Letters

Bush slows, not causes, economic downturn

Once again, Professor Robert Watson (“Recession
exacerbated by Bush, not Sept. 11,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, March 1) attempts to mislead Bruin readers by asserting
that the recession became worse after the new administration took
office.

The economic stimulus program, which went into effect during the
third quarter of last year, did not exacerbate the recession.
Rather, it had the opposite effect; namely it moderated the
downturn. Look at the result: the economy grew at a plus rate of
1.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2001. As Alan Greenspan stated
this week, the current economic slump is unusually mild, as
evidenced by the 1.1 percent growth rate of the economy for the
year 2001. Although this may not seem to be a great increase, it
should be noted that the prior administration did nothing to
prepare for the end of the economic boom.

Fortunately, however, the current administration did act to
moderate the customary post- boom economic slump.

Having served as an economist in the Truman and Kennedy
presidential administrations, plus California governor Pat
Brown’s administration, I remind Professor Watson that the
greatest expansion in modern history occurred in the 1982- 2000
period. Aided by the Reagan tax cut, and despite a period of
inventory liquidation in 1991, employment rose by 36 million over
the 18 years.

Theodore A. Andersen Professor of Finance

Anderson School

Refine argument, ditch irony

In response to Professor Watson’s letter “Recession
exacerbated by Bush, not Sept. 11,” (Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, March 1), I was struck by the irony of his comments.

Since the financial boon of the 1990s was largely driven by the
dot.com sensation, owing its success to Al Gore (the inventor of
the Internet), I can see how he came to his myopic conclusions.

I was further reminded of the Enron situation and couldn’t
help but think of their largest political beneficiary who happens
to be our very own Gray Davis.

Please Dr. Watson, allow the professionals to tell the history
of the economy and leave out the personal
“left-leaning” rhetoric. Your argument needs more than
“refinement,” it needs comprehension.

Christopher Bocchiaro Graduate student Physiological
science

Pell Grants same as vouchers

Mitra Ebadolahi seems to ignore a very important point in her
rant against vouchers (“Vouchers
hinder education system,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Feb.
28): Pell Grants.

Pell Grants are simply vouchers for college. They can be used at
public colleges, private secular colleges and colleges run by
religious organizations.

The United States has one of the most enviable systems of
colleges in the world. The wide choice in colleges gives most
Americans opportunities and choices they would not have elsewhere.
If this works for colleges, why don’t we try it for K-12?

The public school K-12 system is the worst in the developed
nations. Perhaps we should try a solution which has proven to work
for colleges.

Daniel B. Rego Alumni Class of 2000

Vouchers don’t discriminate

Mitra Ebadolahi’s article against vouchers
(“Vouchers
hinder education system,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Feb.
28) reeks of socialist dogma and contains not one shred of logical
validity.

One complaint Ebadolahi has about vouchers is that they will
take away from much needed funds for school reform, and that it is
“enormous classes, inadequate teaching reserves, and outdated
curriculum” somehow creating such a bad system.

The truth is that we throw our tax dollars down the drain to
fund places that have been failing since day one. She suggests more
government intervention to help the system. By this logic, it is
fair to say if smoking causes cancer, then more cigarettes will
make the cancer better. Throwing more money at a problem will not
stop it.

She next says that vouchers are a violation of separation of
church and state because parents will put all of their children in
religious schools. This is completely wrong because once a voucher
has been given to parents, it becomes the parents’ money and
it’s their choice of what school to put their kids in. By
eliminating the state completely from the equation, as vouchers
will do, what right has anybody to say that a parent cannot enroll
their kids in any school they choose? Many people go to religious
schools and come out with a wonderful education without becoming
religious. Also these religious schools do not discriminate on
basis of religion.

Lastly, she says vouchers will only allow select families access
and will “discriminate against students with behavioral
problems or poor academic performances.” Yet if you ask 90
percent of parents with children who have these problems, they will
all tell you that public schools have failed them. Public schools
get money for every child they label as a “problem.”
They then lump all these kids into a classroom where they learn at
the rate of the slowest individual. If these parents had vouchers,
they could send their kids to private schools that specialize in
problem children (and many do exist) or hire a tutor.

Furthermore, with the high taxes we pay to support our failing
Department of Education, only the rich can afford to send their
kids to a suitable school. By advocating more legislation and more
government intervention, this gap will become even more polarized.
The truth is that parents are being legally robbed of most of their
income while their children are forced into substandard schooling.
If these parents were allowed to spend their own money as they
chose, then many more kids would be receiving quality
education.

Joel Schwartz Third-year Psychology