Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, January 25, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
T
he recent passing
of the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act has
been proclaimed as one of
President Donald Trump’s
greatest achievements since
entering the White House
last year. The bill is a major
legislative
win
for
fiscal
conservatives who advocate
for low taxes and minimal
government spending.
Americans across the board
will see a reduction in the
taxes that come out of their
regular paychecks, but the
wealthiest citizens will reap
the greatest benefits from
the bill. Besides individual
income tax cuts, the bill
consequentially
impacted
the private sector with its
substantial reduction in the
corporate income tax rate,
from 35 percent to 21 percent.
The tax cuts were touted
by
Republicans
as
the
most effective way to spur
economic
growth
in
the
United States. The private
sector, along with wealthy
Americans,
are
expected
to invest their tax breaks,
thus propelling the economy
forward. Tax investments at
the top then trickle down to
affect the broader economy.
This idea that the private
sector
and
the
wealthy
have the power and scale to
impact the entire economy
has been touted for decades
by
fiscal
conservatives.
Former
President
Ronald
Reagan is one of the most
famous proponents of the
ideology, even though the tax
cuts implemented under his
administration were regarded
as relatively unsuccessful at
promoting economic growth.
Fiscal conservatives want
to believe that corporations,
with
the
increased
cash
from the tax break, will
increase
wages,
boost
employment
and
invest
more in the U.S. economy.
The increase in wages and
employment should put more
money in the pockets of
American consumers, making
everybody better off through
heightened consumption.
The
slashing
of
the
corporate
income
tax
rate
additionally
served
to
incentivize
businesses
to
continue
operating
domestically.
Companies
based in the U.S. have been
relocating left and right to
European countries in order
to benefit from their low
corporate income tax rates.
Ireland, for example, boasts
a 12.5 percent basic corporate
tax rate, compared to 21
percent in the United States.
However, relocation of jobs
abroad comes at the expense
of American jobs and the
American economy.
Fiscal conservatives may
feel certain that the expected
advantages from these tax
cuts will be realized in due
time, but I wonder if they
will truly come to fruition.
Many, including myself, fear
that companies will simply
distribute the increased cash to
shareholders through healthy
dividends. Will firms realize
their potential and make the
most of their tax break to help
the broader economy?
There have been a couple of
hopeful signs since the bill’s
passing
that
may
suggest
it could be effective. For
example, Walmart recently
announced that it plans to use
its tax break to give bonuses
to current employees and
raise their minimum wage
to $11 per hour. Considering
Walmart
employs
nearly
1.5 million Americans, this
seemingly
slight
increase
could
have
ripple
effects
throughout
the
economy.
AT&T and Comcast reported
that they plan to give out
bonuses
as
well.
Finally,
because of a provision in
the
bill
that
incentivizes
major corporations to bring
offshore cash holdings back
to the United States, Apple
plans on bringing its overseas
cash back to the U.S. in order
to invest $30 billion over the
next five years while creating
20,000 new jobs.
Despite these hopeful signs,
many still firmly believe that
shareholders, who are usually
wealthy already, will reap the
greatest benefits from this
bill. An analyst at Gordon
Haskett Research Advisors
wrote, “The $300 million of
incremental labor expenses
in 2018 only represents about
15 percent of the potential
cash windfall” that Walmart
is expected to enjoy from the
break. Though the minimum
wage hike is a good sign,
the company could be doing
more. As for Apple, analysts
are already expecting a large
increase in share buybacks
and dividends, which are
unlikely to trickle through
the economy.
Initially, I was in support
of the bill as it represents
everything
that
fiscal
conservatives
stand
for.
I’ve
always
thought
of
myself
as
socially
liberal
and fiscally conservative, a
characterization that I know
many of my peers share.
But after researching the
bill and reading the cynical
views of its prospects, I’m
not so sure anymore. I like
the idea of making the U.S.’s
corporate income tax rate
more
competitive
among
other industrialized nations,
but I wonder whether or not
everyone in the American
economy, not just the wealthy,
stand to be better off because
of it.
If
companies
simply
distribute the value of their
tax break to shareholders, the
bill has no chance of fulfilling
its proponents’ expectations.
I believe this reduction of
the corporate tax rate will be
a good test as to whether or
not trickle-down economics,
a
cornerstone
of
fiscal
conservatism, will truly work
for the American economy.
New tax bill tests trickle-down economics
L
ast
year,
I
had
a
memorable
encounter
after
I
decided
to
participate
in
the
2017
Women’s
March;
someone
asked me what I thought I was
accomplishing by marching.
While he was the only one who
inquired, there’s undoubtedly
many who either question the
Women’s March or choose
to ridicule it. Conservative
commentator Tomi Lahren is
one of these people, tweeting
sarcastically about the 2018
Women’s March: “Nothing
says ‘take me seriously’ like
marching around in a pussy
hat
screaming
profanities
and demanding free things.
#womensmarch.”
To address Lahren’s tweet,
the pink “pussy hats” that
she’s referring to are not
meant to be raunchy. These
hats act as an undeniable
display of femininity that
reclaim the derogatory term
“pussy” from those who use
it both to objectify women
and
perpetuate
the
gross
stereotype that women are
weak. While there has been
some backlash about the hat
excluding women of color and
women without vaginas, the
creators of the hats are aware
of the controversy and have
addressed it. On Pussyhat
Project’s
website,
project
member
Jayna
Zweiman
wrote,
“There
are
some
people who have felt invisible
because of this project… our
intent was and always will
be to support all women. We
hear some of you saying that
this symbol has made some
women feel excluded.” She
also added that she is open
to suggestions about how
to make the hat inclusive
for all women. While the
Women’s March isn’t perfect,
Zweiman’s
willingness
to
listen is an example of how
marchers are open to ideas
to improve so that the march
truly represents every woman
who wants a voice.
In addition, it’s clear that
Lahren, who is notoriously
anti-transgender,
isn’t
referring to how it excludes
some women when she mocks
the Women’s March in her
tweet. Rather, she finds the
hats ridiculous because they
represent
female
genitals,
and mocking them is an easy
(and cheap) way to imply that
the marchers are vulgar.
As for the “screaming
profanities
part,”
unless
Lahren happened to attend
every single one of the 673
marches
that
took
place
worldwide
Saturday,
she
clearly
made
a
sweeping
generalization
about
an
entire group of people based
on the actions of some of its
members. At the march that I
went to last year, only cheers
and uplifting chants filled
the air after powerful women
like U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell,
D–Mich., gave empowering,
vibrant
speeches
urging
everyone to fight for not just
women’s rights, but human
rights as well. There were
no profanities being tossed
around, nor did anyone shout
insulting
remarks
about
President Donald Trump or
his
administration.
These
things might have happened at
other marches, but to reduce
all Women’s Marches to the
hate-filled chaos of a few is
unfair. The women’s march is
called the “Women’s March”
rather than the “Anti-Trump
March” or “Anti-Republican
March” for a reason — it is for
women and other feminists
to stand together and show
solidarity with one another,
so that they know that they
are not alone in the fight for
gender equality.
It most certainly is not so
that women can ask for “free
things.” What we want is
for people of any gender to
be treated fairly and with
respect, whether it be in
the workplace or out on the
streets. We want the wage
gap to disappear. We want
access to healthcare. Many
of
the
signs
that
people
display in the marches show
that what they want is better
treatment — an end to sexual
harassment is not a frivolous
“free thing” that should be
brushed aside.
However, Lahren is only
one of many who choose to
ignore
the
reason
people
march,
whether
it’s
for
women’s rights, immigrants’
rights or for the Black Lives
Matter
movement.
Trump
made
the
march
about
himself, tweeting: “Beautiful
weather all over our great
country, a perfect day for
all Women to March. Get
out there now to celebrate
the historic milestones and
unprecedented
economic
success and wealth creation
that has taken place over
the last 12 months. Lowest
female unemployment in 18
years!” Trump’s tweet is an
embodiment of why women
march. We are sick of men
trying to take control of our
narrative. We are tired of
having our voices unheard.
Last year, I told the person
who asked me why I wanted to
march that I wanted to show
solidarity with the women
of my community. Now, one
year after the presidential
inauguration,
I
want
to
expand on that answer.
I did not march expecting
the results of the election
to change, or for Trump to
somehow be impeached. I,
along with everyone else who
marched either this year or
last, am aware that crowding
the streets with signs and
chants will not magically
make Trump liberal. The
people
who
march,
both
women and their supporters,
do it to show solidarity and
build morale. So while the
women’s
marches
might
not
result
in
immediate
government
action,
this
movement
is
impactful
because it reminds not only
feminists, but the world, that
women will continue to speak
out about issues that directly
affect
them.
People
like
Lahren criticize the Women’s
March for showing immature
behavior, but there’s nothing
juvenile about a group of
passionate feminists standing
up for what they believe in.
It’s what Martin Luther King
Jr. and other supporters of
the Civil Rights Movement
did; it’s what Alice Paul and
other
women
suffragists
did to advocate for the right
to vote; it’s what members
of the LGBTQ community
did to fight for their rights.
Like those before us, we will
continue to stand in solidarity
and let our voices be heard so
that the world knows we are
not afraid to fight for what we
believe in.
Why women march
KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN
Krystal Hur can be reached at
kryshur@umich.edu.
I wonder whether
or not everyone
in the American
economy, not just
the wealthy, stand
to be better off
because of it.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
ERIK NESLER | COLUMN
Erik Nesler can be reached at
egnesler@umich.edu.
We are sick of
men trying to
take control of
our narrative.
We are tired of
having our voices
unheard.
HANNAH MYERS | CONTACT HANNAH AT HSMYERS@UMICH.EDU
FRANNIE MILLER | CONTACT FRMILLER@UMICH.EDU