4 - Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
y
4- Tuesday, February 15, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom *
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tathedaily@michigandaily.com
ELAINE MORTON
E-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU
STEPHANIE STEINBERG
EDITOR IN CHIEF
MICHELLE DEWITT
and EMILY ORLEY
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
K-y claSs ti holdin A £SCreeni(i o the rqiu.
f~ilm On Friday j &ernoon V,_'
ozcAualy, Screw at4-t. Jui-s
orsomelhi.
'Lets moves toward 'socialism'
0
KYLE SWANSON
MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Spread the web
Initiative to increase Internet access is essential
surprising number of Americans don't have access to the
Internet. Along with creating universal health care and
repairing the housing market, President Barack Obama wants
to address this problem. The issue has been a real point of emphasis,
gaining mention in both this year's State of the Union address and dur-
ing a trip last Thursday to Marquette, Mich. The United States lags
behind other developed nations when it comes to Internet access, so
it's encouraging that Obama has made it a priority. The administra-
tion should continue to work toward its goal of Internet access for all
Americans so the U.S. can compete in a global economy.
Obama chose to visit Marquette to sell his
idea because the remote city has nearly univer-
sal wireless Internet coverage. He's outlined a
plan to make the web accessible to 98 percent
of the country within five years. The $18 billion
project would create more space for wireless
Internet traffic by auctioning airwaves that
currently belong to government agencies and
television stations to commercial wireless car-
riers. Funds would be used to construct rural
4G networks and mobile communications sys-
tems for emergency responders, according to a
Feb.10 article in The Washington Post. Stimu-
lus money and various federal subsidies will
supplement finances for the program, which
Obama has said is an important part of build-
ing a new infrastructure for the country.
The U.S. can't continue tolagbehind in infra-
structure development, which includes more
than railways, roads and telephones. A recent
government-survey showed that 40 percent,
of Americans don't have access to high-speed
Internet, according to a CNET article. In 2009
the U.S. ranked 28th in download speed, with
speeds only a quarter as fast as first-ranked
SouthKorea. Obama's policyis anecessarystep
toward improving Internet access. A well-for-
mulated national strategy to expand Internet
access is imperative for the U.S. to thrive in a
growing competitive world economy.
Simply put, the Internet is good for business.
Whether it helps entrepreneurs start com-
panies or market their products, web access
provides an unparalleled level of connectivity
with the outside world that's valuable to many
Americans. Neglecting this source of econom-
ic development, especially as the U.S. emerges
from a recession, would prove to be costly in
the long run. Overall, Obama's plan is a smart
investment - not only does it pave the way
for future economic development, but it also
puts $10 billion in additional auction revenues
toward closingthe budget deficit.
But expanding Internet access isn't just a
smart business decision. At a fundamental
level, the web empowers - it facilitates the
proliferation of information and fosters the
exchange of ideas, while also giving students
the tools to succeed. Whether by encouraging
innovation or closing the education gap, the
Internet helps people to achieve their poten-
tial. It's unacceptable that Americans don't
have access to this resource at the same level
as citizens of other developed countries.
Obama's initiative to make the Internet
available throughout the country is essential
to the country's continued improvement and
vitality.
The president of the United
States is a powerful per-
son. He's often called "the
leader of the free
world.' By exten-
sion - since he's
so powerful -
the woman he's
married to also
becomes a very
public figure. But
the responsibili-
ties of the First DAR-WEI
Lady aren't as CHEN
substantial and
definitely not as
comprehensive. Traditionally, all the
First Lady is supposed to do is pur-
sue an issue that matters to her and is
non-controversial. For example, Lady
Bird Johnson believed that beauty
could improve the mental health of a
society, so she started a campaign to
plant more flowers on highways and
to remove junkyards and billboards.
It's almost always a win-win situa-
tion: Some problem that needs fixing
in America gets help in the form of
White House muscle, but without the
political mess.
Our current First Lady, Michelle
Obama, has decided to tackle obe-
sity, with a focus on children. At
first glance, her campaign called
"Let's Move!" looks like a great idea.
Accordingto the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in 2008,19.6
percent of 6 to 11-year-old children
were obese, as well as 18.1 percent
of 12 to 19 year olds. Even more chil-
dren and adolescents are overweight
and -not necessarily obese. Forbes.
com repoted that 74.1 percent of
adults in theUnited States are over-
weight as of 2007. Mrs. Obama's
plan to handle the obesity epidemic
includes encouraging active life-
styles for children starting at an
early age, giving information to
parents on how to promote healthy
choices and making nutritious food
available for students in schools and
to families everywhere. Non-contro-
versial and meaningful. This should
be a home-run, right?
Not so fast, say the Republicans
- as they do with everything an
Obama does. Former Alaska Gover-
nor Sarah Palin said last year that,
"What [Michelle Obamaj is telling us
is she cannot trust parents to make
decisions for their own children, for
their own families in what we should
eat ... instead of a government think-
ing that they need to take over ... just
leave us alone." This quote is funny
for two reasons. First, no government
official is trying to tell anyone how
to live - Obama is merely suggesting
how people can live healthier life-
styles and providing information on
how to doit. How there is controversy
here is beyond me. Second, while she
was governor of Alaska, Palin said
that childhood obesity: "needs to be
addressed at the individual, commu-
nity, state and national levels." The
hypocrisy is staggering.
Let's give Palin the benefit of the
doubt - maybe she's changed her
mind about how to solve America's
obesity problem. If so, she should
have been similarly outraged at for-
mer First Lady Laura Bush's work
in promoting literacy. I can just
imagine Palin getting mad about
"big government intrusion" and
how it's going to force everyone to
read books. She would probably say
something like, "Get government
out of my life. Don't tell me what I
should or shouldn't read, or wheth-
er I or my kids should even be able
to read at all." The problem is that
Laura wasn't being socialist. She was
just recommending that people read
because a literate country is a strong
country. Maybe Palin would have a
skewed perspective on the need for
the government to promote read-
ing, though, because of her reading
prowess. Remember what she said
to Katie Couric about what newspa-
pers she reads? "Um, all of them, any
of them that have been in front of me
over all these years." What a reader.
At first glance,
Obama's program
looks great.
To be fair, some in the GOP have
not embraced Palin's attitude on"Let's
Move!" However, to many people in
the Tea Party, this anti-obesity cam-
paign is exactly the type of govern-
ment intrusion they hate. Just listen
to talk-radio ratings titan Rush Lim-
baugh rail against it weekly (although
he, of all people, could use some
exercise). I think that playing games
with America's health is immoral,
especially since one of the reasons
for skyrocketing health care costs is
obesity-related diseases like diabetes.
But some people don't stop at blaming
Obama for growing the size of gov-
ernment. Matt Drudge, author of the
conservative "Drudge Report," has
pushedastudytryingtolinkObamato
the 0.4 percent-increase in pedestrian
deaths for the first half of 2010. How
are the two related? More people are
walking around to get fit - right into
traffic, apparently.
In summary, Michelle is promot-
ing socialism and killing people.
Although honestly, according to the
Tea Party, all Obama policies do that.
-Dar-Wei can be reached
at chendw@umich.edu.
0
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be fewer than
300 words and must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. We do
not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedaily@michigandaily.com
ZACHARY MARTIN0
Budget for higher education
SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@MICHIGANDAILY.COM
Letter too quick to condemn
PresidentRonaldReagan
the rich. Though I
weren't perfect, h
ment, economic g
showcase a solid e
The author also
TO THE DAILY: foreign policy. Th
In a recent article published in The Michi- gan made some fo
gan Daily (Ronald Reagan isn't worthy of author clearly av'
praise, 2/8/2011), it was argued that former foreign policy suc
President Ronald Reagan was "the most ing the Soviet Ur
overrated president in the history of our Reagan partially
republic." Though everyone is entitled to Osama Bin Laden?
an opinion, the claims made to support this the story than sim
point are completely absurd. to Bin Laden. The
The article began with an attack on Reagan's Bin Laden was atv
economic policies, or "Reaganomics" as they Both the SoviE
were so popularly called. The author made the have demonstrate
point that these policies attacked the poor and democracy. The S
increased unemployment. Unfortunately for make the Al Qae
the author, both of these arguments are false. In fact, the Soviet'
I agree there was a10.8 percentunemployment killing upwards of
rate during Reagan's tenure, but this was in aiding Bin Laden
1981, the year of Reagan's inauguration. When Qaeda, bringing d
Reagan left office the unemployment rate was of vital importanc
around 5.5 percent, nearly half ofthe rate when On Feb. 6, I to
he took office. 100th birthday of
Not only did unemployment drastically dents in American
decrease under Reagan, the economy experi- some mistakes d
enced significant growth. Between 1983 and massive successe
1990, real Gross Domestic Product grew 35.7 economic growth
percent, and real GDP per person increased Soviet Union - ca
an astounding 4.1 percent per person. This Without Reagan,I
growth impacted all Americans under Rea- ing in fear of a nuc
gan's tenure. Both the average and median
incomes increased under Reagan, showcas- Thomas Beindit
ing that his policies did not solely benefit LSA Sophomore
Reagan's economic policies
is decrease in unemploy-
rowth and income growth
conomic policy.
o firmly attacked Reagan's
sough I will agree that Rea-
reign policy blunders, the
oided perhaps the largest
cess in history - destroy-
nion without weapons. Is
responsible for arming
Yes, but there was more to
ply handing over weapons
author ignores the fact that
war with the Soviet Union.
et Union and Bin Laden
d that they are enemies of
Soviet Union's record can
da of today look peaceful.
Union has been accused to
f 61 million people. Though
may have empowered Al
own the Soviet Union was
e.
ok part in celebrating the
one of the greatest presi-
n history. Though he made
uring his presidency, his
s - including enormous
and the removal of the
n't be emphasized enough.
Americans may still be liv-
lear war on a daily basis.
Students don't need to be reminded that tuition costs
have skyrocketed in recent years. But what many don't
know is that, in inflation-adjusted terms, the University
- like many other universities - isn't spending more
money than it used to spend. Increased tuition, rather, is
in large part due to decreased levels of support from the
state government. The state Legislature -'which once
provided the majority of the University's funding - now
provides just 6 percent of the University's annual operat-
ing budget and 22 percent of its general fund, a number
down from 78 percent compared to 50 years ago. Despite
having an elected Board of Regents, the University is now
nominally public.
Considering this decreased funding, it's no wonder
that even with record donations, a skyrocketing endow-
ment and painful budget cuts, the regents have raised
tuition substantially and repeatedly. The lack of state
support has priced higher education out of the reach of
many young people from low and middle-income fami-
lies, which endangers the University's mission of pro-
viding an "uncommon education for the common man."
Legislators often point out that the drastic increase in the
University's endowment has led to increases in financial
aid and that low and middle-income students can still
attend college in what they refer to as a "high tuition,
high aid" model.
Unfortunately, the numbers tell a different story. In
the years 1997-2007, before the affirmative action ban
began to further decrease enrollment among under-
represented groups, the University saw a 10-percent
decrease in students from families with yearly incomes
between $10,000 and $74,000 and an 8-percent increase
in students from families with yearly incomes more than
$200,000. Enrollment of underrepresented minorities-
decreased too: African-American enrollment fell from
8.4 percent to 6.7 percent.
The University's chapter of the College Democrats has
a longstanding tradition of making annual pilgrimages
to Lansing to remind state legislators of their responsi-
bility for higher education. Every time, we're met with
the familiar refrain that in hard economic times, every-
one has to share in the sacrifice. A few months later,
state appropriations for colleges and universities are cut.
Shared sacrifice makes for compelling rhetoric, but just
a little digging shows that it's disconnected from reality.
While education and social services have been gutted,
taxes have fallen precipitously and mass incarceration
- on which the state spends significantly more than it
does on higher education - continues unabated. If leg-
islators were willing to modernize an outdated tax struc-
ture, there would be more than enough money to reliably
fund higher education and balancethe budgetwith taxes
lower - as a percentage of gross state product - than
they were a decade ago.
Back in the late 90s, the state brought in about 9.5
percent of personal income as revenue. Today, it brings
in about 6.9 percent. That drastic decline means that
the state collects $9 billion less in revenue than it would
have done if it was collectingthe same percentage of our
income as it did a decade ago. The cuts aren't only due
to intentional tax cuts, but also because of an outdated
tax code, which - most egregiously - rarely applies the
sales tax to services. The service sector is the largest
and fastest growing segment of the economy, and most
other states recognize this fact. In Michigan, however,
we're trying to support government with the modern day
equivalent of a tax on agricultural goods in the midst of
the industrial revolution.
In the context of the state budget, $9 billion is a signifi-
cant loss especially whenthe total real cuts to higher edu-
cationspendinginthe last decadetotaljustover $1billion
annually. The state is facing a gap of approximately $1.85
billion for the next fiscal year. By bringing back only a
small portion of the taxes levied a decade ago, the state
could fill the perpetual budgetdeficit and restore funding
to higher education.
College Democrats, with help from Roosevelt Institu-
tion - a student policy organization - have detailed the
specific revenue increases and spending cuts necessary
to allow the state to reinvest in higher education. We took
our report to Lansing when we met with state legisla-
tors on Tuesday. Of course, our proposal likely won't be
adopted, but the message should have been clear: We can
balance the budget without doing it on the back of stu-
dents. And it takes little more than a notebook, a calcula-
tor and Google to figure out how.
State legislators aren't abandoning higher education
because it's the only choice, but because it's the easy
choice.
You can view our full proposal at http://umichdems.com.
Zachary Martin is an LSA senior. He is the
chair of the University's chapter of College
Democrats education Committee. *
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Aida Ali, Will Butler, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer,
Melanie Kruvelis, Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley,
Harsha Panduranga, Teddy Papes, Asa Smith, Seth Soderborg, Andrew Weiner
THE DAILY IS TAKING ON THE LANTERN IN A FACEBOOK WAR.
UMe s Pa os 'LIKE' THE MICHIGAN DAILY ON FACEBOOK
A
&