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