01
Page 4-Friday, February 8, 1980-The Michigan Daily
Iie 3eotoan Dr gm
Ninety Years of Editorial Freedom
Vol. XC, No. 106
News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Aid for renter
ONGRATULATIONS, Ann Arbor
renters. The state may finally be
on its way to granting youinterest on
your own (or parents') hard-earned
money.
A bill approved Wednesday by the
State House Consumers Committee, if
passed by the full legislature, will
require landlords to pay tenants five
per cent interest on their security
deposits (Daily, Feb. 7).
It's about time. Though the amount
of money involved is not enormous, the
idea that landlords should be able to
hold renters' money against the
possibility of damage or the tenant
"skipping" without paying any in-
terest has always been a source of
aggravation to the downtrodden tenan-
ts. Now, though the security depositd
will still be held out of its owner's
reach, it will at least be doing the ren-
ter some good.
Security in nu
P ERHAPS AMONG the worst
dangers of nuclear power plants
is the ever-present possibility of
human error. Regulations, at both the
federal and utility level, are intended
to reduce risks associated with
negligence. Last year, however, Three
Mile Island proved that regulations
can be all too easily ignored or forgot-
ten, with near-disastrous results.
One might assume that, having
made the worst blunder in American
nuclear history, the operators of Three
Mile Island would now be especially
careful about establishing rules and
following them. In fact, in the
mysterious world of nuclear power,
such assumptions cannot be so easily
made. Recently a reporter for a
Harrisburg newspaper posed as a
guard at Three Mile Island and gained
access to the highly sensitive control
room of the plant
The reporter was hired as an unar-
Yes to no Jr#
The Carter administration has
wisely decided to postpone the im-
position of economic sanctions against
Iran; to have gone ahead with them at
this time might have been ruinous to the
fragile negotiations being conducted
for the release of the American
hostages.
Although the formal imposition of
economic sanctions might have had
some cathartic effect for millions of
frustrated Americans, it would have
had little practical impact on the
Iranians. Already, Iranian assets in
U.S. banks are frozen, and dock-
rs interesting
Landlord response to the bill was
predictable, but amusing all the same.
Most claim it will add substantially to
their bookkeeping costs. The landlords
have been quoted as estimating the
additional administrative cost at 26
dollars per tenant. Dan Sharp, an aide
to Rep. Perry Bullard, who sponsored
the bill, came up with a remarkably*
appropriate response to that figure:
"It's a crock."
Another unsurprising development
is that the landlords have threatened to
pass on the cost of complying with the
proposed legislation to consumers. Un-
fortunately, no law barring this would
be effective. Realtors would simply
think up another reason for the rent
hike (inflation, rising fuel costs,,
greed). It's a seller's market out there,
though bills like Bullard's do help to
ease the monthly blow.
clear plants
med watchman, and was not supposed
to have access to the control room. Yet
security at the plant is apparently so
lax that the reporter could wander
anywhere he pleased.
Further, he was able to use fake
identification to apply for the job, and
his background was apparently not
checked.
The implications of this new
negligence at Three Mile Island cannot
be stressed too emphatically. Any
terrorist could gain access to the plant,
place explosives in strategic locations,
and use blackmail far more potent
than that of the Iranian militants.
If Three Mile Island is even partially
indicative of security practices at
other nuclear plants, the danger is
imminent. Before Americans begin to
worry about nuclear war with the
Soviets, we might ponder the
possibility of nuclear holocaust here at
home.
an sanctions
workers refuse to load ships bound for
Iran - in effect, sanctions have been a
reality for several months.
Iranian President Abolhassan Bani
Sadr on Wednesday denounced the
militants holding the hostages, calling
them lawless "dictators," and in-
dicating that there could be some
change in Iranian official policy
toward the hostage situation. Although
it is still up to Ayatollah Khomeini to
approve the hostages' release, Bani
Sadr's position leaves room for some
hope. Sanctions at this time could up-
set any moderation that might now be
surfacing in the Iranian position.
Say 'No'
The two paragraphs in
italics were omitted by the
Ann Arbor News on Jan. 31 feels l
when this article appeared more t
there. wordsc
In dealing with Iran, President confirm
Carter has recognized, the prepare
dangers in the crisis and exer- When
cised commendable restraint. referre
Unfortunately, perhaps for the rem
political reasons, this has not he fail
been true of his references to the restrain
Afghan situation. In his State of one of t
the Union address, this is evident spawns
not only inawhat he said, but also clude t
in what he omitted. CIA ope
Most ominous was his failure lead ar
to mention that a military con- (Feb. 3
frontation between the U.S. and (Augus
the Soviet Union-or even the tains t
threat of it-could lead to a pre- crimes
emptive first strike followed by ts: "br
full-scale nuclear attacks in vade ot
which some hundred million armies
people on each side would be medica
slaughtered. Additional millions stockso
would be horribly deformed, guns to
while fallout and genetic damage them on
would afflict untold numbers in
non-combatant nations and
future generations.
LITTLE WONDER that Kurt
Waldheim responded to the
president's "get tough" policy by
warning that such a war would
produce "no winners-only
losers," and the former Senior
Editor of the New York Times
calls the policy "dangerously ex-
plosive." If the U.S. agrees to
defend Pakistan, for example, its
military dictatorship-scarcely 1
notable. for rationality or
peaceful intentions-could
trigger the holocaust. Many ex-
perts do not agree that U.S. vital
interests are being threatened in
the Middle East. And what good
will oil be if we are all
"devitalized" by nuclear bombs?
Military power no longer
provides security. Possibly it did
for short periods, in the past. But
now every increase of military
strength by one nation is more of
a provocation than adeterrent. It
increases the anxiety of the op-
ponent, which feverishly seeks to THE A
surpass its rival. As the readiness the gov
to strike escalates, each side have no
ess secure and becomes
trigger-happy. Then the
of General Pershing are
ned again: "When you
e for war you get war."
n President Carter
d to the CIA, advocating
noval of restraints upon it,
ed to mention why those
nts were imposed. War is
the worst evils because it
so many evils. These in-
the gross immorality of
erations, as documented in
tiles in Saturday Review
3, 1979) and The Atlantic
t, 1979). The latter con-
his partial summary of
committed by CIA agen-
ibe foreign politicians, in-
her countries with secret
, spread lies, conduct
al experiments, build
of poison, pass machine
people who plan to turn
rn their leaders, or plot to
kill ... Lumumba or Castro or
others who displeased
Washington."In supporting the
CIA, Carter tacitly recognizes
that military "defense" cannot
be hampered by ethical con-
siderations.
IN HIS call for the revival of
peacetime draft registration, the
president .failed to mention that
this involves training our youth to
follow blindly the orders of their
superiors to kill whatever
soldiers or civilians happen to be
considered enemies.
Nuclear war, with all it entails,
is so wrong that an ethical person
must oppose it-and preparation
for it-on grounds of conscience.
No conceivable good can justify
it. It is bad to be killed or
dominated by others, but it is
worse to kill, for then we are
damaging our very moral being.
If we have any belief in a moral
By Phillips Moulton
or divine order, we have grounds
to hope there must be a better
way. Even if we lack such a faith,
we can give it a try.
The vast amounts of energy
and money now devoted to
military uses are a tremendous
burden on all the peoples of the
world. A small fraction of these
resources diverted to positive
peace programs could benefit
everyone everywhere and change
the course of history. It will not be
easy, and certainly problems will
remain. But any alternative would be
better than our present acquiescence it
mass slaughter.
A PEACE offensive would in
clude doing everything possible
to alleviate the causes of war-by
striving for a more equitable
distribution of goods, by political
and diplomatic efforts, by
genuine disarmament, and by a
carefully worked out program on
nonviolent defense against
possible aggression. Evidence i
mounting that even the stronges
dictator, such as the Shah of Iran,
cannot prevail against the power
of the people.
At the individual level, young
people can refuse to register or
can register as conscientious ob-
jectors. Older people can refuse to
pay the monthly phone tax designated
for war or the income tax, about half
. of which goes down the same drain.
Action against socialevils ofte*
arises from religious motivation.
Currently, proponents of the
"Call to Peacemaking"
(representing several Protestant,
denominations), the Jewish
Peace Fellowship, the Roman
Catholic-oriented Pax Christi, and
the new evangelical peace
movements are pointing the
way.hThis is quite appropriate,
for the result of' the "get tough"
policy was expressed long ago bo
the Prince of Peace: "They that
take the sword shall perish by the
sword."
Phillips Moulton is a retired
college professor who has
taught at Union Theological
Seminary and the University
of North Dakota.
to warmongering
Daily Photo by PAUL ENGSTROM.
%NTI-WAR ACTIVISTS who rallied on .the Diag last week sent
vernment a strong message that they, like many Americans,
o desire to go to war again.
Here's to a onetimetightwad
I
Each January brings a political event
which' the media scrutinize and the public
ignores: the President's presentation of the
proposed federal budget to the Congress. This
administrative ritual is simultaneously
perhaps the most significant and most mun-
dane act of our government. In a time in
which the public's attention lights on Iowa
and New Hampshire, Bush and Kennedy,
tragically few Americans are able to see the
proposed budget as the singlemost revealing
representation of the philosophy of the
present administration and of Mr. Carter as a
presidential candidate.
With Carter, budgetary issues are even
more vital than is at first apparent. The per-
ceptible differences between the economic
policies of President Ford and Governor Car-
ter in the mind of the common voter swung
the 1976 election in Carter's favor.
Historically, the Republican Party has been
preceived as the party of competent foreign.
policy while Democrats were thought to deal
more expertly with the domestic economy.
Jimmy Carter-a man with no foreign policy
experience at all-possessed nothing in his
background precluding his being regarded in
this light as well. Economic issues prevailed
in the agenda of the 1976 campaign. Ford
stressed the fight against inflation; Carter in-
sisted unemployment was more serious. Poll
analyses show that the public agreed with
Carter.
THE ECONOMY, however, was not paying
much attention to Carter's campaign
rhetoric. Ten months after his inauguration,
the president changed his mind. He stated-in
the precise words of Gerald Ford-that "in-
flation is our number one problem." By
January of 1977, Ford had slowed inflation
By John Schad
from 12 per cent to 4.8 per cent. By devoting
his expertise to the war against inflation, Car-
ter has managed to almost triple the inflation
rate he inherited from President Ford. The
1979 rate of inflation was 13.3 per cent (the
highest since 1946).
The president's lack of coherent-much
less effective-economic policy pervades
every page of the proposed budget for fiscal
year 1981. Those who labeled Carter a fiscal
conservative four years ago would not
recognize the author of next year's budget.
Though neither prudent nor responsible, as
Carter claims, the budget is at least novel.
One would be hard put to recall a recent
budget that increased expenditures in so
many areas with virtually no decreases.
There is something for everyone in this $615.8
billion budget: a tremendous rise in defense
outlays for conservatives, expansion of social
programs for liberals. Someone must have
reordered the memos on the president's desk.
This budget has somehow become acciden-
tally geared toward election year 1980 instead
of fiscal year 1981.
Unfortunately, this budget which gives to
everyone is not nearly so generous to the tax-
payers. Despite Republican pressures, Carter
contends the "mild recession" of the coming
year is not crucial enough to warrant any sort
of tax break. But it is doubtful whether Carter
would recognize a crippled economy if his
political life depended on it. Even unem-
ployment rose last month (to 6.2 per cent)
and, in some places, is no longer within the
realm of credulity. The unemployment rate
among black youths in New York City-which
includes only those actively seeking em-
ployment-is 85per cent.
CARTER ALSO promised there would be no
increase in taxes next year. Taxpayers,
nevertheless, will pay an additional $18 billion
in taxes to the federal government. For years
Republicans have* been pursuing indexed
taxation' to prevent wage-earners from being
penalized for rises in income that keep up
with inflation. This' has not been implemen-
ted, however, and the federal government
will make $18 billion on inflation next year.
Unemployment and inflation can only be
further nourished in 1981. Economists cite
deficit spending as a major cause of spiraling
inflation. Next Year's budget has a proposed
deficit of $16 billion and, undoubtedly, the red
ink will go much higher. As Senator Williar
Roth of Delaware stated: "Calling this budget'
responsible is like calling the Ayatollah a
moderate." Carter's budget is only an ex-
treme example of recent budgets. Dramatic=
increases in federal expenditures are
relatively few. As late as 1974, the federal.
budget was held below the $300 billion mark,
Americans will pay heavily for next year's'
exorbitant budget., The snowballing,
expansion of federal budgets must cease; the,
economy of the 1980s depends on sound fiscal
restraint. If the American public can see thin
budget as the manifestation of the irresponW
sible policies President Carter pursues, its
political and economic follies may not have to'
be repeated at taxpayers' expense.
Michigan Republicans Club member
John Schall is an LSA junior majoring in
Political Science. His column will appear
every other Friday.
LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
WIQB switch to easy listening stinks
To the Daily:
At midnight on Feb. 1, 1980 the
radio station WIQB-FM in Ann
Arbor changed its format.
Previously a tasteful com-
bination of progressive music, in-
teresting disc jockeys, and news
and weather, it has now become a
tasteless combination of com-
mericalized top-40 pop and den-
tist's office musak. This change,
which was done obviously for
financial reasons, will backfire
since the money saved by not
paying salaries of the disc
jockeys and newscasters will be
the last vestiges of the spirit of
the 1960s, which while long dead
in the rest of the country, seemed
to be at least surviving here in
Ann Arbor. I hope all interested
listeners will let the management
of WIQB know of their
displeasure over this horrible
change and force them to return
to their previous format.
-Sidney Schipper
Feb. 2
Good humor
To the Daily:
Nick Katsarelas' "Rules for
no one noticed.
Some suggestions for next
week's lesson: take the extra
time (and steps) to use the
bathrooms on the third and fourth
floors. They'll be less congested
and there's a better chance of
finding toilet paper there.
-Nancy L. Rucker
Feb. 7
Sulivan talk
To the Daily:
On February 12, William Sul-.
Sullivan must be driven off cam-
pus!
The Spartacus Youth League is
initiating the "Committee to
Drive War Criminal Sullivan Off
Campus" to organize a united4
front demonstration at the
Michigan Theatre (Liberty and
Maynard Streets) on Tuesday,
February 12 at 7:30 p.m. The
committee is open to all in-
dividuals and organizations who
agree with the demand "Drive
CIA Murderer Sullivan Off Cam-
pus." All endorsing individuals
and organizations are welcome to
I