▼ EDITORIAL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Steven Asbury MANAGING EDITOR: Thom Schoenbom NIGHT EDITOR: Thom Schoenbom EDITORIAL EDITORS: Ashley Bach 6? Brian Diamond editorials, letters, commentary and perspective NEWSROOM: (541) 346-5511 DISPLAY ADVERTISING: (541) 346-3712 BUSINESS OFFICE: (541) 346-5512 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: (541) 346-4343 v - « : WKWWMIWMMMWMMMMWMW Why Clinton’s welfare isn’t working ■ OUR OPINION: Relying on private businesses to hire welfare recipients is an unrealistic m solution to getting people off welfare. When Bill Clinton vowed to “end wel fare as we know it” in 1992, he knew he wouldn’t be able to do it by him self. So when he finally passed his welfare reform bill limiting recipients to two years of benefits, he asked the top 100 businesses in the country to help his program by creating jobs for those currently on welfare. Now, over a year after the creation of the original welfare reform bill, 75 percent of the top 100 busi nesses still have no plan to hire welfare recipients. This may be disappointing news for Clinton, but it shouldn’t be sur prising. The idea that businesses would simply hire wel fare recipients because the president asked them to is a little naive, to say the least. For one thing, busi nesses have absolutely no reason to actively seek welfare recipients. After all, welfare recipients are likely to be the least skilled, least job-ready of all available workers. A representative at IBM said that while he sup ported the president’s goals, most of the jobs at IBM require more skills than welfare recipients have. In addition, most of the top companies are downsizing as it is. With not enough jobs for quali fied applicants, it is a little unrealistic to expect businesses to create jobs for unqualified welfare re cipients. While the idea of getting welfare recipients working is admirable, relying on businesses to get people off welfare isn’t the best way to go. Some programs currently give companies incentives to hire welfare recipients by subsidizing their wages and allowing the companies to pay “training wages” well below minimum wage. This gives businesses a source of cheap labor and those on welfare a job. Everyone wins — everyone, that is, except those people whose jobs are lost because they are re placed by welfare workers. Not only does this put low income workers out of work, it ends up lower ing everyone’s wages. In the end, the very pro grams that try to get people off the welfare roles of ten end up putting new people on them. Businesses certainly have a role to play in get ting people from welfare to work. But to complete ly rely on them to create jobs for welfare recipients is both unrealistic and unfair. If Clinton really wants to “end welfare as we know it,” the govern ment is going to have to get involved. Passing the buck off to private businesses simply won’t work. If Clinton wants businesses to hire JOB APPUCATON POSITION DESIRED-. CEO EXPERIENCE-. None CURRENT OCCUPATION-. Wetf are Wne member REFERENCES-, SMARY DESIRED-. $8>0t000/year welfare recipients, he must create adequate job training programs that will make recipients job ready. Businesses have no responsibility to hire unqualified workers just to make Clinton’s two year time limit practical. Clinton and Congress created the welfare reform bill. Now it is their responsibility to try and make it work. If welfare recipients need jobs and training before they can get off welfare, it is the govern merit’s, not private businesses’, responsibility to provide them. Private companies are in the business of making profits, not helping politicians implement their po litical agendas. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emer ald editorial board. LETTERS Community contribution In the May 20 article on the river front research park, Diane Wiley was said to have stated that the riverbank property was not acquired by the University so that it could become a public park. I have three responses to Wiley’s comment. 1) Students, faculty and staff make up the majority of recre ational users of that area. 2) The river bank, according to the University’s own master plan, was to be used for recreation and nature study, and an additional playing field was to be built there. 3) Wiley’s attitude may be one reason why community members not associated with the University feel so alienated by the University. How exactly does the research park benefit the University? By drawing faculty into entrepreneurial ventures so that they can keep secrets from their students and peers while sup plementing their salaries? The stu dents will end up paying part of the bill for the research that goes on there, and in return the quality of their edu cation will be degraded. As I recall, the administration’s ini tial justification for supporting the re search park was that it was an oppor tunity for the University to contribute to the community by stimulating the economy. I assert that providing open space for recreation and wildlife habitat is a much greater contribution to the community. The research complex was con ceived at a time when Eugene’s econ omy was faltering. Now, in this time of unprecedented growth that 90 per cent of Eugene residents disapprove of, it doesn’t make sense to sacrifice our best place to the corporate gods. To all who want to help clean up the riverbank as a first step to preserv ing it, please show up at the bicy cle/pedestrian railroad underpass on Sunday, June 8, at 2 pm. Bring gloves and a snack. Ann Hagemann Biology Riverfront scam Contrary to inaccurate statements made to the ODE by Riverfront Re search Park Complex supporters (May 21, ODE), that project is directly costing Eugene taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. This is how urban renewal fund ing, also known as tax increment fi nancing, works: Annually, an in creasing percentage of the property taxes paid by property owners in the Riverfront Urban Renewal District is diverted into a sheltered account in stead of into the general fund, where everybody else’s property taxes go. This sheltered money, which oth erwise would have helped fund city services in a tight budget climate, is instead used to promote and finance wasteful and environmentally de structive riverfront projects. Last year, $650,000 was diverted in this manner to help pay for the un wanted auto underpass at the north end of Agate Street and that ridicu lous $350,000 traffic circle at the ap proach to the Autzen Footbridge. At the same time, the library had to close an extra evening each week to save a meager $5,000. If the Riverfront Urban Renewal District is abolished, as required by the “We Want It Back Initiative,” the city’s general fund will receive an annual wind fall of $650,000, which will keep the library open a lot of evenings. The inaccurate and misleading statements concerning financing made by promoters of the Research Park Complex are one more illustra tion of their lack of credibility on any question relating to Eugene’s greatest scandal — the riverfront boondoggle. Junior Robertson Alumnus SUPREME COURT The recent deci sion by the high- \ est court in the land to continue with litigation against President ^ Clinton in the f Paula Jones case J is promising. The j position of presi- f dent may be held j in high regard, but it should not be above the law. j HB3644 The bill to limit \ incidental fees to j “non-political” groups died a much-needed death in the state \ House on Wednesday. A potential disaster j is averted. 1. The new “directo- j ry expert" phone book from US West is nothing new. After pre-re- \ lease hype, we’re \ now stuck with the same ol’white J and yellow. EMU CONSTRUCTION The recent jack hammering and destruction around the Fish bowl has both students and fac- j ulty up inarms. Many have asked j the question: Why j couldn't they have waited until I summer? j tontiif ■ BY MAIL P.O.Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 ■ BY PHONE: (541)346-5511 ■ BY E-MAIL ode@oregon. uoregon. edu ■ IN PERSON: Suite 300, EMU