UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of only the writers.
DECEMBER 7,1978
KUAC rumbling again
Familiar rumblings seem to be coming from the University of Kansas Athletic Corporation. And if KUAC's past is any indication, these rumblings can only mean bad news for University of Kansas students.
At issue is the price of football and basketball season tickets, which could be reduced in October 1980, when a ticket surcharge agreement made in 1966 will expire.
However, a price decrease seems unlikely because KUAC will need additional money in 1980 to pay off a $1.8 million loan from the Kansas University Endowment Association for the recent renovation of Memorial Stadium.
THE SURCHARGE, which totals $50,000 a year, was added to help pay for expansion of seating on the stadium's east side. Under the surcharge agreement between the KUAC Advisory Board and the All-Student Council, season tickets were increased $4 for basketball and $5 for football.
It was presumed that when the east stadium loan expired the surcharge would be dropped. But according to the 1966 agreement, the surcharge is subject to a review to determine whether it will be continued.
KUAC, under its agreement with the Endowment Association, must pay $50,000 in additional yearly payments when the 1966 loan expires, from $168,000 to $218,000.
Then in 1983, when a $10,000-a-year loan for expansion of the stadium's west side expires, KUAC's payment increases by $10,000 a year, for a total
of $228,000 a year until the loan is paid off.
THERE'S THE RUB. Somewhere within the secretive confines of KUAC,
$50,000 in 1980 and $10,000 in 1983 must be found to meet loan obligations.
Although KUAC officials say they do not know where the money will come from, they say it can come from ticket sales, which, according to Doug Messer, assistant athletic director and business manager, "is probably the most logical place."
But, Messer says, season ticket prices will depend upon the results of reviewing the 1966 agreement and upon operational expenses and revenues. To say the surcharge will be extended to cover the new loan, he says is misleading.
YET, CONSIDERING the terms of KUAC's loan agreement with the Endowment Association, one finds it easy to accept Mike Harper's view of the surcharge agreement.
Harper, student body president,
said, "I don't believe they ever had an
intention to reduce those tickets
despite an agreement in 1966. They
thought we would forget about it since
it was 12 years ago."
Whether Harper's assessment is right remains to be seen, but KUAC still has time to fulfill its obligation to students and eliminate the surcharge.
Whatever its decision, KUAC, for the sake of establishing open, honest relations with students, owes the studentry an explanation of its actions. Despite the rumblings, one hopes the news won't be bad this time.
Red tapeworms bungle their own reform effort
One of the most popular recent targets for political critics has been "big government", a rather elusive term that logically would apply equally well to both bureaucratic rest and military blasted military budget, although it is seldom used that indiscriminately.
Unfortunately, as with most governmental efforts, those agencies have botched
Nevertheless, some government agencies are showing signs of feeling the sting of criticism, and at least two have taken steps to reduce paperwork and increasing efficiency.
Not that these actions were well conceived in the first place. It's just that this time government has managed to carry out poorly conceived ideas poorly.
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT of Labor was quick to respond to the call for a less burdensome federal machine. Sensing that it would be more efficient, the department managed, in one gloomy, bold move, to significantly ease paper problems for the Veterans Administration while drastically reducing the unemployment rate among Vietnam War veterans.
What the Labor Department did was very simple indeed. In October 1977, it proclaimed that anyone separated from the military for more than 48 months would not be considered a Vietnam veteran, regardless of when they might have served.
Imagine the possibilities. Why, the House Veterans Affairs Committee pointed out that on September 30, 1977, there were 30,367 unemployed Vietnam veterans in Texas and 28,131 in Arkansas, ruling went into effect, there were only 10,483, a reduction of nearly 66 percent.
IT WAS A miracle of modern government.
But that was only the beginning. Although reducing unemployment by sleight-of-hand might be good enough for the Department of Labor, the FBI decided long ago that its own bureaucracy was getting way out of hand. And many people were bulking. It was time for decisive action.
Unfortunately, the bulging files were not the reason why it was time for decisive action. A better explanation is found in the fact that in 1975 Congress broadened the Freedom of Information Act, giving citizens access to federal documents unless the law would present a compelling reason for keeping those documents under wraps.
Faced with the prospect of hordes of snoopy citizens barging into headquarters
demanding a peek at old records, the FBI decided was time to do a little cleaning.
So, in April 1978, the FBI instructed its field offices to destroy all records of cases that had been closed for more than 10 years. By October 1977, the FBI had decided that all records closed for the FBI had decided that it be even better shredding machine fodder.
AS THE FB explained, it was simply following "good business management." As its critics charged, it was simply "covering its tracks."
Whatever the reason, the FBI was cutting down on red tape and bulging files. It was.
Except that now the FBI is discovering that its little plan may have backfired. Although the plan headed off possible citizen inquiries, the FBI has now managed to stop its own investigations before the investigations can even be started.
Reform is not an easy task, and its unintended consequences often are just as bad as the problems that inspired the reform in the first place. But when the reform is reformed are shady, as in the FBI's case, you can bet the results will be disastrous.
As one befuddled agent told the Wall Street Journal:
"We were looking for a guy in here the northern Virginia area. You say, 'Well, look for old what's-his-name who was running with him.' But no one remembered old what's-his-name's name, and the file's gone."
Maybe big government is a blessing. All the crooks and misguided fools sometimes manage to be strangled by the tortured web of bureaucratic regulations.
Triplicate forms and bureaucratic bungling are an unnecessary evil of our present-day government. But never underestimate the ability of that government to abuse those very actions designed to wipe out those evils.
Pity the rank-and-file FBI man—the administration has done it to him again.
But then again, maybe we could just get rid of all the crooks and fools.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday through Thursday during June and July except Saturday, and Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas 60045 Subscriptions by mail are $1 for six months. First-class postage is $2.95 per subscription. County. Student subscriptions are $624 a semester, used to student activity fee.
Editor
Steve Frazier
Business Manager
Don Green
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
General Manager Rick Musser
Advertising Advisor Chuek Chowins
Taxes need inflation adjustment
"God-awful."
That's how Alfred Kahn, chairman of the Council on Wage and Price Stability, described the problem his boss, President Carter, has vowed to lick, even at the risk of being a one-term president.
It grew more omnivorous for Carter last week. Price, who announced, were riving 2 percent faster than anyone else in the league.
The problem is inflation.
Until then, all the president's men, including Secretary of the Treasury W. Michael Blumenthal, insisted the inflation rate was hovering at 8 percent. But Kahn but not Blumenthal inflation rate at 10 percent, the highest level since 1974.
"I would maintain the fight against inflation," the president said. "I believe this is exactly what the American people want. Instead of being an unpopular act, I think it would be a popular act to maintain it."
Still, two days later. Carter renewed his vow.
Rick Alm
BUT IT WILL remain popular only as long as Americans understand how inflation impoverishes them. Paychecks will buy 10 percent less this year. And the 8 percent increase over last year has been more than wiped out by the rise in prices.
The income tax laws were written for an economy with little or no inflation. That economy no longer exists. Consumer prices have risen about 56 percent since 1972, and incomes have been chasing the rising prices.
And after income tax bills arrive next year, it will look even bleaker.
income. As a family's income increases, the family moves into a higher tax bracket and must pay a larger percentage of their income.
This hits taxpayers hardest in times of high inflation. Their higher income buys fewer goods and services, but more of their income goes to taxes. After a raise matched by inflation, they cannot afford to buy as much as before.
INFLATION'S DISTORTION of the impact of income taxes hits some taxpayers particularly hard. Those with many dependents lose more because the value of their standard deductions declines with the value of the dollar. Those who depend on income from savings often are forced to pay tax rates of more than 100 percent.
TAKE, FOR example, the hypothetical four-member families common to most government statistical matter. The average income for a family of $1,385 income taxes last year. This year, their income will be $16,295 – 4 percent more than last year – but their tax will be $15,788.
That's double jeopardy-income taxes in inflationary times.
As taxes rob purchase power, moreover, demands for higher wage increases mount. Higher wages add to producers' costs and contribute to inflation, making the problem worse.
The "bracket rate" problem can be erased by indexing tax rates to inflation. When prices rise 10 percent, the tax brackets would be adjusted upward to compensate. Standard deductions and personal exemptions would rise automatically with the change in the consumer price index.
Their paychecks bought 2 percent less than last year. And on top of that, they paid $261 more to the federal government. If their income kept pace with inflation, rising to $1,650, they would still lose $272 to taxes.
The purchasing power of family incomes rose at an annual average of 1.6 percent during a 20-year period ending in the recession of 1974. With today's inflation rate, it is still significantly less than that in year to make the real wage earns a typical of the past year.
The family would earn $17,400; but it still lost purchasing power because the tax increase of $25 more than $16 could have been avoided.
Taxpayers would not pay taxes on inflation.
A simply remedy exists.
The Treasurv gets rich off inflation.
TAX INDEXING solves another problem. The biggest beneficiary of inflation is the federal government because, as prices and wages rise, tax receipts increase. But increases increase faster than inflation because of the progressive tax rates: in the above example, when inflation rose 10 percent, taxes rose 19 percent.
Income taxes indexed to prices would end the profit the federal government realizes from inflation. Tax receipts would rise only when real income increased—or when Congress raised taxes by voting.
And Congress escapes the responsibility of voting on a tax increase.
Without tax indexing, the Kahn's "god-awful" situation can only get worse.
To the editor:
'Children of democracy' for tyranny
Curious events reveal themselves in the press these days. Thousands of Red Chinese demonstrate for free speech, and their tyrants not their heads in agreement.
A few KU students ask to move a statue, and their elected representatives renmorestate and enact a law to prohibit those statues from moving about moving the statue (Kansan, Nov. 30).
The children of tyranny for democracy?
The children of democracy for tyranny? It certainly is puzzling, but perhaps we proles don't understand.
It must be that the Student Senate is actually preserving freedom, and we are ignorant of their attempt. The legislation restricting the speech of the members of the Student Bar Association is protecting the view of the "representative majority" from the scurrilous views of the "unrepresentative minority."
In their effort to protect the student majority, our sometimes student leaders would do well to read "Democracy in America," by Alexia De Tocqueville, the founder of the amendments thereto, and "Beyond Freedom and Dignity," by B.F. Skinner.
These reading carefully point out the errors of the student senators' thinking (7). They have been clarified when they took Western Civilization, for the readings are required for the course. No doubt, our leaders went Western Civilization on the grounds the course was right.
Assenting to the principle, a corollary emerges: No four-legged animals, Student Bar Association members, may speak to the great two-legged animal who strides in Topeka—the governor. Enough of this silliness.
Apparently, our porcine leaders (literary allusion to "Animal Farm") subscribe to the principle: All students are equal, but some students are more equal than others.
Meanwhile, the demonstrations for free speech go on in China, and at the University of Pennsylvania.
Dennis Embry
Lawrence graduate student
UNIVERSITY DAILY letters KANSAN
Red Lion ambiance parallels Jonestown
"You see," said Mr. Lion, "there are any regulars who order the special without the crude necessity of choice and so deserve extra-large sizes of pecan pie (please say Thank you, Bill," as you leave), and there is a reason to treatenewt to take the seats of my regulars."
"You see," said Mr. Jones, "there are we know who how to save the world and don't have to think about it (please call me Dad). You know who to be with (and who will, wore yet, try to persecute us."
No make mistake, the appeal of Mr. Lion's
Cafe Show, reported in the Kansas De, 11
Friday.
I've witnessed the Red Lion Cafe Show,
the shit all rumored humiliated, the regulars
that are so bad.
Roger Martin Assistant instructor of English
Suit against Senate no laughing matter
To the editor:
"I'm having a good time with it," "it's hilarious," "a lame brain idea." What has caused Mike Harper, president of the student body, to chuckle so?
The fumint joke of Harper's life is none other than the filing of a lawsuit against the Student Senate and Harper. I can only guess that the suit is hilarious because of its allegation: The Senate deprived students of their constitutional rights by forbidding them from petitioning the governor concerned in political issue the Senate wished to furnish.
Or perhaps it is hilarious because Jeff Roth, president of the Student Bar Association, "stormed" into Mr. Harper's office asking that the Senate take immediate action to correct this constitutional infringement.
Whether our president sees humor in the protest or the constitutional infringement or in the challenging of his most high authority, he is wrong.
Our elected officials have a duty not only to enact constitutional laws, but to be sensitive to the political complaints of their constituents. Laughter by a legislator or speaker is an expression of unconstitutional laws smacks of contempt for both our Constitution and our people.
I question Mr. Harper's fitness for public office in view of such manifestations of公敌.
John Olson Lawrence law student
Fan says gladiators better than gridiron
Now that Dam Fambruch has been named as head football coach and recruiting will begin, I think it is time for the University of Kansas to take stock of its football program. "I will look at it," he leads me to speculate on introducing a new spectator sport at KU.
To the editor:
For sheer spectacle, violence and mass appeal, the sports of today cannot compare with the sports of the past. That the University should unite with other sports powerhouses—Wichita State University and Fort Hays State University being the first two I could think of—and as much as possible, they will do.
Romans turned out by thousands every day to see the gladiators, and I think that the average football fan is not far removed from the Roman. So there is already an audience.
Chancellor" by the crowds. Scandally clown lead the contestants in the arena and present them to the crowd. To further entertain the audience, they should be permitted on the stadium grounds.
It is a Saturday. The fans are streaming into Memorial Stadium, and then to the blare of trumpets, the chancellor, in the role of Caesar, enters to the thundering of "Hail
At this point, though, the considerations of the modern era must take over. In order not to murder each contestant, blunt clubs should be used in the boxing swords. And the object would be to knock your opponent out instead of killing him, much the same as in modern boxing, which requires less violence.
Each contestant would have no padding, but would wear a protector for his teeth. He would have a small shield, and if desired, a small net to tris his onpont.
Gladiatorial contests would cost less than the current football program but include more violence, which the modern football fan really wants to see, according to studies.
At the same time it would revive an appreciation for classical antiquity. Besides, Kansas certainly couldn't do worse in rival contest than it is doing in football.
Clifford Ratner Jr.
Wichita sophomore
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 after publication, 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.