Defund Planned Parenthood

                When it comes to healthcare, it is imperative that women and men have access to birth control, STD testing services, and cancer screenings. It is also incredibly important that low-income individuals have a place to turn to receive affordable services. There are many comprehensive clinics that can provide these services, clinics that are not Planned Parenthood.

            Planned Parenthood should be defunded, and that money should be rerouted to community clinics which can help women and men receive the services they need. There are 13,540 comprehensive care clinics compared to 665 Planned Parenthoods in America: That is a ratio of 20:1 (The Daily Signal). Community health centers exist to provide comprehensive care to millions of uninsured Americans, so women and men would still have options.

            Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded for a host of reasons. One is their disregard for human life. To those who support abortion, it is a women’s right. To those opposed, it is the murder of a preborn baby. To the latter group, it is abhorrent that taxpayer money is funding the largest abortion provider in America. While federal money cannot go directly to abortions, it can go to other services, freeing up money to be used for abortions.

            While it is often stated that only 3% of services PP provides is abortions, this number has been shown to be a misrepresentation. PP performs about 330,000 abortions a year. By its own accounting in its 2013-2014 annual report, it provides about as many abortions as Pap tests (380,000). In addition, abortion is considered as a service that is no different than a pregnancy test, even though a box with two pregnancy tests can be bought from the store for less than $10 (NY Post). An abortion, on the other hand, can cost up to $1,500 according to PP’s website. So, money wise, abortions are a huge part of what Planned Parenthood does.

            Another concern with PP is the adoption referral to abortion ratio. In its annual report from 2012, Planned Parenthood claimed it did 327,166 abortion procedures in the course of one year and only 2,197 adoption referrals. That is approximately 149 abortions for each adoption referral. Women have consistently stated that they are not told about adoption, that they are made to believe abortion is the only choice for them. This is a tragedy, since for every 1 baby put up for adoption, there are 36 couples that wanted that child due to their own, or their partner’s, infertility (Lifenews).

            In addition, PP is not safe for young women. Recent undercover footage by Lila Rose’s Live Action organization shows Planned Parenthood employees in multiple states willing to aid in human sex trafficking of girls as young as 14. It caused Planned Parenthood to call for obligatory training workshops for thousands of its employees on requirements for reporting crime (SBA list).

            There are also many dangers of abortion that many individuals are unaware of. With abortion comes the risk of infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock (After Abortion).

            Not to mention, there are many psychological issues that can arise due to abortions. Many women through the Silent No More campaign have discussed their abortions and why they are now pro-life, explaining that they turned to drugs and sex out of regret. Many women claimed they had nightmares over what they did, and it impacted relationships with future children and their significant other.  

            Overall, women and men need the best reproductive care, but healthcare should be about saving lives, not ending lives. Money that previously backed Planned Parenthood can instead be distributed to Prolife centers that provide birth control, STD screenings, and cancer prevention/ identification services.

            We need to stop funding the largest abortion provider in America, and see that every life is precious. As Susan B. Anthony said, “No matter what the motive, love of ease, or desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death.”

Free College Is Not Free

Written By: Carissa Jones

Free. It is a word that excites many individuals, especially college students who are generally struggling to pay for Ramon noodles, pencils, and socks. When the word “free” is placed before the word “college,” many individuals attending or preparing to attend a post-secondary institution passionately support the idea.

The concept of a free college education has been discussed by many politicians, such as Presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders. Sen. Sanders introduced the "College for All Act," a bill that would make four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free. It sounds like great idea, right? What student wouldn’t want to attend college in a manner that would allow them to escape free from debt? What student wouldn’t want to focus on their studies rather than paying the bills through three jobs? There is just one issue, however: Bernie Sander’s idea would never actually work.

The first concern is the price of free college. The idea would cost $70 billion per year, which is more than twice what the federal government spends on Pell grants. Much of this money would be wasted on students who could easily afford college (Bernie’s Bad College Idea). Free tuition would also decrease the need for academic scholarships, meaning students would be recognized for simply being accepted into a college, not for academic achievement in either secondary or post-secondary school to earn a financial reward.

Furthermore, providing college classes for free creates cost inflation. Students will still have to pay for additional services, such as room, board, and textbooks. Those services will rise sharply in price. Sweden can be seen as an example in this case. Although Sweden has eliminated college tuition, students leave college with more debt than scholars in the United Kingdom, and graduate with only slightly lesser debt than individuals in the United States (Why Free College is Really Expensive). In addition, 85% of students graduate with debt in Sweden, while only 50% of students do in the US. Also, Swedish graduates have the highest debt-to-income ratio of any collection of students in the developed world (College in Sweden is Free but Students Still Have a Ton of Debt).

College education free of cost would make it difficult for private institutions to stay financially stable enough to remain open. Since these private schools would be in battle against free establishments, many private schools would see a massive drop in students. This would decrease options for post-secondary education, placing pressure on public schools to serve students successfully (Bernie’s Bad College Idea).

The proposal will also harm innovations such as online colleges and courses, which are on their way to providing low-cost, superior college education for all individuals. Establishments attempting to provide new forms of schooling will have to compete against free public universities (Why Free College is Really Expensive). Online courses can keep costs down for students who would rather live at home than pay for a dorm, and it can eliminate gas prices for commuters. Yet online colleges will cease to exist due to individuals turning to free public education systems.

Another concern is the commitment level of students who are attending college for free. Many individuals choose to attend class in an effort to not throw away money. If college is free, students will have a lesser commitment to passing classes the first time, showing up to their classes, and picking a major they want to pursue rather than just taking courses for enjoyment or because their friend is in it.

There is certainly an issue with student debt. However, there are wiser ways to solve these issues than allowing students to attend college for free. One alternative is loan forgiveness. If students graduate with a respectable GPA and have a clean record, certain loans will not have to be paid. This rewards students for merit and positive behavior, rather than just handing all students a free education.

Free college sounds like an excellent idea. Unfortunately, the practicality is low, and not everything in life can be handed to individuals.

Hurting the Poor...by "Helping" Them

By Greg Harvey, Treasurer

It’s hard to advocate against policies designed to help the misfortunate. However, one of the worst ideas floating around Washington is to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. But before you call me heartless and say I hate poor people, let me quote Milton Friedman, who said that “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” I believe that many have made this mistake over raising the minimum wage because, while it’s noble, it’s not an effective way to alleviate poverty in America.

The main reason is that a higher minimum wage causes lower employment among low-skilled workers, most often teenagers. A study by economists Sen, Rybczynski, and Van De Waal found that every 10% increase in the minimum wage rate causes a statistically significant 3%-5% drop in teenage employment. In addition, it also corresponds with a 4%-6% increase in the number of households categorized as “Low-Income” (2011). Interestingly, the increase in poverty constitutes lower earning families relying on working children for a significant portion of their wages. Therefore, the loss of teenage employment hurts them significantly.

Other studies have found the effects to be greater. Joseph Sabia while at the University of Georgia found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage causes teenage employment to drop between 5%-9%, and it reduces working hours for still-employed teens by 5% (2006).

The reason youth employment data are important is because, according to The Entrepreneur, the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are either entry-level positions useful for career advancement or low-skill ones that give quality work experience. In addition, “employers often select teenagers from middle-class families over poor adults” for minimum wage jobs due to teenagers’ “greater job potential.” Consequently, under 20% of minimum wage earners are actually from impoverished households. Therefore, raising the minimum rate would hurt young workers’ future job potentials more than it would reduce poverty (Shane, 2012).

Finally, data from the CBO suggests that raising the rate would be ineffective. To highlight the findings, an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would cause a loss of 500,000 jobs. Of the 45 million people currently considered impoverished under law, just 900,000 (2%) would see their earnings increase enough to escape poverty (of course, we must “net out” the 500,000 newly unemployed, so it’s really only a 400,000 person improvement). Furthermore, while total earnings for minimum wage workers would increase by $31 billion annually, only 19% would actually go to impoverished households. 30% of the increased earnings would go to families making over 3 times the poverty limit, for reasons already discussed (2014). Clearly, the results aren’t optimistic.

Therefore, we must use different tactics to help the poor. One possible solution, according to The Economist, is to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit. By doing so, we’d be ensuring that help goes only to lower income families (unlike raising the minimum wage), and it does so without losing jobs or harming businesses (2006).

Of course, I’m not against increasing workers’ pay. Nor am I advocating to abolish the minimum wage. But I am against most government regulations and believe that consumers have more power than we exercise. Keep the rate at $7.25 nationally, with some higher state rates. But let businesses be free to decide whether or not to increase their own employees’ compensations above those levels (a few already have; a quick Internet search shows that Gap, Ben & Jerry’s, and Ikea, among others, already have self-imposed minimum wages above the mandated floor). Then, we as consumers must support those companies with our money. That’s the beauty of the free market; businesses cater to consumers’ desires. If consumers demand higher hourly wages, and back up demands with our spending, businesses will willingly oblige, all without government intervention.

Higher Education Funding

By Greg Harvey, Treasurer

Published in November 20, 2014 issue of The Voice

Let’s state the obvious: college isn’t cheap, and it’s getting more expensive. Total student debt in the United States is at record levels. Truly, something needs to be done. However, before we start offering free, government-paid tuition to all students, let’s review a few reasons for the costs and see if there are any less dramatic approaches we can take.

There are a number of reasons why student debt is exploding. The most major, of course, is rising tuition costs at universities. However, that doesn’t tell the whole story. According to the higher education think-tank Minding the Campus, there are more students than ever attending out-of-state colleges and paying more for their education than in-state students. In addition, as much as 40% of the increases have been from room and board. Collectively, these account for much of the student debt increase.

Right away, there is a simple, though unpopular, solution: more students can stay in-state and commute when possible. Commuting costs half that of living at an in-state institution and a third of living at an out-of-state one. Speaking as a senior who’s commuted my whole career, I can attest that, while commuting isn’t fun, the lower tuition makes up for it. This is a simple solution that requires no government intervention; instead, it depends on students making better choices.

Similarly, the subjects students choose can be just as important as where they attend. According to The Economist, much of college’s ROI depends on one’s major. Those who study technical fields like engineering do much better than those in the arts. It’s just the way it is. Therefore, another easy fix for students to lower bills is to compare the costs and benefits of particular majors before choosing.

Another major reason for increased tuition costs is, not surprisingly, governmental regulation. As Arthur Kirk, Jr., president of Saint Lao University, states, his college has hired a plethora of staff to meet regulatory requirements and spends thousands of hours annually completing federal compliance forms. If we made universities more public, these costs wouldn’t go away; instead, making higher education free would eliminate the incentives colleges have to manage costs.

Now I must address the points in last week’s article. First, forgiving all current student loans is infeasible. There’s over $1 trillion in such debt outstanding; simply writing it off would cause massive losses to the federal government and private lenders. While the idea sounds good, it would be catastrophic in reality.

 Finally, completely subsidizing higher education is impossible in the United States. Think of it this way: the Federal Government runs a massive deficit each year and states struggle to balance their budgets. Governments don’t have a lot of money available to pay for tuitions. Cutting other spending to make room in the budget sounds good, but other programs can’t make money like colleges do. Is it really fair to cut funding for roads or pensions to pay for higher education, when colleges can raise revenue?

Therefore, we’d have to raise taxes, likely on the rich. However, higher earners are more likely to be college graduates. Therefore, raising taxes would actually cause students to pay for their education over a lifetime instead of a defined period. If you run numbers, you’ll find that even small tax increases on the wealthy would cause them to pay vastly more than under a normal student loan. In other words, if we try to make college free, it’ll actually become more expensive for those who succeed.

In conclusion, student debt is a problem, but the solution isn’t massive government reform. Rather, we need to make better choices about the schools we attend and what we study. Will higher education ever be free? No, and it’s pointless to think so. But if each student worked harder at reducing their own college bills, we’d see immediate decreases in personal debt, and it’s the only guaranteed way we can achieve that.

Why You Should Vote for Corbett in Today's Election

By Jake Miller, President

Originally published in October 30, 2014 issue of The Voice.

As the midterm elections creep closer and closer, everyone is either taking a side or brushing it by the wayside.  We here at the College Republicans encourage activism on campus and in the community.  However, we would like to elaborate on some facts about Tom Corbett and his governorship that have been disputed or otherwise ignored.

Running against the incumbent Republican governor is York County native Tom Wolf.  Wolf has a very diverse background, working in the furniture industry, while also acquiring his PhD from MIT.  He took over as the Chief Revenue Officer (tax collector) under former governor Ed Rendell in 2006.  Rendell was a master at raising taxes, and leave it to Wolf to learn from the best.  According to multiple sources including the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wolf will only release his proposal on how he plans to raise the state income tax if he is elected next month.  What kind of strategy is that?  Also, according to the Commonwealth Foundation, Wolf plans to increase state education funding by $4.6 billion.  To do that however, the state income tax would have to be nearly tripled.

Another one of Corbett's strong points throughout his term as governor has been the job growth around the state of Pennsylvania.  most of that job growth is a product of fracking and breaking Marcellus Shale.  According to CBS Pittsburgh, since drilling took off in Pennsylvania five years ago, 45,000 new jobs have been created just in the gas industry alone.  One point that is often used against Corbett is that in 2011 after the recession, he dropped Pennsylvania from 7th to 49th in the category of job creation.  What people who use that claim are failing to realize is that Pennsylvania recovered form the recession faster and stronger than most states.  In 2010, before the recession, Pennsylvania had seen 83,500 jobs added.  From March 2010 on into March 2011, 09,300 jobs were added.  In March 2011 alone, PA ranked sixth with 55,200 new jobs.

Ultimately, one of Corbett's critics' age old arguments is his educational spending record.  The claims are endless that Corbett cut public education spending by very large amounts.  When Tom Corbett took office, he was faced with a $4 billion deficit.  And the $1 billion in federal funds that was spent on education had run out.  He has been able to erase the aforementioned deficit and increase spending in education without raising taxes.

During his time as governor, Tom Corbett has increased education spending by over $1 billion.  At this time the state of Pennsylvania, the administration is spending more on education than any other time in the state's history.  A total of $374 million has been invested in early childhood education.  Under Corbett, the growth has been $72 million or a 24% increase.

Moving on with Corbett's education policies, he has also assisted low-income families to get their kids to schools.  The Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit program provides $50 million that can be used for tuition for low-income families.

His administration also expanded the Teacher Evaluation System, giving teachers in Pennsylvania more room to grow, improve, and learn.  The School Performance Profile was created so parents can get an inside view of the quality of the school that their kids are attending.  Last but now least, the Ready to Learn block grant is $200 million that directly impacts Pennsylvania classrooms, making sure that each student is proficient in their grade level reading and math.

Finally, this is indeed a big election for the state of Pennsylvania.  Tom Corbett has done so much good for the state whether it is in keeping taxes down, creating jobs, or funding education.  Be sure to keep Pennsylvania on the right track and vote for Tom Corbett today.