defense, the economy, and how we interact with other nations. These pieces refl ect many of the discussions we have had this year at the Columbia chapter, and I am very pleased to present such refl ective and thoughtful policy recommendations.

-Edmund Brose

IMonitoring State Responses to Communal Violence

n February and March of 2002, around 2,000 people died in a period of Hin-du-Muslim violence in the Indian state of Gujarat1. In May of 2014, the man who was Chief Minister of Gujarat at that time and actively promoted the violence, Na-rendra Modi, was elected India’s newest Prime Minister. Modi’s election testi� es to a troubling fact: sometimes states are complicit in the violence they are meant to prevent. Moreover, they o� en get away with it.

� e 2002 Gujarat massacre was an in-stance of communal violence, or violence that involves groups that de� ne them-selves by their di� erences of religion, eth-nicity, language, or race2. Such violence o� en appears in the form of ethnic riots between civilian groups with di� erent communal identities. O� en, when com-munal tensions spring up in a society, the violence does not escalate due to an e� ective state response. State responses to put down ethnic violence can include police and security forces acting to hold back and arrest the aggressors, the mili-tary deploying to curb violence, and state and central governments reacting quickly and fairly to protect victims and punish aggressors. A timely and e� ective state re-sponse is key to suppressing ethnic riots and preventing them from growing too large. It is when states are hesitant or inde-cisive in their response – for instance, by waiting too long to act – or worse, when states actively participate in the violence, that ethnic riots can grow into large-scale massacres with hundreds or thousands of civilian casualties. Conversely, states can sometimes act too harshly in suppressing the violence by disproportionately pun-ishing the aggressors.

� e international community, includ-

1 Human Rights Watch. “We Have No Orders to Save You”: State Participation and Complicity in Communal Violence in Gujarat. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, 2002, 21.2 Human Rights Watch. Slaughter among Neighbors: The Political Origins of Communal Violence. New Haven: Yale UP, 1995, 1.

ing states, intergovernmental organiza-tions (IGOs), nongovernmental organi-zations (NGOs), and others can play an important role in helping to shape state responses to communal violence. � is ar-ticle will examine ways for international actors to protect human rights and min-imize casualties by taking actions to en-courage states to respond e� ectively and fairly to instances of communal violence. For context, three recent cases of com-munal violence and the resulting state response will be examined. � en policy recommendations for international actors will be enumerated.

� ree Cases of Ethnic Riots To illustrate di� erent types of

state responses to communal violence, three recent cases of ethnic riots around the world will be examined. In India in 2002, in China in 2009, and in Myanmar in 2012, violence broke out between two communities, with a wide range of state responses from case to case.

Case 1: Gujarat state, India, Febru-ary-March 2002

On February 27, 2002, in the town of Godhra, Gujarat, India, a train carrying Hindu pilgrims caught on � re. Nearly 60 people died3. At the time, popular opin-ion and the Gujarat state government, led by a Hindu nationalist party, blamed the � re on a Muslim mob (later found not to be the case). Between February 28 and March 2, Hindus retaliated by mur-dering, torturing, and sexually assaulting the Muslim population in Gujarat, as well as looting and burning their property. By the end of the violence, hundreds if not thousands were dead. India’s government o� cial death count, published in 2005 and almost certainly understated, is 790 Mus-lims and 254 Hindus4. Some sources esti-3 Human Rights Watch. “We Have No Orders to Save You”: State Participation and Complicity in Communal Violence in Gujarat. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, 2002, 4.4 “Gujarat Riot Death Toll Revealed.” BBC News. BBC, 11 May 2005. Web. 16 Dec. 2014.

By Katie Haller

Defe

nse &

Dipl

omac

y D

efense & D

iplomacy D

efens

e & D

iplom

acy


Roosevelt Review

2726

“The international com-munity, including states,

intergovernmental organi-zations (IGOs), nongov-ernmental organizations (NGOs), and others can

play an important role in helping to shape state responses to communal

violence.”

Defense &

Diplomacy

Defe

nse &

Dipl

omac

y

mate the total number of casualties to be over 2,0005.

� ere is abundant evidence showing the government of Gujarat’s participation in the riot. Several actions taken by the government, including transferring o� -cials who attempted to stop the violence and instructing state o� cials not to inter-vene, facilitated the violence6. � e govern-ment also likely used indirect methods to promote rioting. Hindu participants in the violence were armed with sophisticat-ed weapons and computer printouts from the Ahmedabad municipal corporation, along with voter lists, that showed the ad-dresses of Muslim families and their prop-erties7. � e police actively participated in the violence, or stood by while Muslims were massacred because, as the police told the Muslims: “‘We have no orders to save you’”8.

Case 2: Urumqi, Xinjiang region, China, July 2009

In late June, 2009, in the city of Shaoguan, China, a brawl erupted be-tween works from the ethnic Han and Uyghur groups. On July 5, Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province’s capital city of Urumqi organized a street protest to demand gov-ernment investigation into the incident9. At some point, the demonstration became violent (how this happened remains un-clear), and rioters clashed with the police by throwing stones and setting vehicles on � re10. � e riot spread throughout the city, with some Uyghurs attacking Han civilians and looting shops11. � e o� cial Xinhua News Agency reported that of 156 of 197 total deaths were civilian casualties,

5 Human Rights Watch, “We Have No Orders to Save You,” 21; and Jaffrelot, Christo-phe. Communal Riots in Gujarat: The State at Risk? Working paper no. 17. Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics, July 2003, 16.6 Ibid., 157.7 Human Rights Watch. “We Have No Orders to Save You”: State Participation and Complicity in Communal Violence in Gujarat. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, 2002, 5.8 Ibid.9 Ibid.10 Ibid.11 Associated Press. “Death Toll from China’s Ethnic Riots Hits 184.” Newsday. Newsday, 10 July 2009. Web. 17 Dec. 2014.

and of those, 134 were Han, 10 were Uy-ghurs, and the others from the Hui and Man ethnic groups12.

Media, government, and international organizations’ reports of the riot all attest to the state’s swi� response to put down the violence. On the � rst day of the pro-test, police were already on the scene, and as the riot grew more violent, troops in full riot gear and armored vehicles ar-rived13. � e police used tear gas, � re hos-es, and batons to disperse the crowd14. On July 6, the local government announced a curfew banning all tra� c in the city until 8 P.M15, and the central government se-verely restricted communications in Xin-jiang during and a� er the riot16. Human Rights Watch and several foreign jour-nalists claim the government sought to tightly control the � ow of information out of the region. Human Rights Watch also notes the extreme response by Chinese security forces and government to the vi-olence, which included unlawful arrests and enforced disappearances of several Uyghurs17.

Case 3: Rakhine State, Myanmar, June 2012

In June 2012, large-scale communal violence broke out in Rakhine State in Myanmar between the ethnic Rakhine and Rohingya Muslim populations. � e vio-lence was caused by allegations circulating that on May 28, 2012, an ethnic Rakhine woman was raped and killed, reportedly by three Muslim men. From there, esca-lating attacks from both sides led to an increasingly high death toll. Rioters from both Rakhine and Rohingya populations looted, torched, and destroyed homes, businesses, and places of worship and en-12 “Innocent Civilians Make up 156 in Urumqi Riot Death Toll.” Chinaview.cn. Xinhua News Agency, 05 Aug. 2009. Web. 17 Dec. 2014.13 Wong, “Riots in Western China Amid Ethnic Tension.”14 “Civilians Die in China Riots.” Al Jazeera English. Al Jazeera, 5 July 2009. Web. 17 Dec. 2014.15 Wong, “Riots in Western China Amid Ethnic Tension.”16 Human Rights Watch. “’We Are Afraid to Even Look for Them’: Enforced Dis-appearances in the Wake of Xinjiang’s Protests, 15.17 Ibid., 5.

gaged in killing sprees18. Due to collusion between the Rakhine and local security forces, however, the Rohingya su� ered more casualties. In an o� cial report, the government of Myanmar claimed that 31 Rakhine and 57 Rohingya were killed19. However, rights and Rohingya groups have claimed that at least 650 Rohingya were killed by Rakhine and government forces, and at least 1,200 were missing20.

During the height of the sec-tarian violence, Myanmar’s government failed to e� ectively intervene. Witnesses from both Rakhine and Rohingya com-munities told Human Rights Watch that they lacked protection from the authori-ties at the highest point of violence21. � en on June 10, Myanmar’s President � ein Sein declared a state of emergency and transferred civilian power to the army in a� ected areas of Rakhine State22. Violence in the state capital of Sittwe calmed in a few days. However, the state of emergen-cy very quickly led to a wave of intensive violence by various state security forces against Rohingya communities. In the north of the state, for instance, the Na-saka border guard, the army, police, and Lon � ein paramilitary forces committed killings, looting, and mass arrests against Rohingya23. Moreover, in many cases, po-lice and Rakhine people worked together to commit violence against Rohingya24; in addition, mass arrests and enforced disap-pearances of Rohingya by state forces oc-curred throughout the state25.

Policy Recommendations� e evidence from the three cases dis-

cussed here has important implications for international actors who wish to min-imize casualties from communal violence or to protect human rights. When states are complicit in communal violence, as in India in 2002, and to a degree in Myanmar

18 Kipgen, Nehginpao. “Confl ict in Rakhine State in Myanmar: Rohingya Muslims’ Conundrum.” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 33.2 (2013): 298-310, 301.19 Ibid.20 Ibid.21 Ibid., 20.22 Ibid., 1.23 Ibid., 2.24 Ibid., 25.25 Ibid., 28.

in 2012, international actors should speak up and take actions to hold states account-able in order to prevent mass atrocities. Alternatively, on the rare occasions when states do act e� ectively to suppress large-scale ethnic riots, as in China in 2009, the international community should be wary of the possibility of an excessive and au-thoritarian state response.

Here are a few recommendations for various international actors when in-stances of communal violence break out:

• Allies and neighbors of states where communal violence has broken out can exert their in� uence on the govern-ment to respond quickly and e� ectively to stop the violence.• Foreign governments can put pressure on states with ethnic riots to respond e� ectively, through methods including threatening or enforcing sanctions.• Journalists and the media should strive to call attention to ethnic riots and state response to them, even if the issues are not well known at the time by the international press. Media attention is one of the few ways other states can be urged to intervene.• NGOs can play a major role in re-searching and raising awareness about governments’ roles in instances of communal violence, as Human Rights Watch and others currently do.

Conclusion � e international community has

a vital role to play in helping to shape state responses to communal violence. In or-der to avoid large-scale tragedies like the 2,000 deaths in Gujarat within a few weeks in 2002, international actors must take ac-tions to encourage states to respond e� ec-tively and fairly to inst ances of communal violence.


Roosevelt Review

2928

ROne Opportunity to Take One Step in the Right Direction With Iran

adical Iranian students took American hostages in the United States embassy in 1979, leading President Carter to freeze Iranian economic assets in the United States following the Iranian hostage cri-sis in 1979 – and that was only in the � rst year of the new Iranian regime. � e rela-tionship between these two nations has not been much friendlier since. Starting in 2003, the progression of the Iranian nuclear program has started a chain of sanctions against Iran mainly by the Unit-ed States and the European Union, chie� y aimed at inhibiting the growth of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. No formal, long-term agreement that eases tensions on both sides has resulted from negotiations thus far. Now, under the Joint Plan of Action, which is a short-term agreement that has brought concessions from both the Unit-ed States and Iran and is set to expire in June 2015, both sides are close to negoti-ating a formal agreement.1 However, there are dissenting groups on both sides, main-ly right-wing groups, that oppose such an agreement: the American dissenters want more sanctions, and the Iranian dissent-ers want more nuclear development. An American-Iranian agreement must be reached in the near future; failure to do so will not only orient Iran back toward nuclear development and economic deg-radation, but it will also return relations to the extremely antagonistic ways of the past few decades.

� e original goal of American, and eventually international, economic sanc-tions on the Iranian regime was to re-tard the growth of the nuclear program by straining Iran’s economy so that it would compromise. However, Iran had increased its number of centrifuges to 19,000 by 2013, according to Iran’s nucle-

1 US Department of the Treasury. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/iran.aspx (accessed February 11, 2015).

ar chief Ali Akbar Salehi2. Why didn’t the sanctions work? � e Iranian economy was able to withstand the sanctions through numerous strategies. First of all, Iran be-gan to shi� more focus on non-oil exports (such as cement, urea fertilizers, and min-erals). According to the overview on Iran sanctions by the Congressional Research Service, two-thirds of the money Iran needs for its imports comes from non-oil exports as of 2014.3 Additionally, the gov-ernment, under Rouhani, reduced subsi-dies on goods such as bread and gasoline; Ahmadinejad originally implemented this subsidy.4 One other strategy was the increased focus on domestic production – in place of imports – and limitations on hard currency used on luxury goods.5 � rough these methods, Iran’s econo-my was able to continue functioning and withstand the sanctions while the regime developed its nuclear capabilities. Essen-tially, Iran’s leaders prioritized national defense (their nuclear program) over the economy, by making the economy able to continue functioning and withstand the sanctions while the regime developed its nuclear capabilities.6

� e gross su� ering of the economy in the face of nuclear development is truly visible in the shortage of medicine, goods that put the lives of millions innocent cit-izens at risk, that began to arise. Accord-ing to a article published in the DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, there

2 Nasser Karimi, “Iran Says It Is Developing New Centrifuges for Uranium En-richment,” The World Post, December 27, 2013, (accessed February 11, 2015). 3 Kenneth Katzman, “Iran Sanctions,” Congressional Research Service (March 2015), http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf (accessed February 11, 2015). 4 Katzman, “Iran Sanctions.”5 Katzman, “Iran Sanctions.”6 Bahman Fozouni, e-mail message to author, February 10, 2015.

By Masih Babagoli

has been a “reduction of availability of lifesaving medicines in the local market and [that] has caused increasing pain and su� ering for Iranian patients” not because the sanctions apply to medical goods but because of the di� culties that exist in paying for these medications as a result of the sanctions.7 � is includes plasma-de-rived medicines needed for hemophilia patients. 8

� e bottom line is that the leaders of Iran have a much greater interest in de-fying the West and pursuing nuclear de-velopment – whether for the purpose of defense or energy – than maintaining some economic status – or apparently the well-being of their own people as shown by their unwillingness to compromise re-gardless of the shortage of medical goods caused. Iran is not new to international sanctions. (It has seen them since 1979, and its economy – and its people – is built to withstand these external pressures.) In fact, Bahman Fozouni, Professor of Polit-ical Science at California State University, Sacramento contends that Iran used the extended period of sanctions regime to further develop its nuclear program to the point that it felt it had gained enough bar-gaining leverage to be able to more e� ec-tively negotiate with the West than in the past.9 � at is one of the major reasons why Iran is now negotiating with the West. However, according to the general di-rector of Iran’s Foreign Ministry Political and International Security Department, Hamid Baedinejad, “Naturally, if there is no agreement on the issue [Iran’s nuclear program] then both sides can return back to their previous positions. […] Iran will continue its development and we will in-stall more centrifuges.”10 � erefore, those 7 Abdol Majid Cheraghali, “Impacts of international sanctions on Iranianpharmaceutical market,” DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (2013), http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/2008-2231-21-64.pdf (accessed February 11, 2015).8 Cheraghali, “Impacts of international sanctions on Iranianpharmaceutical market.”9 Bahman Fozouni, e-mail message to author, February 10, 2015.10 “Iran threatens nuclear enrichment expansion if US pursues sanctions,” RT.com, February 5, 2015, http://rt.com/news/229447-iran-nuclear-us-sanctions (accessed Febru-ary 11, 2015).

who want to revert to imposing more sanctions on Iran will only force Iran’s re-turn to its nuclear program since it priori-tizes the program more than preserving its economy, which is still functioning.

Who are the hardliners on both sides that want to return to the old state of re-lations? In Iran, the opposition consists partly of cleric hardliners who want do not want the state to give in to any demands of the West. Cleric Mohammad Reza Ash-tiani says, “� ey are going to give us part of our own money as if we are indebted.”11

On the other hand, the dissenters in the United States are mostly made up of right-wing Republican Congressmen. On March 9, 47 Republican Senators sent a letter directly to Iran stating that any deal reached by President Obama would not be valid without a vote by Congress and that any future administration can po-tentially revoke or change the deal once Obama leaves.12 Also, while voting on this bill has been delayed, Republican Senators are trying to pass a bill that would require Congress to approve any nuclear deal reached with Iran. In response, a new bill was recently initiated in Iranian legislation that nulli� es the Joint Plan of Action from Iran’s side if the United States imposes any additional sanctions on Iran13. From both ends, an agreement is absolutely essential. Any hint of additional economic sanc-tions will push the United States and Iran back again to tension-� lled, and much more antagonistic, relations like the past, bene� tting the hardliners who want that.

� e obvious bene� t that comes with an American-Iranian nuclear agreement would be that Iran would not be able to develop a nuclear weapon, which was ini-tially the main goal of the United States in imposing the sanctions. It would also eliminate any possibility of war with Iran and all of the costs that come with that. Additionally, while the US and Iran have been at odds on most issues, a so� ening of relations with Iran could allow for more 11 Ali Akbar Dareini, “Hard-liners in Iran oppose ‘poisoned’ nuclear deal,” The Times of Israel, January 14, 2014, (accessed February 11, 2015).12 “Letter From Senate Republicans to the Leaders of Iran,” The New York Times , March 9, 2015, (accessed March 22, 2015).13 Richard Nephew, “Now’s not time for more Iran sanctions,” CNN, February 6, 2015, (accessed February 11, 2015).

Defe

nse &

Dipl

omac

y

American-Iranian cooperation on bat-tling ISIS. � e opportunity is there for a deal, and it needs to be taken advantage of.

Defense &

Diplomacy

Defe

nse &

Dipl

omac

y


Roosevelt Review

3130

M

Missile Defense in the 21st Century: What it Means for US Security and Strategies for Future Safety

issile defense systems (MDS) ought to re-ceive more attention than they do. Rogue nations’ development of nuclear weapons dominates the armament conversation, while their gaining access to MDS could prove dangerous in more subtle but per-haps more long-lasting ways. However, given the current state of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) the US must continue to research and de-velop MDS carefully to protect its shores, while it should discourage the prolifera-tion of MDS in other nations. Because the US already has several poorly functioning missile defense systems—current systems are unreliable at best—it should shi� its programs to research more and develop only when the new MDS is believed to be able to work soundly and to be a substan-tial improvement o� of the current MDS.

II: De� nitions and Background � e Council on Foreign Rela-

tions de� nes missile defense systems as missiles that can be launched more than 5500 km from many platforms, “includ-ing silos, trucks, trains, submarines, and warships.”1 � at missile is launched when the system detects that there is an incom-ing missile. � e missile from the defense system hits—and destroys—the incom-ing missile before impact, defending the home nation from a missile attack. To do so, the system � rst detects the incoming missile. Second, it discriminates or sep-arates the target from its surroundings. � ird, it undergoes “� re control,” during which it determines where to intercept the missile, and fourth it destroys the missile, hitting it with some type of interceptor.2 Missile defense systems have had mixed

1 Jonathan Masters, “Ballistic Missile Defense.” Council on Foreign Relations. 2013. http://www.cfr.org/missile-defense/ballistic-mis-sile-defense/p30607.2 Ibid.

success in tests, but it is clear how they should work under ideal circumstances.

� e US � rst became involved in missile defense systems in the second half of the twentieth century. � e Pentagon � rst developed MDS and ballistic missile defense (BMD) technology to counter the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) nuclear threat during the Cold War. � e US used an ine� ective MDS pro-totype during the Gulf War.3

Currently, the US stated pol-icy is that the US uses BMD technology and MDS to deter potential strikes form nations with nuclear capabilities the US views as less stable, like Iran and North Korea.4 � e United States has spent $100 billion on MDS since 2002 and plans to spend $8 billion per year through 2017, although that remains a small portion of the total national defense budget.

� e US has four missile defense systems: Ground-Based Midcourse De-fense, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and Patriot Advanced Capa-bility-3 (PAC-3). � e US has the systems that should combat short, medium, and long-range missiles, if the systems work.

With regards to this topic’s in-ternational component, the US has sold PAC-3 batteries to more than a dozen nations and deployed them to countries including but not limited to Afghanistan, Turkey, and South Korea.5

III: State of the Problem, Practical and � eoretical

For the purposes of this paper, the problem should be any result of MDS development that lessens the US’s safety. � ree sources of this problem in practice are renegade nations with missile capabil-

3 Ibid.4 Ibid.5 Ibid.

By Jay Rappaport

Defe

nse &

Dipl

omac

y

ities, US proliferation of MDS technology, and the development of MDS technology without American sponsorship. � e theo-retical sources of the problem are the less-ening of US comparative security power, the increasing likelihood of arms’ races, and the MDS proliferation’s e� ect on the probability of entering into con� ict.

� e US military defense systems would most likely defend against rogue nations. Obviously, a missile’s hitting the US compromises US security. It may be more strategic for a rogue nation to sneak a bomb into the United States than to try to launch a missile, but the threat of a mis-sile is real and a possibility for which the US ought to prepare itself. North Korea already has short and medium-range bal-listic missiles and is developing an inter-mediate-range missile that could hit the US.6 Iran, on the other hand, has a large ballistic missile arsenal. Although an Ira-nian missile could � y up to 5500 km, it could only hit the US if it were launched from a vulnerable position, which is un-likely. � ese missiles could hit an Amer-ican ally in Europe though. � ese are the main threats American MDS would most probably combat.

� e US has encouraged its allies’ development of MDS and BMD technol-ogy. � e Obama administration has be-gun to develop MDS in Europe to protect those nations from regional renegades, es-pecially Iran. In 2010, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) announced US integration of MDS technology in Eu-rope as o� cial policy. � e USS Donald Cook arrived in port of Rota in February 2014, one of four US MDS on ships to ar-rive in Spain.7 � e US gave Japan a BMD technology including Aegis-equipped destroyers and Patriot missile batteries.8 American policymakers should be cog-nizant of the fact that other nations, al-lies or not, possess signi� cant MDS and BMD technology. Such knowledge paints a fuller picture of exactly what securi-ty advantages the US gains in compari-son to other nations when it develops its MDS program; the more common missile defense systems are in other nations, the less of a threat military engagement or diplomatic disagreement with the United 6 Ibid.7 Ibid.8 Ibid.

States poses. In short, US missiles look less scary, even to allies, when they too have MDS. In order to protect its allies, the US has shared BMD technology and actual MDS with many of them. � is lessens the US’s security advantage over its allies but strengthens its relationship with its allies. Weighing these factors is inexact, but this balance must be considered in determin-ing whether or not this is in the US’s best interest.

Both other P-5 nations and mili-tarily rogues have developed MDS without US support. Russia has an MDS could po-tentially protect Moscow and is currently developing equivalents to US THAAD and GMD (ground-based midcourse de-fense) systems.9 China, however, does not have BMD technology that could protect it from inter-continental missiles.10 Ger-man intelligence indicates that ISIS has short-range MDS capable of shooting down aircra� , speci� cally 2 Iraqi planes. � ey cannot � re very high, but could de� -nitely shut down air space.11 With Russia and ISIS serving as the clearest support-ing evidence, it has become clear that sta-ble nations and rebel groups can develop MDS without US assistance.

In addition to the simple prob-lem of the US’s losing a comparative secu-rity advantage, other nations’ developing MDS poses the risk of igniting an arms’ race. Nations may begin to compete with each other to develop the most up-to-date MDS. � e prospect of nations’ investing more resources than they currently do in military technology of any sort could very well compromise US safety. However, even more problematic for international security, nations may compete with each other to develop armaments that can pen-etrate each other’s MDS. Other nations’ development of MDS may compromise US security because it might ignite a de-fensive or o� ensive armament race.

Current political research sug-gests that MDS may stabilize international 9 http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-02.html#mozTocId243268; http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/76570510 http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-02.html#mozTocId24326811 http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/isis-acquires-air-defence-mis-sile-system-capable-of-shooting-down-passenger-airlines-qatar-blamed/story-fn-h81ifq-1227105184672

security and limit threats. Steven Quack-enbush of the University of Utah writes that, according to classical deterrence theory, because of how high the costs of a military engagement would be when both states have MDS, nations will be deterred from attacking each other.12

� us any US policy regarding MDS and BMD technology must address the facts that with and without American assistance, other parties are developing MDS, and that development lessens US comparative power and could cause na-tions to enter into defense or o� ensive arms’ races with each other.

IV: Recommended US Policy � e US government—and the

US government alone—ought to keep researching and developing MDS and discourage other nations’ from doing the same. � is is a crude policy recommenda-tion with consequences that may seriously impede US and international security in the long-term. It is, however, the best pol-icy to keep the US and its allies safe given current international a� airs.

MDS presents a potentially e� ec-tive means through which to protect the US from missiles, and the US must do so. Even though current MDS are not with-out � aws, a successful MDS would protect a nation from incoming missiles. � e US has the potential to develop successful MDS. � e policy option that protects the US most fully—even if it is in the short-term—is having MDS to combat Iranian or North Korean missiles.

Only the US government should work on that development, not the pri-vate sector. � ere are a handful of private sector American defense corporations that have worked on various armament projects in recent history. If the compa-ny’s equipment proves vital to MDS pro-duction, the government should buy it. If the company’s personal proves vital to MDS production, the government should hire them and privately set severe restric-tions on what information they can dis-close outside of the government. � e risk that this technology’s proliferation poses should lead policymakers to try to keep it as unbeknownst to others as possible. Re-

12 Stephen L. Quackenbush, “Na-tional Missile Defense and Deterrence,” Political Science Quarterly 59 (2006):536. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4148056.

Defense &

Diplomacy

Defe

nse &

Dipl

omac

y

MDS= Military Defense SystemBMD= Ballistic Military Defense


Roosevelt Review

3332

stricting MDS research and development to the US government limits the potential for the unintended spread of MDS, and for this reason only the US government should conduct MDS research and devel-opment.

In order to use resources most e� ectively and still preserve national se-curity, the US should shi� its MDS pro-gram from being development-focused to being research-focused. One of the most signi� cant critiques of any MDS program is that it costs too much, and MDS devel-opment comprises much of such a pro-gram’s cost.13 Just last year the Los Ange-les Times deemed a $40-billion US MDS “unreliable.” � e new MDS missed its mock target.14 � e MDS America has are good, although one should be reluctant to label any military defense “good enough” unless it has proved perfect in its tests and American MDS certainly has not. However, continuing to spend resources on producing � awed MDS seems silly. A more e� cient use of resources would be to research BMD technology thorough-ly and try to produce a vastly improved MDS. � e threats the US faces are real and current, so perhaps the government should set a deadline by which production will begin on the then best available MDS model, but research should be the current priority. Also, the US government may need all resources available if it is to con-centrate MDS research and production in its own hands and not in those of the private sector. � e US would save scarce resources, combat one of the program’s harshest critiques, and ultimately develop a better product if the government priori-tized MDS research over development.

� e � nal component of US mis-sile defense policy should be to discourage BMD technology research and develop-ment in other nations. It is neither in the US’s best interest to be in either a defen-sive or o� ensive arms’ race with any other country, nor to decrease its comparative armament advantage. � e means through which to limit nations’ MDS programs is unclear, but bilateral negotiations present

13 Ibid.14 David Willman, “$40-billion Mis-sile Defense System Proves Unreliable,” Los Angeles Times (June 15, 2014.) http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missile-de-fense-20140615-story.html#page=1.

one possibility, which have notably proved e� ective with Russia, producing the NEW START Treaty. � e US could also peti-tion the United Nations (UN) to create a framework for other nations to decrease their MDS programs for some incentive of international protection, and the US could try to be the party responsible for enforc-ing it. � en the US would have ethical and defensible grounds to defend destroying other nations’ MDS programs. Whether through bilateral negotiations, the UN, or another means, the US should do all that it can to discourage and prevent other na-tions’ MDS development.

V: Conclusion Military defense systems present

a unique armament crisis because of their defensive nature. In order to combat the all too unstable missile-based threats the US faces, the US must continue to research and develop MDS and BMD technology, but because of its limited resources, the US should only move onto the develop-ment stage a� er careful and thorough re-search has been conducted. � e US ought to prevent the spread of MDS technology to avoid defensive or o� ensive arms races and a decrease in its comparative securi-ty power. To accomplish this end, the US should consolidate its MDS program into government hands, engage in bilateral ne-gotiations, and involve the UN. Missile defense systems are necessary for the US given current missile proliferation, but the US should do all that it can, includ-ing making it o� cial policy, to limit the spread of those systems.

Defe

nse &

Dipl

omac

y

The United States seems incapable of solv-ing its problem of adequately addressing the economic issues associated with, and human rights conditions of, undocument-ed immigrants living in the country. � is failure is unfortunately due to the per-ceived economic burden of integrating this group into our society, and the result-ing political gridlock in Washington. On the state level, there is an exciting oppor-tunity to take action, by granting citizen-ship rights to undocumented immigrants who reside within state borders, allowing them to fully enter the communities in which they live and enjoy the rights of state citizenship, without having to apply for national citizenship.

Background and Context:

Undocumented immigration is an issue that a� ects the U.S. economical-ly, politically, and morally. � e solution presented is the best one right now due to the partisan political climate at the federal level and would bene� t undocu-mented immigrants and naturalized citi-zens alike. � ere are currently about 11.7 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., according to the Pew Research Center Hispanic Trends Project.1 About three-quarters (76%) of the nation’s un-authorized immigrant population are Hispanics; the majority of the group over-all (59%) are from Mexico, numbering 7 million.2 � e main motivation for such immigration is overwhelmingly for work, o� en laboring in industries that pay poor-ly and exploit their labor. Even if success-ful in gaining entry, which has become a much more treacherous process due to enhanced border security, many live in deplorable conditions. Unauthorized im-migrants are unable to safely report labor violations and discriminatory housing practices for fear of deportation. For the millions of undocumented living in this country, basic human rights are not up-held like housing, fair wages, and social

bene� ts like social security, a program that undocumented immigrants o� en pay large sums into, and receive nothing in return. � is problem a� ects communities across America, but is particularly im-pacting at the state level – the “� scal cost of immigration is not, in fact spread over the nation,” and therefore can impact im-migration-heavy states much more than others.3 Indeed, the overall “positive � scal impact tends to accrue at the federal lev-el, but the costs tend to be concentrated at the state and local level.”4 � us, this is an issue which impacts states more heavily, because they are the institution that must most immediately handle this population in� ux, and thus has a right to make prog-ress on the issue if they so choose.

According to a report by the Texas Comptroller’s O� ce, conducted in 2006, on the state level undocumented workers contribute more than average to their state social service spending. By the report’s es-timates, the state would lose $17.7 billion dollars in Gross State Product in � scal year 2005 without this group.5 In addition, the positive impact a path to citizenship could have is tremendous. Texas could see sizable economic bene� ts if it gave its undocumented inhabitants citizenship; they would see a“$4.1 billion gain in tax revenue and the creation of 193,000 new jobs…”6

In large part, due to the polarizing rhet-oric of the GOP and the Tea Party interests represented in Congress, the immigration reform bill, S.B. 744, has not passed the House. Moreover, President Obama’s re-cent executive order holding deportations of families is an encouraging temporary enactment, but is only a short-term, im-permanent measure; his plan allows fam-ilies with undocumented individuals who have lived in the U.S. 5+ years a stay of deportation, but it does not grant full citi-zenship7. � us, the time is right for a com-prehensive and permanent solution to the

By Edmund Brose

A Permanent Fix for Immigration: The Case for State Citizenship

Defense &

Diplomacy

Defe

nse &

Dipl

omac

y


Roosevelt Review

3534

problem of unauthorized immigration.

� e Policy Idea:

Granting state citizenship to undocu-mented people who have lived in a state for more than 5 years, the same time pe-riod as the executive order stipulates, would allow for state bene� ts, social ser-vices, and voting rights to be conferred upon formerly “illegal” people. It would be a historic and constitutional move un-der the 14th amendment, which grants an individual citizenship to both the United States and also to the individual state; thus a person could become a citizen of a state without necessarily becoming a citizen of the entire country. � is action would in-tegrate undocumented persons into state and local communities, and protect those individuals from discrimination and hu-man rights violations. Furthermore, such a measure would positively a� ect the economies in these states, as well as gen-erate hundreds of millions of state tax rev-enues from these new citizens.

Policy Analysis:

Unauthorized people and families live in constant fear of deportation; further-more, most undocumented immigrants pay signi� cant amounts of taxes but cannot claim all their bene� ts to which their tax-paying entitles them. � e largest example of such payment without access to bene-� ts is in the Social Security infrastructure; since the money is o� en automatically taken out of the paycheck of an individual as a payroll tax, and because noncitizens cannot claim bene� t of a federal program, they “account for a major portion” of the program, estimated at $520 billion in Oc-tober 2005.8 Moreover, this community is o� en discriminated against when they are trying to secure housing – a basic human right.9 It is unfeasible – and immoral – to deport undocumented people en masse as some pundits and anti-reform activists suggest; instead, the U.S. must focus on integration, rather than discrimination, in order to train, educate, and maximize the productive potential of these new Americans. Many studies, including one conducted under President George W. Bush’s administration, have shown that “immigrants not only help fuel the Na-

tion’s economic growth, but also have an overall positive e� ect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.”10

It is hard to project exact numbers for the impacts such legislation will have, but we can look to the projected impact S.B. 744 would have: real GDP would increase by 3.3% in 2023 and 5.4% by 2033, and would decrease federal budget de� cits by $197 billion over the 2014-2023 period, and $700 billion over the 2024-2033 pe-riod.11 One can posit that similar e� ects would be seen on the state level, as shown in the Texas projection mentioned above – more workers and more citizens would be taxed, and help support cash-strapped local and state governments. Alternatively, the price of doing nothing is very steep: as of October 2014, the House’s inaction has cost more than $17.7 billion in missed tax revenue from illegal workers.12 We need this demographic of society to be fully in-tegrated to bene� t our own economy and social services, and moreover to protect their human rights: to end housing and other forms of discrimination based on immigration status.

Key Facts:

-States bear the main � scal responsibil-ity when it comes to immigration – both in terms of actually interacting with the immigrants by collecting their taxes, edu-cating their children, and bene� ting most immediately from the large amounts of la-bor they complete.13

-On average, all immigrants will pay $80,000 more in taxes per capita than they use in government bene� ts over their life-time.14

-States that have passed stringent im-migration measures in an e� ort to curb the number of undocumented immigrants living in the state have hurt some of their key industries, which are held back due to inadequate access to quali� ed workers.15

-Immigrants, especially the undoc-umented, tend to use medical services much less than the average American. In fact, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care ser-

Defe

nse &

Dipl

omac

y

vices as the average native-born citizen.16

-As of October 2014, the House’s inac-tion has cost more than $17.7 billion in missed tax revenue from illegal workers.17

Next steps:

I believe the next step in addressing this issue is to present legislation similar to a bill presented in the New York State legis-lature, the New York is Home Act, across the nation. � is needs to be proposed at the state level for the aforementioned reasons: undocumented immigration is ultimately an issue that impacts states more directly than the federal govern-ment, states can and should act within the bounds of the constitution to create a state by state citizenship, and such an action is the best course of action in � nally solving this issue. I would call for concrete pro-jections as to the exact economic impacts, and then making sure the integration was properly implemented, so that there was no list of undocumented workers that federal o� cials could use to deport those who wanted state citizenship, a crucial el-ement of the New York State bill.

Endnotes:

(Endnotes)1 Julia Preston, “Number of Il-legal Immigrants in U.S. May Be on Rise Again, Estimates Say,” New York Times, Accessed Nov 30 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/immigrant-popula-tion-shows-signs-of-growth-estimates-show.html

2 http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/a-portrait-of-unauthorized-im-migrants-in-the-united-states/

3 Scipio Garling, “Immigration 101: A Primer on Immigration and the Need for Reform,” The Federation for American Immi-gration Reform, Accessed Nov 18 2014, http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/immigration101.pdf.

4 Edward P. Lazear, “Immigration’s Economic Impact,” Council of Economic Advisors, Accessed Nov 28 2014, whitehouse.archives.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.html

5 Carole Keeton Strayhorn, “Undocu-mented Immigrants in Texas: Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Econo-my,” Texas Offi ce of the Comptroller, Accessed

Nov 29 2014, http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/undocumented.pdf

6 “Progressive Immigration Policies Will Strengthen the American Economy,” Cen-ter for American Progress, Accessed January 15, 2015, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/12/10/47406/progressive-immigration-policies-will-strength-en-the-american-economy/

7 “Fixing the System: President Obama is Taking Action on Immigration,” Accessed January 18th, 2015 http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration/immigration-action

8 “Immigration Myths and Facts,” American Civil Liberties Union, Accessed Nov 18 2014, https://www.aclu.org/immi-grants-rights/immigration-myths-and-facts

9 “Hostility,” Southern Poverty Law Center, Accessed Nov 18, 2014, http://www.splcenter.org/publications/under-siege-life-low-income-latinos-south/5-hostility

10 “Immigration’s Economic Impact,” Council of Economic Advisers, Executive Offi ce of the President, Accessed January 18, 2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/cea_im-migration_062007.html

11 “The economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,” Congressional Budget Offi ce, Accessed Dec 1 2014, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi les/44346-Immigra-tion.pdf.

12 “The Facts on Immigration Today,” Center for American Progress, Accessed Dec 1 2014, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2014/10/23/59040/the-facts-on-immigration-today-3/



15 “Facts About Immigrants’ Low Use of Health Services and Public Benefi ts” Nation-al Immigration Law Center, Accessed January 20, 2015, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/fi les/docs/publicservices09-2006.pdf

16 “Immigration Myths and Facts,” American Civil Liberties Union, Accessed January 20 2015, https://www.aclu.org/immi-grants-rights/immigration-myths-and-facts

17 “The Facts on Immigration Today,” Center for American Progress, Accessed Dec 1 2014, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2014/10/23/59040/the-facts-on-immigration-today-3/

Defense &

Diplomacy

Defe

nse &

Dipl

omac

y


Roosevelt Review

3736

CONTEST WINNER

OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND:

NEW YORK CITY SOLID WASTE

DISPOSALBY RYAN ELIVO


Roosevelt Review

3938

History & Overview

In 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg pub-licly rolled out PlaNYC, a citywide initia-tive intended to prepare New York City for a projected in� ux of one million new residents by the year 2030. � is initiative was the product of collaboration between 27 agencies and environmental, business, and labor interest groups. � e initiative addresses issues pertaining to areas such as Land, including Housing, Open Space, and Brown� elds; Climate Change; and Energy—Solid Waste was notably absent from the 2007 version. While New York City had released its Solid Waste Man-agement Plan in 2006, which sought to increase New York City’s residential diver-sion rate to 25% by the year 2007 as well as the city’s whole diversion rate to 70% by 2015, it encountered many issues. For example, the essence of the proposal was to redistribute the city’s solid waste infra-structure to account for borough equity and reduce collection truck mileage by raising the share of garbage that is export-ed by barge and train.

� e plan was lauded as a victory for en-vironmental justice—80% of the city’s waste is treated in South Bronx, Southeast Queens, and North Brooklyn, which are principally poorer communities of color. However, the plan has been delayed from permitting delays and lawsuits from the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) phenom-enon, in which residents would rather not have these facilities near their homes. � ese issues have persisted as late as Au-gust 2014, when a federal judge ruled that Upper East Side residents could not ham-per the construction of a controversial marine waste transfer station; Manhat-tan houses no solid waste facilities. As of 2014, the residential diversion rate was a paltry 15.4%, well below the original 2006 goal of 25% by 2007 and the updated 2013 PlaNYC goal of 30% by 2017—the 2013 goal also includes a citywide 75% diver-sion rate by the year 2030.

Recommended Action

New York City must address solid waste for the following reasons; since the clos-ing of the Fresh Kills Land� ll in the year 2001, the majority of the solid waste has been transported to land� lls in states such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virgin-ia. � is not only has sizeable regional equity implications, but it constitutes an enormous drain on taxpayers—the city expends $300 million in export costs an-nually, and the cost of exporting has in-creased from $61 to $92 between 2000 and 2010. Solving the solid waste problem would also help address climate change, as land� lls are a signi� cant contributor to heat-trapping methane emissions. Finally, addressing the problem will generate jobs and value for New York City, as the waste would be handled locally.

I recommend that New York City enact the long-term objective of achieving ze-ro-waste by 2040. New York City should also increase the residential diversion rate to 45% by 2030. � is emphasis on residen-tial waste is based on the fact that only the city has direct jurisdiction over its dispos-al whereas commercial waste is handled by private companies. � ere is also the fact that 40% of all commercial waste is recycled already, at 40% as of 2011, which makes addressing the residential diver-sion rate low-hanging fruit. I propose the following initiatives to achieve these goals:

• Mandate the Separation of Food Scraps for Composting by 2017• Provide Financial Incentives and En-act Education Campaign for Residen-tial Recycling• Construct � ree Waste-to-Energy Facilities by 2030• Implementation & Logistics

In 2013, organic waste constituted 18% of New York City’s residential waste stream. As one of the primary sources of New York City’s residential waste, food scraps should be addressed. New York City com-

posting pilot programs have been very successful, showing an “unexpectedly high level of participation,” and should thus be expanded to include the whole city with-in the next few years. In order to do this, the New York City will have to streamline the waste disposal process to ensure an e� cient transition. For example, collec-tion bins would have to be provided, as well as an education campaign to educate New Yorkers about what can and cannot be composted. � e city would also have to increase the already paltry number of cen-tral collection points throughout the bor-oughs, and consider new destinations for the waste stream, including composting facilities or waste-to-energy plants, which are addressed in the third initiative.

For the second initiative, New York City should enact a “pay-as-you-throw” pro-gram akin to San Francisco’s program, which reduces the municipal bills of res-idents that recycle and compost, to en-courage recycling. 87% of New Yorkers already have access to recycling bins and a GreeNYC study a study found that while New Yorkers accept recycling as a fact of life, compliance has not been consistent.

Barriers to recycling include the e� ort in-volved, forgetfulness and also unclear re-quirements. � e city should thus enact the “pay-as-you-throw” program to provide a reliable incentive, and should commission a team of educators to go door-to-door to educate residents on how to recycle and to ensure that city information is transmitted e� ectively. Given the disparities between neighborhood recycling rates, with poor-er communities showing lower rates, this would allow New York City to achieve sig-ni� cant gains.

For the third initiative, the city should construct three waste-to-energy facilities by the year 2030 to provide an additional destination for the city’s garbage and food scraps. An anaerobic digester facility, for example, could generate electricity us-ing organic waste. Processing this waste within the city would generate value and jobs for inhabitants. � is may be the most di� cult initiative to enact because of the aforementioned NIMBY phenomenon. When considering siting, New York City must reach out to public and communi-ty stakeholders and keep them involved in the process from day one. Modern

“87% of New Yorkers already have access to recycling bins and a GreeNYC study a study found that while New Yorkers accept recycling as a fact of life, compliance has not been consistent. Barriers to recycling in-clude the eff ort involved, forgetfulness and also unclear requirements.”

waste-to-energy technology has allowed for cleaner facilities, though this fact has not yet reached public opinion. By in-cluding community stakeholders into the planning process, there are opportunities to change public opinion and to allow the community a say in the conditions for al-lowing construction, including monetary bene� ts and local job creation.

When considering garbage in New York City, this quote by Steven Cohen, Execu-tive Director of the Earth Institute at Co-lumbia University, is appropriate: “When you grab your morning bagel and co� ee around here, it’s not from a drive-in and doesn’t end up in a cup holder and on the car seat next to you. It ends up in a bag you carry in the subway or walk a few blocks to the o� ce. When the casher asks if you want paper or plastic, you think of food landing on your news shoes and say: ‘both.’” New York City has an enormous opportunity to address waste. While there are policies that can streamline the waste stream, tackling the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality is the ultimate determi-nant of success with this issue, and that will require long-term education.


Roosevelt Review

4140

MUNICIPAL GREEN BONDS: UNITING THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE

BY SAMUEL PLACE

HONORABLE MENTION


Roosevelt Review

4342

56 years old.ii

� e notion of a green bond was estab-lished by the World Bank in 2008. � rough the “Strategic Framework for Develop-ment and Climate Change,” the World Bank planned to tie together private sec-tor growth and sustainable development practices, and wanted to do so through green bonds. According to the framework, green bonds are like most other bonds an economic sense—however, they must be used toward something “green”. Since the birth of the program, the World Bank and the IFC have issued a combined $10.7 bil-lion in green bonds. While this number may seem impressive, it pales in compar-ison to the overall bond market, which tops out at around $90 trillion.iii

According to projections outlined by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the market for green bonds increased to $14 billion in 2013, with the potential to grow up to $40 billion in 2014. However, there have been little to no developments within the US thus far. One of the main reasons for this is due to the predominantly feder-al role in which green bond distribution takes place. As of right now, there are very few municipalities with an o� cial green bond program; Washington D.C. estab-lished a pilot program which sold $350 million in bonds, and Massachusetts has included a limited green aspect into their state bond market.

Since the program is still relatively new, there are no objective standards that de-termine whether or not the bond is truly “green”. While the World Bank and IFC attempted to lead by example, their stan-dards are not mandatory. � e Climate Bonds Initiative estimated that nearly 40% of green bonds sold since 2013 lacked an independent review of how green they were, displaying a major gap in the pro-gram.

Moving forward, there is room for sev-eral improvements to be made upon the green bond market, and New York City has the opportunity to set precedent.

Green Bonds in New York CityIn September of 2014, New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer called for the creation of a Green Bond Market in they city. � is call included a report that outlined the strengths of a bond mar-ket in New York City, and some of the

major roadblocks that would present themselves. Ideally, the report claims that this could be included in the bud-get process as soon as early 2015.iv

One of Stringer’s major concerns re-gards the criteria of a green bond, since there are currently no set parameters. While the criteria will depend upon key investors and the City’s capital pro-gram, this would be an excellent op-portunity to prioritize infrastructure plans, and incorporate them into the green de�inition. Since it is at the City’s discretion to de�ine the green bond sys-tem, prioritizing investments according to need could be of use. If, for example, the City chose to place infrastructure development as a very high priority, it would set precedent for other major municipalities. This could ultimately alleviate some of the nationwide con-cerns regarding weak infrastructure in the 21st century.

Additionally, the city should look to prioritize green bonds that exist in storm surge zones. According to the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration’s Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) pro-jections, certain regions of the city have been outlined as vulnerable zones based on category 1 through 4 hurri-canes. This area amounts to over 300 square kilometers, or roughly 40% of the total area of the city.1 It would be strongly advised that the new plan take into consideration storm surge zones when establishing green bond criteria.

It is not a matter of if green bonds will be implemented, but when. In 2015, we should expect to see green bonds in New York City. However, it is crucial to set spe-ci� c parameters for green bonds that play into the needs of the city itself. Focusing on infrastructure woes, and targeting re-gions in storm surge zones could establish the most bene� cial practices. With every $1 billion invested into infrastructure cre-ating 28,000 jobs, there are no seemingly negative consequences in this initiative.

Green bonds are an immensely popular option to both the � nancial savvy, and environmentally savvy, and the City rec-ognizes this. � e New York City bond market is very large, but there have been little to no e� orts to include green bonds

Figure 1 display the storm surge zones in New York City, rela-tive to the total land mass. Nearly 40% of the entire land mass is susceptible to extreme hurri-cane storm surge. I created this map using ArcGIS.

In September 2014, in front of attend-ees of the U.N. Climate Change Summit, President Obama spoke with great ur-gency, warning, “� e climate is changing faster than our e� orts to address it.” In the twenty-� rst century, temperatures are pro-jected to increase by 0.3-1.7 ˚C if extreme interventions are taken to mitigate climate change, and by 2.6-4.8 ˚C at the most with business as usual. Climate change will re-sult in many signi� cant adjustments in our way of living, and it will force societies to expedite storm-hardening measures. New York City, due to its proximity to the coast, must act prudently when it comes to infrastructure reform. � rough a Green Bond Program, this is entirely possible.

� e e� ects of climate change will be felt all over the United States, and espe-cially in New York City. Knowing this, the New York State Energy Research and De-velopment Authority (NYSERDA) pub-lished a report entitled “Climate Change In New York State,” in 2011. � e report, also referred to as ClimAID, provides cli-mate projections throughout the entire state, mapping changes in precipitation and temperature through 2100. Based on middle range projections, New York City should expect to see a 15% increase in pre-cipitation, and 8.8 ˚C increase in tempera-ture by the end of the century.

� ese projections should be cause for alarm, as they foreshadow a rise in both intensity and frequency of extreme weath-er events in New York City. We should expect to see events similar to Hurricane Irene and Super Storm Sandy, which translate to more power outages, � ooding,

displacement, and destruction. � e city is ill equipped to handle this new stress cre-ated by climate change, especially when looking at the state of its infrastructure. While PlaNYC and other programs have been successful in establishing a frame-work for a long-term climate change re-sponse, there is plenty le� to be desired.

In 2011, Super Storm Sandy shed light on the need to reinvest in New York City infrastructure; however, this problem has existed for quite some time.

Several studies have highlighted the importance of renewed infrastructure in all � ve boroughs. “Caution Ahead,” a re-port conducted by the Center for an Ur-ban Future, estimates that the city needs approximately $47.3 billion in order to re-pair and replace current infrastructure to adequate levels. However, it appears that there will be a $34.2 billion lag in neces-sary funding over the next � ve years, if we maintain the current course of action.

Infrastructure woes can be felt in a number of ways. Road quality has dipped below 70% for the � rst time in over a de-cade; the city’s bridges are 63 years old on average, with 11% being structurally de� cient; 269 of the 728 miles of subway tracks have exceeded their 50 year useful life, with 26% over 70 years old; LaGuar-dia – amongst other notable de� cien-cies – has been compared to the likes of a “third world” airport by Vice President Joe Biden; 6,800 miles of water infrastruc-ture averages 69 years old, and 4,600 miles were made with weak and highly corro-sive materials; on average, sewage mains are 84 years old, and natural gas mains are

i. Center for an Urban Future, at http://www.nycfuture.org, Caution Ahead: Overdue In-vest-ments for New York’s Aging Infrastructure. March 2014.

ii. R. Horton, D. Bader, C. Rosenzweig, A. DeGaetano, and W. Solecki, Climate Change in New York State: Updating the 2011 ClimAID Climate Risk Information, New York State Energy Re-search and Development Authority (NYSERDA), 2014, Web, 23, Sept. 2014.

iii. World Bank Green Bond Issuance to Date: http://treasury.worldbank.org/cmd/htm/Green-BondIssuancesToDate.html iv. Stringer, Scott. “A Green Bond Program for New York City.” (2014): Offi ce of the New York Comptroller. The City of New York, Sept. 2014. Web. Jan. 2015. <NYC.gov>.

v. “NYC Open Data.” NYC Open Data. NYC.gov, Web. 8 Dec. 2014.

to date. With less than a percent of all global bonds attributed to being green, there is immense potential for growth. � us, seamlessly adding green bonds to the current bond system in the City is not only easy, but also necessary in setting an example to other municipalities on how to combat climate change on the local level.

Storm Surge Zones:New York City


Roosevelt Review

4544

TOutsourcing Information Technology Jobs

hough o� shore outsourcing of American jobs has had a detrimental impact on our economy, the information technology sector will be among the hardest hit in coming years if no action is taken to pre-vent further outsourcing. Princeton Uni-versity economist Alan Blinder estimates that 42 to 56 million total jobs in the United States are at potential risk of being outsourced, particularly those in the IT and manufacturing industries. Lower-lev-el positions are not the only ones at risk, either; positions at all levels of IT sta� are moved abroad. � ough outsourcing is en-demic in the private sector, its e� ect on the domestic workforce is large enough to merit some form of governmental inter-vention. Outsourcing is a negative exter-nality in the truest sense: a deal between American and foreign companies has a severely detrimental impact on the IT in-dustry speci� cally and our regional and national economies as a whole. � is prob-lem can be tackled on two fronts. Short-term solutions may be considered to dis-courage outsourcing of IT jobs through restrictive legislation and � nancial disin-centivization. But outsourcing must also be addressed through encouragement of “insourcing” via modi� cation of corpo-rate tax laws and investment incentiviza-tion programs conducted in conjunction with state governments.

Current SituationA multitude of economic factors have

contributed to the rapid rise of the popu-larity of “outsourcing,” which most com-monly means moving part of a business’s operations abroad, to take advantage of lower wages and other input costs. How-ever, the most signi� cant is the vast wage gap between the United States and many countries where jobs are most common-ly outsourced, such as India, the Philip-pines, and China. � ese nations are typ-ically those with loose labor, safety and health regulations, so outsourcing does not necessarily contribute to sustainable growth there either. Further, though using cheaper labor abroad may lower prices for

American consumers because outsourc-ing IT jobs is more e� cient, the overar-ching damage to the IT workforce domes-tically indicates both its vulnerability and its skill set in� exibility: workers laid o� in IT in the United States o� en have di� cul-ty getting rehired elsewhere because they are o� en trained for one speci� c vocation.

� e Federal Deposit Insurance Cor-poration estimates that businesses may achieve 39% cost savings by moving non-core parts of their operations, namely, IT, abroad. Corporations o� en receive large tax cuts for moving jobs abroad through loopholes in the corporate tax code for “moving expenses.” � e mass relocation of millions of IT jobs in recent years to oth-er countries speaks to this trend; Hackett Group models predict that 1.5 million jobs in IT will be eliminated by 2017 if outsourcing continues at its current pace. So far, the federal government has largely failed to take any decisive action on out-sourcing; most related legislation is passed by individual states and thus has little im-pact, particularly in the IT sector. Further, because so many workers within the IT industry in the United States are trained for one speci� c vocation, those who are laid o� o� en have di� culty � nding skilled work because of the specialization of skill. Because of the lack of national-level out-sourcing regulation and the clear � nan-cial incentive to move jobs outside of the United states, the clear � rst step to reduc-ing outsourcing is to establish legislation that restricts outsourcing and encourages investment in American workers; cooper-ation between legislators on both the state and federal levels is key.

A Legislative Approach to IT Out-sourcing

� e problem must be addressed through comprehensive legislation that both disincentivizes outsourcing to oth-er nations and encourages investment in the American workforce. Another goal of such legislation is to bring about eq-uity between small and large companies so that larger corporations cannot gain

By Alicia Schleifman

Economic D

evelopment Ec

onom

ic D

evelo

pmen

t

Economic DevelopmentEconomic development is the quest for a productive and just economy: how do we balance the inter-

ests of consumers and fi rms? How do we fi nd stability in an increasingly global economy? Roosevelt’s 2014-2015 Economic Development Center approached these questions from a variety of angles--from municipal parking policies, to off shoring IT jobs, to smart growth in urban centers. Our policies take us from solving zoning issues in Northern Virginia all the way out to Silicon Valley, where we look at how to responsibly harness new data-driven economies. All together, they make up a policy brief that not only tackles today’s economic problems, but actively predicts the future economic policy landscape. All that is missing is the policy piece that you have yet to write.

-Jon Kroah, Simon Schwartz


Roosevelt Review

4746

PIt’s Getting Personal: A Call to Regulate the Data Broker Industry Through Economically Viable Reforms

ersonal data collection by private com-panies has been a relatively uncontro-versial practice in years past. In the most recent decades, however, this practice is a cause of concern to many individuals due to the advent of technologies that allow for a more comprehensive compilation of personal data. Because the data collec-tion and aggregation industry lacks com-prehensive oversight, pro-privacy groups have called for government regulation of such data broker companies. � is policy piece will explore the economic impli-cations of such regulation in four parts. � e � rst part will discuss data broker companies and their potential problems, the second part will discuss the econom-ic incentives to data mine, the third part will discuss some possible regulations and their economic impact, and the � nal part will discuss potential policy solutions. Ultimately, the data broker industry will need to implement some reforms to stay economically viable for everyone. Howev-er, the more di� cult question to answer is which policies will protect consumer pri-vacy with as little damage to the multi-bil-lion dollar “Big Data” industry as possible.

Part I: Brief Overview of the Data Bro-ker Industry

� e former way that companies collected data can be classi� ed in the di-chotomy of active data collection and pas-sive data collection. Active data collection occurs when consumers voluntarily give information to companies; passive data collection involves companies collect-ing information that consumers did not share voluntarily.1 � is model no longer 1 Alice Marwick, “How Your Data are Being Deeply Mined,” The New York Review of Books 61(2014): 22 accessed October 24, 2014 http://www.nybooks.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/articles/archives/2014/jan/09/how-your-data-are-being-deeply-mined/

works because of the change the practice of data collection and aggregation by pri-vate companies, which is called database marketing. Database marketing is the collection, aggregation and brokerage of personal data. Data brokerage compa-nies specialize in the business of collect-ing and selling consumer information to other companies or governments.2 Hence, the dichotomy of active and passive data collection is no longer relevant because the information that consumers volunteer for one purpose is used for another. � e continued use of this dichotomy is prob-lematic because it has hindered industry regulation and negatively a� ects some consumers.

Data broker companies have both helped and hurt the average American consumer. On the one hand, because of data broker companies, Internet usage is a more personalized experience. Adver-tising companies buy data from websites that collect personal data, which in turn creates more personal advertisements for the user and leads to increased web-site pro� tability. � ese practices majorly impact the Internet user experience, and many times for the better.

One example of a large data bro-ker company is Acxiom, located in Little Rock, Arkansas. Acxiom creates consum-er pro� les based on over 1500 data points, including children, age, race, education, type of car, and stock portfolio. � e com-pany uses these data points to sort people into prede� ned categories that predict consumer behavior.3

On the other hand, there are po-tential problems as a result of data collec-tion, aggregation, and brokerage. Among

2 Ibid.3 Natasha Singer, “Mapping, and Sharing, the Consumer Genome,” New York Times, June 16, 2012, accessed November 6, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/technology/acxiom-the-quiet-giant-of-consum-er-database-marketing.html?pagewanted=all

By Allison Schlissel

Economic D

evelopment Ec

onom

ic D

evelo

pmen

t

an additional advantage by outsourcing IT operations to cut costs. A number of potential key elements of a bill that could accomplish this may include some of the following suggestions.

Arguably the most signi� cant in the long term is state investment in IT-spe-ci� c vocational training crucially both for speci� c careers within the sector and for broader IT-based skillsets. While focused training for certain paths within IT is crit-ical, a more general approach to this train-ing would facilitate workers’ re-entry into the IT workforce a� er being laid o� . � e more versatile and adaptable their skill-sets, the more likely it is that they will be able to continue working in IT; this may render these workers more attractive to employers. Making this vocational educa-tion more widely available and accessible broadens the pool of eligible IT workers within the United States, which could also spur growth of the sector domestically.

Alteration of the tax policies sur-rounding the IT sector and outsourcing may also be critical. � e loophole regard-ing companies’ overseas “moving expens-es” negatively impacts growth of the do-mestic IT industry. As a result, lowering the tax deduction for these expenses may discourage moving jobs abroad. As a com-plement, providing tax cuts for the same moving expenses - but in the opposite di-rection - could serve to drive movement of jobs back into the United States. Beyond this loophole, however, institution of pu-nitive corporate income tax policies based on a percentage of IT workers outsourced may also serve as an e� ective � nancial in-centive to keep jobs here. Awarding tax credits to companies at the state and local levels for setting up IT facilities may also encourage development of infrastructure to support growth of the sector as well.

Potential ProblemsCongress has blocked most propos-

als for any outsourcing legislation in the past due to nearly-universal conservative opposition; one notable example is Pres-ident Obama’s recent “Bring Jobs Home Act,” which was de� ected by Senate Re-publicans. For any bill on outsourcing regulation to be politically feasible, it must outline several measures against outsourc-ing yet keep the scale of each of its com-ponents in check. Trying to e� ectively end

outsourcing through aggressively restric-tive legislation is unreasonable, and any legislation with such a goal would not be approved by such a divided Congress.

ImplementationIf outsourcing is to be addressed chie� y

through alterations of tax laws and institu-tion of new federal investments and � nan-cial incentives, the primary initiative that would take substantial time to implement would be information technology voca-tional training programs. � ese would be most e� ective if organized on the state or local level depending on the needs of each district, which means that introduction of the programs would be a more grad-ual process. In the meantime, the other suggestions laid out above are the most e� ective for bringing about a reduction in the numbers of IT jobs being outsourced, which, in turn, would introduce increased opportunity for our workers and more eq-uity among companies with substantial IT components.

Patrick Thibodeau, “Offshoring shrinks number of IT jobs, study says,” Comput-er World, March 21, 2012, http://www.computerworld.com/article/2502949/it-out-sourcing/offshoring-shrinks-number-of-it-jobs--study-says.html.

New York State Department of Labor, “The Offshore Outsourcing of Information Tech-nology Jobs in New York State,” Septem-ber 2010, https://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/PDFs/Offshore_Outsourcing_ITJobs_NYS.pdf.

Ackermann, Joachim, Au Yeung, Miles, and van Bommel, Edwin. “Better IT Man-agement for Banks.” McKinsey Quarterly, July 2007.

White House, “President Obama’s Blue-print to Support U.S. Manufacturing Jobs, Discourage Outsourcing, and Encourage Insourcing,” January 2012, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fi les/white-house_fi les/fact_sheet.pdf


Roosevelt Review

4948

it is di� cult to evaluate the e� ectiveness of the bottom-up and consumer driven forc-es in practice, these practices could be the key to developing a responsible policy to protect consumers and have minimal neg-ative economic e� ects.

Part IV: Potential Policy Solutions

A top-down policy would be the most e� ective policy, since data broker companies have an enormous econom-ic incentive to maintain their practices. However, there should be at least some in-put from data broker companies to devise a policy that would protect consumers, yet do as little as harm as possible to the multi-billion dollar data broker industry.

� e most comprehensive current law regarding information collection and aggregation is the 1986 Electronic Com-munication Privacy Act (ECPA). � e ECPA, having been written in 1986, is out-dated because technology has improved far beyond what the law could have pre-dicted in 1986.13 � e ECPA is problematic because the speci� c de� nitions in the leg-islation allow for a loophole with smart-phones and its associated data.

One useful guideline for imple-menting future legislation is the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Fair Infor-mation Practices (FIP) guidelines. � e FIP guidelines are a widely accepted set of principles by both public entities and private companies that de� ne fair prac-tices of collecting and aggregating data. � e four main components of the FIP are: notice/awareness, choice/consent, access, and integrity/security. For the notice and awareness provision, consumers should be informed about the company’s data collection practices. In regards to choice/consent, consumers should have the op-tion of how their data are being used and the option to opt-out of data collec-tion. For the access principle, individuals should be able to view their own data and contest inaccuracies. Lastly, for the integ-rity/security principle, the collected data Marketing 23 (2009): accessed November 10, 2014, 19213 For an overview about the typical lag between technology and technology legislation, and the legal uncertainty that arises as a result of technological change, read “Recurring Dilem-mas: The Law’s Race to Keep Up With Techno-logical Change,” by Lyria Bennett Moses.

should be secure and accurate, and it is the companies’ responsibility to ensure that the data they collect are secure.14 Cur-rently, there is no legislation that embod-ies all of these four principles as de� ned by the FTC. To ensure that private data is collected securely and used appropriately, it is imperative that all four of these prin-ciples are incorporated in legislation that pertains to both government surveillance and private company collection and ag-gregation of personal data.

� e most optimal policy solu-tion would be for the DMA to construct their own regulations using the above FIP guidelines. In the meantime, three practical measures can be taken to ensure consumer privacy and safety without se-riously disrupting the data broker indus-try: consumer access and opt out rights, responsible data brokerage practices that prohibit the sale of personal data to scam companies, and data expiration.

First, consumer access to data would be an important step in transpar-ency and keeping companies accountable for the data they collect. Most important-ly, there should be an opt-out provision for any individuals who do not wish for companies to collect and/or use their per-sonal data. Companies such as Acxiom are already taking important steps to allow consumers to access such information. Al-though mass opt-outs may jeopardize the industry, it may also incentivize data bro-ker companies to moderate the amount of personal data they collect.

Second, there should be a prohi-bition against selling data to illegitimate companies. Although this may seem ob-vious, selling data to scam companies oc-casionally occurs. For example, there is a current congressional investigation in-volving nine of the largest database mar-keting companies resulting from a scandal where one of the database marketing com-panies, Experian, sold sensitive consumer data to an identity the� operation in Viet-nam.15 Data broker companies must cease engaging in unethical business practices 14 Peltier et al. “Information Privacy Research,” 196-197.15 Natasha Singer, “Senator Intensifi es Probe of Data Brokers,” New York Times, Octo-ber 24, 2013, accessed November 6, 2014 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/senator-in-tensifi es-probe-of-data-brokers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1.

before earning the public’s trust. Last, and perhaps the most con-

troversial policy solution, is to mandate the expiration of data. In other words, the data that data broker companies collect should expire a� er a set period of time, i.e. a year or two a� er collection. Data expiration would result in companies no longer building comprehensive pro� les of an individual and only using person-al information in that snapshot of time. Consequently, data broker companies would still be allowed to engage in com-prehensive searches, yet would remain at a distance from the consumer by only using their personal information collected from a brief period. Although data expiration would seriously impact the data broker in-dustry, by federally mandating this policy, no company would be at an informational disadvantage.

Part V: Conclusion

Data brokerage has revolution-ized the way that internet companies re-main pro� table. In many respects, the data broker industry has made positive contri-butions. However, these companies un-deniably need regulation to remain toler-ated by consumers. � e optimal solution would involve direct input from the DMA. Until then, the above policy suggestions are practical and should impose minimal harm on the data broker industry.

Economic D

evelopment Ec

onom

ic D

evelo

pmen

t

many additional problems, two of the most signi� cant problems are personal privacy issues and data discrimination. Consumers can feel personally violated when private companies abuse the infor-mation that they collect. For example, Tar-get su� ered from an infamous scandal in 2012 in which Target had discovered that a teenage girl was pregnant before her fa-ther did. Target analyzed her purchasing behavior and determined that she was pregnant. � e large retail company then sent the teenager coupons related to pre-natal care, which enraged her father. A� er complaining to the local Target manag-er, the father found out that his teenage daughter was pregnant.4

Data discrimination a� ects many consumers, particularly, low-income con-sumers. For example, data broker compa-nies compile lists of low-income and other vulnerable population segments to sell to both legitimate and scam companies. Even legitimate companies use data discrimina-tion to hurt low-income consumers. For example, credit card companies can lower a particular customer’s limit if he or she has shopped at a store whose patrons typ-ically have a poor repayment history.5

In light of the many problems as-sociated with data collection, aggregation, and brokerage, it is not surprising that consumers and legislators have called for industry reforms. However, a great hurdle to industry reform will be the economic incentives associated with data collection, aggregation, and brokerage by private companies.

Part II: Economic Incentives to Data Mine

Data collection, aggregation, and brokerage by private companies is a major sector the American and global economy. In 2012, “Big Data” contributed $156 bil-

4 Kashmir Hill, “How Target Figured Out a Girl was Pregnant Before Her Father Did,” February 16, 2012, accessed December 13, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kash-mirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-fi gured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/.5 Nathan Newman, “How Big Data Enables Economic Harm to Consumers, Es-pecially to Low-Income and Other Vulnerable Sectors of the Population” Journal of Internet Law: 18(2014), accessed February 20, 2015, pp. 13-14.

lion in revenue to the United States econ-omy and more than 675,000 jobs.6 � is � gure has risen in more recent years. Ad-ditionally, online advertising revenue gen-erated $42.8 billion in the United States and $117.2 billion globally in 2013.7 Many data broker companies make staggering revenues. For example, Acxiom’s 2014 revenues totaled $1.1 billion8 and contains 32 billion data records. Experian, a cred-it bureau specializing in marketing and fraud protection services, generated $4.84 billion in 2014.9

Data collection and aggregation is a booming industry that contributes greatly, in monetary terms, to the Amer-ican and global economy. Data broker companies have an enormous incentive to continue their practices, even if it s not in the best interest of many American con-sumers. In addition to generating their own revenue, private internet companies become pro� table by selling users’ per-sonal data, which a� ects the viability of the internet as a whole. Although further regulations are greatly needed in this par-ticular sector, it is important to consider the economic implications of the regula-tions before their implementation.

Part III: Potential Regulations and their Economic Impact

Many policymakers in favor of regulating data collection, aggregation, and brokerage by private companies would like to ensure consumer privacy and protection. However, it is important to take into account the potential eco-nomic consequences of such regulations.

6 Katy Bachman, “Big Data Added $150 Billion in Revenue to the Economy Last Year,” Adweek, October 14, 2013, accessed February 20, 2015, http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/big-data-added-156-billion-revenue-economy-last-year-153107.7 International Advertising Bureau, “IAB Internet Advertising Revenue Report: 2013 Full Year Results,” April 2014, http://www.iab.net/media/fi le/IAB_Internet_Advertis-ing_Revenue_Report_FY_2013.pdf. 8 Bloomberg Business, “Acxiom Cor-poration,” http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?ticker=ACXM, accessed February 18, 2015.9 Experian, “Key Financial Data,” https://www.experianplc.com/investors/key-fi -nancial-data/, accessed February 18, 2015.

For example, one study suggested that a regulation proposed by Congress to re-strict the exchange of data would jeopar-dize $110 billion in revenue and 478,000 jobs10. Although the study was conducted by Direct Marketing Association (DMA), a group opposed to strict data regulation, it is still a signi� cant study in that it brings the issue of the economic implications to light. Going forward, more studies should analyze the economic impact of data reg-ulation.

When devising a policy to reg-ulate data broker companies that would have the least economic impact but still protect consumers, one model of poten-tial policy solutions seems particularly helpful. Noteworthy academics in this � eld of study, Peltier, Milne, and Phelps provide a useful model of three counter-vailing forces that in� uence and stop the � ow of improper information practic-es: top-down, bottom-up, and consumer initiative. � e top-down force is driven by media coverage of privacy violations. � e federal government responds to these violations with new legislation. � e bot-tom-up force involves direct marketing industry self-regulation and pro-policy initiatives. Some examples of bottom-up regulation are the Direct Marketing As-sociation guidelines11, public privacy poli-cies, and privacy seals. According to Pelti-er et al., bottom-up regulations are signals that some database marketing companies understand the importance of preserving individual privacy. � e last force is con-sumer initiative, which involves individ-uals refusing to comply with companies’ requests for personal information. Exam-ples of consumer initiative are refusing information requests, opting out of direct marketing lists, opting into no call lists, abandoning online shopping carts, and avoiding non-retail purchases.12 Although

10 Bachman, “Big Data.”11 The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) guidelines are a set of principles that companies who belong to the DMA aspire to adhere. For more information on the DMA guidelines, the document can be found at http://thedma.org/wp-content/uploads/DMA_Guide-lines_January_2014.pdf.12 James Peltier, George Milne, and Joseph Phelps, “Information Priva-cy Research: Framework for Integrating Multiple Publics, Information Channels, and Responses,” Journal of Interactive


Roosevelt Review

5150

into “Price Loss Coverage” (PLC), which pays her when the average price of the commodity she produces falls below some threshold (which is set by law).11 On the other hand, she could select “Agricultur-al Risk Coverage” (ARC), where support payments kick in if either her county’s farming revenue or her own farm’s reve-nue12 falls below some threshold (calculat-ed using a formula established in the bill). For both programs, the dollar amounts of the payouts are determined by somewhat complex formulas.13

On their face, these policies seem sen-sible: Jane supplies essential goods to the rest of the country, so the government should ensure that she is insured against disaster. Indeed, insurance subsidies have played a growing role in farm bills since the mid-1990s, and while they have suc-cessfully increased coverage for farmers,14 they have also created several problems. In 2012, two economists estimated that for every $1.00 that farmers themselves pay out of pocket for insurance premiums, they get $1.90 back in indemnity pay-outs.15 In other words, Jane tends to prof-it from her crop insurance policies with these subsidies in place. To make matters worse, the researchers reported statisti-cally signi� cant evidence that the recent growth in insurance subsidies has bred moral hazard by encouraging farmers to plant on more acreage or alter farming techniques, thereby assuming more risk.16 Finally, from a budgetary perspective, the cost of these programs is concerning: it has become the largest farm support pro-gram, with forecasted expenditures of $90 billion over the next decade.17

Since these policies make buying insur-

Act of 2014. Pub. L. 113-79, §2.11 “Price Loss Coverage or Agricultural Risk Coverage?” AgriBank. July 1, 2014: 4.12 If Jane picks ARC, she must decide whether to hinge her safety net payments on her county’s or her own farm’s revenue. Ibid., 6.13 Ibid., 5-6.14 Goodwin & Smith (2012), 490. The number of acres insured rose by nearly 470% between 1981 and 2010. See also Coble & Bar-nett (2012), 502.15 Goodwin & Smith (2012), 490.16 Goodwin & Smith (2012), 495.17 Brad Plumer, “The $956 Billion Farm Bill, in One Graph.” The Washington Post, January 28, 2014.

ance pro� table for farmers and may even create more risk, Congress should make one of two changes to the next farm bill in 2018. � e � rst option is to limit how many acres an individual farmer can insure at subsidized prices: this would reduce Jane’s incentive to take on additional risk, and it would stem the growth of the program’s costs. A second option is to eliminate insurance subsidies altogether. While a deregulated market would face the afore-mentioned challenges of inelastic demand and high costs for insurance companies, Jane (or someone she hires) could manage her risk in other ways: for instance, some economists have suggested trading op-tions (contracts for the future right to buy or sell a commodity at a certain price) or tapping the $19 trillion market for credit default swaps (contracts that allow parties to share risk), 18 the latter of which is 167

18 Options & CDS were suggested by

Graph generated with STATA. Price data hosted at: "Sugar and Sweeteners Year-book Tables." USDA Economic Research Service. January 5, 2015.

• For US prices, see “Table 4—U.S. raw sugar price, duty-fee paid, New York, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and � scal year” (original data from the Intercontinental Exchange, “Contract No. 14/16, duty fee paid New York. Av-erage of nearest futures month for which an entire month of prices will be available”). • For world prices, see “Table 3b—World raw sugar price, ICE Contract 11 nearby futures price, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and � scal year” (original data from the New York Board of Trade, “Contract no. 11 nearby”).• 1996 USDA loan rate for raw sugar from GAO (2000), 13.

Economic D

evelopment Ec

onom

ic D

evelo

pmen

t

CUprooting U.S. Farm Support Programs

ow manure, gasoline, pesticide, denim overalls—farms are decidedly un-sexy.1 Yet in 2012, 2.1 million farms operated in the U.S., producing nearly $400 billion worth of agricultural commodities (i.e., corn, cotton, milk, beef, and so forth).2 Given farms’ importance in the American economy, agriculture and nutrition poli-cies are major topics for policymakers. Ev-ery � ve or so years, Congress renews the so-called “farm bill,” a complex omnibus bill that simultaneously funds (1) the Sup-plemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as “Food Stamps”), which gives poor people money for food, and (2) a tangle of regulations and sup-port programs for American farms. � e latest farm bill—the Agricultural Act of 2014—allocates about $1 trillion to these two areas of policy.3

Various farm support systems have come and gone since the New Deal in the 1930s and the War on Poverty in the 1960s, which together sowed the seeds for the modern farm bill.4 For simplicity’s sake, we will examine three key farm sup-port programs in the new bill that apply to Jane (a hypothetical farmer from Califor-nia): crop insurance subsidies, protection against low prices or revenues, and sugar trade regulations. We will also � nd some serious � aws therein, and suggest a pro-gram for reform in 2018, when the cur-rent bill expires.

When Disaster StrikesIn early 2014, nearly all farms in Cal-

ifornia were exposed to severe drought.5 1 Some researchers have disagreed; see Kenny Chesney, “She Thinks My Tractor’s Sexy” (1999).2 “2012 Census of Agriculture” USDA Census of Agriculture. May 1, 2014. See “Table 2. Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Landlord’s Share and Direct Sales: 2012 and 2007.”3 “H.R. 2642, Agricultural Act of 2014: Cost Estimate.” Congressional Budget Offi ce. January 28, 2014.4 Barry J. Barnett, “The Last Farm Bill?” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 46, no. 3 (2014): 312-313.5 “California Drought 2014: Farms.”

To mitigate losses that occur in such conditions, Jane can buy insurance for her crops. In a free market scenario, she would purchase crop insurance policies from private insurance companies, but this is di� cult in practice for two reasons. First, farmers’ demand for insurance poli-cies is highly inelastic,6 meaning that even large proportional drops in the price of insurance cause only small proportional rises in the amount of coverage they want to buy. Second, providing crop insurance policies is very costly.7 � is combination of “sti� ” demand and low supply results in low levels of insurance coverage for Jane and other farmers. In an e� ort to get more farmers insured, the U.S. government sub-sidizes over 60% of the value of insurance premiums (to boost the demand for insur-ance) and further subsidizes private insur-ers’ “administrative & operating” costs (to boost the supply of insurance).8

However, as Jane insures more and more acres worth of farming activity, it costs the government more and more to encourage her to insure additional acres, given how inelastic her demand is.9 � us, the new farm bill requires her to pick one of two additional safety net programs de-signed to prevent large swings in her in-come—provided she grows one or more of the “covered commodities” listed in the 2014 bill.10 On the one hand, she could opt USDA Economic Research Service. September 12, 2014. See “Table 1: Exposure to Drought in California.”6 Keith Coble & Barry Barnett, “Why Do We Subsidize Crop Insurance?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95, no. 2 (2012): 499.7 Ibid., 501.8 Barry Goodwin & Vincent Smith, “What Harm Is Done by Subsidizing Crop Insurance?” Amer. J. of Agr. Econ. 95, no. 2 (2012): 489-90.9 Joseph Glauber, “The Growth of the Federal Crop Insurance Program, 1990-2011.” Amer. J. of Agr. Econ. 95, no. 2 (2012): 484.10 PLC/ARC-covered crops are “wheat, oats, and barley…corn, grain sorghum, long grain rice, medium grain rice, pulse crops [dry peas, lentils, small and large chickpeas], soy-beans, other oilseeds, and peanuts.” Agricultural

By Jonathan Kroah


Roosevelt Review

5352

USmart Growth: Tailored Infrastructure and Transportation Strategies in the Greater Washington Area

rban Sprawl is a problem. � is is eviden t both in my adopted city of New York and Washington DC, which is much closer to my actual home. In New York, and espe-cially in Manhattan, space is at a premium – Columbia itself can certainly attest to this. � us, the continued urban develop-ment of the city must be a creative process, maximizing utility for residents while fos-tering a community which businesses feel is an opportunity to enter. In Washington DC, unlike in New York City, there is ac-tual space available to develop, this space is a double-edged sword. While Washing-ton does not have to deal with many of the municipal space-related problems of New York, the relative abundance of space has allowed Washington-area develop-ers to be careless with their projects. � e once-bucolic region of Northern Virgin-ia and Southern Maryland are now best known as Washington’s sprawling subur-bia, dotted with ine� cient and unimagi-native strip malls.

Questions surrounding urban development and smart growth large-ly depend on the speci� c community at hand. But fundamentally, the role of ur-ban planners adhering to smart growth is to maximize e� ciency and utility. O� en times, smart growth is a question of anti-quation, in which` replacing outdated in-frastructure and municipalities represents the key to reinventing urban commu-nities. In the case of planning for future urban expansion, creative infrastructure and municipality options o� en represent a chance – however costly – to experiment with new and improved forms of commu-nity development.

De� ning Smart Growth and some of the Advantages it entails

� e standard de� nition of Smart Growth is “planned economic and com-munity development that attempts to curb urban sprawl and worsening envi-

ronmental conditions,”1 which is certainly true, but o� en invites a response along the lines of, “such planning sounds like a se-rious curtailment of potential pro� tability for � rms looking to occupy that location.” While it is true that Smart Growth devel-opment leaves no room for “strip malls” and massive retail chain stores, when done correctly, Smart Growth development promotes powerful economic and social advantages of other kinds. Such advantag-es include:

Shi� in Tra� c from Automo-bile tra� c to Foot Tra� c: At � rst glance, strip malls may seem like an e� cient way to cluster retail locations, but while there is e� ciency in proximity, there is an in-credible amount of ine� ciency brought on from congested tra� c patterns. De-velopers tend to try mending congestion by simply widening the highways, but simple magnitude of tra� c is not the en-tirety of the problem. Congestion stems from tra� c “options” – the multitude of exits, ramps, cross streets, tra� c lights, and parking lots – that are necessary in-frastructure in strip malls and other ur-ban sprawl-type development. In smart growth developments, where retail stores are clustered around a main street or some other distinct location with infrastructure for foot tra� c, the tra� c congestion that stems from tra� c options ceases to be an issue. � e economic metric for this con-cept is a walkability score, or “the degree to which an area encourages walking for recreational or functional purposes.”2 Re-cent studies from the University of Arizo-na show that a community’s walkability score correlates positively with the value of commercial property.3

1 http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/what-is-smart-growth2 http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/issues/business/smart-growth-boosts-foot-traf-fi c/3 http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gpi-

By Simon Shwartz

Economic D

evelopment Ec

onom

ic D

evelo

pmen

t

times larger than all crop insurance liabil-ities in 2011 combined.19 In other words, without government support, Jane would still have substantial insurance opportu-nities.

Sweet Child O’ MineSugar comes from processing sugar-

cane or sugar beets. Since 1981, the gov-ernment has o� ered loans to sugar farm-ers and processors at certain � xed rates, set by law. If Jane borrows through this avenue, her loan is collateralized with sug-ar, allowing her to either repay the loan or default and surrender some quantity of sugar to the government. But what if the price of sugar falls below the interest rate on the loan? In that case, it may cost Jane less to default than to sell her sugar and pay an interest rate that exceeds the price at which she sold. If this happens, then the government incurs a loss, since it must store the sugar or sell it at a price below the payment it would have received on Jane’s loan. � erefore, to discourage defaults, the government pumps up the domestic price of sugar by limiting how much foreign sugar can be imported at low tari� rates.20 � is strategy has worked: as Figure 1 illustrates, the loan rate act as a porous � oor under the price of sugar in the US, which has allowed American sug-ar producers to enjoy prices about 80% higher than those on the world market from 1989 to the present.21

Do these higher prices serve a greater economic good? In 2000, econ-omists from the US General Accounting O� ce (GAO) examined the costs and bene� ts of the sugar program in 1996 and 1998. � ey estimated that in both years Goodwin & Smith (2012), 492. CDS market size from: “Derivatives Statistics.” Bank for International Settlements. December 7, 2014. See “Table 19: Amounts outstanding of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives by risk category and instrument.”19 “In 2011, over 265 million acres were insured in the [crop insurance] program, with a total liability estimated at $114 billion.” Glauber (2012), 482.20 “Sugar Program: Supporting Sugar Has Increased Users’ Costs While Bene� ting Producers.” United States General Accounting O� ce. June 9, 2000. 12. Note that the sugar program the GAO analyzed was le� unchanged in the 2014 bill.21 Author’s calculation. See Figure 1 for data sources.

combined, it conferred a $1.8 billion ben-e� t to farmers and sugar processors (� rms that convert sugarcane or sugar beets into raw sugar), but that higher prices in� ict-ed $3.4 billion in costs on sugar users in the U.S. (i.e., sugar re� ners like Domino, bakers and confectioners, and the Cook-ie Monster). Moreover, in response to higher prices, many farmers grew surplus sugar crops instead of other commodi-ties.22 � us, the GAO concluded that the program was a net drag on the economy. Given the clear distortions created by this policy, Congress should make one of two changes: the sugar program should be dis-solved entirely—which, according to the GAO, would have bene� ted consumers by between $1.4 and $3.3 billion in the period they examined23—or the loan rate for sugar should be dropped below world prices. In the latter case, sugar producers could borrow at low rates, but the domes-tic sugar market would no longer su� er from a distortive price � oor.

ConclusionMany economists have critiqued the

ine� ciencies and distortions created by the U.S. farm bill and called for drastic reforms. As we have seen, insurance and sugar involve perhaps the most egregious policies: insurance subsidies incentivize farmers to take on more risk than usual, and trade restrictions have kept raw sugar prices arti� cially high in the U.S., bene-� ting sugar producers while causing net harm to the economy. While scrapping all farm programs at once is at best unrealis-tic, Congress can focus on these two pro-grams in 2018 in the name of stemming the growth of the federal debt and refusing to support particular industries at the ex-pense of the general welfare.

Bibliography

22 GAO (2000), 5-6.23 GAO (2000), 5.

“2012 Census of Agriculture.” USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. May 1, 2014.Agricultural Act of 2014. Public Law 113-79.Barnett, Barry J. “The Last Farm Bill?” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 46, no. 3 (2014): 311-19.“California Drought 2014: Farms.” USDA Eco-nomic Research Service. September 12, 2014.Coble, Keith, and Barry J. Barnett. “Why Do We Subsidize Crop Insurance?” American Jour-nal of Agricultural Economics 95, no. 2 (2012): 498-504.Glauber, Joseph. “The Growth of the Federal Crop Insurance Program, 1990-2011.”American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95, no. 2 (2012): 482-88.Goodwin, Barry, and Vincent Smith. “What Harm Is Done by Subsidizing Crop Insur-ance?” American Journal of Agricultural Eco-nomics 95, no. 2 (2012): 489-97.Plumer, Brad. “The $956 Billion Farm Bill, in One Graph.” The Washington Post, January 28, 2014.“Price Loss Coverage or Agricultural Risk Cov-erage?” AgriBank. July 1, 2014.“Sugar Program: Supporting Sugar Has In-creased Users’ Costs While Benefi ting Produc-ers.” United States General Accounting Offi ce. June 9, 2000.“Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook Tables.” USDA Economic Research Service. January 5, 2015.


Roosevelt Review

5554

ton, saw a massive investment of capital in an e� ort to create the type of destina-tion branding de� ned above. � e same investment of capital could go to revital-izing other parts of Washington DC as well, through projects such as renovating the metro-rail and incentivizing entrepre-neurs and small business owners to come and claim Washington DC neighborhoods for themselves.

Why it works for surrounding states: Raising toll fares helps to reduce tra� c magnitude by forcing commuters to carpool or use mass transit, and although the revenue raised would not go back to Virginia or Maryland directly, the policy would be the � rst step in the process of curbing Washington’s urban sprawl and transitioning to a smart (re)development of the region. � ere is economic bene-� t in this shi� in development tactics as well. Each metro hub has the potential for smart growth; the potential to be a brand-ed destination with easily accessible retail options. � ese metro hubs would, in a way, be following the Reston Town Center model: simultaneously deriving economic bene� t out of creative development while taking a stance against monotonous urban sprawl.

ConclusionSmart growth means many things to

many di� erent communities. In Wash-ington DC, it means supporting econom-ic growth in e� cient and aesthetically pleasing ways. In Rural Virginia, it means deriving economic growth from the pres-ervation and marketing of a distinct cul-tural identity. In my adopted home of New York, where horizontal space is at a premium, perhaps the de� nition of smart growth lies in � nding the optimum way to utilize the vertical space above. One point, however, is clear everywhere: uniformity is not the answer. Economic planning re-quires situational and background knowl-edge and a creative strategy to develop the locale into the best version of itself, instead of a re� ection of the antiquated development that came before it.

Economic D

evelopment

Boosting Local Economies: Smart Growth Projects such as mass tran-sit, urban renewal and civic beauti� cation help to create a clear sense of “destination” for a speci� c location, instead of meld-ing into the monotonous urban sprawl that surrounds most American cities to-day. Creating this sense of destination helps to strengthen local economies by providing the opportunity for the locale in question to brand itself unique, apart from the urban mass around it, and cre-ate a micro-culture that is distinctive and enticing. One of the � rst examples of this was Reston Town Center in Fairfax Coun-ty Virginia.4 Reston brings together retail-ers and residential units, and binds them with a distinct and aesthetically pleasing infrastructure. Since its inception in 1962, Reston has become a hub for commerce in Northern Virginia – over 50% of regional venture fund stems from � rms in Reston – and has managed to do so without blend-ing into the urban sprawl that consumes most of Northern Virginia.

De� ning the Limits of Urban Zones: Smart Growth communities are not limited to subsectors of major urban centers. In fact, it is suburban areas and rural townships that perhaps have the most to gain from smart growth. A fantas-tic case study is the town of Marshall Vir-ginia. Originally settled in the 1750’s, Mar-shall sits at exit 24, right o� I-66, which is the main thoroughfare through the ur-ban sprawl that belts Washington DC to the south and west. As urban sprawl has crept closer and closer down I-66, citizens of Marshall have scrambled to undertake smart growth projects as a means of de-fense. Beginning in 2015, Marshall’s Main Street will be revitalized by replacing side-walks and implementing new ones, and burying power and transmission lines un-derground. Additionally, private investors have worked to attract local entrepreneurs to locations on and around Main Street Marshall that will serve create a unique brand, making Marshall a tourism hub for those who want to experience the bucolic region of Hunt Country Virginia, and the greater Shenandoah. By creating a brand

vo/Walkability%20Paper%20Febru-ary%2010.pdf4 “Reston Master Plan” (PDF). Reston Museum. May 1962. Retrieved October 12, 2007.

for the rural locale, Marshall is able to attract business – in the form of tourists who want to experience the region and en-trepreneurs or small business owners who want to take part in the Marshall brand – and make it clear to developers that any development that take place in Marshall needs to � t the smart growth vision.

Case Study: Greater-Washington DC Background: Washington DC

has some unconventional building code restrictions that prevent vertical construc-tion - a 1910 act for example restricted the height of any building to the width of the adjacent street plus 20 feet5 - but through-out recent times the city has been creative in many ways of expanding. Washing-ton’s metro system opened in 1976 and by 1983 had expanded into the surrounding counties of Fairfax VA and Montgomery MD.6 � is seemed to herald the coming of economic and commercial growth in the greater Washington DC area, and while that did indeed occur, the smart growth, mass transit infrastructure that was put in place was not matched with the zoning regulations that prohibited urban sprawl. While increasing the ease of commute into Washington, this growth also set o� the suburbanization that has swallowed up many of the counties surrounding Washington DC, and now threatens the rustic landscape of north-western Virgin-ia and southern Maryland.

Policy Proposal: A joint program between Virginia, Maryland and the Dis-trict of Columbia, that raises the fare of tolls on highways into and out of Wash-ington DC, and uses the revenue to fund urban renewal projects in the District.

Why it works for the District: Washington has saw great success post-re-cession in urban renewal projects. For ex-ample, following the construction of Na-tional’s Park in 20087, the area around the Anacostia Waterfront, long considered a remnant of an older, seedier Washing-

5 “Primary Acts passed by U.S. Con-gress”. Loislaw.6 “Metro’s Orange Line Begins Service Today”. The Washington Post. November 20, 1978. p. C1.7 Ladson, Bill (December 18, 2007). “All Eyes on Nationals to Open Season”. MLB Advanced Media. Retrieved December 18, 2007.

N

Public Parking in New York City: Where the Rubber Meets the Road with Policy and Participatory Democracy

ew York City has succeeded at urbanism in many ways, but when it comes to curb-side parking policy there is still room for improvement. For such a highly walkable and transit-serviced city, the price of park-ing on the street remains far too low and serves as an informal subsidy to one of the least e� cient and seldom-used modes of transit in the city: personal automobiles. Only 22.7 percent of New Yorkers com-mute to work alone in a vehicle, and only 46 percent of households own a vehicle. A more e� ective pricing scheme will in-crease parking space turnover, eliminate unnecessary incentives for personal car ownership, create safer streets for pedes-trians, and generate revenue. One strat-egy creating better parking schemes is increasing the cost of parking through meter rates on arterial roads and through yearly residential parking permits (RPP) on smaller side streets.� e Problem: Congestion and Vehicle-Re-lated Externalities

� ere are many reasons to dis-courage heavy use of personal vehicles within New York City. Of course, the gen-eral negative externalities of vehicle tra� c and car ownership apply in New York City just as much as anywhere else. Reducing tra� c congestion, air and noise pollution, and tra� c casualties, and encouraging environmentally friendly urban develop-ment through transit-oriented develop-ment are all worthy policy goals in their own right. Mayor Bill de Blasio’s adminis-tration has identi� ed many of these goals explicitly, most notably through the Vi-sion Zero program, aimed at eliminating pedestrian casualties entirely (estimated by the Mayor’s o� ce as 4,000 injuries and 250 deaths every year).

But tra� c congestion is in fact an

even more insidious and damaging prob-lem for New York City than suggested by the tra� c casualty � gures highlighted by the Mayor’s o� ce. In a 2006 report, � e Partnership for New York City identi� ed a series of serious � nancial losses for the metropolitan area due to tra� c conges-tion, including:

• $1.9 billion due to logistical, invento-ry, and personnel costs;• $4.6 billion due to unrealized busi-ness revenue;• $2 billion in wasted fuel and vehicle costs;• 37,000 to 52,000 fewer jobs due to lost revenues and productivity.

� e case for a less car-oriented New York City is not simply an aesthetic one. Rather, the costs of added congestion are very real and damaging to the metropol-itan economy. Recon� guring on-street parking within the city will not only ad-dress this problem of congestion, but also serve to generate revenue for the city to help compensate for productivity lost to tra� c congestion. � e Mechanisms of Manipulating Supply and Demand in Parking

It would be nearly impossible to dis-cuss parking policy without mentioning Donald Shoup, commonly referred to as the “rock star” of parking policy over the last half century. While much of Shoup’s most famous work concerns mandatory zoning parking requirements in Sun Belt cities – a plague New York City is largely free from outside of some remaining mid-20th century public housing regulations – Shoup brings a fundamental approach to parking spaces as public rented space, and parking as an individual activity subject to

The piece is an adaptation of a white paper that was fi rst published by the Roosevelt Institute on December 11, 2014. It was presented at the White House to members of the National Economic and Domestic Policy Councils, and at public testimony to the New York City Council Transportation Committee on March 5, 2015.

By Brit Byrd

Ec

onom

ic D

evelo

pmen

t


Roosevelt Review

5756

Educ

ation

EducationIn today’s political climate, while there are a wide range of topics that have received national attention, ed-

ucation policy issues have been some of the most high profi le and hotly debated. This year’s Education section of the Roosevelt Review has covered some of the most important. First, we hear from Andrew Judson Stoughton CC’16, who exposes the injustices that adjunct professors face in terms of salary and workload, and the need for government intervention. Next, Nicki Felmus CC’18 boldly advocates for the repeal of the Common Core standards in favor of less standardized teacher evaluations of students. Finally, Kunal Shah CC’17 analyzes President Obama’s America’s College Promise Proposal, and proposes a better way to promote community col-lege enrollment while improving the quality of education that students receive. We hope not just to convince, but provoke thought in our community on these issues that will aff ect generations of students to come.

-Kunal Shah

market pressures of supply and demand. A central tenet of Shoup’s theory on parking is to remove market distortions such as parking requirements and arti� cially low on-street parking prices, so that “parking demand can once again behave according to the principles of the free market.”

� is proposal re� ects Shoup’s spe-ci� c market-oriented contention that the right price for curb parking is “the lowest price that keeps a few spaces available to allow convenient access.” Constructing a parking scheme in this way mitigates two negative consequences related to personal vehicles: tra� c congestion and air pollu-tion, which are increased by drivers cruis-ing for cheap parking. � e phenomenon of drivers circling around to � nd cheap parking has been well documented. In one study of six di� erent urban sites, roughly a third of tra� c congestion consisted of people searching for cheap on-street park-ing.

Charging for parking and driving are proven method for controlling tra� c congestion, second only to comprehensive congestion pricing schemes. � e funda-mental logic of raising parking prices and congestion pricing plans is the same. Both aim to reduce the demand for vehicular tra� c by raising the cost of each trip made in a vehicle to the driver. Both tools seek to manage congestion by altering demand, rather than the supply of vehicle-relat-ed amenities, such as road and highway mileage or parking spaces. � e di� erence is in the details, in which congestion pric-ing is a more comprehensive policy tool. While raising on-street parking prices increases the cost of driving through in-dividually administered parking spaces at the end of a single trip, congestion pricing charges a fee for simply entering a de� ned geographic zone, regardless of wheth-er a vehicle stops and parks within it. A notable example of congestion pricing is London’s notorious plan, implemented in 2003, which charges £11.50 (approx-imately $18) to drivers to enter the city center between the hours of 7 am and 6 pm on weekdays. � is plan exists con-currently with hourly parking charges for on-street parking, which are administered on a borough-by-borough basis. For in-stance, in the central borough of the City of London, home of the � nancial district, parking costs £4 (approximately $6.30) an

hour during business hours, in addition to the cost of entering the congestion charge zone.

A robust and explicit conges-tion pricing plan proposed by Mayor Bloomberg, which would have assessed an $8 charge for entering Manhattan below 60th Street during peak hours, su� ered a crushing political defeat in the New York State Assembly in 2008. Contrary to pre-vious city defeats in the state house, it was downstate Democrats, rather than up-state Republicans, who proved to be de-cisive. Outer borough Democrats largely opposed the bill, viewing it as “Manhat-tan-centric” and punitive of their more car-dependent constituencies. In contrast to the familiar story of stymied progress in Albany, altering on-street parking prices represents a viable policy alternative with-in the city’s own purview that operates along the same logic and with the same goals as congestion pricing.

One group, MoveNY, led by tra� c engineer and writer Sam Schwartz, some-times known as Gridlock Sam, is actively campaigning for a plan that takes advan-tage of New York City’s dependence on bridges and tunnels to achieve very sim-ilar goals as a congestion pricing plan, although under a di� erent name. In fact, some transit advocates have even de-scribed MoveNY’s plan as “even better” than congestion pricing, perhaps in no small part because it seems to be more politically viable than congestion pric-ing ever was. However, the MoveNY plan does not address administering on-street parking within the city, instead focusing on a more zonal approach administered through Metropolitan Transit Authori-ty-controlled bridges and tunnels. � us, there remains a need for an articulated proposal for raising on-street parking prices, regardless of the possible success of such plans as MoveNY’s. Just as in Lon-don, both policy tools can and should ex-ist side-by-side. Both e� ectively use fees to disincentivize tra� c congestion and its negative externalities. Moreover, readjust-ing on-street parking is an e� ective stand-alone policy that in some cases can almost substitute for congestion pricing altogeth-er. In fact, Speck maintains that in lieu of more perfect and comprehensive conges-tion pricing schemes, a “simple repricing of downtown spaces and parking lots’ may

solve 90 percent of most cities’ parking problems.”Conclusion—the demonstrative value of parking as an example of where the rubber of policy meets the road

Parking policy is an admitted-ly a tricky thing to get people passionate about. It is a textbook example of a policy topic you might hear mentioned on the likes of Parks and Recreation to lampoon the less glorious minutiae of local gover-nance. Modern government, despite its relatively large size, is o� en said to be ‘in-visible.’ While taxes, fees, and rent charged by the government can be very apparent to the individual citizen, the resources they provide can all too easily slip into the background of daily routine. Howev-er, parking, precisely because it is so quo-tidian, is not invisible and can serve as a prime example of a kind of policy that with the right adjustments can not only achieve admirable policy goals, but also encourage citizens to conceptualize the relationship between public space, indi-viduals, government, and its funds.

Reducing tra� c congestion and encouraging collaborative consumption and mass transit are goals that all cities should pursue. New York City is no excep-tion, regardless of the fact that it already ranks highly among North American cit-ies in density, walkability, and transit use. Cleaner, safer, and more e� cient urban settings are always possible and should remain a policy goal of all municipalities. Altering the pricing scheme for on-street parking represents a step towards a better New York City for all of its citizens. Al-though it is a modest � rst step, adjusting parking policy in New York City can serve as a functional public example of where the rubber meets the road when it comes to policy, politics, and the public space we all inhabit.

Economic D

evelopment


Roosevelt Review

5958

EducationEd

ucati

on

A

Providing for Our Professors: Reducing Ad-junct Positions as a Means of Improving Higher EducationDC Area

merican colleges and universities have faced a signi� cant labor problem in re-cent decades and continue to face it to-day. � ough universities have grown in price, size, and value, the wages that they pay their professors have not. In fact, they have for the most part decreased. Fewer and fewer tenure track positions and ten-ured positions are available to professors today. Instead, universities have begun relying on adjunct faculty—professors hired on a per course basis—to teach their classes. In the face of increased costs and pressures, this has allowed universities to spend less money on teaching labor. It has also greatly diminished the value of high-er education in the United States, and will continue to do so.

Many of adjunct professors live under the poverty line as a result of the decrease in tenure track positions. In turn, we see reduced incentives for young talent to go into academia. Without job security or comfortable pay, talent will turn to other professions, and will leave these positions open to those with lesser abilities. As a result, the long-term underpayment of college professors will leave us with lower quality professors teaching in our univer-sities, and lower quality education for our nation’s students. Weaker teachers mean weaker education, which means a weaker democracy and economy.

� e rise of adjunct positions has short-term consequences as well. � e high rates of turnover of faculty and courses in to-day’s colleges result in shallower relation-ships between students and professors. Low pay forces teachers to take on more courses than they can e� ectively pay at-tention to, resulting in a lower quality of education for our students.

In short, the proliferation of adjunct positions is making life economically

untenable for many professors, and is de-grading the quality of our academic insti-tutions in the near term and long term.

� e Numbers:

Including graduate students, approx-imately 76% of teaching positions in in-stitutions of higher learning are adjunct1. A majority of these professors are paid “in piece,” meaning, usually, per credit or some other equivalent unit of mea-surement. On average, adjunct profes-sors in the United States across all � elds receive approximately $2,100 dollars per three-credit course or its equivalent2. In turn, the median income for an adjunct professor is about $22,000, while the me-dian salary for a full time professor set-tles in at about $47,000 dollars a year, an increase of about 113%3. � ese numbers also ignore the discrepancies in bene� ts, as an overwhelming majority of full time professors receive healthcare coverage as well as other bene� ts like dental insurance and 401 K’s, depending on the institution and position. No such bene� ts extend to adjunct positions. While $22,000 is well over the federal poverty line for an indi-vidual, it is barely above the line for a fam-ily of three ($19,530), and is below the line for a family of four ($23,350)4. Adjunct professors who have families are o� en es-pecially hard pressed.

A vast majority of adjunct professors teach at more than one institution, with the average number being two5. As a re-sult, adjuncts spend a signi� cant number of hours and resources commuting, thus digging into their earned incomes, their earning potential, and the hours that they can devote to their students. � is makes the quality of the education they provide worse, and promotes waste within the economy.

By AJ Stoughton

� e Solution:

Universities cannot entirely get rid of adjunct positions (nor should they). Nev-ertheless, the federal government should require that all institutions that receive federal funding restrict adjunct profes-sors to 25% of their faculties. Reducing adjunct positions to such a threshold will force universities to increase the pay of a signi� cant number of faculty members while maintaining enough � exibility of educational institutions to use adjuncts as necessary. Universities can still treat those 25% of positions as non-graduate student adjunct positions. However, the federal government must require that institutions pay their adjunct professor at a rate as fol-lows: the university in question must cal-culate the median income of an associate professor in a given � eld, and prorate that number to the median number of credits taught per academic year, creating a dollar amount per credit. Institutions can either pay an adjunct professor this given num-ber multiplied by the number of credits said professor teaches, or it can pay them $1,800 a credit. At $1,800 a credit, if a pro-fessor were to teach four three credit class-es per academic year, a professor would make $21,600, which � rmly places ad-junct professors above the federal poverty line. Doing this will signi� cantly improve the pay grade of these adjunct positions without undermining the � nancial stabili-ty of universities.

� e portion of formerly adjunct posi-tions must be � lled with contracted work, meaning they must be salaried rather than paid in piece. Compensation must be at least 75% of an assistant professor in a tenure track in an equivalent � eld to the worker in question earns. � is will allow former adjunct professors to earn more, and will maintain the system of incentives and demarcations that separate tenure and non-tenure tracks. Contracts must last a minimum of two years, and it must have an option that the university can ei-ther pick up or deny a� er three semesters, so that, if an institution of higher learn-ing chooses to part with a given profes-sor, they will have a semester of secured income in which to look for other jobs. Contracts of this sort will give professors more job security, increase their wages,

and provide a more stable workforce for universities. Contracts of these lengths al-low su� cient turnover for universities to part ways with poor performers, and gives professors enough security that they can focus on their work without being over-whelmed by trying to teach too many classes, or by chronic � nancial instability.

In the event that a school refuses to comply with these mandates, it will be-come ineligible to receive federal funding of any kind. Schools will be able to petition to be exempted from these mandates. To become exempt, however, a school must demonstrate absolute � nancial need, and must negotiate with the federal govern-ment to establish a fair system of payment that reduces adjunct positions as signi� -cantly as possible, and pays as fair wages as possible. Implementing this policy would create a special committee within the De-partment of Education designed to over-see the implementation and enforcement of this law, and to negotiate and handle the petition process for exemptions.

Conclusion:

It is important that we � nd a solution to this problem that both ensures the � s-cal health of our institutions of higher learning, and provides livable wages for our nation’s professors. Raising wages and increasing job security for adjunct profes-sors is a critical step in the maintenance and improvement of our nation’s system of colleges and universities. Without it, we will discourage talented students from becoming teachers, reduce the quality of our educators, and create less skilled and less informed citizens for our democracy and our economy. � ese solutions are a way of modestly improving the � nancial health and security of America’s profes-sors. � ey should not negatively a� ect the budgetary health of our nation’s col-leges (though they will certainly change budgetary priorities). Nevertheless, there will be a system in place to ensure that this program does not lead to the unnecessary decline of any of our nation’s institutions. As a result, this program of action would be an e� ective way of increasing the wag-es of professors and in turn improving the

quality of higher education in the United States.

(Endnotes)1 “The Just in Time Professor.” Democratic Staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. January 2014. http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/fi les/documents/1.24.14-AdjunctEfo-rumReport.pdf

2 ibid

3 ibid

4 “Federal Poverty Guidelines” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2015. http://aspe.hhs.gov/pover-ty/15poverty.cfm

5 Segran, Elizabeth. “The Adjunct Revolt: How Poor Professors Are Fighting Back.” The Atlantic. 28 April 2014.


Roosevelt Review

6160

IFulfi lling America’s College Promise

n the third season of Beau Willimon’s epic television series House of Cards, we see President Frank Underwood attempt to cement his legacy in American history by proposing a program named “Ameri-ca Works”, in which Social Security ben-e� ts would be cut and federal emergency funds depleted to provide jobs to all un-employed Americans by subsidizing their wages. We see Underwood pilot the pro-gram in Washington, D.C., and more than 40,000 formerly unemployed citizens gain minimum wage jobs, and the unemploy-ment percentage dips. But when we gain our unique insight into the mindset and dialogue of Underwood and his advisors during the implementation of this plan, we realize that the politicians overseeing “America Works” are not attempting to truly give Americans sustainable employ-ment or a platform for long term career growth. Instead, we only see the Under-wood administration care about the num-bers: the change in the unemployment rate and the number of people who were employed at the time. Underwood recites these numbers frequently as he campaigns for reelection and promotes expansion of the plan; these numbers are a fuel for his legacy, for the politics in Washington, and not much else. Numbers, not the improve-ment of lives, where what took priority for the administration and the people.

I’d like to think that American politics and President Barack Obama’s admin-istration are not as Machiavellian and detached as what is depicted in House of Cards. However, when we look at the President’s recently announced “Amer-ica’s College Promise” proposal to pro-mote free community college tuition to millions, one cannot help but evoke an image of D.C. politicians playing a num-bers game for the sake of the election cy-cle. � ere is a lot to like in this proposal, in that the frequently overlooked issue of community college education has been brought to national attention, and such an e� ort can be an impetus for individuals to enroll in community college, further their education, and increase their wealth po-tential. But the simple proposal of easing

the monetary burden community college students face is not enough to distinctly improve their education and allow them opportunities to � nd better jobs. Instead, it may be simply throwing a cold shoul-der to issues in the actual development of students and the translation of education into success, and instead focusing on the potentially higher number of students that will now attend community college as a statistic that can be touted in the 2016 election cycle. Nevertheless, � e “Amer-ica’s College Promise” proposal, or ACPP, may be a viable � rst step in our reforma-tion of the community college system. We must � rst explore the plan, the bene� ts that it provides, and who receives these bene� ts. � en, we must explore the via-bility of the plan in making the impacts that it claims it will, and � nally explore potential policy changes and new policy measurements that will bring us closer to our desired goal of more education for all Americans, regardless of socioeconomic status or age.

In January of 2015, President Obama announced the ACPP in a televised state-ment. � e basic tagline was providing free community college to all Americans who desired it. � e provisions for such free tu-ition are: maintenance of a 2.5 GPA as a half-time student, steady progress toward completing their program, and a house-hold annual income of below $200,0001. � e o� cial statement dictates that the average tuition of community college is $3,800 a semester, and 75% of this tuition would be covered by the federal govern-ment, and the remaining 25% covered by the statei. � e program would also create the American Technical Training Fund, which would “award programs that have strong employer partnerships and include work-based learning opportunities, pro-vide accelerated training, and are sched-uled to accommodate part-time work.”i � is program was created so that high-po-tential students could receive the training necessary to undertake middle class jobs in growing technology, energy, and manu-facturing � elds, to name a few. � e White House estimated that the ACPP would

By Kunal Shah

cost an estimated $60 billion over the next 10 yearsi.

Regardless of the overall impact that such a proposal would have on commu-nity college education and its quality, the ACPP would certainly allow low-income students to receive more aid for their community college education. � e ACPP would operate in addition to current Pell Grants o� ered to the lowest income stu-dents in the United States; consequently, students would apparently receive the same amount of Pell Grant aid, and use such aid towards costs external to tui-tion, such as textbooks, supplies, and liv-ing costsi. Considering that the average full cost of attending community college hovers above $16,000, the maximum Pell Grant of $5,700 in addition to tuition cov-erage by the ACPP would help low income students a signi� cant amount2. Low-in-come dependents earn on average $21,000 a year, and low-income independents $2,000; a new net price to between $5,000 and $6,000 would help these low-income students signi� cantly, letting them take federal loans and/or work minimally to meet the costs of schoolii. However, this � scal analysis shows us that President Obama’s plan to make community college “Free” for those who need it would not truly live up to that expectation immedi-ately; consequently, students may contin-ue to leave community college within the � rst two years of attending for the same reasons as they have been; short term gains of a full time job outweigh the long term potential of receiving an Associate’s or Bachelor’s degree3. � is is a problem not only for recent high school graduates who see the appeal of dropping out of college to work; this especially applies to adult students, who not only have di� cul-ty in even meeting the half-time student requirement of the ACPP and Pell Grants, but who are more likely to have depen-dents, and consequently have more incen-tive to drop out of community college to work full time4. � us, while this may be a step in the right direction in alleviating the burden on community college students in terms of costs, it may not be the right � rst step. If cost is going to continue to be a burden for those who are on the margins of attending community college, but at the same time the expected amount of enroll-ment in community college will increase

with the ACPP, there may be a better way to allocate resources in the short term to improve community college in the long term.

As previously mentioned, although many students will still face � nancial bur-dens that prevent them from continuing their community college education, en-rollment will likely increase with the pass-ing of this plan. Increased enrollment in the short term will prove to be extremely problematic for community colleges, as well as for the students themselves. For the community colleges, increased enroll-ment will lead to overcapacity that will be di� cult to accommodate. Over the past decade, the amount of money spent per student by community college has de-creased by about 5%; at the same time, the average cost of tuition has increased by 40%5. � is is due to the fact that com-munity college funding in most states has decreased by at least 10%6. Higher enroll-ment in community colleges due to the ACPP would likely decrease the amount spent per student by the community col-leges; at the same time; the tuition costs for the school likely would be di� cult to increase, since states would be covering 25% of the tuition and the federal govern-ment the rest, and governments would not want tuition costs to increase because they are footing the bill. 84% of community college students are in the bottom 80% of household income; the government would be covering tuition for all of these studentsv. � is leads to magnanimous problems for all parties involved. For the federal government, assuming the statis-tics above are true and there are at least 7.7 million students enrolled in community college, they would be paying $17.6 bil-lion a year in covering tuition; this is 75% higher than the $10 billion a year federal spending the White House estimated for the � rst 6 years of the plan. � e state gov-ernment would be caught between paying hundreds of millions to billions in student tuition, and face pressure in expanding community colleges to accommodate in-creased enrollment. Community colleges themselves would face immense pressure immediately in the allocation of already limited resources, and students would re-ceive a lackluster education that would be unlikely to prevent them from dropping out.

“If cost is going to con-tinue to be a burden for those who are on the mar-gins of attending com-munity college, but at the same time the expected amount of enrollment in community college will increase with the ACPP, there may be a better way to allocate resources in the short term to improve community college in the long term.” Education

Educ

ation


Roosevelt Review

6362

In the midst of discussing the di� cul-ties of accommodating the ACPP for all parties involved, we must take a look at one of the major socioeconomic groups that would be impacted by this policy: the middle class. � e program extends to all those who have a household income of be-low $200,000 a year; this means that mid-dle class families would also receive free tuition by attending community college. In theory, this is an e� ective idea; middle class students on the margin of attending community college and a four year univer-sity may choose to attend community col-lege due to free tuition, and the quality of students in community colleges may im-prove, allowing the atmosphere in which all students study and grow to improve as well. However, with the ballooning costs to the state and federal government as a result of this plan, community college costs external to tuition may increase signi� cantly; books, supplies, and oth-er campus costs outside tuition may rise signi� cantly, and middle class students who do not receive Pell Grants would not have support in paying for such supplies. Moreover, with the increased enrollment and decreased resources of community colleges a� er the ACPP, the gap in quality between two and four year colleges would likely increase, leading to middle class stu-dents paying a premium for four year col-leges in order to avoid community college, as many do now. � us, the expectation that more middle class students would enroll in community college would likely not be met.

A solution to the lack of preparation that state governments and communi-ty colleges may have in accommodating the ACPP would be to change the way in which the $60 billion is allocated for com-munity colleges. � is federal funding, and ideally more, should � rst be allocated towards improving community colleges in terms of infrastructure, quality of in-struction and materials provided, class-es o� ered, and vocational and technical training. Programs such as the American Technical Training Fund should be kept and fostered, so that community colleges can become more appealing options to the middle class and potentially upper middle class students. Improving community colleges through funding and increasing the number of programs available would

not only increase the appeal of going to such a school as opposed to a four year university, but also make community col-leges more socially acceptable options for students who may otherwise go to a four year institution. One may ask how this would help low-income students. Ideally, funding for community college tuition in the short term and long term would not be dedicated for all students with a house-hold income below $200,000, but espe-cially for students of low income, so that low income students could receive free tu-ition. � e middle class students who were being appealed to with free tuition would now pay to attend community college due to their inherent appeal; tuition fees could be used for improving the schools, as well as a stream of income to help � nancial aid programs for those of low income. More-over, the opportunity cost of attending college as opposed to taking a job would decrease for low income students; com-munity colleges becoming more appealing would lead to low income students better understanding the importance of their postsecondary education, and as a result would be less likely to choose working in the short term over school, improving long term education and wages.

� e improvement of community col-lege education should not just be about trying to increase the amount of enroll-ment for short term election cycles and success stories; it should be about im-proving the institutions themselves such that the stigma surrounding community colleges changes, the schools themselves become more appealing to all, and the colleges actually help students improve their job potential and provide quality in-struction. � e most prestigious universi-ties in America are the best providers of � nancial aid for low-income students due to endowments and tuition from success-ful graduates and high-income students respectively; a similar system would be the best � t for those who need an educa-tion most, and truly emphasize the “com-munity” aspect of community colleges in America.

(Endnotes)1 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-offi ce/2015/01/09/fact-sheet-white-house-unveils-america-s-college-promise-

proposal-tuitio

2 Goldrick-Rab, S. (2015) Fre-quently Asked Questions About President Obama’s Free Community College Propos-al. Wisconsin Hope Lab

3 Goldrick-Rab, S. & Kendall, N. (2014). College Board data on net price shows similar but inappropriately counts tax credits as equivalent to grants in com-putations, understating the net price

4 Hout, M. (2012). Social and Eco-nomic Returns to College Education in theUnited States. Annual Review of Sociolo-gy, Vol. 38: 379-400.

5 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/23/how-our-community-colleges-are-fall-ing-behind/

6 http://www.npr.org/2014/02/12/275796877/can-un-derfunded-community-colleges-pro-vide-more-job-training

ISay No to Common Core

n late August of 2014, Oklahoma voted with a large majority to repeal the Com-mon Core standards from their education curriculum. � e state of Oklahoma was then faced with a backlash from Arne Duncan, the US Secretary of Education. His action was to li� the state’s No Child Le� Behind Waiver, since the state of Oklahoma did not create a replacement for the Common Core. Indiana repealed the Common Core on the same day as Oklahoma, yet they did not receive the same backlash from the federal govern-ment.1 Moreover, most of the 45 states that adopted the Common Core spent 2014 reviewing the standards the legisla-tion presents and debating whether or not to repeal the guidelines from their curric-ulum.2

If Common Core is one of the most contested topics among the states that adopted it in 2010, it must, therefore, be revisited. If found to be ine� ective, Com-mon Core standards should be repealed. Since this is the standard in most states, there should be a � ve year allotment time for states currently using the Common Core to stop the practice, allowing time for the creation of new standards, better for the well being of the students and more suited to create normalized standards in public schools from the east coast to the west. � ese standards would not be based on standardized test scores, but rather teacher evaluations of students along with pre-test and post-test results to see how students improve in a year.

In order to � x the detrimental legisla-tion, its fundamental problems must be addressed. Common Core was created to provide understanding of what students should learn in certain grades. � is was used to help in calculating grants for Race to the Top, Obama’s education plan to push students towards higher achievement on standardized tests. While many argue that Common Core is amiss due to its in-fringement by the federal government on state’s rights, one of the main problems is that the standards are linked to standard-ized testing. Based on students’ scores on these standardized tests depends upon

whether they move up to the next grade or graduate.3 But this does not only a� ect students—teachers also bear the burden of these standardized tests. If students do not perform to the standardized tests, a teacher can be punished or their job may be put in jeopardy.4 Another one of its large problem is that the Common Core was created in the opposite direction that children grow. Its creators began at 12th grade and worked their way down to kin-dergarten, disregarding much of the re-search presented to the committee on how children develop and learn.5 In addition, the standards written in this legislation are inconsistent with children’s psycho-logical development, especially for grades kindergarten through three. Although “� ve hundred early childhood experts, pediatricians, psychologists, research-ers, and teachers” found these standards to be developmentally too challenging for children between the ages of 5 and 9, they were kept in the legislation. � ese lessons include the breaking down and composing of numbers between eleven and nineteen into “ten ones and some further ones.” Not only are the expecta-tions for counting o� , but also the literary standards are precocious for a standard � ve year old. � e section on math is con-fusing and o� en attempts to dictate how teachers teach in confusing terms. For example, the � rst grade curriculum states that students should be able to “use strat-egies such as counting on, making ten. Example, eight plus six equals eight plus two plus four equal ten plus four equal 14, decomposing the number leading to a 10.” Consequently the high standards the legislation presents forces many students to face repercussion for not succeeding on the standardized tests, such as staying in third grade until the reach the third grade reading level and the possibility of being placed in remedial classes. Due to this, graduation rates are expected to plummet from seventy-� ve percent to � � y-three percent.6

Since forty-� ve states subscribe to the Common Core standards, the legislation a� ects everyone.7 It a� ects the students

By Nicole Felmus

EducationEd

ucati

on


Roosevelt Review

6564

who are pressured into performing highly on standardized tests, the teachers who are unsure about the unclear standards and how to teach them, the parents who must help their children through the stressful process, and the politicians and school ad-ministrators who have spent days debat-ing the topic. � erefore, Common Core needs to be revisited to see if it achieves the goals it was created to meet, equaliz-ing education and improving the nation’s math and reading scores.

Repealing Common Core and re-placing it with a better-suited alternative will alleviate pressure for all parties con-cerned with the issue. For students, abol-ishing the Common Core will create an even larger impact. If we were to be rid of the Common Core and to create new legislation, we could create better, more informed standards. � is can be guaran-teed by paying attention to decades of re-search focused on how children learn and develop. Starting from kindergarten and working towards twel� h grade, ideal per-formance levels would be developmen-tally sound for the age group. � e math curriculum could be rewritten in a more comprehensible way for teachers and stu-dents. Students in middle and high school who were shocked by the new Common Core teaching style and standards will be able to return to a better known classroom setting. With the implementation of the new standards, tests di� culty is expected to increase, causing trouble for many cur-rently struggling students.8 Teachers can spend more time with students, teaching them how to read in order to get every child on grade level, instead of just mov-ing them into remedial classes or forcing them to spend three years in third grade. Similarly to the Common Core, states would choose to subscribe to the new standards and would be given three years to implement them into the curriculum. � ese guidelines on student preparedness would not include certain lessons—that will be up to the teachers and schools to decide how they instruct their classrooms.

Hence, Congress would need to allo-cate funds for the research and the writing of the new legislation as well as a stimu-lus package for states that subscribe to the new law. Currently, under Common Core, the federal government has given $4.35 billion dollars to the forty-� ve states

that have adopted the standards.9 Tennes-see, a state that abides by the Common Core standards, has looked into repealing Common Core and instituting their own standards; the estimated price tag for the Volunteer State Standards, Tennessee’s proposed standards, is $4.2 million. Con-currently, Oklahoma’s estimate to replace the Common Core standards was approx-imately $1.24 million. Assuming Com-mon Core standards a� ect 44.55 million students in 45 states, then revisiting the Common Core would cost $3 per student, a small fraction of the $11,000 the United States spends on a singly student already.10

� erefore, a new set of standards is not only suggested, but also mandatory in or-der to create a better-educated public. A new set of standards with make students more prepared for college or the jobs they enter a� er they graduate from high school. � e United States has the ability to avoid the expected plummeting of high school graduation rates if it takes action quick-ly. By creating a program that is easier for teachers, they will be better equipped to teach in their classroom for the bene� t of their students. Under new legislation, children will not be discouraged if they are not at the grade level ready and they will be encouraged to succeed—no longer will over half of students be considered “failing.” Teachers’ jobs will not rely on the scores their students obtain, as this is not an objective way to grade a teacher. It is possible to � x our education system, but it must start with the termination of the Common Core standards.

(Endnotes)1 Emma, C. (2014, August 29). Common Core repeal costs Oklahoma its NCLB waiver. Retrieved January 31, 2015, from http://www.politico.com/sto-ry/2014/08/oklahoma-common-core-no-child-left-behind-waiver-110421.html

2 Turner, C. (2014, December 30). Common Core Repeal, The Day After. Re-trieved January 31, 2015, from http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/12/30/371654882/common-core-repeal-the-day-after

3 Are the Common Core Standards a Good Idea? (n.d.). Retrieved January 31, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/de-bate-club/are-the-common-core-standards-a-good-idea

4 Are the Common Core Standards a Good Idea? (n.d.). Retrieved January 31, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/de-bate-club/are-the-common-core-standards-a-good-idea

5 Debate: Should Schools Embrace The Common Core? (2014, September 19). Retrieved January 31, 2015, from http://www.npr.org/2014/09/19/347145921/de-bate-should-schools-embrace-the-common-core

6 Debate: Should Schools Embrace The Common Core? (2014, September 19). Retrieved January 31, 2015, from http://www.npr.org/2014/09/19/347145921/de-bate-should-schools-embrace-the-common-core

7 Turner, C. (2014, December 30). Common Core Repeal, The Day After. Re-trieved January 31, 2015, from http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/12/30/371654882/common-core-repeal-the-day-after

8 Meador, Derrick. “Impact of the Common Core Standards.” About Educa-tion. About.com, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.

9 Seman, Sarah J. “The Case Against Common Core.” Townhall.com. Townhall.com, 2 Sept. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.

10 Tatter, Grace. “Cost of Imple-menting New Standards Would Be High, Say Experts and Educators.” Chalkbeat Tennessee. Chalkbeat, 05 Mar. 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.

Energy & EnviromentIn the past year, Climate Change has dominated all things energy and the environment. We’ve seen hundreds

of thousands of people worldwide attend the People’s Climate March, with over 100,000 protesters in New York City alone. Americans want action on climate change, and they want to be pioneers of clean tech. However, there is an entirely diff erent picture being painted on Capitol Hill. We’ve seen budget cuts to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), inability to pass an infrastructure bill, and a strong opposition to any international emissions agreements. Once the party that brought humankind to the moon, the modern day GOP has failed to respond to America’s next new frontier: clean energy.

At the same time, the Executive Branch has made great strides: programs like the Clean Power Plan and EPA’s continual tightening of vehicle emissions standards show that action can be taken. However, we must act faster and with a much broader scope. In this year’s Energy & Environment section, we have presented several suggestions on how to change the status quo—specifi cally through reforms in nuclear energy fi nancing, solar energy fi nancing, banned pesticides regulation, and how we look at the legal system in combating climate change.

-Samuel Place

Education E

nerg

y &

Envir

onme

nt:


Roosevelt Review

6766

PEnding the Exportation of Banned Pesticides

esticides are manmade chemicals that are used to kill weeds, insects, fungi and other pests. One of the � rst pesticides was DDT, � rst used extensively to � ght insect-spread diseases like Typhus and Malaria in World War II. Soon, pesticides like DDT were used on farms to control agricultural pests, allowing larger yields and more food production. Between 1947 and 1949, the budding chemical industry invested $3.8 billion into expanding its production facilities.1 DDT and other car-bon-based pesticides became increasingly common until the devastating environ-mental and health consequences of such pesticides started to come to light in the 1960s. Besides killing insects, these pesti-cides were killing insect-eating birds and running o� into rivers and lakes, killing huge numbers of � sh and aquatic animals; furthermore, these pesticides were proven to cause cancer, diabetes, nerve damage, and even death in humans exposed to them either directly or through residue remaining on food.2 Although DDT and the most toxic pesticides have since been banned outright in the US, many other pesticides remain in use in America. Only pesticides registered with the Environ-mental Protection Agency are allowed to be sprayed on crops in America.3 Every registered pesticide has a “tolerance” or limit of how much residue can remain on food before it is deemed unsafe for con-sumption. Extremely dangerous or new chemicals are not registered with the EPA and cannot be used in the US.

A problem arises, however, with ex-ports of unregistered pesticides. Cur-rently, American companies are allowed to produce as much of a banned, unreg-istered pesticide as they like, as long as it is for export. Between 2001 and 2003, the United States exported “nearly 1.7 bil-lion pounds of pesticides” and “nearly 28 million pounds of those pesticides were products forbidden in the U.S.”4 Under the international Rotterdam Convention, a company exporting an unregistered pes-ticide is required to receive written con-

sent from the importing country before the pesticide is allowed to be sold.5 Amer-ica has signed the convention, but it has not been rati� ed by Congress; the EPA, however, still follows its provisions.6 � is Prior Informed Consent is supposed to ensure that a country knows what it is do-ing when importing dangerous pesticides, but many of these importing countries are less-developed and have neither the scien-ti� c knowledge and the necessary health regulations nor the required bureaucra-cy in place to make e� ective decisions.7 � ese developing countries have minimal or non-existent protections to ensure that these pesticides are applied and disposed of properly or that a� ected food will not poison the consumer. � e World Health Organization estimated in 1990 that “up to 25 million workers in developing coun-tries” su� er from pesticide poisoning ev-ery year.8 O� en unaware of the dangers, citizens of these countries misuse the chemicals we sell them: from “� ai farm-ers testing the potency of chemical mix-tures by licking a � nger dipped in the mix-ture to villagers in Ghana who poured a poisonous chemical into their lake so that � sh would � oat to the top and could be harvested more e� ciently” or using emp-ty pesticide containers for food and water storage.9 Even though “developing coun-tries use only 25% of the pesticides pro-duced worldwide, they experience 99% of the deaths.”9

If the poisoning of workers and con-sumers in developing countries weren’t enough, the poisonous pesticides we sell abroad are coming back to America via residue on imported food. � e U.S. im-ports 25% of its food from other countries, many of which use pesticides banned in America.11 � e dangerous chemicals we sell to make a quick buck are coming back to us in what is o� en described as a “circle of poison”. Out of all of the shipments of food imported in 1989, the FDA only con-ducted 10,719 tests; of these, 3% of sam-ples contained violations, most of which were for pesticides banned in the U.S.12

By Charles Harper

� is means the vast majority of imported food goes untested and banned pesticides are consumed by Americans relatively fre-quently.

It is unacceptable that the United States allows companies to supply carcinogens and poisons to unaware foreigners; how-ever, it is not the only country that ex-ports these most dangerous of toxins. An e� ective policy solution should not only ban export from the U.S. but also attempt to limit production in other developed countries; a successful policy should also provide education and support to devel-oping countries to discourage their im-port of dangerous pesticides and promote proper usage of pesticides they do im-port.

� e simplest part of this process is ban-ning the production of all non-registered pesticides in the United States. Whether they have been registered and unregis-tered, banned, or simply never been con-sidered for registration, all pesticides that are not registered by the EPA for domestic use would be banned for export as well. A problem of enforcement arises that could be solved by allowing any citizen to � le a lawsuit against the producing company even if he or she is not directly a� ected by the production. � is way, environmental watchdog groups and socially and envi-ronmentally conscious people could en-sure this ban is followed with little cost to the taxpayer. Any penalties levied against chemical companies could be used to help fund the next part of the proposal.

A new o� ce of the EPA should be creat-ed to help other nations transition to safer and more sustainable agricultural practic-es. � is o� ce would disseminate infor-mation to current importers of restricted chemicals about pest-control alternatives such as less toxic and more easily degrad-able pesticides, crop rotation, and the production of more disease-resistant crop strains to name a few.13 More knowledge about chemicals’ labels and the impor-tance of Pre-Harvest Intervals, the nec-essary wait time between spraying crops and harvesting them, would also improve safety if spraying is necessary.14 � is o� ce would also help foreign governments to establish comprehensive regulations con-cerning pesticide usage and tolerances in food and advise them in the formation of an e� ective bureaucracy to this e� ect.

Many countries look to the United States as a world leader in science and technolo-gy; the creation of an o� ce to educate and advise other countries would also reduce their usage of dangerous pesticides pro-duced in countries other than the U.S.

� e United States, despite signing the Rotterdam Convention in 1998, has yet to ratify it in Congress. One of only eight countries not to have done so, the Unit-ed States should ratify it so as to promote Prior Informed Consent (PIC) in more countries worldwide.15 Although the U.S. will no longer export the most dangerous of the pesticides on the list, ratifying the treaty would show that the U.S. is acting in good faith to reduce the usage of dan-gerous pesticides and hopeful promote more countries to ratify the treaty. As a country that has rati� ed, America would have more in� uence as to which pesticides are covered under PIC and could promote the banning of exporting dangerous pes-ticides to other signatories of the treaty, reducing the amount of the most toxic pesticides available to even the countries that would give consent for their import.

Developing countries all over the world are su� ering from environmental destruc-tion and poisoning of citizens due to ex-tremely toxic pesticides sold to them by the United States. With such a poor im-age in so many countries already, “from a marketing perspective, it does not make sense to associate ‘Made in the USA’ with sickness and death.”16 Rather than contrib-uting to the problem, the U.S. could take the lead in promoting health and wellness worldwide by helping educate and assist developing countries to reform their pes-ticide regulations to an acceptable level. Although deaths are bad enough, destruc-tion of the global environment hurts not only Americans but also organisms of ev-ery species, today and far into the future. Pesticide export reform is a necessity to protect all citizens of the Earth, at home and abroad.

“Currently, American companies are allowed to produce as much of a banned, unregistered pesticide as they like, as long as it is for export.”

Ene

rgy &

En

viron

ment

: Energy &

Environment:


Roosevelt Review

6968

TThe Nuclear Option

he US consumes a lot of fossil fuels. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the US’s current energy strategy has some major issues. Coal and natural gas re-lease millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year contributing the ever-growing problem of climate change. But even those who choose to hide their heads in the sand in regards to the global warming issue are forced to acknowledge that there are a � nite amount of fossil fu-els on earth. Even with the US’s large coal deposits and increased oil production brought about by new fracking techniques, dips in electricity producers expenses are outliers on what has been, and will con-tinue to be, a steady increase in the price of fossil fuels. For the past few decades the US government has been providing mas-sive subsidies for � edgling solar and wind industries, and these subsidies have been extremely e� ective – wind is the source of over 4% of the US’s electricity and made up 30% of new production in 2013 thanks in large part to subsidies that have been in place since the mid-nineties1. But an-other source of long term clean energy has largely been ignored when determin-ing America’s long term energy strategy: nuclear power. A combination of federal subsidies to nuclear power and a more streamlined approach to the establish-ment of new nuclear facilities would in-crease the US’s energy independence and decrease carbon emissions with only a mi-nor impact on consumers.

If the US were to shi� its focus to nuclear, it would not be the � rst na-tion to do so. � e oil price shock caused by OPEC in the early 1970’s convinced French policy makers to end reliance on foreign oil by committing to building 56 nuclear power plants across the country2.

1 American wind power reaches major power generation milestones in 2013. (2014, March 5). Retrieved Febru-ary 28, 2015, from http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?Item-Number=61842 Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS. PBS. Web. 27 Jan. 2015. <http://www.pbs.org/

� is commitment paid o� , and in 2013, 75% of all electricity in France was gen-erated from nuclear power3 (compared to 19% nuclear generation in the US4). � is is an impressive � gure – o� ering clear proof that nuclear power is viable as the primary source of generation for a large scale elec-tric grid. In 2013, the average price of elec-tricity for households in France was 0.147 Euros per kWh (kilowatt hour)5 which is around 25% lower than the EU average. Along with keeping electricity costs low at home, France’s nuclear energy sector earned over 3 billion Euros last year in en-ergy exports6. One of the reason’s France has had such success going nuclear is that each generation of nuclear reactors is built using one standard model. � is policy, or a similar one to it, would greatly bene� t the US’s development of a strong nuclear sector (currently all reactor proposals sub-mitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mittee are unique in design)7 and will be discussed in depth later in this proposal.

In addition to cost concerns, many of

wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html>.3 “Nuclear Power in France.” World-Nuclear. World Nuclear As-sociation, 14 Nov. 2014. Web. 26 Jan. 2015. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Pro� les/Countries-A-F/France/>.4 “Nuclear Power in the USA.” World-Nuclear. World Nuclear As-sociation, 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Jan. 2015. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/country-pro� les/countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/>.5 European Commission. Half Yearly Electricity and Gas Prices. Eu-rostat: O� ce of Publication for the Euro-pean Communities, 2014. 6 Nuclear Power in France.” World-Nuclear. World Nuclear As-sociation, 14 Nov. 2014. Web. 26 Jan. 2015. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Pro� les/Countries-A-F/France/>.7 Tomain, J., & Cudahy, R. (2011). Nuclear Power. In Energy law in a nut-shell (2nd ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West.

By Andrew Ascenio

Ene

rgy &

En

viron

ment

: Energy &

Environment:

Endnotes

1. Ganzel, Bill. "The Dawning of the Chemical Age for Pesticides during the 1940s." Wessels Living History Farm. Accessed February 2, 2015.

2. "Pesticides: Children's Health and the Environment." World Health Organization. July 1, 2008. Accessed February 2, 2015.

3. "Import and Export Trade Require-ments." EPA.gov. March 25, 2013. Ac-cessed February 2, 2015.

4. Peeples, Lynne. "Lead Paint, Other Toxic Products Banned In U.S. Still Exported To Unsuspecting Customers Abroad." The Huffi ngton Post. March 25, 2013. Accessed February 2, 2015.

5. "Export Notifi cations: Overview." Rotterdam Convention. January 1, 2010. Accessed February 2, 2015.

6. "Import and Export Trade Require-ments." EPA.gov. March 25, 2013. Ac-cessed February 2, 2015.

7. Albers, Nancy, and Betsy Gelb. "Haz-ardous Exports: An Update and a Frame-work for Policy." Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 10, no. 2 (1991): 130-44. Accessed February 2, 2015. JStor.

8. "EPA06: Stop the Export of Banned Pesticides." National Partnership for Rein-venting Government. Accessed February 2, 2015.

9. Pesticides: Children's Health and the Environment." World Health Organization. July 1, 2008. Accessed February 2, 2015.

10. Albers, Nancy, and Betsy Gelb. "Haz-ardous Exports: An Update and a Frame-work for Policy." Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 10, no. 2 (1991): 130-44. Accessed February 2, 2015. JStor.

11. "EPA06: Stop the Export of Banned Pesticides." National Partnership for Rein-venting Government. Accessed February 2, 2015.12. Ibid.

13. Helsel, Zane. "Energy and Alternatives for Fertilizer and Pesticide Use." In Energy in Farm Production, edited by R.C. Fluck, 177-201. Vol. 6. Amsterdam: Elsevier,

2012.

14. Galt, Ryan. "Regulatory Risk and Farmers' Caution with Pesticides in Costa Rica." Transaction of the Institute of British Geographers 32, no. 3 (2007): 377-94. Accessed February 2, 2015. JStor.

15. "Status of Ratifi cations." Rotterdam Convention. January 1, 2010. Accessed February 2, 2015.16. Albers, Nancy, and Betsy Gelb. "Haz-ardous Exports: An Update and a Frame-work for Policy." Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 10, no. 2 (1991): 130-44. Accessed February 2, 2015. JStor.


Roosevelt Review

7170

Ene

rgy &

En

viron

ment

: Energy &

Environment:

those against nuclear energy are quick to point out its perceived dangers. Most Americans are point to failures at � ree Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima; however, the public’s fear of nuclear power does not align with realistic dangers that exist in the nuclear sector.

In March of 1979, a nuclear reactor on � ree Mile Island su� ered a partial melt-down. � e incident is considered the most serious in US history, and the resulting backlash in public opinion following the meltdown helped to e� ectively end ex-pansion in the nuclear energy sector (no nuclear reactors were constructed until 2013)8. � is backlash to the meltdown was completely out of proportion, especially when the actual details of meltdown are examined. Although extensive damage was done to the facility’s reactor, � ree Mile Island’s containment building re-mained intact preventing any signi� cant damage. Half a dozen government organi-zations and independent groups have in-vestigated the impact on the surrounding area, and the radioactive leakage has been universally agreed upon as negligible.9 � e safety protocols in place were already enough to prevent any damage as a result of a meltdown, and the new safety stan-dards put in place a� er the � ree Mile in-cident have made US nuclear reactors the safest in the world.

Nuclear power is a viable source of clean electricity that does not need to be feared, but in current market condi-tions, it is unrealistic to expect nuclear power production to expand. For the majority of the last two decades the US government provided a $22 per kWh sub-sidy to wind energy companies. In some regions of the US, electricity prices have fallen to as low as $35 per kWh,10 and wind producers have taken advantage of 8 “Nuclear Power in the USA.” World-Nuclear. World Nuclear Association, 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Jan. 2015. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/country-profi les/coun-tries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/>.9 United States Nuclear Reg-ulatory Committee. Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident. Washington: US Government Publishing Offi ce, 2014. 10 “Nuclear Power in the USA.” World-Nuclear. World Nuclear Association, 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Jan. 2015. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/country-profi les/coun-tries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/>.

their subsidy to sell at prices nuclear pow-er producers cannot compete with11. At the end of 2013, Congress allowed these subsidies to expire, although they will re-main at least partially in e� ect for anoth-er decade. Wind energy production has increased twentyfold since 2000, but this growth has o� entimes been at the expense of nuclear power. � is cannot be the case moving forward. Increasing the pro� tabil-ity of one carbon clean source of energy so that it can simply take up the market shares of another accomplishes nothing. It’s important to remember that combined wind and nuclear electricity output con-tributed only 992 TWh compared to 2,867 TWh produced by fossil fuels12. � is is the market share we need nuclear power to start controlling . A $15 per kWh subsidy to nuclear power would put it on an even footing with the arti� cially reduced wind prices and would ensure pro� tability of nuclear reactors immediately upon com-pletion.

But the viability of nuclear ener-gy cannot be ensured by subsides alone. � e massive transaction costs associated with building new reactors need to be addressed if nuclear power is to become the central component of the US’s ener-gy strategy, and these transaction costs are not entirely momentary. � e process of obtaining site permits and design cer-ti� cations from the NRC has taken more than a dozen years for some potential nu-clear investors13. And of course there are quite a lot of monetary transaction costs. Startup costs of plants routinely increase by factors of 2 to 5 from the planning phase to completion of nuclear facilities, and the initial cost projections are in the hundreds of millions to begin with14.

11 Philips, Matthew. “Wind Energy Companies Prepare for Tax Credit’s End.” Bloomberg Buisnessweek 9 Jan. 2014, Energy sec. Bloomberg L.P. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.12 “Nuclear Power in the USA.” World-Nuclear. World Nuclear Association, 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Jan. 2015. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/country-profi les/coun-tries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/>.13 Tomain, J., & Cudahy, R. (2011). Nuclear Power. In Energy law in a nutshell (2nd ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West.14 Tomain, J., & Cudahy, R. (2011). Nuclear Power. In Energy law in a nutshell (2nd ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West

� ese costs make nuclear extremely unat-tractive to the private sector, and the fail-ure of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to pro-duce any new reactors makes clear the fact that loan guarantees and production tax credits will not be enough to stimulate our nuclear industry15. If nuclear is to have a chance of succeeding in the US, the NRC, in cooperation with the private sector, needs to create a single standardized reac-tor design and create a fast track approval process for potential investors who adopt it. � e Federal government would also need take responsibility for constructing the � rst few prototype reactors or at the very least provide strong � nancial sup-port to the initial private sector groups. � e � rst few reactors will need this sup-port because of the construction pitfalls a new design inevitably must face, but as the industry gains experience with each new reactor completed, construction costs will decrease.

Wind, solar, and thermal ener-gy production are seen as the future of the US’s electrical grid. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is a technology already prov-en to be an e� ective source of clean elec-tricity, and it would therefore be a huge mistake to push it aside in favor of the aforementioned three. � e smart choice going forward is a grid at least primarily composed of nuclear energy supplement-ed by the other carbon clean sources of energy. Uranium may be a nonrenewable resource, but investment in the � ssion re-actors of today can only bring us closer to the fusion reactors of tomorrow – the true solution to humanity’s energy problem.

15 Davis, L. (2012). The Journal of Economic Perspectives. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 49-66.

IPicking up the PACE for Rooftop Solar

n the last � ve years, solar energy has grown 418%. Yet, it only amounts to about one percent of America’s energy portfo-lio. � ose optimistic about green energy are quick to point out that both the cost of producing solar panels has declined dramatically (around 80% in � ve years), and that demand will continue to rise. Of course, this is true, and it will only be a matter of time until solar becomes a ma-jor player in the energy sector. Solar is in a unique position, being one of the only energy sources that gets support from liberals and conservatives alike. In the last couple of years, a “Green Tea Coali-tion” has established footholds in deep red states like Georgia and Arizona. � is peculiar assortment of tea partiers and environmentalists has come together to promote net-metered photovoltaic (roof-top and residential solar panels) -- an energy source that’s both green and de-centralized1. However, this method faces a number of barriers, which will need to be addressed in order for solar energy to become competitive with fossil fuels.

When looking at solar growth rates from 2010 to 2013, the largest gains have come from utility photovoltaic (i.e. a � eld with hundreds of solar panels) and net metered photovoltaic (residential solar). Based on these growth rates, it looks like residential solar is already falling behind utility photovoltaic as the leading solar energy option, and it will continue to do so2. � ere are a number of reasons for this declining growth rate, and it has severe long-term consequences for solar energy over the coming decades.

One of the biggest problems with resi-dential solar is the cost of purchasing the panels themselves. Fortunately, the pri-vate sector has stepped up by o� ering 10 to 20 year lease programs, which include the costs of installations and maintenance of solar panels. � is is successful in a� u-ent residential areas, like Long Island and

1 http://www.foxnews.com/poli-tics/2015/01/16/green-tea-coalition-strange-bed-fellows-fi ght-for-solar-power-in-sunshine-state/2 http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/24/us-solar-energy-capacity-grew-an-astound-ing-418-from-2010-2014/

the Greater New York region. In Califor-nia, solar panels are o� entimes included in development designs when construct-ing houses, thus the cost is included in the price of the house. Another -- and argu-ably the most crucial -- method is through property assessed clean energy (PACE) � nancing.

PACE � nancing allows users to pay for solar panels through an assessment on their property taxes. By spreading out payments for up to 20 years, it provides the most reasonable option for those who want to own their solar panels without upfront costs3. Since the payments are included in an assessment on the own-er’s property taxes, the cost can easily be transferred to a new owner of the property. � is option can be applied to residential, industrial and commercial property, thus it’s a major staple in the aforementioned net-metered photovoltaic sector. Right now, we are seeing major expansions on the state level for industrial and commer-cial PACE � nancing. States like California and Connecticut have started programs like c-PACE that focus entirely on com-mercial properties, with great successes4. However, the Federal Housing Finance Authority halted the residential aspect of the program.

In 2010, the FHFA cited concerns over the “senior lien status” of residential PACE, and declared that it would prohibit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from pur-chasing mortgages from properties that enacted PACE5. Lien status is a legal term that de� nes the explicit right for a credi-tor to sell collateral property of a debtor if they violate loan contract obligations. So, for example, assume that a homeowner � les bankruptcy. Since there are outstand-ing debts that have not been paid, lien sta-tus is enforced. Lien status forms a hierar-3 htt p://www.pacenow.org/about-pace/

4 htt p://www.cpace.com/about-c-pace 5 htt p://www.brookings.edu/~/me-dia/Research/Files/Papers/2012/11/13%20federalism/13%20housing%20energy%20effi ciency.pdf

By Samuel Place


Roosevelt Review

7372

Ene

rgy &

En

viron

ment

: Energy &

Environment:

2The Role of Law in Fighting Climate Change

014 was the hottest year ever recorded, ac-cording to the World Meteorological Or-ganization of the United Nations. � ere is no time to waste in formulating a binding global accord for fossil fuel emissions re-ductions, and all eyes will be on the par-ties negotiating for a deal in Paris at the end of 2015 during the 21st Conference of the Parties. However, no agreement will be e� ective without legal and � nancial en-forcement mechanisms. Before a wave of implementation legislation hits in the United States, it is worth posing the ques-tion: can and should the law constitute the basis of the major changes that American society needs to address climate change? So far in US history, the majority of environmental protections have indeed been legislated by Congress and overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as opposed to being spurred by be-havioral changes inspired by business, non-pro� ts, or individuals. One major ex-ample is the Clean Air Act, which will be used to limit GHGs emitted by factories a� er a reinterpretation issued in 2009 and underlies the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards that have been regulating vehicle emissions since 1975. A study conducted at the University of Leeds in 2014 shows that, globally, it is government attitudes that lead businesses to concern themselves with environmen-tal changes rather than the other way around.1 How accessible of a tool is the law to the average citizen who cares about the environment? Paths to in� uence include directly voting for politicians or proposi-tions, collecting signatures and presenting ballot referenda, using social movements to pressure legislatures, or strategically breaking laws. Finally, one can use a law-suit to try to enforce a law. � e Clean Air Act was the � rst American environmental law that had a “citizen suit” clause that permits individuals to sue for enforce-ment purposes. A lawsuit can also attempt 1 http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/dec/02/tougher-government-attitudes-on-climate-change-key-to-business-action

to give a new sense to a law or legal con-cept. For example, Alec Loorz sued the government at the age of 16 in 2011, in an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to apply public trust doctrine to the protection of the atmosphere. In another example, since November 2014 at Harvard, a group of law students in the national fossil fuel divest-ment movement is in the process of suing the university for “mismanagement of charitable funds” because the endowment is invested in the fossil fuel industry.2 � ere is a speci� c conceptual ob-stacle when it comes to suing in the name of the environment: the concept of stand-ing. Standing refers to a set of three condi-tions necessary to ful� ll a lawsuit’s inten-tion of resolving a controversy and administering recourse: injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability. � ese ele-ments essentially require that “the party seeking to sue must personally have suf-fered some actual or threatened injury that can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable de-cision.”3 � e goal is to separate judicial and legislative powers, and each element presents its challenges for environmental cases. � e harm has to be “actual or immi-nent” rather than “conjectural or hypo-thetical;” meanwhile, the impacts of GHGs on the environment and society are o� en conceptualized as being at least a de-cade into the future. Moreover, the harm has to directly a� ect the human defen-dant, a rather bizarre standard to maintain when considering a law that concerns the protection of nature. As Harvard Consti-tutional Law scholar Laurence Tribe writes, “By articulating environmental goals wholly in terms of human needs and preferences, [the environmentalist] may be helping to legitimate a system of dis-course which so structures human thought and feeling as to erode, over the long run, 2 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/us/harvard-students-move-fossil-fuel-divestment-fi ght-to-court.html?_r=03 http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag17_user.html

By Daniela Lapidous

chy, where outstanding taxes are collected � rst, followed by mortgages, followed by any other outstanding debts. Since PACE � nancing is an assessment of property taxes, they are included in the outstand-ing taxes bracket, thus they have � rst-lien status with priority over mortgages. In a worst-case scenario where another hous-ing bubble was to burst, the FHFA claims that PACE would be disastrous for Fannie and Freddie. In response to this decision, California Governor Jerry Brown sued the FHFA, and the process went to the courts. Over the next three years, a series of court cases ultimately upheld the FHFA’s right to not � nance residential homeowners that use PACE � nancing. In December of 2014, new FHFA Secretary Mel Watt so-lidi� ed the department’s original stance6:

“In issuing this statement, FHFA wants to make clear to homeowners, lenders, other � nancial institutions, state o� cials, and the public that Fannie Mae and Fred-die Mac’s policies prohibit the purchase of a mortgage where the property has a � rst-lien PACE loan attached to it. � is

6 htt p://www.fh fa.gov/Media/PublicAff airs/Pages/Statement-of-the-Federal-Hous-ing-Finance-Agency-on-Certain-Super-Pri-ority-Liens.aspx

restriction has two potential implications for borrowers. First, a homeowner with a � rst-lien PACE loan cannot re� nance their existing mortgage with a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgage. Second, any-one wanting to buy a home that already has a � rst-lien PACE loan cannot use a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan for the purchase. � ese restrictions may reduce the marketability of the house or require the homeowner to pay o� the PACE loan before selling the house.”

With FHFA willing to actively � ght PACE and its � rst-lien status, this presents a great di� culty for residential PACE. However, there are several things that could be done to alleviate this barrier.

Since the FHFA is a federal entity, it would make the most sense to combat this on the federal level was well. � e most obvious solution is for Congress to en-act legislation that requires the FHFA to adopt residential PACE. However, given the agenda of our current congressional leaders, this is a highly unlikely scenar-io. With that in mind, I would encourage the Obama Administration to issue an executive order reeling back FHFA’s ban on mortgaging houses with residential PACE. As we have seen over the last sever-al months, the current administration has successfully used the executive order to

act productively and e� ectively, especial-ly when other aspects of the government have failed to do so.

If we want to truly developed renew-ables in this country, it needs to become a bi-partisan issue that can be seriously debated on the national level. With move-ments like the “Green Tea Coalition”, it has become clear that residential roo� op so-lar is a key area where both conservatives and progressives can come together. � us all � nancial mechanisms to enact residen-tial solar must be utilized in order to both preserve this coalition, and promote clean energy. Liberalizing residential PACE � -nancing can do this.


Roosevelt Review

7574

Healthcare

Energy &

Environment: Hea

lthca

re

Healthcare may not be the most widely appealing aspect of policy to consider, but how laws and leaders respond to the health needs of citizens is one of the most vital concerns of any nation. Due to the forces of technology and globalization, as well as a growing emphasis on civil rights and liberties, the relationships between people and govern-ment have radically shifted when it comes to decisions about health. From national care demands in Qatar to decrimi-nalization to a growing pushback against mandatory vaccinations, our writers have sought to improve this relationship through policy. A nation’s success depends on the health of its citizens, and Healthcare has suggestions for healthier, happier lives for all. -Alexandra O’Keefe and Leah Reiss

the very sense of obligation which provid-ed the impetus for his own protective ef-forts” (Benzoni 350). In terms of causation, it is di� cult to blame a single company or government for the problem of global cli-mate change. In the same way, an end to certain unsustainable practices by a busi-ness or country will not solve the entire problem, which puts the possibility for re-dress in a precarious position. � is conception of standing can be retraced to an important case heard by the Supreme Court in 1992: Lujan v. De-fenders of Wildlife, in which the court ruled that a group of conservation organi-zations did not have standing to contest certain regulations under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Judge Antonin Scalia described his interpretation of standing principles in the majority opinion, which set a precedent for the rejection of several environmental cases that followed. Essen-tially, standing doctrine can only be re-vised by court decisions.4 In Massachu-setts v. EPA in 2007, the Supreme Court judged that the state of Massachusetts had standing to contest the (lack of) GHG reg-ulation by the federal government, despite the di� use nature of the problem, because a state has “special solicitude in our analy-sis of standing” (Mank 871). � us, the re-interpretation of the doctrine seems somewhat arbitrary, and it is a process that is neither quick nor accessible to the pub-lic. More generally, there is a body of work that interrogates the role of the law as a tool for social change. In an essay in the NYU Law Review at the end of his ca-reer as a public interest lawyer, Professor � omas Stoddard underlines the di� er-ence between a new law that is “rule-shi� -ing” versus one that is “culture-shi� ing.” When he references the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a “culture-shi� ing” law, he says that it was the decade of debate at school, at home, and in the community on the sub-ject of race that gave moral power to the law. In the same way, the decades of debate since the conception of the term “sustain-able development” in the 1980s and 1990s will hopefully give moral legitimacy to a global accord for GHG reduction and will make our societies responsive to the needs

4 http://foavc.org/fi le.php/1/Articles/The%20Doctrine%20of%20Standing.htm

of the planet. Stoddard writes that lawsuits are e� ective at “highlighting problems” but “are o� en ine� ective at the long-term resolution of issues with deep cultural roots, for they focus on rules rather than the culture that sustains those rules, and as a result frequently fail to engage or con-nect with the public” (Stoddard 985). Nevertheless, the nature of the climate change problem is that there is a deadline dictated by science, a limit to the level of GHGs in the atmosphere that will allow for the continuation of life on Earth (let alone a 2°C warming limit that is ref-erenced in global accords). Maybe a law that is “rule-shi� ing” will be enough to halt the growth of GHGs in the atmo-sphere for now and further social trans-formation can follow. � ere are multiple critiques of the idea that the law should constitute the base of climate change strategy. One comes from an environmental justice per-spective, which underlines that we all have the right to have a safe and healthy envi-ronment, without regard to race, class, or gender. For example, an investigation by the National Law Journal in 1992 found that the penalization of pollution by the government was stronger for infractions committed in primarily white communi-ties than in communities of color. � e av-erage penalty applied in the former was $335,566, in comparison to $55,318 in the latter.5 It can be argued that the laws that exist do not su� ciently protect communi-ties of color, and that those to come will only serve to exacerbate the discriminato-ry e� ects of environmental damages. A second critique comes from an anticapi-talist perspective: the legal system sup-ports an economic system that is funda-mentally incompatible with the sustainability of our world. In his study of seventeen radical environmental activists, sociology of law professor Erik Fritsvold puts forth a new conception of legal con-sciousness that he calls “Under the Law” – it “views the law as the protector and de-fender of a social order that is fundamen-tally illegitimate” (Fritsvold 799). For these activists, the ‘normal’ pathways such as departments in charge of executing leg-islation are maintained by the government in order to slow or prevent change at the heart of the system.

5 http://www.ejnet.org/ej/nlj.pdf

� e law has been up to this point the most e� ective tool to reduce GHG emissions on the national level in the United States. However, it seems histori-cally dependent on the political atmo-sphere and desires of Congress with little accommodation for the views of the gen-eral population. Neither is it necessarily the most e� ective tool for changing cul-tural attitudes about the urgency of cli-mate change or consumption practices. In November 2013, 63% of Americans stated that they believed climate change is a real issue, but only 5% believed that mankind is capable of reducing it.6 � at may re� ect a particular attitude towards the power of the law. Furthermore, certain legal stan-dards have to be revised and made more relevant to the real social hierarchies and scienti� c data on climate change that ex-ist. Until a revision of standing doctrine occurs to accommodate cases on behalf of the environment, the capacity of individu-als and NGOs to make sure environmen-tal laws are enforced to their fullest capac-ity will continue to be impeded. We desperately need such a revision, so long as our elected authorities continue to stall on meaningful emissions reduction legis-lation in the face of growing public con-sensus for action.

BibliographyFritsvold, Erik D. “Under the Law: Legal Consciousness and Radical Environmental Activism.” Law & Social Inquiry 34.4 (2009): 799-824. NERL Wiley-Blackwell. Mank, Bradford. “Standing for Private Parties in Global Warming Cases: Traceable Standing Causation Does Not Require Proximate Causation” (2012). Faculty Articles and Other Publications. Paper 214. http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/fac_pubs/214Stoddard, Thomas. “Bleeding Heart: Refl ections on Using the Law to Make Social Change.” NYU Law Review 72.5 (1997). http://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-72-number-5/bleeding-heart-refl ections-using-law-make-social-change

6 http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/� les/Climate-Beliefs-November-2013.pdf


Roosevelt Review

7776

T

The Right to Life:A Liberal Paternalist Approach to Pro-moting Vaccination Without Compromising Civil Liberties

he United States is currently su� ering from the worst measles outbreak in al-most 20 years.1 Measles was eradicated in the United States in 2000, but recent re-surgences of the disease, mainly through multi-state outbreaks, have put health and government o� cials on the alarm.2 664 cases were reported in 2014, the highest number in decades, but 2015 appears as a formidable rival - between January 1 and February 27 alone 170 cases of mea-sles have been reported in 17 states and the District of Columbia.3 � e epicenter of the virus is believed to be an unvacci-nated eight-year-old who visited Disn-eyland and infected other unvaccinated children.4

� e resurgence of an essentially wiped-out disease is largely attributed to the anti-vaccination movement, which en-courages people not to opt out of routine vaccinations for their children, citing dis-proven health risks of vaccines or grow-ing from mistrust of the “true purpose” of large scale, government run vaccinations. � ese “anti-vaxxers” endanger their own children and those around them by com-promising the “herd immunity” of a com-munity, which relies upon a large percent-age of the population to be vaccinated in order to minimize the chances that indi-viduals who cannot be vaccinated – gen-1 Offi t, Paul A. “What Would Jesus Do About Measles?” The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Feb. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.2 “Disneyland Measles Outbreak: Should You Be Concerned?” Shot of Preven-tion. N.p., 22 Jan. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.3 “Measles Cases and Outbreaks.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 09 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.4 “Disneyland Measles Outbreak: Should You Be Concerned?” Shot of Preven-tion. N.p., 22 Jan. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

erally infants or those who compromised immune systems – will contract the dis-ease. Adherents to this movement, which is grounded in fear rather than science, are resistant to pleas to adhere to normal vaccination schedules. � ese include ev-idence presented on the overwhelmingly positive e� ects of vaccines and the urging of their pediatricians, federal agencies and public o� cials, including the President, to “get your kids vaccinated.”

In light of the present - and looming - dangers of voluntary un-vaccination, some have urged to make vaccinations mandatory for all citizens. But can the government really force people to vacci-nate their children? Although the bene� ts of vaccines certainly outweigh the risks, and the horrible e� ects that anti-vaxxers claim have found no evidence in repeat-ed scienti� c studies, side e� ects do exist, and in rare cases can be very harmful to individuals. Some people who claim reli-gious rights not to use modern medicine, including antibiotics and organ donation, extend their abstention to vaccination. Some distrust the government, or “Big Pharma,” and refuse vaccines as an exten-sion of the mentality behind exclusively organic food or Waldorf schools. Others are simply unsure. Few people today are familiar with the ravaging e� ects of the diseases vaccines guard against, and are therefore hesitant to vaccinate their chil-dren when the issue has become debat-able in the public sphere and there are no felt consequences for abstaining. How do we ensure the health of all individuals, especially children, while guarding civil liberties? Although I personally believe all vaccines recommended by the Center for Disease Control should be adminis-tered to every individual physically able to receive them, I will focus on tactics to promote usage of the Measles, Mumps

By Alexandra O’Keefe

and Rubella, or MMR, vaccine, for the sake of space and because of its especially “controversial” status among anti-vaxxers and the notable resurgence of measles in the United States. � is argument can be extended, however, to all vaccines.

Medical Information and Anti-Vaxxer Resistance

Most of the resistance to vaccinating has come from an improper understand-ing of what a vaccine is and its e� ects. A vaccine is a dead or weakened strains of a virus introduced to a person’s body in or-der to stimulate their immune system to produce antibodies to a speci� c disease, thereby protecting the person from fu-ture exposure to that disease.5 � e MMR vaccines is a single needle injection, ide-ally administered when a child is 12-15 months old (though viable for children 12 months to 12 years old) and o� en at the same time as the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine.6 Most children do not experience any side e� ects; rare risks include pain where the shot is given, fever, a mild rash, swelling of the neck or cheek, or allergic reactions.7 Studies show that recipients of the MMR vaccine have a slight – 1 out of 3000-4000 children – though increased risk of experiencing febrile seizures with-in 8-14 days a� er vaccination.8 � is risk is compounded when the MMR vaccine is administered with the varicella vaccine, and increases with the age of the child, so doctors encourage vaccination as soon as children are able.9

Many members of the anti-vaccination

5 “Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Feb. 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.6 Ibid7 Ibid 8 Barlow WE, Davis RL, Glasser JW, Rhodes PH, Thompson RS, Mullooly JP, Black SB, Shinefi eld HR, Ward JI, Marcy SM, DeStefano F, Chen RT, Immanuel V, Pearson JA, Vadheim CM, Rebolledo V, Christakis D, Benson PJ, Lewis N. The risk of seizures after receipt of whole-cell pertussis or measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine 2001;345(9):656–661.9 “Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Feb. 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.

movement boycott the MMR vaccine be-cause of a perceived link between this vac-cine and autism. In 1998 a study conduct-ed by British surgeon David Wake� eld linking the MMR vaccine to increased rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) was published in � e Lancet, a prestigious medical journal.10 � is study has since been discredited due to ethical violations, including � nancial con� icts-of-interest, and procedural errors, and Wake� eld has had his medical license revoked.11 Several other major studies have been unable to � nd a link between vaccination and ASD.12 Inactive ingredients in vaccines have also been studied as potentially harmful, espe-cially thimerosal, a mercury-based preser-vative used to prevent contamination of multidose vials of vaccines.13 Yet a study by the Institute of Medicine was unable to � nd a connection between thimerosal and ASD.14

Some anti-vaxxers also contend that commonly vaccinated-against diseas-es are not serious and that not vaccinating is allowing one’s child to develop a healthy immune system.15 � is, too, has been re-futed by health professionals. One possi-ble explanation of how concepts such as these have proliferated is that few people alive, including doctors, have encountered many of these reemerging diseases, such as measles, and lack a memory of how de-

10 Novella, Steven. “The Lancet Retracts Andrew Wakefi eld’s Article « Sci-ence-Based Medicine.” The Lancet Retracts Andrew Wakefi eld’s Article « Science-Based Medicine. Science-Based Medicine, 3 Feb. 2010. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.11 Ibid12 DeStefano F, Chen RT. Negative as-sociation between MMR and autism. [Commen-tary] Lancet1999;353(9169):1987–1988.13 “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Mar. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.14 McCormick, Marie. “Immuni-zation Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism - Institute of Medicine.” Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism - Institute of Medicine. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 14 May 2004. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.15 “Disneyland Measles Outbreak: Should You Be Concerned?” Shot of Pre-vention. N.p., 22 Jan. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

Hea

lthca

reH

ealthcare


Roosevelt Review

7978

state, and thus varies across America.20 Al-though they speci� c vaccines and number of doses vary state to state, all require at least one dose of the MMR before entering kindergarten (with the exception of Iowa, which requires immunization against measles and rubella but not mumps).21 However, parents can seek exemptions for their children that come from three di� erent classes: medical, religious, and philosophical or personal belief. All states grant medical exemptions, which are ac-quired when a child is physically unable to receive a vaccine and require a doctor’s note, but 46 states and the District of Co-lumbia also allow religious exemptions, and nineteen states allow philosophical exemptions as well.22 Requirements for re-ligious and philosophical exemptions vary by state but o� en require no more than a signed statement from a parent or guard-ian attesting to their religious or personal objection to one or more vaccines.23

� is simple process does not create a substantial barrier against opting out of vaccinations, making it easy for those un-sure about vaccinating to forgo this life-saving medical treatment. In order to en-sure that the requisite number of children is vaccinated, I propose that states should instead construct administrational laby-rinths to restrict these exemptions. For religious exemptions, this could include a signed a� davit from an individual’s pastor or spiritual leader a� rming their sincere religious opposition to vaccination and an explanation of how this belief is sourced in the founding documents of the indi-vidual’s faith, which some states already require.24 Individuals seeking both kinds of exemptions would have to provide a detailed explanation for their decision to

20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.21 “Vaccination Requirements for All Grantees, for MMR-Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Kindergarten.” School and Childcare Vacci-nation Surveys. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 July 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.22 “School Exemptions Allowed.” School and Childcare Vaccination Surveys. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 July 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.23 “NVIC – Vaccine Law Information.” National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.24 Ibid

structive they can be.16

Others may incorrectly assume that they don’t need to vaccinate their child in order for her or him to be protected because they can rely on “herd immuni-ty,” the phenomenon in where if between 92%-94% of the population is vaccinated, the likelihood that a disease will be able to spread within a population drops to negligible levels and protects all members of society.17 When all members of soci-ety who can physically be vaccinated are, herd immunity protects the members of a population who cannot be vaccinated - for example, babies too young to receive the vaccine or people with autoimmune dis-eases.18 Yet when too many healthy chil-dren are not vaccinated, this protective shield dissipates. � is is a classic example of the “free-rider” problem inherent to collective action, in which participants try to receive the bene� ts of an action - in this case, the limited spread of disease - with-out assuming its costs - perceived “pollu-tion” of their children’s bodies.

� e necessity of maintaining herd im-munity for those who can physically not be vaccinated is the reason why choosing not to vaccinate one’s children steps out-side the bounds of personal liberty and into the realm of public safety.

Proposed SolutionMy strategy is grounded in liberal pa-

ternalism, a philosophy that seeks not to eliminate choice, but to structure the sys-tem in such a way as to make the desirable choice easier or more obvious to choos-ers.19 In this scenario, the desirable choice is protecting one’s child from preventable diseases by administering the MMR vac-cination, and it would be more widely chosen if it became more di� cult to opt out of than it is today. In the United States, the CDC issues a recommended vaccina-tion schedule for children to all states, but implementation of these schedules in the form of law is up to the discretion of the

16 Ibid17 “Community Immunity (“Herd Immunity”).” Community Immunity (“Herd Immunity”). N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.18 Ibid19 Sunstein, Cass, and Richard Thaler. “Libertarian Paternalism Is Not An Oxymoron.” University of Chicago Law Review (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 9 May 2003.

exempt and proof that they understood the risks and dangers of not vaccinating their child, including documentation that they had spoken with their child’s pedia-trician about vaccination or participation in a class on vaccination and basic immu-nology sponsored by the state. Partially in response to recent outbreaks, many states have proposed legislation to limit religious and philosophical exemptions in February 2015.25 Minnesota’s proposed House Bill 393 and State Bill 380 create barriers of en-try by requiring parents to submit a signed certi� cate of exemption containing spec-i� cation of the exempted vaccine(s) and explanation, a statement from physician that they have discussed risks and bene� ts with parent and an acknowledgment that the child may be prohibited from school during an outbreak.26 � ese measures make it more likely that only those with extreme beliefs and dedication will opt out of vaccination. Others have proposed to outlaw exemptions entirely, including California SB 277, which would eliminate the personal belief exemption, and Ver-mont H 212, which would remove both religious and philosophical exemptions.27

For the sake of preserving individu-al liberty and religious freedom, I do not endorse a � at elimination of non-medical exemptions. I do believe, however, that states should reserve the right to vaccinate at-risk children against the wishes of their parents or guardians during outbreaks in order to preserve herd immunity in un-protected populations, as might result among isolated religious communities. � is precedent was set during a measles outbreak Philadelphia in 1991, when pub-lic health o� cials obtained permission to temporarily make the children of at-tendees of two fundamentalist Christian churches, Faith Tabernacle Congregation and First Century Gospel Church, wards of the state in order to vaccinate them and return them to their parents.28 Despite a

25 “STATES WITH RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL EXEMPTIONS FROM SCHOOL IMMUNIZATION REQUIRE-MENTS.” National Conference of State Legisla-tures. N.p., 3 Mar. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.26 Ibid27 Ibid28 Offi t, Paul A. “What Would Jesus Do About Measles?” The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Feb. 2015. Web. 24

statute allowing religious exemption from vaccination in Pennsylvania, this action was upheld by the court and further le-gitimized by the American Civil Liberties Union refusal to represent the pastor of the Faith Tabernacle Church.29

ConclusionIt is undeniable that widespread vacci-

nation has saved countless lives and led to the essential eradication of diseases that have plagued humanity for millennia. It is also undeniable that the bene� ts of vac-cines, on an individual and societal levels, far outweigh the risks. Yet the freedom of an individual to oppose vaccination for themselves or their child, especially due to practice of their religious faith, can also not be denied in the United States. A lib-eral paternalist approach that focuses on creating barriers of entry for religious and philosophical exemptions, with the safe-guard of state mandated vaccination in times of acute risk, helps to ensure that enough children will be vaccinated to maintain herd immunity without sacri� c-ing the civil liberty of bodily autonomy.

Mar. 2015.29 Ibid

Hea

lthca

reH

ealthcare


Roosevelt Review

8180

Sources:

"Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Feb. 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.

Barlow WE, Davis RL, Glasser JW, Rhodes PH, Thompson RS, Mullooly JP, Black SB, Shinefi eld HR, Ward JI, Marcy SM, DeStefano F, Chen RT, Immanuel V, Pearson JA, Vadheim CM, Rebolledo V, Christakis D, Benson PJ, Lewis N. The risk of seizures after receipt of whole-cell pertussis or measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. New England Journal of Medi-cine 2001;345(9):656–661.

DeStefano F, Chen RT. Negative associa-tion between MMR and autism. [Commen-tary] Lancet1999;353(9169):1987–1988.

McCormick, Marie. "Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism - Institute of Medicine." Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism - Institute of Medi-cine. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 14 May 2004. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.

"Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cen-ters for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Mar. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.

"Libertarian Paternalism Is Not An Oxy-moron." By Cass R. Sunstein, Richard H. Thaler. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

"Vaccination Requirements for All Grant-ees, for MMR-Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Kindergarten." School and Childcare Vaccination Surveys. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 July 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

"School Exemptions Allowed." School and Childcare Vaccination Surveys. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 July 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

"NVIC – Vaccine Law Information." Na-tional Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

"STATES WITH RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL EXEMPTIONS FROM SCHOOL IMMUNIZATION REQUIRE-

MENTS." National Conference of State Legislatures. N.p., 3 Mar. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

Offi t, Paul A. "What Would Jesus Do About Measles?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Feb. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

Sunstein, Cass, and Richard Thaler. "Liber-tarian Paternalism Is Not An Oxymoron." University of Chicago Law Review (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 9 May 2003.

"Community Immunity ("Herd Immuni-ty")." Community Immunity ("Herd Immu-nity"). N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

Centers for Disease Control and Preven-tion. Centers for Disease Control and Pre-vention, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.

"Disneyland Measles Outbreak: Should You Be Concerned?" Shot of Prevention. N.p., 22 Jan. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

"Measles Cases and Outbreaks." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cen-ters for Disease Control and Prevention, 09 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

T

The Gulf Cooperation Council:How Reforming GCC’s Mandatory Health Care Services Will Lead to a More Sustainable Middle East

he Gulf Cooperation Council is a politi-cal and economic alliance of six Middle Eastern countries—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bah-rain, and Oman. � e predominant factor bringing health care conversations to the forefront in the Middle East continues to be population growth. As more GCC countries rely on expatriate workforces in their economic and development sec-tors, population numbers are drastically increasing in the region.1

GCC Population Growth

� e size of GCC’s population will in-crease at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 3.0 percent—one of the highest in the world. Long term, the population growth will turn to 1.8 percent CAGR. As a result, the total GCC popula-tion in 2025 will be almost twice the size it is today. 2 As the GCC expatriate pop-ulation continues to increase, so will the demand for health care, which will prove to be a long-term � nancial challenge for the region.

McKinsey & Company in a recent report estimates that total health-care spending in the region will reach $60 bil-lion in 2025, up from $12 billion today. In fact, no other region in the world faces such rapid growth in demand with the si-multaneous need to realign its health-care systems to be able to treat the “disorders of a� uence.” 3

II. GCC Health Care

1 Mourshed Mona, Viktor Hediger, and Toby Lambert, Gulf Cooperation Council Health Care: Challenges and Opportunities (McKinsey & Company).2 Mona, Hediger, and Lambert, Gulf Cooperation Council Health3 Mona, Hediger, and Lambert, Gulf Cooperation Council Health

In the past 25 years, GCC govern-ments have made substantial investments in health-care infrastructure by building hospitals, clinics, and promoting a more modern approach to tackling infectious diseases—such as malaria and measles, which were once widespread in

the region. In the next 20 years, treat-ment demands are predicted to rise in the GCC by 240 percent. In particular, cardio-vascular disease will experience a steep increase (419 percent), as will diabetes-re-lated diseases (323 percent). 4

Financing Health Care � e GCC governments currently pro-

vide the majority of health-care � nancing today at approximately 75 percent. To less-en the government burden, all GCC coun-tries have recently passed, or are in the process of passing, sweeping health-care insurance legislation. For example, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have already passed laws requiring employers to purchase private health insurance for their expatriates. 5

Why this is important:Petrodollars will not always be a plau-

sible � nancing option for long-term sus-tainability, and the GCC will need to seek private-sector investment to continue to support its e� orts, and to � nance the health care system in the future. Further-more, the GCC governments appear to be taking further initiatives to prepare for a post petrodollar-reliant region, which has lead to incredible “National Vision” de-velopment projects in states such as Qatar and Kuwait.

GCC “National Visions”As Qatar prepares to host one of the

4 Mona, Hediger, and Lambert, Gulf Cooperation Council Health 5 Mona, Hediger, and Lambert, Gulf Cooperation Council Health

By Rana Abuhilal

Hea

lthca

reH

ealthcare


Roosevelt Review

8382

most anticipated events in the world—the 2022 FIFA World Cup Games—a new kind of international spotlight will shine on the Gulf states, providing these nations an opportunity to showcase their “nation-al visions” for a more sustainable region. Qatar’s “National Development Strategy” will contribute to the country’s e� orts by focusing on such areas as healthcare, sports, infrastructure, culture, security and public safety, and the environment. � is prospective milestone is recorded on the State of Qatar’s website:

“...the National Development Strategy will allow Qatar to show the world what it is capable of and to organize an event that remains etched in people’s minds for many decades to come.” 6

National Visions similar to Qatar’s are coming to fruition all over the region.

However, Hamad Al-Marzouq, Chair-man of Ahli United Bank and the Kuwait Banking Association, said the impact of Kuwait’s National Development Plan on banks has so far been “very limited.” Ku-wait lacks a long-term strategic vision and “relying mainly on oil is really quite dan-gerous,” he said. � e development plan’s implementation was ine� ective, he was reported to have said later in an e-mailed statement.7 More than ever, it is essential that these development projects account for private sector companies, such as banks, to invest in health care services as 6 “State of Qatar’s Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics: Plan-ning Sector.”7 Fiona Macdonald, “Kuwait to Spend as Much as $17.5 Billion on 2013 Plan,” Bloomberg Business.

states move forward.

Conclusion

Proposed SolutionsAs the GCC prepares to address the

substantial rise in overall health-care de-mand and costs, as well as the challenges presented by patients seeking better care, they must turn to private sector interven-tion for help with � nances and provisions. Each GCC government should � rst allow their citizens to choose from private as well as public health care services, then independent regulatory bodies must be established to de� ne and enforce quality standards for public and private providers alike.

In order for a private-sector solution to work, the GCC’s current system of health-care delivery must be changed. While public health care is generally free in the GCC, patients currently are required to pay for private treatment themselves, and expatriates only pay a fraction of what it actually costs the government to provide care. In correlation, private facilities not reimbursed or subsidized by the govern-ment therefore have fewer patients and lower revenues than they might otherwise have.

I believe the most productive approach to these “national visions” can be achieved only by seriously addressing reform pro-visions in GCC health care. By sharing the cost of healthcare services with private sector companies, the GCC can properly allocate funds to other sectors in these anticipated long-term development proj-ects—ultimately leading to a more sus-

TGender Disparities in Clinical Trials

he pharmaceutical industry has a gender problem.1 � e World Health Organization has reported that doctors are more like-ly to diagnose depression in women ver-sus men, even when they score similarly on standardized measures of depression, or report the same symptoms. Further, women are 50% more likely than men to be prescribed medication by their doctor, even to treat the same condition.2 � is imbalance in diagnosis and prescription leads to several issues like over-medica-tion and prescription drug abuse, which, while present in both women and men, a� ect women signi� cantly more than they a� ect men.

Why does this imbalance exist in the � rst place? Women and men are treated very di� erently in the process to gain ap-proval for prescription drugs. � e prob-lem begins before humans even enter the equation for clinical testing, as pharma-ceutical products are tested on both live animals and non-human animal cells and tissue. However, there are currently no regulations regarding the gender of animals tested for drugs.3 When humans enter the testing process, the major con-sideration taken with regards to the way gender is treated in the use of pharmaceu-tical products is whether or not a woman is pregnant.4 � is merely serves to sub-divide women as a group, not to under-stand how women may react di� erently to certain pharmaceutical treatments than men. To be sure, it is imperative that medical science clari� es how medica-tions a� ect pregnant women di� erently than non-pregnant women, but potential gestational status is not the only biologi-cal factor that di� erentiates women from men.

� is phenomenon has serious implica-tions for how women are treated by their doctors. Conditions that create major problems for women may be underplayed or even mistreated due to insu� cient in-formation and inaccurate perceptions. For example, sex distribution in cardio-vascular device trials is 67% male.5 � ere is a common misconception that cardio-vascular disease is much more of a signif-

icant problem for men than for women. However, it is actually the major cause of death for women aged 65 years and older.6

Past Action� ough not at ideal levels, the current

status of women’s representation in clini-cal trials has improved signi� cantly since additional FDA guidelines were published in 1993. � e Guideline for the Study and Evaluation of Gender Di� erences in the Clinical Evaluation of Drugs was enacted in response to a backlash against histori-cal reluctance to include women in clin-ical trials.7 Concerns were expressed that the trials process at the time did not ade-quately study the e� ects of pharmaceuti-cal products in women, so the regulation recommends that trials include enough women to detect sex di� erences. Howev-er, this measure is not legally binding. Two other regulations were passed in 1998 and 2000, which respectively require data ac-quired to be presented separately for men and women, and may halt certain research programs if either men or women are ex-cluded from trials solely based on their reproductive potential. � ese two regula-tions, while they do carry the force of law, do not mandate a speci� c proportion of women that must be included in clinical trials, and are regularly not enforced in practice. 8

Proposed SolutionFirst and foremost, adequate sex distri-

bution to account for di� erences in drugs’ a� ects on women versus men must occur, starting with animal trials. � is can easily be implemented by requiring researchers to record the sex of the animal subjects at trial. Part of the problem is that the availability of demographic data for clin-ical trial participants is o� en unavailable. � erefore demographic data, including gender, must be recorded for all clinical trials involving humans. � is is a simple step towards appropriate representation of women that should not require a signi� -cant uptick in � nancial or labor costs.

� e previously implemented guide-lines are well intentioned, but ultimately

By Leah Reiss

Hea

lthca

reH

ealthcare

tainable Middle East.

Bibliography

“The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf: Secretariat General.” http://www.gcc-sg.org/eng/.

The Economist. “Health Care in the Middle East: Evolution and Reform.”The GCC’s Insurance Mandate: How a Healthcare Policy Shift Affects Stakehold-ers. Booz & Co., 2009.

Macdonald, Fiona. “Kuwait to Spend as Much as $17.5 Billion on 2013 Plan.” Bloomberg Business. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-08/kuwait-to-spend-as-much-as-17-5-billion-on-2013-plan.

Mona, Mourshed, Viktor Hediger, and Toby Lambert. Gulf Cooperation Council Health Care: Challenges and Opportunities. McKinsey & Company.

“State of Qatar’s Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics: Planning Sector.” http://www.mdps.gov.qa/indexEn.html.


Roosevelt Review

8584

insu� cient to solve the problem. While it is true that overall representation of wom-en has risen signi� cantly since the 1993 guidelines were enacted, the more speci� c breakdown shows that the representation is not equal across stages of trials, and that the data is o� en skewed by lack of avail-ability of the demographic information for trial participants in several stages. � e � rst step of mandatory data collection will help to alleviate this because serious im-balances will be caught more easily. Care must be taken to maintain women’s par-ticipation at all stages of drug testing, not just at one level, so that any di� erences may be observed at all stages of the drug’s development.

Gender breakdowns are set by a combi-nation of guidelines, which are more spe-ci� c but not legally enforceable, and regu-lations which, though legally binding, are much less speci� c and o� en unenforced in practice.9 Further, there is no agreed upon proper sample size of women that is suf-� cient for sex-speci� c claims.10 While it may be the case that there is no one per-centage that will be su� cient in all cases, there must be a set minimum put in place, with the possibility for exemption if and only if the company submits a proposal with full explanation as to why the inclu-sion of the required proportion of women is unfeasible for that particular test. Ad-ditional regulations must be put in place that mandate all clinical trials include suf-� cient percentage of women to ensure that gender di� erences are accounted for at all stages of trial testing. � ese must all be legally enforceable, and enforced in prac-tice. Finally, there must be consequenc-es for any pharmaceutical company that does not comply with these regulations. � ese could take several potential forms, most likely either a � ne, or a suspension of privileges such as the company’s ability to pay an extra fee to expedite reviews of all of its drugs. Any drug for which the test-ing process does not include the requisite percentage of women will not be permit-ted to pass the FDA’s review process and clinical trials will have to be re-started.

Next Steps� e gender disparity in clinical trials

is not the only problem with the phar-maceutical system. Currently, African Americans and Hispanics represent 12%

and 16% of the population respectively, but only 5% and 1% of clinical trials re-spectively. 11 Additionally, the way society understands gender has changed so much in the past few decades. What was once thought of as a polarizing characterization of the entire human population into two groups is now shi� ing towards more of a conceptual gender spectrum. � e indus-try must make several changes in order to � x these disparities so that we can have a more comprehensive understanding of the way drugs interact with di� erent bio-logical factors to produce di� erent e� ects.

Finally, this proposal only attempts to combat the problem from the pharmaceu-tical and drug treatment angle. However, there are other factors that contribute to the di� cult relationship between women and pharmaceuticals that take root in an earlier stage of the process. According to the National Institutes of Health, women are twice as likely to have anxiety as men and 70% more likely to have depression than men.12 � ese � gures hint at a deep-er issue surrounding women and mental health problems that involves both psy-chological, and sociological components. Mandating that women have access to drugs that are properly tested will not nec-essarily change the fact that they are more likely to su� er from mental health dis-orders, but it will help to ensure that the drugs they use to help them manage their medical conditions are e� ective and safe.

(Endnotes)1 Note: The terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably in scientifi c literature and popular speech. The two do have separate defi nitions relating to biological differ-ences (sex) versus social differences (gender). Biological factors are generally the most rele-vant for clinical studies, but for the purpose of this piece, I will use both terms in recognition of the fact that many of the practical implications of the issue are more socially relevant to gender differences.

2 “Gender and womens mental health,” World Health Organization http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/genderwomen/en/

3 Will Dunham, “Lawmakers push bill to end sex bias in medical studies,” Reuters. June 17, 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/17/us-usa-health-gender-idUSKBN0ES34620140617

4 US Food and Drug Administration, “Participation of Females in Clinical Trials and

Gender Analysis of Data in Biologic Product Applications”, last updated January 29, 2015. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/Investigational-NewDrugINDorDeviceExemptionIDEProcess/ucm094300.htm

5 The Society for Women’s Health Research and the US FDA Offi ce of Women’s Health, “Dialogues on Diversifying Clinical Trials,” Washington, DC: 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/WomensHealthResearch/UCM334959.pdf

6 A.H.E.M Mass and Y.E.A. Ap-pelman, “Gender Differences in Coronary Heart Disease,” Netherlands Heart Journal. 2010;18(12):598-602.

7 US FDA, “Evaluation of Gender Dif-ferences in Clinical Investigations – Information Sheet,” last updated June 25, 2014. http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126552.htm.

8 US General Accounting Offi ce, “Women Suffi ciently Represented in New Drug Testing, but FDA Oversight Needs Improve-ment,” July 2001. http://www.fda.gov/down-loads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/Women-sHealthResearch/UCM133204.pdf

9 US General Accounting Offi ce, “Women Suffi ciently Represented in New Drug Testing, but FDA Oversight Needs Improve-ment.”

10 US Department of Health and Human Services, “Evaluation of Sex-Specifi c Data in Medical Device Clinical Studies,” August 22, 2014. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medical-devices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidance-documents/ucm283707.pdf

11 The Society for Women’s Health Research and the US FDA Offi ce of Women’s Health, “Dialogues on Diversifying Clinical Trials.”

12 Will Dunham, “Lawmakers push bill to end sex bias in medical studies.”

MDrug Policy in America: An Educational Perspective

arijuana education is an o� -neglected facet of health education of children and young adults in this country. It should be approached from a similar approach as alcohol. � e United States has long im-plemented measures that educate people how to engage in behavior related to al-cohol that minimizes harm and enhances safety. � is is the sort of realistic educa-tion that should be used in parallel with marijuana decriminalization laws, which, together, would create the most e� ective drug policy.

O� en many people argue for the legal-ization of marijuana rather than decrim-inalization. It is important to note the consequential di� erences between legal-ization and decriminalization. Marijuana legalization would not allow the govern-ment to manage the supply of marijuana, yet decriminalization allows for better public education and fewer unnecessary arrests that ruin the lives of many peo-ple. Under decriminalization, the sales of all illicit drugs remain criminal o� enses. However, as drug research expert and professor Carl Hart at Columbia Univer-sity explains, decriminalization still sends the message that “society is still concerned about drug use.”1 As a result, decriminal-ization ensures that society will issue in-fractions for engaging in drug use behav-ior.

Decriminalization could also be used as a tool to increase state, and potential-ly, federal revenue. � e war on drugs is not only costly, but also leads to many arrests that can be considered unwarrant-ed and unnecessary. Drug related arrests allow the government to infringe upon the civil liberties of those convicted. Pub-lic housing, voting, are just some of the public privileges that are revoked upon a drug-related arrest and felony label. Fur-thermore, the United States has “5% of the world’s population and 25% of the its

1 Lecture given by Professor Carl Hart at Columbia University.

criminals.”2 47.5% of all drug-arrests are marijuana-related.3 � e billions of dollars poured into the drug war would bene-� t society if we instead channeled those funds towards education about drugs and infrastructure, the latter of which has ex-perienced a signi� cant decline in the past decade.4 Marijuana decriminalization is incredibly � nancially viable. A 2009 re-port by the Capitol’s O� ce of Fiscal Anal-ysis explained that, “decriminalization could save the state [of Connecticut] up to $11 million and generate $320,000 annu-ally in revenue from � nes.”5 Furthermore, “converting possession into an infraction eliminates the requirement for the state to appoint a public defender for defendants who cannot a� ord counsel.”6 � us, mon-ey is not only saved, but revenue is also generated through the decriminalization of marijuana. � is revenue could then be utilized towards the education and reha-bilitation of the community.

In New York, marijuana has been de-criminalized since 1977. Possession of small amounts of marijuana has been a civil violation (a misdemeanor). Howev-er, it remains a misdemeanor to possess marijuana in public. � is has led to issues with enforcement, as about 50% of those arrested in New York City for marijuana are African-Americans.7 Furthermore, police intimidation remains an issue,

2 Joe Klein, “Why Legalizing Mari-juana Makes Sense” Time.com, April 16, 2009, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/arti-cle/0,9171,1889166,00.html.3 Ibid.4 Greater Focus Needed to Achieve a More Competitive Infrastructure, Inforum Re-port to the National Association of Manufactur-ers, http://www.nam.org/Issues/Infrastructure/Surface-Infrastructure/Infrastructure-Full-Re-port-2014.pdf5 http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2011/02/25/state-considers-marijuana-de-criminalization/6 Ibid.7 Lecture given by Professor Carl Hart at Columbia University.

By Lauren Tomasulo

Hea

lthca

reH

ealthcare


Roosevelt Review

8786

leading to many arrests even though de-criminalization occurred over three de-cades ago. Mayor Bloomberg recognized that criminalizing youth of color for car-rying small amounts of marijuana was economically infeasible and announced a new police policy that stipulated that there will be no overnight jail stays for those arrested for marijuana in New York City.8As of January 1, 2011, Governor Ar-nold Schwarzenegger signed into law that in California there will be no arrest, no court appearance, and no criminal record for those who possess less than an ounce of marijuana.9 Low-level pot possession is the primary cause of arrest in New York City and given its discriminatory nature, New York should enact � e Fairness and Equity Act that has been proposed to re-move the misdemeanor status.10 � is act would ensure that policing would not be racially charged, as all forms of possession of marijuana would be decriminalized.

Prominent politicians have voiced their opinions on this controversial and complex issue. Rand Paul, who is a self-described Libertarian Conservative, supports decriminalization instead of le-galization, since the latter may instead “encourage people to do drugs.”11 Presi-dent Barack Obama voiced his opposition to both legalization and decriminaliza-tion of drugs, although he has supported the decriminalization of Marijuana in the past at a debate in 2004 at Northwestern University: “� e war on drugs has been an utter failure. We need to rethink and de-criminalize our marijuana laws. We need

8 “Mayor Bloomberg Announces New Marijuana Policy,” Drugpolicy.org, February 2, 2013, http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2013/02/mayor-bloomberg-announces-new-mar-ijuana-policy-marijuana-possession-ar-rests-will-lead-d9 Lecture given by Professor Carl Hart at Columbia University.10 Christopher Mathias, “New York Could Decriminalize Pot for More than Just White People,” Huffi ngtonpost.com, July 9, 2014, http://www.huffi ngtonpost.com/2014/07/09/new-york-marijuana-de-criminalize-bill_n_5571507.html.11 Aaron Blake, “Rand Paul: Don’t Send Kids to Jail for Drug Crimes,” Washingtonpost.com, March 24, 2013, http://www.washington-post.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/24/rand-paul-dont-send-kids-to-jail-for-drug-crimes/.

to rethink how we’re operating the drug war.”12

As President Obama himself highlight-ed in 2004, the “war on drugs” has failed to achieve its aims of producing a “drug-free America.” It has not e� ectively re-duced drug use in America. � ere are still 2.5 million people who use drugs for the � rst time each year and this has been fairly constant throughout. � is is demonstrat-ed through the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). In 1980, there were 3 million new marijuana users and in 2011, there were 2.6 million new mari-juana users.13 � e billions of dollars spent per year do not justify this slight decrease in marijuana users that could easily be at-tributed to other factors. Drug use peaked in the 1970’s and then started to decrease and has remained relatively stable despite all the money spent. In fact, drug use was already declining once the “war on drugs” was initiated.

We can examine Portugal as a case study, since it has already decriminalized all drugs. � ere are no criminal penalties associated for use, possession, or acquisi-tion for all illicit drugs for quantities up to a 10 day supply (a somewhat subjective quantity that is determined based on the person’s use).14 � e accused meet with a board called the Commission for the Dis-suasion of Drug Addiction consisting of a social worker, physician, and psychol-ogist who then collectively determine if he or she should be recommended treat-ment and/or � ned.15 Since incarceration is more expensive than treatment and the state gets funds from � nes, this policy generates money.16 A report funded by the

12 Bernd Debusmann, “Obama and the Failed War on Drugs,” Reuters.com, April 16, 2012, http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebus-mann/2012/04/16/obama-and-the-failed-war-on-drugs/.13 Lecture given by Professor Carl Hart at Columbia University.14 Michael Specter, “Getting a Fix: Portugal Decriminalized Drugs a Decade Ago, What Have We Learned?” Newyo-rker.com, October 17, 2011, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/17/get-ting-a-fi x.15 Ibid.16 Joe Klein, “Why Legalizing Mar-ijuana Makes Sense,” Time.com, April 16, 2009, http://www.time.com/time/mag-

Cato Institute found that illegal drug use by teenagers in Portugal had decreased since the enactment of decriminalization of the possession of drugs.17 It also found that the rates of HIV infections caused by contaminated needles had decreased,while the rates of those seeking treat-ment for drug dependence increased.16 � e result was that drug- induced deaths decreased and drug use rates similar, or slightly better, than other European countries.18 America has one of the high-est rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, which suggests that the strin-gent policies that accompany the “war on drugs” is not the most e� ective method for decreasing drug use and promoting the safety of society.19

Many detractors of decriminalization argue that such policies would inadver-tently create the reverse e� ect: that is, increase, rather than decrease, the rate of drug use among the population. How-ever, as evidenced by Portugal, it is clear that the rate of drug use did not increase at all. Although there may be some debate about whether the decline in drug-use can be attributed to the policies or to the natural cyclic pattern of drug use increas-ing and decreasing, it is certainly untrue that decriminalization in Portugal caused more people to use drugs.20 Instead of la-beling drug users as criminals, Portugal has taken a more pre- emptive approach and labeled them as those a� icted with a disease (similar to the approach Alcohol Anonymous takes towards alcoholism).21 � is approach treats drug use as a public health issue rather than a legal issue that is resolved through punishment. Essentially, decriminalization is a far more humane, cheaper, and e� ective method than a rig-id, detrimental philosophy of criminaliza-tion.

Harm reduction can be enabled through realistic education. Humans have always and will continue to use psychoac-tive compounds to alter their conscious-ness. � is is precisely why the Drug Abuse

azine/article/0,9171,1889166,00.html.17 Ibid.18 Ibid.19 Ibid.20 Ibid.21 Ibid.

Resistance Education (D.A.R.E) program enacted in 1993 proved to be complete-ly ine� ective.22 � e failure of the “Just Say No” campaign was highlighted by an article published in the Journal of Con-sulting and Clinical Psychology which deconstructed many claims of e� cacy of the program. Instead, this article, enti-tled “Project DARE: No E� ects at 10-Year Follow-Up” showed that those who had DARE classes, at age 20, were no less likely to use many drugs (including marijuana) than those who had not taken such classes. Instead of trying to reduce the demand of drugs with the war on drugs propaganda, we should instead teach people to live in a world that necessarily includes these psy-choactive compounds.23 It is statistically infrequent to die from a heroin overdose alone, where the only drug ingested is heroin. � e cause of death is o� en heroin in combination with sedatives (usually al-cohol), as shown by the 2010 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) Mortality Data 13,000 out of the 17,000 deaths from all opioids due to drug combinations.24 � us, it is imperative that we teach peo-ple not to consume alcohol while using heroin. � is is not currently being taught because of the drug atmosphere.

Because of the emphasis on the crim-inalization and harmful e� ects of drugs, the prevailing attitude is one that is not consistent with facilitating the public health of our society. Politicians have been adverse to increasing the availabili-ty of naloxone, an opioids antagonist that blocks the mu receptor and thus reverses the fatal respiratory depression caused by an opioid (such as heroin). By increasing the availability of naloxone, the preva-lent view is that it will convey to society that opioid (or speci� cally, heroin) use is acceptable behavior.25 It is simply unac-ceptable that people are unnecessarily dy-ing from overdoses because the antidote is not widely available. � e drug war has interfered with our ability to protect our citizens.

� ere are multiple alternatives to en-sure society’s safety other than legaliza-tion. By focusing on decriminalization, 22 Ibid.23 Ibid.24 Ibid.25 Lecture given by Professor Carl Hart at Columbia University.

drug education, and the way we enforce these policies, we can eliminate the rac-ist e� ects of such policies while protect-ing the public’s safety. By changing drug policy without legalization, we can ensure that the way we police these issues and implement more practical, bene� cial drug education that focuses on reducing harm associated with drugs rather than the un-realistic, erroneous perspective about the pathology of drugs.

Hea

lthca

reH

ealthcare


"Today, ahead, though dimly yet, we see, in vistas, a copious, sane, gigantic off spring. For our New World I consider far less important for what it has done, or what it is, than for results to come." - Walt Whitman, "Democratic Vistas"

Roosevelt Insitute Journal Draft V.indd 88 4/10/15 3:03 PM

columbia university roosevelt review 2015

Documents