OP-ED: Article 50, Now What?
The British people made their decision back in June, and now that the initial paperwork has been filed, there is no going back.
(Photo: Francois Lenoir/Reuters)
As many readers of this column have probably guessed by now, I really like talking about the latest goings on in Washington. I’m serious. It consumes about 90 percent of my waking life, and even sneaks into my dreams every now and again. But, as both the House Intelligence Committee investigation and the Supreme Court nomination battle descend into nauseatingly partisan bickering, I just cannot bring myself to do it this week. Instead, dear readers, why don’t we take a nice, relaxing trip across the Atlantic to a quaint little island with a legislature that actually, you know, legislates and they definitely don’t have any prob-
Wait, what’s that? Theresa May finally put her money where her mouth is and delivered the Article 50 papers to Brussels? Holy crap, those crazy Nigels are actually doing it. Well, there goes my dream of writing about something that doesn’t fill me with a deep sense of frustration and despair. All right folks, here it is – my completely unsolicited and barely qualified thoughts on Brexit.
First off, let’s make one thing absolutely clear. If I were a Briton, I probably would have voted Remain, though that’s kind of a trite position for me to take, sitting half a continent and an entire ocean removed from the situation. Now, that being said, can we really blame the people who voted Leave for wanting to get the hell out?
Just look at the current state of the European Union. On the one hand, you’ve got major social unrest in Germany, France, and other countries impacted by the migrant crisis, which has caused the long-dormant dragon of far-right reactionism, not seen in Europe since the end of World War II, to stir from its slumber. On the other, financial uncertainty in the Eurozone makes remaining as a part of the larger trading bloc a dicey proposition; although Spain and Ireland appear to be finally turning the corner from their respective debt crises, a second Greek default seems likely and Italy is by all accounts a ticking time-bomb of toxic debt.
Oh, and let’s not forget the structure of the EU itself, with its byzantine rules created, for the most part, by unelected bureaucrats and obscure legislators you’ve never heard of; rules, designed to protect the interests of export-oriented members, which are less than ideal for the increasingly import-focused UK. Take oranges as an example. Last year, the EU Customs Union increased the tariffs on oranges imported from outside Europe to 16 percent in an attempt to buoy the profits of Spanish growers against competition from South Africa, without consulting anyone or giving significant notice of the change. Now, it should go without saying that this change hurts consumers in the UK, where they can grow no oranges and have to rely on imports to feed their citrus-y urges. (Much like retirees from the Northeast, oranges seem to prefer warmer, brighter climates.)
Leaving the Common Market behind would allow Britain to set its own trade policies for the benefit of its own consumers, without having to worry about the effect that might have on producers a thousand miles away. However, being free to set an independent trade policy cuts both ways. By exiting the Union, the UK may find itself with a severely diminished bargaining position in trade negotiations. Already, rising trade powers like Indonesia have indicated that they will expect more concessions from Britain than when it was part of the Common Market.
Trade is not the only area where Britons may lose out from Brexit. Under the EU treaties, all citizens of member states enjoy unrestricted movement within the Union, which has allowed for the one of the most mobile workforces in history, less complicated vacations, and more cooperative science research. There are also there are also matters of security, defense, pension funding, and relocation of EU agencies headquartered in the UK which will all have to be negotiated under a relatively short timeframe.
In the end, however, complaining too much is like crying over spilled milk. The British people made their decision back in June, and now that the initial paperwork has been filed, there is no going back.
Ford Mulligan Staff Reporter
OP-ED: What Everyone Gets Wrong About Healthcare
The American healthcare system is sick.
(Photo: Roosevelt Institute)
The American healthcare system is sick. Everyone, from bleeding-heart progressives to staunch supporters of the Freedom Caucus, agrees on this – and how could they not? One only needs to give a cursory glance at the statistics, or spend five minutes in a crowded emergency room, to realize that there is something deeply broken about how we go about ministering the health of our nation. According to a meta-analysis by the Commonwealth Fund of healthcare data from thirteen high-income countries, despite the fact that the United States spends the most per capita on healthcare, Americans have the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality rate. The real question, then, is, “What is to blame?”
The Democrats’ answer is that an unscrupulous health insurance industry is the root cause of our dysfunction, a thesis deeply embedded in the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. On the other hand, Republicans claim that Medicare and Medicaid are distorting the market, and providers are raising prices for the privately insured to compensate; thus, the draconian cuts proscribed in the failed American Health Care Act.
In a certain sense, both sides touch on real issues. Yes, before the Obamacare regulations, the feedback loop between uninsured patients being unable to pay their bills and the rising costs of health services and coverage was growing out of control; and yes, Medicare and Medicaid are poorly designed, inefficient programs which distort the market and consume more than their fair share of the federal budget.
However, both approaches to healthcare reform are fatally flawed, in that they assign a single cause to a mind-bogglingly complex phenomenon. It’s not even the case, as many centrists like to believe, that an effective solution lies somewhere in the middle of the two policies because, outside of a handful of experts, everyone misses the real causes of rising healthcare costs. Now, it would be impossible for me to give a complete account of everything which ails us in a single column, but here are the two most significant factors, based on what I’ve gathered from the data:
1. America is the least healthy developed nation.
According to the Commonwealth Fund study, a significant portion of our healthcare costs come from the general poor health of the U.S. population. Despite the fact that, as of 2013, we had the third lowest incidence of daily smokers from the countries included in the study, we came first in both obesity (at 35.3% of the population) and the percentage of seniors with two or more chronic conditions. (68%) Treatment of chronic health problems is far more expensive than treating acute conditions, such that a 2012 investigation by PBS found that the 50% of the American population with one or more chronic condition accounted for 84% of all healthcare expenditures in 2010.
2. Consolidation is stifling competition.
While patients on government programs have the advantage of consistent pricing set by federal regulators, a study from the Health Care Pricing Project found that the privately insured are subjected to wide variations in price. For instance, the authors found that nationwide, the price of a lower-limb MRI can vary by a factor of twelve – that is, the most expensive hospital charges twelve times as much as the least expensive one.
This, the study claims, can largely be attributed to the recent trend of hospital mergers and provider consolidation, which has led to the formation of healthcare monopolies in many areas, allowing providers to charge much more for basic services than the market would otherwise allow.
Until we can solve these problems, any effort at reform, be it conservative or progressive, is doomed to failure. My advice? Eat your vegetables and stay healthy. We may be waiting for a while.
Ford Mulligan Staff Reporter
OP-ED: Don’t Sweat About Gorsuch
In the end, Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation would do little to shift the balance of the court from where it was a year ago.
(Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
After just over a year without a full bench, the Supreme Court may soon be restored to its full panel of nine justices. Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee began confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, who was nominated by President Trump in January to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Gorsuch, a conservative and Colorado native, has garnered frequent praise from legal experts on both sides for his impartiality and incisive commentary. He is also frequently hailed as one of the leading proponents of originalism, an approach to interpreting constitutional language that emphasizes the original meaning and intent behind a given legal provision. This was the preferred method of the Justice Scalia, who served as a mentor to Judge Gorsuch following his confirmation to the Tenth Circuit in 2006, and the two were of like mind on many judicial issues, especially on issues of gun control and freedom of religious expression.
Clearly, Judge Gorsuch would be a natural choice for any Republican president and an easy confirmation for a GOP-led Senate. However, the potential appointment is not without its controversies. Following the death of Justice Scalia last February, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) announced that Senate Republicans would not even consider Judge Merrick Garland, then-President Obama’s pick for the job. The move drew harsh criticism from both liberals and moderates, who viewed it as a partisan power grab and dangerous affront to tradition.
Then there is the question of Gorsuch’s judicial record, which has many progressive Democrats worried. For instance, while the appellate jurist has not yet had a chance to rule on abortion rights, several activists have pointed to his book – “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he argues against the practice of assisted suicide on moral and legal grounds – as proof of strong pro-life convictions. Progressives and liberals may also find Gorsuch’s history on capital punishment troubling: according to a profile published on SCOTUSblog, he has rarely voted in favor of death row inmates seeking judicial relief.
However, some of this worry may be premature. Gorsuch’s originalist proclivities have led him to take positions which could prove amicable to liberal causes. When it comes to interpreting criminal statute, the potential justice seems to have adopted a similar approach to his late mentor, who frequently voted alongside his more liberal colleagues in favor of more constrained readings of criminal laws. Gorsuch has also been highly critical of laws restricting public religious expression and of executive overreach. Somewhat counter-intuitively, if he is confirmed, these principles may sometimes put Gorsuch at odds with President Trump’s harsh stances on crime and Islam.
In the end, however, Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation would do little to shift the balance of the court from where it was a year ago. Due to its exceptionally balanced composition of four liberals, four conservatives, and one centrist, the Roberts Court has been decidedly measured in its rulings, having both expanded civil rights for minorities and putting checks on legislative and executive overreach. Replacing Justice Scalia with another conservative originalist will, for the most part, keep things as they are. But, Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy are all approaching the age where retirement or deaths are increasingly probable. If one of them vacates their seat while the GOP retains control of the Senate and White House, the healthy balance of the Roberts Court could be in jeopardy.
Ford Mulligan Staff Reporter
OP-ED: Shooting Yourself in the Foot, A Congressman’s Guide
House Republicans are on track to “repeal and replace” themselves in 2018.]
(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Last week, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) successfully made the first step towards torpedoing their prospects for 2018, when House Republicans finally unveiled their proposal to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. Their solution, entitled “the American Health Care Act,” is not so much a replacement as it is a death wish.
The AHCA, as it currently exists, would absolutely eviscerate the gains in health coverage made under the admittedly flawed Obamacare project. Standard & Poors estimates that anywhere from 6 to 10 million Americans would lose their current coverage under the AHCA, which shrinks federal income tax credits for the insured by up to two thirds, and would leave states scrambling to fill a $380 billion shortfall in the Medicaid program. Despite the insistence of Speaker Ryan and Press Secretary Sean Spicer, this is not “Obamacare 2.0.” The AHCA is, in fact, objectively worse, to such an extent that even some of the ACA’s harshest critics in the Senate are refusing to get behind the bill.
Many prominent Republicans, such as Senators Tom Cotton, (R-Ark.) Rand Paul (R-Ken.) and Dean Heller, (R-Nev.) have come out strongly against the AHCA, claiming that it is not passable in the Senate. While House GOP leadership wants to categorize the bill as a budget reconciliation measure – which would let Senate Republicans block an inevitable filibuster from Democrats with a simple majority – it is highly unlikely that the Senate parliamentarian will view it as such. This is a potentially fatal procedural obstacle. Between partisan opposition from Democrats and reluctance to destroy an increasingly popular program by vulnerable Republicans, it would be almost impossible to get the required 60 votes to force a vote on the Senate floor.
If this bill is to succeed, it will have to be changed. Republicans desperately need a victory on this front. With both Congress and the President’s approval ratings sitting well in the negative, Democrats have been quietly plotting the GOP’s downfall in 2018. Even Mr. Ryan has acknowledged that a failure in the Senate would bring about a “bloodbath” in the next election. However, GOP leadership in the House has thus far refused to specify where they’re willing to compromise. They better figure it out fast.
Ford Mulligan Staff Reporter
Your Home, Your Voice!
Get to know Chris Miller and Sarah Nguyen's platform for the upcoming RUSGA election.
(Photo: Courtesy of Sarah Nguyen)
What is a university for? This is a hotly debated question these days, but RUSGA Student Body President candidate Christopher Miller and his running mate, Sarah Nguyen, have an answer: the university should be a home for its students. To that end, the pair say that if elected, their first order of business would be to work with the university administration and Bon Appétit to reorganize the Main Café so that anyone can access the seating area.
“We really want to be more inclusive,” Nguyen, who is a sophomore majoring in Communication and English, told the Highlander in an email. “We want to open it up so that students, regardless if they have a meal plan or not, can come into the Cafe [sic] to eat and hang out with others.”
Nguyen also said they would work to expand the Café’s operating hours to better accommodate students with evening classes, and that this would be their primary objective for the end of the semester.
When asked about the pair’s larger vision for the Regis campus, Miller, a junior studying Accounting and Business Administration, said that they want to engender a strong feeling of home in the Regis community. The candidate, who before Regis had only lived in his hometown of Bridgewater, New Jersey, recounted how becoming involved on campus helped him forge a feeling of home after moving to Colorado, and said that he wants to help other Regis students do the same.
Nguyen said that she has had a similar experience, though she noted that hers is different in that she has been a commuter student from the start. She said that her time as a commuter assistant for Student Activities has helped her form a better understanding of the difficulties faced by her fellow commuters. In particular, Nguyen pointed out that many commuter students do not feel as though they truly belong to the community.
“It's our mission to break down barriers and help open campus up,” Nguyen said, “We have the opportunity to change the lives [sic] on campus.”
Both Miller and Nguyen claim to have the experience needed to make a big impact on campus. Miller currently represents the Business and Entrepreneurship Club in the RUSGA Senate, where he serves on the Marketing and Media Committee. He also runs the Best of Colorado program at Student Activities, which runs events that allow Regis students to experience all of what the state has to offer. In addition to her work with Student Acts, Nguyen has served on the RUSGA Campus Relations Committee, and is presently the director of the Student Involvement Committee, which organizes events like Snow Ball and Ranger Week, which is coming this April.
“Being involved with the B&E club, Event Services, Student Activities and RUSGA's Marketing and Media committee has shown me that there are many challenges that the Regis community faces,” Miller said, “I believe that with the unique combination of experiences that Regis has provided, I am prepared to tackle any of the challenges that arise.”
“Sarah and I want to create a feeling of home whenever you think about the Regis community,” said Miller.
Ford Mulligan Staff Reporter
OP-ED: This Administration is a Mess
To say that President Trump’s first month in office has been chaotic is the understatement of the millennium.
(Photo: History.com)
To say that President Trump’s first month in office has been chaotic is the understatement of the millennium. The new administration has, from the outset, been hindered by rampant infighting among West Wing staffers, legal and political blowback for a multitude of hastily-enacted and overreaching executive orders, and a communication team whose relationship with the words “truth” and “fact” is… interesting, to say the least.
And all of this is compounded by a complete lack of consistency on foreign policy, or, actually, any policy at all. Take, for example, the roll-out of the travel moratorium: the lack of clear communication from the White House on what the order actually entailed lead many to incorrectly characterize the edict as a “Muslim ban,” and created immense confusion within the federal agencies responsible for enacting it before it was struck down in court.
As far as I can tell, Mr. Trump is shooting from the hip in the worst possible way. It is one thing to be flexible and adaptive, such as when Obama adopted a more hawkish stance on terrorism once in office. It is another thing entirely to not only ignore, but decline consultation altogether with the meager cabinet Mr. Trump has managed to assemble.
Perhaps the biggest problem, however, is the snail’s pace at which the process of nomination and confirmation for top executive branch posts has been moving for the past 30 days. The delay can be partially attributed to the strong opposition from Senate Democrats towards certain controversial nominations, such as Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education or Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, both of whom were confirmed after weeks of debate. However, the lion’s share of blame belongs to the Trump administration, which has been dragging its feet on announcing nominations. While Mr. Trump has managed to put forward nominees for the full set of cabinet-level positions, he has only announced nominations for 13 of the 529 critical non-cabinet posts which require Senate confirmation and the Washington Post and the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service claim are necessary for the executive branch and bureaucracy to function optimally. None of them have been confirmed yet, leaving the 14 cabinet members who have been successfully confirmed without deputies to handle the day to day operations of their departments, hindering their ability to focus on formulating policy.
According to the New York Times, this largely stems from the president’s position as an outsider to the Republican establishment – at whom he continuously thumbed his nose during the campaign, even after securing the party’s nomination. On the one hand, Mr. Trump seems to insist on total loyalty from his appointees, and the White House has repeatedly vetoed suggestions for otherwise qualified candidates. The Trump administration has largely kept to wealthy businesspeople that, like Mr. Trump himself, are Washington outsiders. By the same token, many members of the establishment find themselves alienated by what they perceive to be erratic behavior and an unorthodox, controversial approach to governance. In particular, I suspect that the president will have difficulty finding a new national security advisor to replace Michael T. Flynn, whose sudden resignation last Monday has caused turmoil at all levels of the National Security Council.
Time is running out for the Trump administration if they want to be able to build the momentum needed to implement the president’s vision for the next four years. They cannot afford to keep spinning wheels as they have been for another few months. If the president’s approval ratings continue their gradual, downward trend, (and they will so long as the dysfunction and chaos at the White House continue) the Trump administration could be faced with an uncooperative GOP in Congress, trying to distance itself from the presidency in an effort to protect the party’s majorities in the mid-term elections.
To say that President Trump’s first month in office has been chaotic is the understatement of the millennium. The new administration has, from the outset, been hindered by rampant infighting among West Wing staffers, legal and political blowback for a multitude of hastily-enacted and overreaching executive orders, and a communication team whose relationship with the words “truth” and “fact” is… interesting, to say the least.
And all of this is compounded by a complete lack of consistency on foreign policy, or, actually, any policy at all. Take, for example, the roll-out of the travel moratorium: the lack of clear communication from the White House on what the order actually entailed lead many to incorrectly characterize the edict as a “Muslim ban,” and created immense confusion within the federal agencies responsible for enacting it before it was struck down in court.
As far as I can tell, Mr. Trump is shooting from the hip in the worst possible way. It is one thing to be flexible and adaptive, such as when Obama adopted a more hawkish stance on terrorism once in office. It is another thing entirely to not only ignore, but decline consultation altogether with the meager cabinet Mr. Trump has managed to assemble.
Perhaps the biggest problem, however, is the snail’s pace at which the process of nomination and confirmation for top executive branch posts has been moving for the past 30 days. The delay can be partially attributed to the strong opposition from Senate Democrats towards certain controversial nominations, such as Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education or Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, both of whom were confirmed after weeks of debate. However, the lion’s share of blame belongs to the Trump administration, which has been dragging its feet on announcing nominations. While Mr. Trump has managed to put forward nominees for the full set of cabinet-level positions, he has only announced nominations for 13 of the 529 critical non-cabinet posts which require Senate confirmation and the Washington Post and the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service claim are necessary for the executive branch and bureaucracy to function optimally. None of them have been confirmed yet, leaving the 14 cabinet members who have been successfully confirmed without deputies to handle the day to day operations of their departments, hindering their ability to focus on formulating policy.
According to the New York Times, this largely stems from the president’s position as an outsider to the Republican establishment – at whom he continuously thumbed his nose during the campaign, even after securing the party’s nomination. On the one hand, Mr. Trump seems to insist on total loyalty from his appointees, and the White House has repeatedly vetoed suggestions for otherwise qualified candidates. The Trump administration has largely kept to wealthy businesspeople that, like Mr. Trump himself, are Washington outsiders. By the same token, many members of the establishment find themselves alienated by what they perceive to be erratic behavior and an unorthodox, controversial approach to governance. In particular, I suspect that the president will have difficulty finding a new national security advisor to replace Michael T. Flynn, whose sudden resignation last Monday has caused turmoil at all levels of the National Security Council.
Time is running out for the Trump administration if they want to be able to build the momentum needed to implement the president’s vision for the next four years. They cannot afford to keep spinning wheels as they have been for another few months. If the president’s approval ratings continue their gradual, downward trend, (and they will so long as the dysfunction and chaos at the White House continue) the Trump administration could be faced with an uncooperative GOP in Congress, trying to distance itself from the presidency in an effort to protect the party’s majorities in the mid-term elections.
Ford Mulligan Staff Reporter