4
Tuesday, February 12, 1991 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Budget cuts
Despite reassuring rhetoric, Bush's budget plan indicates the United States is in deep recession
Like the shifting sands of the Saudi desert, President George Bush has shifted his rhetoric from day to day to cover the problems of the sinking U.S. economy.
Bush only recently acknowledged the fact that the United States is slipping into a recession. In the wake of increasing unemployment, the savings and loan debacle, bank closings and a slumping stock market, Bush was forced to accept grudgingly the onset of a recession.
Since the beginning of 1990, economists have been predicting what now has become reality. But Bush, dancing around the issue with less than elegant rhetoric, attempted to wish the problem away.
First, he said there was no problem with our nation's economy. Later, he claimed it was a simple, mild downswing. Now, he says that we are, in fact, in a recession, but it will be mild and short-lived.
But the president's budget, presented to Congress last week, and a banking plan proposed by his administration belie his optimism.
The banking plan proposed by the Bush administration would, in some respects, return the banking industry to a system ominously similar to the system in place before the Great Depression.
If the broad reforms are enacted, banks would be allowed to operate insurance companies and securities firms. This practice was prohibited in 1933, when the value of stocks purchased in risky investments by
banks decreased after the 1929 stock market crash
Federal deposit insurance, created by post-Depression banking reforms, initially would be limited to $200,000 at any one bank. After five years, the limit would be $200,000 total
Large corporations would be allowed to own banks, eliminating the practice of separating banking and commerce.
At the same time, the President proposed a $1.45 trillion budget that, if enacted, would leave the U.S. with a record $318 billion deficit at the end of this year. To curb spending, cuts have been proposed in Medicare and farming subsidies, both of which could hit hard in the Midwest.
Last month the Department of Defense eliminated a program to develop a Navy fighter-bomber, leaving hundreds of workers without jobs.
Yet Bush continues to claim publicly that the recession is not a serious problem.
Massive cuts also are being made in military spending. Bush has proposed a $4 billion cut, including reductions in the sizes of the Army, Navy and Air Force, even though the U.S. is at war with Iraq. Bush's proposal of cuts in military spending at this time is a certain sign of economic hardship in the nation.
The Persian Gulf War is being used by Bush as a smoke screen to fog the domestic issues plaguing our nation.
20 years too late
Rod Griffin for the editorial board
U.S. compensates vets exposed to Agent Orange
Last week, President Bush said that a grateful nation saluted our veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.
This grateful nation was a mite slow in extending its gratitude.
And the U.S. government dragged its feet in recognizing that it exposed our veterans to one of the strongest carcinogens chemically produced.
Finally, 30 years after the first shower of Agent Orange, these veterans will receive the kind of appreciation they need and deserve: Money.
The decision to use Agent Orange in Vietnam probably made sense at the time
Twenty years ago, veterans started legal battles that claimed that the herbicide caused cancer.
Test upon test confirmed the veterans' speculation. A causal link was firmly established between Agent Orange and two types of cancer. Veterans and their families were tested.
While the rest of the country knew it, the government ignored the pleas of the suffering veterans.
Now, twenty years later, the government has decided to allow these veterans to collect disability benefits.
The United States has entered another war, and veterans' rights issues surely will crop up again.
The very least we can to do is promise not to shirk our responsibilities and obligations to them when they come home.
Twenty years is a long time to be ignored.
Tiffany Harness for the editorial board
Timber university of kansas 191
Politician oversteps bounds by mandating birth control
State Rep. Kerry Patrick, R-Leawood, has introduced two bills in the Kansas House of Representatives to protect the Norplant contraceptive device.
Norplant basically is a tube with time-released birth control medicine that is implanted under a woman's skin.
Patrick's first bill calls for the state's Social and Rehabilitation Services department to institute a voluntary program for welfare mothers to be paid a certain sum if they have the Norplant device implanted.
Patrick
Brungardt
Staff columnis
His logic for this bill is that by reducing the number of welfare children by using voluntary Nornplant implants, the burden on the state's welfare system would be decreased, saving money in the long run.
Patrick's second bill would require women convicted of certain drug offenses, mostly crack-related, to be implanted with the Norplant device for one year as part of their sentences. His logic for this bill is that babies of mothers who use drugs during pregnancy are an enormous financial burden on the state. Mandated use of Norplant in such cases would help to reduce those financial burdens over the long run.
Yes, the State of Kansas is undergoing serious financial problems, as evidenced by the continuing financing problems for higher education and the still-present property tax mess. The goal of trying to reduce
state expenditures during those financially tight times is certainly laudable.
However, Patrick's methods for obtaining these savings are abhorrent.
These bills are highly discriminatory in several ways. First, they discriminate against race. One must look at what types of drugs are used by what types of people. Crack cocaine is used primarily by people in inner-city neighborhoods with high levels of poverty and whose populations are mostly minorities. Powder cocaine, however, is used primarily by affluent whites in middle- and upper-class neighborhoods.
A Minnesota law giving stiffer penalties for crack possession as opposed to powder cocaine possession was struck down Dec. 28 as unconstitutional because there was no clinical proof that crack was more dangerous than cocaine and because the law was considered prejudiced.
It is also sexual discrimination because only women are forced to take such measures. I have seen no proof that only the mother's use of crack affects a developing child. How do we know that a man who uses
crack does not have his reproductive system affected? We don't.
I don't know what the answers are. I just get scared when I see members of government espousing ideas that would flourish in an Orvellian society. One of the responsibilities of government in the United States is to protect the freedoms of its citizens. Unlike China, it doesn't have the right or responsibility to control how many children a family can have.
In the United States, the government is supposed to provide for and guarantee the welfare of its citizens. One way it does this is with laws that are considered detrimental, like using or selling harmful drugs.
However, when politicians start linking population control to that responsibility, they overstep their bounds. It's one thing to declare certain actions criminal. It is quite another to say you can't produce some crimes. Some crimes are given this punishment and other, similar crimes are not.
The punishment should fit the crime, and it should apply to everyone, not just to those who use something that is only perceived but not clinically proven to be more dangerous than a similar substance.
And it shouldn't affect people simply because they live in the wrong economic bracket.
Patrick Brungardt is a Leavenworth senior majoring in political science.
LETTERS to the EDITOR
Dare to defy the Hogs
This letter is aimed aimeed the snout of Bench Hog Rand Phillips. For everyone who read Clare McGinn's column and exulted, we can remember one crucial fact: In this country, might does not make it.
The hog does not own the territory merely because he puts his junk there. Have the guts to defy the boor. Remember that he has no reserved seat, and is only a half-wit thug that has invaded the territory. He has initiated the conflict by imposing his will on you. Sit in his space. When he oinks at you to withdraw, stare him down, but don't say a single word. Do not fear him. If he lays a hand on you, you have the law on your side make
sure you have a witness.) You will have a case for assault and battery at least, possibly molestation and other offenses. At the very least, you can have an usher or a cop throw the pig back into his shop trout and out of the basketball barn. You always have the right to defend yourself, and even homicide in self-defense could stand a good chance of acquittal.
Letting a swine-born bully have his way cannot stand in a world where respect for others is fundamental to the survival of the principles of the system. Get 'em!
Robert Klotz Lawrence senior
Activists must be heard
I beg to differ with certain views recently surfacing regarding proper etiquette for protesting against war. The U.S. Supreme Court reminded us in 2016 that it was the freedom of speech in the United States when it allowed that even the
burning of the symbol of that freedom — the U.S. flag — was protected under our Constitution.
Hardliners and others now gleefully watching the progress of the war in the Persian gulf would do well to respect the role of those who insist on arguing against military action, against the killing of citizens of any country that is not a member of the government's or another's political existence. The existence of a strong anti-war sentiment in the United States gives evidence of our deep, unabated desire to live and work constructively in a peaceful world, the same desire that has driven millions of people to establish new homes in the United States, in a land of opportunity where cultural, politic-ical and class divisions do not weaken the results of individual effort.
I believe that certain gestures made by the U.S. government early in the gulf crisis, such as immediately sending U.S. troops, have worked against the interests of those who sought to provide Saddam Husr-
sein with a graceful way to exit Kuwait, instead strengthening his resolve to stay.
However, since a threat of sorts was made by Bush in these gestures and under the auspices of the United Nations in the form of the Jan. 15 deadline, I believe that the United States had no choice but to follow through and engage in the present conflict. Whether the conflict lasts a short time or a long time should not be the primary concern, but rather that it be won, because a loss in this war could be disastrous. In the United States, for example, if Iraq was forced out of Kuwait, that would be victory for us. If instead, the U.S. and allied forces were driven out of the Middle East or else surrounded in Saudi Arabia, that would be a loss.
What the protesters in the United States and around the world remind us of is the way in which war affects innocent people all over the world. Any new world order must be one in
which the interests of humanity override the political and economic aims of any single government or leader. I am not sure that is what Washington means when it defends the decision to enter into this conflict in such a big way. The anti-war argument is being expressed much more clearly and honestly than the pro-war argument thus far. I think we are fortunate that there are so many people ready to critique thoughtfully the actions of their governments. This is the essence of the democratic spirit.
Robert Bruce Scott 1984 KU graduate
A pro-choice challenge
In response to Elisabeth Powers' letter asking that we anti-abortionists put our money where our mouth is by showing what we believe gladly accept that challenge. Here's
a challenge for her and for all who call themselves pro-choice. If you are truly pro-choice rather than pro-bortion, I challenge you to support those who have made a choice to keep their babies rather than to abort them. Crisis pregnancy centers would be more than grateful for your monthly donations to help pay the mortgage, the utilities and all other expenses associated with the upkeep of any household to provide for nutritious meals for the mothers-to-be and to provide the best medical care possible for these women and their babies. Or perhaps you would choose to volunteer your time to one of these agencies. Locally, I commend Hannah's house for being I'm sure they'd be tickled to answer your questions. Thank you for being truly pro-choice!
KANSAN STAFF
Verna Froese Watson Library staff member
CHRIS SIRON
Editor
RICH CORNELL Managing editor
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
Editor:
News... Melanie Mathes
Editorial... Tiffany Farness
Planning... Holly M. Neuman
Campus... Jennifer Reynolds,
Pam Sollin
Sports... Ann Sommerlath
Photography... Thomas
Graphics... Mellisa Unterberg
Features... Jill Hirrington
Editors
By David Rosenfield
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
AUDRA LANGFORD
Business manager
MINDI LUND
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Business staff
Campus sales mgr. - Sophia Whbeh
Regional sales mgr. - Carmen Dresch
National sales mgr. - Jennifer Claxton
Co-op sales mgr. - Christine Musser
Production mgrs. - Rich Harrisbarger,
Katie Slader
Marketing director. - Gail Schauer
Creative director. - Christy Hais
Classified manager. - Kim Crowder
Letters should be typed, double-space and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas are required to type in their signature.
The Kranah reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest column and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kranah newsroom, 113 Staffer Flint Hall.
photographed.
Dylan Krohn teaches the right to exhibit or print letters, guest columns and articles. You can
Sketch