This is in part a response to a column published in Thursday's edition of the Collegian concerning the "Contract promises," and also an attempt to bring to light some of the truths about the Contract with America. In the column, nine-tenths of the Contract was not mentioned, so things like balanced budget and term limits won't be included here either.

To begin, before even considering what's in it, think about how a lot of people know what's in it. The media. They convey important news and the Contract has been deemed important. Unfortunately, they don't just report news, there's always a slant. In a recent study, it was found that the chief engineer of the plan, Newt G., had been receiving more negative publicity than O.J. Simpson. One paper shows on page six the headline "Welfare cuts may ravage child care." I'm surprised they didn't add "Newt Loves It!" Many people have made judgment about the plan based on this type of coverage. Yet, the momentum for change and public support is still strong.

One of the principles behind Newt's proposal is the reduction of the size and power of the federal government with more power being given to the states. This would bring power closer to the people that the programs affect, and give them more control and more responsibility. The state governments are made up only of representatives from that state voted for by the people of the state. They tax and spend as they see fit resulting in 52 different states with different programs and laws which reflect the people in each state. Concerning education then, why should the Education Department in Washington, D.C., which would be eliminated in the Contract, be making decisions about what should be taught in schools across America? It is just one tiny unelected group forcing others to do and think like them. Is this another Hitler example? One federal government making decisions is not uniformity, as was suggested.

The issue of orphanages has also been raised in the debate. The basic idea mentioned I think is that single mothers who could not afford to care for their kids would have to give them up to an orphanage. In other words, the government wouldn't give them money to take care of the child. It seems to have become a bit of a tradition for some at early ages just to have kids. If you were guaranteed money for the care, what is the big deal about having a child? In the proposal, which includes tougher child-support laws, it would no longer be someone else's problem if two people have a child. If you couldn't afford it, you would have to give it up. In the long run, this would ultimately benefit both society and teenagers thinking about whether to have children or not. A huge incentive to have children would be taken away.

Where in the Contract then, are the "homogeneously white, Christian values?" Is there a mandate for Christian conversion for all government employees or an initiative that prohibits minorities from voting? There are values which are part of the plan: personal responsibility, government responsibility. These aren't religiously intrusive or created for any racial group but rather are designed for the societal and economic welfare of the entire country.