Page 4
Daily Nebraskan
Monday, March 1, 1982
Editorial
V3f
Right-wing rhetoric returns
HOOKED
As the conflict in El Salvador grows
bloodier and the United States tics itself
closer to that country and its ruling junta,
Americans debate the pros and cons of
U.S. involvement. Those against that in
volvement compare the situation to that of
Vietnam during the 1960s. Conservatives
counter these arguments with firm denials
that the United States is entering another
Vietnam.
For example, speaking to the Conser
vative Political Action Conference Satur
day, Secretary of State Alexander Maig
said, "Salvador is not Vietnam."
Hut, according to an Associated Press
report, in the same breath Haig said, "The
American people arc not unwilling to sup
port a sound effort to do whatever is right,
provided they believe we mean business
and we are going to succeed."
What could sound more like the old
right-wing rhetoric used during the Viet
nam War? How many times were Ameri
cans told we could win the war in Vietnam
if only we would fight it in an all-out
effort, no holds barred. Bomb civilians and
drop napalm until the communist foe
drops to its knees and cries for mercy.
I laig was not the only one making such
statements this weekend. Sen. Jesse Helms,
R.-N.C, told the same conference that the
Reagan administration is not taking strong
enough action in Central America. He also
criticized the administration for aligning
itself with El Salvadoran President Jose
Napoleon Duartc.
Furthermore, calling Duarte a "left-wing
socialist" when most Americans are com
plaining that Duarte is too far to the right,
too tied to the monicd and landed interests
in El Salvador, showed how out of touch
Helms is.
Are we going to let men like Haig and
Helms tell us to disregard similarities be
tween the situation in El Slavador and
what were the first steps to American in
volvement in Vietnam? ObviuMsly, Haig
and Helms don't understand how many
Americans feel, what many Americans
foresee and fear.
These men must not have learned from
the mistakes made in Southeast Asia, and if
they did, they are disregarding those
lessons as they deal with and comment on
U.S. involvement in another delicate
situation. Can't these men leave well
enough alone and remember what happens
when a nation interjects itself into what is
basically the nationalist civil war of
another country?
Whether conservatives want to admit it,
we've been down this road before and our
final arrival point was not one many
Americans would want to return to.
Government's draft program failure no surprise
In case you haven't noticed it, February has come and
gone, and with it the end of the government's lenient
policy toward draft resisters.
February had been a month of extension for those 18-year-olds
who hadn't yet registered for the draft. "Give
Reid Warren
'em a month to collect their thoughts and they'll come to
their senses," was the government's reasoning.
But now it's no more Mr. Nice Guy for all you 18-year-old
lawless heathens. March is here, and with it a newer,
tougher policy toward draft resisters. The government is
going to start cracking down on all the young men who
haven't fulfilled their obligation to sign up for the peace
time draft.
Somehow I doubt it. If the government's prosecution
process goes anything like its normal, day-to-day activit
ies, then any 18-year-olds out there who haven't yet
registered don't have much to worry about.
The peacetime draft has been filled with delay, in
decision and wastefulness. It has been a prime example of
government's tripping over itself. It has been, to a large
extent, a failure.
The government hasn't gotten as many young men to
register as it had hoped, and that's before their forthcom
ing "crackdown." It has been slow with its entire process.
One delay after another has been the program's pock
mark. The government's program was ill-fated from the
start; it started off on bad footing and has gotten progress
ively more inept.
It comes as no surprise that the government hasn't
gotten as many people to register as it had hoped for.
There has been a media campaign, yes, but somehow Jerry
Reed doesn't seem like my idea of a positive impetus for
registering. I get the feeling that, of those who haven't
registered, there are just as many kids who don't care and
haven't bothered to bother as there are those who are con
sciously objecting the ideals of a draft.
There are many reasons for absolving the peacetime
draft. Conveniently tossing aside the plulosophical ones,
such as opposition to war and killing, the peacetime draft
should be abolished for no other reason than that it has
shown itself to be such a boondoggle.
To be fair, we in Nebraska have more than adequately
represented ourselves in the draft. We are far and above
the national sign-up averages. Why that is, I don't know;
I'm sure it's either because we're dumber or smarter than
the nation as a whole. I just haven't figured out which,
yet.
At any rate, considering the government's prodigious
ness at blundering the peacetime draft, you draft registers
have nothing to worry about. If the government ever gets
around to prosecuting you for not registering, by then
we'll probably have entered World War III anyway.
Reagans or not, ' A deficit is a deficit is a deficit'
The Democrats have been having a lot of fun with the
Reagan administration over the projected size of the 1983
federal deficit ($91 5 billion), and one must admit there is
a rough justice in this. Every conservative in America, in
cluding the present writer, has taken large hunks out of
the hides of previous presidents, Democrat and Republi
can alike, for countenancing deficits less than half or two
thirds that size. At last our beau ideal enters the White
House, and right away we are confronted with the largest
projected deficit in U.S. history!
Fun aside though, what can be said about that deficit?
(Never mind the still bigger ones predicted by wishful
9 .
William Rusher
Democrats for the years ahead nobody really knows
what those years will bring, since that depends on inter
vening developments.)
The first thing that needs to be said, with the usual nod
to Gertrude Stein, is that a deficit is a deficit is a deficit,
and that it doesn't cease to be a deficit, or have the
deleterious effects of a deficit, merely because it is run up
in the administration of Ronald Reagan. This deficit is
very bad news indeed.
Having said that, let's get on to the next question, per
haps humanly the most interesting: Who's to blame? The
Reagan administration blames the 44unexpected-' reces
sion; the Democrats adhere to the debatable but ancient
tradition that an incumbent administration must accept
responsibility for all major economic developments
occurring during its tenure.
There is a little sleight of hand going on here, on both
sides. Far from not expecting a recession, the administrat
ion not only expected it but (while quite sincerely deplor
ing its painful effects) privately welcomed it, as a neces
sary step in slowing down a dangerously overinflated
economy.
On the other hand, the Democrats are being deliberate
ly incorrect when they misquote candidate Reagan as hav
ing promised, in 1980, that he would simultaneously cut
taxes, increase defense expenditures and balance the bud
get in fiscal 1983. He may have been optimistic, but he
wasn't all that optimistic. Reagan's pledge to balance the
budget was always linked to later years, though he did
hold out the hope that tax revenues would actually rise,
even in 1983, under the stimulus of his proposed cuts in
tax rates.
On to the next, and more important, question:
Granted that this deficit is bad, just how bad is it? Here
the Democrats aren't going out of their way - why should
they? - to ease the Republicans' embarrassment, but the
rest of us ought to be capable of remembering without the
Democrats' help that the sheer scale of all figures involv
ing the federal government is forever increasing, for at
least three different reasons: by virtue of inflation, by
virtue of the increasing expenditures (e.g. for Medicaid)
built into the budget under existing law, and by virtue of
the continuing expansion of the whole economy. The
1983 deficit of $91.5 billion, adjusted for three factors,
simply isn't comparable (for example) to the $66 billion
run up by Gerald Ford in the second of his two years in
office six years ago.
And finally, the most important question of all: What
can be done about this deficit? Basically, there are only
three ways of covering a federal deficit: by taxes, by
printing extra money and by borrowing. (I have not, of
course, forgotten that it can also be reduced by cutting
the budget, but I am talking now about covering the
deficit, not reducing it.)
Mr. Reagan still hopes that his sharp tax cuts will
stimulate the economy and thus pave the way for fatter
revenues even at the lower rates; but he is adamantly
against raising the tax rates and thereby diminishing the
stimulus, and he is right. Merely printing extra money
("monetizing the debt") is as the Democrats discover
ed - the royal road to double-digit inflation and national
suicide.
That leaves borrowing, wherein the government
competes with the private sector for available money,
thereby keeping interest rates high and to that extent dis
couraging the economy. It is the course the administration
will take when the time comes, and - unsatisfactory as it
is - probably offers us the best hope of breaking through
to better days.
(c) 1982. Universal Press Syndicate
Nebffskam
Luuuriaiz uu nui necessarily express we opinions ui i"e
Daily Nebraskan 's publishers, the NU Board of Regents, the
University of Nebraska and its employees or the student body.
USPS 144-080
Editor: Martha Murdock; Managing editor: Janice Pigaga;
News editor: Kathy Stokebrand; Associate news editors: Patti
Gallagher. Bob Glissrnann; Editorial assistant: Pat Clark; Night
news editor: Kate Kopischke; Assistant night news editor: Tom
Hassing; Entertainment editor: Bob Crisler; Sports editor: Larry
Sparks; Assistant sports editor: Cindy Gardner; Art director:
Dave Luebke; Photography chief: D. Eric Kircher; Graphic de
signer: John G. Goecke.
Copy editors: Mary Ellen Behne, Leslie Kendrick, Sue
MacDonald, Melinda Norris, Patty Pryor, Peggy Reichardt. Lori
Siewert, Michiela Thuman. Tricia Waters, Rob Wilborn.
Business manager: Anne Shank-Volk; Production manager:
Kitty Policky; Advertising manager: Art K. Small; Assistant
advertising manager: Jerry Scott.
Publications Board chairperson: Margy McCleery. 472-2454.
Professional adviser: Don Walton, 473-7301.
The Daily Nebraskan is published by the UNL Publications
Board Monday through Friday during the fall and spring semes
ters, except during vacation. Address: Daily Nebraskan. 34 Ne
braska Union, 1400 R St.. Lincoln. Neb., 68588. Telephone:
472-2588.
All material in the Daily Nebraskan is covered by copyright.
Second class postage paid at Lincoln, Neb., 68510.
Annual subscription: $20, semester subscription: $11.
"POSTMASTER. Send address changes to Daily Nebraskan,
34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St.. Lincoln, Neb . 68588."
Ik