Student political groups debate issues

The names of the debaters weren’t as recognizable as Mitt Romney, Barack Obama or Gary Johnson, but the pressing national issues they discussed were.

Wednesday evening, Pi Sigma Alpha, Pitt’s political science honors society, hosted a debate between the College Democrats, College Republicans and College Libertarians in David Lawrence Hall regarding issues in the upcoming Nov. 6 presidential election.

The debate was moderated by Jon Anzur, a senior staff writer for the Pitt Political Review; Ankur Sakaria, a member of Pi Sigma Alpha and staff writer for the Pitt Political Review; and Pat McAteer, an assistant news editor at The Pitt News.

The debate gave students the opportunity to hear opinions on policies and issues from the perspective of fellow Pitt undergrads, rather than those expressed by President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in the three presidential debates.

The first topic of discussion was the nation’s economy. Both the College Libertarians and the College Republicans agreed that increasing taxes and regulations are not necessary measures to stimulate the private sector and grow the public sector. But the College Democrats stated that the relationship between the private and public sectors is “symbiotic” and that investment in infrastructure is crucial.

“We need to invest in infrastructure,” said Robert Beecher, a member of the College Democrats.

The Libertarians responded to this by stating that the relationship between the public and private sector is “parasitic,” not symbiotic, and that increased government spending in projects such as infrastructure is harmful to the economy.

On the issue of the deficit, the College Libertarians pointed out that the United States government’s mandatory and discretionary spending is too high and that the nation needs to undergo a total overhaul to fix this issue.

The College Republicans said they believed this idea was too extreme, but they expressed their support for tax cuts in reducing the federal deficit.

The College Democrats disagreed with representatives of both parties and fully backed Obama’s tax plan as a viable means to reduce the deficit.

“It is pigheaded not to use all the tools in our toolbox,” said College Democrat Zach Gozlan.

The College Democrats expressed their support for Obamacare, while both the College Libertarians and the College Republicans derided it for being too costly.

The College Republicans stated that Obama’s current health plan doesn’t allow everyone to keep their current health plan, contrary to what Obama promised in his 2008 campaign.

The College Libertarians expressed their belief that Obamacare costs more than what the people actually need, and that it doesn’t benefit everyone.

“It only benefits the sickliest,” said Cameron Gray, a member of the College Libertarians.

College tuition prices have seen recent and significant increases, and the College Democrats said that federal funding could alleviate this. According to the College Democrats, funding for grants for students is vital because everyone should have the right to an education.

The College Libertarians strongly disagreed with this point by stating that college isn’t a right and that federal funding is not necessary.

Steve Prescott, a member of the College Libertarians, explained that restricting funding toward a certain entity inflates its price. He added that students needed to focus on viable academic concentrations.

A topic of major contention involved gender-gap wages. The College Libertarians said women’s pregnancy and leave of absence leads to a lack of experience in the field, which justifies why their pay is less than men’s. The crowd of approximately 75 voiced its disapproval with this belief through a series of boos.

The College Democrats expressed their belief that women should always be paid an amount equal to that of men and that childbearing should not have an effect on their pay.

Unlike the College Democrats, who expressed their support of the Lilly Ledbetter Act extending the statute of limitations on gender discrimination lawsuits, Casey Rankin, president of the College Republicans, said it adversely affected a woman’s chances of being hired.

“It’s harder for women to enter the workforce because of a fear of lawsuit,” Rankin said.