Page 4 - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, October 11, 1990 EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Viewpoint 420 Maynard Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 NOAH FINKEL Editor in Chief DAVID SCHWARTZ Opinion Editor Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board. All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily. Deficit thinking Budget battles demonstrate weak leadership r, / i !, " a GG . , , , l f L ; ;, s,, _ ....r...--"".. .- - = °. [' ' / WA C6 - 7A Ct c - ~ AAL& 1 ~~J/.prL J7 ~,. ' THE BUDGET FIASCO UNFOLDING in Washington - replete with George Bush's daily opinion shifts, outrageous posturing, and Peter Pan accounting - would be farcical were it not so tragic. Though Bush's proposal promises a balanced budget by 1995, its projec- tions are pure fantasy. But of far greater significance than the President's inability to add and subtract are what his numbers say about his priorities, and, specifically, his clear intention to wring the poor for the benefit of the rich. Moreover, Congress' proposed revisions to Bush's proposal, which are being hammered out in committees this week following the President's Columbus Day Weekend antics, fail to substan- tively challenge either Bush's account- ing or his priorities. The proposal's sloppy math and re- gressive goals are, in fact, connected: " not only do both demonstrate how frighteningly out of touch U.S. leaders are with this country's economic and social realities, but the budget's pecu- liar accounting actually masks what those goals and priorities are. Excluded from the President's calculations are, among other things, ,the $1 billion a month the Pentagon is currently spending in the Gulf; this huge expense is not part of the Pentagon's projected annual $292 billion over the next three years. Excluded as well is the half trillion dollars ($100 billion next year alone) that will be needed to bail out the sav- ings and loan fiasco, itself a product of the shoddy economics and rampant greed that Reagan and Bush have tried to dress up as "supply-side eco- nomics." Nor is mention made of the $169 billion the government plans on "borrowing" during the next five years from the Social Security trust fund - insuring that by 1995 there will be no trust and no fund. Compounding these convenient omissions are the assumptions upon which the Bush team stakes its claims for a balanced budget. In 1995, they claim, the Treasury will be able to borrow at 4.2 percent - even though the borrowing figure today is over 7 percent. By 1995, they claim, the United States will be experiencing its highest growth since the 1960s and its lowest inflation since the 1950s - even though the economy seems headed for its third bout with stagfla- tion in the last 15 years. To top it off, even this creative ac- counting would only lop $500 billion off the current deficit. But while the President may think this will be enough to guarantee a balanced budget, the U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report two months ago projecting the deficit at more than $1 trillion dollars - double the President's estimate. U.. What is worse than the budget's wishful arithmetic is its quite purpose- ful agenda, reflected in which programs will be cut and which will not. For while Bush's numbers are quite bad enough, the government is not, to quote Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME), "just dealing with programs. We're dealing with real hu- man beings, and their families, and their hopes and fears and concerns." Or at least "we" should be. Neither Congress nor the President, despite protestations to the contrary, seem to be doing so. Bush's original proposal, with its combination of excise taxes and revi- sions in the tax rate, would raise taxes for those making less than $10,000 a year by 7.6 percent, while taxes of those making more than $200,000 a year would rise only 1.7 percent. Fac- toring in adjustments for inflation, Bush's proposal would actually cut taxes for the richest Americans by a whopping $25 billion over the next five years. In this context, Bush's budget is simply the latest addition to a federal taxation policy that has become steadily more regressive over the last decade. The percentage of after-tax income earned by the richest one-tenth of all U.S. households increased from 29.5 percent in 1980 to almost 35 percent today. Though Congress is now discussing the possibility of implementing a slightly more progressive taxation rate, it is simultaneously contemplating a lowering of the capital gains rate, thereby undermining what little positive effect its amendments might have. ,.. Bush's proposal also called for a massive $60 billion cut in Medicare, even though the Chicago-based Ameri- can Hospital Association estimates that 70 percent of all hospitals accepting Medicare are losing money at current Medicare rates. Though these cuts are largely responsible for Congress' de- cision to veto Bush's original package, its proposed revisions would still cut Medicare by $42-45 billion over the next five years. Because of the proposed cuts in Medicare, states, which are required to assume 44 percent of the burden for Medicare recipients, will be forced to assume a projected $7 billion in addi- tional liabilities over the next four years. In turn, this burden will leave states with less money for programs like Medicaid. While in 1975, 97 percent of all poor children and 86 percent of all poor received Medicaid, the figures by 1984 had dropped to 75 percent and 63 per- cent, respectively. Since then, they have continued to follow this down- ward trend - which will be com- pounded by the self-proclaimed "Health care President's" latest cuts. While Medicare is being dramati- cally slashed, both the President and Congress are taking a "kinder and gen- tler" approach to defense spending cuts. Even as an outdated project like Star Wars is being allotted $4.7 billion for the next year, Congressional revi- sions of the Bush budget only call for a $2.2 billion cut in the Pentagon's al- ready bloated allocation. This, too, continues a trend preva- lent throughout this decade, during which defense spending has risen from just over a quarter of the total budget to over 30 percent today. If Bush and Congress truly wish to address this country's budget woes, defense spending will have to be cut dramatically - by at least half, for starters. But for as long as the Presi- dent can proclaim that we must defend "American values" in places like Saudi Arabia, such cuts are unlikely. The Gulf Crisis provides a conve- nient justification for the Pentagon and its defense contractors to remain cozy. Their collective panic about the possi- bility that peace might break out - clearly expressed in numerous depart- mental memoranda over the last year - has been laid firmly to rest. U.. The U.S. government must redirect its priorities away from the Pentagon and toward health care, education, and the creation of decent jobs for all its citizens. It must implement a radically more progressive tax code and massive defense spending cuts so that such a redirection is financially possible. Otherwise, the government might as well define "American values" for what this budget intimates that they are: the values of the rich, exercised at the ex- pense of the poor, both home and abroad. ............ ............. ......... ... ............. ............. .. ..... .... .............. ... .... ,, .......:::........ .... :.........:...."......: :-.:v:^i::::=: i :<{":::":}:::i:" i}}:"ii:-:::vi.: i:"iiiiiii::L}'r'"}i}!C .C..............., r.. n....... is iiijii4:L{: X-N X. Readers review Daily music reviewers Elvis fans not racist To the Daily: I fail to understand the point of Forrest Green III's article about Elvis Presley (9/25/90). Green seems to take offense, apparently for all of Black America, that many people like Elvis. Is there really any reason to suggest that whites are racists because they like Elvis? Elvis did not become popular be- cause of his "approximation of Black sex- uality," as Green states. He became popu- lar because he was a threat to the family- oriented, church- going public. Teenagers, as they do today, wanted to rebel against their parents. Listening to Elvis and dancing in a fairly sexual man- ner were forms of this rebellion. In addi- tion, Elvis' use of rhythms and chords found in primarily "Black" music of the time was simply an additional form of re- bellion for teenagers from the Pat Boone- type music they were used to. However, Elvis did not preach hatred of the family institution. Elvis recorded gospel music, went to church, publicly showed affection for his parents, never swore, and entered WWII when he was drafted. Elvis showed teenagers that they could rebel but still maintain a close rela- tionship with their community and fam- ily. The popularity of Elvis today rests on the same principles. Yes, you can rebel against the everyday monotony while still maintaining a strong relationship with so- ciety. In addition, Green states that we should commend musicians who "strive to bal- ance the scales." One group to whom he says we should give "kudos" is N.W.A. The group's repertoire that "balances the scales" includes "Fuck tha Police," and "Just Don't Bite It." The latter is a frank discussion on the proper technique for fel- latio. I like the way that N.W.A. provokes social change. They disagree with the prac- tices of the police in southern California. So, they encourage Black youths to "fuck the police." Reforms that the group sug- gests include "a bloodbath of cops dying in L.A." and that a group member should "swarm on any motherfucker in a blue uniform." It is productive criticisms like those that contribute to social reform. Hail to the "groundbreaking contemporaries" of today. Jared Blank First-year LSA student Reviews have faltered To the Daily: Forrest Green's recent review of "100 Miles and Running" (10/2/90) by NWA is very curious. First, the omission of the controversial "Don't Bite It" is terribly unprofessional. The song, devoted to the instruction of proper fellatio technique to young women, rivals anything by the 2 Live Crew in verbal content, although musically is much more imaginative. This is all well and good, if not-representative of NWA's "slap 'em upside the head" style in both content and delivery. It should not be ignored in a responsible review of the record. The song is powerful and contro- versial. I could understand if space consid- erations were a factor, but this is only a 12 inch, not a double album. Perhaps if Mr. Green spent more time reviewing the record, and less worshipping NWA's power of anger, he could comment on more of the music. Which brings me to my next concern. Last time I checked, no one wanted to be raped. Maybe I'm socializing with an overly conservative crowd, but I tend to believe this is fairly universal. I'm sure there was a significant point to be made, but I couldn't find after several readings. To suggest that white women are "...secretly hoping to get raped..." is pre- posterous, racist, and ugly. Maybe I give Mr. Green too much credit in assuming I missed the point. In fact, I've noticed several "slips" in the music section over the last few weeks. These range from snide remarks about lo- cal businesses and their employees, to ter- ribly uninformative reviews by writers try- ing to be overly cutesy, or more intellec- tual than their minds or the format allows. The Daily is one of the few places such a diverse selection of music is presented. In the past, writers like Beth Fertig and Mike Rubin could produce in prian accurate feel- ing for the music they reviewed, not just terribly biased opinions of whether they liked the band. Morrissey or Chuck D. can't play on every album. It's time for certain reviewers to grow up and swallow the bitter pill. I think it's a pity to watch what was once the strongest department at the Daily bumble along in mediocrity. Justin Walcott LSA senior Review of YLT misses the obvious points To the Daily: "If there is a trout in the milk, it's pretty good evidence it was diluted." That seems to have been the kind of uninformed logic behind Kim Yaged's inexcusable re- view on Yo La Tengo's new album, Fakebook (10/4/90). Her article was filled with ignorant, unsupported and ridiculous accusations. Its overwhelming fault was that she forgot to notice that seventy per- cent of the songs were covers (brilliantly forming the title, Fakebook). She quips, "What can be said about a group that names a song 'Griselda'?" She then assures us this song can only be ap- preciated by somebody who has been for- tunate enough to meet a Griselda. Now remember, Kim, they didn't actually name it that; it's a cover. There is absolutely nothing that can be said about a band that names a song Griselda. Let's see now, the Beatles named a song "Mean Mr. Mus- tard." I suppose that must mean they ei- ther hate sandwich condiments or possibly they just want to boycott the Heinz cone pany. The one thing I liked about her piece was her description of the song "Emulsified." "...A gutless Otis Redding with a hint of the monster mash." That's precisely what it is. However, Kim seems to have missed the irony in her statement because she thinks this is a negative point. How could she expect a song with such implied ridiculousness to be some sort of soulful splendor? YLT's four albums collectively displaP the diversity they are capable of producing: a beautiful pianissimo followed by shrill feedback that would make Eugene Chad- bourne gyrate in ecstasy. I'll be waiting to see what they come up with next. Scott Holden School of Music sophomore Daily wrong on YLT To the Daily: I was disappointed in Kim Yaged's negative review of Yo La Tengo's album, Fakebook (10/4/90). It made her seem un- informed and unable to support her opin- ions. When she says Yo La Tengo is com- posed of "Woodstock wanna-be's," wh does she think they're trying to be? San- tana? Jimi Hendrix? Sha Na Na? I guess that her catchy, alliterative phrase would also apply to anyone who used slbw acoustic guitar on an album, like Bob Mould, Jad Fair, Rebby Sharp, or a heavy metal balladeer. When she attempts to insult Yo La Tengo by asking, "What can be said about a group that names a song 'Griselda'?'" she entirely ignores the album's theme a fakebook is a book of many artists' songs. Her question is ludicrous - she's completely unaware that Peter Stampfel and the Bottlecaps originally sang "Griselda." Her critique of the song "You Tore Me Down" misses the point. The Flamin' Groovies, who first recorded the song, desperately wanted to be The Byrds, The Rolling Stones, and The Beatles all in one but ended up as pale imitations. If the song is "embarrassingly bland," Yo IA Tengo deliberately made it that way to make a point about the Groovies. Finally, when she calls Ira Kaplan "a combination of a white James Brown and a gutless Otis Redding" (her criticism of "Emulsified"), she misses the point completely: Ira isn't trying to be soulful, he's having fun with a funny song. Kim's review proves that it's not Yo La Tengo who doesn't have it -it's her.0 Scott Breckenridge Engineering sophomore Daily includes Arby's inserts, other 'sleaze' To the Daily: Thanks for your help in making a de- cent environment. No? I refer, of course, to the throw-away advertisements you include with some Protest deputization To the Daily: When the University administration's task force report on campus safety was ini- tially published earlier in the year, the ad- ministration was all too keen to publicize one of its suggestions for improved safety zation. When students start to demand real imput into the campus secur-ity debate, the administration decides that debate should end - and meanwhile cops are qui- etly armed behind closed doors, and against student wishes. Today, at noon in the Michigan Roo4e of the Michigan League. Prof. Harris Mc- Joint Committee on Taxation's estimate of the effet of the tax agreement on people at various income levels. Capitalains taxes not included.