Information and news about politics.

, ,

Bernie Sanders: A Champion for American Poverty

American_PovertyWith the 2016 Presidential election approaching rapidly, candidates are beginning to differentiate themselves from the competition by advocating for unique platforms. While some candidates have built a large portion of their campaign around illegal immigration, one candidate has made it clear that he will focus on an issue here at home. Bernie Sanders has emerged as the champion for reducing poverty here in the United States.

Sanders uses the increasing disparity between the wealth classes in America to illustrate his point on the problem of American poverty. Continuing to hammer his point home, Sanders then puts the blame on Wall Street’s influence over economic poverty, unfairly favoring those with more income. Sanders is directly quoted as saying, “There are a lot of great public servants out there, great economists who for years have been standing up for the middle class and the working families of this country, who know that it is an international embarrassment that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth.” Sanders makes a bold claim with this statement, but one that is shockingly valid.

Sanders’ campaign website lists some alarming figures about overall U.S. poverty as well as child poverty on an international scale. According to the site, 46.5 million Americans live below the poverty line making that figure the largest in U.S. history. In addition to this number, Sanders’ website cites a 21.8 percent child poverty rate, the “highest of any major country on earth.” It is important to distinguish here that by “major country,” he is referring to all countries part of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED).

In March of 2014 Sanders organized a subcommittee to examine in depth the differences in life expectancy across the United Sates as a direct result of varying poverty levels. Some of the findings reported that almost as many people die from poverty as from lung cancer. Life expectancy was also shown to have decreased over the past 20 years in 313 U.S. counties, and the United States has 6 million more people in poverty today than it did in 2004.

Poverty is as crucial an issue as any from presidential hopefuls this elections. Senator Bernie Sanders has made it one of his top campaign priorities to reduce this number drastically if elected, by working vigorously to improve the system of the American economy and reduce the vast gap between wealth classes in America.

– Diego Catala

Sources: PolitiFact, Senate
Photo: Bernie Sanders

, , ,

What Hillary Clinton Means For Women’s Health Worldwide

Hillary-Clinton-Women's-Health

In April of this year, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for president. As a strong democratic nominee with a lot of political capital, she has the power to raise big money and advocate for issues on her platform.

According to her website and her voting record, she is an advocate for small business and defining America’s core values. Many see her as a strong candidate for the election next year.

However, unlike her last campaign, Clinton seems to be focusing more on women’s issues.

In 1995, Clinton gave a speech in Beijing entitled, “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights” to the U.N.’s Fourth World Conference on Women. At the time, Clinton was First Lady of the United States. In the speech, Clinton spoke of the continual rape of women during armed conflicts and the act of silencing women and girls around the world. She declared that women’s rights must now be seen as human rights and solved.

Since the 90’s, Clinton has seemed to not focus on women’s issues or place them at the focal point of her 2008 election.

However, this round, she seems to be doing the opposite. Before announcing her candidacy in a speech at Georgetown, Clinton told the audience that women’s rights are not only a responsibility for women, but also men.

At her first major campaign event in June of this year, Clinton seemed to emphasize her support for women’s issues. She supports a women’s right to choose and have easier access to contraceptives.

Clinton has proved herself to be an advocate for women domestically, but what about abroad?

Clinton does not seem to shy away from economic aid to developing countries. In 2012, Clinton visited Africa, promising U.S. assistance to revitalize African economies. Although many attacked her for attaching so many contingencies onto the package, she does want to help.

Combining her commitment to providing assistance to impoverished nations and her advocacy for women’s rights, she would be a tremendous help to women’s health abroad.

Under her watch, we could see a real attempt to repeal the Helms amendment and provide access to family planning tools. Because of her commitment to women domestically, she would support women’s access to education abroad.

Although the campaign trail is long, her commitment to women and impoverished nations would mean great things for women being affected by the lack of access to a proper education, birth control and water.

– Erin Logan

Sources: Hillary Clinton, American Rhetoric, The Guardian, Slate, LA Times, New York Magazine
Photo: Illinois Review

,

Who Is My Congressman? Scott Peters

Scott_Peters
I am embarrassed to admit that before interning for The Borgen Project, I did not have any idea who my Congressman was. I spend most of my time going to school out of state, so I am not too in touch with the politics of my hometown. However, no matter what state I am in, it matters who is representing my interests, so I have done a little research on my House hero.

I live in San Diego, which is in California’s 52nd Congressional district. The Representative for this district is none other than Democrat Scott Peters. Have not heard of him? Not to worry, here are some quick facts on this West Coast politician.

Peters was actually born in Ohio and raised in Michigan, but he has spent the entirety of his political career serving the people of San Diego. He received his Bachelor of Arts at Duke University, and went on to graduate from law school at New York University. Peters then moved to the Golden State, and after a 15 year career as an environmental lawyer, was elected to San Diego City Council. He later became the city’s first City Council President.

I am extremely proud of my beautiful city. Little did I know that I can attribute much of this to Peters, who helped lead the $2 billion redevelopment of downtown San Diego and the widespread cleanup of the beaches and bays.

After a storied City Council tenure, Peters was elected to the House of Representatives in 2012. He currently serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, and previously served on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. He is a member of the House Democratic Caucus, the New Democrat Coalition and the No Labels Caucus.

Peters is listed as the fourth most independent Democrat in Congress and is a known problem solver. He often brings people together in order to resolve complex issues. His office is very responsive to constituent recommendations and requests, and I have been pleased with the in-depth emails I have received.

As a resident of San Diego for 21 years, I finally figured out who my voice in Congress is, and I encourage all of you to find out for yourself what distinguished individual is making your case on the Hill.

– Katie Pickle

Sources: US House of Representatives, Scott Peters
Photo: Times of San Diego

,

All You Need to Know About Soft Power

All You Need to Know About Soft PowerSoft power is a term that was coined in the late 1980s by Joseph S. Nye Jr., an American political scientist. As Foreign Affairs states, soft power refers to the ability of a country to influence and persuade others to do what it wants without the use of force or coercion. It’s the opposite of hard power, in which a country uses coercion and military strength in order to influence other countries. It relies on economic or cultural influences rather than military strength.

Soft power is an indirect way to exercise power and control. A country with a lot of it can convince other countries to adopt some of its morals, values and prominent institutions. Essentially, a country exerting a large amount of soft power can persuade other countries to want the same things it wants and therefore use their influence to advance its own political agenda. It is getting the outcome one wants through persuasion rather than coercion.

Origens of Soft Fower

Power is the ability to get others to do what you want, and soft power is an essential form of power. Nye states that it can come from three resources:

  1. A country’s culture (where it’s attractive to others)
  2. A country’s political values (where it lives up to them at home and abroad)
  3. A country’s foreign policies (where they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority)

Its Importance

Soft power is important because, according to Foreign Affairs, it can be used to gain supporters and partners. For example, United States companies, institutions, churches, foundations and other institutions of civil society all play a part in projecting it, and the cultures and values that the United States have are a form of soft power that allows the U.S. to gain allies. Even things that one may not view as important, like Hollywood movies and American pop culture, are forms of it that can help shape other countries attitudes’ and choices in the long-run.

BBC discusses how soft power can be exerted in one of their articles, in which they talk about a woman named Iryna Olova who grew up in Kiev in the Soviet Union. Olova talks about how fascinated she was with movies such as the Wizard of Oz as a child and states that movies made her feel that America was a happy and sunny place. She eventually left Ukraine and moved her family to America. Even though parts of American culture, like movies, may seem inconsequential to International Relations, according to Nye and the theory of soft power, they are anything but. Some political scientists even say that it helped the United States win the Cold War.

Limitations

According to Nye, the limitations of soft power are that it is not easily channeled toward a specific outcome and that it can have diffuse effects on the outside world.

Other Examples

In his book, “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics,” Nye gives some examples of it, including the high number of foreign students enrolled at United States Universities and the prominent consumption of American media products worldwide.

– Ashrita Rau

Sources: Foreign Policy 1, Foreign Policy 2 BBC, Diplomacy Education Oxford Dictionary 1, Oxford Dictionary 2 Foreign Affairs
Photo: Flickr

, ,

The Effect of Conservative Danish Politics on Foreign Aid

danish_politicsOn June 18, Denmark’s center-left government, the Social Democrats, were ousted out of the political limelight as the country moved dramatically to the far right in favor of the ring-wing, populist and anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party (D.P.P). The Danish People’s Party is often regarded with stigma both at home and abroad and is on the outskirts of Danish politics since its founding in 1996.

However, in the most recent elections, the D.P.P. came in second place with 21.1% of the votes, only 5.2% less than the number of votes received by the leading Social Democrats. According to preliminary results published by the DR.DK, Denmark’s national broadcaster, the center-right bloc that includes the D.P.P now holds a majority of 90 seats in Parliament, which, for the first time, has elevated the D.P.P. into the centerfold of Danish politics. The results of this election come on the heels of growing unrest within Denmark over issues related to immigration and the security of the Danish welfare state. Denmark, a socialist and uber-liberal country which was voted “happiest country in the world” last year, is one of the highest-functioning welfare state programs in the world. The thanks is owed to the Danish citizens paying the highest income taxes in the world, at 60.2%.

The Danish welfare state was created in 1933 following the Social Reform Act, which sought to redirect Denmark’s attention inwards following the loss of the last remnants of the former Danish Empire, which once included Southern Sweden, Northern Germany, Iceland and Norway (and continues to include Greenland and the Faroe Islands). A “Denmark for the people” mentality was adopted, which subsequently iterated outwards into a Scandinavian-socialist ethos which has traditionally regarded foreign aid as an obvious centerpiece of Danish foreign policy. Providing welfare services “from the cradle to the grave” for citizens at home, such as free childcare, education through university and healthcare, and providing international aid to citizens abroad was regarded as two sides of the Danish-socialist-mentality coin.

The recent elections reflect the ways in which some Danes have begun to adjust their thinking about the welfare state and its relationship to those outside the “Danish family.” Similar to the recent wave of anti-immigrant parties which have popped up throughout Europe, such as the Finns Party in Finland, the Progress Party in Norway, the Sweden Democrats in Sweden and UKIP in the United Kingdom, the D.P.P. frames itself as the voice of “Old Danes” who regard the growing influx of immigrants within Denmark as a threat to the Danish welfare state and the Danish way of life.

The presence of immigrants in Denmark, who make up around nine percent of the population country-wide, in conjunction with the recent surge of 14,000 mostly Muslim asylum seekers and the Copenhagen shootings of February 14 by the 22-year-old son of Palestinian immigrants, has produced a backlash of growing nationalist sentiment in Denmark. As a result, supporters of the D.P.P. have begun to implicitly redefine how “Denmark for the people” is understood. A motto that traditionally went unchallenged, given the historically monocultural and monoethnic nature of the Danish population, is now being reformulated by the D.P.P. to function more as “Denmark for the Danes;” as the D.P.P. has proposed slashing welfare entitlements for newly arrived immigrants and refugees into the country.

Increasing exclusivity regarding Danish welfare state benefits is being matched in Parliament by talk among the D.P.P and the Liberal Party that Denmark should cut back on foreign aid in order to channel more money into welfare entitlements for native Danish citizens, especially the elderly. In 1970, the world’s richest developed countries agreed to give point seven percent of their Gross National Income (GNI) annually to international development aid.

Historically, Denmark, along with Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, has been one of the few developed countries to actually commit to reaching this target. Proposals or talks of cutting foreign aid thus represent a dramatic break from Denmark’s historically extraordinary commitment to reaching the point seven percent goal. A survey conducted for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also found that right-wing political opinion about foreign aid is being matched in public opinion, as support among Danes for foreign aid has fallen by 15% in the last five years. The recent shift to the right in Denmark now leaves Sweden as the only country in Scandinavia in which the center-left continues to hold the majority of political power. The Swedish equivalent to the D.P.P. – the Swedish Democrats – also continue to be regarded as political pariahs in mainstream Swedish society.

Despite Denmark’s sudden swing to the conservative anti-immigrant right, the country currently continues not only to meet but to exceed the annual point seven percent foreign development aid target.

– Ana Powell

Sources: BBC, CNN Money DR, The Guardian New York Times 1, New York Times 2 OECD
Photo: Dagens

, ,

US Congressman Calls for Cuts to United Nations Funding

United Nations Funding
Earlier this month, U.S. Representative Matt Salmon of Arizona introduced a bill to prohibit any government agency from contributing to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) on the grounds that the organization isn’t in line with America’s policy agenda.

The bill, H.R. 2678, is the fourth bill introduced by Salmon as a part of his “Shrink Our Spending Initiative,” a budget plan to cut what Salmon has deemed “wasteful taxpayer-funded programs.” It is also the second bill of its kind to go before Congress in the last 5 years.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to fund activities that aren’t in line with our national priorities,” said Salmon, calling the UNFPA a “pro-abortion organization,” according to a SonoranNews.com report.

But according to the United Nations Population Fund FAQ page, the UNFPA does not promote abortion as a method of family planning. Rather, it works to promote family planning measures such as the use of condoms and female birth control. However, the organization does work to address the impact of abortions on women’s health, and to assure that in nations where abortions are legal, it is safe and accessible.

 

Learn why the military is requesting that Congress better fund efforts to combat extreme poverty.

 

The UNFPA operates as a subsidiary of the United Nations General Assembly to address population and development issues. Started in 1969, the United Nations Population Fund now operates in 150 countries, and has been instrumental in reducing the complications of pregnancy and childbirth in developing nations.

Sexual and reproductive health problems are the leading cause of death and disability for women in developing nations, and according to the UNFPA, some 225 million women lack access to family planning measures.

The goal of the United Nations Population Fund is to assure that all women have access to safe and effective family planning measures and safe deliveries and to make sure that every pregnancy is wanted.

In 2013, the United States was among the top 10 core donors to the United Nations Population Fund, contributing nearly three percent of the UNFPA’s total contributions for the year. If H.R. 2678 passes, it will eliminate all government contributions to that total.

The bill regarding United Nations funding was first introduced on June 4, 2015, and has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign affairs. According to a Huffington Post report, the Committee has already approved a $150 million cut to family planning and reproductive health programs. Such program cuts may jeopardize the health of an estimated 225 million women in developing countries who lack access to safe family planning, according to the Huffington Post.

– Gina Lecher

Sources: UNFPA, Congress.gov, Sonoran News, Huffington Post
Photo: Hill Heat

,

Clinton and Sanders on Foreign Aid

Clinton-and-Saunders-Foreign-Aid
Wondering how the two Democratic presidential candidates match up in terms of foreign aid support? As always, foreign policy is one of the key issues in the upcoming election. But perhaps in this election, a key focus will be put on foreign aid, rather than the military.

During the two candidates’ times as Senators and Representatives, they voted on many of the same bills. Here is how they match up:

clinton_and_sanders_vote_on_foreign_aid

Overall, Clinton and Sanders both voted to support foreign aid bills. The only exceptions — Clinton not always voting and Sanders rejecting emergency aid bills.

Both Clinton and Sanders are solid in their support of foreign aid. According to an article by One.org, Clinton strongly stressed that U.S. foreign aid is an investment. As for Sanders, a concern is that he will avoid voting for aid to any organizations that register or tax American guns.

– Clare Holtzman

Sources: ONE, Slate, Vote Smart 1, Vote Smart 2
Photo: People

, ,

Who is My Senator?

Who-is-my-Senator?
Who is My Senator? I have lived in Los Angeles my entire life, yet only recently did I become aware or even conscious of who my senators are. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are currently the two women who represent the State of California in the 114th Senate, and both women have dutifully served the American people since before I was born.

Boxer is a Democrat and was elected to the Senate in January 1993, after serving in the House of Representatives for ten years and on the Marin County Board of Supervisors for six years.

According to her website, “Senator Boxer currently is the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. She is also a senior member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”

Boxer is not only an active representative for the State of California but is passionate about the environment, defense and foreign policy, women’s health, gay rights, civil rights and many other issues. Some of the issues she’s voted for include restrictions on gun possession, increased minimum wage, increased taxes for the wealthy, women’s right to get an abortion, expanding ObamaCare, and an easier path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

In November 2010, Boxer was re-elected to her fourth term in the Senate.

Feinstein is also a Democrat. She has made many advancements in legislation for the protection of the environment and natural resources, increased national security, prohibiting assault weapon prevention and various health-related legislation.

According to Feinstein’s website, “Since her election to the Senate in 1992, Senator Feinstein has worked in a bipartisan way to build a significant record of legislative accomplishments – helping to strengthen the nation’s security both here and abroad, combat crime and violence, battle cancer, and protect natural resources in California and across the country.”

Feinstein strongly supports a woman’s right to have an abortion, legally requiring employers to hire women and minorities, marriage equality, stricter punishment to reduce crime rates, creating an easier pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, increasing taxes for the wealthy, prioritizing green energy, and staying out of Iran.

On the other hand, Feinstein opposes expanding the military, gun ownership, vouchers for school choice, privatizing social security, and keeping God in the public sphere.

Both Boxer and Feinstein boast long lists of awards and accomplishments from their combined years of service in both the Senate and in other government bodies.

If you want to know more about who your senators are and what they represent, click here.

– Hanna Darroll

Sources: Barbara Boxer, On The Issues, Dianne Feinstein, On The Issues
Photo: Fox and Hounds Daily

, , ,

After the White House: How Past Presidents Continue to Make a Difference

presidents
Although President Obama has only 20 months left of his presidency, he can still do a lot of good once outside the Oval Office. Here are four ways former presidents made a difference for the world’s poor:

George Bush: The former Republican president is well known for his AIDs relief work in Africa. While in office, President Bush signed the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The program significantly increased access to antiretroviral drugs on the African continent, saving millions of lives. That effort set the stage for his post-presidential humanitarian work with First Lady Laura Bush through the George W. Bush Institute. Located at the Bush Center in Dallas, the organization promotes global health and human rights through a variety of programs. Through the Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon initiative, for instance, the president and first lady are working to reduce deaths associated with cervical and breast cancer in the developing world.

Bill Clinton: Following his presidency, Mr. Clinton sought to address humanitarian issues worldwide. The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has quickly become a cornerstone in the fight for improved global health, economic development, gender equality and environmental protection. Founded in 2001, the Foundation includes a wide range of humanitarian endeavors. The Clinton Health Access Initiative, for example, works to improve healthcare infrastructure, while the Clinton Development Initiative stimulates economic growth by increasing access to financial services for entrepreneurs in the developing world. The Foundation also has a strong track record in promoting the well being of women and girls across the globe.

George H. W. Bush: At 90-years-old, George Bush Sr. is the oldest president on this list, besting fellow nonagenarian Jimmy Carter by a few months. The elder Bush shows no signs of slowing down though; he’s gone skydiving on his 80th, 85th and 90th birthdays, and leads an active life. The president has been just as active in promoting public service through his Points of Light organization, which encourages volunteerism worldwide. The network boasts 250,000 service projects every year across 30 countries. That adds up to 30 million hours of volunteer service each year.

Jimmy Carter: President Carter has had many roles in his life: peanut farmer, Governor of Georgia, President of the United States—but he has perhaps found his great success as an international humanitarian. He is one of four presidents to receive a Nobel Peace Prize, but the only one to do so after leaving office. Most of his efforts have involved The Carter Center, which was founded in 1982 and takes “Waging Peace, Eradicating Disease, Building Hope” as its motto. The Center has targeted a wide range of diseases, including guinea worm, river blindness, trachoma and lymphatic filariasis. Thanks to the president’s efforts, the prevalence of guinea worm disease has been reduced by 99.99 percent since 1986.

– Kevin McLaughlin

Sources: The Clinton Foundation, The George W. Bush Institute, Points of Light
Photo: Flickr

, ,

The End of Hunger in Belo Horizonte, Brazil

 

 

Belo-Horizonte
Belo Horizonte, the third most populous metropolitan city in Brazil, is one of the most progressive actors in poverty reduction. Home to nearly 2.5 million, Belo Horizonte practices the Right to Food that perceives food as a human right rather than a commodity. Poverty rates have dropped dramatically in Belo Horizonte since policy makers enacted this act in 1993.

The Right to Food guarantees healthy and accessible food to all citizens in Belo Horizonte. Policy makers use systematic approach to effectively execute this law by implementing the following techniques:

  • Integrating logistics and supply chains of the food system
  • Tying local producers to consumers to reduce prices and increase food sovereignty
  • Utilizing government purchase to stimulate diversification of agricultural production and job creation
  • Implementing education about food security and good nutrition
  • Regulating markets on produce that guarantees the right to healthy, high-quality food

Certainly no policy goes without a financial cost—the Right to Food law calls for a 10 million dollar yearly budget. While seemingly large at first, this amounts to two percent of the overall budget of Belo Horizonte. Policy makers have established budgetary committees to foresee the maintenance of this budget in accordance with the economy. This novel distribution of funds has proven successful, largely due to the positive returns the Right to Food law has enabled in the job market.

The effects of the Right to Food law in Belo Horizonte are immeasurably positive for the future of poverty reduction. To ensure food distribution, Belo Horizonte implements affordable food stations that act as restaurants around the city. People of all walks of life, ranging from low-wage workers to businessmen, eat at these restaurants. This social integration eliminates the shame behind hunger and promotes a culture where everyone is deserving of food.

Poverty has reduced drastically in Belo Horizonte, Brazil since the Right to Food law passed in 1993. Benefits include:

  • Reduction of the child mortality rate by 60 percent
  • Reduction of child malnourishment under the age of 5 by 75 percent
  • Fruit and veg eatable intake increase by 25 percent

The Right to Food law is an award winning policy and serves as an inspirational example of how food redistribution saves lives. UNESCO named the Right to Food law, Best-Practice in 2003. The Right to Food law also received the Future Policy Award by the World Future Council in 2009.

Scholars regard Belo Horizonte as a progressive city in its utilization of existing resources. UN Special Rapporteur, Oliver de Schutter, reports: “I think we should use the example of Belo Horizonte as a lesson taught to us, food is not a commodity. It is a human right and it should be treated as such…”

Belo Horizonte did something the U.S. has yet to do, tackle poverty from a bottom-to-top approach. By recruiting the help of local farmers, Belo Horizonte helped the impoverished by teaching them ways to help themselves. Policy makers isolated the detrimental effects of competition in the market and eradicated them, thereby emphasizing the freedom in free markets.

The Right to Food serves as an example of the role democracy can play in helping the world’s poor.

– Tanya Kureishi

Sources: YES Magazine, FAO
Photo: Yes Magazine