IPage 4-Sunday, November 5, 1978-The Michigan Daily
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom
The 1978 elections:
The Daily endorsements
Vol. LXXXIX No.52
News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
a
U.S. Sena
D ESPITE THE gradual shift toward a cen-
trist position almost all candidates make
as election day draws near, it was relatively
simple to discern the political philosophies of
Cirl Levin and Sen Robert Griffin. After that, it
vas just as simple to. choose the candidate best
siited for the position of U.S. senator from
Michigan. .
After hearing the speeches, analyzing the
record and talking with the candidates, we are
convinced that Carl Levin would provide
Michigan with the kind of effective leadership
the state needs so desperately in this time of
domestic and international crises.
We don't at all feel sorry about losing the
sevices of Sen. Griffin. Throughout his 22 years
ifr' Washington, he has consistently been a
r ctionary force in American and world
politics. .His morally repugnant support of U.S.
ntenvention in Vietnam, his faithful backing of
bi, business interests, his undaunted support of
R"chard Nixon until it became politically
expedient to succumb to the will of his
constituents, all make Sen. Griffin's, passing
from the political scene a must.
Sen. Griffin has said he is tired and ineffective.
We would agree and add that he lacks the
progressive ideals this state and the country,
needs in its leaders.
By replacing Sen. Griffin with Mr. Levin,
Michgan voters will perform a function even the
encumbent believes necessary. In April of 1977,
Sen. Griffin said he wanted to quit his job to
allow "new blood" to circulate in the Senate. To
demonstrate how tired he was, Sen. Griffin
proceeded to miss about one-third of the roll-call
votes during the days he considered his last
in the nation's capitol.
When he did vote, however, Sen. Griffin often
exhibited his lack of concern for the common
U.S. Represen
ORA WHILE, it looked like this year's
Second Congressional contest would be a
non-event. It was. only late in the campaign
season that state officials certified Democrat
Earl Greene for the ballot. As a result, Greene
has faced te difficult job of playing catch-up to
Republican Carl Pursell, who already enjoyed
the advantage of incumbency.
Although Mr. Greene will be an underdog
going into Tuesday's balloting, we feel that he
has the qualities which could best represent this
district in Washington. Mr. Greene, an Ann
Arbor City Councilman from the heavily student
Second Ward, has demonstrated a concern for
the interests of the city's less advantaged
citizens, both on council and in his campaign.
In City Hall, Mr. Greene has pushed to keep
human services on the agenda, although his
efforts have generally been thwarted by the City
Council's conservative majority. In his
congressional campaign, he has stressed these
same priorities. Mr. Greene calls for passage of
a na tional health insurance program to
guarantee care for all Americans. He endorses
ibdest cutbacks in he nation's massive military
MOS Ballot pr
HE MUST important votes you cast Tues-
T day will not be in the senate or governor
ces, but rather on the three tax-related, ballot
proposals Proposition J, the Tisch plan;
Proposition E, the Heaglee Plan; Proposition H,
the voucher plan. Passage of any or all of these
amendments could spell the beginning of fiscal
chaos for the state, resulting in massive layoffs
for public servants, and severe cutbacks in
social services. For this reason we emphatically
urge a "No" vote on all three.
The most drastic of the proposals are the Tisch
and voucher amendments. Tisch proposed that
the property be assessedat a maximum of 25 per
cent of market value instead of at 50 per cent of
market value which is now the case. While Tisch
backers hail the plan as a tax cut, it is actually
only a tax shieft. To make up the revenue lost
from property tax, Tisch would allow the state
government to increase income tax by one per
cent. Thus, taxpayers as a group would still be
paying the same amount. The difference -would
be that wealthy landowners would pay
substantially less overall because the increase
they pay in flat-rate income tax would not offset
tho hila; cninr 4to il r ?Lnli'7c inrnr
te: Levin
person. His support of nuclear power, his vote
against medicaid funds for abortions, and his
advocacy of Kemp-Roth tax slashing program
evidenced Sen. Griffin's interest in protecting
only the rights of the rich.
Mr. Levin, offers an opportunity for
progressive change. His outstanding record on
the Detroit City Council which he served for
eight years - four as president - is proof that
Mr. Levin would work effectively for the
common person. We appreciate Mr. Levin 's
knowledge of the problems of the American
cities and rest assured he will always work to
eliminate them. We believe he will apply that
same understanding to all problems this country
faces. Whether it be consumer protection, or'
inflation Mr. Levin can be counted on to work
effectively for progressive change because he
understands the inherent problems in the
system.
We find it necessary, however, to temper our
praise of Mr. Levin with a note of concern on a
slight shift toward a centrist position during the
last two months. Mr. ,Levin did change his
hardline stance on the breakup of the vertical
and horizontal breakup of the oil industry - a
position which we favored. His support of the
Headlee tax-cut amendment on the basis that it
is something "the people want," is disappoint-
ing. And his unwillingness to allow the Palestin-
ian Liberation Organization to be involved in the
Mideast settlement is very discouraging.
But all things considered Mr. Levin is a
candidate we can endorse comfortably. 'Not
since Phil Hart and Pat MacNamara has
Michigan had two United States Senators
working together for the benefit of all. We
strongly urge everyone to vote for the only
person on the ballot who could again make
Michigan a strong voice in the U.S. Senate -
Carl Levin.
Governor
THE BIGGEST problem of the two-party sys-
tem is its frequent failure to offer the public
any meaningful choice of candidates for public
office. All too often voters are forced to choose
the lesser of two evils because no candidate is on
the ballot who can offer a positive reason for
receiving their support.
This year's governor's race is an excellent
example of such a failure. Neither incumbent
Governor William Milliken, nor his Democratic
challenger, state Senator William Fitzgerald,
deserves to be the next governor. Both have
demonstrated, through their campaigns and
respective records, their unworthiness of this
important public trust.
Gov. Milliken's unfitness for another term is
exemplified by his handling of the PBB crisis.
After the highly toxic flame retardant was
accidentally mixed with animal feed and widely
distributed across the state; Gov. Milliken was
dangerously tardy in taking any significant steps
to protect the public health and the state's
farmers.
Gov. Milliken allowed thousands of
contaminated animals to be sold to the public
and fought efforts to lower PBB tolerance levels.
Some 90 per cent of state residents carry with
them the direct result of Gov. Milliken's
mishandling of the PBB crisis.
In other areas as well, Gov. Milliken has failed
to stand up for the public's interest. His
administration has allowed utility rates and Blue
Cross-Blue Shield premiums to skyrocket. He
has overseen the sharp decline in state support of
higher education, once one of the state's top
spending priorities.
In addition, Gov. Milliken has not adequately
confronted the continued flight of jobs from the
state. Unfortunately, on these and other
important issues, Sen.- Fitzgerald offers few
constructive alternatives..
The Democratic candidate has not
demonstrated the maturity and judgment which
this state needs in a governor. His record in the
state Senate is hardly outstanding. In fact, one of
his most notable accomplishments there was
getting ousted as majority leader because of
poor performance in that post.
The Democrat has based almost his whole
campaign on Gov. Milliken's mishandling of
:
Ferency
PBB. But where was Sen. Fitzgerald when
legislative action on the PBB problem could
have done some good. The state Senate was just
as sluggish in dealing with the issue as the
governor's office.
Sen. Fitzgerald has offered few new ideas
during his campaign. On some important issues,
he has taken positions which compare
unfavorably with those of the incumbent.
The challenger has said he will fight against
any public funding for abortions, even where the
woman cannot afford the cost herself. The U.S.
Supreme Court has ruled that a state may not
deny a woman the right to an abortion. But, in
effect, this is what Sen. Fitzgerald would do,
through the denial of public funds to indigent
women who seek them.
This is one case where Gov. Milliken has taken
a firm stand, through his ,vetoes of legislative
efforts to cut such funds.
Voters have no real choice among the
announced candidates for governor. We urge our
readers to consider an alternative - a' write-in
for governor.
A write-in candidate could hardly be expected
to win the governor's race. However, a
significant write-in vote would send a message to
the state Democratic and Republican parties
that the public is dissatisfied with the choices
they've presented.
We urge a write-in vote for Zolton Ferency. We
wish he were on the ballot. Had he had access to
the bankroll which Sen. Fitzgerald threw around
in the Democratic primary, he might very well
be.
Mr. Ferency speaks forthrightly on important
issues that Gov. Milliken and Sen. Fitzgerald
have not even paid lip service to. For example,
Mr. Ferency would push for state ownership of
the utilities.
He believes that the government should be the
employer of last resort rather than a roadblock
standing in the way of increased employment as
the Milliken administration has been.
Mr.Ferency points out that in many cases,
private enterprise is too concerned with profits
rather than the public welfare, and so public
ownership is needed. What the state also needs is
a governor of Mr. Ferency's calibre to lead it
into the twenty-first century.
tative
. Greene
budget so that resources can be reallocated to
coe with pressing social needs. In general, he has
zeroed in on the major problems facing the
country and has advocated measures which
could help alleviate them.
Rep. Pursell also has some admirable
qualities. Despite our disagreement with him
over some important policy measures,who do not
wish to pass over his strengths. During his term
in Congress, Rep. Pursell has established a solid
record as a sevice-oriented representative. He
has maintained strong ties to the district,
including an effective constituents' office. He
has always been accessible and ready to listen to
the people he represents in Washington.
Speaking solely in terms of experience, Rep.
Pursell, who served in the state Senate before his
first race for Congress, clearly has the edge over
his challenger.
But while Rep. Pursell has the exerience, he
has not always shown the same concern for the
needs of the average citizen, which so often must
contend with the special interests in the halls of
Congress.
Earl Greene would put the concerns of the
average person first. He deserves you vote.
* oposals
education - both public and private - by
increasing general taxes", which means the flat-
rate income tax and the single business tax, both
of which are tougher on the poor than the rich.
Headlee is the most moderate of the proposals,
and is supported by most major candidates, but
it is still not a solution to the state's tax woes. It
would limit the ratio of next year's state revenue
to last year's personal income to a figure
between nine and ten per cent. The amendment
would also limit the increase in state revenue for
any given year to the incease in the consumer
price index for that year. From a practical
standpoint the plan is flawed simply because
voters won't know what the limit is when they
vote - it may be nine per cent, ten per cent, or
anywhere in between. From a philosophical
standpoint it is a cosmetic attempt to change a
tax system that needs to be totally revamped.
Headlee's chief opponent, Zolton Ferency, put
it most eloquently this summer:
"This (Headlee) merely puts a ceiling on a
rotten tax system. It's not the ceiling that needs
fixing, it's the foundation." Therein lies the
problem: all three tax proposals attempt to work
State Senate: Pierce
N THE race for state Senate seat in the 18th
district, voters have the opportunity to elect
a man who has proven himself, not as a sly
politician,, but as a citizen willing to take
personal sacrifices for the good of the people.
Dr. Edward Pierce, the Democratic
candidate, has been a practicing physician in
Ann Arbor for the last two. decades. In 1968, he
scaled down his private practice in order to
establish the Summit Medical Center, a non-
profit, low-cost medical care institution for poor
people in Ann Arbor and outlying areas.
And, in running for office, Dr. Pierce doesn't
abandon his brand of personal concern for
people. Dr. Pierce does not waffle when it comes
to making his views known - no matter how
controversial they may be.
Even though tax cut fever has run rampant in
this year's elections - spreading even toj
Democrats - Pierce stays firm in his opposition
to all three of the tax proposals which will appear,
on Tuesday's ballot. C. William Colburn,
Pierce's Republican opponent and a University
speech professor, backs the ill-conceived
Headlee tax limitation measure.
As for nuclear energy, we applaud Dr. Pierce's'
call for a moritorium on the construction of
nuclear power plants. Mr. Colburn, to our
dismay, considers nuclear power relatively safe
and says it should be used as a major source of
energy. Again, Dr. Pierce favors our stance that
state money be used for abortions for low-income
women, while his opponent is against any public
abortion funding.
On the contrary, Dr. Pierce would probably
want to be as effective a lawmaker as possible to
prove he has the experience to take on higher
office.
Though we disagree with Mr. Colburn on
several issues, we applaud local Republicans for
at least offering a candidate who seems to
understand the issues, and knows how to
articulate his views, qualities lacking in many of
the candidates in this fall's elections.
The personal interest Dr. Pierce takes in this
political arena would be refreshing for the
Michigan legislature. We'd like to see the doctor
representing us.
State Representative: Bullard
N 1972, WHEN this state house district was
energized politically, the students and other
leftward leaning voters went to the polls and
elected to the state House of Representatives a
man who was one of their own. But even those
who fully supported Perry Bullard wondered if
the brash, hip, pot-smoking, ultra-liberal could
be an effectivve legislator.
The last six years have dispelled everyone's
fears. Rep. Bullard takes care of business- and
so often that business has a direct, positive effect
on students' lives in Ann Arbor.
Rep. Bullard's name is on laws and enabling
legislation in the areas of: tenant's rights law,
tuition' breaks, marijuana law reform,
preventing government secrecy, freedom of
information laws, and environmental protection.
Because of Rep. Bullard, the Regents and the
Republican caucus on City Council have been
forced to open their meetings to the public.
Because of Lep. Bullard, landlords have :a
maximum ceiling for damage deposits and
-tenants can put their rent into escrow when
landlords are unfair.
The Republican challenger Doug Buchanan is
a man of perception and searching intelligence,
but he lacks experience and his views qn
controlling government are shallow.
We wholeheartedly endorse Perry Bullard far
the state House of representatives.