Women’s issues: Obama

Renee Wunderlich

While women’s interest in politics is not limited to health care, one very controversial topic is at the ethical and potentially legal forefront of this presidential election. Point blank, President Obama is pro-abortion rights and Gov. Romney is anti-abortion. But beyond the party norms, public policy favors Obama’s stance on women’s reproductive health in general, providing aid to programs like Planned Parenthood that provide STD testing and resources for pregnant and new mothers. But conservative beliefs held by Romney find fault in Obama’s health care plan, which includes selective abortion services and free birth control. Though Romney can reasonably be wary of how public health care may not be the most economically sound plan for the country’s future, those who share Romney’s beliefs may not side with Obama’s stance on American women.

Education: Obama

Joseph Vandehey

Two major challenges face American education in the next four years: accessibility and quality. The rising cost of tuition at colleges and universities has steadily outpaced inflation. Pell grants and other federal scholarships can help the problem but address only a small pool of cases when everyone is hurting. Federal and state governments need to work with institutions to address the cost of tuition, but, more importantly, we need to moderate student loans: No graduate should have to wonder if their education was paying off the interest for years to come. While the cost of education grows, so does the marketplace of ideas on how to improve education. Just in the past few years, we have seen a marked increase in for-profit colleges, online teaching, computer-assisted classrooms and even free-to-access learning from the Khan Academy and TED talks. Telling the useful from the dangerous is a full-time job, a job which the federal government is well-suited to do — encouraging local and state experimentation to find successful new ideas while maintaining national standards and keeping educators informed of the hucksters and frauds.

Student Health Care: Romney

Tolu Taiwo

Let me be clear: The Affordable Care Act makes me happy … for the most part. Pre-existing conditions? Many kids aren’t denied health insurance if they have one. The elderly? Medicare is strengthened with new benefits, like lowering prescription drugs. And let’s hear it for preventive services; all insurance companies need to provide them sans co-pay. The problem with the ACA, though, is student insurance. I’m not saying Obama neglected to look after the young folk — we stay on our parents’ health insurance until we’re 26, which, for post-graduates who might need a little help, is a good thing. The problem is the future cost. Right now, many University students are on student insurance. But with the ACA, our insurance fees, like many other universities, may go up because Obamacare prohibits health expense caps. And at the $438 we already pay each school year, no one wants to see an increase. It makes the “Affordable Care Act” ironic in name. When I look at Romney’s overall plan (um, like fixing Medicare for only those who are 50 or younger?!) I shudder. But unless Obama steps it up and lowers student insurance, he hasn’t 100 percent impressed me. Whose is better? Honestly? If I had to say overall, Obama’s. But strictly for student insurance, Romney’s.

Immigration: Obama

Kirsten Keller

One of the most significant pieces of legislation pertaining to the immigration debate in this year’s election is the DREAM Act, which was first introduced in the Senate in 2001. The act would give citizenship to certain immigrants who are here illegally. Some requirements are that you entered the country before the age of 16; graduated from a U.S. high school, obtained a GED in the U.S. or are accepted to an institution of higher learning in the U.S.; have “good moral character”; and had been living in the U.S. for at least five consecutive years before the bill’s enactment. Then, you have six years to obtain either a two-year college degree, complete at least two years toward another degree, or serve in the military for two years. The act largely pertains to those who were brought here illegally at a young age by their parents. The DREAM Act is a good fix to the country’s illegal youth immigrant population, for it does not immediately give citizenship to all those who come to the U.S.; it requires them to get a college education or serve dutifully in the nation’s military. With this legislation, these youth can stay in the place they’ve been calling home their whole lives.

Maintaining secularism: Obama

Sarah Fischer

In the United States, 9 in 10 people believe in God, according to Gallup polls. Nearly half of Americans believe creationism explained the origins of humans. This election marks a crucial point in American history. We are reaching a point where misconceived notions about the age of the Earth or how humans evolved could have devastating consequences not only on our environmental policy but in how we make personal decisions. People are informed by their religious beliefs on important issues such as women’s rights, welfare, contraception and abortion. Both President Obama and Gov. Romney have dealt with this issue. Obama exempted religious organizations from providing contraceptives. The unique beliefs of Mormonism have been a nonissue during the campaign. And that can certainly be a good thing. But when those beliefs are used to curb the rights or beliefs of others, we become a nation in crisis.

Foreign Policy: Romney

Kate Cullen

Foreign policy is a hot-button issue in this campaign because both candidates have passionate views on the position the United States should take in matters abroad. Similar to his previous campaign, President Obama continues to advocate for the successful end of the war in Iraq. Additionally, he does not want to use the military abroad as much to reinforce U.S. political ideologies, though it is unclear how he plans to do so. Romney’s foreign policy is centered on the idea of strengthening America both domestically and militarily to enhance national defense and provide our allies and enemies with a clear understanding of America’s position on foreign policy issues. Romney thinks this can be achieved by increasing military spending to enhance the tools and weapons of the military. A clear foreign policy strategy should take precedence over the inconsistent actions that have occurred over the last four years.

Economy: Romney

Brian Siegel

The economy is by far the hot-button issue of this election, pitting President Obama against the challenger and so-called fiscal guru Gov. Romney. Romney wants to spur economic growth by cutting taxes across the board and cutting, capping and balancing the budget. Obama has worked to cut corporate loopholes and crack down on Wall Street. He has failed to cut record highs in unemployment. Obama argues that is why he needs four more years, while Romney counters that Obama’s policies have sent the United States in the wrong direction. Neither will likely be able to cut the deficit, but Romney will probably be able to spur more long-term economic growth. With Obama’s poor economic record over the last four years, more Americans should trust Romney.

Deficit reduction: Johnson

Dylan Hoyer

The president’s plan for deficit reduction does not include a balanced budget for any specific year in office. Neither, for that matter, does Mitt Romney’s plan. The only candidate proposing a balanced budget as a viable option in his first year of office is Gary Johnson. Romney’s proposal is to cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP by 2016 and cutting various federal programs. President Obama plans to use the funds saved by drawing down the wars to pay for higher educational spending and more funding for research and technology. The Johnson plan is to end subsidies and earmarks to well-connected interests, begin the process of entitlement reform and audit the Fed. All three plans are vague and lack important details on the surface, but only one candidate has the ideological drive to make sure the deficit is controlled and eliminated.

Environment: Romney

Adam Huska

It’s the “E word” that has consistently divided the political parties: the environment. Both candidates acknowledge global warming. Clean energy is the most effective way to reduce or stabilize global climate change. Romney emphasizes nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while Obama emphasizes building energy use and reducing fuel consumption. Obtaining energy sources means utilizing the environment’s natural resources. Romney will seek offshore areas of the U.S. while Obama will impose regulations on fracking (extraction process of natural gas) and coal industries to offset reduction of natural resources. Obama opposes the Keystone XL pipeline that would disrupt important environmental terrains, and Romney thinks it is necessary for energy independence. Obama has spent over $75 billion creating “green jobs” such as those that engage in environmental quality and energy conversation. Romney takes a conservative approach and believes in “less government” and would put control of energy production on the state level. Both candidates address concerns over energy resource availability and how to “safely” utilize natural resources and the need for clean energy sources to become less dependent on unrenewable environmental resources.

Science and technology: Obama

Andrew Horton

Both candidates will tell you that technological growth is essential to American prosperity. Both have promised to lower corporate tax rates to spur innovation that creates new jobs. Apart from that, their plans for promoting science and technology are starkly different. Gov. Romney would rely on technological innovation to come solely from the private sector — an enticing idea considering how an energy drink company seems to be more interested in going to space than NASA is right now . President Obama, on the contrary, would likely continue with government sponsored programs like the American Manufacturing Initiative, which was launched in 2011 to encourage technological breakthroughs that create high-quality manufacturing jobs. Ultimately, technological advancement requires a joint effort between government and industry. Romney’s unwillingness to spend will likely inhibit him from providing sufficient incentives for research and development. This gives Obama the edge in this category.

Student loan reform: Obama

Joanna Rothenberg

After years of education, students amass quite a large debt. With the economic crisis, graduating no longer means being happily employed with the company of your dreams. It may mean being employed with a company students are overqualified for, one that doesn’t require their college degree. Because of this, students need leeway in case we cannot yet afford to pay back loans. Our education should not cause us more harm than good, but too often that ends up happening. Graduation should not cause fear about how school will be paid for — it should be an opportunity to look forward to the future. With student loan reform, students and their families will not have to worry about the burden of loan paybacks as much, a welcome relief to everyone. Students could be whatever they want and be rewarded for it. And better yet, not have to continuously rely on parents, even after graduation.

Welfare: Obama

Ta’les Love

In this economy, many families are struggling to make ends meet. This has caused a 32 percent increase in federal welfare spending over the past four years. According to The Washington Times, “Federal spending on more than 80 low-income assistance programs reached $746 billion in 2011,” making welfare “the single biggest chunk of federal spending.” While government assistance has increased, it is imperative that the winner of the presidential election crafts a policy aimed at efficiently helping receivers off assistance but not by cutting spending, which essentially shuts them out. In a campaign advertisement, Romney claims that Obama has gutted the welfare program, nearly erasing the work requirements. Romney plans to cut spending and up those requirements, but Obama denies those claims. President Obama’s plan has flourished and has provided Americans more stability in an economy struggling to rebuild itself, helping struggling Americans get back on their feet. Receivers of governmental assistance should be allowed to work, but everyone needs help sometimes, and if people can’t turn to the government, there may be a bigger problem at hand.

Health Care: Obama

Nora Ibrahim

Though no one candidate seems to have hit a home run when it comes to making great strides in health care reform, the Affordable Care Act, fondly known as Obamacare, has the greater edge in winning this election for Obama. Fully implemented, the ACA is projected to cover more citizens in every state, income level and age group; better protect them from health insurance companies; and make insurance more affordable, according to The Commonwealth Fund. Obamacare’s counterpart, Romneycare, puts the reins of health care policy in the states’ hands but also relies on the principle that these continually rising insurance costs will inspire creativity somewhere and that these costs will drive themselves down. But Obama’s plan on spending for Medicare is not all that different from Romney’s, according to Aaron Carroll at the Incidental Economist. The greatest difference between the two will be in Medicaid spending, which insures the poor. Still, Obamacare is more aggressive in meeting its goal for universal health care coverage. If Obamacare were repealed, The Commonwealth Fund projects that 60 million people would be uninsured by 2022. Obamacare will reduce the number of uninsured people by about 32.9 million, leaving just 27.1 million people uninsured.

Energy: Obama

John Buysse

Both candidates have stressed that this election isn’t just a choice between two people but between two opposite visions for the country — especially apparent in the stark contrast on energy policy. Gov. Romney’s plan is focused on opening up American shores to drill for oil and natural gas and initiating partnerships with Canada and Mexico for a North American energy partnership. President Obama has famously highlighted an “all of the above” strategy that allows for some drilling on our own shores but an increased investment in solar, wind and clean coal energy that has the possibility to wean the country off of its oil dependency in the coming years. Both plans claim to provide economic boosts to the country and likely would lead to an increase in jobs either way.