0
OPINION
Page 4 Wednesday, October 13, 1982
Kidding around with
The Michigan Daily
the state's
crisis
By Keith Carrier
So The Michigan Daily editorial board fancies
itself ready to run state government, eh?
Well, then, I must tell you that you've done
one hell of a job hiding your alleged creden-
tials. You've simultaneously acted as judge
and jury in blasting Gov. William Milliken for
his handling of the worst fiscal crisis in the
history of this state. The editorial entitled
"Happy Milliken Week" (Daily, Oct. 5) reads
more like a child's tantrum than the opinion of
a respected student newspaper.-
OKAY EDITORIAL board (and I use that
term very loosely), let's have the answers. Put
your money where your tantrum is. What
would you do if you were in Milliken's shoes?
First, understand the facts. You are facing a
$600 million dollar deficit at the end of the 1982
fiscal year. Your tax revenues continue to
decline as the economy worsens. And you are
required by the Michigan constitution to balan-
ce the budget by the end of the fiscal year.
That's not enough? Well, remember this
also:
" It's too late in the fiscal year to cut the
money from state departments-they've
already received and spent most of their yearly
appropriations;
" You can't cut from welfare and social ser-
vices (more than 50 percent of the state's
budget)-that would require a change in the law
by a totally gutless legislature;
" A tax increase is out of the question in an elec-
tion year. Who's going to summon the courage
to vote such an increase so close to the elec-
tions? You and I both know the answer to that
question.
Well children, go to it. Find your $600 million
to balance the budget. Keep in mind that the
only places you can "hack" are in that 30 per-
cent of the budget which has not already been
allocated.
Really ladies and gentlemen, do you
seriously suggest that you could do a better
job than Gov: Milliken? Are you so spoiled by
your "give me, give me" mentality that you
can't see this state is collapsing around us?
YOU GLEEFULLY state: "Milliken's Sep-
tember proposal to cut $112 million
from ...higher education.., was rejected by
the legislature because of its harshness."
Now kids, you're just not paying attention.
Just what in helll are you giving the legislature
credit for? The fact is that the legislature used
different words to do exactly what Milliken
proposed-$112 million will still be cut from the
educational system, and in precisely the same
way as Milliken originally ordered it to be cut.
The only thing the legislature did was to sugar-
coat the bitter pill so that children like your-
selves would swallow it without complaining.
The legislature says it will take money from
the next fiscal year to make up the $112 million
which has been cut from fiscal 1983. But even if
all goes according to plan, the University still
must do without its share of the $112 million un-
til the last month of fiscal 1983. At that time the
state will "replace" the funds using money the
University will need in fiscal 1984.
THAT MEANS the University will be out the
same amount in fiscal 1984.
Note well that the legislature left itself an
out. Their plan flies if and only if there is
enough money in July 1983 (fiscal 1984) to do it.
Milliken simply said, in effect, "Look, let's not
make promises we may not be able to keep. If
we've got the money next year, we'll restore
this money."
Milliken's only fault, you see, is that he is far
more honest with us than the legislature is. And
remember children, honesty is the best policy.
NO ONE IStpleased with this situation. Un-
fortunately, this kind of thing is inevitable
when the national economy is in a recession
and the state economy is in a depression.
Of course, the Education Week proposed by
Milliken-the event that inspired "Happy
Milliken Week"-is a symbolic, mostly empty
gesture. This in no way, however, justifies a
snotty condescending editorial from people
who are supposed to know better.
Oops! I forgot that you're just children who
are used to getting your own way. Some of you
probably are still reeling from the effect of
having to do your own laundry and make your
own dinner.
Well, you've got to grow up sometime. Look
around you. The state of Michigan is probably
months short of economic disaster. The
University's problems are far too serious to
" S
eao> e T
+ \aN 'P oQ s
. . eJ
zaa
0
I
I - - -
have been created either in whole or in part by
Gov. Milliken, or any one man.
So come on. Show yourselves to possess at
least a modicum of understanding of the
state's predicament. Try to be a little more
sophisticated in your opinions.
If you want to step into Gov. Bill's shoes for a
while, come up with a decent explanation of
what you would do in his situation.
Carrier is a senior in business ad-
ministration.
Edited and managed by students at TheUniversity of Michigan
Stewartl_
(
')
Vol. XCIII, No. 30
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
ONFILL
Ij.
:..
K' .
0
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
The strikes continue
T ~E LATEST triumphs of the Polish Poland, and his brand of oppression
workers' state were on display seems to have been singularly unsuc-
in Gdansk and other Polish cities; cessful. -Poland Js -still in debt to
yesterday, and the display was im- Western banks for fantastic sums,
pressive: x even the "internment" of much ofthe
More than 10,000 brave shipyard Solidarity leadership has not crippled
workers-defying tear gas, water can- its organization.
non, summary penalties, and even the They are, in a way, an inspiration.
threat of being drafted-struck for the They have shown that the spirit of
second day at the Lenin shipyards in liberty has survived and flourished
Gdansk. among thousands of Poles - in spite of
Though they faced stiff penalties for the best efforts of Jaruzelski and his
tFeir actions, protesters also marched predecessors. The strikes have
ofl the Communist Party headquarters demonstrated the incredible tenacity
in Gdansk, and thousands of workers of Polish workers in their drive to
stayed away from their jobs in nearby change a bankrupt system and a
Gdynia. Late last night, there was even threadbare ideology.
Word of a call for a general strike But, more important, the strikes
throughout the region. show with increasing clarity that no
':The ostensible purpose of the strikes number of sham votes in the Polish
was to demonstrate against the parliament or declarations of national
decision of the Polish government last emergency are going to solve Poland's
week to ban the Solidarity trade union. deep-seated problems. Eventual
But the strikes, of course, are more peace - or "normalization" in
than that. Jaruzelski's parlance - will have to
It has been 10 months since come through reform and
Jaruzelski imposed martial law on liberalization.
!' .,'
/I
/
:
:- .
_ .
_._._.,
_ ,
.
a...
M'
" f 4; :, ..
.. s
F t,,,/ al
- ~ .- -
~- -~~7~ ..
/
U
a
Kt
F - i' J .' - -
/ .,A
. -
6
0j
0
"" ", \
7;k,
r
A.
-'"ell
-1
MOVEMENT
IN THE HOUSE
'A'6V<T
z
dl
_ - _ __
'-
I'S",
:;
i
/. /l
. ::
M " /
Fi 1
We may just have survived a
constitutional crisis.
Constitutional crisis? When?
Where? Surely all of our rights
are still safe and sound under the
protection of the Supreme Court.
Well, just barely.
LAST MONTH, the Senate
narrowly refused to kill a
filibuster against Sen. Jesse
Helms' (R-N.C.) school prayer
bill. The bill would have allowed
organized prayer in public
schools-an idea the Supreme
Court declared unconstitutional
in the early 1960s. It also would
have stripped the court of its
right to decide whether or not the
bill was constitutional.
The Helms proposal trod on
very shaky constitutional ground
when it tried to limit the power of
the nation's highest court. The
Constitution itself is ambigious
when is comes to defining
Congress's ability to check the
courts. Article III, section 2 of the
Constitution guarantees that
"Judicial power shall extend to
all cases . . . arising under the
Constitution ... " but the same
section ialso states that the
Supreme Court has jurisdiction
"with such expectations, and un-
der such regulation as the
Congress shall make."
In other words, the high court
always has a say--maybe.
THE COURT in the past has
given Congress power to en-
croach on its territory. During
t n T ..nr _ sni n hn it
Helms treads
heavily on
high court,
By David Spak
down the pillars of justice."
Helms may be tired of the
argument, or he may just be
tired of getting smacked so often
with the truth.
THE SENATOR also has said
that Congress has been limiting
the courts "since the beginning."
Funny, but most people read
congressional legislation such as
the Judiciary Act of 1789 as ex-
panding court jurisdiction, not
limiting it.
If Congress has the power to
limit the Supreme Court's
jurisdiction, it should do so
rarely, if ever, by carefully
calculating the resulting shift in
the balance of power between the
three branches of government. If
Congress were to do this, the
results would never be such a bill
as Helms proposed.
It is painfully obvious that
Helms, in his haste to put
together his "social agenda of the
New Right," neglected to con-
sider the impact he would have
on the Constitution and the prin-
ciples of government it
established.
Even more troubling than
Helms' ignorance is the fact that
53 of his colleagues-the ones that
voted to end the
filibuster-agreed with him.
They bowed to the popular
passions of the people without
regard for a document designed
to outlast popular passions.
The senators who fought again-
st the prayer bill, particularly
{
~-. ...
._.- t
v r
3
S S i i '
p ,r
_ r
r ':, . - . --
'c\ '
i
iir -
9
'* ' j 6
1
'i
I
mood to be overruled, so the
court simply gave in..
Some experts argue that
Congress has the right to alter the
court's jurisdiction, but not if the
courts already have involved
themselves in a case. Justice
Wiley Rutledge wrote in 1944,
"There are limits to judicial
power. Congress may impose
others. But whenever the judicial
power is called into play, it is
responsible directly to the fun-
damental law and no other
authority can intervene to force
or authorize the judicial body to
disregard it."
SUCH intervention, however, is
precisely what Helms' was at-
tempting to do. Helms not only
wanted to strip the court of
case," Marbury v. Madison. The
court said then that the Con-
stitution is the paramount law of
the land and is not alterable by an
"ordinary act" of Congress.
"It is emphatically the provin-
ce and duty of the judicial depar-
tment to say what the law is," the
justices ruled. "Those who apply
the rule to particular cases must
of necessity expound and inter-
pret that rule."
TAKING AWAY that province
in part or in whole throws the
federal system of checks and
balances out of whack. By taking
away jurisdiction, the Helms
legislation corrupts the-whole
idea of three equal branches of
government by putting the courts
in a secondary role.
ERl
n
ii!
'