thursday, february 9, 1978
page
daily nebraskan
Middle-income student will cash in on Carter plan
"Hey, buddy, can ya spare a
dime?"
The Carter administration is heed
ing the pleas of college students
across the nation for federal funding
of their education.
President Carter Wednesday an
nounced a $1.2 billion national
aid program for college students
from middle-income families, an
attempt to counteract a congres
sional push for tax credits for par
ents. The aid would include grants of
$250 to students from families
with incomes between $15,000 and
$25,000, and subsidized loans for
students from families with gross
income up to $47,000.
Joseph Califano, secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare, has
said that families in lower- and middle-income
levels need federal assis
tance to send their children to col
lege. But, Califano says tax credits
would provide benefits for high
income taxpayers, as well as those
who need the money.
"We cannot afford poverty pro
grams for people who aren't poor,"
Califano said.
With this, we agree.
Tax cerdits would not specify
just lower income groups. The
people who need the money
wouldn't get it; and the people who
don't need it would get it.
The way our United States tax
system is organized, the high-income
levels can get more breaks
if their accountants are cunning
enough-than the average middle
class taxpayer.
This has overflowed into the
educational system, and the mem
bers of Congress have not realized
it.
There has . been much discussion
of late about the great burgeon
ing number of students defaulting
on their educational loans. Students
Seem to be in the limelight.
But when students who do not
need money are benefitting from
pushes in Congress, it is the lower
income students that suffer from the
quickly deflating pocketbook syn
drome. As much as Carter can be criti
cized in his policies, this is one area
that should be commended. Cali
fano and Carter seemed to be con
cerned about the plight of the less
fortunate (when it comes to money )
students.
Thankfully.
Canal treaty debate unlocks complexity on simple issue
The U.S. Senate is Abating the Panama
Canal treaties, a simple issue blown out of
proportion by the opponents of the
treaties.
The opponents, mainly conservative
Republicans, have tried to portray the
Canal treaties as more than an agreement
between the United States and Panama.
They have attempted to make the
treaties an issue symbolic of an American
retreat from world leadership and an
example of United States reluctance to
exert its influence over a "tin horn"
dictator in a small country.
The debate in the Senate will concen
trate on questions of national security and
economics. But, at the heart of the debate,
the question will simply be imperialistic
American pride.
The treaties will be approved by the
Senate. Robert Byrd, the Senate
majority leader, is too shrewd a politician
to allow the treaties to be debated and
voted upon without certainty of the out
come. However, the three- to five-week debate
which Byrd had promised will provide the
public with an insight into the foreign
policy making process and will undoubted
ly stir emotions.
I. kent
wolgafiiott
The opponents of the treaties have a
valid point when they attack the treaties'
ambiguities on the issues of defense and
priority use of the canal.
Byrd and Minority Leader Howard
Baker have expressed their concerns in
these areas and will support a reservation
to the treaty which outlines the U.S.
position in these matters.
The leservation should be enough to
guarantee passage of the treaties, but the
hard core opponents of the treaties will
accept nothing more than complete reject
ion of the new agreements.
The opponents believe the treaties
represent a post-Vietnam attitude on the
part of the American people, an attitude
characterized by a sheepish nonconfronta
tion policy with smaller countries.
They use a patriotic argument to per
suade people that the canal give-away is the
first step in undermining the United States
position in the "world, turning the country
into a second-rate power.
What the opponents fail to consider is
that the world is more complex than the
simple you-are-either-for-us-or-against-us
policy.
The classic confrontational method of
dealing with smaller nations is becoming a
thing of the past. Smaller nations control
many of the vital resources in the world
and the United States must recognize this.
The Panama Canal treaties do not give
anything away. They are the product of
negotiations which have lasted through
four administrations.
Any money given to Panama under the
terms of the treaty must come from the
revenues of the canal. The change will be
phased in over 30 years, not overnight.
Most importantly, the treaties show
U.S. recognition of the conditions in the
real world of international relations.
If the United States is to continue
to lead the world, it must respect '.'piker
nations' existence and sovereignty.
The Panama Canal treaties are a result
VI VWpViailVll lV V TT WWII UIV VlUtVW kUVVtf
and a member of the third world. They can
signal the entrance of the United States
into a new foreign policy. V
It is imperative that the people of this
country realize that we live in an inter
dependent world. The debate on the canal
treaties should graphically demonstrate
that fact. ;
We must hope that their thorough
coverage will be enough to offset the mis
conceptions spread by opponents of the
treaties who are pursuing a policy intended"
to propel us back into the 1950s. -:
L. Kent Wolgamott was an aide in
Nebraska Sen. Edward Zorinsky Washing
ton office last year. He is now a senior
political science major at UNL. '; C- -
to the edit J
I would like to encourage the Daily
Nebraskan and its readers to exercise more
caution in making generalizations about
the Nebraska Legislature.
Do not be so quick to assume that
Scottsbluff Sen. William Nichol's behavior
during Professor Andus Skuja's testimony
is typical of the Legislature.
I was present for the Judiciary Commit
tee hearing which has drawn so much scorn
and agree with John Milnikel that Nichol's
behavior was nothing short of ridiculous.
Uut I also have seen other state senators
perform ths duties of their office.
For every William Nichol in our Legisla
ture, there are several people like Steve
Fowler, Douglas Bereuter and John
DeCamp.
Our Legislature is considered the most
open and responsive in the nation, so take
care in sensationalizing and extrapolating
instances when it appears otherwise.
Bob Gleason
ASUN Government Liaison Committee
Rape concern
There was a recent article in the Daily
Nebraskan about an anti-rape pellet that
deters attackers by emitting the smell of a
skunk on the attacker, as well as the
victim.
I hope this might be a solution to a
problem that has concerned me for some
time: How should my wife protect herself
when she is out alone?
Would the device work? I suppose not,
but I hoped that some organization or in
dividual would examine the product.
The attitudes and statements of Gina
Washburn, director of the Lincoln Rape
Crisis Center, and Nancy Turhume of the
Women's Resource Center, who both
talked about the product in the article,
leave me confused.
"It's just recognition of the individual's
incompetence towards the situation,"
Washburn said. But isn't this true0 Aren't
"women somewhat helpless against attackers
who are larger and much stronger0
Turhume said the idea wasn"t too
bright and that it was obvious "that a man
invented it." As a human being, I resent
this denigration of men just as much as I
would if she hau said woman.
Many men are sensitive to the problem
of rape, not just those that have wives and
children.
Washburn and Turhume are entitled to
the, opinions. But as representatives of
influential organizations, I hope they choose
their words more carefully in the future.
We know and expect these organizations
to be pro-women, but sometimes it is hard
to resist the feeling that they might also be
anti-men.
HI try to resist that conclusion.
Many men are less than sensitive about
the problem of rape, and the statements of
Washburn and Turhume do not help.
Name Withheld
Lecture hall scrapped
I would like to correct a glaring error in
"Little MoV letter to the editor Thurs
day criticizing sports complex track policy.
The sports complex did not cost "many
thousands of thousands of dollars." It cost
SI 3.1 million dollars, i. e., sboat 50 times
what it would have cost to build a decent
lecture hall in Manter Ha8, the new I'S:
sc. js building, for use by hundreds cf
students.
If I remember correctly, the sports
complex was funded about the same ye:r
as Manter Hall, and the life sciences lecture
hall was scrapped because we already hzl
Henzlik. ' -
JohnJasoiy Jr.
Life science pre
