View/Open - Texas Tech University

f
II
EDITORIALS COMMENTS OPINIONS
1
Budget Summit:
Economic Crisis
or Money Grab?
By Stephen J. flntln
Washington is whipping up deficit
hysteria to lum thi nation into ac--
iSA
OTg5ttimtrtlr ha nothjng to do
vjtflt an economic dtsis. sIflnglon
simply lacks the political wilt to cut
government spending anthvasta.
mere ims gaun suusinwuui piuyicoa
in reducing the federal budget deficit
in recent years. The deficit peaked at
6.3 percent of gross national product
(GNP) in FY 1983, and peaked in dollar
terms at $221.2 billion in FY
1986. It has since fallen sharply, to
2.9 percent of GNP and $151 billion
in FY 1989.
When the deficit is less than 3 percent
of GNP, it is not an economic
threat, even on a continual basis. The
economy will be growing, on average,
faster than the debt, and interest
on the debt will take up a shrinking
share of the budget. The economy can
grow its way out of the remaining
deficit problem without Jlurth&r tax increases,
if spending Jl riot ponded
beyond projected gmwth urtr existing
lsjjk
In January, the administration forecast
that, as a result of economic
growth and past spending cuts, the
deficit would decline rapidly,
reaching $400.5 bjllion H-- 3 percent
of GNP) in FY F991VwitH a budget
Surplus by FY 1995. This would have
made Gramm-udman-Hollin- it easy to meet the gs
(GRH) deficit reduction
targets with only moderate
additional spending restraint. The administration's
economic assumptions
vere too optimistic. It now estimates
tfidt the FY 1991 deficit will be at
llast-$15- 5 billion under current pro-war- ns
and tax rates, excluding onc-ffin- e
spending for the S&L bailout.
This is not an economic crisis. The
deficit is not ballooning out of control.
Even after adjusting for the administration's
revenue error and
overly optimistic interest-rat- e forecast,
the deficit would still be trending
down in the years ahead under ongoing
programs and tax rates .
The problem is a legal one. The
GRH deficit target for FY 1991 is $64
I
billion. Assuming tha budget summit
does not include the S&L bailout in
the GRH targets, this loaves a gap of
$91 billion between the new budget
projection and the GRH tnrg&t. This
gflp Is the source of the budget
"drlSts; Congress and the administration
don't think they can agree on
sp&ndlng cuts of that size, and do not
want to risk automatic spending cuts.
The key is to adjust the GRH targets.
They should be reset at $125 billion
for FY 1991, falling $25 billion a
year until the budget is balanced in
1996. Since revenues are rising under
current tax law by $60 billion in a
slow year, and by $80 billion in a
good one, such targets can be met
Willi modest spending restraint and no
tax increases.
These targets exclude additional
borrowing for the S&L bailout, which
could reach $130 billion over three
years. However, this will be a onetime
event, if the federal cleanup crew
does its job right, and some of this
money will be recovered when the
S&L assets are sold. Since Washington
is largely to blame for the S&L
mess, it should not be rewarded with a
tax increase to pay for it.
Tax increases, whether income
taxes, payroll taxes or excise taxes, di-
rectly threaten,
They increase 'the'tosfof t$df and
services and cut sales and output.
They cost jobs by making labor more
expensive and work less rewarding.
They discourage savings and investment.
There is no historical evidence
that deficit reduction via a tax increase
would lower interest rates and make
up for this direct anti-growth
damage.
Spending cuts are different. They
reduce government's use of the public's
sayings, and they also release
the manpower, steel, computer chips
and other real resources the government
would have used up, leaving
them for the private sector to create
homes, factories or consumption
goods.
Cutting the deficit gradually
through spending restraint alone is
much better than a quick cut via tax
increases. There is no economic crisis
Southwest Digest
P.O. Box 2553 Lubbock, Texas 79408
S15.00 Per Year - S25.00 two years
Editors - Publishers t
T.J. Patterson EddieP, Richardson
t
An independent newspaper serving the Lubfrock, Weal
Texas, South Plains of Texas and Eastern New Mexico
areas printing the news impartially - supporting what it
believes to be right without opposing what it believes to be
wrong, without regard tp party politics.
Devoted to the Industrial, Educational. Social Political
and Economical Advancement of Black People.
You may be orHical of some things that are wittan, but. at
least you will pave the satisfaction of knowing they are
truthful and to the point
People wUI react to that which is precis, and we will
publish these articles as nreciaely and Iactually as is
hjmanly posnble. We will also give credit and respect to
those who are doing goqd things fout he l&bbock Area
and the people. We will pe critical of those who are njf
doing as they have eaid they would, and this, we think, is
fair.
So, this is our resolution to you: "Feel free at anytime to
call this office tor information concerning this newspaper
or any other matter that ietsfeamoafh to you. "
This is not a propaganda sheet made to chastie or vilify.
This is a newspaper made to educate and tot to agitate
NjjHsml Arfytrtfflng Rprtitntttat
Cluck Media, Ins.
231 W. gfth ftrtftU itlHt 103
Hem York. N.Y, 100(51
. . --., - -
economiewgrowth.
requiring a crash effort. In fact, a
"crash" is what we may get if we
allow Washington to use the S&L
bailout and other temporary factorsas
an excuse to burden the economy, with
permanently higher taxes to support
more government waste .
I i I
Stephen J. Entin is a resident scholar at
the Institute for Research on the Economics
of Taxation, Washington, D.C. Formerly,
he was assistant deputy secretary for
the Department of the TreasuryidunwMbgan
Administration.
1890, PM Editorial Servlcos
A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL
The Federal Commitment
n the eve ot nis
Ifirst run for the
Repub-
lican Thomas E.
Dewey observed,
"It is a cruel illusion to pass
laws which are a mere promise
without a'.jo taking the
measures necessary to fulfillment
of that promise."
Dewey's 1 939 observation
could today serve as a commentary
on federal laws that
support public education.
For despite the President's
and the governors' pledge to
improve education, despite
their commitment at the recent
education siimmit, rhetoric
and reality remain out
of sync. We still await ine
performance that would give
substance to these promises.
Just how wide the chasm
between promise and performance
has become is documented
in a recently released
report titled Federal
--Education Funding: The
Cost of Excellence.
This
research-base- d docu-
ment details the gaps in
funding for 12 of our nation's
most important, and
most successful, federal education
programs programs
such as Head Start, Chapter
1, college student grants,
and the Education Fo- - All
Handicapped Children Act.
The Cost of Excellence
documents the decade-lon- g
decline in federal support
for essential education programs.
The report also offers
realistic estimates of the
level of federal assistance
naoded to make the"? pro-mj- m
available to all eligi-mflil4cn- is.
Mwtl education funding
tea wo a a treadmill for
itvml yean. In fact, in
ly areas we rt juutwy
ncKwarai. gut is
Je&f lift federal aavara
lit 16
lie Wje
oml
America's Mali
ay
i
''presidency,
TaM Wikwat Hmuiem
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS WOUL&NT
LAST SO LON IF THE CANDIDATES
WERE IMUECTBD WTM TRUTH SBRUW
0POfcC
suc
"Man & Woman
The Lubbock Alumnae
Chapter of Delta Sigma
Thefa Sorority, Inc. will be
sponsoring their annual
Community Services Award
at 7:00 p. m. Monday, June
18th at the Mae Simmons
Community Center.
This program will honor
several public servants and
school retirees in' the
Time
To Stop
Promising,
Start
Performing
KEITH MISER
President. SEA
rently $8,800 a year. Meeting
that promise would require
a federal contribution
of $3,352 per handicapped
student. In reality, the contribution
is $352. That's a
90 percent shortfall!
Another example: Head
Sun, arguably our nation's
most successful preschool
rograra, currently serves
50,000 4aau. Tfcat'f
ixnprtttive. tut 1.3 rnillm
Amcneaa younatsers ereett-fjbl- e
9tM
tor fieaf Start. Tin
our federal Awdfat
deities atori
Eiitmcoi jPvHIS" faememfar
AsuHul tUt j t 9mm, WW.
(aM)tffMa
MAKING SPEECHES !
lassouRcgs inc.
Of The Year"
community. Also the "Man
and Woman of the Year" will
be chosen on that evening.
The theme for the eveht
will be "Education: The
Pathway To The Future." '
Dr. Theodora Pheawill be
'
the keynote speaker.
.TJ,publi GWa. uraedi to
co-rjdUt'- -- 'enjoy
program.
this
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
This performance makes
a mockery of recent promises.
It was, after all, less than
three monthc ago that President
Bush and our nation's
governors set forth an
m'pressive agenda designed
to ensure America's preparedness
for the 21st century.
They defined six national
education goals all ambitious,
all impressive, all true
to the ideal of equity.
These goals will remain
no more than pipe dreams
unless, and until, fiscal commitments
match rhetorical
commitments.
If the pledge to improve
education is not to be an
empty gesture, all segments
of our society teachers, administrators,
parents, businesses,
religious institutions,
and communities must demand
fundamental shifts in
national funding priorities.
Progress in this direction
has been, at best, sluggish.
Congress is now debating
the federal budget for fiscal
year 1991. It's time for all
Americans to band together
and insist that powerful promises
be matched by powerful
performance. We need
strong action, action that
gives real meaning to the
pledce that all our youth
shall be prepared for the
challenges and the opportunities
tnat await them.
We must remember that
today's students are the
guardians of America's torn
o. row Right now, too
many of those students are
suffering. They arc victimized
by pqttcics of neglect,
poiictci Mt border on child
The oalr way to end this
tat tmmm to jtfsaiui;
Mk naa aiaf
m mm m wm
new meat aaaafe
unkiasti rataer taaa aunt- - tie
KST
WMtoff,
fcV m
--aggjg-ij-Jfa
Ask Dr. Epstein
"All About
Adolescents"
Dear Dr. Epstein: I've lived in
the same neighborhood for 25
years. Around the comer from my
home lives my dearest girlfriend.
Recently, I've noticed her fiftcen-yetr-ol- d
daughter being picked up
by nn older man in front of my
house. When I approached hej, she
seemed lost and very disoriented.
She walked away, got in his car.
and they drove oft. Should I let my
girlfriend know? Concerned
Neighbor
Dear Concerned Neighbor:
You are right to be concerned. Too
many people choose to ignore
uncomfortable situations today.
You should tell your friend what
has been happening and let her
know that you want to help. If the
girl's behavior has changed drastically,
her mother is probably aware
that things are not right. However,
the mother mav not know what is
wrong. Because you mention that
the child seemed very disoriented,
substance abuse should be considered
as a cause. Often, parents go
through a denial stage when they
see their children's behavior changing.
They may wish to believe the
child is going through a teenage
phase rather than face the probability
of drug use.
You should suggest to your
friend that she speak to her daughter
candidly about this older man
and also that she look for signs of
drug use. If your friend does find
evidence of drug use, she should
bring her daughter to a treatment
program for diagnosis without
delay.
By bringing this problem to your
friend's attentidn and letting her
knojv-yo.u'r- e willing to'supp jrt her,
tfOUrWPuld be doing her a favor.
The problem will not go away by
itself; it will only become worse.
Dear Dr. Epstein: My husband
and I were divorced two years ago.
My twelve-year-ol- d daughter and
seven-year-ol- d son have been
extremely close to their father. My
nd remaried
a year ago.
When my children visit their father
on weekends, their new stepmother
tells them that the only family she
recognises is my their
baby daughter and herself. She
belittles my children and tries to
separate my nd from them
by cancelling planned visits. I have
tried to explain to my children that
it will take time for their stepmother
to adjust to the situation. My
children feel they've lost their
father's love and are extremely
upset. What can I do to remedy the
situation? Frustrated Mom
Dear Frustrated Mom: The si.-uatiyou
describe is, unfortunately,
all too common today. When
parents divorce and remarry, it is
usually most difficult for the children.
You have no control over the
behavior of your new
wife. Neither do you have control
over your behavior.
However, you do have a degiee of
control over what your children
experience. If visiting iheir father
in the presence of his new wife ii a
negative, unpleasant experience for
your children, you not only have
the right, but the responsibility to
end those visits. Explain to your
children that their father loves
them and that he can visit them
either at your home or on outings
alone. Explain to your
that you want him to spend time
with the children, but tliat you will
not allow them to be belittled by
his new wife. Tell him he u free to
see he children, but that you will
not allow them to continue to be
exposed to the negative environment
created by his new wife. If
youi ex husband has the best interests
of the children in mind, he will
agree to this arrangement. In time,
if hi new wife becomes more
secure in her marriage, things may
imgapve. However, you must think
of pur children's welfare now and
limit visit with their Nher accordingly.
flaaSa iiattiaaaaiIAdi
ewBm!SBsmS remm.
ejmam,
m'mehemtm- -
0- -
'Pyayaaw awaaWPfj aWaV