4 Wednesday, March 10, 1993 OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN IN OUR OPINION Service program offers college payment option President Bill Clinton has proposed a national service program for college students to help them pay for college. If acted upon, the plan would let students do community work to pay for their education. Students would have the option of working before attending college or go to school and then work off the money already spent. The program matches college students with public service jobs in areas of pollution control, education, working with the elderly and homeless, law enforcement and many other positions. The program offers many the opportunity to get a college education that they could not otherwise afford. It would also be a great boost to our government's public service. The program directly addresses students' fears of increasing tuition and about getting a job right out of college. It will give the students who are involved hands-on experience in the public service sector. The program will be a great option for those who choose to participate. The cost of the program and the specifics have been offered to Congress as part of Clinton's economic package. The design for a pilot program this summer involves 1,000 students with an estimated cost of $15 million. The national service program as a whole will be presented to Congress in a separate package. The cost of $389 million outlined in the package would cover an estimated 25,000 students' full-time tuition. The program is expected to expand and cover 100,000 students by 1997. When the cost and benefits of this program are reviewed, a few things need to be remembered. First, it is not being presented to cure the current financial aid program's ills. Second, it is not a solution to the problem of students defaulting on student loans. It is a good idea for what it claims to accomplish: to give students the option of community service in exchange for a college education. Congress also needs to make sure that the purpose of the program is not blurred and the public and students know for what they are paying. If passed, this program would be one accomplishment that insures that a college education would be available to all citizens, no matter their economic standing. JOLINDA MATTHEWS FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE Clinton's deficit plan gets praise, criticism My, but the long knives were out for President Bill Clinton and his economic plan this past week. Thank goodness the knife-wielders mostly stabbed themselves. Roused from 12 years of somelon timidity, George Will and friends dusted on their verbal swords and took swing after snootly swing at Clinton. Isn't strange. From the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidency to the end of George Bush's, the federal deficit grew from $40 billion a year to $340 billion — an 850 percent increase. Now comes a Democrat who proposes to reduce the deficit in the next four years by at least $80 billion a year, and he's skinned alive for not doing enough. Not all criticism of Clinton's plan was undeserved, but there were clear differences between criticism aimed at improving the plan and criticism that simply dumped on it. People like Paul Tsongas subjected the details of the program to cogent criticism while praising Clinton's basic thrust. Many average U.S. citizens did likewise. They expressed a willingness to sacrifice through higher taxes but worried that Congress and Clinton would not follow through with spending cuts ... Clinton and Congress seem to have heard those concerns. They have now rejiggered the schedule so Congress will vote on the spending cuts before it votes on Clinton's tax increases or economic stimulus program. Clinton has expressed an openness to further budget trimming, and Democrats are working to develop additional votes for his administration. Unlike Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Clinton has offered the outline of a coherent deficit-reduction program and is providing the leadership needed to make it work. Critics from the order of the long knives should swallow their swords or fall on them—and let the rest of the nation get on with the serious work of ensuring that Clinton's program succeeds. Star Tribune Minneapolis Clinton's economic plan creates new definitions You don't have to be a Harvard economist to maintain a budget. Most people have one. Some use a simple notebook. Others punch numbers into a home computer. And there are those who keep the figures in their heads. Whatever method is used, it's a simple enough process. You look at your paycheck, and it tells you how much is coming in. Then you total your expenses, which tells you how much is going out. You subtract the expenses from the paycheck. If anything remains, you're ahead of the game, and you can buy something, save, invest or whoop it If you break even, you've kept the wolf from the door for another week. But if more goes out than comes in, you can have a problem. To solve the problem, you have to either spend less, earn more, borrow, steal or become a deadbeat. They claim to understand, but to the uneducated eye, it often appears that they don't. Or if they do, they're in a contest to see how thoroughly they can confuse each other and the rest of us. And if that's what they're trying to do, they're succeeding. The traditional budget process is so simple. In fact, even a wino panhandler understands it. He knows that to maintain his lifestyle, he has to mooch enough money for a bottle of skullcopper, a bite to eat and maybe the price of a flophop cot. COLUMNIST So why doesn't the president of the United States, with all of his brainy economic advisers, understand it? Or the 435 members of Congress, with their thousands of staffs? Clinton introduced his economic program. Since then, the Republicans in Congress said his numbers made no sense and that he was spending more, taxing more and borrowing more than he admits to. Of course, that is to be expected from Republicans. In their new role as the loyal opposition, they are expected to crab, sneer and back-stab. It is part of our great political tradition. But even Clinton's own people can not seem to agree on how much is coming in and where it is coming from or how much is going out and where it is going. Every time one of his bright boys pops up on a television show we get a new set of numbers. The figures can even change between the beginning of the show and the sign-off. Does it have to be so confusing? True, we're talking billions, which isn't much change, although in Congress the mention of anything less than a billion brings on yawns. It's been a while since President Bill But years ago, the federal bookkeepers hunched over thick ledgers scratching in numbers with ink-dipped pens. And they managed to come up with understandable figures. Later, the clunking additions were considered a great leap forward. bureaucrats using ink pens or adding machines. So what has happened? We have more bureaucrats, and we're more confused. Now government is stocked with giant computers. These are being used to track a vast key of thousands of In minutes, the computers can do the work of thousands of mathematicians and CPAs, but what is the result? We still can't get straight answers. Or it might be that the numbers aren't the source of the confusion. The problem could be the new happy-speak language that Clinton has brought to economics. Taxes have become "contributions." Spending has become "investing." But my favorite Clinton-speak is the new definition of rich, which my dictionary says means "possessing great material wealth." The way Clinton defines the word for contribution-gathering purposes, a deputy fire chief in Chicago, with a wife who teaches in the public schools, could now be considered "tich." It used to be that old rich meant fifth-generation millionaires living the good life off the family fortune. Old rich suddenly means any geezer in Florida who mistakenly thought he was being prudent and self-reliant when he stashed something for his old age. The rascal will have to be careful not to find and sell too many lost golf balls or he might jump into the super-rich bracket. Yes, it will all very confusing right now. But when Congress takes over the budget process, maybe some of the befuddlement will go away. sure it will. And Madonna will enter a convent. Mike Royko is a syndicated columnist with the Chicago Tribune. LETTER TO THE EDITOR barment of a lawyer and his small, hate-promoting gang of fanatics worthy of front-page coverage? We thought the front page was traditionally reserved for important local and national happenings, not sensationalistic features. Second, the headline was a treastry. These children are not on the line for God! They are on the line for hatred, bigotry, fear and intolerance. All things that Christ presumably preached against. ■ Debra L. Stang Lawrence ■ Edie Kelly Lawrence ■ Sylvie Rueff Lawrence ■ Sylvia Stone Lawrence ■ Carol Rasor Lawrence First of all, since when has the dis We can't believe that the Kansan actually put a story about Fred Phelps and his grandchildren on the front page of the paper. And worse, the headline read: "Children on the Line for God!" Kansan's coverage of Phelps is biased; slanted to readers Recruiters for groups forget that religion is personal Who are these people anyway? They're everywhere. They prey on the innocent or maybe just the pathetic, like me. I'm talking about the individuals on campus who recruit for their religious groups. If not well informed of these people, one could be quite intimidated. I'm not talking about different booths setup in the Kansas Union, or the like, just the individuals who feel that it is their duty to make conversation with anyone they please. I don't know who teaches these people communication skills or what groups they represent, but the methods they use never cease to amaze me. First, in my experience I've noticed that they are always walking in the same direction as me. Coincidence" I don't think so. Next comes an undying series of questions: name, year, major, where I live, marital status, grade point average, felony record, etc... Usually I become leery at this point. Why would anyone really care to know this much information about me? I have no idea. "Oh,not so good,actually." Further, I've noticed they agree with everything I say. They ask, "So do you play sports?" STAFF COLUMNIST "No, I just write for the newspaper." "Really, I never played any sports either," they reply. "How are your grades?" 00 "Really, I never did that well either," they say. After a while, this dialogue becomes somewhat tiresome. Besides, I feel like I've played a horrible game of Twenty Questions. Usually this third degree leads to the inevitable. "Would you like to come to a meeting of (fill in the blank with your favorite religious activity) at 7 tonight?" An answer of "no thanks" is not accepted. Usually this answer is an invitation for more questions. "What do you have to lose? It's only 30 minutes. Isn't it worth to you?" it's true that each person would probably answer differently, but when all these questions come at once, it can be a situation that is rather uncomfortable. I understand the need for some groups to attract new members, but by accosting innocent individuals the success rate is just not going to be that high. Apparently they believe in the element of surprise. I feel invaded each time this happens. I realize this is a country where we have the right to free speech, but at the same time, I also have the right not to speak. These people take it personally if you don't speak to them, and it's essentially impossible not to say anything unless you're wearing a no soliciting sign around your neck. Maybe we are going to "hell in a hand basket" but being told this by a total stranger doesn't make me want to go to the meeting. In fact, it downright depresses me to attract people, maybe something a little more upbeat would be successful. Do you want to wake up in the Welcome tonight and watch 'Welcome Back Kotter' reuns?' To me, this would seem more likely to work. Religion is an important issue as well as a personal one. Not everyone chooses to participate, and that's their right. Let's keep religion a voluntary issue, and let the people who have the questions ask them. Andrew Gilman is a Norman, Oklah, soophore majoring in English. KANSANSTAFF GREG FARMER Editor GAYLE OSTERBERG Managing editor TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser BILL SKEET. Technology coordinator Electronics Justin Knupp Asst. Managing Monique Guislaim News David Mitchell Editorial Stephen Marrino Campus KC Trauner Sports David Mitchell Photos Mark Rowlands Features Lynne McAdobe Graphics Dan Schauer Tiffany Laash Hurt Assistant Editors Associate, Editorial Chris Moeser Associate, Campus Joe Hander Assist. Campus Lawrence Cunningham Assist. Campus Stacy Morford David Bankooki Vicki Bode Mark Button Jess Delavan Matt Howey Matt Doyle Dan England Ben Drive Frank McClane Will Lewis Brady Pruseau Matt Cornick Jim Reece Brett Rigs Todd Selfert Blake Spurrey Jay Williams Ezra Wolfe Copy Chiefs Scott Anderson Shelly Solon Copy Editors Heather Anderson Aaron Baker J. Bair, Christine Estrada John Paul Fogel Kristaf Foger Kevin Furlong Katie Greenwald Karon Hadley Jon Hunter Tilary Lasker Hart Chris Jenson Nikolas Nastasen Christine Laue Allison Uppert Tim Marks Stacy Morford Muneen Hassan Tracy Richie Coney Shepun Julie Wasson Jay Willams Photographers Andrew Amone Jason Auid Kim Buche Kip Chin Richard Daviel Kathy Discolso Douglas Hesse Jason Hyman Renee Knebeber Paul Kolt Irene Lanier Rachel Thompson Graphics Artist Dave Campbell Andrew Hodges Katherine Mawlever Derek Kolen Designer Erin Fogarty Katherine Mawlever Derek Nolen Sean Tevls Julie Wasson News Clark Stephany Kimball STEVE PERRY Business manager MELISSA TERLIP Retail sales manager JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser BILL THOMAS Production PAT BOYLE Accounting Business Staff Campus sales mgr...Brad Broom Regional Sales mgr...Wade Baxter National sales mgr...Jennifer Porter Co-op sales mgr...Ashley Hessel Production mgr...Amy Stumbo Marketing director...Angela Glowinger Creative director...Holly Perry Art Director...Dave Habeler Classified mgr...Matt Tomey Special Sections...Rythia Footh Programs...Mark Domnik Classified Assistant...Laura Guth Zone Managers Zone managers Jennifer Blowey...Kim Brown John Carton...Amy Casey Jodi Cole... Retail Account Executives Linda Boodeker Retail Account Executive Kate Burgesa Ken Cole Jason Eberly Jennifer Evenson Justin Garberg Stephine Greenwood Josh Hahn Tammie Johnson Allison Kaplan Sue Kratky Robin King Jessica Lenard Shelley McConnell Chris Morrisley Mike Murray Ker Rathbun Ed Schagner Judith Standley Gretchen Van Hoet Brebcca Boresow Kriety Enlow Mellasa Jenkins Laura Manka Russel Haa Nicole Abbott Jennifer Laird Cathy McWilliams Troy Tawter Mendi Stauffer...