4- The Michigan DailySummer Weeky-- Wednesday, May 13, 1992
-PNgIkO

I

EDITOR IN CHIEF
ANDREW M. LEVY
OPINION EDITORS
GIL RENBERG
DAVID SHEPARDSON

Unsigned editorials represent the opinion
of a majority of the Daily's editorial
board. All other cartoons, signed articles,
and letters do not necessarily reflect the
opinion of the Daily.

420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
764-0552
Edited and Managed by
Students at the
University of Michigan

A farewell to arms

In recent weeks,Michiganresidentshave been
following acontroversial trialofltheirown-
one that is taking place in Detroit. 'he case
involves a parent, Terry Gaines, who is being
held responsible for the deathofhis 12-year-old
son, who was shot by his six-year-old daughter
after she had discovered her father's gun.
Although the most serious charges are ex-
pected to be dropped and Gaines is expected to
plead guilty to lesser charges - he had origi-
nally been facing thepossibility of incarceration
- the city of Detroit has delivered to all gun
owners a clear message: owners whose negli-
genceleadstoinjuryordeath willbeprosecuted.
Although law enforcement organizations are
certainly justifiedin seeking toensurethat those
who own guns act responsibly, the numerous
deaths and injuries inflicted with handguns ev-
ery day can only be curtailed by strict gun
control and the elimination of all handguns and
automatic or semiautomatic weapons.
The Gaines case is representative of a tragic
problem caused by the presence of firearms in

Parental responsibility for accidentalfire is a
band-aid for the real problem: a lack of gun control

our society. In recent years, the number of
children killed by gunfire has increased alarm-
ingly.
Caseslike the onein Detroitshould motivate
federal and state governments to implement
strict gun-control laws. The few gun-control
laws on the books have done little to prevent the
ceaseless violence that has contributed to our
nation'sranking as the mosthomicidalonearth.
Regardless of the criminals who use firearms,
guns are associated with numerous accidental
slayings and woundings every year. The very
existence of firearms poses a threat to every
American's life, and yet too many legislators
have thus far refused to confront the powerful
pro-gun lobbyists by advocating severe limita-
tions on the ownership of guns.
When threatened by the prospect of guns

being outlawed, those who enjoy the useof guns
point to thephrase"right tokeep and beararms,"
which is enumerated in the Second Amend-
ment.
The federal government, which is histori-
cally slow in recognizing and dealing with the
nation's grievances, should realize that this
"right" can no longer be justified. The harm
caused by the presence of these lethal weapons
far outweighs the benefits. Surely the framersof
the Constitution never intended for the legality
and proliferation of guns to lead to thousands of
instances of senseless slaughter and injury.
Those who protect their selfish interests by
referring to the Constitution should realize that
the way in which this document is interpreted
evolves with our society. If the authority of the
Constitution wereunassailable, there wouldstill

be slaves and women would not be able to vote.
Instead, federal and state governments recog-
nized thatit was necessary to amend the Consti-
tution in order to end these injustices. After
thousands upon thousands of Americans have
suffered at the end of a gun barrel, it is time that
our society and its leadership realize that we
must finally place severe limitations on the
manufacture, sale and possession of guns and
bullets.
An outright ban on handguns and small-
caliber bullets would lead to an immediate re-
duction in the number of accidental or intended
deaths and injuries. Since handguns function
properly for relatively few years, within a de-
cade there would almost certainly be a large
drop in the number of working guns in circula-
tion. The supply of bullets would become ex-
hausted with similar rapidity. Until such steps
are taken, our society will be plaguedby this
non-stop stream of tragedies. Blood will only
stop flowing freely when owning guns is not a
"right," but acrime.

0
01

The blame stops here A recipe for disaster

Reagan-Bush negligence, not LBJ's Great Society
programs, have exacerbated U.S.'s urban problems

Proposed amendment would try to keep Congress
from breaking the bank -but at what cost?

Last week, President Bush attacked the Great
Society programs of the 1960s and 1970s as
the cause of the Rodney King-inspired riots in
Los Angeles and otherpartsof the country. This
criticism was echoed by Vice President Dan
Quayle and White House Press Secretary Mar-
lin Fitzwater. This placement of blame is mis-
guided and hides the true perpetrators of in-
creased poverty and destruction of the inner
cities: the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
The Great Society programs announced by
PresidentLyndon Johnsonduring his 1964com-
mencement address at the University repre-
sented a radical attempt to change the way the
federal government dealt with domestic prob-
lems including poverty, medical care, housing
and nutrition. The Great Society's "War on
Poverty" attacked the poverty rate, which de-
creased by 50 percent; it created a Job Corps
which enabled millions to find jobs and receiv-
ing job training; it included the Head Start
program,whichaided thousandsofpreschoolers;
it increased the availability of birth control; it
provided funding for millions of new low-in-
come units; it establishedthe first government-
sponsored health insurance programs for the
elderly and the impoverished, Medicare and
Medicaid; it made civil legal representation
available to the poor through the Legal Services
Corporation; it guaranteed breakfast and lunch
for poverty-stricken grade schooland preschool
children; and it extended the civil rights and
voting rights of minorities and women. But this
listing only scratches the surface of the Great
Society programs - they were the result of a
visionary domestic policy that reformed and
greatly reshaped society.
Yet, in clear contrast, the Reagan Adminis-
tration, and later the Bush Administration dis-
mantled many domestic programs funded dur-
ing the 1960s and 1970s. The department of
Housing and Urban Development(HUD) bud-

get was decreased by 42 percent in the 1980s,
and homelessness and poverty increased during
that same period.
Bush hasnotworked forany domesticagenda
in his first three and one-half years in office. He
has urged massive reductions in entitlement
spending, whileattempting tomaintainffull fund-
ing of the B-2 Bomberand theStrategic Defense
Initiative. He has vetoed civil rights reform,
unemployment compensation increases, and
many otherpieces of domestic legislation. Bush
has watered down the only domestic achieve-
ments of his administration by mandating the
Justice Department not stringently enforce the
Civil Rights Act of 1990, eliminating regula-
tions in the Clean Air Act, and restricting the
enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. And thetaxhike that wassoimportanttothe
implementation of these programs, the Presi-
dent later called a "mistake."
Later in the week, Bush even partially re-
scinded his criticism of the Great Society pro-
grams of the Democrats, calling for an end to
"the blame game" and a time of bipartisan
compromise. But in his usual fashion, it is
simply election-geared rhetoric designed to win
votes, rather than to change public policy.
It is the rampant neglect of the Bush admin-
istration - in its refusal to effect change in the
status quo and the vetoing of new proposals of
the Democratic Congress - which is directly
responsible for the riots in Los Angeles. Even
now, Bush promises federal aid, and vague
support for HUD secretary Jack Kemp's enter-
prise zones, but without any signs of leadership,
guidance, or vision. As Rep.Richard Gephardt
(D-Mo.) said, "In short, the Bush Administra-
tion is adrift without a guiding vision,principle,
or domestic agenda." It is this lack of foresight,
soparadoxically andincomprehensiblyopposed
totheGreatSociety innovations,thatistoblame
- despite the President's political agenda.

The proposed constitutional amendment to
force Congress to balance the budget is a
dangerous and misguided attempt tocurbdeficit
spending. In the past, attempts to mandate auto-
matic congressionalcompliancehave been inef-
fectual, including the celebrated Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985. The proposed
amendment is a severely misguided move that
could potentially wreck the economy, threaten
long-term investment,and harm those who ben-
efit most from public spending.
Versions of the proposed balanced budget
amendment are now moving swiftly through
House and Senate committees. House Speaker
Thomas Foley (D-Wash.) and Majority Leader
Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) have both predicted
that the amendment will pass the Congress by
the end of the summer, and be sent to the states
for ratification. The proposed amendment has
bipartisan supportincluding the ardent backing
of President Bush and House Budget Commit-
tee Chair Leon Panetta (D-Cal.)
In defining a balanced budget, the amend-
ment lumps in all outlays, and makes long-term
investment unattractive in budget reconcilia-
tion, in favor of short-term appropriations.
The proposed budget amendment would
make it constitutionally impossible for Con-
gress to deficit spend, unless additional spend-
ing was approved by a supermajority - for
example, 60 percent. The supermajority is de-
signed to provide flexibility for emergencies.
But in reality, this measure merely passes re-
sponsibility to a supermajority, rather than a
simple majority of Congress.
TheU.S.governmentcurrentlydramatically
spends in excess of its annual revenues. If Con-
gress were required to balanceits budgetimme-
diately it would have to raise taxes and drasti-
cally cut spending from all entitlement pro-
grams. This radical maneuver would throw the
economy into a tailspin.

The proposed budget amendment would re-
strict the right of the government to borrow
funds for capital outlays, including the savings
and loans bailout and the Gulf War. Even states
-restricted frornhaving operating budget defi-
cits -can borrow to create capital investment,
such asnew schools,highways and public facili-
ties. It is bad economic policy to force the
government to cut spending to borrow money
- lumping capital investment in with all other
government spending.
The balanced budget amendment has been
prompted by public outrage over the seeming
incompetence of the Congress in dealing with
the budget, in response to the $400 billion fed-
eral budget deficit. But this was caused by the S
& L bailout, Operation Desert Storm, and the
recession, rather than a increase in domestic
spending.
The key to a balanced budget is to elect
politicians who are responsible enough to pro-
posea balancedbudget. In thislight, both Demo-
crats and Republicans need to be willing to
debate and then reach a consensus, which may
include some new taxes, cuts in defense spend-
ing and domestic spending, to achieve any
progress in reducing the size of the federal
deficit.
The proposed amendment makes cutting
spending much easier than raising taxes and
calls intoquestion therealmotives of an amend-
ment that President Reagan introduced, and
lobbied strongly for- theeliminationofpublic
spending.
The architect of the Constitution, James
Madison once said, "The three precepts of
American constitutional government are com-
promise, compromise, compromise." Leaders
on both sides of the aisle need to put aside
partisan bickering and understand that funda-
mental and real change is necessary to achieve
fiscal stability.

0