Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona • Page 13

OPINIONS Thursday, July 30, 1992 A13 defense is crass commercialism ce By Jonathan Yardley i IM middlemen are free to disseminate it. What it does not hold is that these middlemen are obligated to do so. What Time Warner and its allies in the recording industry are trying to do is legitimize that confusion. They want us to believe that not merely are they free to record Ice-T, they have under the Constitution no choice except to do so. Hogwash.

All they're doing is putting a legalistic spin on a rankly commercial undertaking. Warner the subsidiary of Time Warner for which Ice-T records, has from the outset viewed his "music" in purely commercial terms. It recorded his Body Count album not out of any fidelity to the principles of free expression but out of the firm conviction that'the album would make money. It promoted and distributed the album accordingly, then sat back and waited for the returns to roll in. It got more than it bargained for.

The lyrics of Cop Killer, which quite openly advocate the murder of policemen, and of KKK Bitch, which fantasize about sodomizing a Klans-man's daughter, may have titillated some people whose ears and sensibilities have been deadened to the nuances of civilized discourse, but they offended millions of other Americans for reasons that need no elaboration. Some responded that Ice-T has no right to speak as he does; we have a long, lively censorial tradition in these United States, and it shows no signs of demise. But others, more attuned to the Constitution, argue that the issue wasn't Ice-T's freedom of speech but Time Warner's corporate responsibility. Its obligation, they say, is not to disseminate any piece of trash that comes its way but to distinguish between what is fit and what is not; to exercise taste and social responsibility, in other words, as well as mere greed. This is an obligation of which most institutions and individuals who deal in the expression of opinion are well aware.

Editors know they are free to publish as they wish; they also know that they are obligated to do so responsibly and maturely. However reverently they may feel toward constitutional rights of free speech, they are well aware that those rights do not require them to publish material they find offensive and they edit their publications accordingly. What it comes down to is that Warner Bros, put cash ahead of taste. Right now their highest executives are sufficiently worried about the corporation's "image" that they are scurrying about in search of a new company policy about offensive or pornographic material. But don't let them kid you: Any policy they manage to devise will be window dressing pure and simple, a gesture to public relations rather than a genuine corporate change of heart.

Jonathon Yardley wrote this article for The Washington Post. 44 I am for the First Amendment from the first word to the last. It means what it says." Thus spake the late Hugo Black, and thus he was quoted the other day atop a full-page advertisement paid for by a lobbying organization called the Recording Industry Association of America. The self-described "music community" would like us to believe that Justice Black would have approved its position on the matter of the rapper Ice-T. The "music community" is all wet.

The recording industry has been in this territory before. As the advertisement points out, composers and performers as diverse as Cole Porter and Bob Dylan had their run-ins with censorship in the past. But the furor over Ice-T and his recordings, among them Cop Killer and KKK Bitch, has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. It may be convenient for the recording industry generally and Time Warner specifically to hide behind that amendment, but the broad free-speech protections it guarantees simply are not at issue here. When Time Warner and the recording industry talk about censorship and the First Amendment, they simply don't understand the difference between terms.

Time Warner and the recording industry have lawyers: Expensive lawyers in blue suits who are paid far too much and who presumably know Time Warner The lyrics in Ice-T's record, 'Cop Killer', Today we're $4 The Dream clearly advocate killing policemen. of Ice-T, it has a concomitant obligation to do so. But no such obligation exists. When the Bill of Rights was written, its Framers included no provision requiring that unpopular or disagreeable speech be subsidized and broadcast; they merely stipulated that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press trillion been no fiasco, Mr. Bush's spending still would have exceeded that of presidents Truman, Johnson, Ford, Carter and Reagan.

So, is Congress at fault? True, our scandal-plagued, profligate Congress cannot just say no to spending. But before Congress got its hands on the 1993 budget, Mr. Bush already had asked for a 16.1 percent increase at Department of Housing and Urban Development, 15.6 percent at State and 14.7 percent at Education. According to figures furnished by Steven Robinson, an economic policy analyst at the House Republican Study Committee, even if Congress had passed Mr. Bush's budgets verbatim, requested domestic spending would have grown from $661.4 billion in 1990 to $826.6 billion in 1992, a increase of 24.9 percent in two years.

George Bush is a tax-and-spend Republican. Apart from an obligatory By Deroy Murdock Americans awakened today to another day of work, summer school or unemployment and the first day of a full $4 trillion national debt. According to Treasury Department estimates, the U.S. national debt reached this staggering level this morning that's $4,000,000,000 to be precise. Put another way, the federal government owes others $16,000 in individual debt for each and every American.

This red-letter date is a unique occasion to reflect on President Bush's management of domestic spending a performance that has contributed to this stunning debt load. In fact, during George Bush's term in office, the national debt will have increased 33 percent, from roughly $3 trillion (accumulated from 1776 to 1988) to the $4 trillion of today. Mr. Bush's woeful record, not surprisingly, contradicts his anti-deficit rhetoric. In June 1991, he proclaimed, "This administration is determined to put a lid on the growth of federal spending." But in fact, Mr.

Bush has dumped the lid and cranked the pot up to full boil. The president has increased federal domestic outlays by 8.7 percent on average after inflation each year since 1989, the swiftest growth for any U.S. president since John F. Kennedy. George Bush's Never-Ending Domestic Budget Buildup, a new report by Stephen Moore, director of Fiscal Policy Studies at the free market Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., presents the facts on Mr.

Bush's lavish ways in frightening detail. Consider: Domestic domestic outlays have swelled from 13 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 16.5 enough law to explain to clients the difference between rights and obligations. Cut through all the hot air surrounding Ice-T, and that is what the issue boils down to. Time Warner is trying with ever-increasing desperation and stridency to argue that because it has a right to record and distribute the incendiary "lyrics" StK fHiami -Herald percent since Mr. Bush's inauguration.

In that period, appropriations at the Department of Transportation have increased 32 percent in real terms. The Departments of Commerce and State have risen 48 percent, while the Labor and Health and Human Services Departments' budgets have mushroomed 63 percent. Even many programs that the Reagan administration considered redundant or ineffective have enjoyed Mr. Bush's generosity. Since 1989 the Small Business Administration's budget has increased 219 percent, while the Export-Import Bank has ballooned by an eye-popping 920 percent.

How could this have happened? Did the savings-and-loan bailout cause this sutge in spending? Hardly. Even excluding the (so far) $146 billion bailout, Mr. Bush's domestic programs have grown 7.3 percent per year on average since 1989. Had there ELLEN GOODMAN The Boston Globe about Corinne's behavior but about her age. When Corinne is 18, she can have an abortion with Dad's support.

While she's 13, she'll have a baby by Mom's order. Before you say that this is more Danfoolery, let me remind you that this is how upside inside out the abortion issue has become. On the one hand, most Americans agree that a 20-year-old is more equipped for motherhood than a 13-year-old. On the other hand, we are making it harder for 13-year-olds to get abor If if' To be sure that is a sweeping stipulation, one that has kept lawyers in business for two centuries. It is both broad and deep, and there is much to be said for the absolutist interpretation of it that Justice Black favored.

Vastly oversimplified, this interpretation holds that Americans are free to say or write whatever they want, and publishers and other in debt speech on family values or abortion, he cannot be distinguished from a Democratic politician when it comes to most domestic matters. In fact, he has outpaced Democrats Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson in terms of spending growth. This wouldn't be so bad if George Bush's fiscal joyride had transported Americans to an economic paradise. As Cato's Stephen Moore puts it, "If massive growth of government and multi-billion-dollar deficits were the solution to America's economic problems, the nation would be basking in unprecedented prosperity, and Bush would be widely acclaimed as an economic miracle worker." Instead, after $1.04 trillion in Bush deficits, America languishes with 7.8 percent unemployment and 0.5 percent growth in GDP since 1989, the most glacial pace of economic expansion since Eleanor Roosevelt was First Lady. Rather than another four years of bright red ink and economic stagnation, President Bush should repudiate publicly and dramatically his fiscal policy by enacting radical rollbacks in federal outlays as well as in business and personal taxes.

His speech at the Republican convention would be the perfect forum to articulate such a statement of repentance and plan of action. If, instead, President Bush steps off the podium in Houston without saying these things, Republicans and conservatives alike would be wise to join Democrats and independents in searching for another presidential candidate to restore fiscal responsibility and economic prosperity. Deroy Murdock, a veteran of the 1980 and 1984 Reagan campaigns, is a New York writer and president of Loud Clear Communications, a marketing and media consultancy. can make teen-agers tell their parents before they have sex. The vast majority of teen-agers do come to a parent for help.

These girls can get abortions. But only the most sophisticated of estranged teen-agers can find the money, travel to the clinic, or stand up before a judge and therefore make their own decisions. The ones who are not savvy or sophisticated get to be the mothers. At which point, in most states, they are suddenly and ironically "emancipated" into legal adulthood. It isn't just the parental involvement laws that affect the young most.

Every restriction that makes it more difficult for an adult woman to get an abortion makes it most difficult for a teen-ager. As for Corinne Quayle, the unwitting and undoubtedly mortified "daughter" in her parents' public scenario? Together, the Second Couple has reminded us of the double standard of abortion. In the Quayle world an 18-year-old gets to be supported whatever her decision. A 13-year-old gets to have a baby. This is no joke.

It's the foolishness that passes now for public policy. lives with two By Jim Haynes Paul Johnson and Dennis Mitchem still believe in The Dream. They may be the only ones who still do. The Dream is the vision of a Valley transportation system that works. Which is to say, a system based upon relieving traffic congestion, as opposed to one whose primary function is to turn land speculators on the periphery of civilization into millionaires.

The Dream was born in 1985 when 73 percent of us voted to impose a half-cent sales tax to finance a valleywide freeway system, and to begin planning for more efficient public transit. Paul Johnson, now Phoenix's energetic mayor, was then just beginning his public life as an obscure city councilman. Denny Mitchem was then, as he has been for more than 20 years, one of the community's most tireless workers for improved transportation and just about any other cause that would improve our lives. As we speak, he is moving to Denver to take on a new responsibility for his firm. The vast leadership void that move will leave is another story, and one best addressed by someone experienced in covering major tragedies.

The Dream, born of discussions between the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce and the Maricopa Association of Governments, soon had thousands of fathers as people tripped all over each other lining up in support. It was a showcase of cooperation. Then reality set in. Speculators swooped into the Valley like a flock of vultures after a fresh road kill pun intended. They bought vast amounts of acreage so far west it was difficult to tell whether it was in Maricopa or Los Angeles County.

They engaged a battalion of political consultants and condemnation lawyers to advance the cause of building freeways to serve gila monsters instead of people. Many were not even the least bit subtle. One openly advertised for limited partners in a land scheme in the path of the Price Road freeway in Chandler based upon the promise of a fat return from the state for right-of-way. Meanwhile, the Arizona Department of Transportation was busy bungling a number of highly publicized land acquisitions, most notably in the Arrowhead Ranch area. And Valley consumers were busy downsizing their buying habits as a result of the recession.

That meant, of course, that -sales tax revenues were down, and that construction had to be only people. ARIZONA CORRESPONDENT tightly prioritized. Finally, a small but extraordinarily loud group of "nimbys" in my back awakened from a long hibernation and discovered to their horror that if freeways are to serve people, they must be aligned somewhere reasonably close to people. The Dream became an apocalyptic battle that pitted east Valley v. Phoenix, west Valley v.

Phoenix, and nimby v. motorist. And the primary battlefield became the Paradise Parkway, an east-west artery aligned along Camelback Road from the outer loop to the Squaw Peak. The nimbys, using the nom de plume of COSTS (Citizens Opposed to Senseless Transportation Schemes), attacked the Paradise as a road to nowhere because its eastern terminus is the Squaw Peak. Someday, perhaps someone can show me a road which does not begin somewhere and end somewhere.

It is a decidely phony argument put forward by shallow thinkers who can come up with nothing more logical. The fact of the matter is that, all of the freeways on the Valley map, the Paradise would do more to relieve traffic congestion than any other. Are the people who have to battle Camelback and Indian School every day being represented in this fight? Only by Paul Johnson and Denny Mitchem. And for their leadership, they are rewarded with vitriolic attacks by the ostriches of COSTS. Paul Johnson and Denny Mitchem have nothing to gain from this fight, except the knowledge that this is the right thing to do.

The mayor would be wiser, politically, to get off it. People will not vote for him because he favors the Paradise, but some surely will vote against him because of it. Denny Mitchem until this week lived adjacent to the Paradise alignment and would have been one of those who would have been inconvenienced during the construction process. At one time, his home was in one of the alignments being studied, and still he supported it, incurring the wrath and insults of his own neighbors. Unfortunately, in the Arizona of the 1990s, this seems to be the fate of leaders.

Leaders who dare to advocate the greater good rather than toadying to nimbys, ostriches and speculators. Leaders who dare to dream The Dream. Jim Haynes, former president of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, is the chairman of the board of trustees of Western International University and a public affairs consultant for Phoenix International Raceway. No more Danfoolery; abortion is tough issue tions than their elders. Before Mr.

Quayle's now-famous quote about supporting an adult daughter's choice, he rattled off the standard argument in favor of laws restricting a young daughter's right to abortion without parental consent. "My daughter, if she wants to take an aspirin at school, she has to call and get permission. And if she wants to. have an abortion, she doesn't." His argument about parents and daughters resonates widely in our country and not just among Mr. Quayle's supporters.

The idea that our 13-or 16-year-old daughters would face a crisis alone, have an abortion surrounded and counseled by strangers strikes at the heart of what it means to be a parent to be involved in our children's lives, their troubles and triumphs. This feeling runs so deep that some 36 states now have parental notification or consent laws. Even the Freedom of Choice Act, which would make Roe v. Wade the law of the land, leaves this too-hot-to-touch issue of parents and daughters to the states. Most parents support those laws though we know you cannot legislate communication.

There is no law that Spare me the Dan Quayle jokes. This story is not small potatoes. The vice president spoke from his heart and had his head handed to him. Dan Quayle was asked what he would do if his daughter came to him as a pregnant adult. He said, "I would counsel her and talk to her and support her on whatever decision she made." For once he sounded like a father instead of a candidate with a politically correct right-to-life tape on automatic replay.

But he also sounded like a counselor at a Planned Parenthood clinic, a notion that had the whole country smirking. Was he a closet advocate of a woman's right to decide? Next came Marilyn to say that if this same daughter gets pregnant now at 13, "she'll take the child to term." Would she make that decision for her daughter? "We will make it with her." Corinne Quayle's reproductive system became a subject of intra-family discussion and public debate. But the dispute between Dan and Marilyn was blown out of proportion. The apparent disagreement wasn't.