4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, May 24, 2004
420 MAYNARD STREET
ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 NIAMH SLEVIN SUHAEL MOMIN
tothedaily@michigandaily.com Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editor
lull EDITED AND MANAGED BY
STUDENTS AT THE Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other pieces do not
SINCE 1890 necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.
ast week, in a poignant moment
of historical continuity, two civil
rights movements separated by
half a century, but unified by a common
struggle, crossed paths. On May 16, the
state of Massachusetts granted its first
same-sex marriage license, while the
very next day, citizens around the coun-
try gathered to celebrate the 50-year
anniversary of the Supreme Court's
landmark Brown v. Board of Education
decision. In an uncanny coincidence,
the Brown decision was not merely cele-
brated the day after Massachusetts
issued its first gay marriage permit but
provided the legal precedent that made
the Massachusetts High Judicial Court's
ruling, forcing the state to legalize
same-sex matrimony, possible. Despite
their temporal separation, both water-
shed developments were unintentionally
observed together, reaffirming their
common rejection of the separate but
equal philosophy.
Although Brown sent the Plessy v.
Separate and still unequal
Rssing Brwun in light of new civil rights challenges
Ferguson "separate but equal" precedent
regarding racial segregation into the
annals of history, the Massachusetts
court showed that the Brown decision
established a precedent that transcends
the limits of race relations. The current
movement championing civil equality
for homosexuals is, in many ways, an
extension of the original civil rights
movement of the 1960s, as yet another
minority community strives for equal
rights and legal protections.
Of course, in an effort to sidestep the
highly-combustible issue of gay marriage,
many politicians have embraced "civil
unions." It is argued that these "unions,"
while not called marriage, provide bene-
fits similar to those that marriage
bestows. Hence, a gay couple, while
excluded from marriage, is still entitled to
the same rights, albeit under a different
name. However, if it is to be accepted that
"separate but equal" creates inherent
inequality, then the civil union / hetero-
sexual marriage dichotomy is unsustain-
able. Upon recognizing this paradox, the
Massachusetts court forced the state to
issue gay marriage licenses.
Unfortunately, many elected officials
remain oblivious to this contradiction. Even
in traditionally liberal circles, gay marriage
is not accepted. John Kerry, junior senator
from Massachusetts and presumptive
Democratic candidate for president, has
publicly stated his opposition to gay mar-
riage, calling instead for a system of civil
unions. While John Kerry calls marriage an
institution between one man and one woman
out of one corner of his mouth, he extols the
virtues of Brown from the other. This exam-
ple of divided logic only begs the question:
if one accepts the premise of brown, how
can one simultaneously support the intrinsic4
segregation created by relegating homosex-
ual couples to civil unions?
If we follow the reasoning of the
Massachusetts court and observe civil
unions as an extension of the failed "sepa-
rate but equal" doctrine, it is then merely a
question of time before the right to mar-
riage becomes universal. While civil
unions were a well-intentioned attempt to
provide legal protections to same-sex cou-
ples without tackling the dangerous issue
of gay marriage, they only institutionalize
unequal treatment for homosexuals. In the
end, politicians, as well as citizens, must
realize the fundamental hypocrisy behind
supporting Brown but opposing gay mar-
riage in favor of civil unions. For the
promise of Brown to be fulfilled, its prece-
dent must be extended to all frontiers in
the struggle for equal rights.
Bridging the budget gap
Granholm needs to take decisive fiscal leadership
Promoting the general welfare
A new approach to providing health care coverage
a
Despite recent economic progress, the
state of Michigan still faces a $300
million budget deficit for the upcom-
ing year. After two years of intensive budget
trimming, with little left to cut, Gov. Jennifer
Granhohn has proposed a $100 million tax
increase, which will add 75 cents to the cost
of a cigarette pack and increase state-set
liquor prices by an unspecified amount, to
help bridge the gap. Coupled with sustained
economic growth, this new tax would effec-
tively solve the fiscal problems that have
plagued Michigan for the last few years.
Unfortunately, the new increase is mis-
guided. Even though it masquerades as a
"sin tax," designed to assess levies against
people who engage in non-essential plea-
sure activities, the tax package is merely a
fresh form of the state sales tax. True fiscal
solutions, not regressive tax increases, are
needed. While the Michigan deficit has
shrunk significantly, it has only done so
because of massive spending cuts impacting
all state programs. If her tax increases are
implemented, Granholm will have van-
quished the fiscal mess she inherited from
former Gov. John Engler, but only by dam-
aging vital public programs and changing
the tax system to rest unfairly on the poor.
In order to actually solve the state's fis-
cal problems, Granholm must take the
courageous step of calling for a statewide
income tax increase. At a fundamental
level, this would not be increased taxation
for new government programs; rather, it
would return the income tax to a tenable
level. In fact, increasing the income tax
would not burden Michigan citizens with a
"new" tax at all, it would merely reverse the
fiscally irresponsible actions of John
Engler, who in the 1990s, cut the state
income tax to a point where Michigan bare-
ly remained solvent, despite a soaring econ-
omy. Thus, when the economy slowed, the
state found itself deeply in the red;
Granholm came into office facing a deficit
in excess of $1 billion.
While increasing "sin" taxes could have
the same revenue-generating effect as rais-
ing the income tax, any sales tax dispropor-
tionately raises the tax load for lower-
income citizens. If the tobacco tax increase
were implemented, a wealthy smoker would
end up paying the same 75 cents extra a
poor smoker would, but as a proportion of
income, the tax would actually be higher for
the poorer individual. By contrast, the state
income tax is an equal burden to all; Each
person is forced to pay the same percentage
of their income to the government, so both
poor and wealthy citizens carry the same
proportional responsibility.
It is important to understand that the
spending cuts instituted by Granholm did not
merely impact pork: they hurt core services.
Bringing the income tax back to a reasonable
rate would enable the state to return appro-
priations for these programs to their original
levels. Elementary and secondary education
would be spared from imminent budget cuts,
higher education would see recent cuts
reversed and the need to trim programs such
as Medicare would be eliminated.
However, a state income tax is easier pro-
posed than passed. Michigan voters must
approve, by direct referendum, any signifi-
cant income tax increase. Of course, this cre-
ates a serious barrier for any state lawmaker
or executive who wishes to increase the
income tax. Nonetheless, Granholm must
show financial leadership and set the ball in
motion. Marginal fixes, such as funding cuts
and sin taxes, should not be the cornerstone
of Michigan's fiscal policy.
ublic health is everybody's business,
at least according to University
President Mary Sue Coleman, who,
last Tuesday, addressed the Washtenaw
County Medical Society about her experi-
ence as the co-chair of the Institute of
Medicine's Committee on the Uninsured. In
her remarks, Coleman expressed concern
about the growing number of Americans
without health care coverage. In 2002, the
number of people without health care cover-
age grew by two million, the largest one-
year increase in over a decade, bringing the
national total in excess of 45 million unin-
sured. Ann Arbor is by no means insulated
from the crisis: here at the University, health
coverage was one of the most salient topics
behind the recent Lecturers' Employee
Organization walkout. Here in Washtenaw
County, 30,000 people - 10 percent of the
population - lack insurance.
These staggering numbers are partially
the result of our country's transition into a
postindustrial economy, and the emergence
of a sizeable service industry. As it stands, the
greatest concentration of gainfully employed,
yet uninsured citizens is found in the service
industry. The men and woman who stock our
shelves and flip our burgers have become
America's new blue-collar worker but are
often not afforded the opportunity to union-
ize like their industrial counterparts. In the
past, employers provided health care only
under pressure from labor unions. In today's
economy, where service industry workers are
continually denied the chance to unite, there
is nothing to keep workers insured and the
coverage crisis in check.
With the employees themselves left pow-
erless, the responsibility of providing health
care must fall upon a much larger entity.
Ideally, this extensive health coverage would
be administered by the federal government in
a nationalized health care system. However
the record-setting U.S. budget deficit makes
providing such nationalized coverage tem-
porarily untenable. Political deadlock fur-
thers this problem, as lawmakers seem inca-
pable of reaching consensus on how to insure
all Americans. Nonetheless, this health care
crisis is an urgent epidemic and therefore
demands immediate action; public health
cannot afford the time necessary to sift
through legislative red tape. For the time
being, the responsibility for providing health-
care must fall at the feet of the corporations.
Fundamentally, companies that provide
health insurance help the general population
without seriously hurting their bottom line.
As the number of America's uninsured
increases, so does the burden they impose on
the rest of the economy. The Committee on
the Uninsured estimates that the U.S. annu-
ally loses the equivalent of $65 billion to
$130 billion in economic output due to the
sickness and untimely death of many unin-
sured workers. Because public hospitals are
forced to provide care for all patients,
regardless of insurance status, many such
hospitals tread on thin ice, as they are forced
to absorb billions in losses per year. The
Committee also calculated that, in 2001, tax
dollars reimbursed 85 percent of the $35 bil-
lion in health care costs incurred by the unin-
sured. Because companies are affected not
only by increased taxes but also decreased
productivity, it would actually help compa-
nies to cover their employees with insurance.
If companies provided health care for their
own employees, they would lift a tax burden
off the public's shoulders, reduce the costs
imposed by the uninsured on the economy,
aid the public well-being and propagate a
more productive work environment.