f

4

OPINION
Page 4 Thursday, October 18, 1984 The Michigan Daily
Sd

1


ByDal
One of the rea
people elected Ro
cut .welfare. Am
being taxed to
, edmingly filled w
paying excessive
Reagan took offic
four with income
wereeligible for fo
~y adding work r
re-adjusting ma,
schedules, the pr
mandate to cut u
costs. But as theF
hiitted, the Ame
wanted to leave in
pletely destitute.
totally dependent
(are) our obligat
going to happen1
Reagan promise
'shame, he broke tb
THE REAGAN
distinguish bet
assistance. All pr
ception of Nancy
Head Start) recei
One of the most fo

Reagan's 
Women, Infants, Children maternal:
nutrition program (WIC). According to
ve Kopel a Harvard study, every dollar spent on
the pre-natal component of this
sons the American program saves three dollars in hospital
nald Reagan was to costs, by reducing the number of low
ericans were sick of birthweight infants. Reagan claims the
support a system government is spending "much greater
'ith free-loaders, and money than it ever had before" on
e benefits. When WIC; according to the Office of
e, some families of Management and Budget, however,
s as high as $14,000 Reagan did not increase WIC spending,
od stamps. but cut it by 200 million dollars.
requirements, and by Taking a similarly short-sighted ap-
ny of the benefit proach, Reagan's welfare reform has
esident fulfilled his kept sick people from obtaining
unnecessary welfare medical care. A city by city survey of
president himself ad- people whom Reagan eliminated from
rican people never the Medicaid program revealed the
nocent citizens com- following figures: between 14 and 24
"People that are percent (depending on the city) had not
on the government sought medical treatment in the past
ion, and nothing is year because they could not afford it.
to them," President Another 8 to 13 percent had sought
d. To America's treatment, but had been refused
hat promise. because of inability to pay. How can
welfare cuts didn't Reagan say he's made America
ween waste and stronger, if he's left the people sicker?
ograms (with the ex- As with the medical care cuts, cuts in
t Reagan's favorite, Aid to Families with Dependent
ved dramatic cuts. Children (AFDC) eliminated aid for the
)olish cuts was of the greedy and the needy indiscriminately.

Prof. Rosemary Sarri of the Univer-
sity's -Institute for Social Research did
a study of Michigan families who had
had their AFDC benefits cut or com-
pletely eliminated by the Reagan
reforms. In almost half the cases, the
family had totally run out of food at
least once within the last several mon-
ths.

Although Reagan promised "Jobs,
jobs, and more jobs" in 1980, the unem-
ployment rate is only a few tenths of
one percent below the level it was when
he took office. When Reagan was
inaugurated, 29.3 million people were
below the poverty line. According to
the latest figures (for 1983), 35.3 million
Americans now live in poverty. Six

social Darwin

'We were told four years ago that 17 million
people went to bed hungry every night. Well
that probably was true. They were all on a
diet.'
-Ronald Reagan
1964 speech

1st poli
$10,000 gained $20 in tax cuts, but lost
$390 in benefits. To pay for those tax
cuts, Reagan has run the largest budget
deficits in American history. The
people who profit from the deficits are
the ones who can afford to buy
Treasury bills. The people who pay for
the deficits are the tax-paying
Americans whose taxes go to finance
the interest on those Treasury bills.
IT SHOULD be no surprise that
Reagan has re-distributed wealth from
the poor to the rich, for he considers the
poor to be a bunch of moochers. For
example, he called unemployment in-
surance "a pre-paid vacation for free-
loaders." Consider the following story,
which he told the press in 1982, to
illustrate why he favored food stamp
cuts:
A young man went into a
grocery store and had an orange
in one hand, and a bottle of vodka
in the other, and he paid for the
orange with food stamps and he,
took the change and paid for the
vodka. That's what's wrong.
What's wrong with Reagan's story,
according to Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture (and Reagan appointee)
Mary Jarratt, is that stores may give

cies

no more than 99 cents in coin for change
for food stamps.
Reagan also told reporters about an
investigation where "57 percent of the
stores that were investigated are
selling items for food stamps that are
banned." Reagan neglected to mention
that all the stores investigated were
already under suspicion and that, ac}
cording to USDA official John Bode
these stores represented only 2 percent
of all stores in the food stamp program.
Ed Meese isn't the only person who
doesn't believe that hunger exists in
America. In 1964, Ronald Reagan laun-
ched his political career with an out-.
standing television speech on behalf of
Republican presidential candidate
Barry Goldwater. Said Reagan, "We
were told four years ago that 17 million
people went to bed hungry every night.
Well that probably was true. They were
all on a diet."
Reagan's claims about concern for
the poor are as insincere as his sudden
conversion to detente and arms control
Beneath the pretty TV image lies the
ugly reality of Reaganism: Social
Darwinism at its worst.
Kopel is a third year law student.

THE STANDARD Reagan response
to complaints about welfare cuts is to
point to the economy, and to invoke
President Kennedy's. observation that
"A rising tide lifts all boats." Has the
rising tide of the current recovery
really lifted the boats on the bottom?
A look at the facts indicates it has not.

million more poor is not a recovery; it's
a disgrace.
Reaganomics has replaced welfare
with the poor with welfare for the rich.
Households with incomes of $80,000 or
more gained $8,270 as net result of the
Reagan tax and budget cuts.
Households with incomes under


LETTERS TO'

THE DAILY


Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Nuclearfree zone won't limit discussioE

Vol. XCV, No. 37

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial BoardI
Hindering dem--ocracy,

the C]
T USED TO BE that if you wanted to
learn how to incite mob violence or
commit political assassination' and
blackmail you'd join the Mob, hit the
streets, or join some obscure terrorist
organization. But the Central In-
telligence Agency and the Reagan ad-
ministration have made it a lot easier.
Just pick up their new 44-page booklet
"Psychological Operations in
Guerrilla Warfare."
The document is a novice's
(specifically Central American
novice s) "how to" guide to the kid-
napping and killing of public officials,
the blowing up of public buildings, the
blackmailing of ordinary citizens, and
much, much more. It takes you to a
hypothetical town and instructs the
aspiring guerrilla to 1) "Destroy the
military or police installations and
remove survivors to a public place" 2)
"Establish a public tribunal" where
one can "shame, ridicule, and
humiliate the Sandinistas" and 3)
Should someone have to be shot, it
recommends explaining to the town
that "He was an enemy of the people"
who would have alerted the San-
dinistas causing acts of reprisal "such
as rapes, pillage, destruction, etc."
The booklet is available free of
charge to all rebel groups loyal to and
propped up by the CIA. Limit one per
terrorist please.
The province of the U.S. government
used to be peace and democracy, but
murder and subversion appear to be
fair game now. What is particularly
disturbing is that only certain groups

A way
are encouraged in such activity. The
president, who has been openly hostile
to rebel groups in El Salvador, has
issued a directive condemning
terrorism. So why does the gover-
nment issue a pamphlet promoting
such activity?
Reagan and the CIA believe they are
acting in the cause of democracy.
They believe communist insurgency is
bad because it may lead to Marxist
regimes but democratic insurgency is
all right because the end product, they
hope, will be democracy. But
"democratic" and "insurgency" are
contradictory terms. Democracy
should not and cannot be inspired by
violence. A lesson of Vietnam was that
the move toward democracy.is under-
mined by the force used to establish it.
This should not be suprising.
Democratic society is founded on
peace and the ability of each of its
members to determine how they shall
best lead their lives.
The CIA booklet makes a mockery of
those foundations. Violence is
prescribed over peace and the people
of Nicaragua are to be blackmailed,
murdered when in opposition, and as
the title of the pamphlet suggests,
phychologically manipulated. Such
immoral means should never be used
in pursuit of the democratic end.
Before a society wants democracy,
they need freedom from violence and
oppression. If the United States cannot
guarantee them that first, then it has
no place interfering in the
Nicaraguans' struggle for freedom as
they see it.

To the Daily:
It is always depressing when a
University student showsthat he
or she cannot read, as Andrew
Hartman does in his intemperate
and thoughtless polemic against
the nuclear free zone proposal
"Vote against nuclear free city"
(Daily, October 12).
First, Hartman quotes the
proposal's clear and narrow
language to the effect that
nuclear weapons systems or
components thereof shall not "be
transported through the city, nor
shall any person or entity engage
in any activity directed at plan-
ning or prosecuting a nuclear
war." Believe it or not, he con-
strues this to mean that ."you
could not talk about a nuclear
war in your classes or discuss a
hypothetical situation with your
friends."
Hartman apparently does not
grasp the distinction between
discussing, talking about, or even
researching something like
nuclear weapons systems or
nuclear war, and planning to use
or do it. Be careful if you discuss,

say, the Oedipus complex,
around Hartman: he may report
you to the police for planning to
murder your father and rape
your mother.
In fact, the nuclear free zone
will not affect research and
discussion of the arms race, the
effects of nuclear weapons, arms
control and disarmament
proposals, or any peaceful use of
nuclear technology such as
nuclear medicine and power. It
will only prohibit you from
research and development of
nuclear weapons systems and
war plans, which you are forbid-
den to do under existing Univer-
sity policy anyway.
Second, Hartman wrongly
states that according to the
proposal, a "commission gets to
determine what is and what is not
nuclear related technology." The
commission has no such power.
It is required to review defense
and energy department contrac-
ts to inform the appropriate legal
authorities if the contracts might
violate the law prohibiting
nuclear weapons systems

research and development, a
much narrower category. The
courts, not the commission,
decide whether the law has been
violated.
Hartman fails to grasp the
distinction between nuclear
weapons technology and non-
weapons technology. He says
that every technology we use is
somehow related to the nuclear
industry. This is not true, except
in the trivial sense that
everything is made of atoms. It
is also irrelevant, as only nuclear

weapons systems work would be
affected by the law.
We should vote yes on tie
nuclear free zone because it wifl
make a significant difference in
ending the arms race. It will
send a strong message to our
leaders that we insist on a freeze
and disarmament, a message
strong enough to get through
where weaker proposals, letters,
phone calls, and lobbying have
failed.
-Lisa Kiser
October 12

Democrat sounds Republican

Violence is in the system

To the Daily:
If Andrew Hartman is a
Democrat, why does he repeat
the Reagan line that "our
security will be threatened" by
acts like the nuclear free zone
"because of a perceived
weakness in our nuclear forces"?
"Vote against nuclear free
city"(Daily, October 12). This is
not only not the Democratic Plat-
form it is utter and inexcusable
nonsense.
What threatens our security is
the government's continual piling
of more and deadlier nuclear
weapons on the ridiculous num-
ber we already have. More and
increasingly precise nuclear
weapons decrease our security
and the whole world's. They
make it certain that sooner or
later, by accident or design, they
will be used. If they are, we are
all dead. We need less of them.
The Russians are universally
known to be years behind in
every important nuclear
weapons technology. In his book
With Enough Shovels, Robert

Scheer quotes Robert Mac-
Namara, Secretary of Defense
under Kennedy and Johnson, as
saying that they "could no more
plan a first strike today than we
could then (in the '60s)," when we
were greatly superior. The idea
is "absurd," he says.
Everyone should read Scheer's
book, in which he describes how
the government thinks that we
can win a nuclear war. "With
enough shovels, we- i all make
it," says Reagan's deputy under-
secretary of defense, T.K. Jones.
Vice President Bush said, when
on the campaign trail for
president in 1980, "You have sur-
vivability of command and con-
trol, you have survivability of a
percentage of your population.
that's the way you have a win-
ner..
We should support the nuclear
free zone to stop this. If we don't
do it here, how can we expect the
government to take us seriously?
I'm voting yes on city proposal 1.
-Nancy Aronoff
October 17

To the Daily:
While this probably does not
qualify as a bona fide analysis of
"today's issues," I feel com-
pelled to respond to the story en-
titled "Some Scoff at Tiger
Mania" (Daily, October 15). Fir-
stly, I am unable to understand
how anyone can assert that the
Tigers are not the best team in
baseball. They beat everybody
else in competition with them for
the crown and this usually is
taken to mean that they are a bet-
ter ball club than the rest. The
moron quoted as saying that they
are not the best because "they
have no superstars on the team"
is wrong for two reasons, the first
being that Allen Trammell is
probably one of, if not the, best
shortstops in baseball today. The
second reason is that the Tigers
are a team, i.e. they work well
together, complement each
other. Their triumph only speaks
to the fact that the whole is in-
deed greater than the mere sum
of its parts.
The other interesting thing
about the issue was the large
amount of space given to
coverage of the mob violence
scenes that succeeded the Tiger
victory. As some of the more
reactionary elements would have
it, these "outrages" or "indefen-
sible" acts of mindless violence
should be repressed as soon as
possible with as much force as we
can muster. But take a look at
what the current economic
situation is in "our fair city" of
Detroit. It has a crude death rate
nnm. rhl } 1. rnmtia

sociology of poverty. Imagine
being unemployed for three year&
with little hope of returning.
Imagine having six children and
no money. Then along comes the
Tigers and you can identify with
that; they come from your town.
When they win the series, you
have psychologically also won
the series. Your victory, though,
is somehow extended over those
elements insociety that you
might feel are hostile toward
yourself. These include the
property of those who are in
positions of power in a system
where you are not recognized -
public property is a symbol of
authority over you, and can
sometimes be extended to the
police force (who are not per-
ceived by some to be an over-
whelmingly benevolent element
in some communities)."
Thus we can all easily grasp
that if we wish to get rid of "min-
dless violence" in this country, a
good place to start might be at
what I perceive to be the root
cause of it: namely, a fundamen-
tally unjust political order ex-
cluding some segments of the
polity from the decision-making
process while those doing the ex-
cluding benefit tremendously
both materially and socially from
said exclusionary practices. I
can only dread the day that the
economy takes another nose dive.
What then will happen if the
Tigers lose?
-Brad Aaron
October 17
BLOOM COUNTY

Kiosks denuded


To the Daily:
The first article of the United
States Constitution guarantees
"freedom of speech." There is a
recent epidemic on the Univer-
sity's campus of one group of
people choosing to deny another
group's basic freedom.
University-owned Kiosks are
meant to be an open forum, ex-
pressing the range of points-of-
view present on a campus of this
scope and diversity. Some of us
who are working on the Mon-
dale/Ferraro campaign have put
bumper stickers and flyers on
these Kiosks, hoping to keep the
student body informed on ac-
tivities which might be of interest
to them. A group of self-
appointed censors has been rip-
ping down Mondale/Ferraro
bumper stickers and flyers and
has been putting up
Reagan/Bush stickers in their
place.

Q It is not surprising that those
who support a president who
maintains repressive policies and
denies the validity of Articles 1
and 6 (which forbids religious
tests as a qualification for th4
Supreme Court and other U.S.
appointed officials) of the U.S.
Constitution would stoop to such
measures to promote their own
elitist views. It is not surprising
that we have personally seen
groups of these censors ripping
down bumper stickers and flyers
under cover of night, in a subver-
sive manner typical of the
president they represent.
Those of us working on the
Mondale/Ferraro campaign are
not surprised, but merely wish to
inform the student body of the
reason for their own lack of in-
formation on alternatives to the
Radical Right on this campus.
-Kathryn Grimes
Lata Reddy
October 17
by Berke Breathed

CA

-I

F w.lT _. _- -.

I

i

UA.orl. U

AMA f WK. /ITI 1L1[ I U N k.EI 6."b I




..-._N..."


-1