I had originally planned to write about so many different things, including the Postal Office's $5.1 billion dollar loss, Romney, and the latest Republican Bill filed that prohibits congressional insider trading. All of that went out the window when I watched Perry's most recent campaign pledges in a policy speech in Iowa. There is so much wrong with this, I do not even know where to begin. It should be said that though this entire article is a retaliation to Perry's speech, it truly applies to anyone who believes in these policies.
Original article written here.
First, he wants to "uproot, tear down, and rebuild" the three branches of government if made President. To clarify this: our legislative, judicial, and executive branches. The system of government we have because of the founding fathers' understanding that power needs checks and balances. Well, this coming from an extremely right-winged conservative is no surprise. It has been a Republican dream to eliminate checks and balances. Just look at former President George W. Bush; he essentially succeeded, though illegally, through the John Yoo memos.
Perry also said he would appoint anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court, so that he can overturn the decision made in Roe v. Wade. For those who do not know, it was the case that made and has kept abortion legal under the Fourteenth Amendment. I do not want to discuss abortion itself, as the debates on this topic give me a migraine. What I do want to point out is that Perry is saying, in clear words, is that he will go around our system of Democracy to personally cherry-pick judges based on his biases. How is this in any way representative of our culture? Yesterday, the City of New York chose to take the case of the Zuccotti Eviction to a random judge, because they believed that the first judge had been hand-picked by the OWS movement. The second, randomly appointed judge chose to uphold NYPD's eviction. So even those of you who are cheering that fact should recognize the hypocrisy.
Lastly, the long list of governmental agencies that he plans on completely shutting down are as follows: the Department of Energy, the Commerce Department, and the Department of Education. The Department of Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency, lucky them, will not be totally shut down but instead restructured and rebuilt.
This one was saved for last, due to the tremendous amount of word vomit I have on this subject.
There are no words that can truly explain the apocalyptic impact this could have on the United States, but I seem to be able to find some anyway. Let us take a look at the first three separately:
1. The Department of Energy.
In a direct quote from their website, they are a "governmental department whose mission is to advance energy technology and promote related innovation in the United States." They are the ones responsible for attempting to find new methods of energy that are not oil-based. Well, that alone explains why this Republican candidate wants to do away with them. But what will happen if he succeeds? We will forever be, as we are now, totally reliant on the oil industry. Their profits (and cost) will continue to soar, and the oil resources will continue to dwindle. Global warming will continue to run unchecked. More and more wars will be waged as the US requires increasing access to oil abroad. Oh, yes, this sounds like the best future we could hope for.
2. The Commerce Department.
This governmental department is responsible for promoting economic growth. I will only ask one question that I hope drums up some semblance of common sense: In a time of economic crisis, do you really want to remove the main department that is working to fix it?
3. The Department of Education.
And here we come to a big one. This alone could fill a hundred articles. I hope you're still reading and willing to continue to bear with me as I rant. Let us first quickly examine the US' placement in terms of education. The following data is from OECD. And, for a visual picture of the horror that is our future, see Guardian's colorful table. (Both of these are based on 2009 - 2010.) The US is ranked #14th in Reading, #25th in math, and #17th in science. The top two countries are South Korea (1st reading, 1st math, 3rd science) and Finland (2nd reading, 2nd math, 1st science).
I myself have studied in numerous schools and in various countries. I have been in Blue Ribbon Public Schools (Syosset High and others) and private schools (Long Island School for the Gifted) in New York alone. I have taken an "American System" of education in Lebanon (Sagesse High School) as well as completing the International Baccalaureate Program in Jordan. I then studied in the Lebanese American University, which is affiliated with the State of New York and NYU. And then returned to the United States to continue my higher education. Due to this, I feel as though I offer a unique view of the education system here, ranging from KG through college. Most of what I have seen supports OECD's empirical data: that the US is so, so far behind. What I took in high school in IB Chemistry courses in the Middle East is equivalent to a third year Chem major in the US. The same applies to most of my other IB courses, specifically Physics, Math, Business, and Literature. The only school in the US I have been to whose curriculum matches that of countries abroad was LISG.
Instead of throwing the Department of Education into the waste bin, it should be invested in. Those who are currently in elementary school all the way through college are our future. They are the generation who will be running the country economically, politically, and socially in the next twenty to forty years. Given our country's current economic state, everyone knows that a drastically high percentage of people are living in poverty. And millions more of those who are not legally defined as "in poverty" cannot afford private schools such as LISG. They are dependent upon our education system that offers free public schools. Is that not a big chunk of what we pay taxes for?
The Department of Education needs more funding. Many people cannot afford to live in Blue Ribbon districts such as Syosset's. Those who can are given an extreme advantage, but most of Americans, at this current time, cannot. So they are restricted to poorer neighborhoods: and you must be aware that 'poorer' does not mean 'poor'. "Poorer" than Syosset are the "middle-class" neighborhoods that many of us live in. So we end up sending our children to the best that we can afford, which is sadly not enough.
And now you want to completely eliminate the Department of Education? What is going to happen? Where are we going to send our children, when we cannot afford the private schools - many of which cost more than some private colleges! We will be bound to live in debt forever. Our children will never get the benefit of inheriting a house. They will inherit a debt. How is this any better than the loan sharking in the "third world countries" (a term I despise) that is responsible for an unknowable amount of deaths? Sure, we will not be chased by the mafia or have our knees literally broken. But how is a figuratively broken knee - the knowing that we are shackled and immobilized by our own government - any better?
For the full recount, including a video of this speech, see CNN's article.