Opinion THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
FRIDAY FEBRUARY 5, 2010
WWW.KANSAN.COM
FREE FOR ALL
To contribute to Free for All, visit Kansan.com or call (785) 845-0500.
PAGE 7A
The Colorado team had swamp butts the whole game.
How many ya'll got herpes?
I hate it when people steal lines from TV shows or movies and enter them as their own on Free For All. I'm talking to you, horseradish/grapenuts
Serious question: What's the best way for a gay guy to meet other gay guys in Lawrence?
--e-mail opinion editor Emily McCoy at emccoy@kansan.com.
Dear people who wear makeup to the rec, you are exercising!
--e-mail opinion editor Emily McCoy at emccoy@kansan.com.
$10 a month for the pill or 50 cents for three condoms is cheaper than a baby.
--e-mail opinion editor Emily McCoy at emccoy@kansan.com.
My celebrity look-alike is Mother Teresa. Really?
How do I study for a bio quiz when I have no idea what will he do?
Study the notes you took...
if you even bothered to take
I have a man crush on Brady Morningstar. But I'm gay, so it's all good.
I'm sick of all the "BYOB"
parties. Someone man up and
get a keq already!
I'm pretty sure my Spanish homework just told me that I need more sleep. Now, if only my Spanish class would let me,
Go to class? Roll back over?
I can't decidzzzzzzz...
--e-mail opinion editor Emily McCoy at emccoy@kansan.com.
The concept of "whoremones" explains so many things.
--e-mail opinion editor Emily McCoy at emccoy@kansan.com.
That's not my name!
To the guy that looks like Channing Tatum in my Bio 150 lab: You have amazing eyes.
--e-mail opinion editor Emily McCoy at emccoy@kansan.com.
Apparently, the world didn't want me to have a stress-free day today.
RAEs are the most boring people I know. Freshmen are still like high schoolers. Thus, all RAs act like high schoolers. Get a lifel.
Three of our political columnists share their thoughts on the proposed budget.
MIRIAM SAIFAN
EDITORIAL CARTOON
Politically Correct
On Monday, President Obama proposed a $3.8 trillion budget for the fiscal year 2011. The budget includes a notable three-year spending freeze on many domestic programs in an attempt to curb the rising deficit. The budget focuses on stimulating economic growth, especially through the creation of new jobs.
BY LUKE BRINKER
For a president who campaigned on a pledge to make a clear break from Beltway gimmicks and politics as usual, Obama's $3.8 trillion budget represents, overall, a sobering disappointment.
To understand the pitfalls, it is first necessary to acknowledge a few constructive items. Nodding to the urgent need for the U.S. to better compete in the global economy, Obama said the administration will increase education funding by more than six percent. Additionally, more federal support will be devoted to research and development. That includes an increased commitment to investment in nuclear power, which should win the president praise from Republicans.
More controversial is the decision to allow the Bush administration's tax cuts to expire for Americans earning more than $250,000 each year. But one needn't be a soldier on the front lines of class war to realize this makes economic sense. As economists have pointed out, tax cuts for the wealthy don't carry much bang for the buck. The affluent are more likely to save the extra money than to put it back into the economy.
Reviving economic activity, of course, ought to be the president's top focus right now. Deficits are dangerous, but will only increase further if spending cuts are imposed. Less demand generated in the economy brings fewer profits for business and lower tax revenues.
So the president's call for a three-year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending is particularly mystifying. This spending represents a mere 14 percent of the overall budget.
Avoiding discussion of entitlement reform and cuts in the gargantuan defense budget makes little sense if the administration wants to have an appreciable effect on long-term deficits.
The inevitable result of persistently high unemployment would, ironically, have far more disastrous political implications than running temporary deficits.
Instead, political pressure may tempt the administration to prematurely cease stimulus spending.
Brinker is a freshman from Topeka in history and political science.
Liberal Loudmouth
BY BEN COHEN
bcohen@kansan.com
It's hard not to see Obama's proposed spending freeze as a concession to fiscal conservatives who have pushed back on other parts of his agenda.
Though it does not cover health care (that irony would just be too astounding), it also does not cover military spending.
As patient as I try to be with Obama (yes, there are times when I disagree with him), I worry that the spending freeze will embolien congressional conservatives.
Still, belt-tightening may be helpful as the American economy claws its way out of the pit the last administration dropped it into. So, maybe this move will pay off.
Job creation is also a big part of the president's plan. This could prove more beneficial than any government program (yes, I really did just say that something is more helpful than government programs).
This could prove disastrous, given that the Republican Party is already acting like it is back in power, simply because it is now slightly less of a minority in the Senate.
And if there isn't a major economic turnaround by the end of Obama's first term, antsy republicans and liberals who aren't closely affiliated with the Democratic Party will both complain that the freeze was to blame.
Overall, the spending freeze is definitely not the kind of thing I would have considered.
One side will say that it wasn't enough and that outright massive budget cuts were the only real solution.
It is an unorthodox decision, at least for a democrat.
The other will complain that it prevented the government from actively improving beneficial social programs.
I hate to admit it, but if the freeze fails, I'll probably agree with that latter group.
Cohen is a senior from Topeka in political science.
The Right Idea
Obama's spending freeze is nothing short of smoke and mirrors.
The programs Obama intends to freeze only account for 14 percent of the overall budget. This is essentially a freeze on the regular departments.
BY CHET COMPTON
ccompton@kansan.com
And increase he did, to astronomic levels. Last year alone, the Obama administration increased the budget of the EPA by more than 35 percent.
But what President Obama doesn't say is that last year, he had free reign to increase the levels of spending in these departments as much as he wanted.
A normal increase in one year for the departments included in the freeze would be about three to five percent.
So the freeze is doing exactly the opposite of what it looks like. Rather than reducing spending, it is locking in the huge increases instituted last year.
So when a freeze is instituted on a department with the ballooned budget it now has, it essentially locks in that budget as normal.
The massive "stimulus" bill pushed up spending for this part of the budget by about 40 percent, from $420 billion in 2008 to $699 billion in 2009.
Obama's freeze means these departments have a fixed budget of $447 billion, which is still higher than 2008 levels and 71 percent higher than the levels authorized in the year 2000.
That's like McDonalds pulling the McDouble from the dollar menu and charging $3. Then to cope with the tough economic times, reducing the price to $2 and expecting customers to think they are getting a bargain.
Here is another important trick. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 18 percent of stimulus funding will be spent in 2009.
Who is Politically Correct?
The reason Obama has the freedom to freeze a small part of the budget is because he still has massive amounts of cash pouring in from the rest of the stimulus package to help him fund his favorite big government projects.
Compton is a senior from Wichita in political science.
Agree? Disagree? Just want to get involved in the conversation?
Comment, react or rant at Kansan.com
HEALTH
Organics beneficial for body and wallet
College students seem to have a few universal priorities: They like
to save money, actively pursue good food and always look for the easiest way to get things done.
When many students hear someone talk about organicthis and organic-that, they brush it off for one of two reasons. One, they don't see a benefit in being organic, or two, they see a benefit but simply don't think they have the money.
Let me correct these false assumptions.
People in the first group are just not seeing the obvious. Organic foods and products have many benefits. For one, there are more nutrients in many organic fruits and vegetables. Last year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science declared that organic tomatoes have higher levels of vitamins, such as Vitamin C. Another example is organic spinach, which not only contains higher levels of Vitamin C, but also has lower levels of nitrates. That means, dear frugal student, organic foods pack more nutritional bang for the buck.
In addition to the superior nutritional benefits, organic foods help the environment. Studies by the AAAS have shown that growing apples organically enriches the soil.
So now, with an understanding of the real benefits of organics, the only argument remaining is the assumed expense of organic products.
Organically Speaking
What if buying organic didn't cost much more? Or what if, in some cases,buying organic could even save money?
Both are true.
Just like with shopping for conventional products, shopping for organics requires being savvy. Just because one store
BY RACHEL SCHWARTZ
Don't just limit searches to Walmart and other traditional supermarkets, though. Instead, shop at a health store, specialty store or farmer's market. These places often have more variety and options; plus, it is easier to bargain for a reasonable deal.
Buying organic doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Prioritize shopping lists and decide what is most important to buy organic.
A good list to have while shopping is the Environmental Working Group's "Shopper's Guide to Pesticides." This includes a list of the "Clean 15," the 15 conventionally grown fruits and vegetables with the least pesticides. There is also a list of the "Dirty Dozen," the conventionally grown fruits and vegetables with the most pesticides.
Simply choosing to buy the organic varieties of the 12 items in the Dirty Dozen can reduce an individual's exposure to pesticides by 80 percent, according to the EWG.
With benefits to the body, environment and pocketbook there is no reason not to buy organic.
Schwartz is a sophomore from Leawood in journalism.
Buzzwords What Kansan columnists have been talking about...
"As 3-D viewing experiments are becoming the norm, television and movies are changing forever. But does commonplace 3-D movie viewing translate into a progressive movie experience?"
—Trent Boultinghouse, "3-D diminishes quality, art of films," Monday, Feb. 1.
"Although there is certainly some individual fault. America's eating problem can be seen in the center aisles of the everyday grocery store and the absurdly low prices of fast food items."
-Braden Katz, "A subsidized sickness," Tuesday, Feb. 2.
"The University, as a tax-funded state institution, has no business having an opinion on the sale of a legal substance."
—Jonathan Shorman, "Smoking ban strips student rights," Wednesday, Feb. 3.
HOW TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
LETTER GUIDELINES
Send letters to opinion.kansan.com
Write LETTER TO THE EDITOR in the e-mail subject line.
Length: 300 words
The submission should include the author's name, grade and hometown.
Find our full letter to the editor policy online at kansan.com/letters.
CONTACT US
Stephen Montemayor, editor
864-4810 or smontemayor@kansan.co
Beijing Pharma Capital
Brianne Pfannenstiel, managing editor.
864-4810 or bppfannenstiel@kansan.com
Jennifer Torline, managing editor 864-4810 or itonline@kansan.com
Lauren Cunningham, kansan.com managing
editor 864-4810 or klicnum@kansan.com
Emily McCoy, opinion editor
864-4924 or emccoy@kansan.com
Vicky Lu, KUJH-TV managing editor
864-4810 or vlu@kansan.com
Cassie Gerken, business manager
864-4358 or cgerken@kansan.com
Kate Larrabee, editorialeditor
864-4924 or klarrabee@kansan.com
Carolyn Battle, sales manager
864-4477 or cbattle@kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson, general manager and news
Jon Schitt, sales and marketing adviser
864-7666 or jschitt@ikansan.com
THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Members of the Kaman Editorial Board are Stephen Montenegro, Brianne Plankmeist, Jennifer Tondert, Loren Cunningham, Vicky Lau, Emily McCoy and Kate Larevale.