1
Monday, October 28, 1985
Page 4
Daily Nebraskan
Si n
o
ffliu'ooaui
TTa 71 a
acMw Bav emu
, . .It .1 i . Hit
m . m mm mm mm t a.jm wtt&ti m f j . m ta i it w i m
toad answer to
'biidMet dilemma
or years the salaries of UNL instructors have lagged
behind the salaries of their peers.
A 1983-84 study by the department of institutional
research and planning found the average salary of all
UNL professors was 14 percent lower than the salaries
of their peers at comparable institutions. This year, salaries
average 12 percent less than those at peer institutions.
Yet now the NU Board of Regents plans to ask the Legisla
ture for emergency powers to enable NU to absorb $5 million in
proposed cuts by reducing salaries, eliminating positions,
canceling pay raises or cutting entire programs.
Regent Robert Koefoot of Grand Island, who wrote the
resolution seeking emergency powers, proposed a faculty pay
cut, rather than the elimination of entire programs.
But faculty cuts are not the answer to the budget dilemma.
First, salaries already are too low. Second, UNL has eliminated
41 faculty positions since 1981, and department officials say
many professors have resigned to take better-paying jobs at
other universities or in the private sector.
In a February 1985 Daily Nebraskan article, regent James H.
Moylan of Omaha said raising faculty salaries was the boarcTs
first priority. Apparently the regents have abandoned their
goal.
Faculty members already suffer from budget cuts their
equipment is outdated, classrooms are crowded and many
cannot provide materials for students. Instructors also should
not be forced to absorb the latest cuts with their low earnings.
The regents instead should consider vertical program cuts
based on a uniform criteria. For example, a program's fate
could be decided by these factors:
What is the student demand for the program?
What is the program's national reputation?
How many of the program's graduates use their talents in
Nebraska?
Program cuts would hurt the state and force many young
people to export their talents to other states that offer the
programs they seek.
Program cuts would make the university a glorified state
college, but eliminating faculty positions and reducing salar
ies would leave only the skeleton of a university.
Last Thursday the crossword puzzle was inadvertently left
out of the Daily Nebraskan.
Several readers called to complain about the puzzle omis
sion, and a few suggested that news stories should be left out
in order to print the puzzle.
It appears that some students are more concerned with a
"rossword puzzle than with articles on the $5 million budget
; ut that could destroy their university.
Too bad.
The Daily Nebraskan
34 Nebraska Union
1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448
EDITOR
NEWS EDITOR
CAMPUS EDITOR
ASSOCIATE NEWS
EDITOR
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
WIRE EDITOR
COPY DESK CHIEFS
SPORTS EDITOR
ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT
EDITOR
ART DIRECTOR
GENERAL MANAGER
PRODUCTION MANAGER
ASSISTANT
PRODUCTION MANAGER
ADVERTISING MANAGER
ASSISTANT
ADVERTISING MANAGER
CIRCULATION MANAGER
PUBLICATIONS BOARD
CHAIRPERSON
VIcklRuhga, 472-1766
Ad Hudler
Suzanne Teten
Kathleen Green
Jonathan Taylor
Mlchlela Thuman
Laurl Hopple
Chris Welsch
Bob Asmussen
Bill Allen
Kurt Eberhardt
Daniel Shattll
Katherlne Policky
Barb Branda
Sandl Stuewe
Mary Hupf
Brian Hoglund
Joe Thomsen
The Daily Nebraskan (USPS 144-080) is published by the UNL Publica
tions Board Monday through Friday in the fall and spring semesters and
Tuesdays and Fridays in the summer sessions, except during vacations.
Readers are encouraged to submit story ideas and comments to the Daily
Nebraskan by phoning 472-1763 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday. The public also has access to the Publications Board. For
information, contact Joe Thomsen.
Subscription price is $35 for one year.
Postmaster: Send address changes to the Daily Nebraskan, Nebraska
Union 34, 1 400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. Second-class postage paid
at Lincoln, NE 68510.
ALL MATERIAL COPYRIGHT 19S5 DAILY NEBRASKAN
PICK WW
Full of 'piercing insights '
Chris solves a few mysteries
I've been whelmed by the volume of
mail in response to my plea for "Ask
Chris" letters.
In my first column, I asked readers
to send in their questions on any mys
teries, and said I would do my best to
solve them. Well, last week I dug into
the Ask-Chris file cabinet, pulled out a
few letters and solved a few mysteries.
Chris
Welsch
Dear Chris:
Your insights are piercing. First, why
is it that you think you're such an
authority on everything? Second, why
do so many people murder with guns
instead of knives, strangulation or
bludgeoning?
Jon Knra
junior
reality science
Dear Jon:
I've spent a lot of time thinking
about your questions. First, I'm at least
as qualified as Abby. I have a snooty
sister and can put on airs as well as the
next columnist. Second, people use
guns for murder in the United States
more than any other weapon because of
what I call the "Veg-o-matic mentality."
Why get your hands dirty, risk bruises
or even get close to the mess when you
can stand at a fair distance and pull a
trigger? Why slice a vegetable with a
knife when your Vego-o-matie can do it
so much faster? The founding fathers
knew Americans would appreciate the
convenience when they gave us the
right to bear arms and electric can
openers. Who knows when the next
revolution will come?
Dear Chris:
Your insights are piercing. In regard
to your request for questions, here is a
letter I have written to you. It seems to
me redundant, repetitive and monoto
nous the way Nebraska football coach
Tom Osborne always says he is worried
about the next opponent; even when
the next opponent is eight elderly men
in loafers and Bermuda shorts. Why
does he always say that, even when the
game is a certain blowout for Big Red?
Gerry Atricks
freshman
animal tricks
Dear Gerry:
This is one of NU's greatest myster
ies. Osborne usually explains his irra
tional fear by saying the other team is
better than their record indicates, or
that old men are tricky, and loafers can
be used as dangerous weapons. It
might be considered poor sportsman
ship to say, "We're going to rip off their
faces and shred their innards," but just
the same, I'd really like to hear Dr. Tom
say it every once in a while.
Dear Chris:
Your insights are piercing. The uni
versity is about to be leveled by budget
cuts that will have us students paying
more to' be taught less by high school
grads in the upper 25 percent of their
classes. At the same time, the Legisla
ture is giving NU $5 million for a per
forming arts center. Wouldn't that
money be better spent keeping pro
grams and faculty salaries afloat?
Clovis Manurson
sophomore
business administration
Dear Clovis:
There's no guarantee that if that
money was reallocated (that means
spent somewhere else) that the montv
would come back to dear ol' NU.
You're right, that money would be
better spent on things like salaries and
program support since most of us think
classroom learning is more important
than the opera. However, it's best just
to let them build it and forget about it;
students won't be able to afford tickets
after the next tuition hike.
Dear Chris:
Your insights are piercing. Why is it
that even though President Reagan
campaigned for a balanced budget, he
has never submitted one to Congress?
Moreover, the deficit for fiscal 1985 is
$211.9 billion, the largest ever in U.S.
history. This seems to be ironic. The
United States also has a record trade
deficit. Is this really economic recov
ery? Is this Reagan's fault?
Ernst Earwig
junior
underwater basket weaving
Dear Ernst:
I see your point. But a presidential
aide assures me that by cutting taxes
and increasing defense spending, again,
we can beat this "darned thing," as he
called it.
Congress has generally cooperated
with Reagan. He's popular, and Con
gressmen know popularity sometimes
rubs off. Although Congress has tacked
money onto many programs and made
it difficult to achieve some cuts, all in
all Reagan has been successful in get
ting his plans implemented. I would
give Reagan 60 percent of the blame,
and give Congress the rest.
Finally, if you call "recovery" setting
new deficit records, then Reagan is
batting a thousand.
Welsch Is a UNL senior journalism and
English major and a Daily Nebraskan
copy desk chief.
Reagan leads way in deficit building
It is said we owe to the Middle Ages
humanity's two most destructive
inventions gunpowder and
romantic love. But let this be said for
the Middle Ages: People understood
government. They especially under-
f4ac George
win
See
stood that kings (read: presidents), not
parliaments (read: Congress), are the
principal impediments to reasonable
public finance.
After 500 years of enlightenment,
there is less understanding. Americans
think Congress is the big deficit-maker.
Never mind Lyndon Johnson's guns-
and-butter choice, and never mind
Ronald Reagan's guns-and-tax cuts
choice. And never mind that while
Reagan has been presiding over the
production of more than half of this
nation's federal debt, he has not found
much to veto on budgeting grounds.
Of couse, presidents veto for other
than budgetary reasons. Still, it is
indicative that Franklin D. Roosevelt
averaged 43 vetoes a year, Eisenhower
23, and Reagan in his first term only 10
a year. Ten of this century's 15 presi
dents have used the veto more regu
larly than Reagan. But as this is writ
ten, he is threatening to veto some
thing, in part because of a provision
that would reduce the deficit and
cancer.
In 1951, the tax on a pack of
cigarettes was put at 8 cents. In 1982, it
was raised to 16 cents, which, because
of inflation, was much less in 1982 than
8 cents was in 1951. The 1982 law stipu
lated a return to 8 cents. However, one
provision of the current deficit-reduction
effort is to keep the tax at 16
cents. This provision was included in
exchange for lavish tobacco subsidies.
Much of the deficit-reduction bill
rests on cooked books yielding fudged
numbers. The reduction number of
$85.6 billion over three years is highly
suspect. The $4.9 billion from the
tobacco tax is real. But Reagan regards
tax cuts the way Mark Twain regarded
bourbon: "Too much is barely enough."
Hence his insistence on cutting the
tobacco tax. This will increase the
annual cost of smoking-related dis
eases, which now stands at $35 billion.
Please see WILL on 5