Aaron Berk is a computer engineering junior and Mustang Daily political columnist.

There is no such thing as ‘too big to fail.’

The British Empire failed, the Soviet Union failed and even the Roman Empire failed. Many politicians have tried to argue the opposite though: that some financial institutions are so big that their collapse would be catastrophic for the United States’ economy, and therefore the federal government must bail them out. This is horribly ironic.

Many politicians have argued that we should not allow financial institutions to become what they call ‘too big to fail,’ which is a phrase I find to be indefinable. The irony is that they are running the federal government. I’d imagine we could all agree that the collapse of our federal government would be much more catastrophic than the collapse of any of our financial institutions.  Additionally, by bailing out financial institutions the federal government got bigger and ensured that if it were to collapse that it would be a more devastating affair. Anybody who says our federal government can’t fail doesn’t know their history very well.

The government is all about power and the creation of the phrase serves to expand that power. Under the guise of ‘too big to fail,’ federal officials have given huge sums of taxpayer money to financial institutions, which interestingly enough, an odd number of federal officials worked for these very same institutions prior to working in the administration. I do not appreciate my money being given away to private firms because of some big fear of failure. Here we see fear being used to justify the transfer of billions of dollars.

Another tactic the federal government uses for power is the guise of kindness or benevolence. For example, social security was setup to “help” seniors in their retirement. Social security however, will very likely not be around for our generation, and yet we’re going to have to pay into it. Social security was created back in 1935, and in 1965 the federal government set up Medicare, also to “help” seniors pay for medical care. Again, Medicare is broken – it is an unsustainable system and it is a failure. It is no less a Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme; it’s actually much worse because it’s compulsory and done on a much larger scale.

A pattern begins to emerge here: the federal government time and time again has set up social programs that are failures. I think the way the government has treated the failed financial institutions shows how they want to be treated; even though many major government programs are failures, they think the federal government as it functions now should be kept going, despite the obvious fact that it is unsustainable in its current form. The federal government bailing out failed financial institutions is like one person who’s drowning in debt taking on more to help a friend who’s also in debt. As if that person can afford to help their friend though. When you’re drowning you need to save yourself first before you can rescue others. Besides, if the federal government really had our best interest at heart, they’d realize that a few financial institutions collapsing is not as painful as having social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. all collapse.

The federal government is the monster in the room – it’s eating up other people’s resources and wasting a lot of them along the way. I’d think even if personal liberty isn’t a huge deal to a person that they’d still see the enormity of the federal government and how unsustainable it is in its current form. Asking the federal government to take care of health insurance is analogous to somebody asking somebody who’s filing for bankruptcy for financial advice. That’s not exactly somebody who you want helping you with your finances, judging from how they’ve handled theirs. It’s also like keeping your money at a financial institution that has failed, been bailed out, but hasn’t changed their business practices. They’re likely to fail again, and you’re most likely going to lose your money.

More and more Americans are waking up to the insanity that is the unsustainable federal government. We need to change course soon or the future doesn’t look too bright.

As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the federal government has announced an expansion of an existing educational tax credit. The credit was announced this month by the California State University system to inform students and parents that they may be eligible. This change is for tax years 2009 and 2010.

The American Opportunity Tax credit (AOC) was created by the stimulus plan. This was an expansion of the Hope credit, which was introduced in 1997. After an increase of the Hope credit last year from $1,650 to $1,800 it has now been raised to a maximum of $2,500.

Other changes from the Hope credit to the AOC is that the first four years of post-secondary education, rather than just the first two, can be covered. Although the credit now includes the first four years of higher education, the expansion of the credit is only for two years. After 2010, students can apply for the lifetime learning credit. To apply for this, a student must be enrolled in a post-secondary educational institution and be paying the qualified tuition and fees.

The applicable fees have been expanded to include textbooks; however, this is not the only expense that can be claimed under the AOC. The qualified expenses have also been expanded to include books, supplies and equipment that are needed for education as well as the tuition and fees the Hope Credit included before.

At Cal Poly, students spend hundreds of dollars on textbooks every quarter. Some students can spend as much as $500 per quarter. Depending on a student’s field of study, their books can cost more. Biological sciences senior Sabina Gill says she spends an average of $300 per quarter and when taking classes in the summer, her textbook expenses for the year can reach as high as $1,200. This new credit will allow some eligible students, or their parents, to claim these expenditures for federal income tax credit.

If the student is claimed as a dependent on their parents taxes, then the parent must claim the credit.

“My dad pays for my books, but I would tell him to (claim the credit),” psychology senior Melissa Fake said.

In order to apply for the tax credit, you must pay for “qualified tuition and related expenses” and have a modified adjusted gross income of $80,000 or less or $160,000 for joint filers. However, filers whose income is between $80,000 and $90,000 (or $160,000 and $180,000) can also claim the credit, but the credit is reduced.

For families or independent students who are eligible, this credit provides a way to get back some of the money spent on school.

“My parents will take any advantage on taxes they can get,” biomedical engineering sophomore Jose Beltran said.

Even if the tax payer does not owe any taxes, the credit is now 40 percent refundable, another change from the previous credit. This means after the tax payer files their taxes and claims the AOC, they can receive a refund of up to $1,000.

Although it is simple to determine whether a filer is eligible, it is not automatic.

To claim the credit, filers must fill out Form 8863 and attach it to a Form 1040 or a 1040A. Form 8863 is a single form used to apply for all Education Credits including American Opportunity, Hope and Lifetime Learning Credits.

The tentative calculation for the AOC is done by first taking the total value of qualified expenses (the maximum to be used is $4,000) and subtracting $2,000 from this number. If the resulting amount is negative, the original number will be the tentative credit. Next, you multiply the last number by 25 percent then add $2,000.

This credit can be taken advantage of for the next two tax years. The form can be found online, in the Robert E. Kennedy Library or anywhere other tax forms are located.

Stephanie England is an English senior and Mustang Daily political columnist.

Everyone knows the story of George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” George represents the average, family-oriented, kind-hearted American. He runs a small community bank geared toward helping the average family own their own home and achieve the American dream. Life is wonderful for George until a villainous large bank owner, Mr. Potter, nearly ruins his life and the lives of the residents of Bedford Falls by attempting to monopolize the small town and absorb George’s bank in the process.

As an American consumer, I feel betrayed by our large financial institutions — much like George in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I grimace at the similarities between the attitudes of our bank executives and Mr. Potter. A New York Times report Tuesday revealed that “Bank executives are grappling with a question that exasperates, even infuriates, many recession-weary Americans: Just how big should their paydays be?”

The sickening report continues, “Goldman Sachs is expected to pay employees an average of about $595,000 each for 2009, one of the most profitable years in its 141-year history. Workers in the investment bank of JPMorgan Chase stand to collect about $463,000 on average.”

I understand that because our economy was in such disarray as a result of the Bush administration‘s economic policies of deregulation and free market capitalism, it became necessary to bail out the banks so that credit would be more readily available to consumers.

The thing is, credit isn’t really more available to consumers, and after being in such dire need of taxpayers’ help, these banks clearly rebounded rather quickly — especially when their most pressing moral dilemma revolves around garnering the highest salary possible without raising eyebrows or inciting a social movement.

And it’s not just Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase who are receiving profits disproportionate to the reality of this recession. The Times reports, “During the first nine months of 2009, five of the largest banks that received federal aid — Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley — together set aside about $90 billion for compensation. That figure includes salaries, benefits and bonuses, but at several companies, bonuses make up more than half of compensation.”

It seems that the entire financial system of America is built to penalize the consumer. I was reading about the calculation of credit scores, and I had the impression that simply thinking about my credit score would lower it. Maybe the rationale to bail out the banks was logical according to economics and business, but it seems today that nearly everyone in America has felt the effects of the recession, except for these large financial institutions. I think it’s time that we, as Americans, do something about that.

A simple movement has begun through a Web site called MoveYourMoney.info, which seeks to send a message to banks that were deemed “too big to fail.” The general idea is for people who belong to Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America to move their money and credit cards out of these large financial institutions and into small community banks.

This idea transcends political ideology, empowers the consumer, and supports local communities — and it’s not just an unknown grassroots organization. In the past week, the founders of the site have been on MSNBC and even The Colbert Report.

We can’t rely on our government officials to affect change in our financial institutions because politicians are generally crooked. Instead, we must make the first move to show these licentious financial organizations that if they want our business, they must change their practices. I can assure you that as soon as I decide where I’m going to graduate school, I’m pulling my money out of my current gluttonous, morally decrepit bank, and changing over to the credit union in that city.

During my most recent trip to Ralph’s grocery store, I found myself standing in the produce section  debating which variety of apple to select. Some of the Gala Apples boasted a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Certified Organic sticker and had a price tag listing of $2.29 per pound. The others simply labeled “Gala Apples” had no indication of being organic and cost $0.49 per pound.

I found myself wondering: Is buying the organic option worth the extra money? It seems that every food now comes in an “organic” variety, from spaghetti sauce to packaged cookies to fresh produce. When faced with a decision between two varieties of food, one costing less than the other, college students might be inclined to pick the cheaper option.

After some research, in most cases, I would say that buying the organic option is not worth the extra cost. As a cash-strapped student, I could do without a 50 to 200 percent price increase on groceries and feel that the evidence regarding health effects between non-organic and organic is too inconclusive to take into account.

Before delving into my reasoning, the term “organic” should be made clear. According to the USDA, “Organic meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides, fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge, bioengineering or ionizing radiation.”

How much more does it cost to go organic? I went into a local grocery store with a small list of things I typically buy on a weekly basis.

Here are a few of the 10 items I compared:

Non-organic Grade AA eggs (12 eggs): $2.99 vs. Organic Grade AA eggs (12 eggs): $4.99

Non-organic 1% milk (half gallon): $1.99 vs. Organic 1% milk (half gallon): $4.79

Non-organic Gala Apples (1 pound): $.49 vs. Organic Gala Apples (1 pound): $2.29

Non-organic Ragu pasta sauce (10 oz): $2.63 vs. Organic Ragu pasta sauce (10 oz.): $3.99

Based on this list, the difference in price for non-organic vs. organic was $13.66 or a 58 percent increase. The food items I looked at are just a portion of what I usually buy each week. I generally spend about $80 per week on groceries, which if increased by 58 percent would be about a $46 increase. In a year, I could potentially be spending about $2,400 more on groceries by switching to a completely organic diet.

Is it worth the extra cost? Rob Rutherford, a Cal Poly professor of animal science, describes why he chooses to buy organic food.

“Health is a condition of homeostasis. There is a balance of all the microorganisms in the soil. If we do something to destroy the balance of the soil, we are destroying the balance of food and the balance of us,” Rutherford said.

His reasoning for this all goes back to a quote that says that humankind owes its existence to the fact that there is six inches of soil and the fact that it rains. These natural phenomena should not be tampered with, he said.

While Rutherford might think that using pesticides destroys the natural balance of nature, some studies show that eating organic vs. non-organic do not show any drastic differences.

In a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, it was determined that there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance.

What should you buy?

Another study, published by the USDA, found that if deciding to go on a partial organic diet, a few food items should always be bought organic due to consistently higher levels of pesticide residue in their conventionally grown counterparts.

Based on an analysis of more than 100,000 U.S. government pesticide test results, researchers at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., have developed the “Dirty Dozen” fruits and vegetables: apples, cherries, grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, raspberries, strawberries, bell peppers, celery, potatoes and spinach. The “Dirty Dozen” all have a very thin skin, which makes it easier for pesticides to seep in.

As organic foods gain popularity, I think prices will decrease. For the time being, however, I plan to buy based on what research has discovered by buying the “dirty dozen” produce organically whenever possible, and sticking to conventional foods when it comes to processed food to save some cash. In the long run, I would like to add more organic foods to my diet when my budget allows, not just for the potential benefits on my health, but also for benefits organic farming has on the environment.

Katie Koschalk is a journalism senior and Mustang Daily reporter.

Cal Poly’s Supermileage Vehicle Team knows a thing or two about how to get the most mileage—the team’s futuristic prototype vehicle got 2752.3 mpg at the Shell Eco-Marathon Americas in 2008.

While their car isn’t street-legal and isn’t what most of us probably have in mind (three wheels, under 100 lbs., crazy-safe harness), we can learn about efficiency and performance trade-offs in everyday cars by utilizing their experience and knowledge.

Team manager and mechanical engineering senior Verent Chan gave me some tips about how to get better gas mileage. With gas costing around $3 a gallon, who wouldn’t want to save a few bucks?

So in addition to regular maintenance, here are Verent Chan’s top five ways* to get better gas mileage:

Turn off the AC – We live in SLO, where temperatures never get too blazing. The compressor for the air conditioning in your car takes power from the engine in order to run. However, opening the windows will create more aerodynamic drag. During city driving, speeds are low enough that opening the window is acceptable.

Take off those roof racks – Aerodynamics affect your car’s gas mileage more than you think, especially at higher speeds. By taking off those snowboard, ski and surfboard racks when not in use, the car’s aerodynamic drag can be drastically reduced. This also reduces weight, which can adversely affect your gas mileage.

Obey the speed limit – Drag force is a function of velocity squared. The power required to drive a car with that drag force is a function of velocity cubed! It takes 20% less power to drive a car through the air at 65mph as it does at 70mph. The difference in fuel economy can be drastic.

Minimize the amount of acceleration – More fuel is consumed accelerating from a stop than during cruising. When a light turns red ahead of you, take your foot off the gas and coast up to the light. Try to arrive at the light just as it turns green without having to come to a complete stop. Taking longer distance routes that have little stops will often save more fuel than taking the shortest route but having to stop often. Easing up on the gas pedal and accelerating slower can also help.

Monitor tire pressure – Keeping tires properly inflated is the easiest way to keep your car’s fuel economy high. When tires are not properly inflated, rolling resistance increases. Overinflating tires can increase fuel economy even further, but is very dangerous, decreases the life span of the tires and is never recommended. Buying low rolling resistance tires can also help in saving fuel.

*Chan is quoted directly for all fuel-efficiency tips.

Why not try a couple, or even all of these tips out, and see if they make a difference in your car’s fuel-efficiency? And if you can think of any practices you use regularly, please, share them with the rest of us.

The above unidentified man robbed Chase Bank in downtown San Luis Obispo yesterday at around 2:20 p.m. Courtesy photo

Yesterday an unidentified man robbed Chase Bank on Chorro Street in downtown San Luis Obispo, police said in a press release. The man passed a note to the teller demanding money and claimed he had a gun at approximately 2:20 p.m., police reported.

Katy Skeeters, a Cal Poly philosophy junior, was in the bank during the robbery. She said she was totally unaware of what was going on until after the robber had left.

“I was at the teller when another teller locked the door,” she said.

Skeeters said everyone in the bank was locked in for 30 minutes until the police came and said that it was safe to leave.

He was dressed normally so most people there were “completely oblivious,” she said.

The police describe the suspect as a 35- to 40-year-old, white male who is 5 feet 10 inches tall and 200 pounds with dark hair.

He was last seen walking toward Garden Street after the robbery.

Anyone with information is encouraged to call the San Luis Obispo Police Department at (805) 781-7312.