United
we
stand
More often than not editorial writers, especially
young college journalists, belabor issues of
controversy. Usually the intent is meaningful but the
results, insofar as getting the message across, often
leave room for improvement.
Hopefully, -the issue of the University budget will
not fall into this syndrome. Or as Regent Koefoot
said Saturday, the University budget should not
become a political football.
More specifically, the University budget should
not become another issue to be wrangled with by the
various factions of the University. To the contrary,
this is the issue that should bring members of the
University community together.
This doesn't mean that those concerned about the
internal problems of the University should forget
their woes and neglect their efforts of bringing reform
within the University. If that would happen the
University would tace a most acute ana serious
problem: the problem of apathy.
But the point is that no one has to compromise
their principles to work side by side with others who
are trying to help the University.
To maintain an attitude of refusing to work with
the Regents on the budget because you may disagree
with them on other issues can only be characterized
as arrogance and impudence.
If a member of the Board of Regents, namely Dr.
Robert Koefoot, is going to speak strongly in behalf
of the University, then he deserves everybody's
support. If students and faculty respond favorably to
Regent Koefoot's concerns, they will be doing a
service to the entire community. In effect, they will
be encouraging further positive statements from other
members of the Regents.
Don't shirk this opportunity to work together
with the Regents. This may be one of the few times
that we will enjoy the chance to develop and cultivate
a cooperative, community spirit. Everyone can at
least give it a try.
Editor's note:
w.)iij,iV Dnilv Mphraskan will outline effectively means
students and concerned citizens can use to help improve the
University's budgetary problems.
William F. Buckley, Jr
Revenue - Sharin
It sometimes happens-have
noticed.'-that a suojeci
r slir.erl nn one desnairs
trvine to nick uo a niece of
it that will not fragment: and,
rather than start again from
scratch, the temptation is to
give up. It is so, for instance,
with the disarmament
proposals. And it is so with the
revenue-sharing business. At
this point so many people have
been heard on the subject,
often saying contradictory
things, one has the feeling that
the public simply turns the dial
when the subject comes up,
like the English and the
Common Market..
you
gets-
ot
State Statistics
Well, some recent figures are
in front of me, from which,
without very much coaxing, it
appears to me that a story line
emerges. First, one or two
surprises--to stimulate the
mind, and to break up the
stereotypes. New York is the
richest (highest per capita
income) state in the union,
right? Wrong. Connecticut is.
Alaska is one of the poorest,
right? It is the second richest;
Nevada is third, and only then
New York.
Mississippi--surely-is the
poorest state in the union?
Yes, it is. And socially the
most backward? How do you
usually define socially
progressive states? By the size
of state and local taxes.
Mississippi takes, in taxes,
$117 for every thousand
PAGE 4
dollars of personal income. By
contrast, New York State taxes
$140. Inasmuch as New York
is one of the very richest states,
and Mississippi is the very
poorest state, then the
tax-strain on the Mississippians
can be seen to be far greater
than on New Yorkers: which
collapses one old saw.
New York has the highest
rate of taxation in the nation?
No, the second highest.
Hawaii's is the highest.
What is the spread between
the poorest and the richest
state? Alaska's per capita
income is $4,460. Mississippi's
is $2,218, so that the richest
American state has about
double the per capita income
of the poorest American state.
What state is closest to the
median? Missouri, whose per
capita income is $3,458 (the
median is $3,406-almost three
times Japan's).
How many states are poorer
than Missouri? I.e., have per
capita incomes less than the
national average?
Twnety-three. They are:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi,
Montana, New Mexico, North
Carolina, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia and
Wyoming.
Incomes affect welfare
How does Missouri, as the
median state, make out in the
welfa.e game? Well, it pays
over to the U. S. Government
$500 million per year in taxes.
How much does he U. S.
Government pay to the state of
Missouri in welfare grants?
$502 millions.
Is that round trip really
necessary?
The Congress of the United
States has resolved that
henceforward no state richer
than the average, i.e., no state
whose per capita income
exceeds Missouri's, shall
qualify for any federal grant.
What about the poorer
states? Let Congress, which in
1969 put out $24 billion in
welfare grants, scale down its
brokerage function, by
addressing itself exclusively to
the poorer American cousins.
The poorest American state,
Mississippi, has been getting
federal aid at the rate of about
$200 per capita, compared to
Missouri's $125 per capita, and
(inexplicably), New York's
$140 per capita. The
parameters are suggested. Why
not begin at $100 per capita
for the underprivileged states?
The total population of the
less-than-average states is 53
million. Times $100, you have
just over five billion dollars. If
experience reveals that that is
not enough, raise the figure.
Meanwhile, the individual
states are emancipated, and can
look after their own welfare
problems in their own way:
and that is the true meaning of
decentralization.
THE DAILY NEB RASKAN
NFl'SMY
s X HANDLE" &LOBAL ST&KT&eV . . . BtU HANDLES
OUR NTl7?E TOReGN VOUCY STAND '
Frank Mankiewitz and Tom Bradeh
The balance of powers
WASHINGTON-There is a
nasty temper behind the
argument over whether the
Senate has a right to hear
directly from presidential aide
Henry Kissinger; and if Sen.
Stuart Symington of Missouri
showed it first, President
Nixon upped the temperature
sharply.
Symington said Secretary of
State Rogers was a joke on the
Washington cocktail circujt. It
was an unkind remark toward a
man who no one can dislike.
But President Nixon called the
remark "a cheap shot."
The exchange reveals what
Washington has sensed for a
long time: that on both sides
of the Vietnam issue there is a
feeling of helplessness and
frustration and realif
papered-over-anger.
Senators powerless?
Senators such as Symington
and J. W. Fulb right, who are
senior in service and
accustomed to wielding power,
find themselves unable to have
any effect on the policies of
the nation which are most
important and upon which
they take pride in having an
effect. To look in the mirror in
the morning and greet the
Chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee
must give a man a certain
self-i esteem, and thus it must
hurt him the harder when he
discovers that despite the title
he is impotent in the field of
foreign policy, even to the
extent of finding out very
much about what it is. No
wonder Fulbright complains on
television; it is almost all that is
left to him to do.
On the White House side,
Mr. Nixon has fallen victim to
the curious circular logic of
this war. He can hold the
casualties down by keeping
American troops out of battle,
but when he keeps American
troops out of battle, no
progress is made in the war. So
he too is frustrated. Under an
elaborate facade of politeness
to reporters and respect for
senators who differ, his
seething anger is visible.
In the argument over
Kissinger, the President has all
the logic on his side. Executive
p r i vilege is not only
long-established but essential
to government. If senators
were permitted to question
presidential advisers, it would
soon be debating advice the
President didn't take, and little
honest uninhibited advice
would be offered.
But being wrong-and
knowing that they are
wrong-does not ease the
senators' frustration . In the
sixth year of an undeclared
war, senators cannot even find
but how many troops the CIA
deploys in Laos or what
commitments the Pentagon has
made to the defense of
Thailand. When the President
tells a press conference that he
knows of no plans on the part
of a wholly financed subsidiary
to invade another country, but
indicates that it would be the
wholly owned subsidiary's
decision, the entire Senate
winces.
Balance gone
It is too late to do anything
about restoring the balance of
Executive-Legislative power in
the Indochina war. There was a
point-perhaps it was after the
Gulf of Tonkin-when Mr.
Nixon's predecessor might have
asked for a declaration of war.
Whether he had been refused
or upheld, we would be better
off.
But Sen. Thomas Eagleton
of Missouri has proposed just
such a settlement for the
future. He has introduced a
resolution requiring an explicit
act of Congress to authorize
hostilities, giving the President
unilateral power only to repel
attacks upon the United States
or upon its armed forces
lawfully deployed abroad.
Eagleton is espousing his
resolution as a return to the
provisions of the Constitution,
which specifies that Congress
shall have the power to declare
war. He argues that an
indifferent Congress provided
little or no restraint on
presidential decisions which
have entirely shaped the course
in Indochina, and that
Congress would not have been
indifferent had it been required
by law to act responsibly.
The Eagleton plan has at
least the merit of logical
action. It will be better for
both branches of government
to give it serious consideration
than to continue, as now, to
snarl at each other.
Sorry
Quite obviously, the Daily
Nebraskan erred in headlining
the editorial concerning
Masters' Week (Monday, March
8). It should have read, "The
Good Trip." Sorry!?
MICK MOR1ARTY
editor
CONNIE WINKLER
managing editor
JOHN DVORAK
news editor
GENE HILLMAN
advertising manager
JAMES HORNER
chairman, publications committee
Telephones: editor: 472-2588, news: 2589, advertising: 2590. Second
I Class postage rates paid at Lincoln, Neb.
Subscription rates are $5 per semester or $8.50 per year. Published
Monday through Friday during the school year except during vacation and
exam periods. Member of the Intercollegiate Press, National Educational
Advertising Service.
. Th Daily Nebraskan is a student publication, independent of the
University of Nebraska's administration, faculty and student government.
Address: The Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.
dear editor. . . dear editor. . . dear editor . . .
Dear editor
I would like to comment on the
letter of Robert Rauner which was
placed in the Daily Nebraskan on
Friday, March 5, 1971. It is my
opinion that this letter was
completely inane and that Mr.
Rauner is obviously not aware of
the consequences that will arise
because of the proposed budget
cut.
I am not being made a stooge
nor a sucker by any instructors at
this University concerning this
issue. Instructors are concerned as
am I (and rightly so) with the
recommended University fiscal
policy currently being propounded
by Governor Exon. This University,
without a substantial, let alone a
minimal budget, will become
academically closer to the second
rate institution than what it is now.
University instructors are more
aware of this than what most
students seem to be, and totally
more aware than what most
residents of the state of Nebraska
are. It is clearly evident that
without, adequate materials and
facilities instructors will not be able
to instruct nor will students have
the means, even if they do have the
initiative, for an adequate
independent study program.
If people as Robert Rauner are
willing to sit aside and watch the
decay of this University without
taking into account the
consequences of this decay, I say
that they are placing little value on
their own education, and no value
on the education of future students
at this institution and the progress
of education in general in this state.
I for one do not want to see the
installation of third and fourth rate
instructors in this University for
lack of sufficient inducement and
poor facilities. I do not want to see
limited enrollment for any in-state
students wanting to come to this
University because of a tution hike
or because he had graduated from
an unaccredited high school. I do
not want to see our finer tenured
and untenured faculty members
leave this University because of a
reduction in faculty salaries. I do
not want to see research being
deterred in the College of Medicine,
the College of Dentistry, and the
College of Agriculture, to name a
very few, which could benefit the
entire profession because of a lack
of state funds which also influence
Federal funds. I do not want to see
the new engineering building,
planning to be opened next fall,
remain unopened because the
University cannot afford the
increase in utilities and
maintenance on their budget. I do
not want a degree from an
institution that will soon be classed
as second or third rate.
It seems illogical when
comparing the University of
Nebraska (all campuses) with all
other members of the Big Eight, on
the basis of the relationship
between gains in enrollments and
state appropriations, (1959-69) that
the University of Nebraska is the
only institution that experienced
less gain in State support than in
enrollment. This fact is taken from
Case For Nebraska by Chancellor
Varner in his presentation of the
University's biennial budget,
1971-73.
No, Mr. Rauner, University
instructors are not making a stooge
out of me, because I am graduating;
but ask yourself if, because of
Governor Exon's proposed budget
cut, hey will make a stooge out of
you!.
George Arthur Harris
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1971
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
PAGE 5
TUESDAY. MARCH 9. 197V