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