Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 25, 1981)
Page 4 Portland Observer, November 25, 1981 ___ The same old stuff EDITORIAL/OPINION by Norman H ill While we celebrate As many Americans sit down to a hearty meal as a way o f giving thanks for the blessings they have received this year, millions starve. For the last 30 years the production o f food has increased faster than the rate o f increase in population. A t the same time more people than ever before— an estimated 500 million, or one in nine—suffer grave malnutrition. The problem is neither overpopulation nor shortage o f food stuffs: the problem is distribution. The fault is with the system that ties produc tion and price to “ supply and demand.” The fault is with the system o f productin and dis trib ution that makes decisions which protect the profits o f the producers in the developed nations such as the U.S. while allowing m il lions in the underdeveloped nations to starve. The definition o f “ supply” is not the amount of food needed to provide basic nourishment to the people o f the world, but is the amount that will insure the desired payment for the food. A large harvest provides a large supply, but causes the price that will be paid to the farmers for the commodities to fall. What does the U.S. government do? It delib erately restricts the production o f food in order to keep the prices high. In September, Agricul ture Secretary John Block announced that there will be a 15 per cent decrease in the production of wheat in 1982. While one-third o f the world’s babies die o f m a ln u tritio n or m a ln u tritio n - caused disease before the age o f five, the U.S. Government pays American farmers not to pro duce food. While farmers are paid millions o f dollars not to produce food, the food stamp program , which aids 22 million poor Americans, and the school lunch program have both been cut. At the same time the best land in the former colonies o f Asia, A frica and Latin America is used for cash crops, not to feed their people. It is necessary for these countries to produce coffee, sugar, bananas and other export crops in order to pay their debts to U.S. banks and to purchase the manufactured goods they require. In Colum bia eight times more land is used fo r export crops than for basic food. In Latin America ex port crops increased 27 per cent from 1964 to 1974 while production o f basic food fell 10 per cent. These nations are caught in the vicious cir cle o f underdevelopment and an ever-increasing foreign debt. The farmers o f the U.S. could feed the world. Rather than pay farmers not to farm , the government should support production, guaran teeing small farmers a reasonable profit and re stricting the profits o f agri-business. Then perhaps Thanksgiving could be cele brated by the world’s poor. » When (he Republicans took the W hite House and the Senate one year ago, the p olitical pundits and analysts were quick to assert the ba sis for the G.O.P’s success. Republi cans were victorious, the argument went, because they had become the party o f new ideas. Supply-side economics—with its argument that i f you decrease taxes substantially you w ill increase industrial produc tiv ity —was being trumpeted as the theoretical innovation that would resuscitate the economy. Now come Budget-D irector David Stockm an’ s comments to newspaperman W illia m Greider: supply-side economics was merely a new language and argument used to conceal standard Republican prac tice: tax cuts for the rich. “ It’s kind o f hard to sell ‘ tric k le d ow n,’ ” noted Stockman, referring to the traditional Republican practice o f cutting taxes for corporate interests and the wealthy. “ So the supply- side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' The Kemp-Roth tax-cuts were “ always a T ro ja n Horse to bring down the top tax rate." W’hile one must be surprised at the candor w ith which Stockman spoke, there can be no possible de flection o f the indictment o f the cor nerstone o f the Reagan Administra- tion s economic program contained in Stockman's remarks. The Reagan program is nothing new; it is merely a rehash o f the old Republican "trickle down” approach. W hile most o f the controversy over the Stockman affair focuses on his manipulation o f budgetary fig ures and his personal deception in "fo is tin g " the Reagan-Kemp-Roth tax and budget cuts on an "u n w it tin g " Congress, the true s ig n ifi cance o f his comments is that they serve to shatter the basis o f the Rea gan I980electotul mandate. Most p o litic a l observers agree that the reason Ronald Reagan de feated Jimmy Carter was because Reagan suggested that he would o f fer the country a "new beginning," a significantly new departure and approach to government. American voters, confronted with a decade o f high in flation and high unemploy ment, voted for a new approach and not for a return to the old Repub lican policies. What David Stockman tells us, in effect, is that the American public was deceived. Several questions are suggested as a result o f the Stockman scandal. Why was it that so few political and economic analysts saw through the charts and figures with which the Reagan Administration deluged and dazzled Congress? How could our legislators allow themselves to be stamped into voting on tax and bud get bills that were so carelessly pre pared? Why were so many "e xperts" taken in by the Reagan- Stockman sales pitch? Regrettably, the answer to these questions is that at the root o f recent legislative policy-making we find for the most part a bankruptcy o f ideas and an appalling lack o f compe tence. Indeed, in the last year only the representatives o f the labor movement, a few courageous liberal legislators, and the civil rights com m unity have succeeded in seeing through the rhetoric and have chal lenged the A d m in is tra tio n 's economic prescriptions. The few who opposed the Reagan program are today being vindicated by the effects o f the "supply-side" approach. We are now in the midst of what may turn out to be the most severe recession since the ,930s. Un employment has reached eight per cent and is heading toward nine per cent and worse. Am ong Blacks unemployment stands at over 13 per cent. The construction industry has been paralyzed by high interest rates to the point where housing starts arc at a 15-year low. The auto industry also is in the midst o f a severe slump. The Stockman revelations p ro vide all Americans with an oppor tunity to reexamine the logic o f the Reagan program. Can we really af ford an economic approach which has plunged us into a deep recession and which amounts to nothing more than a massive transfer o f goods and services from working people to the wealthy? The cat is at last out o f the bag. There is no new conservative form ula for resolving our country's con siderable economic problems. What we have been fed by Ronald Reagan and David Stockman is the same old stuff. It hasn't worked in the past and ii won’t work now. Name not appropriate We were glad he was fired! We were sorry he died! But we don’ t want the new Educational Service Center named after Dr. Robert Blan chard. Although some continue to believe that Blan chard was an educational leader and brought in novative ideas to Portland, we believe that in coming months those who are still loyal to the Blanchard dream will realize this was never true. Actually, the Blanchard years were detriment al to Black children. The upper grades o f our schools were closed, our children scattered throughout the district, taught by teachers who had little or no understanding o f their culture or expectation for their achievement. Our pre school grades were crowded with upper-class white children until there was no room for small Black children. Money earmarked for poor Black children was siphoned o ff and used to buy acceptance in “ receiving schools.” Our parents and our teach ers were told our children could not learn be cause they are “ disadvantaged.” Our representatives were treated with malice when they attempted to explain the obvious. Our “ leaders” were tempted with bribes when they attempted to lead. The Blanchard years might have been good for some students— for some schools—but not for ours. As we look forward with some hope for the future, we do not want to be reminded of an inglorious past. Bob Engiebart Hartford Courant Will they close Jeff? The community has been through a siege— Jefferson High School was one o f the schools marked for possible closure. Only an outpour ing o f community support saved the school—the only high school in the Black community. Closure still caused some problems at Jeff. The abrupt closure o f Adams, the transfer o f 500 new students to Jeff without adequate prep aration, was responsible, at least in part, for ra cial problems during the first week o f school. Now Jeff is on the line again. Among the sev en schools to be considered for a permanent site for Tubman Middle School is Jefferson! Two years ago— to avoid a school boycott— the School Board promised to establish at least one middle school in the Black community, the only community that has no school for its upper grade students. Tubman was established for stu dents from King, Humboldt and Eliot and tem porarily housed at the old Monroe High School. It was to move to the Eliot site the next year. Now some members o f the Board would like to reneg on their promise. Six other sites are be ing studied: Washington/Monroe, in Southeast Portland; Adams, not considered to be in the Black community and no, appropriate for the area served; Jefferson; Boise, a K-8 school that was recently remodelled in part to house a new pre-school section; and Kennedy, which was de clared absolutely unfit or a middle school when the Black United Front asked that it be used as a second middle school for the area. The School Board and adm inistration w ill spend a lot o f time and money attempting to avoid using Eliot. Then they will have to either select E liot or end up in the courts or in the streets. T f UIE CANSUALIOU IV /V N Ç f f JS ÇAF A ll THAT, I FEAR WHAT THEY’l l TRY TO SERVE UP NEXT YEAR of ?$*** fa orm eo ooww PoSSUrt STfUt) jem e I um o h nv£. PLftH P ie ( l o w ) FRANK’-S Sou a GPfípes UZWtrrt Letters to the Editor Wants friends To the editor: writing, body building, and stamp collecting. At the present time. I'm studying law. I am presently con fined in an institution. I would like to exchange ideas and interests with all sincere-minded people through la m a lonely. B /M , 31 years old. 6 I tall, 174 lbs. I enjoy music, an imals, boxing, and movies. I ’ m a tailor by profession. I like sewing. correspondence, so please write Io me. Murray L. Hollaman »145-167 P .O . Box 45699 I ucasville, O h io 45699 Blanchard (( ontmued fro m page I column and those who stayed was low. "W e don't consider that to be impressive leadership.” School district figures show few Blacks w orking fo r the district and disproportionatrexpul- sion and suspension o f Black stu dents. "T h is is a sensitive matter. I am not talking about his personality; I am only commenting on his policies and practices. It is a mistake Io name the building after him if it is because o f his impressive leadership for all students—that is not true.” James H ill said the Blanchard era was one o f intellectual genocide in the name o f impressive and progres sive leadership. Board members Steve Buel and Herb ( awthorne abstained, while McNam ara, C h a rlo tte Beeman, Dean Gisvold, and Bill Scott voted in favor. McNamara indicated that Joe Rieke, who was absent, would have voted in favor. „ Blanchard was terminated by the Board in the summer o f 1980 and died o f a heart attack several months later. Bo concornodl Be in fo rm e d ll K n o w the facts!!! Subscribe Today! Receive your Observer by m ail Only $10 per year. ' Name I Address I C,,v Zip | Make checks payable to: | Portland Observer | P O Bo« 3137 Portland. Oration 977UH I I I I I ! i i i i
