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