The Policy Voice

Shaun Stuer (’13)

As many of you know by now, the Trinity campus suffered an incredibly sad and serious incident in the early morning hours of Sunday March 4^th.  A Trinity student, Chris Kenny, was attacked and beaten by a group of five unknown suspects on his walk home along Allen Place.  The Hartford Police Department quickly assigned the case to their Major Crimes Division to show how seriously they are taking this assault.  The resulting injuries that Chris suffered left him barely recognizable and hospitalized.  After several hours of facial reconstruction surgery, Chris was stable and in rising spirits.  Shortly thereafter, he was released from the hospital to his parents, who brought him back to his Florida home for rest and recovery.

The outcry from the student body in response to this despicable and cowardly act has been unrelenting.  First, came a critical email to the entire student body from a close friend of Chris, condemning the vague and unclear email response generated by the Trinity College Campus Safety office.  Next, came a student-organized rally with a two-fold purpose: (1) to show support for Chris Kenny and his family, and (2) to give a voice to the student body concerning issues of safety.  The rally, which was attended by students, faculty, administrators, and trustees alike, had an estimated 700 people in attendance.  While the rally was open to all persons interested in expressing their views, a monolithic viewpoint drove any in attendance to the conclusion that Trinity is not a safe place.  For anyone living, or considering living, at Trinity in the near future, this prospect is a scary one that requires immediate and substantial steps to fix.

Many students demanded action and called for more campus safety officers at night; we got them, along with a healthy dose of Hartford police officers.  The students cried out for patrols of the Allen Place and Crescent Street areas, and we got that too.  But why, the students asked, did it take such a heinous incident to move the administration to act?  Why can’t the administration take a proactive approach to dealing with issues of importance on our campus?  Unfortunately, I believe that all the cries for a safer campus only covered up a deeper and more fundamental problem within Trinity: communication (or the lack thereof).  Most students are not aware that the administration had just completed an external audit of campus safety, with the plan to make substantial changes.  These are exactly the type of proactive steps that many students implored the administration to take.

It’s easy to forget, but Trinity suffers from the same difficulty as any other large organization: change does not come easily.  Unfortunately, obstacles arise and must be overcome.  There are two keys to successful triumph over these obstacles.  The first is to be proactive: anticipate challenges before they arise and implement changes accordingly.  The second is to communicate: keep everyone throughout the organization ‘in the know’ about important developments.  Most of the complaints uttered by students over the past ten days dealt with the first stipulation.  While Trinity is not blameless in this regard, where they truly failed was in the latter point.  From the original Campus Safety email to the fact that President Jones attended the rally but stood quietly idle, it is clear that the administration does not appreciate the value of good communication.  Much of the outrage and anxiety felt by Trinity students could have been more easily managed if the administration had only been as honest and clear throughout the whole ordeal.

I just hope that our calls for safety do not overshadow an equally important plea.  In the future, Trinity would do well to respect the importance of good communication.

Paige Greene (’13)

On Friday February 24, 2012, my home state of Maryland passed the Civil Marriage Protection Act granting same-sex couples the same right to marriage as straight couples in Maryland. The House of Delegates passed the bill 72-67 during the previous week and the Senate passed it on Friday 25-22. Governor Martin O’Malley, the main sponsor of the bill, hastily signed it into law. Maryland is the eighth state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage and offer the same statewide protections and benefits for same-sex couples that already exist for straight married couples.  The Civil Marriage Protection Act grants same-sex couples the right to marriage while also maintaining the liberties of religious groups who oppose same sex marriage.

Although the vote seems like a victory for gay rights advocates and supporters in Maryland, the battle is not completely over because of a possible referendum. Maryland is one of twenty-six states that offer a popular referendum option to the public. This allows opponents of recently passed legislation the chance to repeal the law by collecting signatures on a petition that would send the law to the ballots during the next election. Citizens would then vote to maintain or repeal the law. Opponents in Maryland have already started the referendum process to repeal the law. Given the close passing margins in the House of Delegates and Senate, this issue is surely going to be divisive and close if taken to the polls. The referendum is also being used as a ploy to register voters and increase voter turnout. The assumption is that if enough people care about the outcome of this law, then they will register to vote and actually come to the polls.

Maryland came close to passing a similar bill last legislative session in February of 2011. That bill passed in the Senate with a 25-21 vote before it moved to the House of Delegates where it died just short of the 71 vote majority it needed to pass. Maryland lawmakers, Democrat and Republican, were split on this issue last year and some did not know whether to vote based on their personal views or those of their district. Maryland is over 20% Catholic and has a deep Catholic tradition because the state existed as a refuge for English Catholics in the 1700s.  It will be interesting to see if opponents of the bill receive enough votes to put this law up for repeal on a ballot. Until then, advocates for the law will continue to protest the referendum and fight for equality in Maryland.

Alexis Maguina (’13)

GREECE: The cradle of civilization; the homeland of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle; a society with a ubiquitous architectural style that can be seen all over the world; the originators of democracy; And of course, the inspiration for All-American favorites such as My Big Fat Greek Wedding, 300, and our collegiate Greek system. However, in recent years, Greece has been synonymous with the epicenter of the financial crisis that engulfs Europe.

The austerity bill passed by the Greek Parliament on February 13^th sparked massive riots all over the country. The bill was necessary in order to receive a €130 billion bailout from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union and prevent defaulting on its debt payment due March 20^th. While the European paymasters have welcomed the €3.3 million cuts in government spending, many Greeks were not so pleased. 150 stores were looted, 48 building were burned down and 40 deputies of the Greek Parliament were expelled from their political parties due to their unwillingness to support the bill. As the costs of the bailouts skyrocket and their popularity quickly diminishes (inside and outside of Greece), one must wonder whether Greece can be safe from its debt? And if so, what is the best option?

The EU seems to believe that in order for the Greek government to survive, Greece must accept an increase in taxes and dramatic cuts in government services in order to create a stable budget. However, raising taxes and collecting taxes are two very different things. As taxes become higher, investors will flee the country which will reduce wages and continue to contract the economy. Tax evasion, which is, and has always been extremely popular among Greeks, will increase: households and businesses will attempt to hold on to as much income as possible as the economy enters its fifth year of recession. Furthermore, it will be difficult for the current politicians to stay in power as living standards spiral down and people become less tolerant of the adversity they have to encounter. The politicians that will be elected under these circumstances will be much less supportive of austerity and unwilling to easily acquiesce to international demands.

On the other hand, Greece only holds 2% of the Eurozone’s gross domestic product (GDP) and 4% of the total Eurozone debt. It seems astonishing that the EU is fixated in saving Greece while Italy and Spain (the fourth and fifth largest economies in Europe respectively) are in such financial distress. So far, the argument coming out of Brussels has been that a default of the Greek debt would be devastating to the Eurozone and the Greek society. According to the EU, failure for Greece to repay its debt (much of which is held by European banks) would cause a financial collapse equal or greater than the failure of Lehman Brothers in the United States. It would also cause an innumerable amount of broken contracts, inside and outside of Greece, which would take years to resolve.

The problem here is that the European Union is attempting to answer an economical problem with a political mentality. It is in part trying to answer the question that the US answered during the Civil War: Can individual sections abandon the Union? Brussels believes that they should not and has mainly focused on saving Greece in order for it to serve as a precedent. Unfortunately, they have mainly focused on increasing taxes and lowering spending rather than reforming an economy that is clearly not efficient enough to be competitive in the international market. The main effect of the bailouts has been to temporarily stabilize Greece while other countries prepare their financial system to receive the ripple effect that this nation’s potential collapse could cause. If the EU truly wishes to save Greece, then it must form a stronger fiscal union and be willing to work with the Greek Parliament to reform the role of the State and free the economy. Anything short of this will be delaying the inevitable collapse of the country’s economy.

Jack Nettleton (’13)

While in high school, I attended a speech given by former Washington Governor Dan Evans. Evans, considered by political observers to be the most effective Governor in the state’s history, spoke about his support for increased funding for research of degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. A conservative Republican, Evans told the crowd something that has become a staple of my own personal political thinking, “Good ideas are not preceded by a D or an R.” 25 years ago, another popular conservative Republican spoke after signing a tax reform bill saying, “flatter rates will mean more reward for that extra effort and vanishing loopholes will mean that everybody and every corporation will pay their fair share.” That speaker was Ronald Reagan.

Today our country faces several problems–one of the biggest is a tax code that does not take in nearly enough to properly fund our numerous government programs.  In addition, the current tax code racks up a multi-trillion dollar debt that no one believes is going down anytime soon. A recent report by nonpartisan research and advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice dives further into one of the major factors of our ballooning national debt: large corporations who pay little or no federal corporate income tax. Their report, Corporate Taxpayers & Tax Dodgers 2008-2010 studies 280 of America’s largest and most profitable corporations and what they paid in taxes the past three years. The study found that while our federal tax code requires large corporations to pay a 35 percent corporate income tax, 280 of our country’s wealthiest companies pay, on average, only half that amount. My proposal is simple: streamline the tax code by eliminating corporate tax loopholes to start collecting more in tax money, all while making the tax code more fair for our great American companies.

The findings in the report are disheartening and at the very least eye opening. To start, 30 companies paid an effective corporate tax rate of less than zero percent. To put that into perspective, behemoth companies such as General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo and Verizon pay fewer federal taxes than the 50 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax whatsoever. These large corporations are just as responsible for our deficit as the millions of Americans who pay no federal income taxes, however, unlike lower income Americans who pay no income tax, these corporations are much more financially able to pay a fair tax rate that can make a substantial difference to the deficit than a bunch of low income Americans that are struggling to put food on the table even without income taxes.

Another important effect these corporate tax loopholes have on our economy is they disadvantage companies who do not benefit from the loopholes. Lobbyists argue that tax breaks will incentivize companies to make new investments to do useful activities that range from “research” for drilling oil and gas to building racecar tracks. The problem here is that other companies in the same industry do not get to enjoy the same perks as other companies. In a country that romanticizes the values of capitalism and the free market, the government should not dictate which investments companies should make. Ladies, why should Macy’s pay a three-year tax rate of 12.1 percent when Nordstrom’s paid a 37.1 percent rate over that same time? Technology Geeks, Hewlett-Packard paid a 3.7 three-year tax rate while Texas Instruments paid a 33.5 percent rate. Put the same tax rate on these two sets of companies and let consumer demand and the free market dictate success and let individual companies decide which investments they should make, not the federal government.

The problem with trying to implement meaningful corporate tax reform is that both sides of the political isle benefit immensely from corporate campaign donations. With the recent Citizens United v. FEC ruling that allows corporations to have the same rights as individuals, the amount of corporate influence and cash to keep these loopholes in-place is going to continue to be strong. However, I believe a bi-partisan agreement can and should be met. As stated earlier, the current corporate tax rate is 35 percent but the 280 corporations studied had a three-year tax rate of 18.5 percent. You can satisfy Republican demands to lower the corporate tax rate by lowering it to 25 percent. You can also satisfy Democratic desires for increased revenues because if everyone paid a 25 percent rate, the amount of corporate tax revenue would increase.  This way you can increase tax revenues and reward companies who have paid higher taxes in the past with the ability to invest more in their companies, all while keeping everyone’s individual tax rate the same. To me, it is a political and economic win-win, and I haven’t met a single person to the left or right of me who thinks this is a bad idea. It is this type of discussion our country needs, and especially on this issue, meaningful reform can be made that can benefit both sides and most importantly, the American People. Our businesses are what help make this country great; they are the backbone of our economic superiority. However just as we expect individual taxes to be as fair as possible, we expect corporate taxes to be as well. Indeed, good ideas aren’t preceded by a D or an R.