4
Thursday, March 23, 1989 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Congress should consider minimum wage proposal
The debate continues to simmer, like a pot on the back of the stove that no one notices.
The minimum wage. Should it be raised? What can be done to combat the poverty cycle that families supported by minimum wage jobs find themselves in?
The answer always seems to be the same: The problem is too immense. Raising the wage might hurt those who receive it. So take no action. On to the next problem.
But wait. The minimum wage can't stay at $3.35 an hour forever, can it?
Economists say that raising the wage would cause inflation to rise and that it would cause employers to eliminate unskilled
However, proponents of raising the wage point out that because it has held steady at $3.35 for years, families supported by minimum wage jobs essentially have been taking paycars while inflation passes them by.
So Congress tinkered with the problem and proposed a 30-cent raise for the next three years, to bring the wage to $4.65
Then along came George Bush, with a compromise plan. He proposed raising the minimum wage to $4.25 by 1992. His proposal also would hold the wage at $3.35 for the first six months an employee was on the job, as a training wage. Bush is not the originator of the idea, of course. But he has shown interest in taking action on the problem, which is more than his predecessor did.
Bush's plan would have less of an inflationary effect on the economy than the committee proposal would, and the training wage would reward people for a consistent work record.
Congress should consider the benefits of Bush's plan. It has been on the brink of raising the wage before. The wage needs to begin making some gains, if only to enter the race against inflation. It is time to act.
Besides, if it is true that a watched pot never boils, what happens to a pot that is impaired?
Karen Boring for the editorial board
Finger-pointing out of hand
History books in the next century will commend Congress for its recent concern about ethical standards among its ranks. However, when their first paragraphs are over, they will spend the rest of their chapters criticizing Congress for ignoring troubles outside the Capitol.
When Republicans got burned this month on John Tower's confirmation hearings, they knew they'd get revenge. Jim Wright, author and House speaker, would be enough retribution, they said.
An investigation of royalty fees Wright received for his book might find him guilty of accepting more money than congress-
But while Republicans were salivating like rabid dogs, Democrats planned a pre-emptive strike. If Wright is attacked, some Democrats said, Republicans such as Donald Lukens of Ohio and Joseph McDade of Pennsylvania, who have been accused of illegalities, will be next in front of the cameras. And the circus continues.
Sure, Wright typifies the slimy snake-oil salesman/politician image, and he probably isn't worthy of being number three in the chain of command. But this ethics craze has gotten out of hand.
While this partisan finger-pointing has kept the evening news lively, the nation's problems remain. So far this session, little time has been spent confronting our real problems. Remember those?
At the beginning of this congressional session, bringing the federal deficit under control seemed uppermost in the minds of legislators. What of cleaning up U.S. nuclear weapons plants, which may cost $150 billion? Or what about salvaging our savings and loan industry, at a price tag of $100 billion?
These problems demand swift and concrete action, not king sized eggs.
It is crucial that our lawmakers follow the law. But they also should be expected to spend most of their time governing, rather than worrying about how they look on television. The mammoth problems facing the United States must be confronted before they become unmanageable.
James Farquhar for the editorial board
News staff
Julie Adam...Editor
Karen Boring...Managing editor
Jill Hess...News editor
Deb Gruver...Planning editor
James Farquhar...Editorial editor
Elaine Sung...Campus editor
Tom Simpson...Sports editor
Janne Swiatkowski...Photo editor
Dave Eames...Graphics editor
Nate Gerdes...Art/Game designer
Tom Eblen...General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Debra Cole...Business manager
Pamela Noe...Retail sales manager
Kevin Martin...Campus sales manager
Scott Fragar...National sales manager
Michelle Garland...Promotions manager
Brad Lenhart...Sales development manager
Linda Prokop...Production manager
Debra Max...Asia production manager
Kim Coleman...Co-op sales manager
Cari Cressler...Classified manager
Jeanne Hines...Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be type, 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 honorably appointed.
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 Staffer-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. Editorials, which appear in the left-hand column, are the opinion of the Kansan editorial board.
The University Daily Kansas (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045, 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, Kan. 66044. Annual subscriptions by mail are $50. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
Postmaster: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118 Stauffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045
KU parking gets an 'F' for effort
You're walking back to your car and you notice a small yellow card on the windshield – a parking ticket. How many thousands of us have had that sinking feeling before?
I didn't feel guilt in my most recent encounter with Parking Services. I believe I was wronged. At the time, I was confused. Lot 104 had been a white zone for the last four years, and, as far as I was aware of it, there was nothing to discover there. I didn't see the sign declaring it a different zone, which was hidden behind a van.
"So what?" you might ask. "You're just as guilty as the rest of us." Well, I think I'm innocent and Parking Services is guilty. Below is a three-question test demonstrating the reasons for its guilt. Answers below are based on five experiences dealing with Parking Services.
1. Is Parking Services here to serve students, faculty and staff? Parking Services' answer: No. Correct answer: Yes. The services I refer to include allocating parking spots, notifying us of changes in zones and enforcing their policies.
3. Simple duty — no more and certainly no but because we are not notified adequately of change and performs no of three services and doesn't get a partial credit.
Sure, Parking Services kills plenty of trees with the regulation handouts, but when lots change zones in the middle of a row, the handout doesn't specify which stall begins such a change. The way it works is that the handout isn't worth one pinecone. I had the bad luck of falling into a worst case scenario: zone
Mark L.
Gillem
Guest columnist
change in the middle of a row, hidden sign and a worthless handout. I appealed my ticket. I lost. Apparently, I was supposed to get out of my car and hunt down a sign.
Rather than have us search for every sign, Parking Services should notify us of changes. Fliers in buildings next to the affected lot would help the situation. An advertisement in the Kansan at the beginning of each semester outlining the changes would help, too.
2. When changing a policy on paper, should there be a corresponding change in the physical environment? Parking Services' answer: No. Correct answer: Yes. Are you confused about the boundaries of handicapped stalls or pedestrian crosswalks? The only environmental change in Lot 104's straight row of more than 30 spaces was the hidden sign.
Parking Control may argue that a sign is enough, but I think it has a greater obligation to the University community. If it expects us to abide by their arbitrary boundaries, more visible and permanent means of clearly marked changes are in order.
I am not asking for much — just a reliable way to let us see the change. For example, different
colored stripes or raised curbs could be used effectively at places where no definite boundaries
3. When acting in good faith, should offenders be given the benefit of the doubt? Parking Services' answer: No. Correct answer: Yes. I can already hear the cries from Hoch: "Good faith? Benefit of the doubt?" But these are valid concerns that should be answered.
Namely, we, especially college students who are expected to run this country eventually, must be encouraged to take active roles in a democratic society. Questioning conventional wisdom, presenting sound cases and advocating positive changes are building blocks to freedom. Passive acceptance of authority is a trait more frequently found in Warsaw Pact countries.
I tried Parking Services' version of justice, but the appeals court is interested only in making cases cut-and-dried. Instead of this black-and-white attitude, the court should reward attempts at demonstrating good faith. If the violator could demonstrate how he was attempting to comply with the rules, the appeal should be granted. Students can learn from this process while saving money, too — money that Parking Services could do without.
So in this three-part test, Parking Services scored 0 for 3, an F. Let us hope it brings its grades up. But more importantly, let us hope it begins to see the importance of adequately notifying us of zone changes, providing clear boundary markers and allowing for good faith.
- Mark L. Gillem is a Walnut Creek, Calif., senior majoring in architecture.
Don't question Jackson's party loyalty
It's Jesse-bashing time in Chicago, and the sport is spreading to other parts of the country.
rick up news magazines, the New York Times and other national publications, and you'll read about how Jackson's political prestige is beaded by his position in Chicago's mayoral election.
You'll read various Democrats, in Chicago and elsewhere, scolding him for not supporting Richard M. Daley, the winner of the Democratic primary.
For example, the guy who managed Walter Mondale's 1894 campaign lectured Jackson, in the New York Times, on Jackson's responsibilities as a Democratic leader.
You would think that someone who put together one of the most pitiful, inept, disorganized political campaigns in American history, would just go off somewhere and hide. But now he lectures Jackson on why he should be supporting Richie Daley for mayor.
He's not alone. We also have Bill Lipowski and Marty Russo, a couple of congressmen from Chicago, expressing horror that Jackson is working against the Democratic candidate. They are practically suggesting that he should be drummed out of the party for backing Tim Evans, a black Democrat running as an independent.
Listening to Russo, Lipinski and other Chicago politicians yammer about Jackson, it becomes apparent that the Russos are not interested in
Mike Royko
Syndicated columnist
quist of them all, came from Chicago. There's something about this town that helps one develop the ability to talk out of both sides of one's mouth.
So before the political elitists in New York and Washington begin hyperventilating about Jesse's alleged disloyalty, they ought to learn a few basic facts about Chicago politics.
Let's start with Russo and Lipinski, who are demanding that Jackson show blind loyalty to Daley because Daley won the Democratic primary.
In 1983, Daley and then-Mayor Jane Byrne lost the Democratic primary. Harold Washington, a lifelong Democrat, won. Fonning the present logic of Russo and Lipinski, we must assume that Russo and Lipinski supported the Democratic candidate.
Like hell they did.
They and almost every other white politician in Chicago suddenly decided that the man destined to lead this city was Bernie Epton, an obscure Republican state legislator who won the Republican primary with about 10,000 of the million votes cast in Chicago that day.
This led to some of the most memorable
Now we jump forward to 1887, when Mayor Washington again won the Democratic primary.
moments in Chicago's goo political history.
It proved just how broad-minded ethnic Chica
goans could become — if a liberal Jewish
candidate happened to run against a black
candidate.
washinghallaghtain.com Hinton receive the support of the Lapinskis, Russos, Dalesy and other loval Democrats? You can probably guess. They wouldn't give Harold Washington the skin off a grape.
But now they are wagging fingers at Jackson and saying: "Party loyalty, party loyalty." Actually, Jackson has demonstrated greater loyalty than that of crew hypocrites.
In last year's country-wide elections, he endorsed the entire Democratic ticket, which included Daley for county prosecutor and Aurelia Pucinski for court clerk. As Jackson has said, bringing someone named Pucinski, daughter of one of the town's top Washington-basher, to an Operation Push meeting "wasn't the easiest thing I've ever had to do."
But he did it. And both Daley and Pucinski scored well among black voters, far better than Washington did in the neighborhoods of Daley and Pucinski, or Lipinski and Russo.
There are times when Jackson deserves criticism. But not on this "loyalty" issue. For Lipinski and Russo to accuse him of party disloyalty is like the pot calling the kettle white.
■ Mike Royko is a syndicated columnist who writes for the Chicago Tribune.
BLOOM COUNTY
by Berke Breathed