Who Makes Policy Campaign 2016 Edition

“The Cure for Wage Stagnation” This is an Op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur from the American Enterprise Institute. This article argues that lowering the corporate income tax raises wages because, “lower corporate rates create the right incentives for firms to give workers better tools. Workers become more productive when they acquire better skills or have better tools and more productive workers earn higher wages.”

The authors use the sales tax analogy to back their argument by proposing we look at the corporate income tax the same way we look at sales tax stating, “It is widely accepted that sales taxes are not necessarily paid by consumers. If the government charges a 10% sales tax, goods prices go up 10%, in which case consumers would pay the whole tax. In the same way- If a higher corporate tax reduces the return to capital, then capital may move abroad. This outflow could reduce the productivity and compensation for domestic workers, who are relatively immobile. So just as a sales tax might have an impact on the final goods price, a higher corporate tax might have an impact on wages. If wages go down when corporate taxes go up, the worker is left holding the tax bag.”

Their findings are also based on empirical analysis of a data gathered on international tax rates and manufacturing wages in 72 countries over 22 years.

This is a very logical argument and I might have to agree in the absence of any evidence proving otherwise. Although there has been research conducted by the Congressional Budget office and other organizations estimates that 75% to 82% of the burden of the corporate income tax falls to capital, there is no research on who the other 18% to 25% of tax burden affect.

The two op-eds I read for this week’s assignment addressed the topic of immigration, however one focused on the role played by the Supreme Court, and the other was a more generalized overview of the immigration issue as it is being approached by members of the more conservative side of our nation.

This op-ed from the New York Times titled The Supreme Court’s Silent Failure on Immigration written by Linda Greenhouse was the more persuasive of the two articles. It was well organized and focused on one very specific instance in recent history, backing up all opinions with just the right amount of facts for me to feel like there was a sufficient amount of evidence while also not feeling bogged down by excessive data. It made an emotional appeal by showing how the decisions of the Supreme Court affect real people, and it quoted one other article, titled “Giving Reasons” by Frederick Schauer, which was poignant enough to stick with me:  “Announcing an outcome without giving a reason is consistent with the exercise of authority,” he writes, while giving reasons is “a sign of respect,” “a way of opening a conversation rather than forestalling one.”

The other article I read came from the National Review and was titled Fishtown Needs Less Immigration, written by Mark Krikorian – the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. The article focuses on Charles Murray’s changing views about immigration, broadly stated as switching from a typically Libertarian perspective of supporting high levels of immigration, to a more conservative Trump-supporting view of setting high restrictions on immigration. I tried my best to go into this with an open mind and not have a negative attitude toward the article before having even read it, however I have to say that an article that is openly biased and unapologetically partisan does not lend itself to being “persuasive” per se. It immediately put me in a mindset where I was not even willing to consider the author’s opinions as legitimate. Aside from that, I had a hard time following the article due to the excess of other works and authors quoted throughout. It ended with “Welcome to the fight, Charles. This time I know our side will win” which just felt gauchely immature. (I’m a little ashamed that a fellow Armenian wrote this!)

In my search for OpEd’s I came across these two (here and here) that I think are both good.

When I was looking at them what I found that I liked about both was that they came to a cogent final point – a recommendation for policy. When the OpEd does this well I think it serves a very important purpose. It serves to present alternatives and analysis that the reader may not have considered.

This particular Op-ed from the NY Times following the 1st presidential debate I had been saving to post because who doesn’t click on an article that says “The Dog Ate My Planet.” In my opinion the article leaves a lot to be missed, which could just be due to the factor that I’ve been engrossed in this topic for over a month. The columnist does however call to a more robust Huffington Post article which show a range of Republican surrogates tweets from Donald Trump saying that climate change is a “hoax” followed by him saying on the debate platform that he {Donald Trump} never said those words. The Huffington post then follows up and  ask these Republican surrogates what their personal views on climate change is now that they’ve been exposed to the factor that their candidate has said two opposing things on the issue. Fun Stuff!!

This is an interesting Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post by Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist to Vice President Biden, and senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In this piece, Mr. Bernstein asks the question “Do presidents really influence the economy, how? And by how much?” He cautions voters to be wary of bogus claims like Donald trump’s claim of creating 2.5 million jobs over the next decade by cutting taxes and widespread deregulation.

According to this article, there are two major ways a president can help improve the economy, “First, enact policies that steer more opportunities to those who’ve been left behind by structural economic changes that tilt against them or embedded problems such as racism and poverty? Second, enact policies to help offset the next recession with robust counter-cyclical policies, an area where a president can make a real difference”

And let’s not forget the role the Congress plays influencing the final results of policies proposed by presidents.

The article concludes “outside of some public investment (including human capital, such as early childhood interventions), it has never been clear what presidents can do to boost productivity growth, especially in the near term.”

I have mixed feelings about Mr. Bernstein’s analysis, I understand that a lot of the economic changes are due to non-immediate and aggregate factors that over time lead to results we see as with what happened in the 2008 recession or what is happening now with trade and manufacturing jobs but I would still like to believe that the economic decisions made by the presidents go a long way in determining the economic climate and economic future of a country

This article from the Washington Post does a great job I believe at grabbing the attention of Democrats and Republicans alike. The bulk of the Op-ed is not directly about Donald Trump but rather about the New Hampshire senate race between R-Kelly Ayotee and D-Maggie Hassan. In short, Republican senate candidate was asked would she consider Donald Trump as a role model for her kids, to which she initially replied “…absolutely”. The following day her campaign released a statement saying she “misspoke.” During our class with Thomas Edsall I mentioned a comment she made a few months ago which was that she would “support” Trump, but she would not “endorse” him. Though we clarified in class that this meant that Trump would get her vote but she would not be seen at any of his events, it’s still a tad confusing.  The article goes on to express the writer’s belief on the effect the GOP candidate has on the Republican party and the benefit that this “flip-floppiness” for lack of a better term lends to a Democratic campaign.

Roughly a month ago, NY Times columnist Frank Bruni touched on a troubling aspect of Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump– that is, his absolute penchant for adulation and praise, regardless of whether it is warranted or not.  He discusses the Donald’s apparent admiration for Russian leader Vladimir Putin and his “82 percent approval rating,” something he gleefully highlighted during the “commander in chief” forum in September.

As Bruni reminds us, Putin’s “82 percent approval rating” exist in a climate of fear and intimidation fostered by an authoritarian government ran by a ruthless strongman.  It would be hard, after all, to dissent against the government when you know you can get in serious legal trouble for doing so.  And that’s saying the least about that situation.

Trump’s apparent praise for Putin, and his own general need for praise, is troubling in terms of what to expect from a possible Trump Presidency.  What happens to those who dare challenge him, who dare to speak out against him and say even a peep criticizing him?  Only God knows at this point, but the signs don’t look good.

Judith Browne Dianis gives us a little reminder of the damage towards voting rights moving along on the state level, bringing up a proposed constitutional amendment to the Virginian Constitution that would deal a significant blow to certain groups of people at the voting booth.  This proposal, by State Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr., would impose new restrictions and obstacles in regards to the restoration of voting rights for the incarcerated, and would even put in place a irreversible lifetime ban for certain others.

In the view of Dianis, this appears to be partisan strike-back for the recent efforts of Governor Terry McAuliffe to restore voting rights for those who paid their debt to society.  This partisan tirade, however, has real consequences, denying the rights of American individuals in society and making them second-class citizens.

This piece by Colbert I. King gives us a warning about what a Trump presidency would mean for African Americans and the civil rights advancements they have made over the years.  First bringing up the irony of the opening of the new African American Smithsonian museum during this particular presidential race, King then gives us a spooky history lesson, discussing the 1876 presidential race and the “compromise” that allowed Republican Rutherford B. Hayes to take office.  This was a compromise, along with actions on the judicial and executive level, and some “white rage” overall against reconstruction, that would set back African Americans for years in the battle for civil rights and gaining respect and dignity in society.

With a little more history and a detailed explanation of the danger of Donald Trump holding presidential power (pushing “stop and frisk” all throughout the country; nominating judges that pose a threat to civil liberties, voting rights, reproductive rights), King lays down an excellent case as to why everyone, but particularly African Americans, should insure that the Donald goes down in flames at the voting booth.

“…workers gather outside the gates of a sprawling Chrysler plant for a late shift assembling Dodge Journey S.U.V.s. It’s a sought-after job, with autoworkers in Mexico earning an average of about $5 an hour, compared with the nation’s minimum wage of less than $4 for the whole day. Yet it is a fifth of what autoworkers make in Detroit, and that has helped Mexico become a global powerhouse in car production…Holding a magnifying glass to NAFTA reveals other nuances. Mr. Trump likes to point out that Mexico sells more than it buys from the United States, by $58 billion last year. But many of the companies exporting from Mexico are American-owned, so much of the profit goes back north…And while American corn does flow south, Mexico exported more farm goods to the United States than it imported last year. Small farmers here may be losing out as much to large Mexican ranches as they are to American agribusiness, especially those small farmers harvesting the millions of avocados that Americans scarf up in their game-day guacamole.”

An op-ed by Ioan Grillo titled Forget Trump’s Wall: For Mexico, the Election Is About Nafta appeared in the New York Times on September 23, 2016. The piece, while not extensive in its evaluation of NAFTA’s importance and impact on Mexico, did a much better job at addressing the nuanced effects of free trade than other pieces that simply tout the supply-side economic benefits. The article broaches the benefits free trade has had on Mexico’s manufacturing jobs and wages while simultaneously noting the detrimental effects it has had on agricultural jobs. It shows how free trade can concurrently create and destroy sectors of an economy.  It does, however, fall short when making the case for American benefits. It does so when it states that that “…companies exporting from Mexico are American-owned, so much of the profit goes back north.” This statement goes to reinforce the American narrative that the blue-collar workers get left out while the corporations and the elites are the only ones who truly profit. The piece also tries to note that the NAFTA agreement is not perfect and could modestly be changed to improve it without having to take an anti trade attitude.