Fairness is a stylish word in politics this year. The President has set the tone, calling for an economy where everyone gets a “fair shot,” pays a “fair share” and is regulated to ensure “fair play.” Indeed, the Obama campaign is building a narrative that depends on one essential tenet: If you aren’t a liberal Democrat, your vision for America is a deeply unfair one.

For the most part, Republicans have ceded this territory to Democrats. The word “fairness” is usually invoked in conjunction with ominous references to “millionaires and billionaires” or “income inequality.” But a closer examination indicates that fairness is a principle routinely trampled by the liberals who invoke it most. If there is one message that conservative Republicans should emphasize to voters this year, it is that true fairness is the province of the right.

To understand this, you have to understand the conservative philosophy of equality. At the heart of conservatism is the belief that equal opportunity is more important than equal outcomes. In an equal-opportunity world, good outcomes are produced by determination, hard work and a little luck. In contrast, a world that values equal outcomes will ensure that everyone has equal wealth, regardless of whether they worked hard for it.

This unfairness shows itself prominently in the debate about tax policy. Among liberal politicians, “fair share” has become a common euphemism for “higher taxes.” Conveniently, the President and his comrades on the left neglect to define what exactly a “fair share” is, but we are assured that the “wealthy” aren’t paying it. There’s only one problem with this assertion — it’s not true.

According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes while earning only 20 percent of all income. The top 10 percent paid 70 percent of all taxes while earning only 45 percent of all income. In contrast, the bottom 50 percent of income earners earned 13 percent of all income but paid less than 3 percent of federal income taxes.

In the supposedly “unfair” status quo described by Obama, the wealthy pay a disproportionately large percentage of the tax burden, while the less-wealthy pay a disproportionately small percentage. These numbers apparently don’t deter the left from proposing tax raises that would distort the balance even more. As noted conservative Arthur Brooks observed, “If you think spreading money around by force seems like an odd definition of fairness, you’re not alone.”

And then there’s debt. At $15.3 trillion, the national debt now exceeds the total GDP of the American economy. And the debt is growing. The government is taking in approximately $1 trillion less than it is spending every year. One would think that in fairness to the younger generations, the President would at least have a plan to stop the bleeding. Aside from platitudes about mutual contribution and shared burdens, Mr. Obama has offered little. His plan to raise taxes on the wealthy would, by the most charitable estimates, raise over $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue by 2020. By that time we’ll be another $9 trillion in debt — if we maintain current spending levels, which Democrats are loath to do.

It seems that liberals are so committed to fiscal profligacy that they refuse to even consider reform. But the welfare state as currently constituted is unsustainable. That means that our generation will pay to sustain a broken system a little longer, but will never see the benefits of that system. Fair? Hardly.

And the list goes on. Is it fair that liberals support amnesty for illegal immigrants, punishing legal immigrants who waited patiently in line? Is it fair for liberals to support minimum-wage laws that keep young workers unemployed? Is it fair for liberals to suppress students’ freedom to choose between schools while trumpeting a mother’s freedom to choose to kill her defenseless unborn child? And can it be fair for liberals to prioritize criminals over their victims by shackling law enforcement and politicizing the legal system? For the left, fairness is a slogan, not a conviction.

In contrast, conservatism’s core values of equal opportunity, meritocracy and justice are natural progenitors of fairness. In a conservative world, people keep more of their hard-earned money and national solvency is an obligation to future generations. Life itself is sometimes unfair, and so conservatives support private charities which can help the needy without creating the scourge of lifelong dependency.

Perhaps it is whimsical to expect Americans to accept the narrative of fairness on the right rather than the left. But behind the facade of liberal fairness lurks a fundamentally unfair philosophy that prioritizes politics over people. It’s up to conservatives to expose it.

SAM HOEL is a student at the UC Davis School of Law and can be reached at swhoel@ucdavis.edu.

The scrutiny brought on by the arduous campaign process has exposed the flaws of the top contenders for the Republican ticket this coming November, and with good reason; a president needs to express discretion and execute policies that benefit the U.S.

The candidates are disappointing but not as disappointing as their supporters who cheer uninsured deaths, boo gay soldiers and defend racist comments. The candidates aren’t just far from perfect; their values and policies exacerbate the economic and cultural divide that exists today.

Newt Gingrich is an adulterous fool with sensationalist sound bytes for a country that needs a more serious candidate. Starting a colony on the moon during your second term is a grandiose idea, but it’s probably not enough to win over an electorate that speaks “the language of the ghetto.” (Yeah, he actually said that about Spanish.) Not only have Newt Gingrich’s remarks toward the Hispanic community been arrogantly ignorant, but so have his suggestions that children work as janitorial staff or about Americans who can’t marry respect the sanctity of marriage just like he has.

While Ron Paul may have some insightful, albeit draconian, suggestions for U.S. foreign policy, his domestic stance is as woefully disconnected as Mitt Romney’s. Paul’s blind support of states rights could have grave implications for women’s right to choose, and his history of fraternization with white supremacist groups is nothing short of troubling. He appears on the surface to lack hypocrisies, but upon closer examination of his constitutional interpretations regarding the powers granted to states, many of the social liberals that support him would be concerned.

Rick Santorum is consistently homophobic and backward-thinking. His disgraceful attacks on the LGBTQ community should be enough to show that this man lacks the compassion to be a community leader, let alone president. Giving Rick Santorum the benefit of the doubt is akin to his suggestion that rape victims “make the best of a bad situation” and “accept what God has given [them].” Rick Santorum may mean well, but his bigotry is unfitting of a president.

Mitt Romney may be a flip-flopper, but the most distressing thing about his proposed agenda is that it preserves the status quo — the exact policies that lead to our current economic predicament. It doesn’t take a degree in economics to realize that a consumer-driven economy cannot survive with supply-side economics. Rising education costs, foreclosures and layoffs are all that has trickled down since Reagan’s presidency.

We cannot afford to elect a candidate that is “not concerned about the very poor” when the median income in the United States has decreased 1.35 percent since 1997 while the 95th percentile’s income has increased by 5.48 percent. Income inequality is not just a demographic issue; without disposable income in the lower income brackets, demand implodes, making income inequality detrimental to the societal health of the U.S.

Romney’s economic future is one in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Inequality is an inherent part of our current socioeconomic reality, but we are all supposed to share in the benefits and the sacrifices. Instead, the entirety of the economic hardship of the last 15 years has been endured by the lower classes while the rich have enjoyed relatively vast wealth expansion.

Corrupt beltway legislators obstructed President Obama’s efforts to reverse supply-side economics and increase demand. Instead, Romney’s congressional ideologues continue to support policies that funnel tax dollars into the coffers of the one percent. Not that Obama’s efforts were all effective, but many of his failures on the Hill and around the country can be attributed to poor cabinet and staff appointments.

There is one Republican candidate that doesn’t keep me up at night. While I don’t care much for the Republican narrative, he doesn’t scare me as much as the rest, and a couple of his issues speak to me. Buddy Roemer, the former governor of Louisiana, is refusing to take donations larger than $100 and is using his campaign as a soap box for much-needed campaign finance reform.

More and more, electability depends on wealth and sensationalism. The Obama campaign is expected to spend over $1 billion this election season, and that does not take into account his campaign’s recent backpedal on 501(c)4 “super PAC” non-profits. Buddy Roemer has made the rounds on TV spreading his message and has found some resonance on shows like the Colbert Report.

I know that whomever I vote for this election season, they won’t be supported by Wall Street.

In what is unquestionably the most profound art movement to grace our generation, UC Davis memes have been flooding the Facebook walls (and hearts) of  every college student since their fateful incarnation earlier last week.

A true miracle of the internet, these memes bring a personal twist on Facebook to the jokes we’ve already learned to find annoying and boring on 4Chan.org and Reddit.com.

As “meme” implies, these Microsoft Paint-produced masterpieces are original and clever. We, The Editorial Board, see no better way for our campus to recover from the PR disaster that was  Nov. 18 than to oversimplify all of the silly things that make attending this university worth over $16,000 a year.

No one can forget a post from this weekend in which Sheltered College Freshman asks, “What are we going to pack for Picnic Day?” Everyone knows we don’t “pack” anything for Picnic Day! Unless by pack she means “get drunk.” Or Saturday night’s “Senior at Davis/Takes a tractor-driving class,” which, by the way, is a great idea.

The guy from Lord of The Rings may be the most political of all, reminding every Davis student that “One does not simply/Use Aggie Cash at the CoHo.” Why is this? Why don’t Aggie Cash purchases come with warning labels? These are serious questions.

Let us go meta for a moment. We, The California Aggie, look forward to the day when some stoned sophomore improves our sullen lives with a quip about us as a publication. After all, there is plenty to make fun of. Do you see this editorial? Does it seem like we take ourselves too seriously?

While the untrained eye may see these silly little pictures as innocuous, true academics (of which The California Aggie Editorial Board is composed) will see that these memes are bringing the political and social change our generation has so desperately been seeking. Irony and a condescending tone are the ways of the future! Change is near!

Viva la revolución.

“They say a man should always dress for the job he wants, so why am I dressed up like a pirate in this restaurant?”

Oh, the unsolved mysteries of life.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, go YouTube “Free credit pirate commercial” and then continue reading.

Whether it’s from our parents or a certain actor in a variety of outlandish scenarios, we’re all told about the importance of having good credit, but the reasons why are seldom clearly explained. Of course, the warning to avoid selling chowder and iced tea to tourists works for some, but for everyone else, here are the reasons why you should pay attention to your credit score.

Let’s begin at the beginning. Your credit score is a number from 300 (worst) to 850 (best). You won’t receive a credit score until after six months of using credit, such as having a credit card, when a computer algorithm will determine your starting score based off five factors. There are many common misconceptions about what affects your score. Age, marital status, race, employment, income, education and whether you have been turned down for a loan do NOT affect your score.

The first and most important factor is paying your bills, with an emphasis placed on most recent ones. This accounts for 35 percent of your score. Unlike that time your friend lent you $10 when you found yourself at Burgers & Brew without cash at two in the morning with a jalapeño burger calling your name, the time in which you pay back is important. Obviously, the best case is to pay your bills on time. Slightly worse is paying them late. Not paying is bad, but filing for bankruptcy is infinitely worse and, as far as your credit score goes, should be avoided if at all possible.

Second in importance is how much money you owe versus how much credit you have, known in “the biz” as your debt-to-credit ratio. Money owed includes charges on credit cards, mortgage payments, car loans, personal loans, etc. The amount of credit you have is easily calculated by what the cap is if you max out all your credit cards.

Next is simply how long you have had credit. So if you don’t have an account yet, you should open one even if you don’t plan to use it. That’s because the longer you have an account (and keep it in good standing) the better your credit gets, especially if you stick with the same company. Length of credit history accounts for 15 percent of your score.

Having a mix of credit amounts to 10 percent of your score. Variety isn’t just the spice of life; it’s also one key to a good credit score. People who have credit cards, mortgage loans and car payments are perceived as less risky then someone with just credit cards. Having a lot of diversification makes you appear better and more responsible with money.

The final 10 percent comes from how active you have been in looking for new credit. Typically, people who are searching for lots of loans are in a less secure financial situation than someone not looking for loans. This is especially true for people who are about to file for bankruptcy, as they attempt last-minute efforts to prevent filing.

So why does your score matter? Well, whether you know it or not, your credit score is directly related to the interest rate you receive when you try to get a loan, insurance or new credit card. The higher your credit score, the better (read: safer) you look to lenders, and the better rate you will receive. Anything over 700 is considered good, while below 580 needs to be improved. Bad credit won’t just get you a bad rate; it might prevent you from getting a loan at all, or a high-limit credit card.

Now if you’re a college student you may think none of this relates to you yet, right? Wrong. If you ever bought a cell phone, applied for a serious job, needed to set up PG&E, rented an apartment or even got braces, it’s a pretty good bet that your credit score was checked.

The most important thing to know is that credit scores can easily contain mistakes. If you’re one of those people who doesn’t bother to check your credit reports, you should listen to that iced tea-serving pirate and go to freecreditreport.com and start now.

If you’d like DANNY BRAWER to help you with checking your credit score, let him know at dabrawer@ucdavis.edu.