the
POLITIK PRESS
A publication of
JHU POLITIK jhupolitik.org
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Jeremy Orloff, Matt Varvaro MANAGING EDITOR Alex Clearfield ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Colette Andrei Ari Schaffer LAYOUT EDITOR Victoria Scordato
HEAD WRITER Rachel Cohen STAFF WRITERS Megan Augustine, Akshai Bhatnagar, Michael Bodner, Henry Chen, Virgil Doyle, Chris Dunnett, Cary Glynn, Peter Lee, Daniel Roettger, Chris Winer FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
The views expressed within this publication reflect the personal opinions of each article’s author and are not necessarily endorsed by JHU Politik or the Johns Hopkins University.
VOLUME XII, ISSUE VIII NOVEMBER 5th, 2012
Volume XII, Issue VIII
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 5th, 2012
WEEK IN REVIEW by Virgil Doyle ‘14, Staff Writer
Hurricane Sandy Ravages Caribbean, American Northeast
The effects of Hurricane Sandy were felt from Illinois to New Jersey this past week, as the storm battered the Northeastern United States. Sandy caused extensive damage in the Caribbean as well. The death count in Haiti has been recorded at 54, and President Michel Martelly has declared a national state of emergency for the next month. Meanwhile, the Bahamas suffered an estimated $300 million of property damage, and reports from Cuba described extensive damage to private homes, telephone poles, and the electric grid.
American and Egyptian Security Officials Meet in Cairo
CIA Director David Petraeus spent two days this past week visiting Cairo to meet with topranking Egyptian security officials. The American delegation sought greater cooperation and informational exchange in both governments’ attempts to combat terrorism. The visit comes in the wake of a new focus on combatting suspected militants within Egypt. In the past two weeks, Egyptian forces identified and killed a Libyan militant suspected to have played a role in the attack in Benghazi on September 11 that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. In addition, Egypt has detained 13 other militants suspected of causing violence within the country. These events create a more optimistic view of U.S.-Egyptian ties going forward, as the deposition of Hosni Mubarak and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to political power in the past few years have strained the longstanding bilateral relationship between the two nations.
Turkey Reassured About European Future
In a visit to Germany this past week, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke out against his country’s continued exclusion from the European Union. Mr. Erdogan declared, “No other country has been kept waiting, knocking on the door of the E.U., for such a long time.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel responded to Mr. Erdogan’s claims by reaffirming the EU’s intent and declaring the EU to be “an honest negotiating partner.” Long viewed as the axis between Europe and the Middle East, Turkey has been in negotiations since 2005 to join the EU. They are a NATO ally and have major economic ties to Europe, serving as Germany’s largest trading partner, with $40.7 billion in trade between the two nations in 2011. However, several European nations, including Germany and France, have expressed doubts about Turkey’s viability as a member state, citing the continued division of the island of Cyprus between Turkish- and Greek-speaking groups. Other issues with Turkey’s membership include its perceived repression of human rights and freedom of speech, especially with regard to its Kurdish inhabitants.
2
Volume XII, Issue VIII
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 5th, 2012
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE YOUTH VOTE by Rachel Cohen ‘14, Head Writer
I
n 1971, Congress passed the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This guaranteed that all American citizens ages 18 and older could vote in U.S. federal elections. Today there are 46 million people who fall into the so-called “youth voting bloc”—consisting of those between the ages of 18 and 29—and make up 21% of the eligible U.S. voting population. Take those numbers and compare them to the mere 39 million seniors who are eligible to vote. In spite of our numerical advantage, youth are often disparaged for being apathetic and ill informed by politicians who do not believe in young peoples’ willingness to vote. However, the fact is that we represent a major subset of the electorate and should represent ourselves as such. There is hope. Youth voting turnout has gone up in the past several election cycles. According to the Center For Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, youth turnout in 2008 rose to 52%, an increase of 4 percentage points from the 2004 presidential election. We also know, thanks to research conducted by Richard Niemi and Michael J. Hanmer, that voting turnout among college students is traditionally higher than that of non-college educated youth. Despite these positive trends, youth turnout, college educated or not, still lags behind all other age demographics. The question remains: Why? Why do so many young people choose not to not engage in our democratic process? Some people argue that youth are engaging, albeit in different ways. For example, our generation volunteers in record numbers. According to a study conducted by the Corporation for National and Community Service, young people volunteer at nearly twice the rate of adults, 55% to 29%. Additionally, this study found that altruism is the driving motivator of youth volunteerism. Young people strongly agreed with statements such as, “I would like to help make the world a better place,” and “It’s important to do things for others.” We do want to improve our communities, but it seems that some want to bypass “politics” along the way.
For many young people who are volunteering but not voting, politics has come to be seen as something distasteful, smarmy, petty, and synthetic. Even readers of the JHU Politik, students that have an interest in politics, may still sympathize with the way many of our peers have come to view politics. Our political process is often characterized by financial corruption, thirst for power, and dishonesty. Even if this position is understandable, it is not an excuse to disengage. For the sake of social change and for the sake of the survival of our democratic system, citizens have to take ownership of their responsibility to vote. The onus is partially on the politically active youth to do a better job of explaining to them why they should vote. However, ultimately as citizens it is our responsibility to participate. As President Garfield said in 1877, “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.” The youth of this country need to demonstrate that if they want to change the world through altruistic aspirations, which we know they do, then it is impossible to do so without also engaging in the political process. Community service and volunteering is important, but, as the old truism goes, you cannot end world hunger by serving soup in a soup kitchen. We’ll never get stronger environmental conservation laws by cleaning up a park one day on the weekend. We’ll never shed the need for inner-city tutors unless we legislate serious educational reform. Those things have intrinsic value, but to make lasting changes we need to work within our existing, although imperfect, political system. It is not only our responsibility to vote, but also to help make that message clear to all U.S. citizens. So tomorrow, please vote and help everyone you know to vote as well. PP
3
Volume XII, Issue VIII
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 5th, 2012
TOO MANY PIGS: SPECIAL INTERESTS AND THE 2012 FARM by Henry Chen ‘14, Staff Writer
L
ost amidst the hubbub surrounding the upcoming election has been the 2012 farm bill, or the lack thereof. While the Senate passed a ten-year, $970 billion bill in July, this version of the farm bill has “bought the farm,” failing to clear the House despite the fact that the old 2008 farm bill expired last month. While this may appear to be a typical case of congressional ineptitude, the truth is not so simple.
been slashed compared to the 2008 bill. Additionally, the centralized production of staple crops has created a crowding out effect, pricing out local farmers both at home and abroad. This has resulted in both a lack of affordable fresh produce in impoverished urban areas and hindered development in the third world. In light of these factors, it has become apparent that this dog will not hunt. Nonetheless, the powerful agribusiness lobby, bolstered by the Citizens United ruling, has sought to perpetuate the farm bill in its current form, spending over $64 million in 2012 to this end. When Congress returns to Washington following the elections, it will face a crucial choice. It can either choose to bow to the vested interests and pass a farm bill within the existing framework, or create a new, sustainable set of policies by decoupling Food Stamp funding from the farm bill, slashing direct subsidies for wealthy agribusinesses, and expanding funding for conservation and local agriculture.
Historically, farm bills have been America’s main instruments of agricultural policy, with new bills being passed approximately every five years. Farm bills have typically enjoyed broad bipartisan support; the 2008 bill cleared both houses of Congress over a veto by former President Bush. Key to this cross-aisle appeal has been the coupling of food stamp programs with direct agricultural subsidies under a single bill. Although this arrangement kills two birds with one stone, allowing for both urban Democrats and Midwest Republicans to serve their constituents by producing tangible results in an otherwise deadlocked Both parties will face challenges with the latter course Congress, it also serves to perpetuate a flawed set of of action. Democrats must realize that although there policies. is a possibility that House Republicans will slash food stamp funding if it is separated from the farm bill, While the bulk of the proposed Senate farm bill, ap- by supporting the current bill they are betraying the proximately $768 billion of it, funds food stamp pro- very impoverished which food stamp programs are ingrams, the remainder of the bill largely consists of di- tended to benefit. Likewise, Republicans, particularly rect subsidies paid to ensure that staple commodities in the Midwest, will be reluctant to kill the goose that are supplied above market demand. Since 2004, 84% lays the golden PAC, but they must do so in order to of direct subsidies have been paid to suppliers of rice, validate their party values of free enterprise and marsoybeans, cotton, wheat, and, most questionably, corn. ket competition. If necessary, the House must be willing to delay the farm bill until the cows come home in This approach to agriculture has led to the concen- order to secure an equitable result; even the absence of tration of supply in the hands of a few large agribusi- a new farm bill would be preferable to a continuation nesses due to economies of scale. This is problematic of the current system of egregious corporate subsidies. because subsidized staple crops have led to a highly skewed supply chain in which gluts of corn have re- Ultimately, Congress cannot satisfy every special insulted in numerous health and environmental con- terest. As Abraham Lincoln aptly stated, “there are cerns. too many pigs for the teats.” When the 113th Congress takes office, it must place the health of its citiWhile the Senate farm bill includes some conserva- zens, small businesses, and America’s free market first tion funding, this is largely the equivalent of putting through a fundamental revision of the farm bill and the lipstick on a pig. In fact, conservation funding has implementation of a sustainable agricultural policy. PP
4
Volume XII, Issue VIII
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 5th, 2012
OBAMA, ROMNEY, AND THE CHINA CONUNDRUM by Sam Harris ‘15, Contributing Writer
“O
n day one, I will label China a currency manipulator.” These words provide an important look into Governor Romney’s ideology about foreign affairs and specifically the question of China. It is no secret that Governor Romney is adversarial towards China. He remarked in the third debate that he will have “relations with China that work for [the United States]” and that “we can’t just surrender [to China].” Governor Romney’s stance on China represents an attitude that is no longer applicable to today’s world. While Governor Romney believes that the United States can simply force its will on other countries, it is clear that with the rise of China and of the East more broadly, the U.S. must look towards a geopolitical future that involves cooperation as much as confrontation. One of the biggest foreign policy issues going forward will be the question of China. China has become both our most beloved trading partner and one of our most bitter geopolitical rivals. China provides us with a substantial portion of our goods while we provide an abundant market for their exports. This has prompted a trade deficit to develop over the past three decades as cheaper Chinese imports have come to dominate domestic production. Governor Romney has made ending the trade deficit a priority of his relationship with China. He believes that by letting the Chinese Yuan “float,” or trade freely in the open market, U.S. goods will become more competitive in the global market. It is clear, however, that the currency disparity between the U.S. Dollar and the Chinese Yuan are not the only cause of the trade deficit. As the Chinese Yuan has appreciated 30% over the past seven years, the trade deficit has grown by more than 46%. Clearly, the answer to the U.S. trade deficit is much deeper than Governor Romney believes.
Governor Romney’s sentiments towards Chinese trade policies are rooted in the belief that production should trump consumption. At the heart of his rhetoric is the notion that China “has not played by the same rules.” While it is true that China has artificially suppressed its currency, Governor Romney seems to believe that American workers are more valuable than American consumers. By getting tough on China, Governor Romney may incite putative tariffs and potentially a trade war which would be disastrous for both manufacturers and consumers. President Obama’s policies are not immune from this false notion either. The Peterson Institute found that the tire tariff President Obama imposed in 2011 cost U.S. the POLITIK PRES consumers $1.1 billion, or $900,000 for each job saved that year. While it is easy to see the manufacturing jobs that are lost to China, it is much harder to appreciate the benefits every citizen of the United States receives from lower prices and more efficient production. While middle class voters see their jobs in the automotive and industrial sectors being off-shored, they don’t realize the benefits they receive in the form of cheaper clothing, electronics, and other goods. The invisible benefits of our relationship with China are much less salient than their costs, but they are no less important. President Obama’s goal of using the World Trade Organization as a conduit for policy change will be much more productive then Governor Romney’s “get tough” policy on China. President Obama seems to be more willing to deal with China on even terms, with the respect and self-awareness that can produce mutually beneficial outcomes for both countries. It is clear that in the future China will continue to be an important part of American policy, but that does not mean that we must radically damage our relationship in order to immediately correct trade imbalances or currency distortions. The U.S. must stand strong for its interests, but we must also have the humility to realize cooperation is often more fruitful than confrontation. PP
5
Volume XII, Issue VIII
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 5th, 2012
THE BUFFETT RULE AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATES by Cameron Davis ‘16, Contributing Writer
T
he election season has focused almost entirely on the economy. As America recovers from this recession, we need to focus on achieving robust long-term economic growth. Production, consumption, and innovation must rapidly increase like they did in the 60’s, 80’s, and 90’s when the standard of living was visibly increasing all the time. Both candidates have offered their plans to close the deficit. Governor Romney favors an approach based solely on spending cuts, while President Obama favors a “balanced” approach of spending cuts and tax increases. A component of Obama’s tax plan, known as the “Buffett Rule,” would set a minimum tax rate of 30% for those making over $1,000,000 per year. While this “balanced” approach sounds reasonable, the Buffett Rule is practically equivalent to an enormous increase in the capital gains tax rate (CGT), and thus it will have a very harmful effect on Americans of every socioeconomic class. Mitt Romney is the right presidential candidate because of his plan to keep the current capital gains rate at 15%. The CGT is what one pays after the sale of any non-inventory asset on its appreciation in value. Most important to economic policy is the CGT paid on financial assets such as stock in a company or equipment used in production. Obama’s Buffett Rule would mean angel investors, venture capitalists, and investors in the public stock market—all crucial sources of capital to both big corporations as well as small start-up business—would automatically pay 30% in capital gains taxes rather than the current rate of 15%. If an investor must pay a higher CGT on his return, he must demand a higher return from his investments to offset the increased CGT, and to insure that the investments remain profitable. That means investors will only engage in the least risky investments they can find. This would mean less capital and less opportunity not only for big businesses that want to expand, but also for the small start-up businesses that are so crucial to our economy. It could mean the next Apple Inc. or the next groundbreaking medical technology company
might not get off its feet. It would reduce opportunity for entrepreneurs looking to start up local small businesses, which represent the economy’s greatest driver of job creation. Also, the Cato Institute found that “when CGTs are high and investment capital grows scarce, the last areas that receive funds… are inner-city neighborhoods with high crime rates, a poorly educated workforce, and high… bankruptcy rates. Historical experience suggests that when capital gains taxes fall, investment begins to seep back into the areas most starved for investment.” A low CGT is also important in relation to workers’ wages. If businesses buy equipment used for production, known as “capital,” they must pay a tax on any capital gains from its eventual sale. According to the same logic used earlier, a higher CGT discourages the purchase of new capital that would have had a positive effect on worker productivity, and thus wages. After the CGT was raised in 1986, business investment was cut in half by 1992, and Yolanda Henderson—an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston— estimated that roughly half of this rise in the corporate cost of purchasing capital during that period was directly attributable to the increase in the CGT. With better, more efficient equipment, workers’ labor is worth more. The impact of this cannot be overstated. In fact, according to research by the Cato Institute, “Roughly 95 percent of the fluctuation in wages over the past 40 years is explained by the capital-to-labor ratio.” The political left often justifies raising the CGT based on the statements made by Warren Buffett—the namesake of the Buffett Rule—who argues that it’s only fair that rich investors pay “as much as secretaries” do in their taxes. However, “tax fairness” isn’t a noble goal if it means making everyone worse off, albeit more equal. America needs to ditch its idea that low taxes on the rich—especially a low capital gains tax rate—benefit only the rich. It needs to embrace Mitt Romney as the candidate who will create a rising tide to lift all boats, not sink everyone in the name of “fairness.” PP
6
Volume XII, Issue VIII
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 5th, 2012
ONLY ONE CANDIDATE HAS A PLAN TO TACKLE OUR BUDGET DEFICIT by Akshai Bhatnagar ‘15, Contributing Writer
T
alk to almost any politician or economist these days and they will almost surely tell you that the U.S. must cut its projected deficits over the next decade by at least $4 trillion. Politicians and presidents of both parties were responsible for creating this problem. However, only one candidate has proposed a serious solution and his name is not Mitt Romney.
The Obama plan still seeks about $3 trillion of spending cuts. The President realizes we cannot simply tax ourselves out of this mess but he also understands that the need for more revenue, which is why his plan seeks to balance those cuts with $1 trillion from new taxes. Governor Romney, on the other hand, said he would refuse a ratio of $10 of spending cuts for $1 of new taxes. By taking tax rates entirely off the table, Governor Romney’s only hope of even approaching fiscal stability would be to cut a laundry list of vital federal program, including Medicaid and most nonmilitary discretionary spending.
From the start, Governor Romney would increase the deficit with a $5 trillion tax cut, largely for the wealthy. On top of that enormous amount, he would raise military spending by $2 trillion more than what the Pentagon is asking. Rather than begin cutting $4 trillion from the deficit, Governor Romney’s first act would be to increase the deficit by $7 trillion. He says Despite the rhetoric on both sides, there is not much he will pay for this by cutting loopholes but no cred- difference between the candidates on Medicare or ible fact checker can make the math add up. Social Security over the next decade, leaving the discretionary budget and Medicaid as the primary Governor Romney’s plan seems simple on paper. Cut battlegrounds. To pay for his $7 trillion of tax cuts taxes by 20% across the board without adding to the and military spending, Governor Romney would deficit or raising taxes on the middle class by closing have to focus his cuts on these parts of the budget, loopholes, capping deductions, and reforming the tax which include children’s healthcare, weather satelcode. However, he cannot mathematically keep all lites, FEMA, NASA, and scientific research. It would those promises – there simply are not enough loop- mean ending student loan assistance programs and holes to close. Numerous fact-checkers, starting with preschool education under HEAD Start. By Governor the Tax Policy Center (which the Romney campaign Romney’s own admission, not even Big Bird would be used to be fond of citing as a reliable source) have spared. debunked the arithmetic of this plan. Indeed, even under the most wildly optimistic scenarios – record This rhetoric may seem overblown, even alarmist. growth, unprecedented tax reform, etc. – there is sim- Yet it is justified given Mitt Romney’s plan. When ply no way the math adds up. Like many of Mitt Rom- Republicans boast of cutting “wasteful government ney’s proposals, his tax policy only makes sense if you spending” they ignore the fact that most governdo not believe a word he says. ment spending goes to responsible programs that are vital parts of our own self-perception. By only The president’s plan, on the other hand, is reasonable, paying down the debt through draconian spending balanced, and fair. Rather than cut taxes for those at the cuts, Governor Romney would be forced to comprotop, as Governor Romney suggests we do, the President mise away some of our most basic principles. The wants to raise the top tax rate by a mere 3.6 percentage President’s plan is not ideal, nor will enacting it be points – restoring the top tax rate to what it was under painless. But he is the only candidate in this race ofPresident Clinton. He would also raise the capital gains fering a balanced (not to mention mathematically rate from 15% to 20%, which would still be a lower rate feasible) approach. All deficit hawks should hope than when President Reagan left office. for his victory this November. PP
7
Volume XII, Issue VIII
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 5th, 2012
APOLITICAL HOPKINS by Jeremy Orloff ‘13, Editor-in-Chief
O
n Wednesday morning we’ll wake up to self-reflection? In addition, perhaps more so than other post-election America. universities, Hopkins is so intertwined in the politics and business of medicine, national defense and educaIn the last few weeks the Homewood campus tion in this city, state and country that there is neceshas exhibited measured enthusiasm for the election and sarily plenty of fodder for student protests and activism. politics in general. The debate watching parties at Nolan’s saw huge turnout and JHU Politik’s own event, a Foreign My explanation for our quiet and apolitical campus is Policy panel discussion cosponsored by the International two fold. Studies Department, was filled beyond capacity. While independence is not the same thing as apathy, the Despite all of this, there is good reason to believe that ability of individuals to take care of themselves without the come November 7th, the Homewood campus will re- help of their peers or their institution, combined with the turn to its normal apolitical self. isolation of the Charles Village neighborhood – Baltimore is a highly segregated city in which inequality can go unApathy is not the problem here. In my experience noticed if one never ventures out of the more well-to-do Hopkins students are anything but apathetic. They neighborhoods – can lead to ignorance and a distinct lack are amongst the most passionately driven and inter- of urgency. At a time in life when being selfish means takested individuals that I have ever met. ing advantage of educational opportunities that are expensive, rare and critical to future success, blindness to social One might expect a school filled with such students to injustice or the political footprint of the institution which be highly active and political. For some reason this is provides those opportunities can seem justified. not the case for Hopkins. How can we account for this? Secondly, because Hopkins as an institution and a Personal independence is the defining and best char- brand does not play an oversized role in the lives of its acteristic of the Hopkins student body. Through a va- students, they are left with a distinct lack of ownerriety of means, whether they be intentional or not, this ship. This is true for the undergraduate program and University produces individuals who are more than ca- the many branches of Johns Hopkins that stretch out pable of taking care of themselves. What seems to be both across Maryland and around the world. With a lack of institutional support is in fact a framework of such a large network, it becomes very difficult to draw incredible opportunities that forces students to make a link between the actions of a far off affiliate like the their own way and creates a culture of self-reliance. Applied Physics lab and the Homewood campus even though they both operate under a common name. That being said, this lack of obvious institutional support leads many Hopkins students to be highly critical Institutional independence, both for branches of of the school. the university and for the students who study here, comes with enormous benefits but also unintended The combination of an independent student body and consequences. It produces students who are capable an institution that is viewed by those same students as of taking care of themselves but leaves them feeling taking a hands-off approach might look at first glance that the school does not have their back; that they like the perfect medium in which a political counter- pass through the Homewood campus but leave with culture could grow. The student movements of 1960s few lasting ties. Why become invested in solving and 1970s often lead to campus administration build- problems that were here before we came to campus ings being occupied and picketed. Of any school in and will likely persist for many years to come? The 2012, wouldn’t Hopkins make the most sense for a answer, perhaps too often, is that political action is rebirth of such political activism based on institution just not worth the time. PP
8
Volume XII, Issue VIII
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 5th, 2012
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 believe that progress comes from conversation and that every voice deserves to be heard. Our staff is made up of students with majors that range from political science to bio-molecular engineering. We seek out the best political writers on campus and regularly interview professors and graduate students. In many ways, the Homewood campus is a microcosm of the American political landscape. We find ourselves at a crossroads defined by students from across the country, professors with disparate political theories, and a city constantly confronting racial violence, political corruption and systemic economic problems. While we publish the Politik Press weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. In 2011, with the Arab Spring fully underway, we interviewed five Hopkins professors whose expertise ranged from Archeology to US-Israeli relations, in order to provide some clarity on an immensely complex and constantly shifting situation. In 2012 we focused on the political issues of Baltimore, conducting interviews with professors and local politicians in order to shed light on the complexities of our school’s relationship to our city. Possible topics for our next special issue include the politics of financial aid and student debt.
If interested e-mail us at
POLITIK@jhu.edu Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org 9