Anyone remotely interested in 

American politics has heard of “the 
deficit” at least once. The deficit is 
how much the United States govern-
ment’s annual expenses minus its 
revenue. Conservatives treat it as an 
ever-present threat, with every bit of 
spending bringing the nation closer 
to their imagined annihilation. But, 
in reality, many economists seem to 
agree that the deficit isn’t the big-
gest issue facing America, with the 
United States having other financial 
liabilities that could be an even big-
ger threat. So, if the deficit doesn’t 
show any serious risk of harming the 
United States, why do Republicans 
seem to care about it so much, and 
why do they only seem to talk about it 
when they’re not the ones in power? 
Well, that’s because Republicans 
don’t actually care about the deficit; 
it’s just another talking point they use 
to stop the government from getting 
anything done that doesn’t help them 
or the corporations that fill their 
pockets.

During the years of the Obama 

administration, Republicans couldn’t 
stop talking about the deficit and 
used it as an excuse to try to stop any-
thing that came through Congress 
that wasn’t put up by them. Things 
like school funding and welfare pro-

grams were shot down by Republi-
cans. But, oddly enough, as soon as 
the Trump administration began in 
2016, it was like every Republican 
in the United States forgot that the 
deficit ever existed. From 2016 to 
2020 government spending shot up, 
and even though Republicans held 
the presidency, House and Senate, it 
seemed like they never even brought 
up the deficit as a concern when they 
were raising the military budget, 
increasing police and border patrol 
funding or paying for expensive 
weekend getaways for the president.

The 
Trump 
administration 

was not the only time in history 
that Republicans have completely 
stopped caring about the deficit 
either. During both the George W. 
Bush and Reagan administrations, 
the national budget increased by over 
half a trillion dollars. While some 
would argue that the Bush admin-
istration was forced to spend that 
much due to the War in Afghanistan, 
documents show that the U.S. had 
no real strategy in Afghanistan and 
were essentially dumping money 
that the American taxpayer would 
never get back. Republicans have 
a long history of hypocrisy when it 
comes to the deficit and national bud-
get, and with the issue making some-
what of a resurgence during the first 
year of the Biden administration, it 

doesn’t seem as though they have any 
intentions of stopping.

While Republicans’ hypocrisy is 

obvious, how exactly has it harmed 
the United States? The first and most 
obvious example of this is the lack of 
any major health care reform hap-
pening in recent years, largely due to 
debt hawks in Congress shooting it 
down whenever it comes up. While 
Democrats themselves aren’t too 
great on this issue, the lack of health 
care reform in this country has 
caused prices to skyrocket, causing 
many people to be unable to afford 
health care, and many who can 
pay are still at mercy of the preda-
tory insurance industry — all of this 
because Republicans don’t see it as a 
reasonable sector to spend money on. 
Republicans’ debt-hawking has also 
been disastrous for the United States’ 
infrastructure, with roads and bridg-
es nationwide crumbling, the public 
school system favoring only those 
lucky enough to be born in certain 
zip codes and electric infrastructure 
barely holding on by a string in some 
parts of the country as many saw in 
Texas this last winter. Even though 
there is currently an infrastructure 
plan being pushed that could help 
solve a lot of this, Republicans and 
the few “Democrats” who agree 
with them are doing their best to stop 
it. But the one part of government 
spending that has never fallen under 
the ire of Republicans’ obsession with 

the deficit is the military. Whether 
it be sending us into a 20-year war 
based on a lie, setting up unnecessary 
military bases worldwide or getting 
involved in struggles that don’t con-
cern us, Republicans love spending 
money on the military. 

One could look at this and think 

that it’s just because Republicans 
just have an interest in keeping the 
United States safe, and while some 
surely do, it’s almost certain that 
some Republicans’ votes when it 
comes to increases in the military 
budget are affected by the money 
they get from lobbyists who repre-
sent military contractors or by their 
investments in those same contrac-
tors. While Democrats also take 
money from the same lobbyists and 
invest in the same military contrac-
tors, it is Republicans’ particular 
hypocrisy on this issue that shows a 
maliciousness that does not belong 
in American politics.

While no politicians are strangers 

to hypocrisy, Republicans’ duplic-
ity on the issue of national spending 
and the deficit has been especially 
damaging to the United States. It has 
caused infrastructure to crumble, 
health care to be largely inaccessible 
and military funding to skyrocket. 
While this has been disastrous for 
the working class, large corporations 
have only gained from it.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
Wednesday, October 13, 2021 — 9

Op-Ed: The University of Michigan’s culture of sexual assault dismissal needs to change 

How republicans use the deficit 

to hold our country hostage

Runaway infrastructure spending poses grave 

risks to fragile economy

NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist

KEONI JONES
Opinion Columnist

You’re not smarter for correcting someone’s speech, 

you’re just rude

BEN DAVIS

Opinion Columnist

PORTER HUGHES

Contributor

As the nation recovers from a 

medical and financial calamity, we 
are finally nearing a point of relative 
economic stability after a year of 
more than $5 trillion in spending to 
keep the economy afloat. But with 
Congress on the verge of passing a 
$3.5 trillion infrastructure bill we 
risk dealing a catastroph-
ic blow to an already frail 
financial system. Before 
we empty the country’s 
pocketbook and snatch 
funding from future pri-
orities, we desperately 
need to consider the con-
sequences of passing the 
largest spending bill in 
U.S. history.

With the U.S. national 

debt above $28.8 trillion 
and the country set to 
default on its obligations 
by mid-October if the 
debt ceiling isn’t raised, 
our near-term economic 
future is anything but 
certain. If Congress fails 
to reach a compromise 
and the nation defaults on its debt, 
we could be instantly plunged into 
another recession, with the poten-
tial loss of 6 million jobs. Even 
without the doomsday scenario of 
a default, we still risk an economic 
downturn from a rise in cases 
from the delta variant and other 
strains of the virus. As the world 
has painfully learned over the past 
18 months, failing to plan ahead has 
dire consequences, and maximiz-
ing our spending now could easily 
lead to a lack of funding for unfore-
seen crises in the future.

Although the $3.5 trillion figure 

on the infrastructure bill already 

seems immense, the even more 
concerning number is $24,000, the 
amount of spending in the proposal 
per U.S. taxpayer. The vague plans 
put forth by the Biden administra-
tion to increase the corporate tax 
rate by 7% and capital gains rate by 
19.6% would not only fail to raise 
enough revenue to cover the full 
cost of the bill but would greatly 
weaken American small busi-
nesses in the process. The cost of 

this spending would ultimately fall 
on middle-class taxpayers and the 
next generation of Americans, who 
will be burdened by two decades of 
reckless spending on both sides of 
the aisle.

Yet another major risk comes 

from inflation. After the $5 trillion 
injected into the economy dur-
ing the pandemic, the economy 
is dangerously overheated, with 
the August Consumer Price Index 
rose 5.3% year over year, making it 
increasingly likely inflation is here 
to stay. Since wages aren’t rising 
fast enough to meet ever-balloon-
ing prices, this increase is imposing 

a tremendous cost on the lower and 
middle classes. Since last year, the 
price of food has risen 3.7%, energy 
and utilities 25% and gasoline an 
astronomical 42.7%. Recklessly 
flooding the economy with another 
$3.5 trillion could prove devastat-
ing to families already struggling to 
pay their bills. 

Meanwhile, the $3.5 trillion 

price tag of the bill is composed of 
a hodgepodge of items that don’t 

fit the Merriam-Webster defini-
tion of “infrastructure,” giving 
the appearance that the bill was 
reverse-engineered from its eye-
catching cost. As opposed to the 
bipartisan $1.2 trillion infrastruc-
ture bill passed by the Senate 
and set to be voted on in the U.S. 
House, the $3.5 trillion bill splurg-
es on many partisan priorities that 
don’t address the dire needs of our 
nation’s crumbling infrastructure. 
The $1.2 trillion bill offers once-in-
a-generation upgrades at a fraction 
of the price, with $110 billion for 
roads and bridges, $66 billion for 
railroads, $47 billion to address 

looming climate disasters and even 
$7.5 billion to make electric vehicle 
charging stations ubiquitous. This 
bill is not only a win for American 
workers, the environment and 
infrastructure but a victory for 
bipartisanship and unity. On the 
other hand, the $3.5 trillion bill 
includes partisan priorities such 
as universal preschool, free com-
munity college, expanded child 
care credits and an expansion of 

the Affordable Care Act. 
While all positive ideas 
in theory, these scarcely 
constitute imminent cri-
ses or “infrastructure” 
needs. In practice, this 
wish list of programs 
would bring more harm 
than benefit to America, 
boosting inflation and 
indebting 
the 
nation 

while fixing few signifi-
cant issues for everyday 
citizens.

In 
a 
time 
where 

America is more polar-
ized than ever and our 
lawmakers can’t seem 
to agree on anything, 
now is not the time to 
sow our increasing divi-

sion with a controversial plan that 
puts our economic future at risk. 
Instead, our lawmakers should 
follow the example of Sen. Joe 
Manchin, D-W.Va., who has called 
for a “strategic pause” in govern-
ment spending until our economy 
is healthy again. By opting instead 
to pass the bipartisan $1.2 trillion 
bill, we can find common ground 
and work together to rebuild our 
nation, proving that despite our 
differences, Americans are still 
capable of coming together to 
drive real progress. Let’s all hope 
that Congress makes the respon-
sible decision.

Content warning: sexual harass-

ment and assault

As 
a 
sexual 
harassment 

survivor, I am calling on the 
University of Michigan to enact 
policies preventing other students 
from experiencing the trauma that 
causes the pain I continue to feel 
today. As survivors, we deserve 
justice and the feeling of being safe 
on campus. 

Unfortunately, this is not the 

reality at this university. 

Those in power have allowed 

students like me to be harassed and 
assaulted by predators, and it’s time 
they are held accountable. Small 
changes made by the University 
are a hollow appeasement tactic 
and do not right the wrongs of the 
past.

For years, students have tried 

to 
report 
sexual 
harassment 

crimes to University leadership 
and have largely been ignored. 

Instead of hearing our 
complaints and acting 
to rectify the situation, 
the 
University’s 

bureaucracy 
and 

complacency 
have 

gotten in the way. 

As a result, thousands 

of 
students 
have 

fallen victim to sexual 
predators on campus. 
This has happened to 
me, my friends and 
many students before 
us. 
As 
I’m 
hearing 

more and more about 
the case against former 
athletic physician Dr. 
Robert 
Anderson, 
I 

realize this behavior 
has been allowed to go 
on for decades by the 
University.

The horrific crimes of Anderson 

went on for over 30 years and left 
more than 900 student-athletes 
reeling from trauma, pain and 
neglect. How could the University 
ignore over 900 student voices? 

The University knew the crimes 
of Anderson and did nothing to 
protect its students — it’s not doing 
enough today, even considering the 
settlement process.

Instead of standing up for what 

is right, the University continues to 
hide behind its flashy ratings and 
athletic programs. When will this 
stop? When will justice be granted 
to survivors like me, my friends 
and all of the victims of Anderson? 

Those 
responsible 

for 
protecting 

Anderson and other 
abusers on campus, as 
well as those dismissing 
their actions, need to 
be held accountable. 
The University needs to 
do more to change the 
culture of sexual assault 
on campus and address 
the root of the issue. 
What has been done 
is superficial, and still 
not enough. The actions 
taken by the University 
so far are too narrow 
and don’t do enough to 
protect students and 
support survivors.

As 
the 
Michigan 

Students 
Against 

Sexual 
Assault, 
we 

are working together to hold 
the 
University 
of 
Michigan’s 

leadership — and all those like 
it — who continue to enable 
predators on campus accountable. 
We are a group of students, 

survivors, friends and advocates in 
Michigan who formed a statewide 
organization to inform our peers 
about sexual assault on campus 
and hold universities that harbor 
sexual predators accountable.

We want students to be aware 

of what has happened and what 
is currently happening on their 
campuses. We want justice for the 
victims and those in authority to be 
held accountable for the suffering 
they have abetted. We, as students, 
have enough to worry about and 
shouldn’t have to be additionally 
concerned about being harassed 
or assaulted by a sports doctor or 
professor. 

Throughout the year, the MSASA 

will be holding demonstrations 
and protests on campus. We will 
pass out literature and call on 
the leaders in Michigan to put 
an end to this multi-generational 
catastrophe. We will do whatever it 
takes for the hypocrisy and pain to 
come to an end. 

To the University of Michigan: 

Enough is enough. 

Sitting down for dinner with my 

friend, a fellow anthropology major, 
we began discussing the topic of 
human evolution. All was amicable 
until we reached an impasse. The 
discussion of Neanderthals (Homo 
sapiens neanderthalensis) brought 
us into conflict over the correct 
pronunciation of the species name. 
My pronunciation was “Nee-and-
er-TAL” while his was “Nee-and-er-
THAL.” I pushed back, explaining 
how my pronunciation was correct 
given that it is how the scientific 
community refers to the hominin, 
but then realized my rebuttal was 
not based on the intent to educate. 
Correcting his pronunciation was 
more about pedantry and was plain 
rude. 

Overcorrecting 
a 
person’s 

speech not only neglects dialectical 
variation and those with solely 
written rather than oratorical 
knowledge, 
but 
it 
also 
goes 

against the purpose of linguistic 
interactions. The primary goal in 
social interaction is to be understood 
by fellow conversation participants. 
If that is accomplished, it should not 
matter what the exact phonetics 
and syntax of the speech are.

The syntax and lexicon used by 

an individual are often out of their 
control and due to upbringing and 
early socialization. An individual’s 
grammar develops quite young — 
with children learning a variety of 
complex sentence types at 2 — and 
is mostly fleshed out by the age of 7. 
With this in mind, it makes little sense 
to shame a person for utilizing certain 
grammatical constructions. It is quite 
literally out of their control most of 
the time. Yes, people may learn other 
forms of syntax and alter their speech 
accordingly. But that does not take 
away from the fact that no one should 
be shamed from speaking with a 
syntax they were raised to speak. 
Much of our linguistic style is out of 
our control. Rather than an assertion 
of intelligence, correcting minuscule 
aspects of someone’s style of speech 
is insolent.

An issue of centering whiteness 

exists within the American English 
education 
system 
that 
imbues 

negative bias toward speakers of 
non-white English dialects. Dialectal 
variation within a language is a 
common 
phenomenon 
among 

the languages of the world. One 
estimate claims English to have 
as many as 160 dialects. Still, the 
U.S. education system privileges 
the dialect of white people and 
casts all other dialects as incorrect 

forms of speech. African American 
Vernacular English is the dialect 
of English used by many African-
American communities and is often 
the target of linguistic stigmatization. 
Word constructions like “ain’t” 
and uses of the habitual “be,” as in 
“she be runnin’,” are trademarks of 
this dialect. Unfortunately, AAVE 
is often delegitimized as a proper 
form of English and dismissed as 
simply grammatically incorrect by 
language ideologues. AAVE has 
become associated with ignorance 
and illiteracy, both of which are faulty 
claims that don’t stand up against 
linguistic science. AAVE syntax 
and phonology are a valid form of 
language. Yet, these speakers are 
hyper-corrected and shamed. Claims 
that these speakers speak incorrectly 
have no scientific basis and are 
outright disrespectful. A difference 
in dialect is not a basis for linguistic 
pedantry. 

Another point to be made is that 

many people learn new words from 
reading rather than conversation 
and therefore have not heard the 
correct pronunciation. If one is 
not acquainted with the complex 
patterns 
of 
English 
phonology, 

knowledgeable of the International 
Phonetic Alphabet or have a person to 
consult, how can one accurately know 
a word’s pronunciation solely from 

print? Scrutinizing another person’s 
pronunciation delegitimizes those 
whose access to language and novel 
vocabulary remains sequestered to 
the literary. English orthography 
is notoriously convoluted. Without 
the help of sound, there is no way I 
personally would have discerned that 
words such as “wait” and “weight” 
are phonetically equivalent. Biting 
criticism of another’s diction is rude 
and disparages those who choose to 
increase their vocabulary through 
print sources. 

The point of language, when 

taking an anthropological viewpoint, 
is to be understood by others. If that 
goal is achieved, why does it matter 
what syntax or phonetics someone 
uses? Any attempt at imposing rigid 
linguistic prescriptivism on others 
has faulty scientific foundations 
and 
does 
not 
correlate 
with 

sociolinguistic data. It is illogical 
to assert that a pronunciation or 
grammar construction is the only 
valid language form that exists. 
Dialectal variation is an integral part 
of linguistic diversity and should 
be celebrated instead of shunned. 
Whether a person is a speaker 
of AAVE, “Standard English” or 
another dialect, all of those Englishes 
are worthy of respect. You’re not 
smarter for correcting someone’s 
speech. You’re just rude.

GABBY CERITANO/Daily

Design by Erin Shi

Design by Lindsay Farb