100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

February 04, 1986 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1986-02-04

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

0

OPINION

Page 4

Tuesday, February 4, 1986

The Michigan Dail

GIhj ~Idlijan 1§aiIy
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Vol. XCVI, No. 88 420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board

Chassy

Dictatorial Doc

THIS WEEKEND, after an in-
correct statement was issued
by the State Department that
Haitian President Jean-Claude
Duvalier had been overthrown,
Haitians across the United States
celebrated the end of the oppresive
regime. Unfortunately, the State
Department official had an-
ticipated an overthrow that didn't
happen. But as Miami Mayor
Xavier Suarez pointed out, "...even
the possibility of freedom is worth
celebrating."
Haiti has been repressed by the
Duvalier family for 30 years.
Though Jean-Claude has relaxed
some of his father Francois'
restrictions on freedom of speech,
he has followed in his papa's foot-
steps by denying civil liberties and
human rights, making arrests
without warrants, beating, tor-
turing, and killing prisoners. 90
percent of Haitians, who live in the
poorest nation in the Western
Hemisphere, cannot read or write.
Haiti also has the highest rate of
disease and malnutrition of any
Western hemisphere country.
Outraged by Francois' disregard
for human rights, President Ken-
nedy halted aid to Haiti in 1962 and

the United States cancelled
diplomatic relations the next year
when Francois refused to hold an
election. Believing that its influen-
ce would be greater through direct
economic support, the United
States resumed aid ten years later.
This year, the projected budget
for aid to Haiti is $52 million. The
State Department has decided to
cut back $7 million of that aid in
protest of an increase in human
rights violations since Jean-Claude
issued a July referendum which
gave him more power. Clearly,
human rights violations are not
new to the past six months but the
referendum has acted as a catalyst
to spur the Haitians to rebellion.
It's about time the people protested
Duvalier.
Unfortunately, the State Depar-
tment has waited unconscionably
long to demonstrate concern for
Haiti's people. Now that
Duvalier's reign is ending, the
State Department has decided to
cut back aid and relinquish sup-
port. However belated and
selfishly motivated, the cut in U.S.
aid is still a positive, symbolically
important message to send to
Haiti.

CUTE LITTLE N IPPER, M 'T
IEAC75 UP I RY
FF, !!Nw Y
.CON6 S "y
eabjy
n c nmx iaou wur

ID

4

U.S. needs

tax increase

Continued Segregation

Two decades past the start of the
civil rights movement, the battle
for racial equality continues. Even
with the adoption of comprehensive
legislation, the goal of
desegregation eludes the grasp of
activists and racial prejudice
Temains an ugly truth.
A case in point is Dearborn, a
city adjacent to Detroit, nationally
known for its overtly racist history.
Currently, Detroit community
members are boycotting Dearborn
businesses to protest that city's
passage of an ordinance which
prohibits the use of all but three of
Dearborn's parks by non-residents.
Backers of the law argue that the
garks are over-crowded, and can
e supervised any way the . city
chooses. Civil Rights activists, in-
cluding the ACLU and NAACP,
counter that the law is uncon-
stitutional and simply another ef-
fort to keep blacks out of Dearborn.
The ordinance, although
seemingly harmless, must be ex-
amined in light of Dearborn's
history. Orville L. Hubbard, mayor
of the city from 1942 to 1978, enfor-
ced stringently segregationist
policies. In the 1960's, his position
kept the city virtually all-white

even when the city's principal
business, Ford Motor's Rouge
plant, employed 12,000 blacks.
"I'm against anything that's un-
popular with the public," Hubbard
explained. "I favor segregation."
This attitude reflected the
opinion of prominent Dearbornites,
and echoed the thoughts of Henry
Ford, the city's benefactor and a
man admired by Adolph Hitler for
his racist ideas.
Today, in the city of 80,000, there
are only 80 black families. These
few blacks are not visible on
residential streets or in public
schools. Tireman Street, a Dear-
born-Detroit boundary, forms a
blatant racial line. In spite of the
civil rights movement, nothing has
changed in Dearborn.
Leaders of the boycott finally
have a tangible manifestation of
Dearborn's racism to grasp - the
parks ordinance - and their hold is
tightening. Several groups have
cancelled conventions in Dearborn,
and even high school students have
cancelled prom reservations in the
city. The students, losing hundreds
of dollars in deposits, understand
the importance of taking a stand
against racism.

By Senator Carl Levin
(D-Mich.)
Just a while ago we heard the President
talk about his high hopes for a brighter
future. We all share those hopes. The way in
which we deal with the historic federal
budget deficit will really determine what
that future will be.
The policies proposed by the President
and the program ultimately adopted by the
Congress will determine if we are ex-
cavating a foundation upon which we can
build or just digging a deeper financial hole
into which we will sink.
When the President talks about the deficit
and federal spending, he often asks, "If
families can balance their, budgets, why
can't the federalagovernment?" That's a
good question. And here's the answer:
"Because the President is not willing to take
the actions families have to take."
Families balance their budgets by using
some common sense. When families run into
money problems, they face up to the
problems. Sometimes families borrow
monly. Sometimes families cut back on ex-
penses - they don't eat out as often or they
give up going to the movies. And sometimes
families try to make more money - people
take a second job or work overtime. In fact,
most of the time families faced with finan-
cial problems use a little of all three ap-
proaches.
Well,at the federal level we've mainly
used one method: we've borrowed money.
And folks, we've borrowed too much. Our
debts are more than staggering; they are
downright dangerous to our economic
health. That's why the Congress decided
------------------
This article, written January 25, is a
response to President Reagan's radio
address on the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
balanced budget law.

that even if the banks would give us another
loan, we'd better not take it. That's what the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget
law is all about. We are committed to cut-
ting down on the amount of money we
borrow.
Well, if the government isn't going to
borrow as much, what do we do? The com-
mon sense family solution is two-fold: cut
back on spending and try to bring in a little
more money. That is what people do; but
that isn't what the President wants us to do.
His "tax reform" plan raises more
revenue, mainly by closing tax loopholes.
But instead of using that money to reduce
the deficit, he wants to use it to give some
people tax cuts. And instead of a balanced
cutback on spending, the President wants to
increase the military budget while
eliminating some important domestic
programs and slashing others. Defense
spending and domestic spending have to be
cut. We can economize in both areas:
And, just cutting spending isn't enough.
The plain truth is that no set of reasonable
budget cuts will get the deficit down far
enough. If we are seriousabout doing that,
then the government has to face fiscal
reality just like American families do. We
can't borrow any more; we can't save
enough just by cutting back on spending; we
have got to bring in a little more.
The President, though, will not do that. He
has promised to veto any revenue bill that is
sent to him, even one which just raises
reven'ues from those very profitable cor-
porations which aren't paying anything in
income taxes now. The President is simply
misreading the mood of the people if he
believes that Americans only think about
tax reform in terms of tax cuts for them-
selves. I know from talking with the people
in my home state of Michigan that they
recognize that it makes no sense to cut taxes
in the face of $200 billion a year deficits.
And we're not alone. I recently com-
missioned Opinion Research Corporation of

Princeton, New Jersey to conduct a nation-
wide poll of over 1,000 Americans on two
questions. The results just came in. When
asked: "Which is more important for the
economic well-being of the country as a I
whole --reducing the federal deficit to help
balance the budget, or reducing the amount
of federal irlcome taxes," 59 percent favored
reducing the deficit and only 31 percent said
cutting taxes. Yet the President wants to
use the new revenues raised by his tax
reform plan to cut taxes rather than
reduce the deficit. When asked about that
approach, people overwhelmingly reject it.
Here's the second question: "What should
Congress do with the billions of dollars that
can be raised by closing some of the federal
l income tax loopholes - give most
Americans an income tax cut of about $200,
or reduce the federal deficit by billions of
dollars?" By a three to one margin, 68 per-
cent to 22 percent, Americarns favor using
the new revenues to reduce the deficit.
It isn't that people want their taxes raised
- they aren't crazy - but they do want to
see tax reform combined with deficit reduc-
tion, not tax cuts. They want to kill two birds
with one stone.dOne way to do that is to adopt
ta strengthened minimum tax so that the
tens of thousands of profitable corporations
and wealthy individuals who now pay
nothing in income taxes start contributing
their fair share. And we should take the ten
billion dollars a year that a strengthened
minimum tax can raise and use it to reduce
the deficit rather than redistribute it in the
form of small tax cuts.
This is a common sense solution to our
deficit problem. And it is the kind of solution
government has to adopt. We can do it if we
take our cue from you - from the common
sense way that Americans meet their own
personal financial problems. If the
President and the Congress work together
with a common purpose to meet our com-
mon problem through a strategy of common
sense, we can build a foundation for a better
future in 1986.

LETTERS:

U.S.

policy in Nicaragua breaks law

To the Daily:
As one of the four anti-CIA
protestors acquitted on January
25, I am grateful that justice was
served. I wish to publicly thank
our supporters for their loyal
support, our lawyer, Eric Lipson
of Student Legal Services, and of
course the jury. I think that the
unanimous verdict of not guilty
is a triumph for free speech at
the University, a right that has
unfortunately been endangered
on this campus of late. In their
apparent. desperation to attract
military research, especially Star
Wars, the administration of
President Harold Shapiro has
fallen into locksten. or should I

receive a fair, and open, trial.
Yesterday's verdict, and its at-
tendant publicity, will also send a
message to the nation that
today's students are not the min-
dless, apathetic, future yuppies
that the Reagan Administration
wants us to be. We care, we do
have a conscience. Having a con-
science means that we cannot,
and will not, stand by when
representatives of terrorist
organizations use our campus as
a forum. The CIA is guilty of
violating international law, the
Charter of the United Nations,
the Charter of the Organization of
American States, the U.S.
Neutrality Act. the Boland

of his wife and kids, and was for-
ced to eat them before being
killed, of mothers raped and
mutilated in front of theer
children. And not by ac-
cident - one need only read the
CIA Terrorist Manual (Pantheon
Books) to see where the ideas
come from.
I dedicate the verdict in my
case to Alejandro Espinosa, a
Nicaraguan agronomist and
friend of mine, who was attacked
three times by the contras while
helping poor peasants to better
raise their crops. Each time his
family, his friends, myself said
"Alejandro, you're crazy, this job
is too dangerns " he rponnnded-

be the one to do that." On the
third attack a grenade was tossed
into his open car window. One of
Alejandro's legs was blown off,
one of his arms, and half his face.
I had to go to his funeral with his
wife and his kids, and with about
a thousand poor campesinos who
knew him from his work.
Imagine my shame at being there
as a U.S. citizen, knowing that
MY TAX DOLLARS had paid for
that, through the CIA. I say
ENOUGH is ENOUGH, the
American values I was taught do
not include this. CIA recruiters,
examine your consciences!
Harold Shapiro, democracy
needs dissent. examine your *

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan