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.