njcrrir, ncv:r:r.t;:r 15, 1373
7
pinion
Sunday's news perplexing, amusing
This weekend's news offers some head-shaking
double Jakes,
A report datelined Washington tells us that '
Arneiicans ars making progress in developing solar
energy more than 250 companies in America Are
experimenting in solar development. Their sales
are expected to top$l billion by 1 985, Good for
their balance sheets. Good for Americans, who
are making progress in the time-limited battle
against depleting resources. Or are we? Another ,
story predicts that big cars will dominate the auto
industry's list of best-selling 19? 6 models. Still "
another Sunday ioy gives us Arabs' reactions to
this spendthrift attitude. They're taking their
summer vacations in Bombay this year.
. There's more.
Two headlines in the Sunday Journal and Star,
""Slammer is Human Warehouse Full of Utter
Misery", and "City Jail as No Mace for People,"
would seem to carry a clear message-jails are un
lit for humans-among other living things. Cut
another headline not faraway asks Why Does He
Want to Die?", when Gary Gllmore in Utah
State Prison says he would pref er a firing squad
to spending the rest of his life in prison.
. On a lighter note, we get this from Mamie
Eisenhower on the occasion of her eightieth
birthday. "May she (Rcsalynn Carter) always
provide a home for her husband. During eight '
years in the White House I let Dee run the coun
try, and I ran the home," Mamie reminisced. She
foes on to say that the presidency t?'s Ike's busi
ness; her 's was the children and the household.
- The fondness most of us have f or Mamie -shouldn't
prevent us from reminding her that
times and First Lady's have changed. From what
we've seen'cf Rosafynn on the campaign trail we
can be "assured or resigned to the fact that she will
make the presidency for the next four years part
of her business, also. '
Br - " wl 1 1 A LJT M rrr ..ijUMW
'IF 4&3 M'a?3 Lrt
A good I
VttiT Ave?
I JF" w
ti3TU 1, iTI I - . -
. .. m Mm
ny re .oiso qooo or scon
By Nicholas Von Hoffman
In the waning days of the late political campaign the
accidental President found himself in the Pacific North
west telling the aircraft workers that, thanks to the admin
istration's finviromnsnl! noise standards, ihe airline in
dustry will have to scrap its older jets, buy new silent
swifties and thereby more jobs will be created for ople
in that region of the country. It was a strange statement
sidewise
.
by the head of an administration which hA
environmental protections on Ihe grounds that they cost
jobs and slow down the economy.
Two strip iriinmg bills were vetoed by Ford on those
grounds. As with Ihe specifics of noise abatement and air
planes, it should have been obvious that, if strip jnining
is prohibited, deep tunneling whkh 'needs more new
machinery snd more manpower wiH have to he used.
If the airlines must scrap half their jets mibsi cotl
industry isn't allowed to use Ihe cheapest technology
available to it, airplanes are going to cost more and so is
coal and dscHcity and everything else made from coat
Est raising the prices doesn't axiomaticsTy cost jobs, liar
does it cause inflation.
. Inflation is when a3 the prices rise, when the price level
rises. Prices for individual products rise for all kinds of
reasons rach as improved qudiry, temparry shortas,'
strikes by workers mskaig the same thing in competrnve
shepj and on and on. -
Instead of howlinj at '"the bird and hssny crowd,' or
Ilinz at ""envirosffienlal curitankm as th:t tnrwfVt
Fortune does, it might help to calcukte the benefits as
well as the costs. Unhappily, the traditional bookkeeping
of the Western World is only set up to figure costs.
"Tihty-one industrial plants employing 18CD people
h"2 been forced closed," Fortune tells cs, but makes no
estimate of how many jobs msadatcay -environmental
xtaadards haw created, when the advocates of pg-sty as
and green-scum drmkiag water weep about the costs, thsy
don't explain that these so-called costs constitzts the pry
cliscks cf the workers in the new industries created by civ -
M-.ihe cunrisln costs cf pollution abatement could
imiijj . i j JiittaJ5 Lii iiiS
Eiities cDntprnils to the outlays for defense oreduca
CzlT Unthinkahb thst s;-e should spsci that lid cf
money to satisfy the Ferdinand ihe-u3 complexes of
p-:'- ho won't zziZs for Aimbk but wast the r,vst
zspITS the pests ence diTTcd. 'Ths hea!th-t-ti!v-riC
a s I,
view,-" sneers Fortune, which has no objection to defense
at any price. Yet we have every reason to believe that our
toxic environment lakes far more American lives every
year than the Russians do.
. Saviiaisment,waTeccsicmics imllar '
Ihe economic effects of spending money on war ma-'
terial and munitions and spending it cm preserving the en
vironment are quite similar. The social and political con
sequences are not, although both Mads of expenditures do
create employment. You'i also recall that toward the end.
Ford and Dole were both Hitting about the country ex
plaining to war workers what a Democratic cut in the
Pentagon's allowance would mean an terms of jobs, not in
terms of national security.
The Democrats aren't likely to reduce arms expendi
tures, but as long as both parties are ccanniitted to achiev
ing and regulating prosperity through $&ernment
spending, it's very important that arms not be allowed to
be the only or the most important form that spending
can take. -
Sums comparable to those wasted in the Pentagon are
being wasted in education and meflHne and, although
non-military spending snakes no clfXerence in narrowly
economic terms, the plusss should be self-evident. T2
good it wiH do aside, it's very important that billions for
water treatment plants and ether non-war objectives xz
maia popular and respectable.
- - ; FsrsrsJfrar .. -
Even so, the economy and sanity would be better
. served if our envircnmental efforts were, carried cut less
wasiefully and kss hannfu!!y. liosl environmental regula
tion favors currently existing large corporations if for do
ether reassa than they have Ihe dollar vdnme to handle
the paper work and red tape. Moreover, environmental
regulation can -Tslse the start-up costs of gsiri? into
business, thereby discouncg new competition f arclder,
established giants. ,
The pro-pig sty crowd at Fortune and elsewhere have a
point when they bring up these kinds cf objections. They
also make sense when they say -that the same
environmental objectives can be reached, not by regula- '
rion and the clanking bureaucracy that implies, but by
seme sort of use tax. Companies that pollute are charged
.or taxed for the costs of undoing their mess. Companies
that deal pdhUe, don't pty. It's not much differed than :
a -dry overusest tirg to a factory, "We charge so
much per pound to haul your garbage off. Or you can hire
a scavenger to take care -cf the mess ycursrlf, or you can ;
drvrlcp a process in your factory so that yea don't have
any garbage
.Standard rfjlztcry structures and' praccdares can't
be applied to problems Ike ths emirccmrnt. We have to -barn
hew to rslats vilheut so many pemkiDus sj-ie
eUacts. We have to because there is a bit cf Ferdinand ia
most cf us. Besides, we mzi the jobs.
CerVv-t, 1t73, by Kby fmtwm $
letters
Gnb us a chonco
It as fascinating how one prefix in the English language -can
raise so many eyebrows, especially when it comes to
politics. I am referring to the prefix "anti" which I used
to help formulate an organization to examine President
elect Carter's campaign statements and the planks in the
Democratic platform. Among those eyebrows raised
were those belonging to L. Kent Wolgsmott, a columnist
for the Daily Jtfebraskan (Friday, Nov. 12). I have to ad
mire Wolgamott and others who share his beliefs for one
thing; all of you seem to Live a well-adjusted vocabulary
of adjectives. Wolgamott also possesses the ability to read
-only what he wants to read. Nowhere did I mention our
i group was out to resist changes, rather the implemnia
i tton of those changes. ' j '
The mere concept of full employment (based on our
capitalist economy) is very highly impossible to achieve,
even if it would nullify a cut in the welfare rolls and
increase the .tax base. If the UJS. were to obtain full
employment under Carter and the Humphrey-ilawkins
bill, 1 (question its ability to last. With everyone working,
the inventories across the 115. would be bulging, which
would lead to a mass worker lay-off to help reduce the
build-up.; ".-', , -
To avoid this, we could slow our economic growth by
reducing production, but his leads to lay-offs also, (wit
ness the automobile industry a couple of years ago.) So
the government must provide these 1 aid-off workers with
jobs to maintain full lemployment (Wolgamott's last
I ' T5 . 1 ..,.'11 .V . . Tl r. r.. -1-. i- .tl1?i. "."I r r
gram? None other than by an increase in the welfare pro
gram, which is financed by our tax system. I seriously
question Carter's ability to give the middle-American a
tax break, as he staled in his campaign speeches. 1 have ,
nothing against full employment, but plainly speaking, it '
is nearly impossible to do and still maintain a capitalist :
society as we know it today. If our ultimate goal is full1
employment then 1 propose this country go the fall route
, of mtioaahaing our industries, having a national health
program-a standardize:! education sy stem ana an "the t
other elements of a complete socialist society. With the
profit motive now eliminated and everyone on the same '
social level, we can relax for awhile. I might as well drop
out of school, since a job would be assured for me any
way. Wolgamoti, 1 don't quite understand your nsed to
categorize blacks, the lower-income persons and the less -educated
as you did. Why did you single out blacks?
Aren't some blacks in the country of low income and
you not mention the American Indian or the Mexican
Americans sw any other of the minorities in this country
who have been "Virtually ignored" and vetoed to
death?" Have you forgotten about the Civil Rights Move
ment? Or the many tinemployment benefits cow estab
lished by most businesses ia the country? Or that institu
tions across the VS. have programs to help nunorify
students and others with lower incomes to further their
education? Hrnrnrn
It is nice to say that national health insurance wiH
reduce profiteering in the medical profession asl that
it will ""allow our people to gel proper health care." Cut
I don't ismenibei reading in Wolgsmott's column how
it wiH reduce profiteering or ensure that each person is
taken care of. For that matter, what is prcGiserkg ia
the medical prssion? Are you rrferrirg to the present
government-becked Medicare and Sdsdkaid programs?
And how wiH this suajonal health iasuraaee be financed?
Again I refer to Carter's statement about gr.irg the mii
. dlamtrkan a tax break. So the ilsBchxey-ilnidss
bI3 wa "clean up the squalor of our chics' also? Cut
how? -
I have noticed that mcre.and mere persons in Sweden
and England want to leave their country to escrps tax
burdens. But why? They have national health and ether
comparable socialistic prcgnsns. fhculda't they be con
tent? However, I must concede that England has a work
able health program because it gives citizens an option cf
either private practice .or the national program. Perhaps
if the UJS. could work out something Lhe that . - . ' "
1 resent Wo!gamott's accusations that our proposed
organization doesn't know His Democratic platform, that
we are out to .resist any .social char-.e and crpsdiTy his
attempt to associate cur proposed crgasdiatioa '?h
JlcCifffiryisra. That was a blow; h fact, it was a fes.2
Acnua.
As 1 said before, 1 hare &o perfect sclstba to si fce-ss
h C0T k anss-er the qestiosx 1 ti
above through my proposed crgnzation. Thsa majte
S23 IhS0 realized and saoUei into cm pressnt
way ci L.e. I only adc that you give cur crrsnizatiea a
chance before yoa condemn it. . "