Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 11, 1985)
Page 2/The Battalion/Monday, February 11, 1985 OPINION Raising drinking age won't solve problem The Texas Seriate last week voted to approve a bill that would raise the legal drinking age in Texas to 21. If the bill is passed by the House and the governor, it will go into effect Sept. 1,1986. There isn’t much the legislators or the governor can do to Fight this bill, unless they’re willing to lose millions of dollars in highway funds. Texas, like all the other states in which the drinking age is below 21, is being blackmailed by the federal government with the threat of losing 5 percent of federal high way funds next year and 10 percent the next. If Texas does not raise its legal drinking age to 21 by Oct. 1, 1986, it will lose $107 million in federal highway funds. Quite a heavy-handed threat coming from an administration that claims it wants to get the government off people’s backs. This is the same administration that says it wants to give local governments more control. So why doesn’t each state have control over its own drunk driving laws? If the administration really wants to solve the horrifying problem of alcohol abuse and arunk driving in this country, it’s going to have to do more than simply forbid people under 21 to drink alcohol. Trying to control who can and who can’t drink alcohol with out emphasizing alcohol education and prevention of alcohol abuse is ineffective. Raising the drinking age to 21 will not solve America’s drink ing problem, especially since the highest number of drunk driv ing fatalities — and convictions — today occur among males aged 21 to 25. No one thing can make the difference. We need a combination of reasonable laws dealing with drunk driving, swift and tough punishments dealt out to drunk drivers and good alcohol education programs starting in el ementary schools. Treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholics is vital. But equally important is the prevention of future alcoholism, the prevention of the spread of this disease and its grisly conse quences. Raising the drinking age to 21 may be a step in the right di rection, but only through increased awareness and enforcement will drunk driving ever become socially unacceptable. The Battalion Editorial Board LETTERS: Career opportunities day helps students EDITOR: Each year, the Placement Center hosts thousands of employment inter views, which serve the needs of many students seeking employment in busi ness and engineering. There are many Fields, however, which are not rep resented through the interviews that we The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Brigid Brockman, Editor Shelley Hoekstra, Managing Editor Ed Cassavoy, City Editor Kellie Dworaczyk, News Editor Michelle Powe, Editorial Page Editor Travis Tingle, Sports Editor The Battalion Staff Assistant City Editors Kari Fluegel, Rhonda Snider Assistant News Editors Tammy Bell, Cami Brown, John Hallett Assistant Sports Editor Charean Williams Entertainment Editors Shawn Behlen, Leigh-Ellen Clark Staff Writers Cathie Anderson, Brandon Berry, Dainah Bullard, Ann Cervenka, Tony Cornett, Michael Crawford, Kirsten Dietz, Patti Flint, Patrice Koranek, Trent Leopold, Sarah Oates, Jerry Oslin, Tricia Parker, Lynn Rae Povec Copy Editor Kay Mallett Make-up Editors Karen Bloch, Karla Martin Columnists Kevin Inda, Loren Steffy Editorial Cartoonist...:; Mike Lane Sports Cartoonist Dale Smith Copy Writer Cathy Bennett Photo Editor Katherine Hurt Photographers Anthony Casper, Wayne Grabein, Frank Irwin, John Makely, Peter Rocha, Dean Saito Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper operated as a community service to Texas A&M and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the Editorial Board or the author, and do not necessarily rep resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography classes within the Department of Communications- Letters Policy Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length but will make every effort to maintain the author's intent. Each letter must be signed and must include the address and telephone number of the writer. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examination periods. Mail subscriptions are 116.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. Editorial staff phone number: (409) 845-2630. Ad vertising: (409) 845-2611. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. POSTMAS'I ER: Send address changes to The Battal ion, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843 provide. Health Care is an example of a growing, dynamic field that has limited representation through campus em ployment interviews. Another need which is not met through any one office is information on educational opportunities in health care, such as dentistry, health adminis tration, social work, pharmacy, nursing, etc. Each year the Placement Center hosts a Health Career Opportunities Day which brings to campus representatives from both employing and educational institutions. These representatives are here to talk to students about opportu nities in the health care field, and pro vide information to those students looking for employment as well as those looking into educational programs that are health related. This year Health Career Opportuni ties Day will be on Tuesday, February 12 in the MSC Ballroom (Room 225) all day. So far we have close to 30 partici pants, and it promises to be a very bene ficial program for all. Judy Vulliet Assistant Director Texas A&M Placement Center Being close-minded can be admirable EDITOR: I direct this letter to Darby Paige Syr- kin in response to her letter in The Bat talion. Dear Darby, In the fourth and fifth paragraphs of your letter, you left me with the impres sion that anyone who believes homosex uality or abortion to be wrong, is close- minded. I ask you, if I wholeheartedly asserted that two plus two was five would you be open-minded? I would assume not. Why? Because two plus two equals four is an established fact. Regardless of what you’ve been taught, there is absolute truth in this universe. There is right and there is wrong. No in-between for situa tional ethics. The fact is, homosexuality and abortion are wrong. To be close- minded about false assertions or wrong thinking would seem to me to be admi rable. Now, you might ask, “How do you know if you’re rignt or wrong?” very simply, the revealed word of God will let you know what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong. To entertain wrong ideas invites de struction. Just imagine if you put two plus two equals five on your next math test. You see, ideas have consequences. Michael Bastian Senior Congress really not to blame for deficits and national debt Someone should silence naughty Norman Ornstein before he spoils the sport of Congress-bash ing. H e demon strates that con- gressional irresponsibility has not been the primary cause of the many deficits that have produced our national debt. In an essay for American Enterprise Institute, he notes that the $80 million Revolutionary War debt was cut in half by 1811. The War of 1812 tripled the debt, but it was almost eliminated in the 1830s. It rose as a result of the Mexican War, but then declined until the Civil War produced a $2.6 billion national debt. That caused Congress to central ize spending, resulting in two powerful appropriations committees. In 31 years (1867-1897), there were 27 surpluses. In 13 years revenues exceeded expendi tures by more than 25 percent. The Spanish-American War, com bined with the 1896 recession, initiated 20 years with 11 deficits, but in 1916 the national debt was approximately what it had been in 1896. After 127 years the Republic’s debt was $1.23 billion. But 1919, modern war, the foremost shaper of the modern world, had increased the debt 20-fold, to $25.8 billion. Then Congress again tightened budget proce dures and the debt again shrank, to $16 billion by 1930. Depression deficits were almost trivial compared to those of World War li — $211 billion. The national debt as a per centage of GNP was 33 percent on the eve of the Depression, 43 percent in 1940, 128 percent in 1946. In 1946 Congress cut the number of committees and took other measures to restrain spending. Thanks to that and economic growth, the national debt as a percentage of GNP shrank to 98 per cent by 1949, 56 percent by 1961. But in the next quarter-century there was just one small surplus ($3.2 billion in 1969). From 1960 to 1980 the debt grew from $293 billion to $993 billion. In Reagan’s first term it nearly doubled, as did the clamor against Congress and four proposed constitutional amend ments (to restrain Congress). Although Congress has been, in Ornstein’s word, an “accomplice” it has been less important as a deficit-maker than Presidents, from Lyndon Johnson with a guns-and-butter policy through Reagan’s gamble that the stimulative ef fect of his tax cuts would make the cuts virtually self-financing, eliminating the need for politically hazardous cuts in spending on middle-class programs. Ornstein acknowledges that Congress has contributed to the deficit problem by the decline of its institutional tough mindedness and the rise of “subcommit tee government” which has weakened the central control of spending through appropriations committees. And Con gress has mastered the art of bestowing blessings by tax breaks rather than ap propriations. But Congress has reduced politically profitable discretionary domestic spending by reducing the amount (as a percentage of the budget) and the dis cretion (adopting formula programs). Congress indexed entitlement pro grams, thereby stopping the politically advantageous but fiscally irresponsible process of voting ad hoc increases every few years. In 1982 Congress, dragging a reluc tant President, attacked the deficit by raising taxes in an election year. In 1983 it attacked the deficit by initiating an en ergy-tax increase. In 1984 there a;, was something like congressional^ ernment, with another attempt lot duce the deficit by raising taxes inj election year, with an essentially passt President acquiescing. Today there are reports that Rear, will go barnstorming to rally support: substantial cuts in middle-class pit 1 grams. I, for one, will believe it whtr, see it from the man who, as Ornt notes, has supported almost all thev ter projects President Carter tried kill, has supported swollen farm suit dies and generous farm-loan gun ^ antees, has supported subsidized ele trie power and grazing fees fork ; Western friends, has pledged to stand for” cuts in the biggest sector; big government (Social Security), e! wants some new deficit-enlarging p: grams, such as tuition tax credits, “m se,” says Ornstein dryly, “are notij habits of a President who would wi the line-item veto pen mercilously." i | The proposed item veto would cor; only appropriations bills, and onlw small portion of spending is controlc by such bills. In tne $925 billionfistfl 1985 budget there is just $81 billion: non-defense descretionary spendiiJ And Ornstein thinks an itemvetomis: increase spending because preside: would use it as a club to threaten leg: lators who oppose spending the Pre dent favors. For example, he says,:) Reagan’s hands the item vetocouldr used to threaten dams and feder. buildings desired by legislators oppose: to MX. We would wind up buyingtifl dams and buildings — and the larg; number of MX’s. Ornstein, you see, is doubly insuft!® t able. He robs us of two comforts:tk[I image of Congress as a convenient u lain, and the hope that constitution* tinkering can be a panacea. George Will is a columist for the Has: ington Post. Falling asleep at black-tie affairs okay, but not on the floor please By ART BUCHWALD Columnist for The Los Angeles Times Syndicate The big story in Washington last week was not the president’s budget or the Ed Meese hearings, but the nap John Riggins took at a Washington Press Club black-tie affair honoring new members of Congress. It seems that the Redskin running back was sitting at the same table with Justice Sandra O’Connor, Virginia Gov. Chuck Robb and staffers of People mag azine. When the politicians started mak ing speeches, John just stretched out on the floor and went to sleep, not even waking up in time to hear Vice Presi dent George Bush. Waiters stepped over him gingerly as they poured coffee and Justice O’Con nor excused herself from the table, ex plaining she had an early day at the court. After the speeches were concluded Riggins woke up, thanked everyone for the wonderful evening and was driven home. The capital’s social arbiters have been discussing the incident ever since. Many people have fallen asleep dur ing speeches at large black-tie functions ) in Washington, but this is the first time anyone can recall someone actually sacking out on the floor. * To put the incident into perspective you have to understand the 1984 Wash ington Redskin game plan. Riggins was the only running back the team had. For 16 games he was asked to pick up four or five yards with 300-pound guards, tackles and linebackers trying to pull him down. He did the job manfully and without complaint, despite the fact that the Redskin offensive line wasn’t what it used to be. Therefore, friends say, Riggins came off the season very tired and he’s been trying to catch up on his sleep ever since. Since the majority of the people in the ballroom were Redskin fans, they saw nothing wrong with the running back taking a catnap. As one loyal rooter put it, “As long as he didn’t do it during a game.” But there are people in Washington who still have a problem with it. A senator said, “I have no quarrel with Riggins’ behavior, but he may have started a dangerous precedent for polit ical dinners. What happens if every guest decides to sack out on the floor when one of us gets up to speak? We could face a sea of empty tables.” A check with the hotel brought tte | response, “We have rules about peoplf sleeping in the lobby, but to my kno»l edge we don’t have any concerning peo ple sleeping next to their tables. Wei probably have to look into it, as we« | nad several complaints from the wait ers.” Because Washington is so protocol minded, I called an expert on etiquettt to find out if Mr. Riggins had madei boo-boo. She gave me her ruling. “You can only go to sleep on the floor duringdia ner if the highest-ranking official at th table decides to do so first. Since Justitf O’Connor did not stretch out, Mr. Rif ins committed a serious fauz pas. Lying own at the table after coffee is a no-no and the hostess should have insisted that Riggins be placed back in his chair.” “Do you think when the word gen out, John may not be invited to Wash ington’s better parties?” “Not necessarily. Mr. Riggins is still> social catch. I know one hostess who c entertaining him next week and to mafe him more comfortable she is puttinnJ sleeping bag on the floor, next to nii place card.”