4d
OPINION
4
Thursday, April 15, 1982
The Michigan Daily
- m
Anderson rates
1980 Independent presidential called supply side economics, it is now
rndidate John Anderson will be clear that the results are painfully
Ming to-campus April 20 to give felt. We have nine percent unem-
ployment - depending on whether you
r address at Rackham Hall. An- count people who've simple given up
'rson, who currently spends much the struggle to work - business
fhis time on the lecture circuit, will failures are up, consumer confidence is
scuss prospects for developing a at the lowest ebb it's been in a long
ew major political party in the time. When the country elected Reagan
nited States. it wanted stronger leadership, it wan-
ted different policies. It certainly didn't
Anderson spoke to Opinion Page want a recession, but that's what we
fitor Julie Hinds this week, of have.
ring sharp criticism of President
eagan's performance in office and Daily: Do you think the cuts on
flecting on the possibility of student loan programs have been ap-
pother run for office. Anderson: It is interestin
Ani~rt~n~ i i inpr~tig that
w
Reagan's performance
Daily: What is your general opinion
f the Reagan administration's per-
formance? Do you think the country got
what it bargained for in the 1980 elec-
tion?
T Anderson: No, because I insist that
the resultsof the election were not at all
a mandate for the policies that Reagan
Srged. What happened in the election
vas more a mandate against the Carter
administration. But Reagan has chosen
Ith interpret the results as an endor-
sement of his simplistic policies.
Daily: What do you think of Reagan's
economic program so far?
° Anderson: After fifteen months of so-
Reagan spent most of his speech from
the Caribbean on refuting the fact that
he has hurt students with his policy.
Daily: Do you agree with that?
Anderson: No, I think he has hurt.
students. It's very disingenous of the
president, to say the least, to claim that
all he has done with his proposals is to
try to reduce administrative costs, and
that more students than ever will get
loans. He totally left out the fact that
some 600,000 graduate students would
be left out of plans to get subsidized
student loans. And the president cer-
tainly didn't suggest there would be a
sizeable cut in work-study programs.
Any way you slice it, his reductions in-
terfere with higher education. There's a
very perverse logic behind these cuts,
.saying that we need to meet foreign
competition while cutting the ground
out from under our higher education
assets.
Daily: What about Reaganomic's ef-
fect on lower-income people?
the current budget?
Anderson: I've consistently opposed
them and I'll reinforce that opposition.
The increases are an almost in-
digestible infusion of funds into the
defense department that is bound to en-
courage waste. The spending that
Reagan is suggesting is not going to
give us a lean, well-balanced defense
force. I think we've got to cut back
sharply, and I think $25 billion would be
a very modest figure.
Daily: What about the tone of our
foreign policy? Do you think we have
increased our posture of
aggressiveness?
Anderson: I think we would not have
had millions marching in Europe were
it not for the fact that we've created the
impression of being unstable, of being
chauvinistic, of being desirous of
asserting an edge , of military
superiority. This has been very unset-
ting to friends and foes alike. There's
an ironic twist to all of this. I think
Ronald Reagan has done more in fif-
teen months to encourage the peace
movement in the United States than any
president in my memory - precisely
because some of his statements have
been so alarming and so preposterous.
Daily: What do you think of the
spread of the nuclear freeze
movement?
Anderson: I don't think there is
anything that has spread like such a
prairie fire that you can compare to the
freeze movement. The country has
realized that enough is enough. You
don't improve security by piling more
nuclear missiles end to end until the
pile collapses of its own weight. I think
you have a very healthy, thriving peace
movement in the country today.,
Anderson: Realy for another run?
Anderson: I think the evidence is
overwhelming that the working poor,
who have some employment but who
need some income supplement, are
going to be badly affected. Again it's a
very perverse logic. Sometimes it is
more profitable for these people to give
up work and go on full-time aid
programs, because their qualification
for an income supplement program has
been taken away. I think the Reagan
economic policy has come down very
unfairly on those least able to bear the
burden of sacrifice.
Daily: How would .your economic
policies have differed if you had been
elected?
Anderson: I would not have proposed
the blunderbuss approach of an across-
the-board tax cut; any new tax cut that
I proposed would have been very
specific and targeted directly, exem-
pting certain money such as funds set
aside by families for education,
retirement, a new home, etc.
And in order to give us a weapon to
fight inflation, I would have created an
incomes policy, a social contract bet-
weep the government, business, and
labor. Government would promise to
maintain minimum social benefits, and
in return business and labor would be
obligated to hold prices down. To enfor-
ce the incomes policy I would have used
the tax code to provide selective
benefits or penalties.
Daily: What it your opinion of the
large military expenditures proposed in
Daily: Do you support either of the
freeze proposals now in Congress?
Anderson: I support the Kennedy;
Hatfield proposal that calls for
mutual moratorium with the Sovie
Union on the testing, production, anc
deployment of nuclear weapons. I
makes a lot more sense than the Wary
ner-Jackson proposal that says we'll
start freezing by and by when we com
to the land of never-never. Their whol
thesis is that we'll have a nice, health
arms race and get around to stoppin
sometime in the future. This is a paten
fallacy.
Ilaily: What are your future political
plans?
Anderson: I do have a committee
registered with the Federal Elections
Committee that could be the nucleus for
a third party. Should it appear as th1
months go on that the two old parties
are tending to retreat into policies that
do not warrant new hope for the future4*
I think there may well arise *
grassroots groundswell for a third par-
ty. The National Unity Committee, as
we call - ourselves, could well be the
nucleus for that new party.
Daily: What about plans to run again-
How do you feel about running after
losing in the 1980 election?
Anderson: I think I would be better
prepared, more knowledgeable and
well-equipped. I haven't made my
decision yet, but certainly I. think it
would be a great challenge.
Dialogue, a weekly feature of the
Opinion Page, appears every Thur-
sday.
Edited and managed by students a The University of Michigan
Vol. XClI, No. 155 420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, Ml 48109
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
Falkland interference
Weasel
W.MMNCMENT EXCWI-SeS of
TOfE LWVERS elf OF MICIIG.AN.
6M6ROp. WIUJ&AM MILLIKEN wAS
TOV 1AVE $EEN 7?WAY9 GUEST SEAKER.
LWFOTUIJATEL Y, NE WAS TAKEN
IL.L AT THlE IAST MINUTE . HE yp,1,
BEL.LY SAID HE~S VERY( SORRY HE.
cow)-p.t4TSE 1HEMAND' NE SENDSP
iis AMO.o61E. T#iS LEPSAI,.W( 15 A
GR~EAT MONOR FORMEN,'rTO 86INVITIP
-M SPEAK AT W IAPtA'nN CFSLXH
A FINS LW#vvSM %As MItIrn6AI4STATE.
I AM NoT ToITAIL -'( UFAtMlLIAR TO THE4
PVPIU M, 14AVIN6 SERVEp FoR TKEPAS-
TREE YEARS' XSPRESIPMT* OF 70$E
N40L$ANP (GAR' KIN6 6(.tA&
You KNOW, WHEN SIA"321 WP6S usr A
BOYTI4Ett WAS. ONE THII46 ME.
Cot-p N' sTA? -lb EAT, AM~P THAT
WAS OATMEAL. NO MATTER WHAT
His MOTHER WOULD> TRY TOopro Tb
DRESS IT uP, ILL'1' 3\)sr MMj v'T
TaxiiH is., OAT MEAL.,...
AN YS,...Ttio6e WE'REngpAYS!
11'A-
By Robert Lence
rMaMiON BE FINE,
TRAT 3NMTHE MgS MJLLKENI.
PRESIPENT OF TAlE WO 601A16 7
MOL.LANP MOTSE ON To.
CARD t~NN M ~AWAOPS
L1..t~tB NdW..
I
I
S
AS THE FALKLAND Islands crisis
continues in an uneasy stalemate,
the world nervously awaits each move
by Argentina and Britain. But now a
new worry has been added concerning
outsideinterference. It now seems as if
meddling by both the Soviet Union and
the United States may help turn the
potential for large-scale conflict into a
nightmarish reality.
Some responsible interference could
prove helpful. The United States ad-
mittedly is butting into the Falkland
situation, but to help negotiate a set-
tlement. Secretary of State Alexander
Haig, just back from an unsuccessful
shuttle mission between Buenos Aires
and London, is leaving again today for
Argentina to try to defuse the crisis.
But as interference in the name of
peace continues, so does interference
of a dangerous, inflammatory sort.
U.S. officials have announced that the
Soviet Union is supplying Argentina
with intelligence information on
British ship movements; other reports
have suggested that the United States
is giving special communications
assistance to Britain,
Word of Soviet and American med-
dling is bad news for the entire world.
The Soviet and American aid, however
limited and innocuous it may seem,
makes one ponder horrible, but
inevitable, questions. Are the super-
powers choosing up sides on the crisis?
Could they be drawn into a military
stand-off with terrifying consequences
over these once-obscure islands?
It is crucial now for both the United
States and the Soviet Union to hold
closely to the middle course to give
neither side in the dispute support
through symbolic or literal means. The
United States has so far behaved ad-
mirably in attempting to negotiate a
peaceful conclusion; the disclosure,
however, that America is offering
some special assistance to Britain is
disturbing. Any sign of U.S. favoritism
toward one of two old friends is sure to
exacerbate the situation.
If any peace is to be found, the
Soviets and the United States will have
to leave the islands alone except for ef-
forts at.conciliation or negotiation. The
United States especially, in its openly
declared role as a mediator, has to
exercise the 'utmost caution. If the
United States fails to walk a careful
tightrope of balance now, it may only
help push the Falkland conflict
toward an unacceptable conclusion.
I - I -Zjm
I
it:
LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
Exposing fallacies on school reviews
To the Daily:
Your editorial (Daily, April 9)
should be congratulated on
helping to expose the fallacy of
the upcoming budget reviews of
the schools of natural resources,
art and education. While the
students, faculty, staff, and
alumni are busy putting together
their facts and figures to
Facts on the bottle
To the Daily:
I'd just like to clarify the
situation that the Daily depicted
in its Today item on "Hitting the
bottle" (Daily, April 14). First of
all, the article implicitly stated
that Amy Moore solely was in
possession of a case of beer and
bottle of wine in the Michigan
Student Assembly chambers.
Yet, being a participant in this
trivial incident, the truth is that
the alcohol was "property" of the
whole group involved in this
meeting.
Secondly, the Daily failed to
mention that the confiscation of
the alcohol was routine; we had
nothing to hide and through our
cooperation the security officer
said that the issue would be put to
rest then and there. I'm puzzled
why all of a sudden the Union
might "take action" if the issue
has been resolved.
My third point is where was the
Daily reporter who covered this
story? The article said that
Moore was unavailable for com-
ment and the others refused to
give out their names. No reporter
ever approached me or any other
participant of this meeting. If the
reporters had contacted me or
another source instead of relying
on second-hand information, this
misunderstanding wouldn't have
occurred and this article
probably wouldn't have made
print.
While I realize that there are
those who would like to see Amy
Moore's MSA presidency fail
miserably, gossip - especially
inaccurate gossip- is not the
way to handicap her. I hope that
the Daily will in the future
restrain itself from getting
caught up in trivial whispering.
-Steve Belkin
April 14
represent the past merits of their
respective schools, little do they
suspect that Billy Frye's hand-
picked budget review commit-
tees have already all but made up
their minds:
The inherent problem with this
method is that the committee's
decision has already been
predetermined by the University
administration's redirection ef-
forts. If these schools will not be.
represented by their merits, but
rather their future, as laid out
behind closed doors, why bother
with such an exhaustive 'review
process?
It should be obvious not only to
students, but to taxpayers as
well, that the new direction of the
University may no longer serve
the general needs of thescitizenry
of the state. The reallocation of
funds to high technology and
robotics leaves many questions
regarding what service this
public institution will provide to
meet the needs of the people.
Where will the service to the tax-
payers be when the University
owes -its allegiance to large cor-
poration funds?
The new direction of the
University must be contested. We
all have a stake in the future of
this state or University. Larger
questions still remain about the
freedom of research and long-
term goals of the University
which must be answered.
The students of the School of
Natural Resources extend a
welcome to all students, friends,
faculty, and staff to join us on the
Regents Plaza on April 15 at 3:30
p.m. to let the Regents know how
we feel about the reallocation of
funds and the whole review
process. Our voices must be
heard before we all head into
directions unknown for the sum-
mer months. We want to assure
that final decisions about our
futures are not made in our ab-
sence.
--Chris Hanna
April12
4
Names will be withheld only in unusual
circumstances. Letters may be edited for
clarity, length, grammar, and spelling.
I
Wasserman
OUR INVAION OF I !
MALVtIAS ISLANDS. WILL
R1INT THEWRW'JS OF
H1'Tro~y
-ME~ A K-TNTINE MILITARY
WILLWO L0N&E fieM
OBJ3ECT OFRIDICULE AND
SRN\I____
WE WLL NFINALLY ACHIEVE
OUR DESTINY,
OUR DREAM-
TO RUL.'A Nllow
OF 51EEP!!
I II~W~& I A I
AM