Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 9, 1980)
liiliil Conservative economic performance disappoints By WILLIAM KEEGAN When they campaigned for office last spring, Britain’s Conservatives thought they had the formula to solve the country’s economic prob lems. Now in power under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, they have been disappointed by their per formance — and so have a lot of other people. In order to understand their ori ginal approach, consider the atmos phere of Chalfont St. Giles, a charm ing village lying in the foothills of the Chilterns, within commuting dis tance of London. It is an untroubled place, far from industrial disputes and poverty and urban grime —— the kind of typical English village favored by American movie stars and others who can afford it. There, over sensible gin and tonics in their comfortable pubs, de cent Conservatives discussed how the other half ought to behave. And that climate of opinion underpinned the,present government’s economic policies. It all sounded so simple. Lower taxes would revive the nations’s dynamic initiative. Reduce the role of the state, and the country would regain its greatness. And so forth. The Conservatives campaigned on these slogans, defeating a Labor Par ty that was too exhausted to put up much opposition. The election re sults were rarely in doubt. But now, more than six months later, Britain is in the grip of what many regard as its worst economic crisis since the end of World War II. Interest rates on bank loans, for inst ance, have spiralled to 21 percent, and mortgage rates are excessive. Commuters from Chalfont St. Giles into London can take some comfort in the fact that taxes on in comes under the equivalent of $10,000 per year have been cut slightly. But that is it. The really major tax cuts apply to those earning more than $50,000 per year. Their bite has been dropped from 83 percent, which had been the highest in the world, to 60 percent, the small society which is still not low. Yet fewer than 5 percent of the British earn $50,000 per year, and the vast majority of Conservative vo ters are among those who do not. Moreover, their slight income tax cut has been more than offset by an increase in indirect taxes, like the national sales tax, which has gone up from 8 percent to 15 percent. In addition, higher taxes have in creased the price of railroad fares, public utility rates and the like, and the burden has been made heavier by higher energy prices. True, the Conservatives have had bad luck largely in discovering that the economy that inherited from their Labor predecessors was in far worse shape than anything they could have imagined. For example, they inherited com mitments in the public sector that, being persons of probity, they de cided to honor. They espoused a sound money policy, only to find that, while talking tough, they were presiding over a sensational expan sion in credit. Thus, while dedicated to curbing public expenditures, they soon found themselves in a position in which all their efforts had to be de voted to restraining its rate of in crease. They have introduced tough mea sures on the spending front, and the monetary squeeze is now genuine. But they have had to abandon their strategy of taking the weight off the taxpayer. Instead, they have shifted the weight from direct to indirect taxes. Further, they have even begun to hint that, with productivity lagging for the foreseeable future, tax in creases may be in the offing this year. Their focus, meanwhile, is on fight ing an inflation rate that is headed toward 20 percent. With all this, the Conservatives are extremely sensitive to criticism, preferring to promote the image they have projected abroad of a tough bunch finally trying to whip Britain’s economy into shape. by Brickman IK MV - AMI? ^ITTIM^ \^> MiN^ — Washington Star Syndicate. In //-& The Battalion usps LETTERS POLICY La-Uvts to the editor should not rxreed 3(X) words and are subject to In ina 'rut to that lenath or less if lonaer. The editorial staff reserves the rich/ to edit such letters and does not guarantee to publish any U tter. Each U tter must be sinned, show the address of the writer and list a telephone number for verification. Address correspondence to le tters to the Editor. The Battalion. Room 216. Reed McDonald Buildina Collette Station. Texas 77843 Represented nationalR Using Services, Inc., N< Angeles. Ry National Educational Adver w York City, Chicago and Lo lion is published Monday through Friday from through May except during exam and holiday the summer, when it is published on Tuesdav irsdav. Mail subscriptions are SI6. 75 per chool year. $35.00 per full year Adve n request. Address: The Battalio (nester; $33.25 per ung rates furnished Room 216, Reed McDonald Building. College Station. Texas 77S43 United Press International is entitled exclusively to the use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved Second-Class postage paid at College Station. TX 77S43. 045 360 MEMBER Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congress Editor Roy Bragg Associate Editor Keith Taylor News Editor Rusty Cawley Asst. News Editor Karen Cornelison Copy Editor. . Dillard Stone Sports Editor Tony Gallucci Focus Editor Rhonda Watters Senior City Reporter Louie Arthur Senior Campus Reporter Diane Blake General Assignment Reporters Richard Oliver and Andy Williams Staff Writers Nancy Andersen, Tricia Brunhart, Mike Burrichter, Angelique Copeland, Laura Cortez, Meril Edwards, Carol Hancock, Kathleen McElroy, Debbie Nelson, Steve Sisney, Robin Thompson Chief Photographer Lynn Blanco Photographers Lee Roy Leschper, Sam Stroder Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or of the icriter of the article and are not necessarily those of the University administration or the Board <f Regents. The Battalion is a non-profit, self- supporting enterjirise operated hy students as a university and community newspaper. Editorial policy is determined hy the editor. Viewpoint The Battalion Texas A&M University New republican ad ‘safe’ congressional By DAVIE> S. BRODER The safest election bet in America — for the past generation — has been that the Democrats will win Congress. You could not have lost a wager on that proposition in the past 26 years. Chances are, the bet will pay off again in 1980. But the Republicans are gambling $5 million on an ad campaign that says, “It ain’t necessarily so.” And the reports that are filtering through GOP circles about the test-audience reaction to some of the com mercials those $5 million will buy are stir ring hopes that this time, if the Democrats aren’t defeated, they will at least be put on the defensive more than they have been in a quarter-century. The ads are not subtle. One that has been shown to preview audiences is on the theme that this is a “million-dollar-a- 1 minute Congress,’’ a Congress that approves more in government spending every second than the average worker makes in a lifetime. It shows a fast-talking politician dealing $1,000 bills off a stack as rapidly as his hand can move. Another TV spot employs an actor who, at first glance, looks remarkably like Speak er of the House Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr., the white-haired, red-faced Mas sachusetts Democrat. The make-believe O’Neill is a driver who ignores a passen ger’s warnings of an impending energy cri sis, even as he passes gas stations which are shut down or clogged with long lines of cars. In the last scene, “O’Neill is standing beside his out-of-gas car-hitchhiking. Neither of these test commercials will necessarily be part of the package the Re publicans plan to start airing in a few months. But they typify what insiders say will be the most hard-hitting attack on the majority party in Congress since the “Had enough? Vote Republican onslaught of 1946. The decision to take this two-fisted approach to the congressional campaign is a gamble. But it is not just blind hunch. Party chairman Bill Brock and the House Repub lican leaders have studied with care the massive advertising campaign the British Conservatives launched a full year before last spring’s election. They are convinced by what their Tory counterparts have told them that the ads — keyed to the slogan “Labor Isn’t Working” softened up the Laborites for the knockout blow Margaret Thatcher administered. Wednesday January 9, 1979 campaign aimed a races in 1980 Second, they are armed with a new poll — taken by Robert Teeter of Detroit’s Mar ket Opinion Research Corp. and paid for by the Republican National Committee and the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee — which had two items of very good news for the GOP. For one thing, it found that, even before the campaign gets under way, a majority of voters knows that the Democrats have controlled Congress for a generation. Second, on the key issues of controlling government spending, curb ing inflation and holding down taxes. Re publicans have an edge over the Democrats as the party likely to do the better job. Thus, the decision to attack the Demo cratic Congress head-on — and to use O’Neill as the personification of what Re publicans would change if they were in control — is a carefully calculated strategy. The fact that O’Neill will be highly visible to the voters next August as the permanent chairman of the Democratic convention makes him an even more tempting target for the GOP. Few Republicans are brash enough to predict that this sledgehammer advertising assault will crack the Democrats’ 116-seat majority in the House (or the 18-vote edge in the Senate). The conventional wii holds that voters complain about Cong but cherish their own congressmen, the 90-percent-plus re-election rateii cent years for House incumbents of parties bears out that wisdom. This) any effort to focus voters’ attention on] control of Congress faces an added c cle: the public preoccupation with the idential race. But the effort to frame a national pol strategy almost a year in advance fora gressional campaign is something tha not been seen in America in the qua century since the pattern of politics be< one of highly individualized efforts. At the very least, this Republ strategy makes it probable that this w one of the most partisan sessions of gress in years. The Democrats’ reach ihe kind of ads the Republicans aretl ing of running will surely be one ofouti But it is conceivable to some optimis the GOP hierarchy that, if the eaiuj does not backfire on them, there mayl election in the early Eighties when question of control of Congress is no safest bet. M storii yard’ land tion, ques of ni clean Th ban Heal Bern direc 0 n Gi rig P ■supp legs' Mexi 35 cr injur Cc Mc.V Trit Ocea '70 m out 5 Tb bargi dowi abov the i 175-1 A fell i crew norn an A! Athe to si Presi I n hi l In Jithe I a d athei Mus Th that f tory , religi I Ayati lit st athei Australian government strivingto save gasoline despite ample natural *esources Except for the Middle East oil produc ers, Australia is one of the world’s few coun tries without an energy problem. Nor are any difficulties likely in the foreseeable fu ture. Yet the government here has just embarked on a campaign to persuade Au stralian motorists to conserve gasoline. Underlying the campaign is the belief that it is not too soon to begin a long and gradual process of public education on the energy front. This may be what the United States and other major petroleum consumers should have done years ago, when only a few eccentric voices were warning of an even tual energy crisis. It remains to be seen, though, whether this approach will sway Australians, who are as complacent about energy as Americans were a decade ago. The complacency is understandable. Au stralia now produces two-thirds of its own oil needs and it can easily pay for imports with its earnings from the sale of coal, ura nium, natural gas and other resources abroad. Anticipated developments of new oil fields, plus the expected discovery of other exportable commodities, promise energy security well into the 1990s. This situation stems from the fact that Australia, with a relatively small popula tion, contains enormous natural wealth, much of it not yet tapped. Among other resources, it has 5 percent of the world’s fossil fuel reserves and 20 percent of ura nium deposits outside the Communist sphere. American and other foreign corpora tions, such as General Electric, Atlantic Richfield, Exxon, British Petroleum and Shell, own about 70 percent of these riches. They are currently scrambling to develop them. The focus is on three sectors — coal, uranium, offshore oil and natural gas. Coal is emerging as a raw material that will occupy a bigger and bigger place in the economy here in the years ahead. With reserves of 36 billion tons, Australia is second only to the United States in coal potential. Its coal exports already earn $1.5 billion per year. By the end of this centy, they are expected to increase fivefo giving Australia one-third of the globalarket. Coal is also a big indirect eaer. For example, it is used to generate elfricity in smelters that manufacture alumim from locally-mined bauxite. Amerio, Swiss and other companies are invesg $4 bil lion in their Austrialian smells, which will make Australia’s the work number one aluminum exporter by th$80s. A good deal of money is going well into exploration for oil and naturgas, with Exxon, Phillips, Gulf and Itish Pet roleum involved in most of the search off the coasts of Australia. Some $4 billion is being pulto drilling for natural gas off the northwejoast, with the hope that it will furnish billion in exports, principally to JapanJthin three or four years. American comjies have a 20 percent interest in this pfect. With these and other schpis, it is hard to imagine that Australian itorists will feel pinched. Still, the gsrnment is urging them to observe speeimits, check their tire pressure and tune down thei , air conditioners in order to curb gas ( consumption. A plan is being consider f cut registration fees for low-mileage; I mobiles. As part of this effort, much attentii being paid to liquid petroleum gas, n „• from local natural gas, which is morepl , ful here than oil. It is half the pri( > gasoline, which sells for about $1.20 gallon. Government cars are being convert! , , this fuel, and automobile manufacti are being encouraged to modify enginf their new models so that it can be used. , reasons of thrift, more and more taxis , using it. Besides its high octane content, 1» ], petroleum gas has another advantage pollution emission is extremely low. Sydney, along with Los Angeles , Tokyo, has one of the worst automfl , pollution problems on earth. So Austr; drivers may not be worried about in nent gasoline shortages or soaring pri but cleaner air may serve as an incentivi ( conservation. X I Thotz By Doug Graham M dent the i who to 21 T1 pub athe Wl r- i N A v § Ik f2P l