Amerikai Magyar Szó, 1982. január-június (36. évfolyam, 1-25. szám)
1982-03-11 / 10. szám
Thursday, March 11. 1982. AMERIKAI MAGYAR SZÓ 11. WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? By James Lustig One of the industries that is hard hit by the present recession is the steel industry. That is understandable because as long as the auto and construction industries are in the doldrums, steel will be affected. The leaders of the industry complain of unfair foreign competition, high production costs, high wages, high interest rates, etc. I believe it is worth listening to Andrew G, Sharkey, president of the Steel Service Institute. In an interview that was printed in the N.Y.Times on February 2, 1982, the following question was put to him: Nearly everyone would agree that domestic mills are uncompetitive vis-a-vis many foreign producers. How would you bring their costs down? This is what he answered: We support faster depreciation, environment relief, regulatory relief and other things that will enable the domestic industry to lower costs. Let us take the recommendations of Mr. Sharkey one by one: 1. ) Faster depreciation .The new existing tax law, that was adopted during the first year of the Reagan Administration gave the corporations the best advantage ever. They can write off their investments in 3 years. Any further concession would only mean that more of the tax burden would be placed on those who are the least able to pay. 2. ) Environmental relief. The fact is that the Reagan Administration cut the appropriation of the Council on Environmental Quality 64 %. The Environmental Protection Agency that is supposed to guard the purity of our air, rivers, and lakes, was crippled and for all practical purposes, industries were given a free hand to violate the existing laws. Toxic waste enforcement is down 48 %, aiipollution enforcement is down 48 %, clean water enforcement is down 55 %. In fact, the Office of Enforcement itself has been dismantled and the activities dispersed. The best proof of and the result of this is that under Nixon , Ford and Carter, the average number of violations referred to prosecution was 150-200 per year, but now under Reagan it is 66. per year. As far as the occupational health and safety is concerned, the agency that is supposed to enforce the law was transformed by the Reagan Administration from protecting the workers to protecting management,' OSHA has 1.200 inspectors and 3 million workplaces to inspect. So, what does Mr. Sharkey expect? The answer given by Mr. Sharkey is interesting not so much as to what he said, but more by what he failed to mention. That is, the competitiveness of the American steel industry will be re-established if and when the steel companies invest sufficient amount of capital in modernizing the industry. /The necessary capital is available as the purchase of the Marathon Oil Co. by U.S. Steel indicated.) The production method used in this country’s steel plants is outdated and obsolete in comparison to that of Japan, the German Federal Republic, Belgium and others. The intraduction of oxygen-heated ovens and the continuous casting operation is imperative and unavoidable if we wish to place the steel industry on a competitive basis. Even if we take these steps that require billions of dollars of investment, competition will not disappear, fade away or evaporate. It will be with us still, but we will be able to produce as economicallyjis our competitors. As far as using our production capacity to the fullest extent possible will depend on whether our government will undertake the rebuilding of our nation’s railroads, bridges, sewer systems and transportation systems.Yes, we must rebuild the devastated sections of all our big cities. Yes, the steel necessary for all these projects will keep our steel mills and the workers busy for many, many years to come. COMPASSION FOR THE POOR IS NOT A DIRTY WORD The right of every family to a decent home. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment. The right to a good education. i Once upon a time, those were the principles comprising what Franklin D. Roosevelt termed our “second bill of rights”. They were the mark of a government that recognized there was no future for the world’s strongest democracy if its citizens are left wanting, sick or abandoned. Ours was a nation that understood there was noting wrong in aiding its poor, and nothing indecent about showing compassion for those to whom the terican dream remained only a dream. But in the age of Reagonomics and retrenchment, concern for the American underclass has become unfashionable. Assistance to the needy, students, minorities, the disabled and the working poor is “big government run amok”-, welfare is a dirty word. The assumption that those who have failed to secure for themselves a sound job at equitable wages are cheaters and bums who will scramble in their feet once they are denied the pittance of federal allotments currently assigned them, is a despicable notion. Once merely the muttering of thoughtless or ignorant reactionaries and racists, the slur has now assumed the status of a legitimate philosophy and is mouthed regularly by “New Federalists” and “trickle-down” theorists in justifying unconscionable cuts in aid for the poor. How dare Ronald Reagan invoke the name of Franklin Roosevelt - one of this century’s greatest liberal spokesmen - in a State of the Union Address espousing the evisceration of those very federal projects envisioned by Roosevelt as a “basis of security and prosperity, for all, regardless of station, race or creed.” Through half-truths and distortions, the former professional actor suggests that a 45 billion dollar hike for war preparations will not adversely affect those who are truly in need. The president, for instance, declares that “ contrary to wild charges ,(the administration) will not turn its back on America’s elderly or America’s poor.” But when we examine the impact of $ 22.7 billions in cuts for social programs geared towards the most helpless citizens in our society, the facts speak otherwise. There are at least two dozen programs that will be gutted under Reagonomics. Let us examine just one area. Reagan employs the oldest trick in slick politics - selective use of statistics to distort or enhance a point of view - when he decries “daily abuses in the food stamp program which has grown by 16.000 percent in the last 15 years.” First of all, abuses have not grown 16.000 percent - although the clever syntactical arrangement of the sentence, written no doubt by deft public relations artists, leaves the audience with the impression of not only a bloated program but of one wracked with abuses. Official estimates of program abuse are put at six or seven percent. Although even eight percent lost to waste is still high, that problem stems from inadaquate precautions in funding distribution - it is not a reflection of the program’s merit. It certainly cannot justify the devastating cuts in funds targeted against recipients of the program. You don’t cut a lifeline to a drowning person because unauthorized individuals used the line* illegally. In 1966 a foundation study reported widespread malnutrition in the United States. Fourteen years later, according to the Field Foundation report, malnutrition among Americans was virtually nonexistent, an achievement due largely to the food stamp program and similar social services. Other factors contributing to large food program costs are, of course, inflation and unemployment. According to an analysis recently published by New York Magazine, participation in the food stamp program rises by one million citizens for every percentage point hike in unemployment. And the cost of the program swells by $ 100 million for every one percent rise in inflation. Those who conveniently ignore these factors engage in a reprehensible ploy. But in order to satisfy an insane nuclear arms buildup conservatives must perpetuate the myth of “wasteful” programs. What about getting up? You forgot to wake me this morning. I've been up an hour. I’ve been up for the last two hours. I’ve only just woke up. I should like to have a cup of tea in bed. I’ll have it at once, before I gel up. Il'hat did you dream of last night? I'm just getting up. I'll be down in a minute. I shan't be ready for half an hour yet. I shan’t be long. I shall be ready for breakfast in about half an hour. Nem kellene felkelni? Elfelejtett ma reggel felkelteni. Egy órája fenn vagyok Már két órája fenn vagyok. Most ébredtem csak fel Egy csésze teát kérnék ágyba. Most rögtön kérem, mielőtt felkelek. Mit álmodott az éjjel? Már kelek is fel. Egy perc múlva lent leszek. Csak fél óra múlva leszek kész. Nem fog soká tartani. Körülbelül fél óra múlva kész leszek a reggelihez. By Peter Grdd Let us learn Hungarian
