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."'