Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 25, 2000)
Wednesday Editor in chief: Jack Clifford Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union P-O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com Debugging the parasite economy SAINTS AND PROFITS ERIC PFEIFFER I promised to be good. Last time we talked, I said I would forge a positive path, easing you toward the radical center. Hold my hand; let’s go for a walk. The special interest lobby has crippled our democracy. Public-interest firms, busi ness lobbies and cultural identity groups are co-conspirators in the parasite economy. Think of it this way: A CEO wants to build her corporate assets, so she invests $1 mil lion into stocks, new equipment and raising employee benefits. This serves both a social benefit as well as the obvious financial divi dends. The money invested into stocks will allow those smaller companies to increase production, while hopefully delivering a positive return for the CEO. The new equip ment allows the corporation to raise output. Finally, the investment in worker benefits in creases productivity. That’s a good economy. Now, behold the parasite economy. In this scenario, the lobbyist wants to secure a $1 million tax break or federal subsidy for her respective group. In lobbying, you don’t cre ate wealth, you capture it. Therefore, the lob byists are willing to spend anywhere from $1 to $999,999 capturing their share of the pie. Even with only an additional $1, they still benefit. Unfortunately for the rest of us, up to $1,999,999 can be drained from a productive economy to serve the exclusive interests of one organization. Citizens lose. Not only is the lobby self-serving, it thrives by capturing taxpayer money, a form of legal theft. The street beggar can be ignored, you can change the channel on Pat Robertson and you can choose not to buy a company’s product; but the lobbyist takes without consent. If you want a detailed and much more ed ucated version than my 600-word rant, I rec ommend “Government’s End” by Jonathon Rauch. It’s both entertaining and enlighten ing, a rare combination in politics. So, what can be done about it? Well, a lot, actually. First, return a large portion of lobbying to the states. Look no further than OSPIRG to see an organization that’s structured like a typical lobby, but at the local level. The room for corruption is limited and the possibilities for direct ac tion are large. Love them or hate them, OSPIRG gets work done without being bloated. Second, enact campaign-finance reform. Closing the loopholes on corporate AND labor contributions would allow these groups to partici pate, without putting a price tag on democracy. In fact, as much as Repub licans have become corporate whores, it was unions who first gave this disease to the American voter. Back in the 1980 campaign, unions .S;;SS made a $3 million contribution to Democ rats, which was an unprecedented amount. The Republicans cried foul and the unions snickered. So, Reagan hit up the corpora tions, blowing away Carter and his De mocrats in both fundraising and votes. Full disclosure of campaign contribu tions is essential. Check out the Web site www.opensecrets.org to find out exactly how much money candidates are receiving and who is giving. Next, balancing the budget. It’s important for more than cosmetic reasons. With a sur plus, we have reduced interest rates, which means lower car payments, mortgage pay ments, and yes, student loans. Lastly, tax reform. Washington bureau crats have made thousands of changes to the tax code over the last two decades, and still almost no one is happy. A simplified tax code would benefit all Americans. And while we’re at it, reform corporate welfare. Helping a struggling business is great, but screwing over taxpayers so a few millionaires can get richer is against the American way. These are just a few initiatives that would reel-in the parasite economy and invigorate the radical center. But it requires sacrifice from all plates at the table. Who’s willing to start? Eric Pfeiffer is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emer ald, currently servingan internship at the National Journal Hotline in Washington, D.C. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at epfeiffe@gladstone.uoregon.edu. Letters to the editor Nader lobbies for justice This is responding to a few ill-in formed points that have appeared on the ODE editorial page calling to question Green Party presiden tial candidate Ralph Nader’s politi cal lobbying and his potential to get things done in Washington. To conclude that the lobbying ef forts of Nader and the many organi zations he’s helped found, such as Public Citizen, the EPA, the PIRGs (that’s OSPIRG, too), etc., is no dif ferent from say, Chevron, Philip Morris, G.E., etc., is a grotesque misrepresentation of what Nader and the Green Party stand for: Democracy by, for and of the peo ple. It is not America’s financial “upper crust” that Nader and his affiliates lobby for. They lobby for the public’s health and safety: clean air and water acts, OSHA, EPA, Freedom of Information Act and seat belts. This is in stark con trast with what V.P. Gore and Gov. Bush stand for. If you doubt this, look into the major contributors to their campaigns and parties. Nad er takes no corporate contribu tions. Then look at whose inter ests the Republican and Democratic parties serve and compare it with Nader’s platform and record. To those who doubt Nader’s ef fectiveness if elected, as a Harvard Law graduate fighting for public safety and health since 1965, he’s got a few ideas on getting things done, such as true campaign fi nance reform and a re-distribution of the national budget. Look at Nader’s record and what he’s ac complished so far. Look over Bush and Gore’s records and make your own comparison. It should be rather telling. Tyrone Reitman Religious Studies/ Sociology Voters’ Guide simplifies the process Responsible voters are showing signs of impatience, frustration and confusion as they struggle to understand the 26 complex statewide measures on the Novem ber ballot. Busy Oregonians are looking for reliable information that is strictly balanced, unbiased, and nonpartisan. They also want easy-to-understand information that won’t take days to read. The Voters’ Guide, published by the League of Women Voters of Oregon, is just such a document, and it’s now available across the state — free. LWVOR’s Voters’ Guide deals evenly with both sides of each ballot measure. It also cov ers all 30 candidates running for U.S. Representative and statewide office. The candidates’ answers to comprehensive questions, appro priate to their desired positions, are reproduced in their own w'ords. Further details about can didates are available at www.dnet.org. The Voters’ Guide explains each of the 26 measures concisely — with the titles, a short summary, the balanced pros and cons, some necessary background, and the projected costs involved. Only 40 pages in length, more than 230.000 free copies will be available to Ore gon voters, thanks to civic-minded sponsors. The Voters’ Guide is available at the customer service counters of all Fred Mever stores, as well as other stores, libraries, senior centers, schools, communi ty colleges and universities. For further information, please call the office of the League of Women Vot ers of Lane County, 343-7917. Karen Rikhoff president League of Women Voters of Lane County A vote for Nader supports Bush As young, potential voters in what promises to be the closest presidential election in 40 years, college students are in an extreme ly influential position. It is vital that, before deciding for whom to vote, each student think seriously about the long-term effect of ihat vote. For those who care about forging a more fair, just and pro gressively-inclined America, care ful consideration should lead to a vote for A1 Gore, not Ralph Nader. All Americans owe Nader a debt for being a stalwart voice against corporate greed. However, college-age voters, who have flocked to the Green Party in in creasing numbers, must realize that a vote for Nader only brings our nation closer to a Bush admin istration, one that wouldn’t hesi tate to appoint a frighteningly right-wing Supreme Court. It is easy to get caught up in Nader’s talk of the two parties be ing virtually identical in their cor porate dependency. But Nader is dead wrong in stating that Gore and Bush don’t differ: A look at their opposing views on gun con trol, abortion, gay rights, and cam paign finance reform, for example, shows how incorrect Nader’s as sertion is. While one may prefer Nader in the abstract, the reality is that the only thing which a vote for him can accomplish is the election of Bush and Cheney. Mike Alpern Communications Director Americans for Democratic Action DPS oversteps boundaries This is in regard to the ODE’s Oct. 23 article, “DPS strives for more power amid internal difficul ties.” As I understand it, DPS is supposed to be a campus security service. What problems do the campus have that require armed security guards? The surrounding campus area seems to be fairly heavily patrolled by real police officers. Their re sponse to any situation requiring armed force on campus would be only marginally slower than that of DPS. Actually, it would proba bly be faster, because anyone who sees an incident with a potential for serious violence is going to call the police rather than campus se curity. Having armed security guards on campus is not only a bad idea, it’s an irresponsible and dangerous idea. Everything I've been reading about DPS lately (illegal lights, de fensive tactics training, guns) indi cates that the department is not satisfied just to be a force of help ful security guards who can call in the cops if situations get hairy. But isn't that the function of campus security? DPS wants to pack heat, get in fights and drive around in cars with flashing lights — in gen eral, they've been watching too many syndicated cop shows. DPS is, by definition, a force of campus-bound security guards, and there is no shame in "that. They serve an important function. How ever, they shouldn't try to overstep their bounds. Eugene and the Uni versity are progressive and civi lized enough to have a “gun-free” campus. Kyle Davis Class of‘97 Kazakhstan CORRECTION On Monday, theeditorial board in correctly implied that the City of Eu gene’s proposed response fee fordis orderly parties was connected solely to the address. In fact, it is connected to both the address and the party host’s name, so students would not be punished fora priortenant’sdisor derly partying. Additionally, the fine for repeated disorderly parties is not $1,000, but is the actual cost of the police response. On the first offense, the fine would be limited to $1,500, but additional offenses would be the total cost of the response. Also, the Measure 86 graphic on the editorial page in Tuesday’s paper in correctly said “yes.” The text for the measure was correct, but the editori al board recommends a “no” vote. And ballots may be returned on Elec tion Day until 8 p.m.
