OCR Text |
Show Letters Should t typed double-sp-a etd, less than 4W words, signed wiiis hH name, snd include address and phone Dumber (number mmt be edftnml page editor, 37VSKI. published). Direct questions to r unt Sutf-ca- i, OBlEiOES Aftershocks linger from Timp scandal The aftershocks of the Timpanogos Mental Health Center scandal are still being felt as the center is sinking in a sea of red ink. Officials from the center recently approached the state legislature seeking help in staving off the federal government, which wants Timp Mental Health and Utah County to pay back $1.8 million in misappropriated Medicaid funds. In addition to the bill from Uncle Sam, Timp officials reported last week that the center had an operating deficit of nearly $500,000 through the end of October. The center's problems began when it was discovered that funds were by three former Timp execuCarl Smith, Craig Stephens and tives all of whom are in jail Glen Brown for up to five years because they pleaded guilty in May to theft and misuse of funds charges. The men misused $3.5 million from the center between 1986 and 1988. Despite being ordered to repay a total of nearly $3.4 million between the three of them, Timp Mental Health has re- - B MWEVERWCQSCN. '' f,';: DOMTGROMUP WFL. DEE PRESIDENT ceived only about $630,000. None of the restitution collected thus far has come from Smith, who was ordered to pay the most $1.7 million. Current Director Don Muller said the center is aggressively trying to recover the funds. But considering the amount of money recovered, it is obvious more needs to be done to recover the misapSmith. A civil suit was filed by the county in an attempt to get back some of the money. That suit is still pending but Smith must not be allowed to simply serve his jail time and not repay what a court has ordered him to pay. If the center cannot obtain the restitution from its former executives, and if the state cannot help with the federal demand for repayment, then Utah County may lose the mental health services Timp has provided through the years. And if that happens, it would be a bigger tragedy than the scandal itself. Ab-bi- Letters Young respond: We isn't stupid Oh, my, the young people are angry. They've been shouting into my phone ear and firing off scathing letters. They're mad at me because of a column I wrote about a survey that indicates the majority of them are materialistic, indifferent to the country and world around them, politically ignorant, and primarily interested in finding lucrative jobs and having a good time. As I said, this was a survey, taken by an organization called People for the American Way. It covered more than 1,000 to people, ranging from their mid-teeearly 20s. It also included the views, of more than 400 teachers. What I found most interesting about th? angry calls and letters is that while most of them denied that the survey was true at least as far as it might pertain to them their reaction indicates that the survey might be right on the button. For one thing, they seem to have trouble understanding what they read. An example: Almost all of them said I had reached the negative conclusions about them. As one young man put it: "How can you label an entire generation as being stupid?" I didn't. The people who conducted the survey made the judgments. I just wrote about their findings. Also, nobody labeled an "entire generation as being stupid." The survey found shortcomings in "a majority." If you will look in your dictionary, assuming you own one, and check the word "entire," and the word "majority," you'll find a significant difference. Another recurring theme: If young people have shortcomings, whose fault is it? And the almost unanimous placing of blame: I'm the guilty party. Not me alone, of course. But every generation that came before them. We stand accused of creating a miserable society in which they find it difficult, if not impossible, to flower intellectually. "We are surrounded by drugs, disease ns mnv? J Royko J h TRIBUNE p "V MEDIA LfcvjSERVICES and a system of politics that fails to exhibit many honorable qualities," writes Karen. "You seem to forget that you are part of this problem, too. Stop pointing finders unless you are looking into a mirror." Sure, there are drugs. But you aren't required to use them, you know. As for disease, you are the healthiest, best-fed young people in history. Unless you overdose or engage in dangerous sexual practices, you will live a lot longer than your parents, grandparents, etc. You'll be bigger, stronger (if you get off the couch and do something), your teeth will last longer, and there might even be a cure for baldness. You also have more personal liberties, more sophisticated material doodads and creature comforts than any group in history. And who has invented, created and provided these things? Those of us whom you would like to put on a guilt trip for not and making you smarter, better-informmore alert. Actually, I'm not sure what went wrong on the educational front. The fact is, there are more state universities, branches of these universities and junior colleges than at any time in history. As an example, only 40 years ago, Chicago had two junior colleges, and one two-yebranch of the University of Illinois. Now Chicago has state universities. There are city colleges within reach of every community. There are suburban- d, best-house- d, best-clothe- ed Editor: ; Nov. 29 paper carried the story of a BYU professor defending Marxism as a socialism of love and stating there are positive ideas of Marxism to foliow. He sounded ashamed ' of capitalism. to for socialists Here's a few questions consider. Under socialism is man considered a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its product? Or is he the tribal property of the state? Does socialism as a social system recognize individual rights and ban physical force from human relationships? (Or is it a totalitarian dictatorship using force against its own people as in Tiananmen Square only last spring)? Under socialism does an individual have or is the right to exist for his own sake he born in bondage to the state and the needs of strangers who make up "the collective?" There is one basic issue here: Is man free? Capitalism is the only system to answer: ; YES! ; True capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of Individual rights, including property rights, in which real prop- are privately owned. Capitalism brought us, under a republican form of government with a written bill of rights, our political liberties, our prosperity and our envied position in the world today. The peoples of the socialist countries are ven now demonstrating how they wish they could live as we do. Why is this possible? Because in a capital- istic society human relationships are voluntary. Men cooperate by choice and by contract. Men do not force each other to work where they do not choose, nor for employers they do not choose, nor are they forced to live where they do not wish to. Under capitalism men interact with one another in a reasonable fashion by means of discussion, persuasion and contractual agreement. Men cooperate by choice to their mutual benefit, and they keep what they earn. Capitalism (not a mixed economy) is the defender of creativity in individuals. Even under socialism men are free to agree with one another, that is possible under any form of society. Only capitalism allows us to disagree with each other and try our own individual method of life. With private property we are free to take our own risks and find success or failure. Does being a capitalist prevent us from giving? No. In fact because we own something privately we have something to give if we choose to. Did capitalism create poverty? No, it only inherited it from the dark ages when men were serfs in bondage to the king (the state), when men were conscripted for work or war as it pleased some lord or nobleman. Under all other systems men have been the property of the tribe or the collective to be used or disposed of anyway government laissez-fair- e saw fit. Only short-live- d capital-- . ism held out hope to the world of man by granting him what he needed, freedom, and recognizing him for what he is: A being who lives by use of reason and mind to survive. Bliss W. Tew Orem based colleges. And there is more scholarship money available than at any time in the past. You have greater access to information than any generation. Besides the obvious there are maganewspapers and TV zines for every special interest group, computer data banks and libraries. Yes, let us not forget those things called books. Break away from MTV and you might find them interesting. So don't point accusing fingers at those who provided you with the opportunities, the means, to fill in some of those brain cells. It takes effort on your part. Nobody is going to stick a needle in your head and squirt it full of knowledge. Another recurring theme. As one young man put it: "You say we have never been in wars, but you want us to be drafted and-ga war started so we will get killed.. How is getting killed going to help us?" Who said anything about starting a war? What I suggested while conceding it will never happen is a two-yehitch of public service for young people. For some, it might be the military. That doesn't mean I'm hoping for war. For others, it. might be civilian service, doing something useful for those who need help. Is that going to get you killed? So I'm sorry, but the letters and calls confirmed the survey. Many of you said: "Yes, there are many stupid young people, but I'm not one of them and you owe me an apology." How to think it was directed at you, only you. But I did hear from a retired teacher. She said: "The column hit home. I spent 28 years teaching language arts (literature, grammar, composition) and history in a junior high. Each year, it got a little bit worse. So I said enough is enough and ar retired." Yes, retired teacher, something is out of whack, but we might try looking at the bright side. At least our football players are getting bigger and stronger. And they read the play book. That's a start. Auto industry has friend in Congress - Capitalism is best fIJ a f propriated money, especially from An almost comical fight has broken out between liberals and conservatives over who deserves credit for ending the Cold William War. The liberals e.g. Michael Kinsley in The New Republic for Dec. 4 are the Rusher more feverish about it, quite obviously because their case is weaker. NEWSPAPER Some conservatives take the position that the Soviet Union ultimately crumpled beENTERPRISE cause Ronald Reagan rearmed America ASSOCIATION beyond Moscow's ability to compete, while steadfastly resisting communism's worldwide expansionism. This is true as far as it sheer ignorance. Neither Kirkpatrick nor goes, but there was obviously a lot more to. any other conservative ever said that it than that. communist nations must last forever. (After all, it is written, dear Michael, that Tip your hat, then, first to Harry Truman, who decided as early as 1947 that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Stalin was up to no good in Greece and us.") What conservatives have said is that Turkey and had to be stopped. That policy a communist nation, being in the grip of a flowered into George Kennan's concept of totalist worldview that permits neither amendment nor contradiction, is incapable "containment," which has been America's of moving voluntarily toward democracy. bipartisan policy ever since. The Republicans had no psychological The current convulsions in Eastern Euproblem about resisting communist expanthey rope don't contradict this point sionism and supported the policy from the prove it. Gorbachev's pullback from the start. A good many liberal Democrats, domineering style that has characterized however, had trouble perceiving Moscow's Soviet foreign policy heretofore isn't in any hand in various Third World political sense "voluntary," or in answer to normal movements that were shrewd enough to pressures. It is the desperate response of a describe themselves as merely socialist, regime that is facing economic collapse. Conservatives were well aware (more so thereby qualifying for liberal sympathy. Worse yet, many liberals couldn't bring by far than most liberals) that this was themselves to believe that the Soviet Union bound to come, sooner or later; we just itself was all bad, and fell repeatedly for didn't know when. the slightest hint that Moscow was ready Similarly, the uprisings in the East to mend its ways. European satellite states follow on logicalAll the more credit, then, to such stally from the Soviet pullback. There isn't a as Hubert regime among them that rested on anywart liberal Humphrey and "Scoop" Jackson, who held thing but the proximity of Russian tanks. their party on course for containment for Remove the fear of those, and the local e three decades despite Henry Wallace, communist puppets will be lucky if they Hoffman and everything in between. manage an unmolested retirement. What's Unable to fault conservatives on the "voluntary" about that? basic issue, Kinsley plays around with Still, it's undoubtedly true that it was the decade of the 1980s that took the remaining peripheral questions. You conservatives uSed to say that communist nations would air out of communism's tires. The bully-boy- s never change, but look ha, ha! they're in Moscow may have thought they had a fighting chance against the likes of changing under our eyes. He particularly faults Jeane Kirkpatrick for her famous Jimmy Carter, Neil Kinnock and Willy distinction between "authoritarian" re- Brandt. But they cannot have enjoyed the gimes (which are capable of evolving sight of a Western front line consisting of toward democracy) and "totalitarian" ones Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and (there being, she argued, "no instance of a Helmut Kohl. ... communist society being democraOr does Kinsley think that what really made them pack it in was that photograph tized"). But Kinsley has it wrong, probably out of of Michael Dukakis in a tank? . WjjjBPJiII 1D4 Herald comment Who really brought an end So the Cold War? erty and personal property Tuesday: Dec. 3, 1989 WASHINGTON The technology has been around for years to substantially reduce the number of people who die every year in traffic accidents, but the auto industry has resisted safety modifications. Stubborn resistance alone would not have stymied safety regulations if the auto makers did not have a friend on Capitol Hill Rep. John Dingell, the Democrat from Detroit. Dingell has championed the cause of consumers on 'many issues, but when it comes to auto safety, he lias a blind spot. As one auto safety expert put it, "Dingell is the congressman from Detroit, not the congressman from the United States." Since 1981, Dingell has used his powerful position as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to stall almost every important piece of proposed auto safety legislation. The Center for Auto Safety, a private group that lobbies for stronger legislation, estimates that 100,000 lives could have been saved had all the safety measures Dingell has opposed gone into effect when they were first put on the table. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader calls Dingell, "the No. 1 enemy of consumers in the House of Representatives." Sitting in one of Dingell's subcommittees currently is the reauthorization bill for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the agency that writes and enforces auto safety standards. The bill passed the Senate unanimously in August, but if history is any indicator, it will sit in the House for a long time. The last reauthorization bill died in Dingell's committee in 1987. The current version includes some changes.' Among them are provi- . long-overd- ue of committee. His intimidating tactics make it unlikely that anyone else on the committee will champion the bill. His reputation for playing hardball is unmatched on Capitol Hill. chalWhen Rep. James Florio, lenged Dingell on toxic cleanup legislation in 1986, Florio found that half the jurisdiction of his subcommittee was stripped Jack Anderson & Dale Van Atta UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE sions to reduce the damage from accidents that are responsible for more than 9,000 deaths a year. The bill also toughens the construction standards for minivans, light trucks and drive vehicles. It isn't the tough standards that Dingell seems to mind. It's the deadlines written in the law by which NHTSA must meet those standards. Opponents of the bill, including the auto industry, resent the fact that Congress not only wants to mandate general safety rules but that it sets deadlines for the lethargic NHTSA to make sure the job gets done. Joan Ciaybrook was the NHTSA administrator, during the Carter administration and now is president of Public Citizen, Nader's consumer advocacy group. Dingell hates to see her coming. She says NHTSA needs the deadlines to motivate it. "This agency has done practically nothing for eight years," she told, our reporter Greg side-impa- ct four-whe- el Moore. During Senate hearings on the bill, Sen. Richard Bryan, said, "NHTSA has a longer gestation period than anything found under the laws of nature." Dingell says he has not yet taken a position on the bill, but auto safety advocates are betting that it won't make it out came away. Rep. James Scheuer, to the defense of automobile air bags, which Dingell does not like, and he lost his subcommittee chairmanship in a reorganization. Dingell has fought air bags since 1978 when he led a battle to keep NHTSA from implementing mandatory air bag rules. For two months last summer, Dingell found himself the reluctant guinea pig in an air bag test. His wife, Debbie Dingell, is manager of strategic planning for General Motors, and she was testing a company Oldsmobile equipped with air bags. The system appeared to have no problems, she told us, but Dingell was uneasy. "He was waiting for it to explode in lus face " she s&id RESISTING CHANGE Intelligence reports indicate that Mikhail Gorbachev, true to his word, is cutting the Soviet military budget. The Pentagon would rather hush up that news, fearing that Congress will use it to squeeze the U.S. military budget. The Pentagon is gathering scraps of intelligence about any Soviet military moves, that might appear aggressive, but those reports should be kept in perspective. Gorbachev clearly wants to cut military spending and divert the money into the civilian economy. But just as clearly, there in the Soviet government are hard-lineand military who don't like what he is doing and will try to stop him. - rs |