i
.t y < 4 » « »,.» i t i < * !. 1 < M.. :
I
The Battalion
Viewpoint
September 25,
Slouch
By Jim Earle
‘Do you want a haircut or a bid?’
Reagan’s opposition
begins to find its voice
By DAVID S. BRODER
WASHINGTON — It is plain now that
the opposition to President Reagan and his
program is beginning to find its voice. The
260,000 people who assembled on the Mall
last Saturday at the call of the AFL-CIO and
some 200 other organizations to protest the
Reagan economic policies was the largest
such demonstration since Vietnam war
days.
This weekend, the Democratic Party will
hold its first major training session for the
1982 campaign in Des Moines and, on Oct.
1, it will parade a number of mayors before
the microphones at a dinner here to de
scribe the damage they say will be done by
the Reagan budget cuts that go into effect
that day.
Meantime, House Democrats have re
called that the committees they control are
allowed to conduct investigations, and Tip
O’Neill has launched a number of them into
regional hearings focused on the effects of
high interest rates and scarce federal dol
lars.
As a result of all this, the Republicans are
getting shaky about their support of the
new round of budget cuts. And Washing
ton, a city whose inbred discussions pro
duce violent swings of opinion, has — in its
typical fashion — gone from thinking that
Reagan is king of the world to thinking he is
a political fall guy.
What everyone needs to do is step back
one pace and take a deep breath. Other
wise, we are about to jitter ourselves into
serious trouble.
We have been down this road before —
exactly twelve years ago. Then, the Repub
lican President with nine months in office
was Richard Nixon, and the issue that
brought thousands to the streets was
Vietnam.
The troubles in today’s economy are,
thank goodness, a lot less ugly a mess than
Vietneam was twelve years ago. But there
are certain similarities in the situation. The
basic problem in both instances is one the
Republican administration inherited from
its Democratic predecessor. “Curing” the
problem is the basic mandate each Republi
can President received from the voters.
In both instances, the Republican Presi
dent put in place by the fall of his first year a
long-term strategy for extricating the coun
try from its bind. And in both instances, the
opposition has gone to the streets with the
claim that the program is not really as
advertised in the previous campaign and,
Warped
Put a pool and TV in every cell
By DICK WEST
United Press International
WASHINGTON — A concerned citizen
identifying herself as “Mildred the Mug
ger” informs me that a western motel chain
has opened a new computerized reserva
tions center in an Arizona prison for
women.
According to published accounts she en
closed, the service is being operated by 30
inmates paid by the company to train as
reservations agents.
Although the program was said to pro
vide excellent postpenitentiary job oppor
tunities, Mildred seems to feel it also
offered another type of opportunity for any
inmate who might be unrepentant.
Such information as credit card numbers
and names, addresses and travel dates of
people about to be away from home could
be of great value to burglars, she pointed
out.
Maybe so, but I can foresee the program
branching out in legitimate ways whose be
nefits would far outweigh any negative
potential it might have.
By coincidence, Mildred’s letter arrived
shortly before the Senate voted this week to
confirm Sandra O’Connor, herself a former
Arizona judge, as the first woman member
of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Also by coincidence, the letter touched
indirectly on one of the legal programs ab
out which Mrs. O’Connor was questioned
during her confirmation hearings — name
ly, overcrowded conditions in prisons.
Prison populations throughout the coun
try have grown so much faster than penal
facilities, there is talk of reopening some old
military bases and using them as detention
points.
The root cause of the problem is easy to
isolate and identify. Simply stated, it boils
down to this: overbooking. Judges like Mrs.
O’Connor are sending more people up the
river than available accommodations can
accommodate.
Just as motels occasionally are swamped
by conventioneers, prisons are being
swamped by conviced felons. Some sort of
efficient reservations system is needeJi
and badly.
Here is where the skills of prison®
trained as motel reservations agentsc
be used to good advantage.
Before a judge hands down a senta
he should call the prison reservations®
and determine what or whether spu
available.
I mean, what happens if two lawbrtii
arrive at a given prison simultaneous!)
only one cell berth is empty? Sonii
obviously is going to be turned away
If one of them has confirmed rest:
tions, the choice will be easy to mat;
Now arises the question of whatt
with the prospective inmate whok
have a reservation.
Possible answer: The cell clerk {ft
the phone and calls around to reacSt
military bases in the area to see whs
they have any vacancies. If not,
alternative may be to send the prisoner
motel.
I
even if it is, it is not producing results as fast
as they are needed.
There was plenty to criticize in Nixon’s
Vietnamization, and there is plenty to
doubt about Reaganomics. But it seems to
me that any fair-minded appraisal has to
conclude that there is greater political ligiti-
macy to Reagan’s current effort than there
was to Vietnamization, and therefore a
more compelling case for caution in conde
mning it.
While lives are being hurt by the Reagan
economies, the human damage cannot be
compared to that which resulted from Nix
on’s decision to attempt a gradual pullout,
which prolonged the agony of the Vietnam
War.
The Reagan plan — to a much greater
extent than Nixon’s — was suggested in
fairly explicit terms by the President’s cam
paign statements. True, he dodged the
painful truth about reductions in entitle
ment programs and the shift of responsibili-
tues to state and local governments. But
anyone who did not understand that
Reagan was proposing a major trade-off —
lower taxes for fewer federal government
services — was not listening.
But the most significant difference is that
Reagan’s plan has been given explicit
approval by Congress, while Nixon’s repre
sented purely executive-branch decision
making.
Moreover, it was given approval by Con
gress as a long-term policy, not a quick-fix
expedient.
As readers of this column know, there
have been grave doubts expressed here ab
out the pace the scale of the reduction in
federal responsibilities and the manner in
which programs have been handed off to
states and cities, or just abandoned. I have
been even more skeptical about the size of
the tax cuts, and the promise of future tax
indexation is one I thought no prudent Con
gress should make three years in advance.
But this policy was approved by majori
ties less than two months age. It has not yet
been put in place. To consider scrubbing it
now — or replacing it with an invisible
alternative — strikes me, not as a sensible
political judgment, but as a reaction of pure
panic.
There will be time — and need — for
mid-course corrections. But to attempt
them in the waning days of a congressional
session, rather than in the 1982 considera
tion of the Reagan budget, entails even
greater risks than the gamble implicit in
Reaganomics.
The White House ‘working herd’
By DONALD A. DAVIS
United Press Internationa]
WASHINGTON — To a reporter new on
the beat, covering the White House is like
trying to report what’s happening in a fish
bowl.
If the fish don’t want to talk, getting
information about what is really going on is
difficult. Meanwhile, the fish smile and the
people watching don’t realize how far away
they are.
From a distance, seeing the White
House press corps at work conjures up vi
sions of instant access to the top brains in
the land, meaningful conversation with the
men and women who run the government,
and pearls of wisdom from the president.
Don t bet on it.
The reality sets in quickly for a new cor
respondent. It means being herded around
at a gallop to get to a spot and wait (amid
shouts of “down in front ”) for the president
to walk past; standing in the rain to inter
view a senator who won’t venture to shelter
because the television cameras are set up in
the open; and being bombarded with brief
ings and news conferences every day on
subjects that can range from inflation to
religion to geography.
It does not mean being able to walk up
and ask President Reagan what’s going on.
That sort of thing is discouraged.
The president cannot be matched in his
delivery of prepared material, but off-the-
cuff comments are different. He muffed a
pair of questions called out by reporters last
week during brief “photo opportunities” at
the White House, but the answers were
obviously so wrong they could not possibly
be used. He confused 1981 with 1982 on
one fiscal question and jumped the federal
deficit by $200 billion in the other.
Because there always exists a chance that
question could hamstring a president.
aides keep a distance between Reagan and
the reporters — known as the “word herd.
But photography is different. Reagan still
has his Hollywood charisma — a president
from central casting — and cameras abound
when he steps out of doors with frequent
“photo ops” inside the White House. The
president smiles for the lensmen and tosses
one-liners to the writers. Great picture.
Lousy story.
Still, there is surprisingly good coopera
tion from the White House press office and
the people who work there are genuinely
helpful. The principal contact is Larry
Speakes, the deputy press secretary, who is
a slow talker with a quick mind. He’s candid
without being careless; protective without
being surly.
Another big surprise for a reporter!
level of helpfulness from one’s
Correspondents, perhaps drawn togi
by a siege mentality, assist each oik
While the competitive drive is extraoit
ary, the handful of regulars who covet
White House each day are not
hindering the work of another join
and the level of professional respectaffl
peers is high.
Before one thinks having a White ft
press pass is something special, one
remember some 1,700 are currently^
used.
They tout up with the vague state!
(“But senator, you say 10 percent, bn
percent of WHAT’?); finding their ston
quotes are different than everyone fit
who attended the same event (its d
being too exclusive); hassles from seen
guards (“Officer, you really mean IS
look out the window to see if it’s rainins'
worms in press room candy bars; a®
myriad of other problems to wear the
on chains looped around their neckstk
identify them as White House correif)
dents.
By Scott McCullar
The Battalion
USPS 045 360
MEMBER
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Congress
Editor Artgelique Copeland
Managing Editor Marcy Boyce
City Editor JaneG. Brust
Asst. City Editor Kathy O’Connell
Photo Editor Greg Gammon
Sports Editor Ritchie Priddy
Focus Editor Cathy Saathoff
Asst. Focus Editor Debbie Nelson
News Editors Jennifer Afflerbach
Bernie Fette, Belinda McCoy
Diana Sultenfuss
StaffWriters Frank L. Christlieb
Randy Clements, Gaye Denley, Terry Duran
Nancy Floeck, Phyllis Henderson
Colette Hutchings, Denise Richter, Rick Stolle
Cartoonist Scott McCullar
Graphic Artist Richard DeLeon Jr.
Photographers Brian Tate
Becky Swanson, Dave Einsel
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory nemptptt 1
students in reporting, editing and photography
within the Department of Communications.
Questions or comments concerning any editorials®
should be directed to the editor.
LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 wcrS)
length, and are subject to being cut if they are Ion
editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for
length, but will make every effort to maintain the ai#
intent. Each letter must also be signed, show the
and phone number of the writer.
Columns and guest editorials are also welcome, aii* 1
not subject to the same length constraints as
Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Editors'
Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M United
College Station, TX 77843.
EDITORIAL POLICY
The Battalion is published daily during Texas
and spring semesters, except for holiday am) examiwjj
periods. Mail subscriptions arc $16.75perseniester,5S'
per school year and $35 per full year. AdvertisinZ
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 of Texas A&M Universi
ty administrators or faculty members, or of the Board of
Regents.
furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonaldBf 1 -
ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX3
United Press International is entitled exclusively
use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited
Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reif^;
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX"B*
1
.vhicl
vhee
:30 j
m try
ees \
7i