Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, September 16, 1993 TAG: 9310280329
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The amount of compensation that anyone receives is based on the laws of supply and demand. Because there is only one James Buchanan, he has a tremendous amount of market power, and will attempt to maximize his gain from this market power by selling himself to the highest bidding school. His compensation can take a monetary form, his actual salary, and a non-monetary form, a smaller teaching load.
If Mr. Buchanan does not like his offer from George Mason, he might get a better offer from Harvard or Yale.
It is also in the university's best interest to hire someone like Mr. Buchanan (if they can afford him). The prestige associated with having a big name on campus translates into more tuition dollars from students and more giving by alumni.
In fact, it is no more unreasonable for Mr. Buchanan to receive a handsome compensation package than it is for Michael Jordan to receive millions to throw a ball through a hoop. In both cases, the compensation paid to each is merely a reflection of their exercise of market power and the strength of the demand for their services.
The point I want to make is not whether colleges should attempt to cut costs by decreasing salaries or increasing teaching loads. The point is that, because of basic economic laws, this is not likely to occur.
GARRY FLEMING
Associate Professor of Economics
Roanoke College
SALEM
In praise of Lewis' telethon
LET MIKE Ervin speak only for himself when writing such a condemning commentary in the Sept. 6 Roanoke Times & World-News covering the Muscular Dystrophy Association Labor Day Telethon by Jerry Lewis. I, too, have muscular dystrophy and appreciate the efforts of all those involved in the year-to-year hard work to raise money to support scientific research and equipment to make life a little easier for those with any disabling disease.
I do not believe that Ervin knows the opinion of "millions of people with disabilities" - people whose lives, he says, are made more unnecessarily difficult because of the comments, phrases and display used by Lewis to emphasize the need for more funds. If so, there must be double that number who care enough to listen and agree with the cause. Each year, the donations surpass each previous year's donations.
Fortunately, I'm very self-sufficient and do not consider myself disabled while doing my household chores from a wheelchair and enjoying every minute of life. One is only as disabled as he or she permits themselves to be. The mind can become stagnate and bitter if you dwell on your condition.
Also, if there were more folks like Lewis to care about our society and the welfare of others, the world would be a better place.
MARY G. FIELDS
ROANOKE
Recall another deficit plan
IN RESPONSE to Timothy N. Tribbett's Aug. 24 letter to the editor, "Put up or shut up":
Like so many Democrats, he has his blinders in place!
Does Tribbett remember, or did he ever know, that the tax increase of 1990 was promised by the Democrats to reduce the deficit by some $500 billion over five years? If it worked so well, why do we need another one just two years later, and retroactive to Jan. 1, 1993?
George Bush took Democrats at their word, signed into law a tax bill unequaled until now, and this cost him the '92 election.
We now have an even-larger tax package with the promise again by the Democrats of reduced deficits. This, by the way, does not mean lowering the debt, but simply slows spending. If Tribbett would, please list for us all the countries of the world that have taxed themselves into prosperity.
EDWARD P. GENTRY
SALEM
It's not just skills that matter
IN A RECENT Nike tennis-shoe commercial, pro-basketball star Charles Barkley growls, "I am not a role model." James M. Bestler's Sept. 7 letter to the editor, "In defense of the Tailhook spirit," attempts to use this same rationale to defend the behavior of the Navy and Marine aviators at the Tailhook Convention.
Bestler asserts Tailhook aviators "are not diplomats, but are paid to kill people, blow things up, and then get their aircraft back aboard a small piece of deck on a rapidly bobbing and moving aircraft carrier."
I disagree strongly that "the Barkley defense" is appropriately applied to the behavior of the aviators at the convention. Quite the contrary, these aviators are U.S. military officers, public servants who can indeed be expected to behave as diplomats. Their exceptional aeronautical skills do not abrogate the diplomatic function inherent within the responsibilities of every military leader.
The role that Bestler describes is that of a mercenary, not of a military officer. Military officers, even those whose duties are hazardous and extremely specialized, can certainly be expected to behave with dignity and respect toward their fellow human beings.
As a former Naval officer, I bristle at his attempt to defend the indefensible, as well as his concluding statement, "Not every Tailhooker should be expected to grow up ... Women can be expected to avoid the company of large, drunken boys."
Those boys can be expected to control their drinking and to treat women and men with courtesy. If they are unable to do so, there is no place for them - or their exceptional skills - in the uniform of a U.S. military officer.
BENTON J. TRAWICK
DUBLIN
It takes some figuring, but ...
WE ARE SPENDING about $600 billion a year on social programs and do not seem to be getting anywhere. May I advocate a new approach?
Why not just pick out 17 million families and give each of them a contract at $35, 000 per year to be welfare recipients. This would cost only $595 billion. Even if the average family had only three people, this would cover more than 50 million people, about 15 percent of the population. (New York City has only about 13 percent of its population on welfare, so this should be adequate.)
How do we pick the recipients? We choose about 400 top welfare advocates; each chooses 35 supervisors, each of whom then chooses 35 selectors. Each of these approximately 500,000 selectors then selects 35 families. No one is overburdened with case loads.
How do we fund the staff? Each welfare recipient must now pay income taxes, at least $2,500 a year, and $1,200 of this provides about $20.4 billion, enough for an average staff salary of $40,000. This leaves a surplus of more than $22.1 billion.
This is just a start. Recipients are contracted, not employed, and must pay a self-employment tax of $5,250. This adds about $89.3 billion a year to Social Security revenue.
Now, projecting a 5 percent annual increase in recipients, we will spend $3,481.1 billion over the next five years. By capping the budget at $595 billion, we will spend only $2,975 billion, thus saving about $506.1 billion.
To obtain $595 billion, we would have to transfer only $88.9 billion from the $500 billion savings our majority leaders promised Bush, leaving a $411.1 billion surplus there.
Thus, the program would be fully funded with a budget surplus of $527.5 billion. ($5 billion reduction in appropriations, $22.1 billion income contribution, $89.3 billion Social Security, $411.1 billion saved by the majority party in honoring their tax-hike agreement with Bush.) Of course, projecting a 6 or 7 percent growth will result in even higher savings.
My proposal will not only pay for itself. It will reduce the deficit by more than half a trillion dollars. It should be started now. Adding these budget and spending reductions to those already passed is a must.
(It would be remiss not to acknowledge the help given to me by the authors of the Clinton budget-reduction bill. Without their guidance, I would not have known how to calculate savings and benefits.)
My administrative costs may be a bit low. Since writing this, I have discovered that in Santa Barbara, Calif., it cost $26.3 million to distribute $1.7 million in welfare aid.
JAMES F. PHELAN
BLACKSBURG
Message to Israel
TO Israel: Mon amour, you are committing suicide slowly.
RUTH A. BERND
BLACKSBURG
by CNB