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.