4
Opinion
Page 8 Friday, August 14, 1981 The Michigan Daily
Reaganomics: myopic and selfish
the Fat," and always involves those least capable of harmful. Hell, we even pay to advertise against it,
By Fred Schill skuawking when their fat is trimmed. we did until Brooke Shields came along. We also p
FOR EXAMPLE, a budget can be: reduced fun- tobacco farmers to grow the stuff; the subsid
Alright. Even us pinkos on the left-most fringe can ding of Aid to Dependent Children, the Bureau of In- would fund thousands of student loans.
see the logic of a balanced budget. It only makes sen- dian Affairs, food stamps, welfare, student loans, And then there's the impoverished oil compani
se that increasing the national debt means printing mass transit, social security, public housing, or any routinely turning a meager 50 to 100 percent prof
more dollars, putting them into circulation, and in- other "big spending" Democrat example of President Reagan is giving twelve billion doll
variably decreasing its value. Hence inflation socialism. worth of tax cuts to the poor beggars.$12.000.000.0
4
or
ay
ies
es,
fit.
ars
00.
rCLA9LaJ%%,.ca ll.' V0v l~c al. , llaa . ~
So that means balancing the budget, either by cut-
ting it or by raising taxes (not likely to wash, even
with us pinkos)-or both. I must concede that
Reagan's economic motivation is proper, in a general
sense. Ouch.
BUT, HAVING perceived the general idea correc-
tly, it was simply too much to ask of Ronny to get the
specifics straight. That's a much more confusing af-
fair.
Like the fanatically narrow right-wingers that con-
stitute the base of his support, Reagan has a rather
myopic view of things. This especially applies to just
what does and does not constitute a budget cut.
Reaganomics does not define a cut as merely .a
reduction in expenditures. Too vague.
A Reaganomics cut must be a particular, unique
entity. If often goes by the brand name "Trimming
-_ - - - ....- ..,.,. , .A . . ~.v vv vv
The Left and Right fight
Round 4
4
The Michigan Daily
Vol. XCI, No. 62-S
Ninety Years of Editorial Freedom
Edited and managed by students
at the University of Michigan
Please note that all of those programs serve the
disadvantaged poor, often elderly-and always
powerless.
Budget cuts cannot be: reduction or elimination of
crop subsidies, reduced defense spending, or reduc-
tion/elimination of any other welfare program for big
business. They, coincidentally, can afford campaign
contributions and lobbyists and special interest
groups to make life miserable for their enemies.
They have money, ergo power.
REAGAN APOLOGETICALLY explains to the
poor that these are tough times and we must all
tighten our belts a bit to balance the budget. Benefits
must therefore be withdrawn from the needy and
bestowed onto just the truly needy.
"Truly needy" is flexible enough to apply to private
industry too. Take tobacco growers, who produce a
scrofulous weed that even the government declares
That's one hell of a lot of aid to dependent children.
MEANWHILE, we are dispassionately witnessing
the largest peacetime increase in defense spending in
history. We already pay to maintain 17,000 nuclear
warheads, each capable of decimating a large city.
Not enough. During the 1980's, we are scheduled to
build some 19,000 additional warheads, plus the newly
dictated neutron bombs to help us reign supreme in
"limited nuclear warfare" (itself an absurd term).
In this next three or four years, we are going to
spend one trillion dollars on defense (four dollars a
day for every man, woman and child in this lovely
country). Take a healthy swipe at that-no, even a
small percentage of it-and some of the placebos big
business is given to suck on, and you know what you
get?
Balanced budget.
E
The liberal
nightmare
T HE SCENE mirrored the nightmares of
American liberals, who shuddered in their
sleep during the 1980 presidential campaign:
Ronald Reagan, the nation's chief executive
(horrors!), is signing a law to sharply cut
back taxes and government spending on social
progams. And to make the imagery even more
horrifying, he is doing this on his ranch (just
like the Death Valley Days), amid barking
dogs and cantering horses.
This nightmare materialized yesterday, but
given the stupefying political course of events
this year, the bizzare consummation seemed
almost tolerable. After we've been through
what we've been through, nothing is out of the
question.
The president changed the course of
American history yesterday, and if we all
don't agree with his assumptions and
motivations, we share his hope that the ex-
periment will work, that supply-side
economics can improve the livelihoods of the
citizenry-rich and poor.
It has been a costly experiment, dislodging
many long-held institutions, and bringing
nearly all others into profound introspection.
The success of supply-side will dictate our
success from now on; if it fails, we all lose.
This final question, consequently, makes us
all supporters of the new approach. Perhaps
this is the most wretched nightmare-come-
true of them all.
Reaganomics: timely and wise
By Mark Gindin
Here comes the Reagan
budget. We've heard all about it,
how it will cut down social spen-
ding, cut taxes, and raise defense
spending. Each side has drawn
lines, somewhat closer to the
right, and the country has begun
a long-awaited and overdue tur-
naround.
First of all, the budget is a good
one. It is a good first step,
anyway. Eventually, we can hope
for elimination of about one-half
of the Cabinet-level positions,
such as Commerce, Interior,
Transportation, and Education
along with most federal agencies.
It would also be nice to repeal the
amendment instituting the
national income tax. But one step
at a time.
SOCIAL PROGRAMS are
legalized selective stealing.
Anybody in favor of them must
necessarily be in favor of the
pickpocket syndrome, whereby a
person decides the best way to
spend somebody else's money.
The police nature of the
socialist system must be
avoided at all costs. Any reduc-
tion of any program designed to
benefit a specified portion of the
population is commendable. Non-
discrimination on the part of
government is the goal. No
special favors can be given to
anybody, whether they be peanut
farmers or little old ladies star-
ving in the street.
True, the Reagan budget has
special favors and subsidies to
various private industries. Their
existence does not justify the
concept of special favors either,
and they ought to be elminated.
WHILE THIS seems a mite
harsh, it is. Government cannot
afford to give anybody special
favors. That is the job of a moral
society. If a society is not moral,
and does not help itself, and the
old ladies, who has the power to
say government should act
morally? Nobody has the power,
that is the beauty of democracy.
Of course, this process of
redirection will take time,
probably at least the half century
it took to create the huge mess in
the first place. But this year we
have witnessed a major shift of
both opinion and policy. The
goals of power back in the hands
of the individual and freedom
from Big Brother, however, will
have to wait a bit longer.
If the present course is indeed
held, the country will progress
economically as well as morally.
Regulatory agencies canrbe
slashed to ribbons and the free
market can be allowed to rip for-
th. Environmental protection will
be back in the hands of the
localities affected by the laws.
The consumer will once again be
in control of the marketplace.
AND WHAT about taxes?
Imagine the tax burden being ac-
tually reduced, instead of the
decreased increase in taxes this
year. Prices will not only go down
because the company pays less,
but the individual will have more
to spend.
But wait, with these amazing
benefits come the principles on
which the country was founded
and sustained for a hundred and
fifty years.
All one has to accept in return
for all these goals is respon-
sibility. Responsibility to care for
yourself, family, and other
people. A person will have to be a
conscientious consumer, a wat-
chful worker, and socially aware.
The rewards will be infinite, for
the individual as well as society.
The economic pie will grow
larger and everybody will get a
larger slice. But what does one
say to the skeptics? And don't
worry, there are skeptics.
The skeptics want the gover-
nment to act because they believe
society will not. They want to
take from those who have and
give to those who have not. It is
no coincidence that countries
adopting this foolish policy have
become poorer, while the free
countries make everybody
richer. The skeptic hasn't a leg to
stand on because his head is
buried in the sand.
The new budget is a good star-
t. It arrests the parasitic social
programs before the patient dies.
A few more steps down the social
ladder and we are home free.
Long live Stockman.