t anganmt
.ighty-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom
420 Maynard St.; Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Vote
to
bant
thro wa ways!
Friday, October 29, 1976
News Phone: 764-0552
Yes
OL
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
76 election, wh ile troubling,
nevertheless offers a choice
T IS TIME to separate ourselves
from the torrent of hypocrisy, de-
ception, and mindless invective that
has been part and parcel of the 1976
Presidential campaign. It is time to
take a sober look at the clear and
explicit choice that will confront us
all in the voting booth on Tuesday.
It is, moreover, time to realize that
there is indeed a choice.
Those who dispute this assertion,
who argue that the road from New
Hampshire to Williamsburg has fail-
ed to reveal fundamental differences
between the two major candidates
are simply, quite wrong.
The choice is between another four
winters of waiting in utter despair,
while the government remains cul-
pably oblivious to our needs, or a
first, discernable step toward sanity.
We vote for that step, and the man
who can help us take it - Jimmy
Carter.
TO BE SURE, Carter's stunning
ascendency over' the last nine months
has proven, sometimes painfully, that
he is not the harbinger of a bold, un-
compromising vision for this coun-
try's future. But he represents a dis-
tinct departure from the singularly
barren vision presented us for the last
eight years..
Unemployment remains tragically
and insufferably high. Our cities have
been left to rot in a morass of crime
and fiscal chaos, while corporate
avarice has left our environment on
the brink of devastation. Our image
abroad has degenerated to one of ar-
Togance and deceit.
Time and again,.Jimmy Carter has
demonstrated at least an empathy
for these problems, if not a binding
committment to their eradication.
He is talking jobs -- with hiring
incentives for the private sector in
addition to federally-funded employ-.
ment. Carter says he would like to
Editorial positions represent a
consensus of the Daily staff.
pare the jobless rate 'to 3.5 per cent,
the bare bones of hope for millions
currently out of work.
While his prospectus for urban re-
covery is not well-formulated, Carter
recognizes the dynamic relationship
between the health of our cities and
the economic well-being of the na-
tion as a whole. He hopes to reduce
crime, the vicious by-product of un-
employment and inferior education,
by eliminating racist double stand-
ards in the criminal justice system.
THE UNITED STATES has, for too
long, insisted on imposing its moral-
ity on nations thast desire nothing
more than the right of self-determin-
ation. Such was the case in South-
east Asia; and one must not forget
that Ford, in the final desperate
hours, vainly attempted to prop up
a corrupt and misguided tyranny
there. Carter has claimed that he
would be less apt to tinker in the
affairs of sovereign nations. While
this is admittedly campaign rhetoric,
it is a good deal more promising than
anything the Republican party has
been fit to offer voters in the area
of foreign policy.
Carter's environmental program,
while Governor of Georgia, reflected
a willingness to stand up to exploita-
tive special interests. He vetoed an
Army Corps of Engineers dam pro-
ject, 20 years in the planning, to
protect a scenic and ecologically val-
uable river.
A system of national health insur-
ance, to provide quality medical care
for all Americans, is long overdue;
and Carter hopes to make it a reality.
At present, serious illness in this
country too often means an intoler-
able financial burden.
BUT THE DISMAL failures of the
Ford Administration transcend
mere failures of policy.
From the pardon of a President
who may well have ended up a con-
victed felon, to the failure to imme-
diately discharge a racist cabinet
member, Gerald Ford has displayed
a moral insensitivity so gaping, so
unforgiveable that it alone warrants
a resounding mandate from the
American electorate for his removal
from office.
No-,one in government ever serious-
ly considered the Congressman from
Grand Rapids to be of Presidential
caliber. Even Richard Nixon cursed
the pen with which he signed Ford's
vice - presidential nomination - his
last sick legacy to history. Now the
President, Mr. Ford has perpetuated
that legacy by selecting a running-
mate so woefully limited in scope
and ability as to insult the intelli-
gence of the American voter.
But the repudiation of Gerald Ford
and the election of Jimmy Carter
should not delude anyone into believ-
ing that the struggle is over.
Let it be clearly understood that
what Jimmy Carter stands for is not
nearly enough. Let it be clearly un-
derstood that there must be a quan-
tum expansion in the breadth of his
commitments to all the issues he has
embraced this year.
In particular, we must demand an
end to the rampant domestic surveil-
lance that threatens to turn this
country into a police state; w must
demand meaningful governmental po-
sitions for women and minorities; we
must demand a bigger cut in the de-
fense budget; and we must demand
nationalization of energy resources
and the railroad industry.
We have set rigorous, and possi-
bly ideal, standards that we do not
expect Jimmy Carter to completely
fulfill. But he represents a chance-
a chance for that first step.
Let's take it.
TODAY'S STAFF:
News: Rob Meachum, Ann Marie Li-
pinski, Jeff Ristine, Susan Ades,
Pauline Toole,. Bob Rosenbaum,
Robb Holmes, Ken Chotiner
WE EMPHATICALLY endorse Pro-
posal A, the ballot issue which
would ban throw-away soda and beer
containers in the state. The proposal
has been the target of a slick, but
distorted and misleading media blitz
sponsored largely by the dnly groups
in 'the state who have something to
gain by the proposal's defeat: the beer
and soft drink industry and the State
AFL-CIO.
Organized labor's argument against
the bill is that it will cost jobs in the
steel and glass industries. The bottlers'
objection is that the retooling and per-
sonnel changes made necessary by the
bill will cost industry $14 million in
the beer industry alone - costs which
they say must be passed on to the
consumer.
Such arguments are both true and
false. True, the bill may cause some
layoffs in the bottling industries, but
it will create at least as many jobs
in recycling, bottle washing, and re-
training. A study by Dr. Myron Ross
of Western Michigan University indi-
cates that, up to 9,165 new jobs would
be created by the bill.
TRUE, THERE WILL BE costs to
the industry as it adjusts to return-
ables, just as there were costs ten
years ago as it adjusted to throw-
aways. But the point is that savings
will result once we start reusing con-
proposa
tainers - which cost seven or eight WE ALS(
cents apiece - instead of throwing which.
them away. In Oregon, where a sim- age for Stat
ilar law has met with great success, dates from
an average bottle is used 30 times. Eighteen is
That state has also seen roadside lit- to drink, sig
ter decrease by 39 per cent since the it should als
bill's passage in 1971. office.
0 SUPPORT Proposal B,
would reduce the minimum
te Senate and House candi-
21 years to 18 years.
the legal age in Michigan
n legal contracts and vote;
lo be the age to hold state
Arguments that prices of soft drinks
and beer will skyrocket are simply non-
sense. Soft drink prices in Oregon actu-
ally dropped from $2.62 per case to
$2.45 per case after throwaways were
banned. Even the President of Coca-
Cola has admitted before the U.S. Sen-
ate that "returnable bottles provide the
most economically sound method of dis-
tributing soft drinks."
In fact, the only valid argument
opponents of the bill seem to have is
that of convenience, a rather weak
justification for tons of roadside lit-
ter, higher beverage prices, and a
waste of our ever dwindling natural
resources. Opponents of the bill were
not above using it, however: a recent
full-page newspaper ad asked the burn-
ing question "WHAT IF YOU LOSE
THE BOTTLES?"
In short, the time has come for
the State to take a step against both
roadside trash and waste of valuable
resources, and towards conservation
of energy.
We urge a vote in support of Pro-
posal A.
Proposal C is another matter, how-
ever. Opposed by almost every state
operative from Governor Milliken to
members of the State Highway Com-
mission, it is essentially a reactionary
bill which, despite its stated intention'
of holding taxes and spending to 8.3
per cent of the total personal income
of the state, will tend to raise local
taxes and cut state" programs. We op-
pose Proposal C.
The proposal has immediate appeal
to taxpayers because it promises to
hold down tax increases while limit-
ing what some see as wasteful spend-
ing by the state government. But the
ceiling bill is counterproductive. A
freeze on spending in the face of in-
creasing costs of state services can
cause only two things: an increase in
local taxes to cover deficiencies in
state funds or massive cuts in current
state programs.
Unfortunately, one of the first items
to feel the brunt of any builget cut
is state aid to universities. For that
reason the University Regents took the
unusual step of assuming a political
position by opposing' Proposal C at
their October meeting. A possible in-
crease in tuition should be enough rea-
son for any student to vote against
this misguided proposal.
THE DAILY SUPPORTS Proposal
D, which would establish a two-step
graduated, income tax in sMichigan.
Graduated taxes are more equitable
than flat rate taxes (such as Michi-
gan's current income tax) because they
shift the burden of payment to those
who can best afford to pay. Proposal
D would establish a two-step tai, that
is, a tax in two graduations. First,
a maximum rate of 3.9 per cent on
every dollar earned up to $20,000; sec-
ond, a higher rate, to be established
by the legislature on -every dollar above
that figure.
That does not mean there will be
a "cutoff" at $20,000. What it means
is that a person who earns, say, $30,-
000, will be taxed 3.9 per cent on the
first $20,000 and a higher rate only
on the last $10,000.
The effect of this tax will be to
lessen the burden on lower and middle
income families. Michigan is one of
only a few states whose constitution
prohibits a graduated tax, the result,
of a Republican-dominated constitution-
al convention in 1963.
It is time for our tax structure to
be made more equitable.
IS'
B and
REGENTAL RACE:
Keep Dunn, Nederlander
THE DAILY endorses incumbent Democrats
Gerald Dunn (Lansing) and Robert Neder-
lander (Birmingham) for the two seats on the
University Board of Regents.
Both Democrats have served the University
well since being first elected to the Board eight
years ago, and are keenly aware of the fund-
ing options open to this financially-plagued Uni-
versity. Whether it be an increased flow of funds
from the State, additional funding from the fed-
eral government, or working more closely with
generous alumni, Dunn and Nederlander appear
ready to take a firm stand on beefing up the
University's coffers. Earlier this month, at the
Board's last meeting, they were vocal opponents
of Ballot Proposal C, a tax measure some Re-
gent members believed would limit the flow of
state funds to the University.
Both men have also approached the tuition
issue with compassion, and have frequently voic-
ed their contentions that high tuition must not
debilitate parents nor prevent qualified minority
students from attending the University.
Their Republican opponents, David Upton (St.
Joseph) and Earl Gabriel (Dearborn Hts.), have
been active in the sphere of education for many
years. They, however, do not appear as attrac-
tive as the incumbent Democrats. Upton, for
example, believes the University's presenttuition
scale is not unreasonable. The Republican can-
didates do advocate suchadmirable measures
as alternate sources of funding and increased
Regental contact with the student body. How-
ever, Dunn and Nederlander's eight years of
University service afford them with the tools by
which, a Regent can make a valuable contribu-
tion to the University community.
B
Dunn Nederlander
.::J.: :t ::" J:J ::}......::f.4 ".: t::t": t~. ... :'; ,{S . ::"S ;:'::':..::. :"":....^:: ::.:. .... . ." ....:.:.'.:... .. 1J: '.Y''r:...
...:................"........,..,r.. .. .......,....4.::::::.":.......:':::::::":': ...:"::..'..:5 "... . .. ":".::..'":J':.^ ..:...,."r.'..."Yi. :::..' C".:. SV . :::.."::::. :::.{""..::: ":.. . .55'J
Put a doctor in the
House with Pierce,
IN AN ELECTION year when personal charac-
teristics such as honesty, integrity and candor
have assumed such prominence, we feel confi-
dent in supporting Dr. Edward Pierce, Demo-
cratic candidate for the Second Congressional
District seat. In both his personal life and his
political career, Pierce has demonstrated an
unwavering commitment to his stated goal of
"good food, good housing, decent medical care
and a good job for every actively participating
American."
A practicing physician in Ann Arbor for the
last 18 years, Pierce has shown a refreshing
willingness to get personally involved for the
sake of his political ideals. In 1968, Pierce scaled
down his private practice in order to open up
the Summit Medical Center, a non-profit, low-
cost medical care institution for poor people in
the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti area. Such personal sac-
rifice in these times of cynicism and apathy is
rare. Still rarer is the candidate that can claim
this sort of record of personal commitment.
In the political arena, Pierce has exhibited the
courage to clearly outline his stands on the
issues, no matter how controversial. We applaud
his strong, uncompromising calls for cuts in the
over-inflated defense budget. On the question of
national health insurance, we feel Dr. Pierce
can make valuable contributions, both in terms
of his compassion for the plight of the under-
privileged as well as his expertise in the health
field. In regard to economic issues, we feel
Pierce is correct in placing emphasis on solving
ever-rising unemployment.
AS FOR Pierce's opponent, Republican Carl
Pursell, while he has apparently acquitted him-
self in the state -senate over the last six years,
his campaign has, at times, smacked of political
expediency. During this summer's primary, Pur-
sell was attacked by fellow Republican Ron
Trowbridge for his alleged pro-labor stance and
at that time, Pursell took every opportunity to
disassociate himself from organized labor and
their interests. And yet, come fall, we have Mr.
.Pursell trumpeting about his strong pro-labor
record in the state senate.
Clearly, this kind of chamelon-like behavior
does not inspire the greatest confidence in Pur-
sell's willingness to be candid.
We believe Ed Pierce can provide leadership
in the U.S. Congress. We believe Ed Pierce can
be an eloquent voice for not only national health
insurance but for other badly needed programs
for the underprivileged in this country. However,
if Dr. Pierce is to be truly effective in Congress,
we would hope that he would find a way to curb
an occasionally fiery temper. In several debates
over the last few weeks, Pierce has momentarily
let loose some ill-advised ire that helped neither
his campaign nor any of the worthy causes he
has espoused. Though a relatively minor point,
we feel moderation would enhance his already
considerable persuasive powers.
With this small bit of advice, we heartily en-
dorse Dr. Pierce's candidacy.
Rob Meacum
Editorial Staff
Co-Editors-in-Chief
Bill Turque
Jeff Ristlne ......... ......... Managing Editor
Tim Schick................Executive Editor
Stephen Hersh...............Magazine Editor
Rob Meachui..............Editorial Director
Lois Josimovich . Arts Editor
STAFF WRITERS: Susan Ades, Susan Barry,
Dana Baumann, Michael Beckman, Philip Bo-
kovoy, Jodi Dimick, Chris Dyhdale, Elaine
Fletcher, Larry Friske, Debra Gale, Tom Go-
dell, Eric Gressman,, Kurt Harju;Ohar Heeg,
James Hynes, Michael Jones, Lani Jordan,
Lois Josimovlch, Joanne Kaufman, David
Keeps, Steve Kursman, Jay Levin, Ann Marie
Lipinski, George Lobsenz, Pauline Lubens, Stu
CeConnell, Jennifer Miller, Michael Norton,
Jon Pansius, Ken Parsigian, Karen Paul,
Stephen Pickover, Christopher Potter, Don
Rose.'Lucy Saunders, Annemarie Schiavi, Kar-
en Schulins, Jeffrey Selbst, Jim Shiahin, Rick
Soble, Tom Stevens, Jim Stimson, David
Strauss, Mike Taylor, Jim Tobin, Loran Walker,
Laurie Young, Barbara Zahs.
Photography Staff
Pauline Lubens ............. Chief Photographer
Brad Benjamin ............. Staff Photographer
Alan Bilinsky ................ Staff Photographer
Scott Eccker .... . .............Staff Photographer
-Andy Freeberg ......:....... Staff Photographer
Christina Schneider........Staff Photographer
Business Staff
Beth Friedman .............Business Manager
Deborah Dreyfuss.Operations Manager
Kathleen Mulhern ... Assistant Adv. Coordinator
David Harlan .... ............ Finance Manager
Don Simpson ...... ..... Sales Manager
Pete Peterson..........Advertising Coordinator
Cass e St. ClairCirculation Manager
Beth Stratford.......Circulation Director
Dr. Ed Pierce
.. ....... ...................................................................::Y:::::::.... .,...... ..............................................................,.......
.. n.' : err^.
COUNTY RACE:
ary,
THE DAILY URGES voters to cast their ballots
in the county commission races for Demo-
crats Catherine McClary and Kathleen Fojtik in the
14th and 15 Districts respectively. We see the choice
to be a clear one between a concern for human
and social services on one hand and an emphasis
on bureaucratic-oriented priorities on the other.
ojik for commissioner
couples her similar concern for efficiency in county
government with an equally important emphasis on
returning the taxpayers some of their money in the
form of services. Such social activity ranks unac-
ceptably low on Brandenburg's list of priorities.
Though Fojtik appears to be resting her cam-
matters and seems unfamiliar with the issues and
the Board of Commissioners itself.
Both McClary and Fojtik take a more active
view of their role as commissioners, stressing work
on new programs and ideas, though also recognizing
the need for, efficiency. Their challengers seem
cnt~h n nht,., rntrmtrq e,,,ifir - - - v the