OCR Text |
Show The Salt Lake Tribune ON M READER ADVOCATE, AA-2 PUBLIC FORUM, AA-2 fOTl0y ROLLY REPORT, AA-3 OCTOBER31, 1999 OUR VIEW The Salt Lake Tribune’s Editorial Position Hurrah for Stalemate Partisan gridlock in Washingtonis a wonderful thing. President Clinton stymies Republican tax cuts, Congress blocks the president's spending plans, and, by default, the federal budget surplus goes to pay down the national debt. Is this 2 great country or what? ‘This happystate ofaffairs mustgive voters pause. Both political parties will be trying to convince Americans next year that divided government is a bad thing, that the White House and the Congress should be underthe controlof the sameparty. But in budget matters, divided government is serving the greater good quite nicely, thank you very much. On Wednesday, President Clinton announced that Uncle Sam ended the last fiscal year on Sept. 30 with a surplus of $123 billion compared to total receipts of about $1.8 trillion. Virtually ail of the surplus was generated by Social Security revenues. Without them, the gov- surpluses too, and the GOP has counter-attacked with exactly that ar- gurnent. Republicans in Congress have one-upped the president cutting spending increases by 1 percent across the board in next year’s budget — ahout $5 billion worth. That way, the govern- ment could balance outlays to revenues without having to dip into the Social Security surplus at all, Republicans claim. In the big picture, this fracas is mostly aboutspin control in the run-up to the 2000 election. Democrats and Re- publicans are fighting for the high groundinthebattle over which side has done inore to preserve the so-called Social Security Trust Fund. Inreality, neither side can balance the budget without dipping into some Social Security funds or using accounting gimmicks. The genuinely important bottomline of current budgetpolitics is that most of the Social Security surplus is going to ernment would have run a deficit of about$1billion. federal debt reduction. Thathas several Whathappens to those excess Social Security revenues has becomethe biggest political spin game in Washington. positiveeffects. It reduces federal interest payments on the national debt and it frees up morecapital for private lend- promising to preserve those surplus funds as a way to attack Republicans’ terest rates. It also places the federal governmentin a better position for future borrowing to pay Social Security benefits or to stimulate a depressed PresidentClintonfirst hit on the idea of callsfor tax cuts. The tax cuts, the pres- ident argued correctly, would wipe out ing, creating downward pressureonin- the surpluses. economy. But, of course, Clinton’s plansto increase spending would wipe out the In those terms, divided government lookspretty good. "HES GOT A NASTY LEFT. ° Media Descriptions Belie Actual Contest HANOVER,N.H. — Youreally had to search for clues to the dynamic of the Democratic presidential race in thefirst televised question-and-answer session Whenhetried to acknowledge his gaffe earlier this year in suggesting he had “invented the Internet,” he couldn't re- frain from bragging that hereally had donea lot in Congress to makeit a real. ity. At the end, when he thanked the voters of New Hampshire for the “great with Vice President Al Gore and former Fat But Happy Someone needs to donate a sense of humorsoit can be transplanted into the director of nutrition and physical activity at the Centers for Disease Control and Preventionin Atlanta. Andit would not hurt to toss in a giggle gland for membersof the team at the Obesity Research Center at Columbia University in New York. Studies made by both groups and published in the latest issue of the Journalofthe American MedicalAssociation charge that Americans are in danger of exploding from how muchfat they are gaining. In fact, the CDC study claimsthat during theeight-year period from 1991 to 1998, the percent of obese Americans plumped up from 12 percent of the total populationto 17.9 percent. This brings to mind one question immediately: Did the fact that nutritionists changed the height-weight charts in 1998 — making the pounds of weight categories less in every height group and pushing many more people into the overweight category — have anythingto do with this scary phenom- Don’t nutritionists study any history in school?Ascivilizations become more advanced, they accumulate more wealth and they have more foodto eat. Theyeat that food and their prosperity begins to show in the spare tires they develop aroundtheir waists. In fact, in somecultures, a fat wife is the sign of a rich man, Thenthere is the issue of whattastes good. Low-calorie foods taste, well, lowcalorie. Of the food groups, the best ans are those withfat, salt and sugoe nally, there is the issueof exercise. It’s tough in the midst of the information age to work up a sweatsitting in front of a computer or making phone calls or ringing up orders for customers. And, in the age ofnuclear families, it’s difficult to assign what could be family timeto the process of working out, run-~ ning or power walking. Perhaps some leisurely walking with family members so that problemscouldbe talked out and plans madecould be sold to Americans, but this no-humor dogmatic approachis enonofcreepingfat? In Juneof1998, the National Institute of Health issued not goingto work. Americans are not so obtuse that weight guidelines that within seconds changed millions of Americans from chubby to obese. And, when theyissued these guidelines, many experts ex- they are unableto tell their reflections in the mirrorare gaininggirth; but they are also smart enough to understand that the stress of today’slife could cause hefty. anyoneto set records for doughnut consumption. pressed surprise that Americans are Revisionist History ‘Thestateof Israel has passed the half century mark, so it is not surprising that a new generationofIsraeli historians are extrapolating new conclusions aboutthe Near Eastern nation’s forma- tive years, in the process questioning long-standing notions. Specifically, contemporary historians are questioning the traditional in- terpretation that Israel was born in a Palestinians. Others, including some Palestinians,see the revisionist history more positively, offering a more bal- anced view ofIsrael's tumultuous establishment. Whatoftenis overlooked is that this sort of thing happens over time. Each new generation ofhistorians offers its own insights on the plenitude of subjects or individuals that quicken mem- miraculous — dare onesay biblical? bers’ interests. A current historian’s David and a powerful Goliath in which biography of, say William the Conqueror, likely will feature an interpretation conflict between a small, under-armed Israel, naturally, was cast as David. A new cropof schooltextbooks, featuring the scholarshipof the new histo- rians, suggest that the Jewish forces in the 1948 Middle East war were better equipped and trained than the Arabs. Perhaps even more controversial, the books say that somePalestinians were forced to flee duringthefighting rather than departingof their own accord. Not unexpectedly, the new texts stirred protest. Many claim theydistort history while others say they hurt the and insights different than thatof a biographer 50 years ago. Early in the 20th century, a progressive notionofhistory, the idea that each era waslike a step on an upward stairway and mankind progressed and humanlife improved with each era, was popular. Fewif any historians today embrace this view, although it still is popular in some non-historiancircles. Israel will weather this crisis, de- spite the revisionist history and its morale ofIsraeli soldiers and under: critics.It is, afterall, just a new generationof historians doing whathistorians minethe nation’s position vis-a-vis upcoming peace talks with the do: interpreting thepast. —andreinterpreting Sen. Bill Bradley, held Wednesdaynight at DartmouthCollege. Whatviewers whopassed upthefinal gameof the World Series saw was two the other(Bradley) in an ill-fitting suit, giving thoughtful answers to serious policy questions from a roomful of New Hampshirevoiers. The shorthand descriptions of the contest that reporters had been using did notfit the reality of the evening. It was not Outsider Bradley vs. Insider Gore. The former New Jersey senator talked at least as much abouthis legislative initiatives in 18 years on Capitol Hill as Gore did about his work in more than two decadesin Washington. Nor was it New DemocratGore vs. Old Democrat Bradley. Gore did argue that Bradley’s health care plan would use upall the projected budget surplus and then some. But the vice president proposed enough new programs ofhis ownthat New Hampshire Republican Chairman Steve Dupreygreeted report- ers leaving the debate with a press release plausibly claiming that both men “spent the entire $1 trillion surplus in 60 minutesofnational television.” Anyonewhoheard Gore’s answer to a question about the pressures working families face would not concludethat he believes “the era of big governmentis over.” He promised to legislate a higher UTAH'S INDEPENDENT VOICE SINCE 1871 PUBLISHER Dominic Welch think thateither of these men would be a more liberal president than Bill Clinton. And speaking of Clinton, the assumption that Bradley would attempt to exploit the scandals of the outgoing president to Gore’s disadvantage also proved to be wrong. Offered a set-up a on thefinancial improprieties of the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign, Bradley conspicuously passed. “I think there were obviously some irregulari- ties that have been addressed,” he said. But not a word escaped his lips about White House coffees, Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers, Chinese moneyor Buddhist templefund-raisers. Rather, it was Gore who brought up the “disappointment and anger” he felt at the president's misbehavior. In personal style, the differences were clearer. Bradley was, as usual, quiet almost to the pointof diffidence, treating questioners with respect but seeking no intimacy. Gore worked muchharder to make an impression. He leadership, Gore and Bradley eachcited three role models. Gore's were utterly safe and predictable choices:Lincoln for his values, FDR for his powersof persuasion, Lyndon Johnsonfor the scope of his domestic agenda. No riskofoffending with those names; and no originality. Bradley chose differently: Jimmy Carter for his veracity; Woodrow Wil sonfor his farsightedness; Mikhail Gor- bachevfor his courage. Those three men were certainly visionaries. Wilson con. ceived of the League of Nations as a guarantor of international justice and peace. Carter imagined a nation committed to an ethic of energy conservation; a government with a muchsimplified administrative structure; a tax system stripped of special-interest loopholes; and a reformed health care system. Gorbachev brought “perestroika” to the Soviet Union and spoke of a nation that would achieve parity with all the other industrial powers. But that is an odd pantheon.It may not have occurred to Bradley — who identifies himselfas a “big ideas”leader — that each of his role models over: enormously he invited questions from the audience, dragging a reluctant-looking Bradley into the unscheduled warm-upexercise. But Gore never seems to know when reached so badly that he very quickly lost the support of public opinion and his hold on power. All three were highly intelligent men, whose ideasstill reso- to leave well enough alone. His efforts at humorfell flat, his inquiries about the questioners’families seemed contrived. accomplishments. is there a cautionary message there? come Tax Credit which has grown in the past six years, broaden the Family and Medical Leave Act, improve subsidized child care and institute bigger after-school programs. Listening to the two men promise bolder action on everything from the environment to Alzheimer's disease, nate. But their failures dwarfed their Children Must Be Focus of Divorce System pathologies associated with father ab- In Georgia, militant “beat-dead dads” want to unpack their rebel flags. senceis long and well-documented. Yet ourdivorce system combined with a welfare culture that historically has supported unwed mothertiood works overtime to keep fathers at bay, like someevil usurpers who wouldsteal In Colorado,an alienated father states he wants his pound offlesh, saying, “I don't care what blood is spilled.” In Washington, some 10,000 fathers planto toss their divorce and custody decrees innocentsouls. in the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting poolnext month. So goes the Fatherhood Movement in The surprise isn't that men are ready to storm the nation’s capital but that America. Its members are as diverse as the country in whichthey live, yet all are united on onefront: They want their children back. “It is time to start something radical,” says BradIngram, organizerof the reflecting-pool demonstration and head of the Family Restoration League in Richmond,Va.“It is time to make an undeniable, irrefutable statement that unless this government mendsits ways, it will be overturned.” Unlikely. It is unlikely, too, that the divorce industry will change its stripes in time system that has given their children to someoneelse and strapped them finan cially. Even some of the movement's constituents seem to sense failure be neath the surface of their rage. A renegade fatherhood activist who spoke anonymously predicts the fa thers’ movementeventually will fizzle. Mencan't cooperate sufficiently to ef- fect change, he says, especially when their goals are at odds with women’s, Others see a void at the end of the KEARNS-TRIBUNE CORPORATION, 1438. MAIN ST, SALT LAKE CITY, S411 march. Weary from fighting, broke from legal fees, many eventually give Jerry O'Brien (1983-1994) mostnonotice. Asked aboutleaders and hearing their passionate advocacy of gay rights, any listener would have to cameon stage with a head of steam, and for 15 minutes before the telecast began EDITOR James E. Shelledy John W, Gallivan (1960-1983) tureof the pandering politician. The most revealing moment drew al. minimum wage, expand the Earned In- for these fathers to feelless cheated by a The Salt LakeTribune learning experience” of campaigning for their votes, he was almosta carica tall men, one (Gore) well-tailored and up on their children and disappear. The average tenureof a fatherhood activist, I'mtold,is 18 months. New fathers drive out the old ones with their new and bet ter ideas, which the veterans of these warshave cometoview asuseless. ‘The answer, says another skeptical insider,is women, Thebattlefor fathers’ equal rights won't be won by revolutionary men, he says, but by sisters, aunts, mothers of sons, girlfriends and second wives whosee the painful inequities and join their men at the front. In part, he is right. Fair-sminded women can see not only the inequities but also the harm done to children who don't see enough of their fathers, Many women do join disenfranchised fathers in their struggle; there's no rational reason,after all, for fathers to have to prove their necessity in a court of law when families fall apart. The need for fathers has been made clear by some of the saddest events and trends in our history. Substance abuse, teen pregnancy, sexual miscuity, difficulty in school — the list of social " they haveso little societal support. In whose bestinterestis it that millions of American children do not know their fathers? Given that we can’t seem to stay married more than an average of six years and divorce seems increasingly inevitable, we have to changethe rules of the game, We can nolongerafford to concern ourselves with adults’ “rights” but only with children’s, Children have a right to the security and stability of a family, no matter what trouble adults create for themselves. Society has a duty to prevail in chil dren’s best interests, which means — absent abuse or ee — unimpeded access to their parents. “ne Children’s Rights Council, an ivocacy group that stresses children’s Pghtbh parents, seems to have the best grasp of a workable solution: an pees of onscustody upon divorce @ parenting agreementprior to marriage. The divorce system needs aeeas f |