The Politik Press, Volume XII, Issue 8

the

POLITIK PRESS

A publication of

JHU POLITIKjhupolitik.org

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

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Jeremy Orloff, Matt Varvaro

VOLUME XII, ISSUE VIIINOVEMBER 5th, 2012

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.

NOVEMBER 5th, 2012Volume XII, Issue VIII

WEEK IN REVIEW

2

by Virgil Doyle ‘14, Staff Writer

the POLITIK PRESS

Hurricane Sandy Ravages Caribbean, American NortheastThe 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 Carib-bean as well. The death count in Haiti has been recorded at 54, and President Michel Mar-telly 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 CairoCIA Director David Petraeus spent two days this past week visiting Cairo to meet with top-ranking 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 caus-ing 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 Brother-hood to political power in the past few years have strained the longstanding bilateral rela-tionship between the two nations.

Turkey Reassured About European FutureIn 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 Ger-many’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 Cy-prus 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 re-gard to its Kurdish inhabitants.

In 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 mil-

lion 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 popu-lation. 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’ will-ingness 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 presi-dential election. We also know, thanks to research conducted by Richard Niemi and Michael J. Hanmer, that voting turnout among college students is tra-ditionally 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 Ser-vice, 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.


THE IMPORTANCE OF THE YOUTH VOTE

3

For many young people who are volunteering but not voting, politics has come to be seen as something dis-tasteful, smarmy, petty, and synthetic. Even readers of the JHU Politik, students that have an interest in poli-tics, 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 ex-cuse 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 char-acter of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reck-less and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate igno-rance, 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 legis-lature.”

The youth of this country need to demonstrate that if they want to change the world through altruistic aspi-rations, 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 hun-ger 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 se-rious educational reform. Those things have intrinsic value, but to make lasting changes we need to work within our existing, although imperfect, political sys-tem.

It is not only our responsibility to vote, but also to help make that message clear to all U.S. citizens. So tomor-row, please vote and help everyone you know to vote as well. PP

by Rachel Cohen ‘14, Head Writer

the POLITIK PRESS

NOVEMBER 5th, 2012Volume XII, Issue VIII the POLITIK PRESS

Lost amidst the hubbub surrounding the up-coming election has been the 2012 farm bill, or the lack thereof. While the Senate passed a ten-year, $970 billion bill in July, this ver-

sion 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.

Historically, farm bills have been America’s main in-struments of agricultural policy, with new bills be-ing 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 ap-peal 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 Mid-west Republicans to serve their constituents by pro-ducing tangible results in an otherwise deadlocked Congress, it also serves to perpetuate a flawed set of policies.

While the bulk of the proposed Senate farm bill, ap-proximately $768 billion of it, funds food stamp pro-grams, the remainder of the bill largely consists of di-rect subsidies paid to ensure that staple commodities are supplied above market demand. Since 2004, 84% of direct subsidies have been paid to suppliers of rice, soybeans, cotton, wheat, and, most questionably, corn.

This approach to agriculture has led to the concen-tration of supply in the hands of a few large agribusi-nesses due to economies of scale. This is problematic because subsidized staple crops have led to a highly skewed supply chain in which gluts of corn have re-sulted in numerous health and environmental con-cerns.

While the Senate farm bill includes some conserva-tion funding, this is largely the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. In fact, conservation funding has

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 agri-business lobby, bolstered by the Citizens United rul-ing, has sought to perpetuate the farm bill in its cur-rent 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.

Both parties will face challenges with the latter course of action. Democrats must realize that although there is a possibility that House Republicans will slash food stamp funding if it is separated from the farm bill, by supporting the current bill they are betraying the very impoverished which food stamp programs are in-tended to benefit. Likewise, Republicans, particularly in the Midwest, will be reluctant to kill the goose that lays the golden PAC, but they must do so in order to validate their party values of free enterprise and mar-ket competition. If necessary, the House must be will-ing to delay the farm bill until the cows come home in order to secure an equitable result; even the absence of a new farm bill would be preferable to a continuation of the current system of egregious corporate subsidies.

Ultimately, Congress cannot satisfy every special in-terest. As Abraham Lincoln aptly stated, “there are too many pigs for the teats.” When the 113th Con-gress takes office, it must place the health of its citi-zens, small businesses, and America’s free market first through a fundamental revision of the farm bill and the implementation of a sustainable agricultural policy. PP

TOO MANY PIGS: SPECIAL INTERESTS AND THE 2012 FARM by Henry Chen ‘14, Staff Writer

4


5

“On day one, I will label China a curren-cy manipulator.” These words pro-vide an important look into Governor Romney’s ideology about foreign af-

fairs 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 repre-sents 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 coun-tries, it is clear that with the rise of China and of the East more broadly, the U.S. must look towards a geo-political 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 be-come 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 appreci-ated 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 Ameri-can consumers. By getting tough on China, Governor Romney may incite putative tariffs and potentially a trade war which would be disastrous for both manu-facturers 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. 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 cloth-ing, 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 Or-ganization 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 re-spect 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 dis-tortions. The U.S. must stand strong for its interests, but we must also have the humility to realize coopera-tion is often more fruitful than confrontation. PP

OBAMA, ROMNEY, AND THE CHINA CONUNDRUM

by Sam Harris ‘15, Contributing Writer

the POLITIK PRESS

the POLITIK PRES


THE BUFFETT RULE AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATES

The election season has focused almost en-tirely on the economy. As America recov-ers 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 in-creasing 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 fa-vors 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 Buf-fett Rule is practically equivalent to an enormous in-crease 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 presi-dential candidate because of his plan to keep the cur-rent capital gains rate at 15%.

The CGT is what one pays after the sale of any non-in-ventory asset on its appreciation in value. Most impor-tant 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 an-gel 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 busi-ness—would automatically pay 30% in capital gains taxes rather than the current rate of 15%. If an inves-tor must pay a higher CGT on his return, he must de-mand a higher return from his investments to offset the increased CGT, and to insure that the investments remain profitable. That means investors will only en-gage 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 busi-nesses, which represent the economy’s greatest driv-er 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 educat-ed 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 produc-tion, 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 corpo-rate 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 name-sake 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

by Cameron Davis ‘16, Contributing Writer

the POLITIK PRESS

6

the POLITIK PRES


7

the POLITIK PRESS

Talk to almost any politician or economist these days and they will almost surely tell you that the U.S. must cut its projected defi-cits over the next decade by at least $4 tril-

lion. 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.

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 he will pay for this by cutting loopholes but no cred-ible fact checker can make the math add up.

Governor Romney’s plan seems simple on paper. Cut taxes by 20% across the board without adding to the deficit or raising taxes on the middle class by closing loopholes, capping deductions, and reforming the tax code. However, he cannot mathematically keep all those promises – there simply are not enough loop-holes to close. Numerous fact-checkers, starting with the Tax Policy Center (which the Romney campaign used to be fond of citing as a reliable source) have debunked the arithmetic of this plan. Indeed, even under the most wildly optimistic scenarios – record growth, unprecedented tax reform, etc. – there is sim-ply no way the math adds up. Like many of Mitt Rom-ney’s proposals, his tax policy only makes sense if you do not believe a word he says.

The president’s plan, on the other hand, is reasonable, balanced, and fair. Rather than cut taxes for those at the top, as Governor Romney suggests we do, the President wants to raise the top tax rate by a mere 3.6 percentage points – restoring the top tax rate to what it was under President Clinton. He would also raise the capital gains rate from 15% to 20%, which would still be a lower rate than when President Reagan left office.

The Obama plan still seeks about $3 trillion of spend-ing 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, Gov-ernor 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.

Despite the rhetoric on both sides, there is not much difference between the candidates on Medicare or Social Security over the next decade, leaving the discretionary budget and Medicaid as the primary battlegrounds. To pay for his $7 trillion of tax cuts and military spending, Governor Romney would have to focus his cuts on these parts of the budget, which include children’s healthcare, weather satel-lites, FEMA, NASA, and scientific research. It would mean ending student loan assistance programs and preschool education under HEAD Start. By Governor Romney’s own admission, not even Big Bird would be spared.

This rhetoric may seem overblown, even alarmist. Yet it is justified given Mitt Romney’s plan. When Republicans boast of cutting “wasteful government spending” they ignore the fact that most govern-ment spending goes to responsible programs that are vital parts of our own self-perception. By only paying down the debt through draconian spending cuts, Governor Romney would be forced to compro-mise away some of our most basic principles. The President’s plan is not ideal, nor will enacting it be painless. But he is the only candidate in this race of-fering a balanced (not to mention mathematically feasible) approach. All deficit hawks should hope for his victory this November. PP

ONLY ONE CANDIDATE HAS A PLAN TO TACKLE OUR BUDGET DEFICIT

by Akshai Bhatnagar ‘15, Contributing Writer


8

the POLITIK PRESS

On Wednesday morning we’ll wake up to post-election America. In the last few weeks the Homewood campus

has exhibited measured enthusiasm for the election and politics in general. The debate watching parties at Nolan’s saw huge turnout and JHU Politik’s own event, a Foreign Policy panel discussion cosponsored by the International Studies Department, was filled beyond capacity. Despite all of this, there is good reason to believe that come November 7th, the Homewood campus will re-turn to its normal apolitical self. Apathy is not the problem here. In my experience Hopkins students are anything but apathetic. They are amongst the most passionately driven and inter-ested individuals that I have ever met. One might expect a school filled with such students to be highly active and political. For some reason this is not the case for Hopkins. How can we account for this? Personal independence is the defining and best char-acteristic of the Hopkins student body. Through a va-riety of means, whether they be intentional or not, this University produces individuals who are more than ca-pable of taking care of themselves. What seems to be a lack of institutional support is in fact a framework of incredible opportunities that forces students to make their own way and creates a culture of self-reliance. That being said, this lack of obvious institutional sup-port leads many Hopkins students to be highly critical of the school. The combination of an independent student body and an institution that is viewed by those same students as taking a hands-off approach might look at first glance like the perfect medium in which a political counter-culture could grow. The student movements of 1960s and 1970s often lead to campus administration build-ings being occupied and picketed. Of any school in 2012, wouldn’t Hopkins make the most sense for a rebirth of such political activism based on institution

self-reflection? In addition, perhaps more so than other universities, Hopkins is so intertwined in the politics and business of medicine, national defense and educa-tion in this city, state and country that there is neces-sarily plenty of fodder for student protests and activism. My explanation for our quiet and apolitical campus is two fold. While independence is not the same thing as apathy, the ability of individuals to take care of themselves without the help of their peers or their institution, combined with the isolation of the Charles Village neighborhood – Baltimore is a highly segregated city in which inequality can go un-noticed if one never ventures out of the more well-to-do neighborhoods – can lead to ignorance and a distinct lack of urgency. At a time in life when being selfish means tak-ing advantage of educational opportunities that are expen-sive, rare and critical to future success, blindness to social injustice or the political footprint of the institution which provides those opportunities can seem justified. Secondly, because Hopkins as an institution and a brand does not play an oversized role in the lives of its students, they are left with a distinct lack of owner-ship. This is true for the undergraduate program and the many branches of Johns Hopkins that stretch out both across Maryland and around the world. With such a large network, it becomes very difficult to draw a link between the actions of a far off affiliate like the Applied Physics lab and the Homewood campus even though they both operate under a common name. Institutional independence, both for branches of the university and for the students who study here, comes with enormous benefits but also unintended consequences. It produces students who are capable of taking care of themselves but leaves them feeling that the school does not have their back; that they pass through the Homewood campus but leave with few lasting ties. Why become invested in solving problems that were here before we came to campus and will likely persist for many years to come? The answer, perhaps too often, is that political action is just not worth the time. PP

APOLITICAL HOPKINS

by Jeremy Orloff ‘13, Editor-in-Chief


9

WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS

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 our-selves at a crossroads defined by students from across the country, professors with disparate political theo-ries, 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 politi-cal 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

[email protected] find us online at

jhupolitik.org

Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division

the POLITIK PRESS

Documents

The Politik Press, Volume XII, Issue 8