Example Evaluation

The following are examples of very good critical thinking evaluations done by five prior students. These evaluations received grades of A.

Ana I. Eiras’ main point in “The Poverty of Nations: International Monetary Fund Socialism Run Amok” is that the socialistic practices of the International Monetary Fund have been ineffective in combating the problem of poverty in the world, and that they have often perpetuated the problem.

The author argues that overcoming poverty can not be done through economic aid, but rather through economic freedom. She points out the strong correlation between economic freedom and per capita income. Eiras also argues that the aid given to impoverished nations facilitates repressed economies and weak judicial systems.

Ana I. Eiras argues that economic aid given to poor and underdeveloped countries is not a solution to, but actually a part of the problem of poverty. While not explicitly stated, the implicit argument is the notion that a conversion to capitalism is the antidote for poverty. For this to be true, I believe that there must first be evidence of a strongly adverse relationship between capitalism and poverty. One of the inherent problems with trying to evaluate this is that there are no perfect measures of either concept. Should the degree to which a country is considered capitalistic be determined by the proportion of government spending? Perhaps the level of government regulation of business or taxation is a better measure. For the purposes of this paper, I will use the “Economic Freedom Index” provided by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal. In terms of measuring poverty, this is even more complicated. The proportion of the population living under the poverty line is one measure, but that is both a subjective concept and one that requires very precise data. Should, for example, people be considered to be living in poverty if they can afford sustenance level food and shelter, but no books? The GINI index is another method, but it is not, in and of itself, descriptive enough. A perfect GINI index score would be attained if all citizens had $10, but that would not exactly be an example of a prosperous nation. The GDP per capita is a good measure, but it is far from perfect in that it ignores existing stocks of capital, unreported transactions and items resold. It is also only an estimate and the data is probably not as accurate in underdeveloped countries. I will use the GDP per capita to evaluate this claim, but I fully acknowledge that it is a flawed metric. Eiras writes, “In almost every case, countries at the top of the scale [of the Economic Freedom Index…] are far wealthier than [the ones at the bottom…], indicating a strong correlation between economic freedom and per capita income” (np). I have compared the relationship between the GDP per capita, as reported by the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Economic Freedom Index, as measured by the Heritage Foundation, for the 156 nations that were ranked in both reports. The correlation score is somewhat strong at a negative .70. So, it is fair to say that a nation is likely to be wealthier as it is freer, but it is also far from certain. Armenia has one of the lowest EFI scores (meaning a free nation), but is poorer than controlled countries like Turkmenistan and Venezuela (“2006 Index”).

Even with the demonstration of a correlation, the nature of causality still must be determined. Is it that free nations become wealthier, or that wealthier nations become freer? To imply that economic freedom is the only solution to poverty ignores examples like France and Italy, which are wealthy despite relatively socialistic governments (“CIA rank order”). However, I think that the general point of the author is valid here. Equatorial Guinea is the extreme outlier in the comparison as it is one of the most restrictive nations, but also the second wealthiest according to the CIA as a result of its oil reserves (“CIA - Equatorial Guinea”). This nation is an example of how a country can be in general economic disarray despite impressive GDP per capita figures and vast natural resources. It has an extremely corrupt government, a high unemployment rate and widely prevalent human rights violations (“Country profile: Equatorial Guinea”). The economic failures of Equatorial Guinea lend credence to Eiras’ assertion that freedom, honest governments and strong courts are essential to true prosperity.

However, I believe that Eiras neglects to address the role of unemployment in her argument that economic aid provided by the International Monetary Fund is perpetuating poverty. Her measure of choice is GDP per capita, but it is clear that this is not the sole or even primary determinant of the prevalence of poverty. For example, according to the “2005 UN Economic Report on Africa,” nations in Africa are actually progressing economically, but not in terms of eradicating poverty. The report suggests that giving aid is not the problem, but that pressuring nations to enact ineffective forms of government is what is actually facilitating the stagnant poverty rates. The point of the article is that combating unemployment is the key to combating poverty (Dean). What remains unclear to me is how this will be addressed if the aid is eliminated. Even if the theory that the free market is the best economic solution is to be accepted, I find it fair to claim that even the most ardent proponent of capitalism would admit that it would take an extremely long time for the level of development needed to eradicate the abject poverty discussed here. I would also argue that the aid would still be needed in order to implement system where the private sector drives the economy. This is because privatization does not always come about spontaneously. In “World Bank Involvement in Economic Reform: ‘A Warning Flag’?,” it is noted that “[Out] of the 190 countries that have attempted to privatize their electricity industries, for instance, only 2 percent have fully succeeded” (Chafe). It is difficult to privatize industries in bankrupt nations. The obvious problem that precludes investment is that the citizens within those countries do not have the wealth to provide much demand for new goods and services. For countries with poor education standards, insufficient existing capital and a lack of valuable natural resources, it seems incredibly unlikely for entrepreneurship alone to create the sort of wealth needed to sustain life in the short term.

I would therefore argue that economic aid is still needed as a part of the solution. Eiras seems to agree to an extent, but cites sources who demand that “the World Bank and the IMF change their lending practices so they send funds only after reforms have been made.” The premise of this may seem fair and logical in principle, but it often fails in practice. According to a study by economists from the Universities of Pennsylvania, Western Ontario, and California at Berkeley, “in countries where the World Bank andIMF exerted above-average pressure for economic reforms, private investors were 63 percent more likely to face government interference on projects — a sign that privatization efforts may fail — than in countries with less pressure” (Chafe). So, while Eiras asks for reform of corrupt governments before aid is given, it has become clear that these mandates for reform only lead to more regulation and bureaucracy, thus defeating the entire purpose of implementing capitalism. I believe that this makes some intuitive sense. If the IMF is to demand that countries change the way that they govern themselves, they are themselves engaging in the same sort of dictatorial behavior that they are trying to denounce. Would these governments not be acting in a self-interested manner by engaging in various forms of chicanery in order to circumvent the spirit of the rules set forth by the IMF?

In this respect, this may support another of the author’s assertions. One of the boldest points made that was that economic aid perpetuates the problems mentioned. I did not find any significant evidence, other than random examples, to substantiate this claim. However, even if we accept that point without argument, I still consider it to be overstated. For example, Eiras notes that while Bangladesh received the third most foreign aid of any nation since 1961, it is the world’s third poorest nation. She attributes this to a corrupt government that has led to a 4.7 percent suppression of that nation’s gross domestic product (Eiras). This seems absurd. The ranking is seemingly inaccurate or outdated, as Bangladesh is now ahead of 57 other nations in GDP per capita, according to the CIA. But, more significantly, the estimated GDP per capita for Bangladesh in 2005 was $2,100 (“CIA Rank Order”). Adding 4.7 percent to that figure would increase it to only $2198.70. That adjustment would not even move Bangladesh ahead of a single country in the world rankings. While I do not mean to assert that a 4.7 percent change in GDP per capita is wholly infinitesimal, I do find it to be insignificant enough so as not to support a claim that corruption is the reason for their level of poverty. It is merely one problem among many.

The failure to recognize that concept is my greatest problem with Eiras’ article. She writes, “It’s simple: When governments establish strong courts, strong property rights and strong rule of law, when they lower or eliminate tariffs, make it easy to open businesses, privatize state-owned enterprises and reduce barriers to foreign ownership, incomes rise and economies flourish.” What I disagree with most is the two words, “it’s simple.” I find this to not be simple at all. The issue of eliminating poverty or even alleviating its effects is quite complex. It requires helping uneducated or undereducated people to produce enough to sustain healthful lives. It requires the cultivation of new industries in markets that often lack the wealth to support them. Further, it requires attracting foreign investment in an increasingly competitive global market. To think that all of this will happen naturally by simply implementing capitalistic governments seems like much more of a leap of faith than anything denounced by Eiras.

· How good of a measure is the Economic Freedom Index? What does it overlook or fail to emphasize? What does it overemphasize?

· What can the IMF do to ensure government reform without causing massive increases in regulation?

· How can the strength of courts be measured and what is the correlation between that and prosperity?

· What is the true causal relationship between economic freedom and prosperity? Which leads to the other?

“Between Hype and Hope.” The Economist. 376.8435 (2005): 74. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO Host. 2 Mar. 2006 <http://search.epnet.com/login. Aspx? direct=true&db=aph&an=17641608>.

Chafe, Zoë. “World Bank Involvement in Economic Reform: ‘A Warning Flag’?” World

Watch. 18.6 (2005): 9. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO Host. 2 Mar. 2006 <http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=18682722>.

2006. Central Intelligence Agency. 24 Feb. 2006 <http://www.cia.gov/cia/ publications/factbook/geos/bg.html>.

2006. Central Intelligence Agency. 24 Feb. 2006 <http://www.cia.gov/cia/ publications/factbook/geos/ek.html>.

“CIA - The World Factbook -- Rank Order - GDP - per capita.” The World Factbook. 10 Jan 2006. Central Intelligence Agency. 24 Feb 2006 <http://www.cia.gov/cia /publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html>.

“Country profile: Equatorial Guinea.” BBC News. 7 Feb. 2006. 26 Feb. 2006 < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1023151.stm>.

Dean, Thalif. “Widespread Unemployment Hobbles Development.” InterPress Service. 19 Dec. 2005. Global Newsbank. Newsbank. 26 Feb. 2006 <http://www.linccweb.org

Eiras, Ana. “The Poverty of Nations: International Monetary Fund Socialism Run Amok.” Capitalism Magazine. 22 Sep. 2003. 22 Feb. 2005. <http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=3112>.

“2006 Index of Economic Freedom.” The Heritage Foundation. 2006. 24 Feb. 2006 <http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm>.

Death trumps choice The San Francisco Chronicle JANUARY 6, 2005, by DEBRA J. SAUNDERS

WHAT IF you knew that legalizing assisted suicide meant that sick and disabled people, who don't ask to die, nonetheless would be killed? That's the central question that Sacramento lawmakers will have to address as they consider a bill to legalize assisted suicide to be introduced by Assembly member Patty Berg, D-Eureka.

Simple fact: After The Netherlands essentially decriminalized the practice of assisted suicide and euthanasia, a government report conducted by Jan Remmelink found that 1,000 patients were killed without requesting to die in 1990, and 900 in 1995. More recently, the British medical journal, The Lancet, estimated that in 2001, among some 140,000 Dutch deaths, doctors euthanized some 3,000 patients, assisted in the suicide of about 140 patients -- but ended "life without patient's explicit request" for some 840 patients.

That's progress, I guess -- only 840 killed without asking for it. Why the change? "In 2001," The Lancet wrote, "physicians more frequently reported having become more restrictive about euthanasia and less frequently permissive." In 1997, The Lancet found that 8 percent of infant deaths in the Netherlands were physician induced.

Professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor of the University of Haifa wrote a paper for Issues in Law & Medicine in 2003, based on his interviews with Dutch doctors about the Remmelink data. He concluded, "Most of the interviewed Dutch authorities in the field of medical ethics are quite complacent about involuntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia, recruiting an array of justifications to show that there is no real cause for alarm even when patients' lives are terminated without their consent."

A noncomplacent doctor, Frank Koerselman, told Cohen-Almagor about an 85-year-old patient with pneumonia and depression. The man's family didn't want Dutch doctors to treat him. The patient's doctor was ready to take the easy way out. Koerselman said that he had to order security guards to remove the family so that he could question the patient in private. Then the patient opted for treatment, got it and was discharged from the hospital in very good condition, physically and mentally.

If he had not intervened as he did, Koerselman told Cohen-Almagor, the man would have died, and everyone would "say that I acted humanely and (I) would receive a nice bottle of wine from the family who physically wanted to prevent me from treating him."Similar stories from Oregon, however, are anecdotal only. It should be noted that Oregon practices haven't been studied as the Dutch system has, and Oregon prohibits euthanasia.

Another difference: The Dutch medical system isn't plagued by the pressure to produce a profit. Pressures to cut costs are enormous in America, as politicians promise cheaper health care to assuage workers angry that their wage packages are eaten up by soaring medical costs.

People, who mean well, say, "Why not let people choose death to save society a little money?" The answer: Already some patients can't get the care they want -- even the care they paid for -- because of the bottom line. Already some suffer because some health-care administrator has decided their quality of life is so deficient they might as well die.

Let me be clear. Patients have a right to refuse care. They can say no to therapies, drugs, feeding tubes and being hooked up to life-extending machines. They should have the pain medication they need, even if it eventually kills them.

But assisted suicide changes the role of doctor from healers and protector of the sick and the disabled. Here is a noble profession that shields people who can't walk and live without assistance. Here is a calling dedicated to caring for people who are vulnerable, who may waste away, with all those messy smells and cosmetic changes that disease can bring. Still, the sick and disabled should know they will find comfort and relief from their doctors, not wrinkled noses and sneers.

Yet self-styled do-gooders want to turn these healers into professionals who kill the sick and disabled, because incontinence is undignified or because death is imminent anyway. But it's OK, people who call themselves compassionate argue, because they're doing it for the patient's own good.

Is it any wonder that some Dutch doctors took the role further and chose to kill the disabled for their own good, whether they asked to die or not? This is where the whole argument that assisted suicide is about choice evaporates. If assisted suicide offers choice for those who want it, but not for those who do not, then proposed legislation is not about promoting choice, but about promoting death.

Krystal Cortez

December 3, 2005

Section A.

The major point is that legalizing assisted suicide offers choice for those who want it, but not for those who don’t and that legalizing assisted suicide would be about promoting death, not choice.

Section B.

The logic behind the major point is that doctors (in particular Dutch) began to kill disabled or sick patients even when they didn’t ask to die. The argument is that if assisted suicide is legalized in the U.S., there can be incidents where patients who don’t want to die will be killed because it may be viewed as the “humane” thing to do by the doctor.

Section C.

The author assumes:

Assisted suicide should not be legalized in the United States.
Patients who don’t wish to die are being killed by euthanasia by doctors in the Netherlands.
Legalizing assisted suicide in the United States could mean that sick and disabled people, who don’t ask to die, will be killed nonetheless.
That the amount of euthanasia deaths will be higher in the United States than those of the Netherlands because of pressures to produce a profit and to cut medical costs.
Assisted suicide makes doctors into executioners, not protectors of the sick and disabled.
Assisted suicide does not offer choice to those (sick/disabled) people who do not wish to die.
Assisted suicide does not promote choice, but death.
Doctors should not have the ability to decide if a patient should live or die.

Section D.

The author assumes that assisted suicide and euthanasia should not be legalized in the United States. First, I think it’s important to define the difference between these two options people have to a premature death. Assisted suicide is usually defined as “the act of a doctor providing a patient with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient then uses to commit suicide. Euthanasia describes the doctor personally administering the medication to the patient” (“Assisted”). Both euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide ultimately kill an ailing patient to avoid a prolonged and painful death. However, euthanasia isn’t necessarily characterized as “suicide.” Nonetheless, it seems to me that the author is more against assisted suicide than euthanasia. If anything, I feel the opposite. With assisted suicide, a patient determines whether or not and when they want to end their own life. In the case of euthanasia, the doctor is the one that brings about the death of a patient. In my opinion, there seems to be more protection for a patient with assisted suicide because it is the patient who decides when to actually die.

I understand that the author is against legalizing doctor-assisted suicide, not depriving people of the choice to refuse treatment or take potentially fatal pain killers. Most opponents of assisted suicide state that proper pain control and hospice care can eliminate the need for assisted suicide; supporters say that suicide must remain an option for those whose pain cannot be controlled (“Inadequate”). I think this is a moral and ethical issue above all else. I don’t think that the government should have the right to tell people that they can’t die the way they wish to. In the case of the terminally ill, assisted suicide or euthanasia may be the only other option to living a limited life in pain for a number of years.

The author also assumes that patients in the Netherlands are being killed by euthanasia even when they don’t ask for it. I agree with this assumption to a certain extent. My reasoning is based on a report from the Dutch government in October 2005 that stated it would legalize euthanasia for newborn babies who are terminally ill or suffering from extreme pain (“Assisted”). The parents of the baby would have to give consent and the child would be killed. Again, the issue of whether or not the government or a relative has the right to determine if a patient should live or die arises. My opinion on this isn’t one way or the other. I think that each case is different and would have to be treated as such.

An example of a case where the family of a patient had to decide to refuse treatment was Cruzan v. Missouri (“Update”). Nancy Cruzan was in a coma after a car accident and was not expected to recover. Her parents wanted doctors to remove the feeding tube that kept her alive since Nancy wouldn’t have wanted to continue living in that state. The court ruled, however, that states could compel doctors to continue treatment unless there was “clear and convincing evidence” that the patient did not want it (“Cruzan”). Later that year, friends of Cruzan gave testimony that she wouldn’t have wanted to continue living in her current state. The court ruled at the end of 1990 that there was enough evidence to prove that Cruzan would have wanted her feeding tube removed. It was and Cruzan later died (Hoefler). Although this case isn’t exactly the same as assisted suicide it sets the standard for what is acceptable and what is not when dealing with patients that don’t wish to continue living a limited life. I feel that the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reaffirms my belief that each case of this nature is unique and the various elements involved must be considered before making a decision on what should be done.

The author assumes that the amount of assisted suicide deaths will be higher in the United States than those of the Netherlands because of pressures to produce a profit and to cut medical costs. Initially, I agreed with the author on this issue. I believed that the financial aspect and benefit of having to care for one less patient would encourage doctors to recommend or support assisted suicide to their patients. However, according to my research, of the 30,000 deaths in Oregon during 2003, 42 were assisted suicide cases or 0.14% of the total (Knox). This number seems relatively low to me considering the extremely large number of assisted-suicide deaths in the Netherlands. In my opinion, terminally ill people aren’t flocking to Oregon in order to have a doctor-assisted suicide. Similarly, it seems like doctors in Oregon aren’t trying to use assisted-suicide as a way to lower costs. Therefore, I question this assumption of the author, but I do realize that if assisted suicide became legal nationally, statistics and pressures would change.

I also think it’s important to note that while the author makes a great deal of reference to the Netherlands, she never goes on to mention that Dutch law allows voluntaryeuthanasia as well as assisted suicide and is not limited to adults or the terminally ill (“Art”). I think that this information is extremely important to know because of its implications. For example, 2.4% of yearly Dutch deaths are from euthanasia and assisted suicide accounts for 0.3 % of the annual total (Martindale). In contrast, Oregon only permits assisted suicide and the patient must meet certain criteria before being taken into consideration. The patient has to be adult, mentally competent, “terminally ill” (having a life expectancy of six months or less) and have two written requests for assistance, separated by a 15-day interval (“Growing”). In my opinion, these requirements are necessary in order to prevent an abuse of assisted suicide and I think it seems to be working.

It is also assumed by the author that assisted suicide does not promote choice but death instead. Although this assumption seems to be like an overgeneralization, I agree with certain aspects of it. In my opinion, legalizing assisted suicide may take the focus away from trying to find cures to diseases. The reasoning could become, “If there aren’t any sick people, why find a cure?” I also believe that many patients and family members might look at assisted suicide as an “easy way out” without fully understanding or coming to terms with the emotional concerns involved.

Another worry I have about assisted suicide and its legalization developed after reading about a Canadian study that took place in 1990. Russel Ogden studied the practice of underground assisted suicide in Vancouver over the course of 4 years. The results are quite disturbing: of the 34 euthanasia cases studied, half failed and ultimately resulted in increased suffering (Martindale). There was one case in which the person who assisted in the suicide had to resort to shooting the patient; another person ended up slitting the wrists of the patient with a razor blade (Martindale). Although these cases may be extreme, it demonstrates the desperation that terminally ill people suffer during their final moments of their lives. If assisted suicide was legalized, people wouldn’t have to live through a horrendous ending to an already painful life.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that citizens don’t have a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, but left the door open for states to embrace or reject the practice (Ferguson). I think that people should have an option available to them. Not everyone is willing to live the last few months of their life in pain or as what they may think of as a burden to their families. With this ruling, states and voters have the option to determine if assisted-suicide should be made available to them in their own state. After researching this issue and analyzing aspects of it, I don’t think I have an ‘either or’ opinion of assisted suicide. I believe that each case is unique and that legalizing assisted suicide can involve many grey areas, but I also think that people should also have the ability to choose for themselves the way to live or die.

Section E:

In cases of euthanasia of newborn babies (in the Netherlands), have there ever been times when a child was killed when it might have had the opportunity to survive its illness?
Have people moved to Oregon in order to seek out doctor-assisted suicide?
Is there any information on how many illegal assisted suicides or euthanasia cases take place in the United States each year?
Do most doctors support the idea and are willing to administer euthanasia and assist in patient suicides?
Is there information on how much more inexpensive is it to have doctor-assisted suicide than to continue on life support or with treatment?
Do any of the families of assisted suicide patients regret their choice?
What other countries have legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia?

Section F.

“Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Europe.” Issues and Controversies 04 Nov 2005. FACTS.com 29 Nov 2005

<http://www.2facts.com/ICOF/temp/69984tempib100572.asp>

“Cruzan v. Director, Missiouri Department of Health.” Oyez 1990. Google.com 30 Nov 2005

<http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/91/>

Ferguson, Ellyn. “Matters of Life and Death.” Statesman Journal 2 Oct 2005. NewsBank 29 Nov 2005

<http://www.linccweb.org/electronicinfo>

Hoefler, James M. “Tube Feeding Options at the End of Life.” Dickinson College 2001. Google.com 02 Dec 2005

<http://www.dickinson.edu/endoflife/LawMO.html>

“Inadequate Care Criticized.” Issues and Controversies 29 Sept 2005. FACTS.com 28 Nov 2005

<http://www.2facts.com/ICOF/temp/69671tempi0100370.asp#i0100370_1>

Knox, Noelle. “An Agonizing Debate about Euthanasia.” USA Today 23 Nov 2005. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe 29 Nov 2005

<http://www.linccweb.org/electronicinfo>

Martindale, Diane. “A Culture of Death.” Scientific American June 2005. Health Source EBSCO 03 Dec 2005 <http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hxh&an=17012755>

“The Art of Dying.” The Economist 15 Oct 2005. Academic Search Premier EBSCO 29 Nov 2005

<http://www.linccweb.org/electronicinfo>.

“The Growing Practice of Euthanasia.” Academic Search Premier EBSCO 29 Nov 2005

<http://www.linccweb.org/electronicinfo>.

“Update: Assisted Suicide.” Issues and Controversies 04 Nov 2005. FACTS.com 02 Dec 2005

<http://www.linccweb.org/electronicinfo>.

A Better Use for Our $87B

Social Security and the "Risky" Status Quo
by Alfredo Goyburu
September 19, 2002 |

Critics of President Bush's Social Security reform plan sure have it easy these days.

All they need do, it seems, is point to the ups and downs -- well, mostly downs -- of the stock market. That’s all it takes to confirm the folly of investing in personal retirement accounts, right? Like Al Gore said when he ran for president in 2000, it’s a “risky scheme.”

So what if Social Security is going broke? That it promises most workers entering the system today less than a 2 percent return on the money they will pay into it? That every relevant demographic trend works against it?

Better the proverbial “lockbox” than a “risky scheme,” nervous members of Congress figure. At least “lockbox” sounds safer.

The problem is, it’s not.

By the time the first of 77 million baby boomers begin retiring in 2011, barely more than three workers will be around to support each retiree -- down from 16 per retiree in 1950. That means those workers will have to start forking over bigger “contributions” (read: higher payroll taxes). By 2017, Social Security will begin taking in fewer dollars from taxes than it pays out in benefits. After 2043, absent a massive cut in benefits or hike in taxes, it’ll be broke.

The Commission to Strengthen Social Security, appointed by President Bush, studied three plans for personal retirement accounts. All would allow workers the option (that’s right, folks, it wouldn’t be mandatory) of investing a small portion of their annual income in long-term, low-risk accounts. If the accounts prove profitable, workers would receive higher monthly retirement benefits. In the highly unlikely event they don’t, benefits would be cut only by the amount they’ve deposited into their personal accounts.

In short, no one would be wiped out.

The commission’s researchers found that, under the commission’s second plan, which would allow workers to invest up to 4 percent of their gross income or $1,000 per year, monthly retirement benefits for medium-income workers would rise by an average of 18 percent by 2032 -- and 59 percent by 2052. Why so much? Because the market always pays better over the long run than Social Security does.

The key words are “long run.” A long-term, buy-and-hold investment program is what the president proposes. No one with fewer than 10 years to go until retirement would be eligible for personal accounts, and most workers would contribute to them for 30 years or more.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 (S&P), the index that measures the stock prices of large companies, has gained every 20-year period since it began in 1926. It even climbed 1.1 percent through the heart of the Great Depression -- 1929 to 1938. The short-term hiccups -- even the 25 calendar years in which the S&P fell, including the six when it fell more than 20 percent -- are more than outweighed by the market’s overall upward climb.

The S&P has gone up for the year 51 times since it was first established. It has averaged a 7 percent annual gain over the last 75 years, and it never has had a 30-year period in which it did not gain at least 4.4 percent. In fact, seven 30-year periods since the S&P was created had rates of return of more than 9 percent.

Meanwhile, today’s typical 35-year-old man, with average earnings for his age group, can expect to “earn” a minus 0.3 percent return on his Social Security retirement taxes, according to Heritage Foundation Social Security expert David John. That means after paying about $282,000 in taxes over his career, this man can expect only $262,000 in benefits -- a $20,000 loss. His 32-year-old wife would do better, but the typical rate of return for women this age -- 1.9 percent annually -- is still far below even what the most conservative investments would pay. (A simple savings account can outperform that.) And it’s only going to get worse.

Social Security may have provided a warm blanket for Americans at the height of the Great Depression. But the blanket now has some holes. Something has to change. President Bush hasn’t proposed a “risky scheme.” What’s risky is doing nothing and hoping our children somehow can solve this problem for themselves.

Alfredo Goyburu is a policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org), a Washington-based public policy research institute.

The following evaluation was done by Mr. James Whalen in the Spring term of 2004.

Social Security is going broke and President Bush’s Social Security Reform plan makes a lot more sense than waiting around and doing nothing.

Critics of President Bush’s new Social Security Reform plan point to the ups and downs of the stock market to debunk this plan as a good idea. Social Security is going broke and promises only a 2% return on the money paid in. Members in congress feel that it is a better idea to stick to the proverbial “lockbox” than try Bush’s plan, which they have dubbed a risky scheme. Following 2043, Social Security will be broke barring massive tax raises or benefit cuts. President Bush proposed 3 plans to fix this ever-growing problem. This plan would allow workers to invest a small portion of their income in low risk accounts.

The Commission to Strengthen Social Security found that benefits for middle-income workers would rise 18% by 2032 and 59% by 2052. This increase is accredited to the stock market paying better than social security in the long run. The index that measures stock performance of large companies shows that The S & P 500’s have gained in every 20-year period for the last 78 years. The S & P has gained on average 7% over the last 75 years and even climbed 1.1% threw the great depression. The risky move is not Bush’s plan but to do nothing and wait.

1. The author assumes that every relevant demographic trend works against Social Security.

4. He also assumes that an average 35 year-old men can expect a 0.3 percent return on his Social Security taxes.

5. He assumes that nervous members of congress figure better the proverbial lockbox that a risky scheme. (He assumes then that congress will be against Bush’s proposal.)

6. The author assumes that by 2043, absent a major pay cut in benefits that Social Security will go broke.

7. The author also assumes that Bush’s plan is not a “risky scheme” but that doing nothing certainly will be.

In analyzing and evaluating “Social Security Reform and the ‘Risky Status Quo” by Alfredo Goyburu I have come up with many interesting facts and observations. Alfredo Goyburu’s article makes one base assumption that is the key for the rest of the article. This main assumption is that Social Security is going broke. In doing extensive research I have found that the trends definitely indicate that social security is on its way to the poorhouse. (“Social Security Reform”) One thing that almost all analysts agree on is that any system that pays out more than it takes in, with no clear way of rectifying the problem, it will go broke. (“Budget Surplus Allocations”) I agree that social security is on its way done the tubes. I think that with the long years that social security has already existed that America needs a program like this and that some form of supplemental income must be found to cure its financial troubles. This is the very close to the author’s feelings on this issue.

After dealing with the issue of Social Security going broke the next major area to look at is that Social Security promises workers entering the system a less than 2% return on the money that they have paid into the system. This is a very difficult number to pin down, the amount that someone in America’s expected Social Security return will be. I myself could not find information stating that the current projected return will be 2% percent of the money that you have paid in as the author states. I found that statements were by Bush’s staff that the current return is now around 1.5%. (Shaw Jr.) It is possible that this number was a low-ball projection on the return. This number and 2% are very close though, and I agree with the author that the current promise to workers entering the Social Security system is around 2%. This seems a very sad number to me and it’s also portrayed this way in this writing.

I would also have to agree with the author’s opinion that every relevant demographic points to a gruesome future for the current Social Security program. I greatly dislike putting every in a sentence when dealing with people but in this case it seems that the Social Security program going broke is a given. This is the reason why President Bush appointed The Commission to Strengthen Social Security. The author of this piece of writing favors Bush’s plan of action and stands behind the findings of the commission with the tone and subject matter of this piece. It is important to look at the critics of this plan and there are many. In mid June, two left leaning think tanks, published reports critiquing Bush’s plan. (Kosterlitz) Economists Peter Diamond of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution looked over the proposed plans and found them wanting. (Kosterlitz) The two scholars said,” The plans would slash benefits too severely for future retirees, especially for two categories of Social Security recipients-children of deceased workers and the disabled. People in these groups are unlikely to have worked long enough to acquire a cushion in a private account. Moreover, funding for the private accounts require huge infusions of cash from the rest of the budget.” (Kosterlitz)

The statements listed above leave me with some serious doubts about this issue. I am a firm believer in the way Clinton ran our government and Peter Orszag was special assistant for economic policy in the Clinton administration. (Kosterlitz) On the other side of this debate is the commission's executive director, Charles Blahous. (Kosterlitz) Charles Blahous is special assistant on economic policy for Bush. Blahous says,” that the commission's two major plans offer better benefits than the current, under funded system would; offer extra improvements for some low-wage earners and widows; improve the program's finances in perpetuity; and do all this at far less cost in general revenues than it would take simply to shore up the current system.” (Kosterlitz) Who is right and who is wrong in all of this you might be asking yourself? The answer in my eyes is that while this new plan may come up short in a two very important areas it still is the best offer on the table. I think that a compromise on these two issues could lead to some much-needed aid to Social Security. I would have to say that I support the author in his statements pertaining to the fact that something must be done.

The last important aspect of this piece to look at is the stock market. Remember that these Social Security reform plans deal with investing money long term in the market. Alfredo Goyburu seems to think that the stock market is a safe investment and definitely much safer than a system that just holds people’s money. In researching this I have found that stock market has rebounded even better than expected after 9/11’s tragic events. (Wyss) The Nasdaq has regained the 2,000 level and the S&P 500-stock index reached 1,109 as of Dec. 30, which is a wonderfully uplifting sign for anyone analyzing stock trends. (Wyss) The strong market has put itself in line with a normal first year bull market and that increases my confidence on this issue. In closing, I believe I agree with this proposed plan if adjustments are made in the areas of children of diseased workers and the disabled. I think that the author of this writing made an intelligent and well thought out argument. I agree whole-heartedly that some changes must be made to fix our broken Social Security system.

1. While the stock market has shown a constant increase of 7%, how will stocks that fall off the market affect investor payouts?

7. How sure are we that past trends in the stock market will predict the future?

2. “Budget Surplus Allocation.” Issues and Controversies 04 April 2003:n.pag. Facts.com. Facts on File. 05 March 2004 <http://www.2facts.com/ICOF/temp/59820tempi0300460.asp>.

3. Shaw Jr., E. Clay. “Federal News Service.” Capital Hill Hearing 26 February 2004:n.pag. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe. 05 March 2004 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/document?_m=b0c421baac57866713ab>.

4. Wyss, David. “Diving 2004’s Key Numbers” Business Week Online 05 (Jan 2004): n.pag. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.18 March 2004 <http://web9.epnet.com/citation.asp>.

5. Kosterlitz, Julie. “The Social Security Wonk Wars” National Journal 29 (June 2002): Vol 34 Issue 26 n.pag. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 18 March 2004 <http://web9.epnet.com/citation.asp>.

A Better Use for Our $87B

by Jeffrey D. Sachs

THE WORLD IS out of kilter when President Bush asks for $87 billion for Iraq and only $200 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The administration displays profound confusion regarding national security as well as moral purpose. It is ready to pump tens of billions of dollars into a middle-income oil-rich country of 24 million people, while utterly neglecting 500 million impoverished Africans, 10 million of whom will actually die this year of extreme poverty, too poor to buys the drugs, bed nets, fertilizers, tube wells, and other basic contrivances that could keep them alive.

The juxtaposition of Iraq and Africa may seem irrelevant, but it is not. We are told that the Iraq War was an act of compassion and liberation, when it fact the Bush administration is without compassion for those who most need it, whether in the United States or abroad. Liberation is in fact military occupation, which in turn is a lightning rod for attacks on US troops. The United States is less secure than before the Iraq War.

Why would a US government that overlooks suffering around the world and poverty at home be ready to invest $150 billion in Iraq over the course of two years? The argument that the war was about an imminent risk from Iraq has been thoroughly trashed. The war had nothing to do with any immediate threats from Saddam Hussein, and the intelligence agencies knew that last fall. Containment was already working. The war was about oil, specifically about a long-standing and simplistic US vision about the need to militarize the Persian Gulf in order to ensure the steady flow of petroleum.

Since the 1950s the United States, often with the partnership of the United Kingdom, has put the highest national priority on securing alliances and military bases in the Persian Gulf, changing partners as one situation after another has soured.

From the US-UK toppling of Mohammed Mossadeqh in Iran in 1953, to the American embrace of the shah in the late 1970s, to the embrace of Saddam in the 1980s, to the American "special relationship" with the corrupt and autocratic Saudi monarchy, the goal has been the same: Keep the oil flowing, with whatever "friends" in the region can advance the cause.

After the Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and with foes in Iran and Iraq, the Bush neo-conservatives decided they needed to occupy Iraq in order to establish a new base in the region.

The repeated outcome of this policy, however, has been "blowback." America's long-record of putting oil before the interests or voice of the region's people has created a deep reservoir of ill will, suspicion, and unrest. US leadership has not understood, or perhaps cared, that others in the world do not want to be pawns in a plan for US hegemony. Thus, every time we install a government or embrace an autocrat in the region, we also foment unrest and instability.

Iraq does not need tens of billions of dollars from the United States or Europe for its reconstruction. Iraq is not an impoverished country. It sits on the second largest oil reserves in the world. It could have functioned adequately even in the immediate aftermath of the recent war had its electricity grid, water system, and oil pipelines not been blown up by the foes of US occupation. This is not an economic problem, but a political one.

Even with 140,000 troops, the United States will be no more able to keep the infrastructure intact than Israel is able to keep peace in the West Bank. Intrusions of occupying armies are degrading, destabilizing, and ready targets for terrorists with broad support in the occupied communities. The US occupying army is therefore delaying rather than accelerating Iraq's reconstruction and recovery.

If the electricity and oil pipelines had not been blown up this summer, Iraq would be producing at least 1 million barrels per day more than now, or roughly another $10 billion per year. That could easily rise to an incremental $20 billion above today's levels within another year or two. There is simply no need for foreign aid, only political stability. And only Iraqi sovereignty can achieve that. But alas, the United States would have to give up its quest for hegemonic control.

The cruelest twist, though, is that the all of the talk about US and UK compassion is accompanied by indifference where compassion is truly needed. Nine months ago, Bush spoke movingly about the tragedy of millions of people with AIDS turned away from African hospitals, because they were too poor to afford the drugs. During those nine months another two million or so Africans died, and the United States accomplished absolutely nothing to change the situation. The president's much vaunted $15 billion five-year program for AIDS is on paper only.

This year Bush asked for only $200 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, a sum equal to 1.5 days of spending on the US occupying forces in Iraq. The US annual contributions to fight malaria are less than the costs of one day's occupation, and as a result, 3 million Africans will die needlessly from that preventable and treatable disease.

But who is talking about $87 billion for the 30 million Africans dying from the effects of HIV/AIDS, or the children dying of malaria, or the 15 million AIDS orphans, or the dispossessed of Liberia and Sierra Leone, or the impoverished children of America without medical insurance?

True security in the world will not be bought by US hegemony. The world will not tolerate unilateral control by a country that accounts for less than 5 percent of humanity. The United States will continue to destabilize Iraq as long as the occupation continues, and the American people will end up paying a high price for the fantasy of hegemony.

It is time for the United States to withdraw from Iraq in favor of a sovereign Iraqi government. The United Nations is very well placed to assist in that transition, and could do that for perhaps $10 billion in the coming year, or around 10 percent of the costs that Bush has requested. The balance of the US funds could be turned to truly urgent needs of the long-suffering at home and abroad.

The author believes that the war in Iraq and spending money in Iraq will not increase national security in the United States. He believes that the Bush Administration overlooks suffering around the world; the funds President Bush has requested for Iraq, $87 billion, could be turned to truly urgent needs of the long-suffering at home and abroad. The author believes that humanitarian aid, money for relief, is a good channel to attain U.S. national security.

The author believes that the war had nothing to do with threats from Saddam Hussein because containment was already working. He believes that the United States' goal has been to keep the oil flowing, with whatever partner in the region. He believes that the Bush neo-conservatives decided they must occupy Iraq to establish a new base in the region. He believes that the U.S. has created deep ill will, suspicion, and unrest in the Middle East.

The author assumes that Iraq was not a major threat to the U.S. national security. He assumes that the U.S. is less secure now than before the war with Iraq. He assumes that spending money in Iraq will not increase U.S. national security. He assumes that the war was about oil and militarizing the Persian Gulf. He assumes that because of 9/11, the U.S. had to occupy Iraq in order to establish a new base in the region. He assumes that the U.S. is delaying rather than accelerating Iraq's reconstruction and recovery. He also assumes that only Iraqi sovereignty can achieve political stability. He assumes that all members of the Bush Administration are without compassion for those who need it, whether in the U.S. or abroad. The author assumes that his numbers regarding the U.S. foreign relief are accurate and that the U.S. does not grant enough money for humanitarian aid. Finally, he assumes that humanitarian foreign aid will increase U.S. national security.

I think that the author's argument and reasoning lack enough concrete support and comes across a bit superficial. The author believes that the war in Iraq is about oil, and that once again the United States is putting high national priority on securing alliances and military bases in the Persian Gulf. He believes that the U.S. has done this in the past: Toppling of Mohammed Mossadeqh in Iran in 1953, the embrace of the shah in the late 1970s, the embrace of Saddam in the 1980s, and the relationship with the corrupt and autocratic Saudi monarchy. The author does not believe that Iraq was a major threat to the U.S. national security and that the $87 billion requested by President Bush will not increase national security. He believes that the problem in Iraq is political and not economic; that the U.S. occupation is delaying rather than accelerating Iraq's reconstruction and recovery. It does not make sense to me that a country who has lived under a tyrant and always been told what to do, would know what to do now that it is free to make its own choices. Furthermore, I think that since the U.S. "set Iraq free" of tyranny, it now has the responsibility to ensure that the Iraqi nation will, as best as possible, get back on its feet.

I think that we must first search for the United States' motivation to go to war with Iraq. Was it really oil, as the author suggests? I don't think that it was about oil. The Bush Administration's main stated reason to go to war was to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. "Does anyone really believe that this argument is suspect, that it makes no sense to fear the consequences of a demonstrably reckless and bitterly anti-American psychopath in possession of massive amounts of chemical and biological weapons, one who also will inevitably get nuclear weapons if he is not stopped?" (Slater). In my opinion, if oil was the motive, why not perhaps go after Saudi Arabia: A pretext could be invented and Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq and less means of defending itself, especially with weapons of mass destruction. Another stated reason to go to war by the administration was to liberate the Iraqi people. I agree with the author that the war was not about liberation. "A war with Iraq would be in behalf of U.S. security, not a humanitarian intervention as in the cases of Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo" (Slater). I think that removing a tyrant such as Saddam would simply be a welcome byproduct of a war to disarm him of weapons of mass destruction. I don't think that the U.S. would run such a great risk of retaliation for "moral" reasons.

I think that the United States' motivation to go to war was an urgent threat to American National security. Could continued containment and deterrence perhaps have been a better alternative than a "preventive" war, though? This is a difficult question to answer, and I think that the answer to this question depends on a couple different factors. First, did Iraq have chemical and biological weapons and was it trying to attain nuclear weapons? Second, was there evidence of ties between Iraq and terrorist groups, specifically Al Qaeda? In my opinion, even if the answers to these questions are yes, a preventive war doesn't prevent anything. On the contrary, it might increase the chances of revenge attacks on American cities with weapons of mass destruction by Saddam or some terrorist group like Al Qaeda. The author discards the possibility of Iraq being a threat to U.S. national security and does not provide nearly sufficient evidence to support his point of view, but I feel that we must analyze the evidence that compelled the Bush Administration to choose war over continued containment and deterrence.

"Throughout the 1990s, international inspection teams found and destroyed large stocks of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them…As the international inspections and weapons destruction program continued in the 1990s, so did various Iraqi lies, harassments, deceptions and evasions. Indeed, the closer the enforced disarmament program came to success, the more disruptive became the Iraqi response, until Saddam kicked out the inspectors altogether a few years ago" (Slater). I think that if Saddam wanted to honestly disarm, he would have done so to stop the imminent U.S. invasion by proving that he no longer had weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Does the author suppose that Iraq stopped cooperating with inspectors so it could disarm itself?

In February 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations Security Council on the threat posed by Iraqi weapons programs, providing intelligence information as evidence that Iraq did not intend to disarm peacefully. This intelligence was based on interviews with defectors and informants, communication intercepts, procurement records, satellite photographs and the interrogation of detainees seized around the world since the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. The evidence presented demonstrated the following: That Iraq intended to conceal prohibited weapons from U.N. inspectors; that Iraq still possessed and sought to develop prohibited weapons; and that Iraq had the expertise to build a nuclear weapon and had intentions to do so ("Powell"). An example of one of the previously mentioned evidence is a recording of a telephone conversation said to be between two Iraqi military commanders in which one instructed the other not to discuss prohibited chemical nerve agents in wireless communications. Another example is the conviction of two German men, Bernd Schompeter and Willi Heinz Ribbeck. These two men sold industrial drills to a front company in Jordan, from which they were shipped to Iraq to be used to manufacture cannons capable of firing weapons of mass destruction. The drill shipment had been made in 1999. Secretary of State Colin Powell also outlined alleged links between Iraq and Al Qaeda dating from the early 1990s. An example is Iraq's harboring a terrorist cell run by Abu Musab Zarqaki, a Jordanian-born Palestinian who had been implicated in the October 2002 murder of a U.S. diplomat. "Zarqawi's network operated a training facility in northeastern Iraq for the extremist group Ansar al-Islam, which specialized in the use of poisons and explosives...What it adds up to is that Iraq knows officially of an Al Qaeda-affiliated group that is developing chemical weapons…Mullah Krekar, the founder of Ansar al-Islam, had been widely quoted in the European press in June 2001 as calling Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden the 'jewel in the crown of the Muslim nation'" ("Powell"). I think that it is very likely that containment and deterrence would have continued to work if the main threat was of Iraqi production of nuclear weapons or use of chemical and biological weapons. I do fear the possibility, though, and perhaps the author should as well, of Iraq covertly passing such weapons to fanatic, suicidal terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. What kind of containment and deterrence does the U.S. have over these terrorist groups? I regret to say that probably slim to none.

The author believes that Iraq does not need tens of billions of dollars from the U.S. or Europe for reconstruction. He believes that Iraq could have functioned properly had its electricity grid, water system, and oil pipelines not been destroyed by opposition of the U.S. occupation. He believes that the U.S. occupation is only delaying the reconstruction process. He assumes that only Iraqi sovereignty can achieve political stability. However, "Iraq's electricity grid is barely functional, and its oil installations aren't much better. The oil refineries can't be repaired, they have to be replaced ("So"). Furthermore, "The deficit in electric power as a result of damage inflicted and nonavailability of spare parts and equipment for maintenance is a serious problem throughout the country. The network continues to deteriorate. The Council on Foreign Relations/Rice University study estimated that rebuilding Iraq's electrical power infrastructure could cost $20 billion to restore its pre-1990 capacity. Many oil experts spent last winter publicly debunking the Administration's assumptions on oil, pointing out that 12 years of sanctions had left the industry in a terrible state. 'There has been a great deal of wishful thinking about Iraqi oil,' said the Council on Foreign Relations/Rice University report, noting that the oil sector was being held together by Band-Aids and estimating that the Iraqi industry needed $30 billion to $40 billion to rehabilitate active wells and develop new fields" ("So"). How does the author expect a debilitated nation, even if it is oil-rich and has a middle income population, to rise to its feet on its own? Also, how capable are the Iraqi people of taking on so many challenges? They have been told what they can and can't do for approximately 2 decades. I believe that it is the United States' obligation to assist Iraq, since it was the U.S. who set them free and, in doing so, damaged the country in not only one, but several conflicts in the past decade.

The author believes that the Bush Administration overlooks suffering around the world; that the funds President Bush has requested for Iraq and Afghanistan, $87 billion, could be turned to truly urgent needs of the long-suffering at home and abroad. Out of the $87 billion, $20 billion will be for Iraq. He believes that the U.S. funds would be much better spent to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria in Africa, and impoverished children in the U.S. without medical insurance. The author makes a few assumptions here that must be addressed. He assumes that all members of the Bush Administration are without compassion for those who need it, whether in the U.S. or abroad. He also assumes that his numbers regarding the U.S. foreign relief are accurate and that the U.S. does not grant enough money for humanitarian aid. Finally, he assumes that humanitarian foreign aid will increase U.S. national security. Has the author considered that the Unites States, under President George W. Bush, has been the unmatched leader in supporting the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria from day one? "The United States has spent, requested or vowed to seek1.6 billion for the Global Fund - more than a third of the $4.7 billion pledged to the fund by all nations, organizations and individuals… The United States has paid out $622 million to the fund - 37 percent of the money paid into the fund" (Thompson). The Author says that the president's $15 billion five-year program for Aids is on paper only. "Congress mandated in the AIDS bill this year that the United States cannot contribute any more than one-third of the cumulative cash reserves of the fund - a level we are currently exceeding" (Thompson). In my opinion, it is sensible for the U.S. not to allot any more funds to ensure that the Global Fund is truly a global cooperation. I think that humanitarian aid is a part of the Bush Administration's agenda, unlike the author. If the author is implying that money for relief will increase national security in the U.S., and I believe he is, then it seems like the U.S. is doing its fair share.

There are many questions that I feel must be addressed in order for me to form a better judgment of the arguments in this editorial. First, how concrete is the evidence presented that compelled the U.S. to invade Iraq? Second, Does the U.S. have a game plan that it can comfortably execute in helping to stabilize Iraq economically and politically, or is the U.S. struggling to assemble one? Third, what are the United States' true intentions for Iraq's future? Fourth, how does the U.S. government, excluding the Bush Administration, view what has taken place in Iraq and what may come in the future? Fifth, what do the Iraqi people want? The truth is that in a situation like this, I would like to know what is true and what has been fabricated to blind public opinion. Sixth, what are other nations doing to ensure "global" security? Finally, what humanitarian aids are other nations providing?

"Powell Addresses United Nations on Iraq Threat." FACTS.com. Facts on File. 13 Oct. 2003 <http://www.2facts.com>.

Slater, Jerome. "Can War With Iraq Be Justified?" The Buffalo News. 16 Feb. 2003. H1. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe. 13 Oct. 2003 <http://www.linccweb.org/electronicinfo>.

"So, What Went Wrong?" Time 162.14 06 Oct. 2003: 30. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 13 Oct. 2003 <http://www.linccweb.org/electronicinfo>.

Thompson, Tommy. " Letters to the Editor: Bush is Leading Global Fight Against AIDS." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc. 22 Oct. 2003. B6. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe. 31 Oct. 2003 <http://www.linccweb.org/electronicinfo>.

President Bush has asked for $87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq while only asking for $200 million for the global fund to fight disease. Sachs feels rebuilding Iraq is not the real issue anyway, and that the Bush administration is using this war with Iraq to actually acquire a new base in the region, and ultimately have control of the Persian Gulf in order to ensure the steady flow of oil. Sachs does not feel the $87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq will bring the United States security, and feels the United States should actually use the $87 billion dollars for humanitarian aid to meet the truly urgent needs of the longsuffering at home and abroad.

Sachs believes the $87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq will not bring the United States, nor the world, true security. In fact, he believes United States hegemony in Iraq will not be tolerated by the world, and thus could result in harmful consequences toward the United States. He also feels that liberation of Iraq is actually military occupation and this makes the United States a target, and because of this we are delaying rather than accelerating Iraq’s reconstruction. Sachs also believes Iraq is not an impoverished country and does not need tens of billions of dollars for reconstruction.

Sachs believes the war with Iraq is not economic problem but a political one. Sachs feels the attack on Iraq was so the United States could attain occupation of an oil-rich country, not out of compassion and liberation. Sachs reasons that the United States history in the Middle East indicates the goal to be “keep the oil flowing,” and has befriended whoever could further that goal and this has created ill will from other countries. Sachs believes instead that the $87 billion dollars should be used for more urgent matters such as humanitarian aid. Sachs believes the Bush administration is indifferent as to where compassion and concern are truly needed.

Sachs assumes the Bush administration displays profound confusion regarding national security, as well as, moral purpose, and that control of oil in the Middle East is the real objective here.

Sachs assumes the United States will not be able to keep the infrastructure of Iraq intact, no matter how much money we pour into it.

Sachs assumes even if we spend $87 billion dollars on Iraq, it will not solve all of Iraq’s problems, and in fact, we are delaying, rather than accelerating, Iraq from rebuilding because our presence is causing upheaval in the militant factions.

Sachs is assuming that the Bush administration is not as interested in world poverty as they are in maintaining the economic stability of the United States which depends heavily upon the flow of oil from the Middle East.

Sachs assumes the way to achieve world security is through humanitarian efforts.

Sachs assumes that because of the United States determination to gain control of the Middle East, we have stimulated unrest and instability from other countries, and they do not want to be pawns in a plan for U.S. hegemony.

Sachs assumes President Bush used the incident of 9/11 as an excuse to occupy Iraq in order to establish a new base in the region.

Sachs assumes the American people will end up paying a high price for the fantasy of hegemony.

Sachs assumes his statistics are correct in the areas of the number of people in Iraq, the number of impoverished Africans, and the number who will die in Africa without the intervention of medical help.

Sachs assumes the history of the United States attempting to gain control of the oil in the Middle East is true and correct.

Sachs assumes Bush’s five year plan for AIDS is on paper only, and that his figure is correct for the amount of money Bush requested. Sachs assumes it is an either/or situation.

Sachs is assuming that without United States occupation the rate of the production of oil would remain the same.

Sachs assumes the major reason the Iraqi’s are not able to rebuild is because of the occupation of American military.

Sachs is assuming the exact number is $87 billion for national security and $200 million for global funds.

Sachs is assuming his statistics and intelligence reports are true and accurate.

Sachs assumes the United Nations would rebuild Iraq and could so at a much lower rate than Bush is proposing.

D) Analyzing/Evaluating the Assumptions and Reasoning Underlying the Major Points:

I agree with the author the $87 billion dollars President Bush has requested will not bring the United States, nor the world, security. I am not sure that anything can bring the world safety and confidence from terrorist attacks. In the article “President Addresses Top Priorities: Economic and National Security,” the President states this: “This is a new kind of war, and we must adjust” (Agency). In my opinion, since 9/11 war has become different for those of us who have never experienced war on our own soil, and the ways our enemies fight have changed, for example, bio-terrorism. Many feel the United States must defend our home front. President Bush says this, “We are committed to defending the nation. Yet wars are not won on the defensive. The best way to keep America safe from terrorism is to go after terrorists where they plan and hide” (The Budget Documents). In my opinion, this is Bush’s motive for attacking Iraq. In turn, this may bring about strife in our country.

I do not agree with Sachs regarding his feeling that the attack on Iraq was so the United States could obtain occupation of an oil-rich country by hegemonic control. In the book “Bush at War,” a meeting was held on September 12, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. with President Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, and Condoleeza Rice regarding the next step the United States would take in this new war on terrorism. According to the book, “the Pentagon had been working for months on developing a military option for Iraq. Everyone at the table believed Iraqi President Suddam Hussein was a menace, a leader bent on acquiring and perhaps using weapons of mass destruction. Any serious, full-scale war against terrorism would have to make Iraq a target – eventually. Rumsfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately” (Woodward p. 49). This leads me to believe that the Bush administration was considering avenues of attack on Saddam Hussein even before the attack of 9/11 occurred. However, I do entertain the thought that the attack against the United States could have been the so-called “icing on the cake.”

I do not agree with Sachs that we need to pull out of Iraq and leave them to rebuild. In my opinion, this war began with us, and should end with us. In addressing the New Hampshire National Guard, President Bush said the following, “The United States did not run from Germany and Japan following World War II. We helped those nations to become strong and decent, democratic societies that no longer waged war on America. And that’s our mission in Iraq today. We’re rebuilding schools. A lot of kids are going back to schools. Reopening hospitals. Thousands of children are now being immunized. Water and electricity are being returned to the Iraqi people. Life is getting better.” (Agency) I also wonder if the Iraqi people who have been under a strong, oppressed dictator would even have the tools needed to rebuild a democratic society. If the United States pulled out, this may give occasion to other factions seeking power, and thus, Iraq would be no better off than they were under Hussein’s rule.

I do not agree with Sachs’ opinion that the United States occupying army is delaying rather than accelerating Iraq’s reconstruction and recovery. How does he know this? Who can judge whether or not this is true? Granted we get most of our information from the press, and we hear what they want us to hear, therefore, we probably have a slanted view. Lewis Lucke, chief of Iraq operations for the U.S. Agency for International Development says we are making progress. Lucke says, “I don’t understand why they’re portraying the reconstruction effort as some kind of looming failure. It’s not. There’s a lot of progress here that doesn’t lend itself to sound bites, the way attacks on convoys do” (Barry and Caryl). I surmise Sach’s belief is simply a matter of opinion.

I do not agree with Sachs argument that the war being an imminent risk from Iraq has been thoroughly trashed. I assume he is basing this comment on the evidence the United States has found or not found in Iraq regarding weapons of mass destruction. According to David Kay in his report dated October 2, 2003, there are clear reasons why we may not be finding stocks of weapons yet. Kay lists six principle reasons he thinks our search efforts could be hindered which are: the Saddam regime was ruled and kept secret through fear and terror with deception and denial built into each program, disposal and destruction of material began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict, post-OIF looting deliberately destroyed and dispersed collectable material, some personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence with them, any actual WMD material is likely to be small as even the bulkiest material can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage, and environment remains far from permissive for our activities (Kay). I accept Kay’s reasoning, although, I can see why lack of evidence could cause some people to doubt. However, for one to say it has been “thoroughly trashed” is being a bit presumptuous, in my opinion.

I also wondered if the president’s request is thought of as so outlandish for $87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq, why is the majority of Congress supporting him? Even Ted Kennedy (who is known to be a strict liberal) says, “I am preparing an amendment, getting Democratic cosponsors, that would say the president would get his money,” although he will be asking the president to provide a plan for how we would spend the reconstruction money and also a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops (Bulletin). My reasoning is that if the president was asking for something absolutely ridiculous then he would surely have more opposition from Congress.

Sachs also makes the comment that the Bush administration is without compassion. I feel this is an unfounded statement. I believe an example of the president’s compassion is seen in Afghanistan where he decided to drop food before bombs. This was also witnessed when a meeting regarding Afghanistan was held with his top officials to discuss the United States next course of action. In the book “Bush at War,” Woodward says this, “The surprise for Rice came when the president raised the issue of humanitarian aid. It had not really been discussed among the principals, the deputies or sub-deputies. What was this? Where was it coming from?” (Woodward p. 130) Woodward goes on to say, “For Bush, it was fundamental to what he sees as the moral mission of the United States” (Woodward p. 131). Bombing the people might make the Taliban stronger. That was the practical consideration. The moral one was, “We’ve got to deal with suffering” (Woodward p. 131). Furthermore, I gleaned that Bush seemed very concerned with how we strategically placed bombs as to not harm the civilian population. In my opinion, this is not a man without compassion.

Sachs insinuates that the $87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq and the $200 million for the global fund is an either/or situation. In my opinion, this does not have to be true. Perhaps we could lessen the amount of money needed to rebuild Iraq. Sachs feels all the money should go to humanitarian aid, but I feel a feasible medium could possibly be attained if we looked more intently into Bush’s plan for the $87 billion dollars. And, if the amount can be lessened, then consider doing so. But, even with that, I wonder if $87 billion dollars should go directly to aid. Perhaps we should consider all of our options.

Sachs believes the way to world security is through humanitarian aid. I suppose Sachs thinks if the people in third world countries, and other places, could somehow be reached and educated, as well as provided medical attention, then world peace might conceivably be attained. His thinking could be that people are more prone to crime if poor and uneducated, because they are “victims” of their circumstances. In my opinion, this concept is a good thought, but I don’t really agree with it. The culture of some of these countries is very different from the United States and they just do not think or respond as we do. For example, even if we gave Africa billions of dollars, their customs, traditions, and ways of thinking will probably not change dramatically.

Would national security be increased by us being in Iraq, and would it be decreased by us pulling out?

How and where would the $87 billion dollars be spent or divided if the United States designated it for global suffering?

What is the United States responsibility to other countries involving suffering?

Are other countries willing to help the United States rebuild Iraq, and if not, why?

Is Iraq capable of forming and maintaining a democratic society without outside intervention, and if so, how would they obtain it?

Barry, John and Caryl, Christian. "A Man With a Mission." Newsweek. 3 November 2003. 28 Oct. 2003

Kay, David. "Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group." Central Intelligence Agency. 28 Oct. 2003http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html>.

Woodward, Bob. Bush at War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002. Agency Group 09. "President Addresses Top Priorities: Economic & National Security." FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database Military and Government Collection. 28 Oct. 2003 http://search/epnet.com>.

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003.

"Bush's $87 Billion Request Opens Debate on Iraq Policies, Budget Deficit." Bulletin Broadfaxing Network, Inc. The Bulletin's Frontrunner. 28 Oct. 2003http://web.lexisnexis.com>.