OPINION
Page. .Wednesday, March 13, 1985 The Michigan Daily
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Clarifying industrial policy
By Steven Moss
Vol. XCV, No. 127
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
A victory for choice
HE MICHIGAN House of
Representatives guaranteed a
fundamental right to women yesterday
when they blocked an attempt to
override Gov. Blanchard's recent veto
of a bill calling for the end of state-
subsidized abortions.
Blanchard's action marked the four-
teenth time since 1978 that a Michigan
governor had vetoed the proposal. In
spite of the strong legislative support
for the measure-72 of the needed 74
representatives voted for the
override-the proposal is
discriminatory and should be opposed.
If state funding for abortions were
removed, women who could afford
abortions would still be free to have
them performed. Women who could
not afford them, however, would be
-forced to carry their children full ter-
or worse, to seek illegal "alley abor-
tions.".
It is the nature of our society that
wealth can provide advantages for its
possessors, but in a matter so vital as
life itself,women of all economic status
must be free to seek abortions when
necessary.
Abortion-is certainly a poor form of
birth control, as anti-abortion "Right
to Life" advocates maintain, but on
occasion it is a necessary operation.
The debate over abortion has flushed
out the situations in which the
operation is sometimes considered
legitimate-in instances of incest,
rape, harm to the mother, or simple
unwanted pregnancy-but it has yet to
offer any definitive answers.
There' will probably never be any
definitive answers because abortion is
more a moral issue than a legal one.
Michigan, as a society, does not have
the right to make such decisions for
women or couples, faced with such a
situation. Rather, those individuals
will have to weigh the circumstances
and take into account their own morals
in order to make such a decision.
Fortunately, the Michigan House has
upheld the necessary funding.
Although anti-choice lobbyists vow
that they will try for a fifteenth time to
cut off the funding, their failure
yesterday is a significant setback for
them-and a significant victory for the
right of women in Michigan to make
one of the most important decisions
there is. '
First in a seriesA
On March 14 and 15, the students of the In-
stitute of Public Policy Studies will host a Con-
ference on Industrial Economic Develop-
ment.This Conference seeks to clarify the
issues surrounding the industrial policy
debate, a debate that is often clouded by
misuse of economic terms, and a lack of un-
Industrial Economic Development
A Three Part Series
derstanding of America's economic history.
Industrial policies of one kind or another have
been part of governmental policy making sin-
ce the Declaration. The real question now is
whether we want to make these policies in a
more explicit manner, and how far we should
expand or contract them.
Industrial policies seek to enhance an in-
dustry's ability to be productive and to com-
pete in the world market. Overall, it is the
sum of our Nation's macroeconomic.
policies-such as tax rules, research and
development grants, credit subsidies, and
import restrictions-as they affect the pace
and direction of industrial change.'
Federal and state governments have
alwaysrargued over, and implemented,
various economic development policies. For
instance, in the early 1800s, different states
vied for the power to build canals, at that time
important conduits of market goods. Various
legislation was passed to influence the
development of these canals in particular
areas, much like today's struggle for the
location of GM's Saturn plant. Railroads took
the place of canals in the mid-1800s as the im-
portant transportation mode, and this was
reflected in numerous government in-
Moss is a graduate student at the In-
stitute of Public Policy Studies and is the
chair of the concluding address,
"Devising Policy in an Advanced, In-
dustrial Society" at the Industrial
Economic Development Conference,
March 14 and 1s.
ducements to encourage the building of
railroad lines. Throughout the nineteenth
century, anti-trust laws, and importantly, the
New Deal, continued governments role in the
economy. More recently, the Chrysler bail-
out, subsidies to agriculture, and trade and
tax policies all are examples of government
policies geared towards altering the direction
of industrial change in America.
Thus the debate is not whether the gover-
nment should have industrial policies. We
have them now. Instead, the question is
whether changes in the' economy and in-
creasingly complex policy making processes
demand new ways of dealing with the
economy, and new methods of devising
policy. It is these issues that will be ad-
dressed at the Industrial Economic Develop-
ment Conference.
The first major element of this discussion is'
whether there should be a single industrial
policy, rather than the numerous and often
conflicting policies that now exist.
Economists such as Robert Reich of Harvard
maintain that economic development policy-
making should be centralized in order to in-'
sure that there is a comprehensive and
cohesive plan for American industry.
Reich points to Japan's MITI (a gover-
nment industrial policy planning board), a
success he claims America should learn
from. In addition, he notes the various con-
flicts in our current policies. For example,
high technology industries have a tax rate
more than two times that of average Future
100 companies. At the same time, the high,
tech companies benefit from other
legislation, such as state incentives and ex-
penditures on important infrastructure such
as educational institutions. Various policy
proposals have grown out of this viewpoint.
Last year, Rep. John La Falce (D-NY) sub-
mitted legislation that included the
organization of an Industrial Finance Ad-
ministration. This Agency would allocate
funds to targetted industries.
Other economists, such as Robert Crandall
of the Brookings Institution, find these notions
repulsive. While these economists agree that
some elements of our economic policies give
contradictory (sometimes negative) incen-
tives to productivity, they also believe that
the political system is not capable of ac-
curately weighing economic problems. Chief
among the industrial policies these "free
market" economists favor eliminating is
capital depreciation laws. They also favor
some government intervention in the
economy, including support of some in-
frastructure needs such as education and city
services. However, this group believes that
any centralized economic authority would be
subject to intense political pressure, and
would eventually become a gift-giver rather
than a rational economic policy-maker.
Regardless of what stand you take, it is im-
portant to make industrial policies more ex-
plicit. It is difficult to defend Crandall's
position when it is apparent that the type of
gift-giving he is afraid of occurs in
Washington daily. The fact that we had a
"Senator from Boeing," or that a
technologically unimportant and financially
bloated nuclear power complex in Howard
Baker's home state continually gets
Congressional funding are indications of this.
Making the debate more explicit does. not
necessarily mean centralizing policy
decisions, however. A clarification of what
government wants to do, and an admission
that there always are "winners and losers" in
governmental policies would be a helpful step
in devising better economic development
plans.
The second element of the current debate is
over the condition of the economy itself. Most
politicians and economists agree that the
nature of the market-place is changing.
Rapid technological changes and the
evolution of a world economy, in which the
U.S. is becoming one among many, mandate
changes in U.S. economic policies. It is the in-
tensity and timing of these changes that are
hotly debated. Economists such as Barry
Bluestone of Boston College maintain that a
long-term structural change is occurring in
the economy. This challenge requires new
initiatives on the part of labor, management,
and business, as well as better governmental
policies.
Robert Lawrence of the Brookings In-
stitutes disagrees. In a recent book Lawrence
makes the argument that the economy is in
fact healthy, and the troubles of the recent
past are attributable to the business cycle
rather than a long-term change in economic
structure.
The issues are complex and difficult to sort
out. , Current trends in economic literature
suggest that most experts do not agree that
the economy is undergoing a basic structural
change. At the very least, economists agree
that certain governmental policies ultimately
hurt more than they help. Important among
these are current tax and trade policies, both
of which are under attack in Congress and the
Reagan Administration. These kinds of in-
dustrial policy issues are being decided every
day. The question is, again, do we want to
make these policies in a more explicit man-
ner, and if so, how far should we expand or
contract these policies.
Hiding from the MX
WITH THE Congressional vote on
whether to release the $1.5
billion earmarked for the next batch of
21 MX missiles scheduled to occur in
the next several days, House
Democrats are nowhere to be seen.
Lead by Speaker of the House Tip
O'Neill, Democratic opposition, which
successfully delayed funding for the
missiles last fall, seems unwilling to
challenge Reagan's argument that the
missiles are necessary to insure suc-
cess at the Geneva arms talks. That
unwillingness is costly to the balance
of world power.
This potential addition to the U.S.
nuclear arsenal is a dangerous
proposition. Not only is it a misuse of
much-needed funds, but it can only act
to throw more fuel into the blazing fire
of U.S.-U.S.S.R. tensions and could ac-
tually damage the prospects of the up-
coming Geneva talks.
First off, there is some controversy
over the actual utility of these
weapons. Reagan claims that they are
a needed addition to U.S. strategic for-
ces in order to "catch-up" to the
Soviets, who have a marked advantage
in so-called "heavies." These are very-
powerful, highly-accurate ICBMs
capable of hitting U.S. targets from
deep inside the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, Defense
Secretary Caspar Weinberger claims
that the MX is a needed "bargaining
chip" and is "vitally important to
achieve the deep reductions that we
seek" in the upcoming Geneva arms
control negotiations. Well, which is it?
Is it a bargaining chip or a necessary
component of U.S. nuclear defenses?
The answer is neither. It is doubtful
whether fewer than 100 MX ,missiles
would serve as an effective bargaining
chip because it would take that many
simply to offer an effective threat to
the Soviets. In spite of Reagan's
claims, the U.S. would still not equal
the Soviet ICBM forces.
The absurd irony of the situation is
that if 100 MX missiles were approved
they would then be an effective
bargaining chip, and the United Stated
could trade off the dismantling of the
MX missiles for the dismantling of a
Soviet counterpart. It is ridiculous to
spend billions of dollars building a
system with the ultimate goal of
destroying it, particularly considering
that the payoff will not be the end of the
nuclear threat.
President Reagan's arguement that
the missiles are a "key test of
American resolve" to insure U.S.-
U.S.S.R. parity is not valid. The MX,
which shares the impressive
qualifications of the Soviet heavies,
would serve only to destabilize the
already fraying doctrines of mutually
assured deterrence. An MX missile,
which bears 10 independently-
targetable, nuclear warheads, has fir-
st-strike capability. In the eyes of the
Soviets, the MX is "target rich,"
meaning that one or two Soviet
warheads impacted on an MX missile
silo will destroy 10 U.S. warheads; a
very profitable yield. They contend
that this target richness obliges the
U.S. to launch them early in a crisis,
which translates into a first strike. It is
a "use it or lose it" weapon.
So why are the Democrats giving
up? It seems that Reagan's plea that
'partisanship must stop at the water's
edge" has done one or both of two
things. Either he convinced them that
the lack of funding will send the wrong
"signal" to the Soviets during the
delicate Geneva talks, or it is a reac-
tion to rumors of a possible Reagan
concession on Star Wars funding, ear-"
marked at a trillion dollars. The cause
of this dramatic turnaround is, at best,
inconsequential. The fact that
Congress is getting ready to advocate
the spending of $1.5 billion on
pragmatically-useless and war-
inviting missiles marks a substantial
blow to world order.
Tomorrow:
dustry.
"Suffering in the steel in-
Wasserman
IOW C44 1* 6JEPUNaT cI6T LL
IW Q% OOUT fP2 M U14DVU
SO SUDDENO/ - AfTERWE'VE IMPENPDD
ON WRIN&2N ;FOR \ 'eAQS
WS'RE M AMERtCAW
WNN OF UFE
You KELgA
'TAX LAWYR'
7
f t /
.
G
1
,l
ik
°
- e
Letters.
Lorch w
To the Daily:
This letter is to express my
feelings about the situation under
which I am working at Lorch
Hall.
I was misled to believe that
working for the University was a
good thing to do. To my dismay, I
have been unlawfully subjected
to unsafe, unreasonable, and
disruptive working conditions. I
say unlawfully because by law I
am entitled to a work environ-
ment free of health and safety
hazards.
There have been articles in the
Daily and Ann Arbor News, but
even so, attention has notsbeen
paid to the main issue. We have
been grossly neglected by
University officials and now
harrased by construction
workers.
The main issue I would like to
address is why the- reconstruc-
tion plans have been implemen-
ted and continued in spite of the
complaints of the personnel
working here.
The University began
renovations in Lorch Hall in the,
Fall of 1984 in order to house the
Economics Department. Since
then, our work has been disrup-
ted, causing inconveniences and
risks such as asbestos exposure,
excessive noise, dust, heat, elec-
'orking conditions are illegal
would like to warn them. I have vacation/sick leave accrual or University's administration.
experienced the administrators' my supervisor's accounts) for --Adrienne M. De Jesus-Garcia
indifference and inability to ex- lost work hours due to this in- February 22
4
plainsour poor working con-
ditions.
For myself, I demand a safe
work place, an apology, and
complete compensation from the
University (not from my
tolerable situation.
I also publicly invite answers,
explanations, apologies, and
moreso, a remedy to the matter
from those working in the
De Jesus-Garcia is the
bookkeeper for the National
Study of Black College
Students.
Daily misreported billboard incident
To the Daily:
On Saturday, March 9, your
front page presented a large pic-
ture of a bill board, allegedly
painted by two women, one of
whom is a University student. I
am appalled at your treatment of
this story.
First, the key word is alleged,
which you left out of the cutline
beneath the picture. You claimed
it is the artwork of these two
women. Nobody has been tried
yet-have we lost one of our basic,
legal rights that we are innocent
until proven guilty?
Second, your short cutline did
not deal with the issue of the
billboard or the blatant sexism at
all, your interest is only in the
BLOOMCOUNTY
IN (SgCMIlAM 6
people involved. It seems that our
Daily has become a gossip
column instead of a daily infor-
mative news paper.
As a student newspaper,
misrepresenting facts about your
own students is not a good idea. If
you, as a student publication, are
a reflection on me, a student,
then a radical change in repor-
ting on us is imperative.
Don't forget who you are.
-Jana Ann Eplan
March 11
Letters to the Daily should be typed, triple-
spaced, and signed by the individual authors.
Names will be withheld only in unusual circum-
stances. Letters may be edited for clarity, gram-
mar, and spelling.
by Berke Breathed
/1-.w.rALlr