UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editors represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of only the writers.
JANUARY 31, 1979
Share the payments
The price of student basketball and football tickets soon will be on the line before the University of Kansas Athletic Corporation Board, but there is much more at stake than money.
KUAC, when it meets in February, will decide the fate of a 1966 student ticket surcharge of $4 on basketball and $5 on football season tickets. The surcharge was implemented in 1966 to pay a $35,000 loan from the Kansas University Endowment Association for student seating additions to the east side of Memorial Stadium.
ALTHOUGH THE 1966 loan will be paid off by September 1980, KUAC must now decide whether to continue the 1966 surcharge to help pay installments on a $1.8 million loan for recent stadium renovations.
In 1978, a 50-cent renovation was added to student basketball and football season ticket prices to help pay for those renovations.
Yet, according to Mike Harper, student body president and KUAC board member, ticket prices could
become cheaper if the 1966 surcharge were eliminated.
Although it may only be wishful thinking, lower ticket prices still sound good—probably too good to be true.
The 1966 student ticket surcharge should be dropped, and the burden of loan repayment should be paid equally by all ticket holders—not just students.
BUT HARPER has perhaps an even more valid reason for wanting the surcharge removed. If, as some people have speculated, the KUAC wants to increase the rent for the resort stadium renovation loan, then all ticket prices should be raised.
The temptation by KUAC to continue what is now a prime student revenue source will be great, but should nevertheless be resisted. Although cheaper tickets may be an unrealistic goal, an equitable repayment burden is not.
In whatever their decision, the KUAC owes KU students an open and candid explanation of their actions and a commitment to equal treatment.
Carlin should keep vow to keep utility sales tax
Kansas' newly inaugurated Democratic governor, John Carlin, is off to a shaky start. Last week he drew heavy criticism from Republicans and less than avid support from Democrats over his 1980 budget statement.
The conflict centered on Carlin's refusal to support the removal of the 3 percent state sales tax on utilities, which had been one of his main campaign pledges last fall in his bid to defeat former Gov. Robert F. Bennett.
Then why make the campaign pledges in the first place?
CARLIN SHOULD have studied the effect of removing the sales tax before making it a promise and not after. But apparently he didn't.
By not supporting removal of the bales tax, Carlin is calling into question his credibility last fall as a candidate and now as governor. In stating he would not blindly follow his campaign pledge, does he admit that he should pay for the pledge when he made it last fall?
In defense of his refusal to support removal of the sales tax he said, "I haven't broken a promise until I fail to get it through at some point. I none to do that next year."
Carlin said he had no intention of "blindly following" campaign promises without further evidence.
His pledge must appear empty to those Kansans who voted for him, hoping he would reduce the cost of utilities this year. Now he was a big believer in the earliest. Carlin said last week he would attempt to tackle the issue at that time but claimed he had the full four years of his eligibility.
Carlin further defended himself by saying that because of the troubled economy and uncertainty of state income from the federal government, Kansas could not afford to lose the $20 million generated from the utility sales tax this year.
In addition, at the end of the week the Democrats said they would go ahead and publish a report that would define the governor's support. Thus, his credibility as governor is in question because neither
Jake
The attacks from Republicans would be expected by Carlin. They blame the sales tax issue for Bennett's defeat last November. In fact, Bennett has said the issue of high utility rates, which Carlin blamed on Bennett, cost him the election.
twenty-five men went to prison for their roles in the Watergate affair of 1972-74. Two weeks ago, the last of them, John Mitchell, was released from prison.
Thompson
his word, or at least hedging a bit. It is no surprise the Republicans have gone to the polls.
And now it appears Carlin is going back on
KANSAS HOUSE Speaker Wendell Lady R-Overland Park, said, "We talk about the reasons for the lack of credibility of politicians . . . well this is a prime example. Sometimes he's got to answer to the people he made bromes to."
The criticism from Republicans was expected and justified, but criticism from House Democrats indicates Carlin might be unpopular. It is unlikely that both parties over the details of the budget.
But the man that Mitchell continually sought to protect was pardoned for any role he may have played in the incident. This week, that man, Richard M. Nixon made his way back to the White House at the invitation of President Jim Carter.
Obviously, Carlin can recover from the present lack of support for his economic goals. However, he must be careful in the future. By not supporting removal of the tax sales now, Carlin seems to be forgetting the voters who elected him to his office.
His promise to remove the sales tax must be uphold if Carlin desires to have any influence in the state's economic direction. He is also responsible when and how he will support the tax removal.
THE DECISION last week was not catastrophic, but it should be unnerving to all of Carlin's supporters and opponents alike. The statement that he would not blindly follow his campaign promise implies that he might take its impact and that he might not live up to it.
The situation is a familiar one. An outsider criticized an incumbent's policies and proposed a new direction for which he received support. Then, after he was elected, the outside became an insider and armed of the difficulty of implementing his plan.
Nixon's visit can't erase Watergate
Gov. Carlin should learn from Carter's example and avoid further questions about his credibility by supporting clear Democratic state objectives or by giving sound explanation for supporting Republican goals.
It was easy to be critical but not so easy to take the reins and demand the change.
These two events seem to imply that the Watergate Era has waned, and they appear to symbolize a general recognition that the panics had resulted from the incident are subdued.
On the national scene, President Carter has been plagued by this problem in carrying out his campaign promises. His credibility has been repeatedly questioned.
However, while the outer wounds may have healed, many Americans still experience a shivering chill of resentment when they recall the abuses of power that Nixon and his followers dealt the American people.
ALTHOUGH MANY Americans have expressed an earnest hope that the country can forgate the incident and say "all is forgiven," it is necessary that they not forget the event—less the lessons to be learned by it are also forgritten.
Kansans now want, even demand, the change he first proposed. The removal of the state sales tax on utilities should be extended. Carlin and approved by the Legislature.
Mary
Ernst
And it is important to understand why
many Americans find it hard to forgive and forget the very people who hurt them and who were not strong enough to ask for forgiveness.
Neither Mitchell nor Nixon have admitted that they were in any way responsible for the Watergate incident. Mitchell, a former U.S. attorney general, is perhaps the best personification of Watergate other than Mitchell. He was also present in his affair; he was a major instrument in he cover-up; and he was the last to enter prison and the last to leave.
VET AT NO TIME he did admit to
and his old law partner, Nixon,
placed in the office.
after he was paid some $3 million for "breaking his silence" in a television interview, he let out less than a whimper of admission.
And Nixon, even after his own White House tapes revealed the extend to which he knew of the break-in and the cover-up, not said that he, too, was involved. Even
Yet the American people are asked to forget once again.
But how do we forget that some of the closest men to the President of the United States were involved in the underhanded siving of a rival political organization?
How do we forget that the man named to be the chief law enforcement officer of the country was himself involved in those plans?
with the invitation he extended to Nixon for Monday's state dinner with China's president.
THE DINNER marked Nixon's first return to the White House since he fled in disgrace and under pressure of impeachment in 1974. It also marked recognition by Carter that he has not lost the trust of his people, abusive actions, and that he also has not forgotten the significance that Nixon played in opening up relations with China.
HOW DO WE forget that the president's top aides admitted to, and were convicted of, deceiving the American public about the extent of the White House involvement?
And how do we forget that those presidential advisers disclosed, as did the president's own words on his secret tapes, in the nation participated in that decryption?
Nixon should not be banned from the White House, but neither should he be proclaimed a martyr who has been abused by the American public, as some groups have suggested. On the contrary, Nixon has abused the public and has further insulted his fellow citizens with his utter lies it at the same time that he reaps in large amounts of money for pretentions of disclosure.
We should not forget and we might have trouble forgiving because of the magnitude of the event. But it is essential that we not make mistakes in our decision. Carter has taken a step in that direction
The White House visit was a social visit, Carter said, and it in no way contained any threat.
Total condemnation of Richard Nixon at this point is unnecessary and unwarranted.
But forgiveness is heavy impassion.
And for forgetting is out of the question.
MAGNEU
THE RAMOND NEWS LEADER. © BY CHIQUA GRIBUNE
Balanced budget is not the answer
Bruce Bartlett N.Y. Times Feature
By BRUCE BARTLETT
ARLINGTON Va.-President Carter's proposed fiscal 1980 budget, which would contain a $23 billion deficit, down from the 1979 deficit of $37 billion, shows his concern for reducing the federal deficit and moving toward a balanced budget for 1981.
Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California also seeks a balanced federal budget, but wants to mandate it by a constitutional amendment.
Although conservatives are widely applifying these actions, the economic rationale for a balanced budget is extremely complex. It involves consequences, both political and economic.
If one looks at the economic problem, there are only two good arguments for a balanced budget: to hold down the growth of government spending and to control inflation. Unfortunately, a balanced budget guarantees neither.
ON THE SURFACE, it would appear that an amendment requiring a balanced budget would reduce government spending to the level of budget receipts.
But the Congress could just as easily
If you don't think the Congress will raise taxes if necessary to keep from cutting spending, remember that the last Congress passed a tax bill of $22 billion, despite a so-called tax revolt.
Furthermore, every state in the Union has a provision in its constitution requiring a balanced state budget, yet this has had no impact on the states' ability to increase spending.
For many years the fastest growth of government has been in the state and local sectors, not the federal. Consequently, it is wishing think to believe that federal spending will be reduced by a balanced budget requirement.
NOR CAN WE expect a balanced budget amendment to reduce inflation, because inflation is primarily caused by an expansionary monetary policy.
A budget deficit in and of itself has no infamy impact. The only thing that can hurt it is an increase in oil prices.
decide to maintain the same high level of spending and raise taxes instead.
If it is monetized—that is, financed by creating more money—then there will be an
But if the deficit is financed by borrowing from real savings, then there is no inflationary impact. Capital merely becomes diverted from market-directed purposes to other areas, and may not be desirable on other grounds, but there won't be any inflation as a result.
CONSIDERING THESE facts, one wonders why conservatives are so adamant in their devotion to a balanced budget, because it has brought them so much political harm.
Because conservatives hate budget deficits so much, they became the liberal's battleground.
The liberals would win elections by promising something for nothing via the miracle of defect spending, and then they would have a better chance such spending or raise taxes to pay for it.
Consequently, conservatives have become associated negatively in the public's mind with those who take away their benefits without offering anything in
11 IS IRONIC that just when conservatives have finally begun to shake off their hopeless quest for a balanced budget and adopt the more fruitful tax reduction plan, liberal Democrats like Gov. Brown should pick up the idea and breathe new life into it.
return except the virtues of a balanced budget.
Eventually, conservatives must understand that "deficit" is only a code word and not a word of government action. We are prepared to say that it is better to have a $400 billion federal budget with a $100 billion deficit than a $500 billion budget that is more sustainable and reducing spending are the proper goals.
inflationary impact, just as there would be from any increase in the quantity of money
Pursuit of a balanced budget is not the way to achieve them.
Bruce Bartlett is *e*conomics on the staff of Sen. Roger Joesen, Iowa Republican and a member of the Joint Economic committee. He served as Vice-President Kemp, Republican of New York, the Kemp-Roth bill that sought to reduce tax rates by cutting and that was defeated in both houses.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
(USPS 650-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May. Mail enclosed for delivery every second day, and Monday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Los Angeles, Kansas. $15 for $18 or $27 a year in Douglas County and $18 for six months or $3 a year county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the activity fee.
Campus Editor
Assistant Campus Editors
Assistant Campus Editors
Special Sections Editor
Sports Editor
Sports Editor
Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansan, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66445
Managing Editor Direk Steimel
Editor Barry Maxsey
Editorial Editor John Whitesides
Mary Hewitt
Carol Hunter, David Killen
Carol Hunter, David Killen
Diane Porter
Mary Hewitt
Nancy Bruner
Nancy Bruner
Business Manager
Karen Wenderott
Retail Sales Manager
Rainbow Avantage Manager
Rainbow Advantage Manager
Amount Charged Advertising Manager
Amount Charged Advertising Manager
Doug Butts
Doug Butts
General Manager Rick Musser
Advertising Adviser Chuck Chowins
Conformity demanded by traffic rules
Last Wednesday evening, a friend dropped us off at the corner of 15th Street and Naisimath Drive for a scheduled trip. We would have been in town, would be no parking allowed in the Murphy let because of the basketball game. As we were getting out of the car, a policewoman who was directing the traffic began yelling "Stay clear," and we could not unload at an intersection.
To the editor:
She then began to reqt each toulr to our friend driving, reprimanding him for being so loud. She told him,
corner. The time was 8:45 p.m., a full 45 minute game was to start, and until a situation of no danger occurred.
We feel this woman's attitude was totally unreasonable as we were conforming to a situation she had more power to alter than we. Having to conform to an unfair situation is one thing—but being told how to conform should—should we say—no rights whatsoever?
Spelling correctly part of journalism
To the editor:
This is pretty poor journalism for a college paper. My high-school newspaper is the worst in town.
Keith D. Lynch
Baxter Springs senior
David G. McGrevey
Wichita junior
The story in the Jan. 25 issue of the University Daily Kansas entitled "Village Smith" was interesting to be sure. Unfortunately the writer of the story, Lori Linenberger, let her carelessness in spelling a common characteristic of the Kansan in my three years of reading it. She also misspelled plowshare. She used a word that doesn't even exist in the dictionary: plow shears!
Kansan could find one somewhere in Flint ...
Charles Holt Jefferson City, Mo., junior
Letters Policy
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not exceed 500 words. They should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affirmed by the editor, he or she should include the writer's class and home town or faculty and staff position.
The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication.