the POLITIK PRESS 9/23/13
SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013
the
POLITIK PRESS
Volume XIV, Issue II
Volume XIV, Issue II 1
Volume XIV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
the
SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013
POLITIK PRESS A publication of
JHU POLITIK jhupolitik.org
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Alex Clearfield & Rachel Cohen MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Katie Botto Christine Server CREATIVE DIRECTOR Victoria Scordato MARKETING/PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham Audrey Moss WEBMASTER Sihao Lu
HEAD WRITER Ari Schaffer MARYLAND EDITOR Adam Roberts COPY EDITOR Peter Lee STAFF WRITERS Akshai Bhatnagar Henry Chen Virgil Doyle Rosellen Grant Geordan Williams Chris Winer FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
VOLUME XIV, ISSUE II SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013 2
Volume XIV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013
INSIDE THIS ISSUE WEEK IN REVIEW
..................................................................
Page 4
Abigail Sia ’15
LOOKING TO 2014:
AFGHANS SET TO VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, YET CRITICAL QUESTIONS STILL REMAIN ............................................................ Page 5 Sarallah Salehi ’16
THE POLITICS OF SILENCE ......................................................
Page 6
Eliza Schultz ’15
NOT JUST THEIR FATHERS’ DAUGHTERS: ANALYSIS OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN CHILE ..................................
Page 7
Rebecca Grenham ’16
PARTISANSHIP IN THE NEW YORK MAYOR’S RACE: A REFLECTION OF NATIONAL TRENDS ..........................................
Page 8
Adam Roberts ’14
THE POLITICIZATION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ................
Page 9
Brian Hershey ’16 & Ben Kupferberg ’15
FIVE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS .......
Page 10
Cindy Minn ’14
3
Volume XIV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013
WEEK IN REVIEW By Abigail Sia ’15, Contributing Writer House of Representatives Votes to Cut $39 Billion from Food Stamps In the midst of the drama surrounding the funding bill that is threatening to shut down the federal government, the House of Representatives voted Thursday to cut the food stamp program by $39 billion over ten years. The bill passed 217-210, with fifteen Republicans joining the Democrats in opposition. A bicameral panel in the Senate is expected to drastically reduce the proposed cuts, and most rank-and-file GOP members see the bill as a starting point from which the two versions of the legislation can merge. In a rather unconventional floor speech, Democratic Representative Jackie Speier accused Republicans who supported the cuts of benefiting from generous stipends for international travel. Speier brought a steak, a bottle of vodka, and a can of caviar onto the House floor and lambasted the GOP backers saying, “They somehow feel like crusaders, like heroes when they vote to cut food stamps.” The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 3.8 million people will lose food stamp benefits in 2014.
U.S., Brazil Cancel October State Visit Over Alleged NSA Spying On Tuesday, controversy over reports that the U.S. government spied on the communications of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, her advisers, and the oil giant Petrobras led to a mutual cancellation of Rousseff’s planned October 23 visit to Washington, D.C. The U.S. is Brazil’s largest trading partner after China, and the revelation, which came through media reports that cited evidence apparently leaked by Edward Snowden, has strained relations between the two countries and overshadowed a state visit that was supposed to bring the two biggest economies in the Americas together for important bilateral trade negotiations. The White House announced that Rousseff’s visit would be postponed, acknowledging that the tension would have detracted from the talks. In a similar display of displeasure, both Brazil and Mexico summoned their U.S. ambassadors earlier this month and condemned the alleged espionage work as a threat to their sovereignty.
Greek Public Sector Workers Go On Strike Against New Job Cuts On Tuesday, public sector workers went on strike to protest Greece’s new proposal to reform its public sector. Under the proposed plan, 25,000 civil servants would start receiving a reduced salary and eventually be redeployed or even dismissed. 15,000 jobs are expected to be cut by 2015. Public sector workers held rallies across Greece and striking school guards clashed with riot police in Athens. Despite the public backlash and a 28-percent unemployment rate, finance minister Yannis Stournaras believes that Greece will see quarterly growth for the first time since the beginning of its economic crisis. Prime Minister Antonis Samaras also says that the Greek economy could be back to its pre-crisis levels within six years. Greece has already received 240 billion euros from the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. It agreed to this civil service plan in order to receive another billion euros. Athens still needs 10 billion more euros to cover its funding gap. PP
4
Volume XIV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013
LOOKING TO 2014: AFGHANS SET TO VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, YET CRITICAL QUESTIONS STILL REMAIN by Sarallah Salehi ‘16, Contributing Writer
O
n April 5, in a little more than 6 months, Afghans will take to the ballot box to elect a new president who will be responsible for leading a nation ravaged by more than three decades of destructive civil war. The eyes of the world will be watching closely as eager Afghans voice their opinion on who they believe is best suited to guide the country from its current anachronistic ways towards a more global and pluralistic system. Yet, several major obstacles remain before such an end can even be considered. Afghanistan’s longtime dominant tribal group, the Pashtuns, have wielded an almost exclusive claim to political authority dating back to the 18th century. However, a recently formed alliance, Ettihad-e Entikhabati (Elective Union), composed of the three largest ethnic minorities (the Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek), has cast doubts on whether the brutal mandate of the Pashtuns will continue. Although it would be a monumental feat for a candidate from a minority sect, such as the Hazaras, to became president, the unfortunate reality is that such an event would certainly strike at the fragile social fabric and throw the country back into civil war. Knowing this, it would be highly prudent of the Ettihad alliance to incorporate a prominent Pashtun member as the head of their movement. But who should be this leader? Interestingly, my answer to this question is a name that many in our Hopkins community are quite familiar with: Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, a former Political Science professor at Johns Hopkins. The one-time finance minister to outgoing president Hamid Karzai, Dr. Ghani presents not only an impressive track record in Afghan domestic politics, but also brings needed political clout to the international stage; he was once rumored to be the successor to Kofi Annan as UN Secretary General. For a nation that is sick of Karzai and his posse of corrupt cronies who’ve done very little to improve the livelihoods of Afghans, Dr. Ghani seems an obvious choice to move the country toward a more prosperous and stable future. Another significant concern amongst many Afghans, especially those from minority communities, involves the legitimacy of the winner. Still fresh is the memory of
the 2009 presidential race, with its dubious results and widespread accusations of forgery aimed at incumbent Karzai. More pressing now, however, is the fear that foreign nationals from neighboring countries like Pakistan will fraudulently impinge on the outcome of the elections. With more than 30 million native Pashtuns living on the Pakistani-side of the Durand Line, almost greater than the entire population of Afghanistan itself, the minority-opposition has a perfectly valid reason to be distressed: a migration of a million or so tribesmen would completely defeat Ettihad’s electoral advantage. For this reason, it is quite important that Afghan security forces place heightened scrutiny at major border crossing areas while temporarily working to cordon off as much of the lawless border as possible in order to ease this growing tension. But the most looming threat to a stable transfer of power in Afghanistan is undoubtedly the radical Taliban insurgency. Ignoring the repeated peaceful overtures from both minority representatives and fellow Pashtun leaders such as Karzai, Taliban commanders have clearly proven their unyielding stance towards the idea of political reconciliation. Moreover, it should be understood that the Taliban will never be defeated through force, even one as strong as the U.S’, since the essence of their movement is one deeply embedded in a cultural context. As such, it’s crucial that the U.S. toughen its stance toward the Taliban’s furtive patrons in Pakistan, specifically ISI chief Zaheer ul-Islam. For instance, the United States can make it clear that the almost 2 billion dollars in aid we provide each year to Pakistan’s military is contingent upon their cessation of covert assistance to the Taliban. Without a decisive move that turns off their funding pipeline, the Taliban will never accept any government in Kabul and will continue to pursue its goal of subjecting all Afghans to regressive Islamic norms. Despite these hurdles, Afghans are fully cognizant of the challenges democracy presents. Yet, as a proud member of the Afghan diaspora, I can directly attest to the high hopes and vibrant chatter amongst both laymen and pundits as they attempt to articulate their vision of a new democratic Afghanistan. PP
5
Volume XIV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013
THE POLITICS OF SILENCE by Eliza Schultz ‘15, Contributing Writer
J
ohns Hopkins avoids controversy.
We reaffirmed this fact two weeks ago when the University attempted to remove faculty member Matthew Green’s blog post regarding the National Security Administration, an act of censorship to which Johns Hopkins students responded with negligible dialogue. While the incident occurred on September 9, the campus newspaper The News-Letter did not publish a related article until September 12, a shameful four days after the story surfaced, and failed to write an editorial response for yet another day. In an age in which we are accustomed to news access as it unfolds, delayed and limited coverage is dangerous, as it perpetuates a problem on our campus whereby students do not recognize the actions of the administration, and as a result become complicit in them. Beyond this act of academic censorship, the University has a disturbing record of evading controversy. For many years, the administration deliberately reported zero cases of sexual assault in the Annual Campus Security Report, a claim that is statistically impossible given that the Department of Justice estimates that one in four college women will be victims of rape or attempted rape before graduation. The University does not publicize the Report out of its own volition; it is federally mandated to do so under the Clery Act. Only in the past academic year did the University begin to publish any evidence of sexual assault in its report. The sole case reported that year was perpetrated by a University non-affiliate. As such, the incident did not reflect poorly on campus dynamics; the administration was able to cast blame onto the surrounding city. However, a fellow undergraduate and I recently joined together to pressure the administration to report more accurate statistics. As a result, the most recent Report published only this week includes eight sexual assaults. While these incidents were left unreported and undisclosed to the student body for months up until the release of the Report (under the Clery Act such incidents are to be promptly reported to all students), that they are reflected in the Report at all indicates that campus activism can yield results.
Another particularly poignant event about which the student body received scant information was the recent death of an undergraduate. In response, the University has hardly been communicative, issuing only one email that described the death in vague language. There have been no subsequent statements nor any known memorial service. Students have been left to speculate the cause of death, an exercise that is unsettling for us and most unfair to the deceased. I cannot help myself from wondering whether the University has avoided any serious dialogue on this tragedy in order, yet again, to avoid a blemish on its record. These two cases are not isolated incidents in the University’s history; they stand among many as situations in which the administration has deliberately evaded contentious matters, upholding its reputation over the students’ best interests. And yet, the student body does not react; in fact, barring only a small number of campus activists, it has grown complicit in all matters regarding the administration. While the underreporting of campus sexual assaults is common knowledge among many students, only three related articles surfaced in The News-Letter in the past year, two of which were written by myself and my roommate. Nobody has reported on the recent student death. The News-Letter praised the administration for reversing its censorship of Professor Green but demanded no further explanation regarding why he was censored. The student body is an echo-chamber for the University, an entity without an independent voice that fails to scrutinize or to call into question the administration’s practices. Our collective inaction holds consequences: we have allowed the University to suppress our voices, to replace broken humans with false statistics, and to be silent while we mourn. The blog post scandal has garnered national attention, with journalists and academics alike lambasting the University for its violation of academic freedom. But we must not interpret their reactions solely as indictments on the administration; it is our own responsibility to prove that we deserve the very academic freedom that was denied to Professor Green. We must react and report, discuss and repair, and be responsible citizens of our university. PP
6
Volume XIV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013
NOT JUST THEIR FATHERS’ DAUGHTERS: ANALYSIS OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN CHILE by Rebecca Grenham ‘16, Advertising and Publicity Co-Chair
F
or the first time in Chile’s history, the two leading contenders for president are women. Former president Michelle Bachelet of the Socialist Party and Evelyn Matthei of the conservative party are both active in politics, supported by their respective parties, and have vast plans for Chile’s future. Most media attention, however, is not centered on their careers but rather their fathers. This attention serves as a diversion from the more complex issues in Chile today, mainly income inequality and its education system. Bachelet and Matthei’s fathers, though interesting figures, are fairly irrelevant to the election in November. Media outlets, however, seem to think otherwise and run sensationalist stories of their fathers and their fates during Augusto Pinochet’s regime. While Bachelet’s father protested and was killed under the regime, Matthei’s father was an avid Pinochet supporter. Though their family history is interesting and clearly influenced their politics today, it will ultimately not determine the election. The Pinochet era in Chile is certainly not forgotten (Chile recently commemorated the 40 year anniversary since the overthrow of Salvador Allende), yet it is not the only component in this election. Many Chileans today are concerned with social inequality, especially in areas like education, and will vote for the candidate who they think will modify these systems best. The candidates’ plans for education are far more relevant and important to this coming election. Chile reformed education in the 1980s when the government decentralized education, requiring municipalities to fund their own school systems. As a result, affluent municipalities were able to provide better schools than poorer districts. In an attempt to combat the effects of decentralization, the government introduced a voucher system to help families pay for private education. The vouchers are given to private and public schools based on the number of students enrolled. Families can request that the municipality use the voucher to fund their child through a government-subsidized private school. In Chile, where most of the poor live in less denselypopulated rural areas, this means that schools in rural
municipalities, which already have tighter budgets due to education costs, receive less federal funding because they have fewer students. Although private schools were supposed to use the vouchers to lower fees, private schools in many areas do not use the vouchers to lower fees, but instead raise the cost of attendance to make profit. As a consequence, low-income students are not widely represented in private schools. Candidates in the coming election will be judged based on how they address educational inequality and how they interact with the number of student protesters demanding an end to the voucher system. Students began protesting in 2006 during the “Penguin Revolution,” claiming that the education system failed to serve Chile’s poor. In 2011, protests began once again, calling for an end to privatization and free higher education, and have continued throughout this year. Bachelet allies herself with the students, saying that she is in favor of highquality education for all. However, she may have to explain why she did not end the voucher system under her first presidency. Matthei does not support free higher education and is closely allied with current President Piñera, (who students refuse to meet with). This could explain why she is less popular in the polls. Moreover, student protestors are accompanied by hundreds of other dissatisfied Chileans demanding a fairer share of wealth from copper, legalization of life-saving abortions, and higher taxes for the wealthy. The next president of Chile will not be elected based on how her father shaped the past, but on how she plans to shape Chile’s future. Media attention on the candidate’s family histories is not only irrelevant, but also worrisome. In most elections, candidates’ families are brought forward and analyzed to try to decipher their politics. However, the extensive focus on the candidate’s fathers rather than their own careers forces two capable women into the shadows of influential men. Chile’s 2013 presidential election is a historic one, and the fact that the two leading candidates are female should be celebrated. However, if we only see the candidates as daughters, we deny them the respect and responsibility that they deserve as capable politicians. PP
7
Volume XIV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013
PARTISANSHIP: A NATIONAL TREND REFLECTED IN THE NEW YORK MAYOR’S RACE by Adam Roberts ‘14, Maryland Editor
M
ichael Bloomberg’s third and final term as Mayor of New York has seen dramatically increased skepticism of his vision from both Democrats and Republicans. Many Democrats have lost their tolerance for his friendliness towards big businesses, and have become critical of his record on minority rights. Meanwhile, Republicans have become frustrated with his increasingly big government policies, including attempts to limit beverage sizes and his support for strict gun control laws. Bipartisan support for Bloomberg during his first two terms helped New York withstand a national trend towards increasing partisanship. However, as is reflected by the recent primary elections for mayor, widespread disapproval of Bloomberg’s policies has pushed the politics of both parties in New York to the margins. The most notable partisan has been Bill de Blasio, the Democratic mayoral nominee. He has created the persona of being the anti-Bloomberg by supporting increased taxes on the rich, opposing charter schools, and supporting more civilian oversight of the NYPD. His rhetoric against the business community and wealthy Manhattanites has been even more fiery, leading Bloomberg to claim that de Blasio was waging “class warfare.” In the Democratic primary, de Blasio managed to best Christine Quinn, a strong Bloomberg supporter, and Bill Thompson, who is closely aligned to the business community. Not only did he manage to defeat two moderate candidates, but he did so by significant margins, taking 40% of the vote compared to Thompson’s 26% and Quinn’s 15%. The man who Reuters calls “an unabashed liberal,” managed to cruise to a win in what was expected to be a much closer race. While the moderate and pro-Bloomberg Joe Lhota managed to win the Republican mayoral primary, he did so with a surprisingly low amount of the vote. His ultraConservative opponent, John Catsimatidis, managed to take over 40% of the vote. “Cats”, as he likes to be called, once compared raising taxes on the rich to Hitler’s extermination of the Jews, and questions whether global warming is caused by humans.
With Democrats giving the mayoral nomination to the farleft de Blasio, and over 40% of Republicans voting for the Tea Party-esque Catsimatidis, it seems as though national political polarity has finally infected New York’s voters. Like voters across the country, New Yorkers seem to be increasingly aligned with the fringes of their parties. It is hard to imagine that only four years after Bloomberg was re-elected, ideologies of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have become mainstream in America’s largest city. As it is throughout the rest of the nation, increased polarization has led to the decline of moderate politicians. According to a Marist poll, only 46% of registered voters believe the moderate Bloomberg is doing a good job as mayor. During his first two terms, he was able to successfully balance out right-wing business policies, with leftwing environmental and public health policies. Yet, with the parties moving to the fringes, and voters desiring more ideological politicians, Bloomberg and other moderates across the nation have been left without a base of support. His frustration with this may be why Bloomberg lashed out at de Blasio’s campaign for being “class warfare” and “racist.” After a dozen years of moderate political policies aimed at uniting the city, de Blasio has seemingly divided the city by running a campaign aimed at critiquing the power and wealth of white Manhattanites. Like the rest of the country, increased partisanship in New York has been accompanied by more overtly racial politics. While de Blasio has been most critical of wealthy white Manhattanites, they have been supportive of his message. According to the New York Times, he won over 30% of the vote in areas where the average income was at least $250,000, and 39% in areas where it was at least $150,000. In majority white areas, he won over 39% of the vote; only Blacks supported him in greater numbers. If anything, non-Black minorities were the most skeptical of de Blasio’s message. Thompson dominated amongst Orthodox Jews and won over 30% of the vote in majority Hispanic areas (compared to 26% overall). Amongst Asians, de Blasio only won 22%. Though New York may increasingly reflect the intense partisanship common across the country, this partisanship has been far less racialized in New York than elsewhere. PP
8
Volume XIV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013
THE POLITICIZATION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE by Brian Hershey ‘16 & Ben Kupferberg ‘15, Contributing Writers
S
ince the financial collapse of 2008, a heightened sense of urgency has surrounded the operations of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States. This week Laurence Summers, the favorite candidate to replace Ben Bernanke as the Federal Reserve Chairman, removed his name from consideration for the Chairman position after facing aggressive and unprecedented opposition from Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee. Obama’s relationship with Congress, specifically with his fellow Democratic Party members, has been under intense strain recently as a result of Obama’s unpopular position on US intervention in Syria. The politicization of the appointment of a new Federal Reserve Chair is a relatively new phenomenon and an unwelcome one. Summers was President Obama’s demonstrated first choice for appointment to the Fed Chair position and was forced out due to the unwillingness or inability of Senate and House leaders to unify behind the President. The politicization of the Fed warrants very close attention, as its implications are critical to the behavior of markets and the state of the US economy. Since 2008, the Federal Reserve has expanded its role in financial regulation and instilled massive stimulus to the economy through quantitative easing (QE). In doing so the government has artificially lowered the Federal Funds Rate (the rate at which banks lend each other money) to nearly zero, thus lowering the overall interest rate in the economy. The question on everyone’s mind is: do we continue QE and risk high inflation, or end QE (as it must inevitably end) and raise interest rates? Summers was viewed as keen on taking more aggressive measures to trim back QE due to concerns of inflation. With Summers out of the picture the likely Fed Chair appointee is Janet Yellen, who is expected to take less immediate action to curb QE. In expectation of Yellen’s appointment, the markets are already anticipating a less aggressive approach to unwinding the massive monetary stimulus that has supported markets worldwide. As such, the shift in the spotlight from Summers to Yellen caused the Standard & Poor’s 500 index to rise to a fiveweek high and within 1 percent of a record.
While the markets did soar on the news from Summers, some may wonder what course the economy would be on right now if Obama’s favorite had not withdrawn from consideration. The markets would not have soared as analysts would have had a heightened sense of urgency in anticipating the end of QE, however maybe that’s just what the economy needs. Recently, there has been a divergence between the gains in the stock market and the economy as a whole. While the unemployment rate has dropped from 8.1% when the stimulus program began a year ago to 7.3% last month, the percentage of Americans in the labor force dropped by about 0.3 percentage points and real wages have not grown. The bottom line is, money created by the Fed helps to prop up financial markets, but it is the money created through the interbank lending market that leads to an increase in loans and inevitably lower unemployment. The result of Bernanke and Yellen’s focus on “Fed money” may lead to booming markets but will result in a lackluster recovery in unemployment and the real wage. If Larry Summers hadn’t withdrawn, it is very likely that QE would have been stopped sooner than most expect now with Yellen as the favorite. If the Fed had stopped buying long term bonds to keep interest rates low, interest rates would have risen, which would have resulted in a better interbank lending market. After all, why would a bank lend to another bank now, when a loan yields virtually no return? This pickup in the interbank lending market would have boosted loans and greatly helped out small and medium sized businesses. Following basic macroeconomic theory, an increase in loans boosts investment, which spurs job creation and raises wages. Of course this is only hypothetical, but devils advocate is an important game to play. The politicization of the Federal Reserve Chairman appointment may be skewing the nation’s path out of recession and presents an unwanted change in the power landscape that guides the current economy. PP
9
Volume XIV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013
FIVE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS by Cindy Minn ‘14, Contributing Writer
F
ive years ago on September 15th 2008, Lehman Brothers, one of the largest investment banks in America, filed for bankruptcy. This moment represented one of the lowest points of the Great Recession, during which stock values along with consumer confidence plummeted. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers catalyzed financial chaos; it caused millions of people to lose their jobs and become unable to pay for their homes or small businesses. It also caused banks to tighten credit, and it added a large burden to the government debt. This marked a turning point that revealed the necessity of government intervention. Recently, on Monday, September 16th, Obama spoke in Washington D.C, remembering the 2008 financial collapse and acknowledging that although the economy has been recovering (albeit slowly), “we are not yet where we need to be.” How far have we come and what are the next steps? Several economic indicators suggest that the American economy has resurged. In contrast to the trough of the recession in 2009, when the GDP was contracting at 8%, the economy is currently growing at nearly 3%. The unemployment rate is down from 10%, at its worst, to 7.3% and the budget deficit is decreasing at a faster rate than it has ever before due to Obama’s balanced budget. Furthermore, the American auto industry has made a comeback. Although it does seem that the American economy has recovered, this recovery has brought about both winners and losers. Although the GDP is growing and unemployment is declining, the Great Recession has had consequences not reflected in its figures. The benefits of the post-crisis economic growth have become concentrated amongst the top 1%, who held 20% of the nation’s income last year. The financial sector embodies only a small aspect of the income inequality that has grown deeper since the beginning of the Great Recession. At the surface, America’s economic situation seems to be improving, but in truth, the nature of the problems has just changed. Instead of just growth, we must concern ourselves with equality and the availability of opportunity.
In his “Better Bargain” speech, Obama spoke of his aim of growing the middle class, a goal that I believe is necessary and important for American society. The president calls for a budget that will improve the education system, upgrade transportation and communication networks, increase research and development, and grow infrastructure programs. While Obama often boasts of his successes in revitalizing the American auto industry, which was funded by TARP, the 341,000 jobs that were created were not enough. The creation of new low-skill jobs acted only to cover the wound of the more fundamental issue, not heal it. As technology increases, society continues to demand more high-skill labor. In order to meet this demand, individuals should be able to afford to attend secondary schooling. Obama should address the issue of increasing student debt and tuition in creative ways. One possible solution would be to offer tax breaks to companies that establish their own post-graduate hiring program. Students would be able to obtain jobs right out of college in order to pay back their loans while also benefiting the businesses that they work for. While improving the affordability and accessibility of education will allow more individuals to obtain high skill jobs, there must also be ways to improve the conditions of the low skill jobs. Since the 1970s, there has been a trend in the US towards higher executive compensation - a trend which arguably needs to be limited or reversed. One possible solution would be to place some sort of cap on executive compensation. However, such a resolution would likely face much opposition. Another possible way to address this issue would be to strengthen workers’ protections by supporting unions. Over the summer, there was a movement to establish a “living wage,” and such campaigns to raise the minimum wage could be useful for addressing the current inequality. Ultimately, although Obama‘s rhetoric is promising , it is up to the politicians on Capitol Hill to come together and agree on a budget and find real solutions that will pursue the goal of the “Better Bargain”. Before such agreements can occur, politicians must agree that the middle class is worth protecting, and that it is a frightening idea that there are some lawmakers who would prefer to maintain the status quo. PP
10
Volume XIV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013
WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS
Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division
The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins campus with student voices and perspectives about important issues of our time. Rather than hide within a cloistered academic bubble, we know we must critically engage with the world that surrounds us. That, we believe, is at the heart of what it means to be learning. We’re lucky to be situated in the city of Baltimore, a city with a rich history and an ever-changing politics. We aim to look at the politics of the Homewood campus, of the city of Baltimore, of the domestic landscape of the United States, and then of the international community as well. While we publish the Politik Press weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues which come out once per semester. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. We have run issues covering topics like the political nature of research, the Arab Spring, and our city Baltimore.
If interested e-mail us at
JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org 11