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 &