Newspapers / The Charlotte Post (Charlotte, … / Nov. 20, 1997, edition 1 / Page 4
Part of The Charlotte Post (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
4A EDITORIALS/ The Charlotte Post Thursday, November 20, 1997 ®i)c cijariotte GOP blinks on affirmative action The Voice of the Black Community A subsidiary of Consolidated Media Group 1531 Camden Road Charlotte, N.C. 28203 Gerald O. Johnson CEO/PUBLISHER Robert Johnson CO-PUBLISHER/ GENERAL MANAGER Herbert L. White EDITOR IN CHIEF Food stamp cuts hurt poor THE WASHINGTON POST By George Wilson NATIONAL NEWSPAPER PUBUSHERS ASSOCIATION When the words “affirmative action” are muttered on Capitol Hill, the result is a bitter parti san battle. On one side there are some Democrats who like to por tray themselves as the guardians of equality and fairness. These are lofty ideals even if they don’t accurately capture their true feelings. Most Republicans say that they are opposed to affirma tive action because it promotes quotas and preferential treat ment. With both sides locked into their positions, the House of Representative began considera tion of a bill that would perma nently affect equality for those seeking an even playing field. Congressman Charles Cannady (R-Fla.) introduced a bill sarcastically named “The Last year, under the flag of welfare reform. Congress passed a series of deep and gratuitous cuts in food stamp benefits. This year Congress thinks it has fmmd a way to cut an additional $1.2 billion over five years from the food stamp program’s administrative costs. The ques tion is, what happens to the money... The agriculture committees, which have jurisdiction over the pro gram, are busily trying to capture the savings for their traditional agricultural constituents. Such a step would represent another in a series of such extractions of funds from programs for the poor for the benefit of sectors that are better off. 'The Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1997 hasn’t gotten a lot of ink, but as Congress struggles to adjourn, it is one of the bills that matters most to a group of ftum-state members if om both houses. At issue are the considerable administrative costs of signing up wel fare mothers, not just for welfare but for food stamps. The welfare block grants that Congress gave the states last year implicitly includ ed funds to cover these costs. The assumption was that the states would then not apply to recover the costs a second time imder the food stamp program. The Congressional Budget Office, however, which over the years has developed a rather jaded view of state behavior in the face of such temptations, assumed they would tiy to recover a second time - to double-dip. It incorporated that assumption into its estimates of food stamp costs for the years ahead. The Senate Agriculture Committee noticed the higher estimates, figured out the source and voted to limit the double-dipping, thereby, under congres sional accounting, “saving” the $1.2 billion. Then came the question of what to do with the savings. They could, of course, be plowed back into the food stamp program. Instead, much of the money will apparently end up going to agricultural research and, if the House has its way, some to crop insurance as weU. The research projects may be worthy; the insurance program is not. But that’s not the point. The point is that the food stamp program, which sets the implicit national income floor, is not at the table - not at this table, anyway. The states ought not be allowed to double-dip. The poor who were last year’s casualties should share in the savings fi-om this measure. IHith in video and history Civil Rights Act of 1997.” The intention of the legislation was to permanently abolish affirmative action in aU federal programs. Cannady’s proposed legislation had been languishing in the House Judiciary Committee, beause the House Repubhcan leadership knew what the reac tion would be from those in sup port of affirmative action and in this case they were “on the money.” The Congressional Black Caucus joined hands with the Hispanic Caucus and a coalition of civil rights organization to alert their constituents to “pre pare for battle over the Cannady bill.” However, Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights agreed that Republicans had the numbers to get the fll- conceived bill out of the Judiciary Committee. “It appears that they have the votes. However, we want to make the political cost high for support of the bill,” said. Henderson and the coalition opposed the bill, have their hands on the poUtical pulse of the nation and identified those mod erate Republicans who represent districts that have fairly large groups of women, Hispanics, Asians and African Americans. The intent was to put political pressure on GOP members and make siue they had a difficult time explaining their vote when they returned to their home dis tricts. With the stage then set for a real political battle over affirma tive action, the House decided to set a vote on the controversial issue. Members of the CBC were in place and the heads of the nation’s major civil rights organi zations were joined in the hear ing room by scores of supporters. indicating that the sometime slumbering civil rights establish ment had come ahve. I don’t know if it was the sight of this packed hearing room or; pre-election year common sense, but when the “moment of truth” arrived the Republicans decided to table the Cannady bill. After all of the blustering and postur ing the Republicans accepted the fact that pursuing the abolition of affirmative action would be a pohtical “poison pill.” By tabling the biU, it simply means that the legislation can be brought back at any time for con sideration. However, the chances are slim that the Republicans wfll want to push an issue like affirmative action anytime soon with major elections scheduled for 1998. GEORGE WILSON is Capitol Hill correspondent for the American Urban Radio Network.. HiEN By Courtland Milloy THE WASHINGTON POST After viewing a newly released videocassette of “Rosewood,” a movie about a terrible race riot in Florida in 1923, I saw an unusual offer appear on the screen. “We hope you enjoyed the Warner Home Video presenta tion of ‘Rosewood,’” a voice-over said. “But if you did not, Warner Home Video will refund the cost of your rental, up to $3.” This was the first time I had ever heard of such a “rental sat isfaction guarantee” directly from a movie studio, and seeing it flash onto the screen after “Rosewood,” of all movies, was almost enough to ruin an other wise satisfying film. I called Warner Home Video in Burbank, Calif., where a spokesman tried to convince me that the money-back offer was actually a vote of confidence in the young African American director John Singleton and the film that came out in March. “All we are saying is that this is a wonderful film by a terrific filmmaker and that you are guaranteed to like it - or your money back,” the spokesman said, adding that “very few” viewers have requested refimds. However, the spokesman was unable to cite any other film that came with such a money- back offer. Surely, there must be others that are as “wonder ful” as “Rosewood,” which fea tures black people standing strong in the face of not-so-won derful white racist behavior. I recently saw “The Edge,” a movie about three men (one black) and a bear in the woods. After whining interminably about being lost in the woods, the black man accidentally cuts himself with a knife (what a twist on a stereotype), drawing blood that attracts the bear that kills him long before the credits roll. That’s the kind of movie that ought to come with a refund. Unlike the more popular movies about race in which white people are the heroes — such as “Mississippi Burning” (which didn’t offer a satisfac tion guarantee, either) — “Rosewood” puts black people at center stage in the fight for Playing big-league ball costly to host communities By Michael Walden SPECIAL TO THE POST RALEIGH - North Carolina is moving into the major leagues. Of course, Charlotte has the Hornets and Panthers. Now, North Carolina is home to the NHL Hurricanes, and groups in the Triad are trying to attract a Major League Baseball team. As a fan of major league sports, this is all good news to me. Now I don’t have to travel as far to see the top sports tal ent in the world. Also, I can now root for home-state major league teams. ■ So I thank the leaders of these efforts to bring major league teams to North Carolina. They have perceived a significant fan base in the state for major league sports, and have acted to meet this demand. However, in their efforts to bring major league sports to North Carolina and, more importantly, in order to secure public funding for these efforts, the major league sports promoters have claimed wide spread economic benefits from pro sports. That is, they have said that not only will major league sports provide an alter native leisure activity for hun gry sports fans, but they will also serve as a “jump-starter” for the local economy. Hence, the argument continues, both sports fans and non-sports fans benefit from the presence of a major league sports team, and so it makes sense for public funds to be used to attract the teams and build the stadiums and arenas. Economists and other ana lysts have generally minimized the alleged widespread eco nomic benefits of major league sports. Although pro sports receive much media attention, they’re really small businesses in terms of jobs and economic output. Furthermore, much of the spending that occurs at pro games is spending by local res idents that is simply redirected from other local leisure activi ties. For example, Jane and John Fan spend money at a Hornets game instead of spending money at a local restaurant and movie. But what about the notori ety that comes to a city or region that has a major league sports team? Won’t seeing the area’s name in the team stand ings and on ESPN and other networks bring more business inquiries and locations? Doesn’t a major league team give valuable advertising to an area? This question has been test ed in several studies which have examined the determi nants of economic growth in cities. The studies have found no impact of the presence of a major league team on a city’s economic growth. In fact, some studies have found a major league team is related to slow er economic growth! Instead, basic economic factors like quality of the workforce and business costs largely deter mine how fast a city grows. A problem with these stud ies is that they are dated, hav ing been completed with data from the 1960s and 1970s. Economic relationships can certainly change over time, and so a valid question is whether the relationship between local economic growth and major league sports teams is different in the 1990s than in previous decades. To address this ques tion I conducted a new study using data from the 1990s. I examined the determi nants of growth in jobs from 1990 to 1994 in 46 cities. The cities were from all across the country, of various sizes; and included cities with and with out major league teams. The results were consistent with those found in the previous studies, with some additional insights. Cities with a greater percentage of high school grad uates and with a lower cost-of- living have added jobs at a faster rate in the 1990s. Also, cities spending more per resi dent on police and less on transfer programs have grown faster. What about the presence of Professional sports are great entertainment, but can they be a community asset? a major league sports team? Actually, I found that cities with a major league sports team have grown more slowly in the 1990s. Perhaps this is because such cities have devot ed valuable resources to subsi dizing the teams rather than improving the skill level of their workers or providing more protection for citizens and property owners. So the lesson for cities and states is clear. Major league sports teams certainly provide excitement and enjoyment for residents. But be careful in expecting too much from the teams. Evidence from previous decades as well as from the 1990s shows that cities with major league sports teams don’t grow faster than other cities, after accounting for other important factors such as the workforce’s education level and the local cost-of-living. This throws into question the use of public dollars to subsi dize the teams or their facili ties. In short, while a major league team may score with the fans, they strike out, fumble, and turnover the ball for the taxpayer. Factors influencing job growth in the 1990s are as fol lows: Increasing growth, higher high school graduation rate, lower cost-of-living, and more per-capita police spending. Decreasing growth: more spending per resident on trans fers and presence of a major league team. MICAHAEL WALDEN is an N.C. State University econom ics professor, a John Locke Foundation adjunct scholar, and an avid baseball fan. freedom. ^ f I think Warner Home Video is being disingenuous when it „ says that the disclaimer is not„ intended to appease whites , who might be offended by all of that. Indeed, efforts to deny the massacre at Rosewood have been apparent from the begin ning, and they persist to this day. Just because people don’t like , seeing the truth is no reason to ) give them a refund. COURTLAND MILLOY is a Washington Post columnist.
The Charlotte Post (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 20, 1997, edition 1
4
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75