Volume V, Issue XIII

JHU POLITIKISSUE XIII, 11/22/10

Volume V, Issue XIIINovember 22, 2010

1

JOHNS HOPKINS’s Only Weekly-Published Political Magazine

Also in this Week’s Edition:

THE RISE OF UN WOMEN

By Hilary Matfess, ‘14-Page 4

OPINION

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

PORK BARRELS AND REPUBLICANS

By Ari Schaffer, ‘14-Page 3

RETIRE THE PENSION

By Rachel Cohen ‘14

-Page 6

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

By Morgan Hitzig, ‘12-Page 5

(Continued on Page 2)

CALIFORNIA COURT RULINGHIGHER EDUCATION & ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

hose with a love of musicand a sense of history will

recall the Momma and Papa's clas-sic, "California Dreaming" with itsrefrain, "Monday, Monday, can'thelp that day." On Monday, Novem-ber 15, the California Supreme Courthanded down its decision in Mar-tinez v. Regents of the University ofCalifornia in a case that symbolizesthe consequences of the economicchallenges and the demographic di-vide faced by taxpayers, politiciansand educators in the "Golden State."The case was brought by a group

of out-of-state students who at-tended California colleges and wereobliged to pay considerably highercosts than were in-state students.Worse yet, from their perspective,

some of those in-state students werein the U.S. illegally. Why, they asked,should American citizens payhigher costs than non-citizens whowere living in California illegally?This, they contended, was unfairdiscrimination.

The case came to California'shighest court from a state appealscourt, which in 2008 held that thetuition benefit was unconstitutional.It turns out that, according to theChronicle of Higher Education, a1996 federal statute "... prohibitsproviding a postsecondary benefit toillegal immigrants, based on theirstate residency, if the same benefitwas not available to legal residents."On this basis, the appeals courtruled in favor of the group of out-of-

byDaniel Roettger, ‘13Staff Writer

state students. According to theChronicle, there are an estimated40,000 school-age children whobenefit from this decision. However, bear in mind that Cali-

fornia is wrestling with a $26 billionbudget deficit that is likely to lead tolayoffs, including those of teachersthroughout the public school sys-tem. Moreover, remember that thecost of this decision is estimated tobe about $290 million annually, ac-cording to the Center for Integra-tion Reform. California'sCongressman Brian Bilbraysummed up the opinions of thosewho oppose the decision thusly,

NATIONAL

T

INTERNATIONAL

The Justices of the California Supreme Court hear Martinez vs. Regents. (McNew, Getty)

"With California´s $26 billion deficit, taxpayersshouldn´t have to pay one cent for illegal alien higher ed-ucation.... What part of illegal don´t you understand?"It turns out, though, that illegal immigrants actually

have an established constitutional right to attend publicschool through the end of high school, but, once theyreach college, they are ineligible for federal financial aid.As a result, states have become battlegrounds in thequestion of whether illegal immigrations should be ableto attend public universities and, if so, how much theyshould have to pay. In fact, ten states (including, Florida,New York, and Texas) allow illegal citizens to pay in-state tuition if – as in California – they attend high schoolfor three years and graduate.California's Supreme Court reached its decision on

Monday last, and did so unanimously. The Regents of theUniversity had contended that that the criterion was notresidency in the state of California, but rather atten-dance at a Californian high school and graduation fromthat school. Echoing this sentiment, Chief Justice MingChin wrote that the "fatal flaw" in the plaintiff's argu-ment is that the in-state tuition benefit is not, in fact,based on Californian residence. Instead, students mustshow that they have attended and graduated from a Cal-ifornia high school.Writing for a unanimous majority, Chief Justice Chin

wrote that "Congress specifically referred to residence

2


– not some form of surrogate for residence – as the pro-hibited basis for granting unlawful aliens a postsec-ondary-education benefit." As such, in-state tuition forillegal immigrants was upheld, thereby adding a newwrinkle to the ongoing debate over immigration – and,crucially, what powers states have to make their ownpolicies independent of the federal government. Thelawyer for the plaintiff (and also the Secretary-of-State-Elect of Kansas) stated that an appeal to the U.S.Supreme Court would be forthcoming. Stay tuned. s

The POLITIKEDITOR-In-Chief

Joshua AyalEditor-in-Chief

Harry BlackEditor-in-Chief

Sam Lichtenstein

Executive Editors

Will DentonMorgan Hitzig

Managing Editor

Matt Varvaro

Staff Writers

Randy BellAlex ClearfieldRachel CohenRohit DasguptaEric FeinbergBecca FishbeinConor FoleyCary Glynn

Benjamin GoldbergPaul GrossingerDan HochmanJordan KalmsAnna KochutHilary MatfessDaniel RoettgerAri Schaffer

Faculty Advisor

Steven R. David

JHU POLITIK is a student-run politicalpublication. Please note that the opin-ions expressed within JHU POLITIK arethose solely of the author.

Please sign up for our e-mail list on ourwebsite, www.JHUPOLITIK.com

NATIONAL REPORT

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

(Continued from Page 1)

PRODUCTION MANAGERS

Casey NavinNeil O’Donnell

like other supporters of pork barrel spending, that it doesnot increase government spending. Rather, it just directsfunding that would have been spent anyway. His chal-lengers have argued that if it were not for earmarks thatcan be used to buy political support, proposed spendingbudgets would be a lot smaller and overall governmentspending would be significantly lower.The Democrats already fear the implications of the

ban on earmarks. Given the broader context of a shift to-ward more responsible spending by congress, the mora-torium signals a future of more restricted spending. TheDemocrats hope to pass a $1 trillion budget this year, butRepublicans will likely only support a much trimmerbudget. In its place, they have suggested an alternativebudget, which reduced spending to 2008 levels, cuttingdomestic programs by $100 billion. A recent deficit com-mission report has recommended $200 billion in spend-ing cuts, including an elimination of all earmarks,totaling $16 billion. Although not a significant cut incomparison to the larger budget, cutting earmarks wouldset a precedent for greater spending responsibility andprudence.Whether the pork barrel spending ban is effective or

not, the Democrats will face budget opposition. TeaParty supporters believed their multiple electoral victo-ries are owed to a populace tired of wasteful spendingand bridges to nowhere. What they see as their mandateto control spending will bring an overhaul in govern-ment spending and, potentially, government programcuts across the board. They hope this change will bringthe oversight long desired, and at least the first steps toeliminating government waste and political pandering.How the Democrats respond to these challenges willlikely set the tenor for the political discourse until freshelections in 2012. s

3


Pork Barrels and Republicans

by Ari Schaffer, ‘14Staff Writer

The first major step of the newly empowered TeaParty was to secure a ban on earmarks in the RepublicanParty. Relenting after longtime support of pork barrelspending, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch Mc-Connell, agreed to a rule against earmarks by partymembers. The decision comes at the end of a long publicoutcry against this kind of government spending, incitedby a series of scandals and concerns over the budgetdeficit. The battle rages on with officials on both sidesof the aisle weighing in on the decision.The question of whether earmarks should be rejected

or embraced has been part of American politics fordecades. Coined the derogatory term “pork barrelspending” after the Civil War, earmarks are allocationsof funds by politicians to benefit their specific districts.The positive aspect of earmarks is that they send moneyto districts or areas that may have been overlooked or ig-nored to deal with the broader concerns of the govern-ment. Much needed repairs or adding a small addendumto any bill or legislation can appropriate constructionprojects that the state government cannot afford. Thisgives a national politician the ability to take care of hisconstituents in a more focused manner rather than sur-rendering the needs of the district to the general will ofthe country.This last point, however, is as much a point for the op-

position as for those who support it. Those against ear-marks say, first and foremost, that national government’spurpose is to serve the national interest, while state gov-ernment serves the state’s interests and local govern-ment, the local interest. Alternatively, those who opposeearmarks maintain that federal funds should not bewasted to gain support for the incumbent of a particulardistrict. This point is even more critical when the econ-omy is still suffering from depressed growth and peopleeverywhere are trying to cut their own spending in thewake of the financial recession. Voices from both partieshave spoken up to endorse the earmark ban, includingPresident Obama and the soon-to-be Speaker of theHouse, John Boehner, who pushed through as similarban among House Republicans.The earmark ban came after many days of fighting

within the Senate Republican Party. Even Mitch Mc-Connell originally opposed the new party rule arguing,

NATIONAL REPORT

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

of and policies towards women within its borders.Though Iran was successfully blocked from receiving aseat, Saudi Arabia was elected to the executive board.The ridiculousness of this ‘victory’was not lost on pun-dits world-wide, who question whether UN Women caneffectively work towards gender equality with a memberlike Saudi Arabia, where the rights of women are se-verely curtailed.Additionally, though the proposed budget is $500 mil-

lion, whether UN Women will receive that amount is un-known; many speculate that the discrepancy betweenthe proposed budget and funds actually received will bevast. Indeed, the proposed budget is twice the sum of thecombined budgets of the organizations it is consolidatingand overseeing. Funding, according to the resolutioncreating UN Women, will come from the regular UNbudget and will be supplemented by donations frommember nations. Unfortunately, with the world econ-omy in shambles, it seems unlikely that states will allo-cate funds to what is largely perceived as a social or ‘soft’issue. Beyond administrative issues, it has been suggested

that there are fundamental flaws in the idea of a central-ized organization dictating the gender agenda for a mul-titude of diverse nations. The U.N. bodies devoted togender equality and the empowerment of women strivefor cultural understanding and work to protect regionaltraditions. As a result, some argue that a further central-ization of these organizations will make this task evenmore difficult and will merely increase the gap betweenthe workers in the field and the administrators behindthe desk.At the same time, the power of states to enact cultural

agendas, particularly in the developing world, is calledinto question as non-state and transnational actions gainpower. It is increasingly clear to analysts around theglobe that cooperation between international organiza-tions and transnational actors is important if lastingchange in cultural memes is to be achieved. What is notclear is whether these new powerhouses will work to-gether to enact change or whether societal change willmerely be a battlefield upon which they clash. UNWomen is not just the latest development in the field ofgender politics; it has the potential to be either theposter-child for successful co-operation between inter-national organizations and non-state actors or to be thequintessential failure of centralization in a globalized so-ciety. s

4


The Rise of UN Women

byHilary Matfess, ‘14Staff Writer

The creation of organizations, institutions and decla-rations supporting the idea of gender equality and theempowerment of women has been fashionable in inter-national politics for over 50 years. The newest embodi-ment of this trend is the creation of UN Women. By thisJanuary, the Division for the Advancement of Women,the International Research and Training Institute for theAdvancement of Women, the Office of the Special Ad-viser of Gender Issues and the Advancement of Women,and the United Nations Development Fund for Women(UNIFEM) will all be united under the umbrella organ-ization of UN Women. The purpose of creating anotherU.N. body regarding women is to have a more centralizedplan of action and to reduce the repetitiveness in the cur-rent bureaucracy. This consolidation is in an attempt tostrengthen the scope of existing policies, while encour-aging the expansion of activities that empower women. Currently, UNIFEM is present in about 80 countries.

The centralization of U.N. bodies regarding women will,in theory, allow for additional willing nations to receiveassistance in pursuing polities that promote genderequality. With a proposed budget of at least 5$00 millionand former President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, asUnder-Secretary-General for UN Women, this new bodywields a vast amount of potential.UN Women does not, however, lack controversies or

obstacles. The United States took a very public stanceduring the election process of the board members, main-taining that Iran was unfit to serve due to its treatment

INTERNATIONAL REPORT

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

Under-Secretary-General for UN Women, Michelle Bachelet. former Presi-dent of Chile.


5

American Exceptionalism

byMorgan Hitzig, ‘12Executive Editor

The concept of “American exceptionalism” was atheme on the campaign trail, especially among conser-vatives and, particularly, among Tea Party candidates.The majority of Americans agree that the United Statesis a great nation, but why is America exceptional andwhy does it matter?The term “exceptionalism” has been bandied about,

printed and reprinted, since President Obama was mis-quoted by Jonah Goldberg of the Los Angeles Times.When asked whether the United States was exceptional,the President responded, "I believe in American excep-tionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe inBritish exceptionalism and the Greeksbelieve in Greek exceptionalism.” Gold-berg likens Obama’s view, as illustratedby this quotation, to “benign provincial-ism.” By stating that many countries areexceptional is to effectively state thatnone are in fact extraordinary.Conservative news outlets have picked

up this quotation and used it as a rallyingcry against our “unpatriotic” president.In reality, Goldberg’s scintillating tidbitfrom Obama’s speech was pulled out ofcontext. The president went on to highlight some of theaspects of America that he finds particularly incompa-rable, including our maintenance of “the largest econ-omy in the world” and our “unmatched military.” But byvaluing the qualities of other countries, the sound bite,alive and well within 24-hour news cycle, has becomethat President Obama fundamentally denies Americanexceptionalism. Contrary to popular conservative belief, in his speech

Obama does not reduce the idea of American exception-alism to "benign provincialism." Rather, he explicitly as-serts that the values immortalized by the Constitutionare exceptional and he vigorously defends those valuesin front of a foreign audience. There are numerous ex-amples of conservative authors egregiously, quoting andre-quoting, the line taken out of context by Goldberg.While the debate between liberals and conservatives

over American exceptionalism will continue to rage, thecrux of this issue shows a deep fracture within the dis-course of American politics. Does anyone else agree that

there is latent insecurity in a country that requires itspoliticians to constantly declare how exceptional it is?Over the later half of the last decade, it can be arguedthat the United States has reached its point of imperial-ism passing and a populace in need of this much reas-surance may be a sure sign of imminent decline.The United States may be the bystander of the dis-

course surrounding exceptionalism, but the discussionof having pride in the success of the American experi-ment has come largely to the aid of Sarah Palin and theTea Party movement. The supposedly insufficient Dem-ocratic commitment to this idea will be a core Republi-can complaint in 2012. Mark my words, conservativeshave begun to berate Barack Obama for his alleged in-difference towards America’s preeminence as part oftheir move to, and focus on, heartland America. RealAmericans, it will be argued, know America is the great-

est country ever invented and they tendto shout it from the rooftops. Don't they?

After the 2008 election, Sarah Palinwas supposed to wither away intoAlaskan politics, leaving the rest of Amer-ica at peace with the fact that she wouldnever be one heartbeat away from thepresidency. However, her focus on thistheme proves she is shrewder than manyof her critics acknowledge and, much tomy chagrin, she is a force to be reckonedwith. Palin’s beliefs about American ex-ceptionalism are, without a doubt, gen-

uine. One thing is for sure; Sarah Palin knows her coreconstituency and knows how to court those within it.Her audience is made up of millions of Americans whoare tired of false promises and are anxious about Amer-ica's trajectory and their family's economic future. Palin offers her supporters rhetoric that deliberately

and effectively feels as though, in a time of uncertainty,the United States could move back to its simpler roots.Palin has used Obama’s indignity towards American ex-ceptionalism as a megaphone to the people she describesas “real Americans” to stand up and take pride in the suc-cess and individuality of the American experiment. Onething is for sure; Sarah Palin certainly knows the countryshe is courting. s

OPINION

www.JHUPOLITIK.com


6

Retire the Presidential Pension

by Rachel Cohen, ‘14Staff Writer

This past week, President Obama publicly announcedhis intent to crack down on earmarks in the federalbudget. This initiative, while seemingly a good idea, ar-rives at an ironic time. The plan to eliminate “pork barrelspending” coincides nicely with the release of George W.Bush’s new memoir, Decision Points.Just to give some background, George W. Bush’s book

reportedly received an advance of around $7 million.While the exact number of copies that Bush will sell is afact only the future will tell, we do know that formerPresident Clinton’s post-presidential memoir sold over2.2 million copies, earning him a stunning total of $15million.In addition to the royalties George W. Bush will be re-

ceiving for his new book this year, he will also be receiv-ing nearly $200,000 from the United States taxpayer. It seems to me that one of the most obvious and least-

discussed areas of pork barrel spending lies in the trulyridiculous (and antiquated) legislation that is the life-time presidential pension. This law, officially known asthe Former Presidents Act (FPA) was established in 1958to provide annual retirement benefits to presidents, in-cluding a lifetime annual federal pension, lifetime pro-tection by the Secret Service and reimbursements forany future office allowances they might incur. These of-fice allowances include reimbursements for things liketravel expenses, postal service costs, and staff salaries.The pension itself is not a set amount, but rather itmatches the salary of Executive Level I personnel in theCabinet, which currently set at a total of $191,300 peryear. We used to live in an age where the presidents who

most desperately needed pensions did not even fathomasking for one. Thomas Jefferson had no choice but tosell his 6,000-volume book collection to the governmentto pay off his creditors. James Madison found himself sodebt-ridden that he pleaded desperately (and in vain) fora loan from the new Bank of the United States. Followinghis predecessor’s legacy, James Monroe was so destitutewhen he died in New York that his family couldn’t evenafford to send his remains back to his hometown in Vir-ginia. The notion of a lifetime government pension wasnot even considered at the founding of the American re-

public, with the memory of King George and his royalprivileges still fresh in the young country’s conscience.But times have changed. Ever since Mark Twain pub-

lished Ulysses S. Grant’s first presidential memoir in1885, earning Grant nearly $500,000 in royalties, ex-presidents have found all sorts of ways to exploit theirpowerful position. Some particularly lucrative areas thathave become popular trends are sitting on corporateboards and advising. George H.W. Bush currently reapslarge benefits from his position as Senior Advisor to theCarlyle Group, a private global investment firm, whileGerald Ford received nice salaries from his involvementwith both American Express and 20th Century Fox.

These positions do not even include fees earnedthrough speaking engagements across the globe. In 1989Ronald Reagan gave two speeches in Japan, acceptingan unbelievable fee of $1 million dollars for each speech.Nothing can compete, though, with Bill Clinton, whosince leaving his position as Commander in Chief in2001 has grossed over $65 million in speaker fees alone.The point is clear. While former presidents continue

reap the rewards of a lifetime of fame and wealth, thefact that we are still using valuable taxpayer dollars tobestow more riches on our former leaders is absurd, es-pecially at a time when our current president is makingstrong, declarative statements that he seeks to end un-necessary spending in the budget. A true act of admirable leadership would be for Pres-

ident Obama to eliminate the FPA, even though it is hewho will ultimately gain from the law down the line. Itis time to retire the pension. s

OPINION

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

Volume V, Issue XIII

Documents

Transcript of Volume V, Issue XIII