4
---
Thursday, February 25, 1993
---
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Only cuts in spending can decrease deficit
George Bush was voted out of office for raising taxes as the deficit ballooned. Bill Clinton, who was elected on the issue of economic change, is trying to avoid falling into the same political abyss.
President Clinton's economic plan calls for a broad range of tax increases, $30 billion dollars in new spending, various tax cuts and numerous spending cuts that are to take effect over the next four years. This plan's goals are to give the economy a jump-start and cut the federal budget deficit.
If substantially cutting the deficit is really a priority for Clinton, he must push for more spending cuts now. Congress is too good at putting off until tomorrow what should be done today. Clinton must have the fortitude to hold Congress to the spending cuts that his plan details for the next four years. He must continue to look for waste and unneeded programs that can be cut.
The budget is still full of programs U.S. citizens can live without. Congress knows where these wasteful programs are, but as long as they are more concerned with the next election than with the good of the nation Clinton will have a hard time making spending cuts stick. It is essential that he make all of his cuts and more. Clinton's projections for deficit reduction are based in part on the optimistic expectation that the economy will begin to grow 1 percent faster a year than it is currently and that health care costs will be controlled. Neither of these expectations are guaranteed to happen.
Only spending cuts can reduce the deficit. The people are being asked to pay higher taxes right now and many are willing to do so. But if the president wants popular support he should make spending cuts now as well, not three or four years down the road.
Many people are looking at tax increases as the way to decrease the deficit, but never in the history of the United States has a tax increase reduced the deficit. President Reagan cut taxes in 1982, but the deficit increased. In 1990 President Bush raised taxes in exchange for a pledge from Congress to cut spending. Yet again the deficit continued to increase.
This shows that increasing and decreasing taxes is not important when it comes to the deficit. What causes the deficit is the willingness of the government to overspend year after year.
Clinton is the one person in the position to cut the deficit and force financial responsibility on a Congress controlled by members of his own party. It will be an uphill battle, but it gives Clinton a chance to truly bring change to the American system of government.
DAVID OLSON FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Public demands honesty but rarely elects it
As the presidential campaign heated up during 1992, every day we, the public, demanded of our politicians an end to smoke and mirrors, back-room politics, the legacy of which is the four-trillion-dollar deficit. The message was clear; only the forrightful and candid need apply, or else Ross Perot.
A funny thing happened on the way to the election, though. The American public did what it always does. It opted for this path of least resistance: a direct assault on the deficit and a little something for the middle class — a tax
break. The paradox manifests itself accordingly. The public demands honesty and candor but rarely elects it. Hypocrisy prevails. The public cides its politicians for breaking promises but elects only those willing to pledge the impossible. Deficit reduction is not fun stuff. Now that word is out about how it's accomplished — raising taxes in addition to spending cuts — we're sure to hear from those politicians seeking reelection. "You know," they'll say, "there's another way." At least now, however, we have a president who knows otherwise, even if he had to promise he did not.
David Higgins St. Louis junior
Birthdays are the time to recall the achievement and hope of life
I recently celebrated a birthday. I refused to really announce it prior to the date.
It wasn't that I was afraid people would think I was fishing for gifts or a surprise party, but mainly because I've been sensitive about my age since about 10.
Was I preocious? No, that simply was the age that basic trusms hit me profoundly hard — in a real way; my parents would not always be around, things change, life is short, we decay and we die.
STAFF COLUMNIST
At that moment I became markedly conscious of the values of youth.
unneed, now I am part of what Time quipped as the 20-something generation. The segment that is caught
In fact, by the time I hit 15, I would flaunt it. I can remember flying along I-70 in my sun-roofed Volkswagen Bug with the radio blaring and my hair blowing. I was sure that every beerdelied semi-driver was keenly aware that youth incarnate had just whizzed by. And I figured they couldn't be held back. I knew that what Iad — youth — too would pass. Just because I knew what I had didn't mean I could keep it, or that I had done anything to deserve it.
between rejecting the goals of our parents, but not wanting to reject the benefits. It's a precarious position. It's as self-conscious as a punched nose, swelling and turning black then blue, with nowhere to hide.
It's the same attitude that scriptes my defense to questions about my age, which you may borrow: If you don't want to tell someone how old you are, simply say, "Young enough that I'm not offended that you asked, but old enough that I won't tell you."
20 23
Regardless of coming to terms with aging, I will use this response until I graduate and make over $20,000 a year. When people ask me my age, I do not hear a mere curiosity. I hear them positioning themselves for a judgment, one that I don't need.
Except from Al.
Ironically I have discussed aging with Al more than with any other person, and it never bothers me. I say that ironically because Al has a most distinguished habit regarding this subject, one that I think most people would find annoying. Whenever you tell Al what number birthday you are celebrating, he'll spout out someone of note that died at that age.
And age 28 hit particularly hard. This was the age of John Keats when he died. So by the time Keats had completed some of the most enduring masterpieces of literature, I had not even completed my thesis.
Keats was a blue-ribbon winner, I at best, was honorable mention.
Initially, I used to counter Af's age almanac with reminders that Grandma Moses began painting in her 60s and Emmanuel Kant wrote his "Cri
There is someone for every age, believe me. So why don't I find AI's practice ultimately annoying? Why do I inevitably hunt down AL when my birthday approaches? I think it is because in AL's annual message, there is not judgment in a climb-up-the-corporate-ladder sense, but rather a call in the accept-your-humanness sense.
tique of Pure Reason" in his 60s. But soon I stopped. Most of us are not Kants or Moses. We are too average to suffer from what Bloom calls "the anxiety of influence," too average to worry about being average.
I'm not saying that life is over past 18 or that we don't all have our individual contributions to make to the world regardless of age. I've know many people who prove that you can learn languages, sports and analytical philosophy past the typically conceived human prime. Yet, Al's habit is so delightful because it is more than so Al. It is also so human.
A's little habit serves as a reminder that one of the best things with age is knowing what we are, and finally, what we are not.
From the consistency of average days arises in us the ability to admire, and the strength to laugh at absurdity. There are still pocket of greatness to seek and to savor. What the world rejects can be more intimately ours. In this recognition, in this admiration of something larger than ourselves, we find gifts above average any time of the year.
Ann Jurczyk is a Kansas City, Kan., graduate student majoring in liberal arts.
Censorship distracts from real issues
STAFF COLUMNIST
Those who wish to scribe expression are nothing if not persistent. I was sitting in my journalism law class admiring the United States Supreme Court for their decision in a fairly recent flag burning case.
The Court found that to limit the burning of flags was an impingement on first amendment rights. My professor threw around terms like "content neutral," and, though it was foggy, I began to comprehend that if it is all right to flag a banner is old and torn then it is all right to burn any flag. The court ruled that this was "pure speech," another one of those terms. Basically, I think they meant that this expression harmed no one.
Now this professor went on to tell us that the vote for this ruling was so close that he wondered how quickly it would be challenged.
He did not have to wait long, but much to his and many other people's surprise, the decision was upheld. It is still all right to burn a flag, as long as
no one is at risk of harm.
The next day I open the Kansan, and to and behold the Kansas legislature has decided to go to Washington and ask them to make a law making flag desecration illegal. Now, I am simply a graduate student, but even I can read a decision. Look folks, it's just a piece of cloth.
When we limit the meaning of the flag we limit the scope of the people for whom the flag was designed. Symbols, when made too precious, can cripple.
Don't these people have anything better to do? There are children forming gangs in places like Lawrence, Wichita and Kansas City, Kan; health care costs are at an all time high; and yes, in Kansas, if a woman consents to drink alcohol, she is in some mysterious way consenting to having sex.
we do not have time to worry about whether someone burns a flag.
Censorship has been a favorite energy drain since the first book was printed. Everyone has some form of expression that they wish to be known by, of a library or a bookstore. Some would censor *Playboy*, the Bible.
boy, some times.
I have never understood America's obsession with other people's business. It seems maybe we have too much time on our hands. I feel like telling these people, as my mother used to, that if they have so much time they should clean their rooms. Maybe those who have the time to lobby against other people's expression
should donate that time to a battered women's center, a children's organization, the Salvation Army.
The scary thing is that censorship is not the providence of the right either. Almost every organization has it's ownidea of what should or should not be seen by other people. Many feminists believe that pornography should be banned. This is as tough an issue as any other.
When do our beliefs begin to infringe on the rights of someone else? If *Penthouse* should be banned, what about the dunes painted by the masters, what about Maplethorpe?
I am beginning to understand the very simple statement: I may not agree with what you are doing, but I will defend to the death your right. Sounds sort of like the basis for the formation of this country, doesn't it?
Lisa Coomille is a Lawrence graduate student majoring in journalism.
KANSANSTAFF
GREG FARMER
Editor
GATLE OSTERBERG
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
Assist. Managing
News | Justin Knapp
Manager Quintet | Marielle Mitchell
Manager | David Mitchell
Editorial | Stephen Martino
Campus | Scott Lacey
Sports | David Mitchell
Photo | Mark Routlanda
Posture | Lynne McAdon
Graphed | Dan Schauer
Wire | Tiffany LaHurt Hunt
Assasistant Editors | Chris Mooser
Assoc. Campus | Jana Hendler
Assst. Campus | Christine MacLean
Steady Morford
Assoc. Sports | David Barchenkel
Reporters | Mark Batchton
Jess Dekaven | David Gouvy
Malt DeBakey | David England
Ben Grove | Mark Rinkey
Frank McCainey
Tueren McComnick | Brady Prussi
Jim Reece...Brett Riggs
Todd Selfert...Blake Spumney
Jay Williams...Era Wade
Scott Anderson...Shelly Solon
Heather Anderson...Aaron Baker
J.R. Clarborn...Ejane Estrada
John Paul Fogel...Kristi Fogler
Kevin Furlong...Katie Greenwald
Karen Hagen...Jane Hardy
Tiffany Lahek Hurt...Chris Johnson
Noelle Kastena...Christine Laue
Allison Lippert...Tim Mankin
Blair Moerford...Munice Nagy
Tracy Ritchie...Corey Shoup
Julie Wesson...Jay Williams
Andrew Anome...Photographers
Kim Buche...Jason Aud
Richard Devilbald...Kip Chin
Derek Hughes...Kathy Descrot
Renne Knoeber...Paul Kotz
Irene Lanier...Rachel Thompson
Dave Campbell...Graphics Artist
Katherni Manweller...Andrew Hedges
Designer
Kevin Fogerty...Katherine Manweller
Derek Nolen...Sean Tewls
Julie Wasson...News Clark
Riohua Kinniball
STEVE PERRY
MELISSA TERLIP
Retail sales manage
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
BILL THOMAS Production
Business Stair
Campus sales mgr? Brad Brud
Regional sales mgr Bred Waxer
National sales mgr Jennifer Perrier
Co-op sales mgr Aisha Heeler
Production mgr Amy Stumbo
Ashley Langford
Marketing director Angela Clavenger
Creative director Holly Perry
Art Director Gwen Hobson
Classified mgr Jill Torney
Special Sections Blythe Focht
Promotions Mark Domikh
Classified Assistant Laura Guth
Zone Managers Klim Brown
Jacqueline Blinney 211-437-8060 Akin Johnson
Carlton Canton - 2 Amy Cusser
Kevin Hicks - 292-577-8060
Retail Account Executives
Linda Boedeker ... Tricla Bumpu
Kate Burgess ... Ken Cole
Jason Eberly ... Jennifer Evenson
Justin Garberg ... Stephnee Greenwood
Joah Hahn ... Tamriel Johnson
Allen Kaplan ... Sue Kirkson
Robin King ... Jasmine Lennard
Shelley McConnell ... Chris Morrisley
Mike Murray ... Kofrath Ribauw
Ed Schreiber ... Judith Standley
Bordelman Van Hout
Campus Account Executives
Rebecca Boresow Kriety Enlow
Mellissa Jenkins Laura Marka
Russel Hina
Regional Account Executive
Nicole Abbott...Jennifer Laird
Cathy McWilliams...Troy Tarwater
Interns
Mendi Stauffer
---