UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kanassian editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of other editors. JANUARY 22.1979 City's wisdom visible The Lawrence City Commission struck a blow against eye pollution last week when it voted to enforce a city ordinance ordering the removal of all billboards within the city by Oct. 22, 1979. Martin Outdoor, a California-based firm that stands to lose 38 billboards in Lawrence because of the ordinance, has announced plans to file a lawsuit against the city. Unfortunately, the commission may have to pay a price for sticking to its rule. The company plans to base its lawsuit on First Amendment and due process rights. The president of the company had offered several compromises to the commission, including the removal of all five downtown billboards and the construction of three new ones on sites chosen by the commission. YET THE COMMISSION refused to budge from its anti-billboard position, a tactic that becomes almost startling when viewed against the background of present day politics. In a field where the byword is compromise and the primal urge is to make a deal, the commission showed a refreshing amount of integrity with its stance. Put simply, the commission thought that it was right, and who needs to change when you're right? The fallout from the commission's decision began almost immediately. Several area businessmen who had fought the ordinance expressed their displeasure, citing the fear that the loss of advertising might cut into their business. AND, DESPITE the fact that the federal government will make 75 percent of the city's payments to Martin for the loss of the billboards, the monetary loss to the city will still be a respectable sum, even if the city wins the lawsuit. Nevertheless, the commission reported that the sentiment of the residents of Lawrence seemed to rest against the billboards, and they responded by supporting those sentiments. As special interest groups continue to gain prominence in the political field, the commission has managed to at least buck the trend slightly. Advertising billboards are an eyesore that will not be missed in Lawrence. The commission, ignoring the usual political pressures, has chosen to act instead in the best interests of the residents of Lawrence. It is an encouraging sign. Law students prisoners in faulty war compound The idea seems outrageous, yet it is true. The idea seems outrageous to me, but the bill to new Green Hall to see the barricades that hold KU's law students captive. It's not hard to imagine. And they did not even participate in the debate. Prisoners held at the University of Kansas? Last summer the war, also known as the kashmiri Baxi Ram, resulted in 12 deaths, or more than a quarter of all casualties to a higher number of casualties than ever recorded for KU law students in the biannual period. The administration was rightfully upset, but said it was not overly concerned. The problem would be examined and new policies would be necessary, they said. It sounded like bad news. BUT OUTRIGHT imprisonment of all law students? The first-year class was just beginning law and had not even been trained to practice it, and none responsible for the outcome of the last war. Still this year's law students are being forced into backhackre backward 24 hours a day, receiving stepped up instruction in preparation for their own wars. We will conquer the enemy next time, the administrators muttered cryptically. So, with the addition of the fences and barricades, law student life, which is dreary and exhausting enough, takes on a new light. That of a POW. AND TO HEAP injury upon insult, the students are trapped in a faulty building. the prisoners are living on chemically preserved, plastic packaged products of modern man's food industry: the vending machine. They have no sleeping quarters, and only a limited number of institutionally cushioned chairs. Last semester a light fixture fell from the ceiling and crushed to the ground 25 feet below, fortunately students milling in the forum area. Then there are the 18 faulty panels scattered around the outside of the building that a consulting firm has determined to be unsound and potentially hazardous. So far none of the prisoners have sustained injuries from slipping cement or falling lights. But how long can good fortune last? Surely, if the administration wants to hold prisoners of war campus it should Jake Thompson provide a safe compound in which to hold them. What if a POW were injured by the building? It might lead to a breakdown of institutions and a loss of trade for the University. THE ADMINISTRATION is taking steps to provide a safe prison for its captives. At present, repair is delayed while the administration awaits written response from the chief contractor, Casson Construction Co., Topeka. John Casson, an officer in the company, said recently he had not reviewed the plan in detail, but repair would begin soon, after his rebel letter was sent to the administration. Then, a meeting between the construction firm and KU officials will determine a deadline for repair and finally work will begin. Meanwhile, the POWs in new Green Hall live in fear of a prison that may crumble around them, held for a crime they did not commit. Repair of the panels and a safety inspection of the entire structure are needed in the very near future. The administration of these tasks to the POWs and to itself. THE FAULTY CONSTRUCTION of the panels was discovered more than a year ago, but no reason has been taken to investigate. Fortunately completed or investigated, now that the investigation is complete, repair should immediately begin. The repair should work slowly, slow the bureaucracy to a turtle's pace. One would hope the POWs lives are endangered much longer and the whole process is hurried along to make the safe for all who pass through its doors. Perhaps if the panels are repaired soon, the administration will be more amiable and take down the fences, thus freeing the POWs. After all, it was not their fault the university suffered such heavy casualties in the war. KANSAN (USFS 600-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and June. Subscription price $25 for six months or $35 for six years. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas 60945. Subscriptions pay $15 for six months or $2 a year in Douglass County and $18 for six months or $3 a year in county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the student activity door. Send changes of address to the University Daily Kanaan, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 60045 THE UNIVERSITY DAILY Editor Barry Massey Editorial Editor John Whitesides Managing Editor Direk Steimei Back Row - Campus Editor - Assistant Editors - Mary Hewson - Assistant Editors - Carol Hunter, Randy Olen - Graphite Editor - Randy Olen - Special Section Editor - Danny Perkins - Makeup Editors - Mary Thornbush, Sandy Horne - Associate Sports Editor - John Tharp - Linda Finestone, Paula Southland, Cydus Gordon, Harb Koring, Carolina Trowbridge - Wire Editors - Basketball Editor - Basketball Editor Retail Sales Manager Pensile Management Manager Pensile Operations Manager Assistant Classified Advertising Manager Assistant Classified Marketing Manager Staff AITBH Staff Photographer Teachers' assistants Teachers' assistants Allen Blair, Paul Knight Ron Altman Kim Dalton Kim Maldon Kim Mason Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Dalton Knae Allen Blair, Paul Knight Allen Blair, Paul Knoll, Jane Knott, Brenda Paxton, Cindy Ray Allen Reynolds, Joanne Sunderland Brenda Parson, Cindy Ray, Allen Reynolds, Joanne Smith General Manager Hire Manager Advertising Advisor The Carter administration has been unable to understand the women's movement since Carter took office, and his campaign promises to promote women's rights has been more than a superficial effort for (or against) him, and his staff are not prepared to deal with. But after a decision by the Democratic National Committee in Memphis that guaranteed women half the delegate seats at the 1980 Democratic presidential convention, Abzug did not need to speculate too much. Gloria Steinem, a former member of the committee and the editor of Ms. magazine, praised the committee members who resigned for "not succumbing to terminal subservience and not becoming a claique by failing to act as president, which he seemed to have in mind." Indeed, the action by Carter last week may have put a large dent into his hopes for support by women's groups in 1980. ABZUG, WHO joined the other resigned committee co-chairman Carmen Delgado Votat at the Democratic Midterm Conference in Memphis this December, said she would not speculate on how the rage the members would affect Carter's reelection hopes. The recent forced resignation of the co-chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Environmental Resilience and subsequent resignation of the other co-chairman and 20 members of the 40-member committee is an excellent example of how Carter has dealt with the women's work. ABZUG AND the committee, who have not on the best of terms with the administration from the beginning, have faced worse problems, however. Those problems indicate a serious departure for Carter from his previous committed support for the women's movement. UNFORTUNATELY, Carter assumed that the committee's concerns ended there. He had hoped that the committee could be a tool in his commitment to the women's movement. The chances seem good that a large proportion of the seats reserved for women will be filled with women outraged by Carter's recent actions. With one irrational action, Carter has not only rendered useless an advisory course and needed purpose, but he has also alienated some of the most powerful women in America—women who worked hard to keep the war under control may be not willing to do the same来 1980. Carter formed the advisory committee last spring to continue the work—and support the goals—of the National Women's Conference held in Houston in November Because the committee has a yearly operating budget of only $300,000. Abzug and other members had worked without pay in borrowed office space and with the help of only a small staff borrowed from other federal agencies. Still, Carter probably genuinely supports the Equal Rights Amendment and a few other highly visible issues of the women's movement. But what happened was that the goals he saw expressed at the conference in Houston Does Carter allow only 15 minutes for any of his other advisory council? Probably not. Not, when added to no pay, back room where a borrowed staff, the action seems believable. The committee met with Carter Jan. 12, for one hour instead of the scheduled 30 minutes. During the meeting Carter was invited to the meeting and satisfied with the administration's Carter's promise to women empty He does not genuinely support the notion that a group of highly-educated women who were brought together to advise him may be able to take part in the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. were different from the goals sought by the advisory committee. But his understanding ends there. In November 1978, Carter apparently was angry with the advisory committee for canceling a 15-minute meeting with him and was asking that a 15-minute meeting would be too short. BUT CARTER, and many members of his staff, have not been committed to the women's movement in the way they first appeared to be—precisely because they do not understand the goals that they supposedly support. relationship with the group and said the two should find better ways to work together. Carter apparently had become angry about a press release prepared Jan. 11 to be handed out after the meeting the next day. The release included blasts at Carter's antifailion program, his proposed backups in welfare programs and his proposed inundation budget, along with criticism of other aspects of the administration's policy. Mary Ernst He apparently did not tell committee members—or even imply—that he was about to fire Abzug. A few minutes after a post-meeting press conference, in which she followed committee members suggestions and praised Carter's policies. Abzug was fired the next day, but a special assistant, and White House Counsel Robert林立忠 to resign or be fired. If Carter were truly as committed to women's rights and the women's movement as his campaign rhetoric and political double talk seemed to imply, he would not have treated the advisory committee, which contains the most outspoken and articulate leaders of groups that represent millions of American women, in the manner that he did. Tighter controls will ease inflation By JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH N. Y. Times Feature TIGHTER MONETARY and budget policy are to reduce the pressure of demand, especially where—as for food, services and housing—services generally—the market is still operative. The guidelines for prices and incomes accept that corporations and organized companies produce, and produce inflation, an acceptance of the obvious that has been unduly delayed by the theological commitment of economists to the impersonally competitive market of the CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Inflation is caused by the increasing ability of strong sellers—the great corporations, the trade unions, farmers in conjunction with the Agriculture corporation is set by boards of directors they themselves select, the numerous legislatively-aided groups—to raise their own prices and incomes. And it is caused by an aggregate of public and private demand suppliers apply at current prices. So prices are bid up. Both causes are now operative, and president Carter has in place the elements of a national security strategy. The guidelines remain a poor and unduly relaxed alternative to the cleaner and more effective solution of forthright controls, and the effort of administration economists to establish a system of forced by government procurement, possible consumer boycotts, threats of antitrust enforcement and promises of social excommunication is professionally unworthy and also fatuous. So is the government operated statement that controls do not work. Now as to reservations: ONCE FULLY in effect, controls held prices nearly stable through the vast convulsion of World War II; they decisively broke the inflationary spiral in the Korean War and pushed American forces out 1972 they brought both unemployment and inflation below the 5 percent level. They were removed, irresponsibly, once the election was won. Anyhow, if firm controls do not work, what can be expected of weak ones? Controls are only needed for prices or incomes that are set privately by—or under the government or through collective-bargaining contracts. It was learned in World War II and often then remarked that the government had to fix prices that were already fixed. As to the upward pull of demand, there are three ways, and only three, of regulating ONE IS by restricting expenditure and reexpenditure from borrowed funds— The second is by restricting public spending. The third is by restricting private consumer spending. The administration is proposing to act only on the first two sources of demand. This Monetary policy—the restriction of bank lending through high interest rates and higher reserve requirements—reduces producer investment more than consumer investment. The large industries as housing and other construction that do business on borrowed money. It effectively exempts the large corporation that can invest from its own earnings, is first in line at the banks and that, in any case, can pass along the higher interest costs to the public. And the higher return on long-signed singles out the banks for special loan awards. FINALLY, THERE is a grave uncertainty as to the relationship between any given monetary action and result. That is why it provokes such a relentlessly banal discussion as to whether it does or does not portend a recession. Action on public expenditure—the debatably sacrosanct case of defense expenditures apart—has its primary impact on the poor. The well-to-do can afford their own houses, doctors, hospitals, recreation schools and colleges; they have secure jobs and incomes; and their children do not need Comprehensive Employment Training Act Public health care, public housing, public education, youth employment and the numerous services of the modern city are important, important to the least affluent of our people. It is easy above a certain income level to be against public spending. THE ONLY remaining way to limit demand is by restraint on private expenditures, and this, plausibly, should be on those of the affluent. A very modest increase in taxes on incomes above $30,000 would avoid both the dangerous and discriminating uncertainties that arise from the effects of the budget cuts on the poor. greater. A modest restraint on upper-income expenditure and the resulting outcry should make it easier to ask blue-collar workers to accept limits on their wage incomes. GIVEN THE sympathy now being accorded the rich, the suggestion of such sacrifice, however mild, will provoke much indignation. It would affect fewer than 5 million tax payers (4.8 million in 1976) while bringing a measure of restraint to bear on recipients of between one quarter and one fifth of all taxable income. The effect would be to moderate expenditure on more expensive automobiles, more costly real estate, fancier drives, more expensive affordable social observances and other outlays of less than life-supporting urgency. The incentive effect of upper-income taxation is not adverse. In times past when the taxes on higher incomes were far higher than now, economic growth was much But it could be beneficial even for those making it. Better police and sanitation services will reduce the menace of crime in the vicinity, a venture out again at night without disguise. The revolt of the affluent, which now has politicians so frightened, is not a violent thing. The response in the ghettoes if life gets furthered more to deteriorate might be different. TESTIFYING BEFORE THE Joint Economic Committee a few weeks ago, Charles L. Schultze, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, warned congressional leaders in Social Security taxes—taxes that fall heavily on those of middle income and below. They are needed to limit demand. He could not, it follows, oppose a similar increase for the same purpose on top of his own second thought, would surely welcome it. His tight-money policy is discriminatory, and, except for being uncertain as to effect, also dangerous. His expenditure cuts single out for sacrifice his strongest supporters—a politically innovative but distinctly quixotic action. With genuine controls and restraint on spending, you will least be felt, he will spend the best of his time. John Kenneth Galbraith, professor emeritus of economics at Harvard, is author, most recently, of "Almost Everyone's Guide to Economics." 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 a affiliate of the university, they should include the writer's class and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication.