100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 30, 1980 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1980-03-30

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Page 4-Sunday, March 30, 1980-The Michigan Daily

'Liberal'
One of the most fascinating developments
of the current election year has been the sur-
prisinig emergence of Rep. John Anderson as
a strong presidential candidate. Now that
many students have jumped on the Anderson
bandwagon, perhaps it's time to examine the
Anderson record and attempt to discover
the true character of this supposedly "fresh,"
"liberal," "honest" candidate. Because An-
derson's campaign has relied heavily on his
supposed honesty and integrity, many here
have lost track of his actual stance on many
key issues, especially those that are
traditionally of most concern to students and
liberals. John Anderson is not a Republican
by chance;' ideologically he is closer to
Ronald Reagan than to Mo Udall.
Although John Anderson has shed many of
his old conservative, pro-Goldwater ways,
there are still some areas in which he has
remained true to form; specifically, nuclear
power, labor related issues, and consumer af-
fairs.
ANDERSON HAS BEEN one of the
strongest pro-nuke, anti-solar members of the
House for years, and his actions with regard to
the Price-Anderson Act are only one case in
point. The Price-Anderson Act (sponsored by
a different Anderson) limits the insurance
liability of power companies in the event of a
nuclear accident. Anderson has properly
voted to raise the liability ceiling to $1.2 billion
dollars (from $564 million), but ,he voted
against the Bingham amendment of 1975
which would have eliminated the ceiling
altogether and held nuclear corporations
responsible for all damages in the case of an
accident.
The Price-Anderson Act also gives
numerous insurance subsidies to the energy
companies. Anderson voted not to cut off this
bill in 1979, but rather to extend it an6ther
eight years:
PERHAPS ANDERSON'S greatest virtues
are his support of SALT II and continued effor-
ts toward detente. Yet his record shows that he

Anderson
is a bit less dovish than he might profess to be
in this election year.
On February 22, 1978, he voted against cut-
ting $462 million from production of the B-1
Bomber (HR 9375), and he also supported the
neutron bomb in 1977 (HR 6566). In 1976, when
we were no longer involved in international
conflict, Anderson voted to increase defense
spending by $7.6 billion.
Social programs have certainly not been
part of Anderson's new-found liberalism. He
consistently votes for major income tax cuts,
which inevitably hurt the lower class and blue
collar workers, not to mention students. He
voted for the atrocious Kemp-Roth tax cut,
which would have decreased taxes by 1/3 in
only three years, but when a more reasonable
tax cut was offered, Anderson voted against
that.
The revenue Act of 1978 (HR 13511) would
have cut $18.1 billion in taxes, but Anderson
disapproved. The reason? The benefits would
favor those earning less than $50,000 a year.
Those 'lower' income citizens were obviously
not very important to Anderson, probably
because they weren't the ones who contributed
$6000 in campaign funds to the congressman.
That donation came from the true Anderson
beneficiaries, the oil and gas companies. (In-
cidentally, the average oil and gas con-
tribution in the House was $1916.)
IT'S NO WONDER that Anderson votes the
way he does, with such conflicts of interest.
Anderson has, like a true Republican, voted
for budget cuts in almost all important social
programs, including welfare and food stamps.
He even went so far as to sponsor a bill that
would save money by weakening summer
camp safety regulations in 1976.
John Anderson has also been unsupportive
when it comes to consumer protection. It
seems as though not all of his transformation
has been from right to left. Though at one time
he endorsed the creation of the Consumer
Protection Agency, he finally voted against it
no fewer than five times on February 8, 1978
(HR 6805), including one vote not to even allow

closer to Reagan than Udal

By Martin Lederman
it for consideration in the House. Anderson
also voted against the Consumer Co-op Bank,
which provides loans to small food, clothing,
and other co-operatives.
He also has voted to limit severely the power
of the Federal Trade Commission and the
block increases in minimum wage.
IF THERE'S one area where John Ander-
son is weaker than on nuclear energy, it's
labor. Anderson has always been a strong
supporter of big business. Consistently he has
voted for corporate gas and oil deregulation,
and he has opposedstrict windfall profits
taxes. On June 28 of last year, Anderson voted
against the Shannon amendment (HR 3919),
whose defeat exempts any oil discovered
before 1973 from being taxed in the windfall
system.

Logically, it follows that Anderson has not
been very kind to labor. On the most important
votes for labor in the past five years, those
regarding labor-law reform and common-situs
picketing (HR 4250, 1977), he has voted pro-
business. Common situs pikketing would allow
unions with grievances against a building con-
tractor to picket all the contractors on a par-
ticular site, giving the labor force much more
power and leverage. Yet Anderson voted
against this crucial reform, which lost by only
12 votes. That's not entirely surprising,
however, because Anderson himself spon-
sored an anti-common-situs bill in 1975 which
was narrowly defeated.
Anderson also recently voted against
benefits for coal miners with black-lung
disease, as well as voting for the 1977 Cornell
bill (HR 3744), which would have lowered
minimum wages for workers under 18 by 15
per cent.
IT IS IMPORTANT to note that these votes
are not exceptions to the rule; rather, they are
merely some of the votes that stand out. John
Anderson's overall group voting ratings con-
firm the fact that he is not close to the liberal
ideal which he has come to represent.
COPE, which measures performance on
labor related issues, has given Anderson an
average annual percentage of 33 since the
year 1970, which is after the great Anderson
"reform." As recently as 1977, he was still
receiving ratings under 30. Predictably, the
National Associated Businessmen, Inc., gives
him ratings averaging 78, including a 73 in
1978. This indicates that Anderson votes pro-
business and anti-labor three out of four times.
The consumer's Federation of America
gives him a 31 rating over the same nine year
span, including a zero rating in 1972. The
League of Conservation Voters, which con-
siders nuclear and other environmental mat-
ters, indicates that Andeison has voted
correctly only 39 per cent of the time on those
questions.

When it comes to supporting defense expen-
ditures, Anderson takes on the sound and fury
of a hawk. The National Security Index rates
him at 76, which is certainly contrary to his
recent image. Americans for Democratic
tion and Ralph Nader's Public Citizen give
him average ratings of 43 and 40 respectively;
these progressive groups certainly do not in-
dicate that John Anderson is a reactionary,
but he is obviously far from the left end of the
spectrum.
JOHN ANDERSON is a decent man. He is
bright, articulate, and refreshing. But he is a
Republican, and he thinks (and votes) like
one. He has sided with the Republican party
the majority of votes every year in his 19-yea
congressional careers, and he supported the
war in Vietnam up to the bitter end.
At a time when we are in serious danger of
losing such progressive senators. as
McGovern, Bayh, Culver, and Cranston, this is
not a time to compromise on a candidate who
is not even as "liberal" as Jimmy Carter.
It is commendable that so many students
are making an attempt to become politicalbv
active. But John Anderson is not even
spiritually acceptable candidate as was Gene
McCarthy. He is simply an attractive
moderate who seems liberal compared to the
competition. But even Bob Dole seemed
progressive compared to Reagan and Bush.
One hopes that students will investigate the
actual records a little more searchingly before
they hop on the Anderson bandwagon.
When our political system is so weak that we
think of Anderson as an alternative, perhaps
is time we started looking outside the pres
structure to the Citizen's.Party, perhaps, for
a genuine alternative. If we really want a
change, maybe we should stop accepting
meager alternatives, like John Anderson.
Martin Lederman is a member of the
Daily arts staff.

Anderson

_______________________________________________________A

NitielY Years of Idito()ri(1 I Iredomi

Higgins

I pAN tEY

ef
i*

Vol. XC, No. 142

News Phone: 764-0552

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Some overdue interest

is.,
" ,a
/
v
' A'

I
*1

ALTHOUGH INFATION is caused
by a variety of factors so com-
plex that even economists can't agree
on them, there is one problem with the
a economy that is rather easily
understood: people cannot afford to
save money, so they spend it, causing
further devaluation of their dollars in a
vicious cycle.
With banks prevented by law from
paying more than 5 per cent interest
on regular savings accounts, and
.-inflation running at an annual rate of
:18 per cent, it is no wonder that
Americans have only 4.5 per cent of
their spendable incomes in regular
savings accounts.
On Friday, however, the Senate
F followed the lead of the House and
approved a bill that could correct this.
unfortunate situation, which severely
hurts small savers who don't have
the money to buy higher-interest-
bearing certificates. The bill will lift
over the next six years restrictions on
interest payments, so that by 1986,
INI
d
r .
w'1
a4
r"

banks will only have to consider their
-business costs-and not federal
limits-when determining interest
rates.
There is only one rather important
drawback to this otherwise long-
overdue deregulation of the banking
industry: costs for loans are likely to
rise, as banks and other lending
institutions pay more in interest to
savers. Yet, the impact of this
unavoidable consequence will be
lessened by the gradual, six-year
phasing of the deregulation. Had
Congress decided to remove
restrictions immediately, mortgage
and loan rates would have skyrocketed
to offset the suddenly increased costs
of higher savings rates.
President Carter has supported the
deregulation plan and is expected to
sign it into law. Now, instead of
macrame plant holders, cookbooks,
wallets, and other "premiums," banks
can offer substantial interest rates to
attract customers.

w
\A
"Keep politics outta this!"

..r
. 4 « }
;
/
'
;
.
t
t .,.
--

I met God the other day. He.
was in the same express line as
me at Kroger's, only he had nine
items and the lady made him put
one back before she'd ring him
up. I only noticed he was God
because he put back the frozen
onion rings, which is what I
would've done. Also, he didn't
bother to count his change. I
followed him out to the parking
lot.
"Hey, are you God?" I shouted
after him when I got my cart
down the ramp and onto steady
ground. I rolled it a bit closer to
him. He was busy loading his car
and didn't hear me.
"EXCUSE ME," I said in as
polite and humble a voice as I
could, "you look like you could be
God or someone a lot like him."
He shut his door and turned to
me. "Yes, I am. What's your
name?"
"Uh, Ernie. Ernie Johnson."
"Nice to meet you."
"Nice to meet you too, Sir."
"Call me God."
"Oh, God." I didn't know what
to say next, but at least he said he
was happy to meet me. That was
a relief.
"Do you need a lift?" he asked

Hey! Fancy

meeting

You

here!
By Marty Levine

question?"
"Sure, "he said cheerfully.
"I mean I don't usually just ask
people just like that, but I feel
like I know you already."
"I understand."
"Well-what are you doing
down here, I mean, at a super-
market."
"Oh, I was just getting low on
apple cider and chips and stuff
and so I thought I'd pick some up
before I got busy on the
weekend."
"You live around here?"
"Yeah, in the Kingsdale apar-
tments."
"HEY, THOSE are nice!" I

it was the way he combed his
hair. I don't know. I just stood
there beaming at him, and he
looked real humble. Suddenly it
struck me-the question I'd been
wanting to ask all along.
"Hey, God, what do you want;
anyway-out of us?" I felt a.
small twinge of fear in my neck.
God remained calm, peering
momentarily at the sun glaring
off the back window of his car,
heating up his oranges so they'd
be all mushy when he got home.
"YOU KNOW," he said, tur-
ning to smile at me, "a lot of
people ask me that question."

"You mean it's like they said in.
the Star Trek movie? You b4
guys just need to feel a touch a
you'll be ok again?"
"Well, to tell you the truth,
being worshipped is better than
buying chips at Krogers, but this
is nice' for a change. Tell you
what-stop by my place
sometime and I'll tell you more
about what's been happening
lately. Apartment 3-A."
"THANKS, I'LL DO that. Mind
if I bring my dog?"
"No, I like dogs. Mine's a fox-
terrier."
"No shit!? Ooooh, sorry."
"Don't worry, I've heard it all.
Do stop by now, ok? I've got to go
get this milk in the fridge.
long."
"Bye, I--my ice cream!" I
shouted, remembering the grov-
ceries in the cart. "Dammit!"
Chocolate ice cream had
soaked through the two-ply bag
and was dripping through the
metal bars of the cart and onto

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan