Opinion

1 1402

As we come to the close of the semester and this final issue of The Arbiter, on behalf of the editorial staff, I would like to thank you for engaging with our content. 

It has been quite the year and as I step into the Editor-In-Chief position for next year, there are a few things I think are important to communicate to our readership.

When our Director of Student Media followed other opportunities and left the Arbiter in the fall, we were, in essence, adopted by the Student Involvement and Leadership Center. 

Now, instead of working as a distant entity in tandem with university organizations, Student Media is part of the SILC umbrella. 

As we move into the next school year, this new organization should help increase our efficiency and cement our student-led infrastructure.

In addition to these management changes, The Arbiter will now be switching to a once-a-week print run.  Instead of printing two issues each week on Monday and Thursday, we will be printing one issue a week on Tuesday. 

This will allow us to bolster and focus on our web content.  Even further we will be able to polish and better explore our print content, making each Tuesday issue something consistently worth picking up off the stands.

Overall, you can expect the same amount, if not more content from The Arbiter.  Arbiteronline.com will be constantly updated and maintained over the summer and will continue even stronger once classes resume in the fall. 

This stronger web presence will provide more multimedia content, including videos, polls, podcasts and more. 

As an organization, we are striving to inform the Boise State community in the best way possible.  We believe that these web-first processes will help accomplish this goal. 

In the end, we would like to create a news organization where information is always pertinent and immediately available. 

Organizing timely web posts and in-depth print pieces will help our content constantly become more and more professional.

Even further, offering strong multimedia packages with our consistent web content will help make our content more engaging and impactful.

Make sure to bookmark our website and watch for our first Tuesday issue, printing August 25.  As always, post any feedback you might have on our social media pages and on our website. 

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please submit your less than 500 word letter to editor@stumedia.boisestate.edu.

1 1969

According to a 2012 survey from the Pew Research Center, “nones” are on
the rise.

A third of adults under 30 are religiously unaffiliated. In the past five years, the unaffiliated increased just under 5 percent.

However, the survey showed that 68 percent of the 46 million unaffiliated  Americans believe in God. These numbers speak to the hypocrisy of religion.

Many times, spirituality and religion are seen as a couple—you can’t have one without the other. While they can intertwine and coexist in someone’s life, they can also be separate.

In the article “Spiritual issues in psychiatric care,” WK Mohr defines spirituality as “a person’s experience of, or a belief in, a power apart from his or her own existence.”

Religion, on the other hand is “an organized system of practices and beliefs in which people engage … a platform for the expression of spirituality.”

This difference in definitions points out one of the biggest flaws within religion.

Everyone’s spiritually is unique with a plethora of reasons and experiences as to why one does or doesn’t believe in a higher being(s). This is an individual journey between a person and a higher entity(s).

Religion is defined and controlled by man. It creates a universal platform, “an organized system of practices” that places each individual into a mold with little consideration of their spiritual needs.

As Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca said in Dan Brown’s novel “Angels and Demons,” “Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed.”

Because of this man-made system of spirituality, I believe in God, but I am not religious. My personal experiences have shown me the importance of putting spirituality in the center of my life, not religion.

When I lived in Arizona until age seven, my mom and I went to church nearly every Sunday. I participated in a youth group for many years and attended a private elementary school. I loved my church. The congregation was like a family, a group of people who cared about one another and supported each other through the good times and bad.

The congregation frequently went out into the community helping those in need, whether they were Christian or not. This taught me the importance of serving others even if they were different and showed me that there are congregations and churches who live the teachings of the faith.

However, when I moved to Idaho Falls, I saw a completely different side of religion.

There is a dominate religion in the region, one that is unafraid to exclude those who are not from that church. I lost countless friends in middle school and high school in the name of religion. It wasn’t an argument that ended the friendships; it was because I refused to convert.

In my last few years of high school, I became even more aware of the flaws within religion.

I’ve seen the cliques that form within a congregation. I’ve seen numerous church members act one way on Sunday and the opposite way for the rest of the week. I’ve seen groups, such as the LGBT community, persecuted and belittled in Sunday service. I’ve seen a pastor lose his job because of church politics despite the fact that he was a strong, spiritual man. I’ve seen the judgement, hierarchy and greed that can come from religion, and it is because religion is created and controlled by man.

In John 13:34-35, Jesus says, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you are also to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciple, if you have love for one another.”

Many congregations preach it, but they cannot seem to live by this philosophy.

With this, I have put my faith in spirituality and not hypocritical religion.

0 1830

Madison Hansen

English Major

Senior

I have to admit that in the past, most of the large-scale events on campus just haven’t been appealing to me. Even as a freshman who lived on campus—the exact kind of student who most of these events seem to be catered toward—the big concerts with well-known artists, Spring Fling among them, simply weren’t events I wanted to go to.

It concerned me that so much money was being devoted to something that only some students would enjoy, and I’m willing to bet that the majority of students share my concerns. But this year’s Spring Fling is something that I am actually excited to attend.

As a student programming assistant at the Student Involvement and Leadership Center who has been helping to plan Spring Fling this year, I know I might seem like a biased reviewer.

But just ask any of my friends and coworkers—if I don’t think something is working, including something that our office is doing, I’m not afraid to call it out. The reason I applied for this student job was because of my interest in making a difference on campus by providing the kinds of opportunities that meet the needs of the diverse student body at Boise State.

That means bringing programs that have a practical purpose while still being unique, that are cost-effective while still making a big impact and that reach the students who aren’t usually welcomed by mainstream university initiatives while still being engaging for everyone. I truly believe that our student staff has put in the hard work to make Spring Fling embody all of those values.

You might have heard by now that Spring Fling 2015 is going to be really different from past years, and that’s not just buzz. The biggest change is that instead of contracting a big-name artist, we’re bringing in a DJ who can play the music that YOU request.

In my opinion, that’s far more interesting, cost-effective and intentionally thoughtful than a traditional concert. Musicians who are popular enough to have mass appeal across campus are simply too expensive for us to continue to afford, and musicians who we can afford aren’t popular enough to satisfy a majority of BSU students.

It’s just not fair that so much money that comes from students is put toward one costly spectacle that only a small fraction of students will be excited about. And there are a lot of opportunities to see great concerts here in Boise, so we want Spring Fling to be more than just a concert.

On top of the interactive music and light show, expect to see new attractions like fair rides, aerial dancers and food trucks. Our goal is to make sure that there’s something for everyone, and that it’s impossible to be underwhelmed at the event.

I believe that this year’s Spring Fling is going to appeal to more students and make an important and bold move towards a more sustainable end of the school year event.

It’s very important to me that all programs, Spring Fling among them, are based on what students are asking for. Feedback from past years has been our main context for planning, and I hope that you attend Spring Fling 2015 not just to enjoy the event, but so you can provide feedback that will help us to continuously improve.

Students like you and me matter, and I think that this Spring Fling is a good start towards valuing the voices of students who aren’t always heard.

1 1671

Melissa Wintrow

Melissa Wintrow is a state representative for Idaho District 19. She also teaches at Boise State as an adjunct professor. Prior to her work as a legislator, Wintrow worked at Boise State as the assistant director for residence education.

Child support is essential for thousands of Idaho’s children.  Unfortunately, some parents refuse to pay child support. And the Idaho legislature is entrusted to protect children by ensuring that child support is paid by the responsible party.

However, House GOP members shirked their responsibility to Idaho’s children and parents by voting down SB1067, which updates the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UISFA), enacted by all states in the mid-1990s as a part of welfare reform.

Holding “deadbeat” parents accountable for child support payments was a major reason for welfare reform as it is a major cause of child poverty rates. My GOP colleagues have chosen to dismantle almost 20 years of programs and services designed to help eliminate poverty and hold people accountable for their actions.

In the waning hours of the last day of session, House GOP members voted down SB1067 for multiple reasons including irrational fears and their hatred of the federal government, but cloaked in “protecting” Idaho’s sovereignty. GOP legislators exploited political paranoia to advance their partisan values while ignoring 400,000 parents and children who rely on child support to buy groceries and keep their lights on.

Simply put, they claimed that Idaho’s state sovereignty was under threat because of this child support legislation. They claimed that the federal government is holding Idaho’s children hostage. Nothing could be further from the truth. Once again, my colleagues are putting their own ideology ahead of the needs of Idaho citizens, and they are holding all of us hostage to their narrow beliefs.

SB1067 is simple. It’s about collecting child support checks or garnishing wages from parents who refuse to support their kids. It is does not open a door to enforcing laws from other countries; it does not uphold Sharia law; it does not require us to support any law that goes against Idaho or U.S. law. It is merely a way to enforce child support orders in the most effective and
efficient way.

As a former Women’s Center director who worked with hundreds of single parents struggling to collect child support, this is one more example from this GOP dominated legislature that has used paranoia and fiction to damage Idaho’s families.

If we do not come into compliance within the next 60 days, our state will lose $46 million in federal funding and potentially 160 jobs. We, also, lose access to federal databases and tools to collect on all child support orders. And let’s be clear, those databases are essential in locating “deadbeat” parents and getting an accurate picture of a parent’s wages to assess financial responsibility.

By voting down SB1067, my GOP friends are putting the financial burden on Idaho taxpayers instead of the responsible parents. Currently, Idaho is the only state in the country to refuse to update UIFSA.

As our Lt. Governor noted in a recent interview, “This is a little bit of a problem.” While I appreciate the the Lt. Governor’s attempt to shield his GOP colleagues from this colossal error, his comment is the understatement of the session.

This outdated approach to state governance continues to isolate Idaho and inhibits our economic growth. A little more common sense, rational decision-making, inclusive policies and trust would go a long way to make our state more livable.

0 2189
Gabrielle Boliou
Benjamin Chafetz
Staff Writers

Discussing key ideas such as morality and versus legality and other touchy subjects is the object of this column. The ideas discussed within belong to the authors alone and do not represent the viewpoint of The Arbiter.

White men should no longer have to atone for the racism and sexism attributed to their ancestors.

If you claim to be against racism and sexism, and then insist that white men should be punished because of historical crimes committed you are fostering the racism and sexism you claim to oppose.

Arbiter: What systems of privilege do you think exist in society today? “I don’t think that they’ve changed very much. The wealthy are with the wealthy, the middle class is waning and there’s a huge class of poor. If you want to better yourself, you have to work three times as hard to change the class that you sit in.”
Arbiter: What systems of privilege do you think exist in society today?
I don’t think that they’ve changed very much. The wealthy are with the wealthy, the middle class is waning and there’s a huge class of poor. If you want to better yourself, you have to work three times as hard to change the class that you sit in.” -Heather Gentry, sophomore geoscience major

“White male privilege” constitutes that a white man has more opportunities compared to women or men of a different race.

A couple weeks ago, we engaged in a discussion on controversial topics with the hope of encouraging critical thinking. The topic that day was initially focused on women’s rights but expanded to cover the whole of sexism and racism.

One participant, whom we’ll call Jen, insisted that she is a passionate defender of human rights, ardently anti-sexism, and ardently anti-racism. She understands the nearly insurmountable nature of such a goal and explained that, for now, she will settle for creating awareness.

Arbiter: What systems of privilege do you think exist in society today? “The one that’s most applicable to me would be white privilege. Just being able to turn on the TV and have your race represented in almost every area you look and (in) positions of leadership.” -Tarl Smith, senior criminal justice major
Arbiter: What systems of privilege do you think exist in society today?
“The one that’s most applicable to me would be white privilege. Just being able to turn on the TV and have your race represented in almost every area you look and (in) positions of leadership.” -Tarl Smith, senior criminal justice major

Later, she said what she really wants is for white men to atone for their ancestors’ guilt. Essentially speaking to the issue of “white male privilege.”

No one’s denying that white men have done some awful things in the past. But without going into the historical fallacy of laying all of humanity’s crimes on one subset, can we talk about the sheer hypocrisy of claiming to fight against racism and sexism in one breath, and then making such a racist and sexist statement?

“White male privilege” is a phrase thrown around carelessly. But is that raising

Arbiter:  What systems of privilege do you think exist in society today? “It’s definitely there. I just don’t think that people see it still. They think, ‘We’re so far past this idea of white privilege,’ and we’re not. It’s still there. I just don’t think people see it unless you mention it to them.” -Olivia Miller, senior communication major
Arbiter: What systems of privilege do you think exist in society today?
“It’s definitely there. I just don’t think that people see it still. They think, ‘We’re so far past this idea of white privilege,’ and we’re not. It’s still there. I just don’t think people see it unless you mention it to them.” -Olivia Miller, senior communication major

awareness or fostering hate? We say the latter. To that effect: are we a society that believes racism can only occur against blacks, Native-Americans, etc.? Some people say if a subset of the human race is the majority, and in power, it is therefore not racist to persecute that subset.

That is asinine!

Racism is making a judgement call based solely on a person’s descent or color of skin. If a statement based on skin color made against any other race is racism, but a statement based on skin color made against a white person is not, the arbitrary line is in fact the definition of racism.

John McWhorter is a professor at Columbia University and a contributing editor at

Arbiter: What systems of privilege do you think exist in society today? “Men earn more money than women on average in the same jobs ... African Americans are jailed longer for the same crimes. It’s mostly been a male-dominated society since the beginning. There are very few societies around the world dominated by women but not very many.” -Ricardo Nunez, junior criminal justice major
Arbiter: What systems of privilege do you think exist in society today?
“Men earn more money than women on average in the same jobs … African Americans are jailed longer for the same crimes. It’s mostly been a male-dominated society since the beginning. There are very few societies around the world dominated by women but not very many.” -Ricardo Nunez, junior criminal justice major

The New Republic. He wrote in “The Daily Beast” that the “white privilege paradigm seems to be more about feelings than action.” The louder you yell that white men are evil, the more you widen the gap between whites and every other color of skin.

Pitting one race, one sex against another further perpetuates the dissension of humanity. Society should seek to eradicate this notion.

This column is part two of a two-part series exploring society’s responses to uncontrollable circumstance. View last week’s column here

0 2069
Benjamin Chafetz
Gabrielle Boliou
Staff Writers

Discussing key ideas such as morality versus legality and other touchy subjects is the object of this column. The ideas discussed within belong to the authors alone and do not represent the viewpoint of The Arbiter.

In the movie “Rocky,” Rocky Balboa said, “You, me or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain’t about how hard you hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward; how much you can take and keep moving forward. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain’t where you wanna be because of him, or her or anybody. Cowards do that and that ain’t you.”

We’re talking about two opposing mindsets. The first mindset encompasses the fact that you, and you alone, are responsible for both your successes and your failures. Life hits you hard, people hit you hard, but at the end of the day, you’re the one who pulls yourself back up and keeps moving.

The other mindset is that there are more variables at play, that you are justified in pointing fingers when you aren’t where you want to be.

Your success in life should not be dictated by the struggles themselves, but how you handle them. Experiencing adversity does not entitle you to charity.

The interesting thing is when you read or hear stories you root for the underdog, the person against whom all the odds are stacked. But he or she fights back anyway.

When you tell someone to take ownership of their life experiences, it sounds heartless. But what about the flip side?

What about telling them that it’s always someone else’s fault, that you, the victim, only have partial responsibility for fighting back? Many adopt this mindset because they think they have a safety net of financial and human
resources.

Some people say, “This group of people needs help because they cannot overcome an obstacle on their own.” But how would you feel if someone told you that you were unable to do something as a result of your race, sexual orientation or gender?

What if someone told you that no matter how hard you fought you would always have to rely on someone else to give you a leg up?

We are not saying that everything is your fault—life does hit you hard, and so do other people. We’re not saying that sympathy is undeserved. We’re simply saying that you have the choice to get back up.

If you make the choice to get back up, that is where the merit is deserved.

This column is part one of a two-part series exploring society’s responses to uncontrollable circumstance (race, gender and sexual orientation). Next week’s column will critique who deserves privilege and the consequences of having that privilege.

0 2281
Ryan Blacketter
Former Boise State English professor 06

The trouble started after I uploaded “My Dad, the Pornographer” onto Blackboard for the advanced fiction workshop I was teaching at Boise State. The essay had just been published in The New York Times. I was moved by the honesty of the piece—the intense riskiness of its theme—and hoped to find room for it in my class schedule. I told my students we’d discuss it midterm. Soon students began complaining to me and to the department about the essay. A senior faculty member suggested I avoid teaching it altogether.

Five weeks into the term, my classroom went to pieces. Students were upset, and I asked what was going on. A few said my instruction was too harsh. One young woman left the room crying. Another said she didn’t want to read that essay on Blackboard.

After this class meeting, I emailed students that we were discussing “My Dad, the Pornographer” the next class. Two days later, dean Tony Roark emailed me, telling me to meet with him and an HR representative in his office, scheduled the morning before I was going to teach the offending essay. He assured me that my firing had nothing to do with the essay.

I hesitate to say that university administrators are liars. Instead, they function more as guardians of information. They serve the organization, protecting its members and its brand. Every university has a vault of secrets. The vault is full of university intentions and motivations. The public gets a different story.

Oregon State University, for instance, effectively shut down a conservative newspaper by dumping its dispenser bins in a field. Since the university couldn’t admit censorship, they put that motive in the vault.

Publicly, they said the bin removal was a “campus beautification project.”

Similarly, English department chair, Michelle Payne, said my firing was “serious,” but claimed legal reasons prevented her from discussing it. Payne makes harmful insinuations, while claiming to be restrained by a gag order. Her statement amounts to the sort of falseness and hiding that we have sadly come to expect from university officials.

The fact is, Boise State has a troubling history of censorship. In February 2008, after The Arbiter published an article questioning dorm safety, copies were removed from several dorms. Resident advisors cited a gag order called “contractual obligations,” and could not talk to journalists. In August 2008, Boise State ordered the removal of 15,000 condom coupons from coupon books destined for student eyes. In August 2005, Boise State censored fliers that promoted university films and lectures by covering them with stickers to be “less offensive.”

In March 2015, Boise State fired an “at will” creative writing adjunct and gave him a lifetime ban for planning to teach the controversial essay “My Dad, the Pornographer.”

My father, BSU graduate Jon Blacketter, who was a corrections counselor at the Old Penitentiary, would not have been proud of his alma mater’s many acts of censorship. A native Idahoan, he was independent, intelligent and suspicious of giant corporations. He would’ve said that the recent campus guest lectures promoting free speech make for a pretty decoration but that few would be fooled.

In short, the chair’s assertion that my firing had nothing to do with “My Dad, the Pornographer”—at a university whose administrators censored condom coupons for adults, for crying out loud—is unconvincing.

Reed College’s rabble-rouser Jeremiah True has demonstrated that students do not have the right to act in an aggressive manner that disrupts the free exchange of ideas. Students and faculty, right and left, have limits to their speech and behavior. It’s time we hold university officials similarly
accountable.

1 1839

Just yesterday, the band Black Pussy, a self-proclaimed stoner pop group, performed at the Neurolux.  Their name alone has signaled outrage from Portland-centered groups, and over and a petition for the band to change their name is circulating.

This same consciousness has yet to take hold on a large scale in Boise.

Do we want a band as such to be normal and conventional within the Boise area?  Probably not.  Generally, socially conscious people will simply choose not to attend such a pointedly racist and sexist show.  It is important to express disdain for allowing such a thing to be normal, accepted and perpetuated within our immediate societal constructs.

The recent court decision circling Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” is bringing a resurgence in popularity to the 2013 hit. 

Despite the negative ruling against the song and its infringement upon Marvin Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up,” Thicke’s tune is, once again, blaring on radio stations.

“Blurred Lines” is an upbeat tune about sexual force and domestication, employing what some bloggers have referred to as “rapey” lyrics—three things that most individuals would not encourage. Yet, the video is supported with over 370 million views on YouTube.

In the past two years, there has been plenty of media coverage calling Thicke and Williams out for the oppressive and grotesque nature of their song.  Listeners know what the song alludes to—despite protests from Thicke—but they choose to continually allow it to shape attitudes around them.  This makes the ordeal that much more daunting.

In 2013, the University College London student union banned the song, joining 20 other U.K. student unions.

“Has anyone heard Robin Thicke’s new rape song?” feminist blogger Lisa Huynh wrote in April 2013.

It’s pretty clear the “Blurred Lines” is not based in the deepest of social conscience.  But, the fact that we, as a society, are ignoring the implications presented within this song and others is horrifying.

Music should not be censored in any vein, and artists have the right to create whatever they would like.  It is our right to determine whether we support their messages.

Progress comes from questioning and critiquing.  This can’t happen if we are happy to dance along to the sweet melody of objectification.  Sitting back and ignoring the fact that a song is promoting something starkly discomforting is just as detrimental as the song itself.

We need to choose to fight against what is “okay” in media.  There will always be systems of thought that are worrying.  Even so, ignoring a song’s lyrics and posting it on Facebook because it’s “so catchy” simply promotes passive acceptance—a mindset with the same implications as one directly oppressive.

Voicing the fact that something is discomforting or wrong and working to explain why such a system, promoted and cemented by media, is harmful is integral to progress.

It all boils down to a simple solution. Don’t let oppressive thought processes shape society while you change the channel.  Question them and signal forward action.

0 1829

A close vote of 39-30 to approve Senate Bill 1146aa, or Alexis’ Law, to Gov. Otter shows that Idaho is slowly moving towards legalizing marajuana-based forms of medicine.

The bill allows a parent, grandparent or guardian to consult a child’s physician  about using non-psychotropic cannabis oil to treat epilepsy or other severe seizure disorders.

Unsurprisingly, the bill has been met with strong opposition.

“This is not hemp oil you can buy at the Co-op. This is marijuana, a Schedule One drug, and Idaho will be violating federal law if this passes,” Elisha Figueroa, director of the Idaho Office of Drug Policy, said to lawmakers on March 30.

Currently 20 states and Washington D.C. have legalized medical marijuana, and Idaho has a great opportunity to have a progressive stance on the matter.

Cannabis oil contains extracted cannabinoids, chemicals related to THC in cannabis plants. While some cannabinoids are toxic, two that researchers are focusing on, THC and CBD, are proving to have many medical benefits.

These two cannabinoids would be revolutionary for medicine. While it is nearly impossible to calculate a dose for smoked marijuana, smokeless cannabis is a viable form of medicine because it is measurable.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, THC can decrease nausea and increase appetite, which are major side effects in certain illnesses, diseases and medical treatments. The FDA has already approved some THC-based medications to treat these symptoms.

CBD, a cannabinoid that does not alter mind or behavior, may be useful in treating pain, inflammation and mental illnesses and controlling epileptic seizures.

In the 2014 Wall Street Journal article “New York Does Medical Marijuana Right,” Steven R. Patierno, Deputy Director of the Duke Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, discussed his support for cannabis.

“(T)he introduction of smokeless cannabis in dosage form will immediately ease human pain and suffering and help to move medical marijuana from the underground economy to the mainstream of the nation’s health-care system,” Patierno said.

3 1875
Gabrielle Boliou
Benjamin Chafetz
Staff Writers

Discussing key ideas such as morality versus legality and other touchy subjects is the object of this column.

In a recent discussion with an instructor, we were asked, “Wouldn’t you rather live in an educated society?”

Our response is, “Of course, but at what cost?”

An educated society is a very nice thing to say in practice but this is certainly more complicated than it first appears.

If any of you heard President Obama’s address at Boise State, you are familiar with the concept of America’s College Promise. This will make the first two years of college, according to the White House, “as free and universal as high school.”

After inspection, the program is far from free. Is $60 billion over the course of just 10 years free? Where does this money come from? Taxes. Nothing in life is free. This was proven just this week by Boise State canceling SHIP. 

According to Tara Brooks, SHIP was cancelled for lack of funds and not enough students enrollment in the program.

How interesting that so-called affordable healthcare was no where near affordable.

“In any kind of economic transaction, it seldom makes sense to charge prices so high that very few people can afford to pay them,” said Thomas Sowell, a well-known economist. “But, with the government ready to step in and help whenever tuition is ‘unaffordable,’ why not charge more than the traffic will bear and bring in Uncle Sam to make up the difference?”

Additionally, targeting community college as a solution is simply ineffective. According to the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment, U.S. high school teenagers “slipped from 25th to 31st in math since 2009; from 20th to 24th in science; and from 11th to 21st in reading.”

This shows the problems with our education system, primarily at the high school level or lower. Using taxpayer dollars to address a symptom of the problem rather than the root of the problem is irresponsible.

Your money belongs to you—not to the federal government. Who do you trust more with your money: an entity that is $18 trillion in debt or yourself?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul actually hurts both Peter and Paul by driving up prices for everyone. The harsh fact is not everyone deserves to go to college. What is wrong with a system that rewards merit? How is it moral to mandate taxpayer money to support government programs with which citizens themselves may disagree?

With proposals like the American College Promise, President Obama is basically saying, “Nevermind our constitution. Trust me to use your money to educate your children how I see fit!”

More importantly, why is the federal government so audaciously stepping beyond its clearly prescribed boundaries?

Is there a solution? See our next article for a discussion on a possible solution.