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