Monday, July 25, 2011
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
C, i tc-a DAM
DANIEL SINGER I
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu
Shirking duty
a
BETHANY BIRON
EDITOR IN CHIEF
MARK BURNS
MANAGING EDITOR
TEDDY PAPES
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial hoard.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Raise the roof
Debt ceiling shouldn't be used as a political tool
The nation's debt ceiling is looming on the horizon, and
as the U.S. moves closer to default there is little reas-
surance from Capitol Hill. The U.S. is already in the
throes of financial crisis, and the mere threat of not extend-
ing the debt ceiling is causing economic instability. Congress
needs to arrive at an agreement on spending, taxes and a new
debt ceiling that doesn't only push the problems a few months
down the road. Both Republicans and Democrats may have
to make ideological sacrifices for a compromise - but with a
national default as the alternative, a deal must be reached.
Last week, the Daily published an
article entitled "Police work to make
campus safer for students." The title
of the article is correct. The police are
quite effective and laudable for their
work in protecting our community.
None the less, I find some of the DPS
statements in the article disturbing.
At many points in the article, DPS
is represented as having the attitude
that crimes are in part the victim's
fault. For example, DPS spokes-
woman Diane Brown is quoted as
saying "Many of the assaults really
are equally blamed on both sides."
The author of the article summa-
rizes the spokesperson's comments
by saying that "Ultimately, (the
spokesperson) said the issue lies in
personal responsibility of University
members in following the suggested
safety measures."
For a few reasons, DPS taking this
stance is antithetical to the goal of
having a safe community - the pri-
mary goal of DPS. Regardless of who
is actually to blame for these crimes,
I hope DPS will avoid adopting this
kind of stance in the future.
I brought these concerns to the
spokeswoman for DPS last week,
and she brought to my attention that
her comments were made before and
were not meant to apply to the recent
sexual assaults near campus. While I
appreciate this clarification, my con-
cerns apply to DPS's attitude toward
all crimes against community mem-
bers, regardless of their severity.
If members of the community
thought DPS blamed the victims in
part for crimes, they are less likely to
feel that DPS is on their side in keep-
ing the community secure. This is
likely to result in community mem-
bers being less cooperative with DPS
in ways that are detrimental to the
operations of DPS and the safety of
our community as a whole. A woman
who has been assaulted, for example,
may fail to report the assault if she
feels that it's her fault. As we know
from the National Crime Victimiza-
tion Survey, many acts of violence
(against women, in particular) go
unreported, and a plausible expla-
nation of part of that is the victim
incorrectly feels like it is her fault.
By making the kinds of statements
quoted in the article, DPS seems to
be reinforcing this attitude.
Further, by instilling the attitude
that victims are in part to blame for
the crimes, DPS seems to be suggest- 4
ing that we shouldn't rely on them
for our security. They instill the idea
that because each person is alone in
guaranteeing their safety, they are
to blame for a crime. But as we learn
from Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and
Rawls, we're better off entering into
social arrangements, like forming
DPS, so that we may work together
as a whole community to secure our
mutual safety. By expressing the
attitude that it is each person for
himself or herself, DPS seems to be
renouncing its role in that plan.
Finally, by suggesting that it is
in part the victim's fault, DPS sup-
presses the kind of creative and
venturesome spirit that character-
izes the Ann Arbor community. The
reason we want a safe and secure
society in the first place is so that we
may go about our business, learning
and living without being paralyzed
by concerns of personal and prop-
erty safety. The attitude expressed
by DPS in the article suggests that
for a member of the community to 4
be safe, they should not engage in
some activities in which they may
otherwise reasonably engage. A
community member who wants to
leave their apartment to skip around
downtown listening to music on
their earphones shouldn't. feel like
they cannot because they're risking
their personal safety. By DPS tell-
ing someone that it is their fault that
they are violated, DPS is essentially
telling them to stay home. This is the
same kind of chilling effect that ter-
rorism has on a community.
I applaud the continuing efforts
of DPS in trying to secure our com-
munity, butI hope that it will recon-
sider the public stance it takes in the
future. Suggesting ways in which we
may better secure ourselves is help-
ful, but suggesting that crimes occur
because we fail to follow the advice
is contrary to the goal of having a
safe community.
Daniel Singer is a Ph.D. candidate
in the Department of Philosophy.
Congress has taken advantage
of the necessity of the debt ceil-
ing's extension to make their
political desires a reality. Rather
than responding to the issue
of entitlement reform or other
spending issues with appropri-
ate democratic measures, the
debt ceiling is being used as
leverage to force major changes.
The spendingthat is pushingthe
U.S. closer to the debt limit was
provisioned and passed by Con-
gress in the past, and Congress
can make changes to spending
in the future. A reform of this
spending does not need to be
rushed by the current debt limit
deadline. Adjustments to bor-
rowing, spending and revenue
must be made carefully, without
the weight of the debt ceiling
pushing down on the process.
Unfortunately, Republicans
remain steadfast in their refusal
to raise the ceiling, so negotia-
tions must go forward.
Both House Speaker John
Boehner and many Republi-
cans in Congress are demand-
ing massive expenditure cuts,
mainly along the lines of enti-
tlements, and many of their
concerns are legitimate. Social
Security certainly needs to be
revamped and current govern-
ment spending is growing to
precarious levels. The debate
between Boehner and President
Barack Obama has been going
on for some time, but little
progress has been made. It's not
that there has been a paucity of
deals or solutions being offered,
but simply an unwillingness
to compromise. While some
Republicans are interested in
making deals with the Demo-
crats across the aisle, Boehner
is not one of them.
The problem with the discus-
sions between Boehner and the
White House is that he refuses to
tackle the national deficit from
the other side - with revenue
increases. Raising taxes would
doubly improve the deficit issue
and help the nation grapple with
its current financial woes. But
Boehner refused on all counts
to raise tax rates, even though
Obama pledged to trim Medi-
care, Medicaid and Social Secu-
rity. It's hard to imagine how
a deal could be reached with
Republicans giving so little.
As attempted parleys between
Obama and Boehner continue to
fail, the debt debate will most
likely be resolved in Congress.
Boehner and Congressional
Republicans shouldn't con-
tinue to wield the debt ceiling
as a weapon. Reforms must be
made, but the Republican's cur-
rent strategy is far too volatile.
Their muscling puts the coun-
try's recovery at risk and may
prevent both Republicans and
Democrats from getting what
they want. No matter what
happens, the debt ceiling must
receive an extension. And if a
spending deal is required to
do it, an effective one would
include compromise and con-
cessions from both parties.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be
fewer than 300 words and must include the writer's full name and University
affiliation. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu.