(
Viewpoint
The Battalion
Texas A&M University
Thursday
February 12,1981
———-
—
Slouch
By Jim Earle
‘I’m really looking forward to when I can wear senior boots.
Return of Good OF Days
would mark Reagan success
By HELEN THOMAS
United Press International
WASHINGTON — After he delivers his
economic package to Congress with its
painful cuts in federal spending, says Presi
dent Reagan, “I’ll be hung in effigy.”
When he delivers his message to a joint
session Feb. 18, Reagan forecasts: “The
screams will be heard from border to border
and coast to coast .... But there isn’t any
thing that has been deemed sacred and un
touchable with regard to the cuts we’re
proposing. ”
After it was predicted that Budget Direc
tor David Stockman’s “Black Book” would
call for slashing budgets for Social Security,
Medicare and other programs some 80 mil
lion people depend on, the White House
passed the word that seven social programs
would indeed be sacred.
The seven programs include the basic
Social Security retirement payments. Med
icare, school lunches and breakfasts, veter
ans benefits, supplemental income benefits
for the blind and disabled, and Head Start
and the summer youth program. These
programs fall into the category of what
Reagan calls the “truly needy.”
But there has been no word on the food
stamp program, which is expected to be
cut, housing guarantees or the Comprehen
sive Employment and Training Act, which
some aides say is scheduled for extinction.
Stockman has said that $50 billion will be
slashed from President Jimmy Carter’s
1982 fiscal year budget totaling $735 billion.
The only department that will be spared the
axe, except for economies on efficiency, will
be the Department of Defense, according
to White House press secretary Jim Brady.
There, Reagan will be acting out his philo
sophy on the need for a big military
buildup.
The president stresses that it is a two-part
package: a 10 percent annual tax cut over a
three-year period, accompanied by budget
reductions.
And that is just for starters. He also is
planning reductions in the tax rate on di
vidends, interest and unearned income,
and he plans to make good on a campaign
promise for a tuition tax break for parents
who send their children to private schools
and colleges.
Reagan’s long-nurtured anathema to big
government is having its day. When he
meets with state legislators, county officials
and mayors, he has the time of his life talk
ing about the return of federal power to the
states. And not just the power; the money,
too.
He told a gathering of state and county
executives earlier in the week:
“You are the first to see which programs
work and which don’t, and you knowwhatis
best for the states or your communities and
that means what’s best for the people. I’ve
long believed that state and local govern
ments have a better chance to be efficient
and responsive than does the federal
bureaucracy ”
“I’d like to see the block grants (to states!
be only an interim step to actually transfer
ring tax sources ... and stop this whole
roundtrip of our money,” he said.
Reagan is counting on business, in parti
cular, to take its tax breaks through depre
ciation and other credits, and run with it
that is, to revitalize their industries and to
stimulate the economy. Jobs are expected
to flow from all this activity.
All this will be coupled with the elimina
tion of regulations and red tape that he and
much of the business community feel have
hamstrung them in a highly competitive
field.
In the end, his success will be measured
by the pocketbook. If prosperity returns to
an inflation-ridden country, and the unem
ployment rate is cut in half, he will be able
to move on to restore those good old days
But if the picture is otherwise, the people
will continue to look to the federal govern
ment for survival.
II
di
w:
to
1
gui
sop
Dr
thr
ing
fori
Ce
Rhetoric shouldn t
startle the Soviets
• ajgpt* ywtiw jwutr .>* mwjUf&Mn.
By DAVID S. BRODER
EVANSTON, Ill. — Ronald Reagan is
doing all right so far in the suburbs and
small cities of the Midwest and West, but
there seems to be some concern about the
“belligerence” of his foreign-policy com
ments.
In part," that is the carryover of the “war
monger” label that Jimmy Carter tried to
pin on him in last fall's campaign. But the
fear has been rekindled by some of Reagan’s
and Secretary of State Alexander Haig’s
statements in the opening weeks of the new
administration.
Personally, I am not persuaded that
there is much to be disturbed about, in
what Reagan and Haig have had to say. But
when you hear the same concern express
ed, in almost the same words, by townspeo
ple, journalists and students in places as
diverse as Salt Lake City, Grand Junction,
Topeka, Madison and Evanston — as I did
last week — then it begins to register.
What triggered the worries were the
Reagan comments at his first press confer
ence, suggesting that, in his view, the
Soviet Union was implacably committed to
the course of seeking world domination and
would use any tactic it could to achieve that
goal. Haig added fuel to the fire with his
charge that the Soviets were supporters of
international terrorism. Pravda and other
organs of Soviet propaganda have been re
plying with equally bristling language.
What I said when the topic came up — as
it did at every stop on last week’s itinerary
— was that there were two reasons why I
thought the Russians were unlikely to find
the Reagan-Haig rhetoric as provocative as
their counter-propaganda rumbles might
suggest.
The first is that Ronald Reagan has been
saying exactly the same things about the
Soviet Union for the last quarter-century.
And the Russians have to have a good book
on Reagan.
Here, for example, is Reagan on the Viet
nam war, in a book called “Ronald Reagan’s
Call To Action,” published five years ago:
“The plain truth of the matter is that we
were there (Vietnam) to counter the master
plan of the Communists for world conquest,
and it’s a lot easier and safer to counter it
8,000 miles away than to wait until they
land in Long Beach .... The Communist
master plan, as we know it from published
reports, from intelligence sources, and
from our own painful experience, is to iso
late free nations, one by one, stimulating
and supplying revolution without endager
ing their own troops. What they did in Viet
nam was simply to follow the plan they
have pursued in many countries around
the world.. . . There is a Communist plan
for world conquest, and its final step is to
conquer the United States.”
Now, I assume that the computers in the
Kremlin Bureau of American Affairs have
all that old Reagan rhetoric coded and inde
xed, so Brezhnev and Co. can hardly be
surprised to hear him saying what he is
saying.
The second reason why I doubt they find
this language “provocative” is that Reagan
has no interest in disturbing or challenging
the Soviet regime at home.
your turn
My impression is that what bothered
Moscow about Jimmy Carter was his ten
dency, in his first two years in office, to
agitate the “human rights” issue. “Human
rights,” to them, is an issue of internal
security and the protection of their own
authoritarian regime. I doubt very much
that the Reagan language about Russia’s in
clination to expand its external empire is
one bit as “provocative” in Russian eyes, as
Carter’s correspondence with celebrated
Soviet dissidents or his public championing
of their cause.
Reagan has turned off the “human rights”
rhetoric and is plainly prepared to take a
live-and-let-live attitude toward internal
Soviet repression. He is being very cautious
in his comments on the Polish situation,
which, far more than any provocation from
Washington, might cause the Soviets to
move their armed forces into action.
That, at least, is my view. But the citizens
I met last week — or at least a good many of
them — are disturbed and a bit frightened
by the exchange of epithets between the
new President and the men in the Kremlin.
I note this — without agreeing — as the
only jarring note so far in Reagan’s smooth
acquisition of authority.
Washers, dryers draw resident’s ire
Warped
Editor:
On behalf of all the Krueger residents
(and assuredly many other dorm inhabi
tants) I would like to file a not-quite-earth-
shattering but still-fairly-important com
plaint. The laundry system. Basically, it’s
the pits. Today I spent twenty minutes
looking for a functioning washing machine.
It was indeed a drag. To make matters
worse, what I did find in this search was
fifteen inert and semi-stagnant tubs (with
funny looking things swimming around in
them) and only ONE brave operating soul
— #K23 — bless its bearings.
On top of this, they don’t give you cash
refunds for the tickets eaten by the
machines (so you can go to another, dorm’s
coin-operated machines). No siree. Instead
I got another wonderful laundry ticket
which, I’m sure, will eventually be de
voured by one of the dynamic duo (washer
or dryer).
We could wear fig leaves. Blow off
washing clothes. Or wait until Spring Break
and shovel the problem off onto Mom. Dis
gusting. Trying to hide the smelly critters
won’t work either. Both you and your pre
gnant laundry basket will know the real
truth. Seriously, I find it extremely difficult
to believe that something can’t be done.
By Scott McCullar
Buy more washers. Substitute new washers
for the decrepit ones. Hire more repair
men. Retrain those already hired. Call Red
Adair. Call Marvin Zindler. But until then
there still remains this proverbial pimple on
the face of our campus.
Carol Carr ’84
Article misleading
Editor:
We would like to take this opportunity to
comment on the article by Ms. Laura Young
which appeared in The Battalion on Febru
ary 6, 1981. Although we appreciate the
exposure this piece afforded our organiza
tion, there are several inaccuracies and mis
quotations which might have obscured the
fundamental purpose of this organization.
The correct name of this organization is
the Association for Women in Science, We
prefer the term organization to club be
cause “club” implies that membership is
limited to only students. As a professional
organization, we welcome faculty members
and all interested persons from the com
munity, as well as students. The purpose of
this organization is to allow for an exchange
of ideas and information concerning all
aspects of women in science.
Dr. Greta Fryxell, Assistant Professor of
Oceanography at Texas A&M University,
will speak on “Women in Science: Pitfalls
and Prospects for the Future” at our first
meeting which will be held on Feb. 25, at
7:30 p.m. in 112 O&M. All interested per
sons are urged to attend.
Fern Halper
Lauren Sabi
I'VE HAD IT, m TIREP OF
BEING ALONE, BUT I'M NOT
GOING TO BE DUMPED ON
BY A MAN A6AI N... J '
Cqh sure*)
YOU THINK I'M KIDDING?
I'VE ALREADY DONE SOMETHING
ABOUT IT. T
PATRICK?)
fwnoV'A
V THAT?J
MARY? HI, I READ
YOUR AD IN THE
PAPER AND...
OKAY, YES, UH-HUH, THAT'S
IMPRESSIVE, I SEE YOUR LAST
LOVE GAVE YOU A VERY
NICE RECOMMENDATION
LETTER... ) ~
fyES, WElLT)
-jr 1
The Battalion
MEMBER
ISPS 045 .160
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Congress
Editor Dillard Stone
Managing Editor Angel Copeland .
Asst. Managing Editor Todd Woodard [
City Editor Debbie Nelson |
Asst. City Editor Marcy Boyce ,
News Editors Venita McCellon,
Scot K. Meyer
Sports Editor Richard Oliver
Focus Editor Cathy Saathoff
Asst. Focus Editor Susan Hopkins ^
Staff Writers Carolyn Barnes,
Jane G. Brust, Terry Duran, Bemie Fette,
Cindy Gee, Jon Heidtke, Belinda McCoy,
Kathleen McElroy, Marjorie McLaughlin,
Kathy O’Connell, Ritchie Priddy, Rick
Stolle
Cartoonist Scott McCullar
Photo Editor Greg Gammon
Photographers Chuck Chapman
Brian Tate
EDITORIAL POLICY
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper
operated as a community service to Texas A&M University
and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Bat
talion are those of the editor or the author, and do not
necessarily represent the opinions ofTexas A&M Universi
ty administrators or faculty members, or of 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.
Questions or comments concerning any editorial matter
should be directed to the editor.
LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 350 words in
length, and are subject to being cut if they are longer. 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 also be signed, show the address
and phone number of the writer.
Columns and guest editorials are also welcome, and are
not subject to the same length constraints as letters.
Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Editor, The
Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843.
The Battalion is published daily during Texas A&M’s foil
and spring semesters, except for holiday and examination
periods. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25
per school year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates
furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Build
ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.
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 77843.