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.