4- The Michigan Daily Summer Weeldy - Wednesday, July 21,1993
OPINION
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Hope Calati
OPINION EDITORS
Sam Goodstein
Flint Wainess
Unsigned editorials present 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
76-DAILY
Edited and Managed by
Students at the
University of Michigan
I
a
edayswhenastudentcan workforacollege
education are fading into distant memory.
Year after year, tuition increases force more
students to pay for their education after they
graduate with loans. This year is no different.
The University Board of Regents, with the
exception of Regent Deane Baker (R-Ann Ar-
bor), passed a 9.5-percent increase for most in-
state undergraduates and a 6.5-percent increase
for most out-of-state undergraduates. This in-
crease, along with an across-the-board $50 in-
crease in the infrastructure fee and previously-
approved increases in room and board and the
health service fee, makes heavier the burden of
paying for higher education.
The architects of the budget assure students
thatincreasesin financial aid builtintothe budget
will insure that all in-state students accepted to
the University willbe able toattend-regardless
ofabilitytopay.Despitethispromise, lower-and
middle-income students will bear the brunt of
funding for the University. These students must
sacrifice more of their study time working or
more of their post-undergraduate lives slaving to
Soaring tuition
Despite justifications, students squeezed out again
pay off the bills than students who can ask their
parents for more money.
Thistrendisreaching outrageous proportions
as tuition has increased the past eight years. The
cost of a University education has doubled in the
past decade. The average first-year in-state stu-
dent will pay $4,591 in tuition alone.
Through grants andloansitis possible forany
student to afford the University. But at what
price? These students are forced to mortgage
their future to pay for an education now. More
students are taking out loans. These students
begintheirlives with aloan burden that constricts
theirchoices ingraduate education, employment
and place of residence.
The University will spend an additional $8.8
millionin financialaid. But this is only astop-gap
approach. The University should put its efforts
into keeping tuition and fees down, rather than
making financial aid grow. Accessible education
is affordable education.
The rise in infrastructure fees is a portion of
thetotalcostofattending classesin the University
and must be calculated as part of the tuition. This
50-percent increase, in a fee that is supposed to
fund maintenance projectson existing buildings,
raises the total tuition increase for in-state stu-
dentsto 11.8percent.The University hasused the
same logic to prove that this fee is ajust expense:
"Money is deducted from the fee to cover related
financial aid costs."
There is no guarantee thatthis fee willnotbe
funneled off to other projects or will not be
eventually integrated into the tuition line item on
the tuition bills.
In themidst of the budget deliberations, input
from the largest group of University funders was
effectively denied.Thebudgetwas withheld from
public scrutiny until the morning of the vote -
despite attempts by Michigan Student Assembly
members to get a copy. The administration said
that this was a mistake, but it was a mistake that
should never have been made. Since 1989, the
student contribution to the University has been
larger than the contribution from the state. Stu-
dents deserve more input into the budget-making
process if they are responsible for increasing
contributions to the budget.
Although the tuition increases are far from an
equitable and affordable way to fund higher
education,theUniversitydeservescreditforkeep-
ing salaries down and increasing revenue from
the federalgovernmentin therecovery ofindirect
research costs. But this is not enough. The Uni-
versity must be a trend-setter among institutions
ofhighereducationindealingwiththeshortfallin
state funding that plagues state colleges and uni-
versitiesacross the country.TheUniversity should
accept the challenge of re-creating an affordable
education.
a
Free trade
Adjustments needed for NAFTA to be truly effective
the most of the country is unaware what opportunity to attract more consumers is too
the acronym NAFTA stands for, many lucrative for many of the US' struggling busi-
legislators, economists and concerned citizens ness' toignore.Now as the business' move south
are hotly debating the pros and cons of the North to cut labor costs, the workers employed in the
American Free Trade Agreement. President United States' industries are left without jobs.
Clinton supports this new policy that would unite While itis the factory workerin the United States
theUnitedStates,Mexicoand Canada withafree that will be affected most, in Mexico, it is the
trade policy. While this treaty offers an opportu- farmers whose jobs are in jeopardy. They are
nity for the United States to firmly commit itself threatenedby the influx ofhigher quality agricul-
to a long-tenn regional economic policy, the tural products from America. The cities, already
social and environmental repercussions of this overcrowded and suffering from poor environ-
agreement have the potential to prevent it from mental policies, will need to accommodate the
becoming law. shift from the rural agricultural communities to
A U.S. District Court Judge Richey recently the urban community.
ordered the Clinton Administration to release, Thelossof American factoryjobs,the growth
prior to congressional approval of the NAFTA of Mexican industrial labor, and the environmen-
agreement, an environmental impact statement. tal repercussions are the most controversial as-
While Judge Richey was merely enforcing a pects of NAFTA. Yet these problems will arise
1970 law,he also broughta fundamentaland oft- whether the agreement passes or not. Time and
ignored question to the forefront of the Nafta energy should not be spent debating the inevi-
debate: will expanding Mexico's industrial base table. Instead Bill Clinton and his economic
without adding strict environmental restrictions advisors should focus on an effective implemen-
be extremely detrimentaltotheenvironment?Or, tationof thisagreement.Theyneed tobe prepared
will a trade agreement actually help the environ- to accommodate the US worker who might lose
ment, since it may give the US the increased his or her job by providing aid as well as oppor-
bargaining strength it needs to force Mexico to tunities to find new work.
improve its now too lax environmental stan- We also need to be concerned, not only for
dards? These, along with questions of policy economic motives but also for humanitarian
enforcement and ethical questions conceming motives, that the Mexicans are also helped in this
the US's right to enforce policies which it often transition of their country's labor from agricul-
violatesitself,areissues that canbe resolved with ture to industry.
careful consideration from the administration. Moreover, Clinton needs to insure that while
Hopefully,JudgeRichey'sdecision will forcethe Mexicois adapting to new economic policies itis
realization that a free trade agreement does not also enforcing a much stricter environmental
necessarilyhavetogohandinhandwithenviron- code.
mental degradation, but it will if the proper pre- In order to reap the maximum long term
ventative steps are not taken. benefits from this agreement, Clinton must be
There are also pressing questions about how strong in taking care of these shorttermrepercus-
Nafta will affect the American workforce. The sions so that they do not come back tohauntus in
potential for cheap Mexican labor as well as the the future.
Welfare reform
Balance between dependancy and help is needed
The U.S. middle class, once the engine that
drove our republic to be a model of
faimess for the free world, continues to shrink.
Increasingly, a meritocracy is being replaced by
an aristocracy. The neighborhood school,
unaffordable health and day care and general
urban neglect by conservative presidentshas left
approximately one-fifth of Americans trapped as
members of the underclass. Liberals typically
trumpetmoremoneyasthehealeroftheunderclass
blues. Conservatives typically launch into
Quaylesque "family values" diatribes as a re-
sponse. But, as President Clinton's welfare re-
form team begins toworkonhiscampaignpledge
"to reform welfare as we know it," one thing
remains clear toall: itneeds tobe decided whether
thenetimpactof welfareprogmmshas beentoaid
the underclass or whether the programs have
merely promoted a life of dependency?
Most likely our current welfare system has
fostered a little bit of both. The welfare system
does, as it should, help those who can't help
themselves. But beyond that, it is unclear what
role welfare should serve in a capitalist society.
For obvious historical reasons, a vicious cycle
has been born thatleaves the underclassmade up
mostly of minorities and hence leaves the politi-
cal class a responsibility to help. According to a
University study, although only 12percentof the
populationis African American, they make up62
percent of those who stay on welfare for a long
time. And three-fifths of America's ghetto popu-
lationis currently on welfare.Therefore, to endor
cap general assistance in the near future (as Gov.
EnglerdidinMichigan,leavingthousandshome-
less and hungry) is an unconscionable act that
reeks of institutional racism.
However, slowly changing the welfare sys-
tem to one that encourages work would benefit
all. Currently, ten to fifteen percent of single
mothers in the ghetto stay on welfare for a period
of eight to ten years. Some of these women
simply can't find decent jobs or can't afford day
care for their children. At the same time, some of
these women are simply milking the system.
Time limits need to be placed on general assis-
tance to end this dependency. But time limits
must go hand in hand with a guarantee that all
Americans have a righ to work.
A new system should reform all cash-like
programs thatassisttheable-bodiedpoor(AFDC).
This system should entaila single offer from the
govemment employment for every legal worker
over the age of18in auseful pubicjobat $4.75 an
hour. Recipients would be given the location of
certain work sites. If they don't go to work, they
don't get paid. Paid on the job-training would be
provided for the workers. As well as new jobs, a
billshouldbe createdto subsidize thesalary of the
worker. Brandeisprof. Robert Lerman once sug-
gested that the govemment should pay half the
difference between the breadwinner's wage and
$6 an hour. A subsidized wage would serve as a
guaranteed income for those who worked. More-
over, all job sites would provide free day care
services equipped with Head Start education
programs.
Giving welfare recipients a right-to-work is
only part of the solution. But it is an incredibly
important part.
As Eugene V. Debs understood one hundred
years ago, "Work - honest work - is not
degrading. The man who by honest toil earns an
honest living is a peer of the realm. He is not a
mendicant. Equal to the richest and proudest
before the law.Equal to anyman mall rights and
prerogativesof citizenship, with every average of
advancement open to him, he spurns the idea of
'upper' and 'lower' class, and says 'we, the
people."'