OCR Text |
Show Thursday. 0pinions: November 15. 1979. THE HERALD. Provo. I 57 fol What the Herald thinks, what the columnists say and what our readers think Letters tc the Editor: tah-P- age ETTA Rr0W SlNUfEl3WK. Let's Pay Our Own Way Editor. Herald: I just received a mailing, sent from Provo High School, and would like to comment on and clarify the page which concerns the school lunch program (written bv Fred and Sherry Rowe). I know 'Fred and Sherry personally, and have respect and affection for them. I am only desirous of shedding more light on their subject. The letter they wrote states that "the federal government has proposed a budget cut of $528 million from the child nutrition programs. If this proposal goes through, it would cut our funding for school lunches and the school lunch program would have to be eliminated in our school for the child who pays for his lunch. We as a PTA Board would not like to see this happen. This will not affect the child who is on welfare and qualifies for free lunches. The children who receive free lunches will still receive them and the child who pays will have to go without." Upon talking to Sherry, I find this is not the case. She didn't mean there would be no more school lunch program for those who pay for their lunch; rather, that the cost would go up. There is a big difference between no more school lunch and the price going up (actual cost at the end of last year was 95 cents per student - not much more than what they now pay, and certainly a fair price at that). I am opposed to our federal government being involved in anything it is not chartered or required for. This includes school lunch programs. If our children eat at home we pay for those meals. If 95 cents, or even $1.25 is too costly for our children's lunch, we can send a sack lunch with them (as I did for some years of my schooling, along with an auditorium full of other students), and they can be nutritious and well balanced, and hot (with thermos bottles). I think that those who have children attending school should certainly be grateful for a cafeteria facility, but that we should pay our own way. This is the true American system of doing things. If government assistance is required for welfare situations, please let it be local government and not the Federal Government. We can do it better where we can keep close control, and leave less opportunity for bureaucratic waste and mishandling of funds. Letters were urged to be sent to our Senators and Congressmen requesting the budget not be cut. I ask that you consider this new information, and, knowing that the school lunch program will still go on, if you feel as I do, please write and ask that this cut be made, as well as any and all others that can be made to get our government out of the disastrous habit of deficit budgets. Spending more every year than is collected in taxes is a far more dangerous course than cutting back the budget in the area of school lunch subsidies. Of course there are many more silly and foolish things our government is spending money on. I'm in favor of eliminating those spending programs, too. In reading some of the records on what things our congress appropriates money for, I get the feeling some of the big spenders don't know or care whose money they are spending. We must let them know we care, and won't stand for it! Sincerely yours, L. Strang James 1660 life-styl- e. The Herald Comments Provo We hear about Geneva Steel's $100 million pollution deal for clean air but who cares if the rain washes the R.V. waste into our streams? Who cares if the disposable diapers are thrown in our streams and rest areas? Who cares if new roads are pushed through our canyons,that we have enjoyed for years? I do! I'm sure there are many more who care, also. I know as soon as these roads and highways are completed, so people can enjoy the beauty that nature has provided for us, there will be pampers, cans, garbage and human waste behind every tree and bush. Live with it, society; enjoy it if you can. No, we can't stop progress, and he who tries is a fool, but if you care for the beauty of your country, your streams, and canyons, take your garbage with you. You that care less, stay home and live in the custom you are used to. Paul E. Gott Predson Orem, Utah Some Do Get a Free Lunch Contrary to the old adage, there is such a thing as a free lunch almost if you are a member of lunch. At the Department Cabinet. At a time when the rest of us are having quite a time squeezing enough out of our petroleum-poor- , inflation-wracke- d wallets to buy lunch, Carter's cabinet members are using some of our money to sub- lunches that include Carter's President sidize their gourmet lunches. Attorney General Benjamen Civiletti has two chefs at his disposal, one on a $23,000 annual salary, and the other at $17,000. Yet when Civiletti, his U.S. staff members and as- sociates dine in the - style dining room next to his office, they pay only token prices. They pay only $1.50 for breakfasts that include juice, eggs, bacon, grits, sausage or pancakes. gh Geneva Keeping Clean Editor, Herald: On Nov. 7, there was an article in the Provo Herald entitled, "Sensitive Meetings Ahead for U. S. Steel and EPA Officials," in which Mr. Russell Fitch of EPA summarized the EPA's position in regard to the negotiations with U. S. Steel to achieve the primary air quality standard for Utah County. The primary air quality standard is 75 micrograms per cubic meter. To date, according to EPA, agreement has been reached on the control technology for 27 sources of emissions for Geneva Works, which we think is the result of good sound effort on the part of EPA, Utah State and U. S. Steel. However, control strategy on two sources of emission still remain unresolved as far as EPA is concerned. U. S. Steel estimates the cost of installing the facilities for control of the 27 sources at $62.6 million. U. S. Steel also estimates the cost of installation of the additional two control facilities demanded by EPA at $47 million, some of which is for uninproved technology. Mr. Fitch has dicated that the estimates U. S. Steel has made for the pollution controls are overstated, but our experience in installing these types of facilities is that our estimates are more likely to be low than high largely because of the effect of a galloping inflation and application of unproved technology. Mr. Fitch has alluded that the program proposed by U. S. Steel is substandard to other U. S. Steel Plants and other American Steel Plants. We would like to challenge this EPA assessment since a plant operating in an area already in compliance with primary air quality standards should not be required to install any additional control facilities. Just because some plant somewhere else in the country had to commit installation cf facilities to reduce the par tkulate in that area to comply, does not mean that all other similar plants should have to install iden INTELLIGENCE?" West 1000 North Enjoy It While You Can Editor, Herald: I have set back through the past 35 years or so and watched progress slowly, but surely, take away so many things that have been a part of our , We have heard that old cliche, "them were the good old days". Well, let's face it, there are those who can remember the good old days and those who could care less. It is those who care less that have made our canyons and streams into garbage dumps. As you travel through the canyons and fish the streams and lake of Utah, you can't help but notice the changes that have taken place, such as the disposable diapers, beer cans, pop cans and just plain garbage that has been left and even thrown on the sides of our highways. Also, places where people have dumped their holding tanks from their recreational vehicles alongside our roads and streams. The T stands for tical facilities. Mr. Fitch states that primary standards must be attained in Utah Valley. The facts are mat a goodly portion of the valley is already at or below the 75 micrograms per cubic meter, and in many places the particulate levels are below the secondary standard of 60 micrograms per cubic meter, the area qround Geneva and Provo being the exceptions. In modeling the $62.6 million program proposed by U. S. Steel and accepted by the State, the maximum particulate concentration point in a small area just east of the Geneva Plant is reduced from 167 micrograms to 84 micrograms. The 84 micrograms is well within the accuracy of any of the models to predict 75 micrograms. All the rest of the country is at or below the 75 micrograms. Geneva already has installed environmental controls equivalent to $74 million in today's dollars and is willing to install another $62.6 million of additional air controls and is also willing to install additional water control facilities. The EPA demand for $47 million of additional air controls will reduce the small area east of the plant from 84 micrograms to 79 micrograms. This is an unreasonable demand for such a minimal improvement since neither of the programs is below 75 micrograms, and the small area east of the plant is primarily a farming area and light industrial area. The Geneva program of $62.6 million can be accepted by EPA since it does show reasonable attainment of the primary air quality standard, does show more area meeting the' secondary air quality standards for the county, and allows Geneva the potential of remaining a viable industry in Utah Valley. Boyd C. Erickson General Supervisor Environmental Engineering Geneva Works U.S. Steel Civiletti's luncheon menu for this week was to include broiled white fish, deviled crab and Swiss steak plus vegetables, salad, dessert and beverage, for $2.50 M. - Carter's new reform chicken ala king, beef stew, plus vegetables, rolls, dessert and coffee. United Press International survey of some A would seem that our government service, but it $3.50 a condition of entering About Letters: The Daily Herald welcomes letters to the editor on any subject of broad reader interest. Letters preferably should be type-writte- double-space- d n, and not exceed 400 words (about two typed, double-space- d pages). Without exception, every letter must be signed in ink with the writer's full name, home address and phone number (Phone numbers won't be published.) Names can be withheld for good reason but only after personal consultation with the editor. The editor reserves the right to edit any letter to remove potentially libelous material, material in poor taste and to make letters conform to the length requirements. Length requirements can be waived in unusual cases where excess material provides exceptionally pertinent information or insights on a matter of broad com- munity interest. As nearly as possible, all letters which meet the above requirements will be published in the order they are recieved, although handwritten letters may be delayed for typing, and let-te- rs containing questionable statements may be held back to be verified. cabinet officers could avail themselves of the same food service facilities o- ffered other federal employees and pay the full freight for the privilege rather than having the tax- payers subsidize their culinary indulgences at crack. What those in Congress and the appointed executive positions fail to realize is a basic point of leadership: Never demand of others what you are not willing or able to demand also of yourself. If our august leaders still are at a loss to know why they have fallen to such low regard in the eyes of the American public, they need look no further than their luncheon place, settings. At a time when many elected and appointed government leaders are trying to convince the public of the value and honor of sacrifice, their entreaties have the increasingly hollow ring of the pep talks from generals who know they'll never be shot at. Stanton Evans Welfare 'Reform' Questionable proposal, just adopted by the House Is that our problems with expanding caseloads, rising costs and related matters result from policy discrepancies among the states. Some jurisdictions are stingy, others compassionate. The generous states, it is alleged, not only incur tremendous costs in caring for their needy, but attract a host of beneficiaries from other areas. The indicated answer is "federalization." Though you would never know it from such discussion, federal payment of aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) welfare is already hufce at least 50 percent in all the states, as much as 75 percent arid it is relatively clear in some on the empirical record that our - Commerce, the secretary's chef earns $17,035. The secretary pays $2.50 for Washington eateries offering similar bill of fare showed that a more realistic price for that kind of luncheon menus is closer to $6 a meal. No one is going to say that a person should descend to abject poverty as a per WASHINGTON "Welfare is a perennial topic on Capitol Hill, and until quite recently the phrase has meant one thing above all others: Increased involvement by the federal government. The conventional wisdorn about embodied in President welfare reform" of welfare troubles have grown in ratio with the Federal involvement. In 1936, the Feds picked up 5 percent of welfare costs, and total outlays came to only $349 million. By 1971, the corresponding figures were 53 and $18.6 billion. pemmvvrcent All of which has convinced a number of legislators not only that the Carter bill would be a serious error, but that something better must be brought forward in its place. In essence, they have concluded that what is needed is to the program, to the extent this can be done under present conditions: To give the states incentive, and authority, to get the problems of fraud, excessive spending, and lax administration under control. Such is the purpose of matching bills before the House and Senate, H.R. 4460, and S. 1382. The object of these bills is to cond vert the present Federal welfare funding scheme into a series of block grants. Each state would be given an amount of money equal to its Federal AFDC payment open-ende- fiscal 1979, plus its share of a $1 billion fiscal relief fund, apportioned according to population. An additional $400 million would be made available to the 15 states with the lowest benefit levels, to be used to increase basic benefits. The block grant would be adjusted annually for inflation, population changes, and in excessive unemployment. Once in possession of this money, the states would be free, within broad limits, to handle it as they see fit, reaping the rewards of careful administration, or paying the price of heedless spending. If welfare are sensibly monitored, Jirograms in check, and runaway tracked down, the savings papas will accrue to the states, and can be used to reduce the total welfare burden, or to increase the benefit level to the truly needy. Alternatively, runaway costs above and beyond the stipulated funding would have to be borne by the states themselves. Among other features, this legislation would permit the states to impose a work requirement as a condition of AFDC eligibility. It would also set up a demonstration program in which eight states would be allowed to design and administer their own approaches to the problem, free of Federal red tape. The idea is to give the states as much discretion as possible, in emulation of the successful welfare reform enacted in California. (Robert Carleson, architect of that reform, is a chief promoter of the idea.) Though the House has placed its seal of approval on the Carter bill, there is hope that this alternative may make some headway in the Senate. Reason: Its principal spon), sor is Sen. Russell Lone (D-L-a chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee. should have good prospects of success because of this influential backing. It should have even better prospects on its obvious merits. (c) 1979, Los Angeles Times dicate ' Syn- |