OCR Text |
Show Sunday. January 31. 1982. THE HERALD. Provo. Opinions Utah-P- 51 age ' The Herald, its readers, " syndicated columnists and iui luuniMs aiscuss vital issues ji The Herald Comments Some Still Try to Suppress Challenges to freedom of the public's the press continue at to know right and abroad. home The year 1981 saw many actions to restrict news media, according to the International Press In- stitute. In evaluating press freedom over the past year, IPI said it is "Becoming increasingly difficult to find more than perhaps 20 countries where such freedom can be said to exist. And. invariably where it does, there are still ... restrictions." Even in America, the public's right to free flow of information suffered setbacks. The IPA charged that President Reagan's move to "reform" the Freedom of Information Act actually attempts to Feedback curtail it. Says Delay Not Dangerous case Editor, Herald: delivered Unbeknownst to Bayfield, Co., and some people in the Provo area, obstetrics has changed in the past 30 years. Epidural anesthesia available at some hospitals, upon patient's request removes all pain during labor and then delivery without any adverse effects upon the unborn child. For mothers who elect an epidural, it is not "unnecessary anesthesia" any more than a pain shot to have stitches might be considered unnecessary. When the mother becomes completely dilated, the baby is seldom "ready to be born" because with the epidural she does not get the intense urge to push as in natural childbirth. The actual delivery assumes an entirely different atmosphere than when a mother is in pain pushing and blowing during spontaneous delivery. With an epidural the nurse and doctor usually need to tell the mother when to bear down and then assist her with either external pressure or even forceps because she has no urge to push. This is not "interfering with the birth process"; this assistance makes it happen! This also gives the doctor some latitude as to exactly when the baby is born. Such was the when I the first baby of the New Year. Please note that I have never delayed the spontaneous progress or delivery of a baby for even a second and our delivery nurses are instructed to deliver any baby in fetal unclassified Agency information background high level National " Security Council staff to reporters. Efforts to restrict journalists were noted in 1981 in a number of countries. Some governments pay lip service to a free press but "off-limits- their actions belie their words. In Poland for example, parliament voted last sum- mer to institutionalize press freedom. Previously Poland had been described by IPI as the freest country in Eastern Europe, in terms of access to information. The new bill detailed what may or may not be published or broadcast. It retained prior censorship although creating a system of appeal. News in the current Polish crisis has been heavily censored. In the Soviet sphere of in- according to fluence: Publisher, newspaper industry weekly, "freedom exists only when Editor & the authorities permit it. There is no appeal." Developments in Poland are indicative of what can happen in other countries if the drive by some Third World countries to establish their "New World Information Order" is successful. These countries allegedly are using the communications policy of the U.N. organization of Unesco "as an umbrella in their efforts to pin down and squeeze the vitality out of the press turning it into an arm of the government information service," said E&P. The International Press Institute's annual review listed actions and incidents negative to press freedom in many countries, including Spain, Afghanistan under Soviet influence, Angola, Argentina. Bolivia, Brazil, China, Equador, Egypt, Guatemala, Turkey, Nicaragua. Uganda and Uruguay. The Daily Herald recognizes, of course, the need to preserve confidentiality of truly - classified information relating to national welfare and security. The American press has a good record for guarding such information. But across the world far too much information that belongs to the public is being suppressed under the security guise. One positive move in 1981 came when international news organizations banded together in a declaration urging Unesco to abandon attempts at press control and resolving to fight efforts for a "New World In- formation Order" that would restrict free flow of information. The people's stake in the action is vital. When public officials tighten restrictions, impose censorship or impede the free flow of information, it's the people's rights that are being trampled. distress immediately with or without the doctor. With an epidural, the time from complete dilatation to delivery usually lasts one to two hours but this in no way endangers the baby because modern obstetrics includes continuous monitoring of the baby to insure its welfare. In fact, studies show a rapid delivery can be more injurous to the baby's brain, not allowing adequate fetal circulation and badly tearing the mother, complications which are less likely in a slow epidural-typ- e delivery. Unfortunately, some people don't understand that all deliveries are not spontaneous. I remain a strong advocate of natural childbirth and the birthing room type delivery. For many people going without an anesthetic can be a favorable experience but this again should be the mother's decision. There isn't just one true way to have a baby. James A. Brinton. M.D. Obstetrician-Gynecologi- st 1815 S. State Orem Objects to Conservative Quiz Editor, Herald: Where in the world did Peggy Fugal obtain that Jan. 17 "Quiz Me" item? I am 53 years old, and have seen many such features in newspapers and magazines, but that one beats them all. If any reader of The Herald really believes that he can classify himself Questionable also are the administration's termination of Central Intelligence briefings and making the as either a "liberal" or a "conservative" on the basis of such a quiz, it's no wonder our nation is in such a mess today! Seriously, will Mrs. Fugal tell us where that quiz originated? Robert B. Ferguson 887 W. 700 N. Provo M. J Stanton Evans Decontrols Bring Down Prices - WASHINGTON One year after President Reagan acted conclusive evidence is in concerning the deregulation of petroleum. It must be a severe embarrassment to advocates of price controls. When Reagan completed the process of lifting price restraints on domestic oil production, there was a tremendous outcry about the horrors that awaited us. As the Department of Energy summarizes the matter "Domestic production is on the upswing and consumption is declining. The most recent four-wee- k figures show production at 8.6 million barrels a day which was 1.8 percent above the same period for last year. Consumption tor that period of this year was 15.6 million barrels a dav. down from 15.8 million barrels a day in 1980. The oil companies, according to such oracles as Sen. Howard would now Metzenbaum be free to rip us off. The price of gas at the pump it was suggested, would rise to $2 a gallon. Nothing of the sort has happened. Instead, the petroleum business has responded to deregulation exactly as free market analysis indicated. The chance for improved returns has encouraged new exploration, drilling and production, ac- "Drilling activity has increased dramatically. At the end of August, more than 22,000 oil wells were completed, a gain of nearly 40 percent over 1980 ... A total of 4,194 drilling rigs were in operation at the beginning of September 808 more than at the end of January." The formula for shortage is to en- celerating supply, while the courage consumption while discouraging production, accomplished nicely by controls that hold the price of a commodity below its market gest. level. The formula for ending shortage is to encourage production while dampening consumption. As in prospect of having to pay more for gas has discouraged consumption exactly as pricing theory would sug- dicated by the figures from DOE. this is exactly what has happened with petroleum deregulation. But what about the ripoff of consumers, with prices soaring to unconscionable levels? The answer is that in keeping with the laws of economics it hasn't occurred. In a free market, the cure for high high prices. Increased prices is supply and slackening demand inducted by higher prices inevitably and so it bring them down again has been with gasoline. A recent survey of petroleum prices by Consumers' Research Magazine shows that the pump price of gasoline did go up in the aftermath of decontrol, peaking last spring. But as increased supply met up with declining demand there was a countervailing downward pressure on prices which continued through the end of 1981. "The average U.S. retail price of gasoline," reports Business Week, "peaked last March at $1.38 per gallon as OPEC price increases and the lifting of controls on domestic crude oil prices fueled a surge of 16 cents per gallon in four months, according to Dan Lundberg, a Los industry analyst. But yearend as demand stayed slack, gasoline prices had retreated to $1.32 per gallon Most of those who trumpeted our impending doom because of deregulation have simply ignored the fact that their predictions turned Angeles-base- d by out wrong. Those constrained to note that gasoline prices have been sliding downward for the past nine months attribute the fact to OPEC glut, or sun spots or other temporary aber- rations anything but decontrol. The obvious truth of the matter is that the price controls imposed on us by regulatory zealots were the cause of the gasoline crisis, and all of the accompanying hardships, while deregulation has rescued us from this contrived disaster. That's something to remember next time these folks show up telling us we should control something else. Explaining Why Social Security Doesn't Give Security By PETER GERMANIS Special to The Herald The Social Security system has enjoyed overwhelming popular support since its inception in 1935. Public confidence, however, is rapidly eroding as the system's deficiencies become more and more apparent. The administration has warned that, unless immediate action is taken, the most devastating bankruptcy in history could occur sometime in November, 1982. As a and an economist, currently laying the foundation for my career, I am obviously quite concerned about a system that we thought could be depended upon. Thus, I was delighted to receive a letter from Claude Pepper, the eldest member of Congress and chairman of the House Select Committee on Aging, dealing with precisely this issue. I expected his words to give me at least a hint as to whether Congress is going to do something to insure the financial integrity of the program for the years to come. Instead, as it has always been on this issue, it was politics as - usual. In his "Dear Social Security Contributor" letter, Congressman Pepper accused Ronald Reagan and "New Right" Republicans of having turned their backs on millions of Americans who have spent their lives earning their right to receive Social Security benefits. This, according to Congressman Pepper, is an egregious breach of promise between Social Security is "paid-inot charity." insurance Having studied the Social Security I feel that program extensively these charges are unfair and mis- - - n leading. Only in the loosest sense of the word can Social Security be cal- led an "insurance" program. Moreover, the vast majority of today's Social Security recipients have earned no more than a fraction of the benefits they now receive. Thus, it appears that much of the rhetoric on Social Security that passes for serious discussion is rooted in political considerations, rather than fact. Perhaps the clearest way to see through the misconceptions perpetuated by Congressman Pepper and others is to compare benefits to contributions. Consider the case of a worker planning to retire in January, 1982. Had he begun paying into Social Security in 1937 at the maximum amount, his and his employers' total contributions to the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Program (OASI is the retirement portion of Social Security) over a working career would equal $2 489.96. If we further assume a ten percent cost - of - living adjustment in July, this hypothetical person and spouse would receive a yearlv benefit of $14,225. this worker will recoup all Security contributions within 19 months of retirement. Moreover, because the average life expectancy for somone reaching the age of 65 in 1982 is about 16 years, it becomes obvious that Congressman Pepper's implication that all benefits are "earned" is highly exaggerated. The expected return for those retiring prior to 1982 is even greater: a similar couple retiring in Thus of his Social would have contributed only to the OASI trust fund. This amount is so low because an individual retiring at that time could only have paid into the system for 25 years at most at a time when the tax rates and the maximum taxable amount were extremelv low. 1962 $2 754 What are the prospects for someone retiring in the future? Unfortunately it doesn't appear that the Social Security system will be able to continue to provide such a good return on "invested" contributions. Now that the system is nearly mature, the windfalls arising from short earnings histories in covered employment will diminish. In addition, the return on Social Security will continue to decline with the inexorable growth of payroll taxes that are required to finance benefit payments. Stanford University economist Michael Boskin has estimated the return on Social Security contribution that workers of various age groups can expect to receiv2 under current law. According to his calculations, the average current retiree receives six times more than he has contributed plus interest. This is in stark contrast to those workers in age cohort who will be Uie first to receive a "bad deal" on Social Security. Indeed even after adjusting for inflation the average tax paid by this group will be 10 times higher than that paid by current retirees though their benefits will be only times as great. For those of us under the age of 25 the disparity between what we will 25-3- 4 pay in and what we will get back is so great that Boskin simply lists it as "large" and "negative." In short, the government has promised benefits that will be difficult to provide under projected conditions. The transfer from a younger generation to an older one was initially accepted because a large pool of workers supported a relatively small recipient group. In 1940 for example, the ratio of covered workers to retirees was 300:1. In other words in the beginning there were approximately 300 workers contributing to the system for every - retired person drawing a social security pension. The ratio radically declined in subsequent years: 16:1 bv 1950; 4:1 in 1965: and 3.2.1 today. By the year 2,030 this may fall to 2:1 or still lower. This will place a crushing burden on the system, and could push the payroll tax to levels totally unacceptable in the workforce, and beyond the ability of the economy unacceptable in the workforce, and beyond the ability of the economy to sustain. One further rationalization often advanced to support the present structure of the Social Security program is that any change would violate the implicit pact made between generations. The 1981 Report of the National Commission on Social Security offers the following explanation: "Those who are retired depend for their benefits on the taxes of those who are working, just as their taxes paid the benefits to those who came before them. For the younger generation, the deduction in earnings is justified by the under standing that the system will support them when they retire." This pact, however, was made by a generation that is now reaping a tremendous windfall at the expense of the up and coming generations and therefore results in the obvious question: Why should a younger generation be bound by a pact made without their consent and one that will yield them an unjustifiably low return in their retirement? Clearly the way to avoid a collapse in the Social Security System is to examine thoroughly and reform the program and not simply "elect Democrats and donate money to the Democratic National Committee," as Congressman Pepper suggests in his letter. The key to establishing a fair and efficient retirement program is to eliminate the transfer function of Social Security altogether and pay benefits that are directly related to an individual's total contributions plus interest which would be a first for the program. This would mean an end to the current intergenerational transfers from the young to the old and would also require dropping the benefit structure that is weighted to favor the lower income classes, the spouse's benefit and other features based on welfare principles. This has often led to paying substantial unearned benefits to those generally not considered needy. Continuing transfers without regard to need raises serious questions of equity and insures an added drain on an already weak Social Security system. The elderly poor however, should i not be ignored. Instead, they would be helped more appropriately through existing needs - oriented programs, such as the Supplemental Security Income program and food stamps, which are financed from general revenues. Funds for these programs would have to be adjusted of course, but enormous savings could be achieved by precluding retirees who are not poor from receiving undeserved welfare benefits. Moreover the Social Security system is not suited for achieving these welfare objectives because it is financed by a regressive payroll tax. While such a tax is suitable for the insurance goal of Social Security, it is not appropriate to provide welfare benefits with a tax that places its heaviest burden on the very group it is designed to help. If we do not at least consiuer this and other recommendations then we are almost certaind ly guaranteed that the very worst will result. In fact Boskin ominously warns that "if we wait until the baby-boogeneration retires before we begin to deal with the tremendous long-terdeficit in Social Security, we will see the greatest tax revolt and age warfare in the history of the United States." Time, quite typically, is not on our side. Especially for those of us who at 24 and supposedly confident about the future have been offered nothing more than the partisan ramblings of politicians Congressman Pepper smong them who care little if at all about the future disaster confronting our generation. - - - |