R eali ty of un employm en t
clearer than inflation’s ghost
by DAVID S. BRODER
PORTLAND, Ore. — If Portland is the center
of the political universe, as some of us believe,
then the recession — and not inflation — is the
dominant domestic issue in campaign 1980.
The state s lumber industry has followed the
housing industry into the doldrums, with the state
employment division reporting that joblessness in
the forest products industry jumped from 10,000
to 16,000 just in the past month.
That parallels the sudden leap in the national
unemployment statistics reported this month and
underlines the difficulty President Carter and the
Democratic Congress face in their attempt to
dodge the debris of the falling economy.
Michael Boskin, a Stanford University econom
ist, pointed out recently that the net real spend
able earnings of the average American family fell
by 7.9 percent from the spring of 1979 to the
spring of 1980. That decline in real income, or
purchasing power, was the sharpest in 40 years.
The economists are guessing that the erosion in
living standards will continue for the rest of this
year, but at a slower rate. The expected easing of
inflation in the last half of 1980 should close part of
the gap between prices and wages.
But that will be little consolation for the Demo
crats if last month’s jump in unemployment — the
sharpest increase in six years — signals the onset of
a recession more severe than the administration
economists had forecast.
Inflation and recession are the twin horns of the
Democrats’ economic dilemma. They don’t like to
face either of them in a presidential and congres
sional election year, but their theory has been that
inflation may be politically fatal, while unemploy
ment is merely painful. Thus the frantic efforts in
Congress the past three weeks to pass “balanced
budget” resolutions for fiscal year 1981, beginning
next October.
The members know that it is a proper triumph,
likely to be rendered academic by the surge in
unemployment and the sag in the economy. But
they think it is a symbolic gesture the voters de
mand.
The theory that inflation — rather than reces
sion — is the main political threat to the Demo
crats looks considerably less plausible from this
side of the continent than it does in the Capitol’s
corridors. On the face of it, a problem that affects
everyone, like inflation, figures to be more politic
ally damaging than one like unemployment, which
directly impacts a minority of the work force.
But there is evidence that inflation, because it is
so diffuse and intractable, may not be as much of a
“voting issue” as unemployment. When politi
cians talk about a “voting issue,” they mean one on
which the voters discern a real difference between
candidates (or parties) and use that difference to
decide how to cast their ballots.
There are very important public concerns which
are not voting issues, either because all candidates
are essentially on the same side or because the
voters doubt that anyone can do much to change
the situation. Crime is such an issue, and inflation
may be one, too.
Opinion analysts Seymour Martin Lipset and
William Schneider, writing in the new issue of
Public Opinion magazine, make an intriguing
point about the relative influence of inflation and
recession on voters’ attitudes.
“A high rate of inflation seems to have a strongly
depressing effect upon the public’s expectations of
the future,” theynvrite, while 'unemployment ...
does not appear to affect the public’s overall view
of the future.
A possible explanation for this difference, they
suggest, “is that people have grown up believing
there are solutions for unemployment ... but the
public has no clear sense of how to cure high rates
of inflation.
What unemployment does is weaken confi
dence in the functioning of key institutions, in
cluding Congress and the presidency. Lipset and
Schneider suggest that people blame rising unem
ployment on the incompetence of the people run
ning things, while inflation is regarded as more of a
natural curse.
“The solution” to unemployment, they write,
appears to be to replace the people in charge,
while the “solution” to inflation may simply be to
shrug one’s shoulders and curse the fates.
If that is correct — as the talk in Oregon seems
to suggest — the Democrats who have spent the
last two years worrying about what inflation could
do to them could find themselves blindfolded by
the old enemy, unemployment.
(c) 1980, The Washington Post Company
Viewpoint
The Battalion
Texas A&M University
Wednesday
May 21, 1980
Bush stands better chance
ofgaining party acceptance
by ARNOLD SAWISLAK
United Press International
WASHINGTON — In some ways, the Democratic
and Republican nomination contests this year are re
markably alike, but they also have some differences that
could have a strong impact on the 1980 election.
First, the campaigns of Democrat Edward Kennedy
against President Carter and Republican George Bush
against Ronald Reagan both classify as underdog chal
lenges.
Kennedy, of course, is trying to unseat an incumbent
of his own party, which is a challenge both rare and
risky. Reagan may not have as obvious a claim on the
nomination as Carter, but the former California gov
ernor certainly had some kind of squatter’s rights dating
back to his 1976 near miss. And Bush’s campaign was
from the first an effort to take the nomination away from
Reagan.
Both Kennedy and Bush also are attacking their oppo
nents from the left.
Kennedy’s liberal stance is so pronounced that it has
provided the Carter camp with considerable campaign
ammunition. Bush is actually more conservative than
Reagan in some areas, such as tax cutting, but in general
he is less clearly associated with the Republican right
wing than the frontrunner.
The campaign strategy of the two challengers also
shared a common premise. Both Kennedy and Bush
claimed if they could get Carter and Reagan alone in the
ring, they would win.
Kennedy’s strategy failed because he could not get
Carter out of the White House. His effort to capitalize
on Carter’s Rose Garden strategy simply did not sell.
Kennedy finally gave up on that line as a main element of
his campaign and turned to attacks on Carter’s policies.
Bush’s strategy succeeded so well it may have
doomed his campaign. When the Republican hopefuls
goaded Reagan for refusing to debate in Iowa, he came
out fighting and knocked all but Bush out of the race in
short order.
Bush’s claim that he could beat Reagan in one-on-one
contests appeared to have some credence in Pennslyva-
nia but it took a licking in Indiana, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Maryland and Nebraska. With only two candi
dates in the field, Bush lost every primary after Pennsyl
vania except the District of Columbia, where Reagan
was not on the ballot.
The big difference in the two challenges is in what is
likely to happen after the nominations are decided.
Both the Reagan and Carter camps have begun treat
ing the challengers very carefully, obviously hoping to
unify the party when the contests are over. Reagan
sticks grimly to his “11th Commandment” forbidding
criticism of fellow Republicans and Carter campaign
chief Robert Strauss pledges make every effort to
smooth over differences.
Bush and his supporters may very well embrace their
victors at the GOP national convention. Bush made
much of his party regularity during the early stages of
the campaign, and actually has said little that would
make it embarrassing for him to support Reagan.
But Kennedy, and especially some of his more zealous
supporters, have pictured Carter as a traitor to the
Democratic heritage. It will be hard for the senator and
his enthusiasts to swallow a Carter victory and if they
can’t, the party may be in for another bloodletting of the
sort that helped put Republicans in the White House
from 1969 through 1977.
Texas At
have a thn
session.
Registrat
12 noon. C
The regi
registering
— Secui
istration pa
— Report
main floor (
to be taken
— Repoi
the main fl
— Repoi
— Repoi
— Turn
station, 2L
— SECC
— Begin
Students
registration
tional late
The last
June 5.
Hire th
(
United
WASHIN
ported miss
lostages in '
|re writing
Harold Brow
Ir a new try
I Almost in
jiore techni
l equipme
New insights help make this
White House book readable
nother wr
forward: ra
iehran anc
by HELEN THOMAS
United Press International
WASHINGTON — The market is flooded with books
about the .White House by those who are ready to tell
all.
But for refreshing revelations of past presidents, their
lifestyles, their sometimes erratic behavior, their arro
gance, the abuses of power, it is worthwhile reading a
soon-to-be published book titled “Breaking Cover.”
The author is Bill Gulley, a former Marine sergeant
who raff the'Military Office from the days of President
Lyndort Johnson up to the presidency of Jimmy Carter.
Gullffy says there is a multimillion-dollar Secret
Fund, held by the Military Office, which only the Presi
dent and the Military Office are authorized to use. It was
created to provide emergency funds in case of an unex
pected attack on the country.
But it has been abused, according to Gulley. Funds
from the secret fund, he says, were used for a variety of
installations at the LBJ Ranch, and during the Nixon era
for massive reconstruction and decoration of Camp
David, including a $500,000 swimming pool outside
Aspen Lodge, the President’s cabin at the mountaintop
retreat.
According to Gulley, the Secret Fund was used to
subsidize the White House Mess, to build helicopter
pads at Richard Nixon’s homes at San Clemente, Calif,
and Key Biscayne, Fla., and to install a huge generator
on Johnson’s Texas ranch.
Gulley’s book, published by Simon Shuster, is replete
with amusing hitherto untold anecdotes, some unprint
able in a family newspaper, about Johnson and Nixon.
Johnson’s insatiable ego, his “hatred of the Kennedys”
and his demands for planes and other accommodations
even after he left office are recounted.
Gulley was the White House liaison with past presi
dents. He recalls the first time he went to see Nixon at
San Clemente after Nixon had resigned, the former
president was “mainly concerned about getting his enti
tlements.”
“Look,” he said, “I’m entitled to anything that any
other former president is entitled to. (Expletive) You
know what I did for Johnson and you know I did things
for Ike and Truman and (expletive) I expect to be treated
the same way. When I travel I expect military aircraft: 1
expect the same support I provided. I expect communi
cations and medical personnel, everything they had.
And (expletive) you tell Ford I expect it.”
Gulley said that Nixon was “shamed, bitter, ex
hausted, strung out, demanding, combative; he didn’t
have his head together.”
Gulley says Nixon told him that “Ford has just got to
realize there are times Henry (Kissinger) has to be
kicked right in the . It’s the only way he can be
controlled because sometimes Henry starts to think he s
the president. But other times you have to pet Henry
and treat him like a child.”
The author said that “in the last days of the Ford
administration, when a farewell party was being plan
ned for Kissinger, his aide, Larry Eagleburger, now
ambassador to Yugoslavia, called and asked if they could
have some little memento from the plane to present to
Henry.
“I called the Air Force One office, got Col. Les
McClelland, the pilot of Air Force One, and asked him
to have something sent over. He said, “Bill, Kissinger’s
already taken everything off the thing but the landing
gear. Does he want that too?”
He said that when he first met with President Carter,
he was told by Carter, “Camp David costs too much
money. I want it closed.”
Gulley said he asked Carter if he knew what all the
facilities were at the retreat. “Yes, cabins,” he said.
Then Gulley explained to him about the bomb shel
ter, the emergency communications center and other
facilities.
“It’s especially ironic in view of what Camp David has
come to be for Jimmy Carter,” said Gulley, “but it was
the same with everything. He had the answers before he
added up the numbers.”
mge of h<
lith key d<
jersal of h
r the fa
Example
i — One
|ian, sugge
the U.S. E
ppacitate
len helicc
bcue the
[ — Anot
inian offi
g in the 1
fated into;
jver the e
jontrol, he
lanian ag
•S. citize
I — One
j^ovolunti
rForce i
Mission. C
fhans are ir
h a gigantic
splode in
[tages are r
, — Anotl
jarward:
fkhran arc
III
Talk shows help book publishers flourish
the small society
by Brickmoj
by DICK WEST
United Press International
WASHINGTON — In the last de
cade or so there has been a multifold
increase in the number of books pub
lished in this country each year.
The statistics alone might lead you
to believe America is in the throes of a
cultural awakening the likes of which
the world has seldom seen. But when
you start looking between the covers.
you can see this is not the case.
The majority of the books being
published today, including some on
the best-seller lists, don’t remotely re
semble literature. Even what are
known in the trade as “nonbooks” are
dignified with dust jackets by the
score.
I was talking with a local book scout
about this phenomenon and suggested
that the tastes of the reading public
must be steadily deteriorating.
Letters
More flak for Dr. Miller
Editor:
I have just received Debbie Nel
son’s account of Pres. Miller’s rejection
of Ms. Zentgraf s hand at graduation. I
am utterly dismayed by the lack of
manners and good judgement.
I cannot apologize for Dr. Miller,
but please convey to Ms. Zentgraf
assurances that Dr. Miller does not
speak and act for this Aggie. I heart
ily congratulate Ms. Zentgraf upon a
successful completion of her studies
at A&M.
Bad advice
Dwan V. Kerig ’46
Professor of Law
University of San Diego (Calif.)
Editor:
It is true that housing prices can rise
and fall. But unlike other investments
including securities, savings accounts,
life insurance, precious gems and met
als, housing satisfies the basic need for
shelter.
So long as dollars decline in purchas
ing power and/or household formation
increases, housing will continue to be
in strong demand. Mr. Alan D. Phipps
letter in The Battalion (May 7) failed to
recognize this; his advice is mis
leading.
“The reading public has nothing to
do with it,” he replied. “The pub
lishing business no longer is geared to
the demands of readers for books. It is
geared to the demands of talk shows for
authors.”
In recent years, he pointed out, the
talk show format has grown beyond all
imagining. There are radio talk shows
and television talk shows; network talk
shows and local talk shows; early morn
ing talk shows, afternoon talk shows,
all-night talks shows and talk shows at
just about every hour in between.
“The staple guest on all of these
shows is the visiting author,” the book
scout continued. “Without a steady
stream of authors dropping into the
studio to be interviewed, most talk
shows couldn’t last out the season.
“This insatiable demand imposes
great strains on the publishers, whose
responsibility it is to provide the books
that are plugged on talk shows. In their
mad scramble to supply the daily quota
of authors for talk show interviews,
they have been forced to drop all pre
text of literary merit.
“The main test now is wordage. If a
manuscript, however feeble, is long
enough to fill a book, bombs away!”
Although most books nowadays are
published primarily to provide authors
for talk shows, the scout told me the
source isn’t as dependable as talk show
producers would like.
“There have been a few spot situa
tions in which talk shows had more air
time than there were new books to
plug,” he said.
“Some talk show hosts have tried to
alleviate the shortage by writing books
about themselves. But those are stop
gap remedies at best.
(te 1 -
§8101
LOO\^> LIK^
|T^ TO
A<£AtN
THAM To \
£=L.E=^T&P’
A<5A 114 —
MO
<5GC6
) I960 King Features Syndicate. Inc World rights reserved
“We may soon see the networks and
larger independent stations buying
publishing firms, or starting up new
ones, in order to produce their own
supply of authors. ”
I asked the scout whether talk show
plugs really stimulated book sales.
“Oh, absolutely,” he said. “If the
number of sales ever equals the num
ber of talk show appearances by the
author, it’s a best seller.”
Readers’ Forum
Guest viewpoints, in addition to
Letters to the Editor, are welcome.
All pieces submitted to Readers’
forum should be:
• Typed triple space
• Limited to 60 characters per
line
• Limited to 100 lines
Jack P. Friedman
The Battalion
Roll or i
U S P S 045 360
LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words and
are subject to being cut to that length or less if longer. The
editorial staff reserves the right to edit such letters and
does not guarantee to publish any letter. Each letter must
be signed, show the address of the writer and list a
telephone number for verification.
Address correspondence to Letters to the Editor, The
Battalion, Room 216, Reed McDonald Building, College
Station, Texas 77843.
Represented nationally by National Educational Adver
tising Services, Inc., New York City, Chicago and Los
Angeles.
United Press International is entitled exclusively
use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited K
Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein resei'®|
Second-Class postage paid at College Station, TX f*
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday from
September through May except during exam and holiday
periods and the summer, when it is published on Tuesday
through Thursday.
Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester; $33.25 per
school year; $35.00 per full year. Advertising rates
furnished on request. Address: The Battalion, Room 216,
Reed McDonald Building, College Station, Texas 77843.
MEMBER
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Congress
Editor Dillard Sttf
City Editor Rusty Ca«!
Sports Editor Richard Oli’|
News Editor Lynn Bint
Staff Writers Uschi Michel-Ho'
Debbie Nelson, Cathy Saathoff, Scot!
Meyer, Jon HeP
Photo Editor Lee Roy Leschperll
FR
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are
those of the editor or of the writer of the
article and are not necessarily those of the
University Administration or the Board of
Regents. The Battalion is a non-profit.>
supporting enterprise operated bystuJt
as a university and community neu.
Editorial policy is determined by the