4
Monday, October 16, 1989 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Taxing without approval ruins sacred ties to voters
Kansas citizens may get a surprise from the Legislature this session.
Kansas cities plan to ask the Legislature for the authority to impose a 1/4 cent sales tax without seeking voter approval. The proposed tax would allow cities to raise money to replace worn-out sewers, water supplies, roads and buildings.
The League of Kansas Municipalities, which calls for this Legislature platform that will permit them to unfairly assess Kansas voters, already levies a billion dollars of taxes without any referendum.
Ernie Mosher, executive director of the League, reminds us that "we do have a representative government." This reasoning is circular and undermines the principles of what good government should be.
Although our representative government does have the authority to distribute revenue in the state's best interest, it does not have the right to accumulate money unjustly. A state tax imposed on its residents, without voter approval, violates the sacred relationship between government and the people it serves.
Granted, many Kansas cities have fallen victim to outdated sewers and roads with countless dollars needed for infrastructure improvements. Unfortunately, the process by which the League of Kansas Municipalities proposes to attain this goal attempts to circumvent the source of its own employment, the Kansas voters.
A representative form of government has proven successful and efficient in our nation's history. Yet all elected officials are still accountable and responsible for their actions. Attempting to impose a tax upon the state's voters without their consent is inappropriate and inexusable. Ultimately, it is the privilege of the people to determine if this tax is necessary or not.
Thom Clark for the editorial board
Government should put limits on PAC spending
This is the second in a series of editorials about pending Supreme Court cases...
10 reguage spending on political campaigns, Michigan prohibits corporations from spending money independently to support political candidates. The law was applied to bar the Michigan Chamber of Commerce from taking out a political advertisement.
In Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, an appeals court struck down the law as it applied to corporations formed for ideological purposes and not for profit. The Federal Election Commission, worried about a federal law barring both corporate and union political spending, sides with state officials in defending the Michigan law.
- Certainly a federal law banning corporate and union spending would be overkill, but the Michigan law approaches just such a ban. A more reasonable solution would be to apply the same restrictions to corporations that apply to political action committees. For example, spending for an individual congressional candidate would be limited to $5,000.
Curtailing campaign spending is a legitimate concern. Congressional incumbents have the ability to build million-dollar warchests to fend off any challenge to their seats. Unlimited spending by corporations and individuals would make an already daunting task impossible.
Also, unlimited spending raises the specter that an elected office would go to the highest corporate bidder. This is not necessarily true, but money talks in a campaign and could call into question the integrity of Congress and other offices.
Nevertheless, corporations should not be deprived of supporting candidates they think support their best interests. Silencing a voice in the political arena strikes at the legitimacy of the system.
The trick is making sure one voice does not drown out another. To this end, applying PAC limits to corporations keeps runaway spending in check and allows them to express their political views by supporting candidates.
Daniel Niemi for the editorial board
News staff
Members of the editorial board are David Stewart, Stan Diel, Brett Brenner, Ric Brack, Daniel Nieml, Craig Welch, Kathy Walsh, Deb Gruver, Thom Clark and Tiffany Harness.
David Stewart...News start
Riack Ritch...Editor
Daniel Niemi...Managing editor
Candy Nieman...News editor
Stan Dillen...Planning editor
Jennifer Corner...Editorial manager
Etalne Sung...Campus editor
Laure Huser...Sports editor
Christine Winner...Photo editor
Artist/Female Editor
General manager, News advise
Business staff
Linda Prokop...Business manager
Debra Martin...Local advertising sales director
Jerre Medford...National/regional sales director
Jill Lowe...Marketing director
Tami Rank...Production manager
Carrie Slankin...Assistant production manager
Margaret Townsend...Co-op manager
Eric Harper...Creative director
Christ Dooll...Classified manager
Jeff Meesey...Teamsheet manager
Jeanne Hines...Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and less than 200 words and must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University of Kansas, please Include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
the Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stuffer-Flint Hall, Letters, columns and cartoons are the opinion of the writer or cartoonist and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Daily Kansan. Editorialists, which appear in the left-hand column, are the opinion of the Kansan editorial board.
The University Dally Kanese (UPSF) 650-840) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stairwater-Flint Hall, Lawrence, K. 69045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods, and Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage is paid in Lawrence, K. 60044. Annual subscriptions by mail are $30. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
Postmaster: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansas, 118
Stauffer Flint, Lawrence, KC, 68045.
War on drugs is war on free minds
What would you say to the statement that the war on drugs, the pet project of Bush's boys, is a nationwide attempt at mind control?
Sounds a little extreme, I know. Maybe you think I'm merely some stoner who is hoping to get some laughs by making you unnecessarily angry. Believe me, that is not what I am or what I are trying to do. I'm just an ordinary, young, middle-class American whose only real complaint in life is that the voice of reason never deigns to shout like the voice of passion. Sometimes a reactionary cause, like the push for a drug-free America, deserves a radical response.
But really, how radical is that statement? There just might be more truth to it than you think.
The objective of the war on drugs is supposedly to bring about a drug-free America. Obviously Bush's boys have aimed high (no pun intended). An American free of drugs, however, is no longer as free in thought as it should be. My reasoning is as follows.
There are many impressive cases in which creative and constructive thinking has been done, thanks in some significant part, to the use of drugs. Literature, philosophy and music provide us with the examples of Allen Ginsberg, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Miles Davis — just to name a few. In fact, for centuries drugs have been a means of opening avenues of human thought that otherwise would have remained blocked off by mental habit, laziness, or normality. If we are deprived of that means, then those thoughts — the radical ones on the repressed perimeters of our minds — may never have the chance to occur in us. They wouldn't be able to make the trip (to consciousness) from that far out. To the extent that access to these drug-related avenues of thought is denied, our minds are controlled.
Ford Hoffman
Guest columnist
Granted, this may not be a line of reasoning traceable in a collection of recent White House memoranda. Then again, we should never underestimate the powers that be. For all we know about what really goes on in high-level government meetings, the war on drugs could be an attempt by blue-suited conservatives of the eighties to get even with free-spirited citizens left over from the sixties. But I digress.
I think it’s fair to say that the war on drugs was ignited not long ago; it is still a fairly new initiative. Has Bush heard the reaction from all quarters of our society? Or is he counting on a silent majority to chime in on his side? I should think that the most serious objections would come from those who would (or rather like ourselves) who truly value uninhibited and innovative thinking, which drugs often facilitate. But I also keep hearing that college campuses just aren’t what they used to be.
Even if you don't buy into the idea of the war on drugs being an attempt at mind control, you can still refuse to be a participant in the push for a
drug-free America.
I find the image of an America free of drugs less than idyllic. Frankly, it scares me. I picture a tame, dreary society in which variety is typically defined according to different shades of gray. Imagine something along the lines of the Soviet Union without vodka. Psychological sterility would carry the day; even worse, surgical scrubs would probably become fashionable again. But seriously, humans have been using and experimenting with drugs for a long, long time. Why is that whole practice so suddenly verboten? It's not like we have recently evolved into a species too pure for drugs. Putting an end to the use of drugs like that simply isn't natural; it's absurdly antiseptic.
my fear of that extreme, however, does not lead me to embrace the other. That is, I am not a fan of absolutely all drugs. Patently there are some drugs available today (at your corner drug dealer) that have proved to be rather more destructive than mind-opening. They do not serve the purpose that I want to protect. Lately it seems like we hear about these bad examples every day; indeed, they supply the national news, which is the launching pad for the White House propaganda that we can count on being able to read in today's paper or hear on tonight's broadcast. These days it is hard to stay off the anti-drug bandwagon and not have someone put a black hat on your head. Too many people fail to understand that there is no sense in condemning an entire road just because it has a few cracks.
▶ Ford Hoffman is a Lincoln, Neb., senior majoring in philosophy.
LETTERS to the EDITOR
Hold the politics, please
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion on campus about a perceived tie between Domino's Pizza and the right-to-life movement. As the manager of the local store, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some facts regarding the issue.
First, Domino's Pizza has never supported organizations on either side of the reproduction rights in business is pizza, plain and simile.
Second, Domino's founder and chief executive officer, Tom Monaghan, did make a donation to the Michigan Committee to End Tax-Funded Abortions. His donation was made from his own personal money, not from Domino's Pizza Inc. money. And the donation was not made to Operation Rescue, as it has been rumored.
Third, while I have agreed to follow certain business standards and practices, I have never been asked to line up politically or
ideologically with any group as a result of my work with Domino's Pizza. It is unrealistic to think that every employee of a company as large as ours (more than 180,000 employees) could hold the same view on any personal issue.
Finally, we value the students of the University of Kansas as our customers. We hope that now that we have received the issue, they will continue to give us the opportunity to deliver to them the finest pizza in Lawrence.
Jack Shelton Manager, Domino's pizza Lawrence
Jack Shelton
A parking lot dilemma
I am writing in response to the article in Tuesday's paper entitled "KU Student Fights for Lot." I applaud Kay's efforts in fighting the parking problem at the St. Pauls University campus and students living in the Scholarship Hall system, have a similar problem.
Our parking lots are often filled with cars without stickers, especially on nights when the bars are full. The worst part of our problem is that we pay for our stickers, and Parking Services' ticketing efforts are fruitless. Ticketing does not deter many people from parking in
our lots. Therefore, when we come home at night, we have to park blocks away from our halls or risk getting tickets in other lots.
I wish that I had the time and the authority to do what Kay has done in preventing parking problems at the Catholic center. But, because I do not, I and many others are left defenseless in fighting for something that we have already paid for. I hope that other students will respect our work and think twice about parking in our lots. Also, I would like Parking Services to know that we do not intend to let this issue die before we can get something accomplished in fighting this problem.
Laura Dill Ashland, Neb., junior and 133 scholarship hall residents Misplaced zeal
I am deeply dismayed to see the wild-eyed zeal of the environmentalist lunatic-fringe is alive and well at KU, in the form of the bizarre campaign against NASA and the Gallo space probe currently being conducted by Environ and the Academic Freedom Action Coalition. I would be a fool to deny that these organizations are correct in their concern regarding the potential danger of nuclear energy, but I am confused on the point of which particular
planet they feel is in danger
In other words, I cannot understand why Galileo is such a profound threat to Earth, which is already nounded with radioactive waste, dotted with poorly-managed nuclear power plants and held hostage by tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. The anti-Galileeists, I think, would hate and their world by calling the attention of students to these proximate perils. Their crusading fever is misused and foolish while it is directed against a legitimate and responsible scientific endeavor entailing no unreasonable risks.
Still, like good Luddites, the protesters condemn Gallileo and thereby summon to mind an ironic episode in the history of science.
In the seventeenth century, Galileo Gallile's quest for knowledge of the cosmos was fatally inhibited by the resistance of the small-minded, the dogmatic and the paranoid. It stuns and sickens me to witness, three centuries later, that humanity has lovers of the natural world he strove to comprehend struggling to sacrifice his namesake on their altar of hysterical fear. So much, I suppose, for progress.
Edward Downum
Littleton, Colo., southwest
Littleton, Colo., sophomore
CAMP UHNEELY
DOGS ANYONE HAVE A CONFLICT
WITH SCHOEDDLING AN EXAM
DURING THE WEEK OF
OCTOBER 16th?
BY SCOTT PATTV