Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 9, 1982)
opinion Battalion/Page 2 March 9,1982 Laurel, Hardy in Washington by Arnold Sawislak United Press International WASHINGTON — Remember this? W'henever Laurel and Hardy found themselves in some horrendous situa tion, Oliver Hardy would deliver the clas sic line: “Now you’ve gotten us in another fine mess, Stanley.” Hardy often was as responsible as Laurel for the fiasco at hand, but many people have a fixed image of the cringing Laurel as hopelessly incompetent be cause the loudly assertive Hardy always said so. This spring in Washington, it looks as if President Reagan is trying to play Oliv er Hardy to Congress’ Stanley Laurel. This is a different scenario than last year, but both reflect the “no fault” syn drome of American politics. No one in the White House or on Capitol Hill has taken responsibility for a mistake in gov ernment since John Kennedy took the blame for the Bay of Pigs. In 1980, Reagan blamed the Demo crats who had dominated Washington for “stagflation” — rising prices and a slack economy. He said his plan for tax and budget cuts (with the exception of defense spending increases) would sti mulate business, thus producing more tax revenues and restrain inflation. He got most of what he demanded from Congress and inflation (except for interest rates) did recede. But business slumped badly and a new specter appeared — a prospective federal deficit of $100 billion or more. The administration reluctantly accepted this sea of red ink, but not even some of Reagan’s loyalest allies in Con gress could swallow it. Idea to cut the deficit began appearing like crocuses through the late winter snow. One obvious idea was to cut spending even more. Reagan proposed that for domestic programs, but would not accept cuts in defense spending. Another way would be to increase selected taxes or to suspend the big income tax reduction due this summer. No way, said the Presi dent. As the budget picture came into focus (Reagan forecast a $91.5 billion deficit but a lot of people think that is wildly optimistic), the President told his critics to propose a better solution: “Put up or shut up.” And that is where Congress gets cast in the part of Stan Laurel. If it increases taxes or suspends the scheduled cut, Reagan can blame it for robbing the people and ruining his re covery program. There is only one way out of this for Congress. It has to get Reagan to propose whatever changes in the budget-tax mix that will be needed to reduce the deficit to some acceptable level. If both the House and Senate were controlled by the Democrats, it would be easy for Reagan to let Congress stew and take the flak for either action or delay. But the Senate is run by the COP and Reagan demonstrated last year that he can beat the Democratic leadership of the House if he really tries. So now’ he, or at least his friends on Capitol Hill, risk being stuck with at least some of the blame for the “fine mess” his programs seem to have produced. What with con gressional elections coming in Novem ber, the President may have no choice but to give up the part of Oliver Hardy. Slouch By Jim Earle “He’s so desperate for mail that he’s even considered changing his name to "Boxholder.”’ Ve Reagan, not appointed officials should speak on current issues n an Utah ional iveris lidy ev lidy is ern Ass< |hools, ardin ivers One' Ulivers the dep; I "Eacl U livers 9< at A lidy of I ch of 1 tf e accr u »an ai R1Q. . the l P°g ran I The p ovide: ti 1 info: studies. ■ But, editor ( "When (inform had less tibns fo And it v adequat com pie? C( By David S. Broder WASHINGTON — House Minority Leader Bob Michel was in an unusually expansive mood w hen he met with repor ters for breakfast last week. For 25 mi nutes after the formal session had been adjourned and the remains of the scram bled eggs had been cleared away, the Peoria Republican sat around schmooz ing about his job, the Congress and the Reagan administration. He said so much that we had a surplus of copy. One of the items that didn’t make the papers was his disclosure that he has urged President Reagan to deliver a television address pretty soon on the defense needs of the country. Reagan needs to spell out his strategy and the way the weapons systems he is recommending fit into the overall de sign, Michel said. “Not just in terms of a Russian threat,” he added, but in enough specifics that the unemployed workers in Peoria can understand w hy the President thinks we have to spend these extraor dinary sums for new arms. Otherwise, he implied, Reagan can expect to see Congress slice the defense buildup to save some of the budget- threatened domestic programs. Some of us at the table thought back to Reagan’s evident nervousness about ex plaining arms policy last fall, when he quickly lateraled to Defense Secretary Cap Weinberger the task of answering White House reporters’ questions about the rationale for the MX-missile and the B-l bomber decisions. We wondered ab out Michel’s assumption that Reagan could make everything make sense. But if a president has a reputation as the Great Communicator, then it is not surprising that his supporters want him to exercise those talents on behalf of embattled projects. There is more to it than that, however. What his well-wishers see is that the pub lic is beginning to lose its sense of where Reagan is leading the country — and why. T he vision and purpose he com municated so well in 1981 have been blurred by the consternation over his budget deficits and by a series of ill- coordinated statements and actions by administration officials in vital domestic and international fields. Reaganism has lost its focus, and the President has to redefine it. Press conferences don’t help. Reagan’s imprecision in answering ques tions adds to the misgivings. So why not do what he does well: give speeches to put the main goals of his administration back in focus? Exactly that suggestion was made in print last week by one of the President’s leading academic cheerleaders, Harvard political scientist James Q. Wilson. Writing in The American Spectator, Wilson said Reagan has erred in putting so much emphasis on cutting the size of government. “The size of government is important in some ways,” he concedes, but w hat really matters to most people “is that government, whatever its size, follow right principles.” Wilson says that Reagan ought to address in “major and sustained pres idential remarks,” at least four topics T he first is defense, including then; of military power and the obligations military service. The second is the qu: tion of income maintenance: defini the “safety net” and setting re criteria for including and excludingci tain programs and beneficiaries. T he third is the environment: v resources need to be developed which are to be preserved, and how distinction will be made. And the fotu is the issue of race relations: how equ; of opportunity will be protected with the tools Reagan has rejected, likebusi and quotas. “At present,” Wilson says, quite ti rectly, “each of these four issues is bei managed by lesser officials, on the of imperfectly understood criteria, in ways that lead the press and mtieli the public to see the matters in nanj partisan terms.” Wilson says — again correctly, I thi — that these questions are inherent^ important for the President to delega He himself — and not his appointees! subordinates — needs to define the ten of public debate. Implicitly, it seems to me, both hei Michel are urging Reagan to involveliq self more fully, not just in articulai policy in these areas, but in thin through that policy within the admit I tration. T hey are asking him to be presi tial, in the basic sense of that word, coming from them, it is advice he G afford to ignore. 0 by I The N budget i Cepheid th<it autl lOObu ■ used Cur |PY C< iking us M I blicip pitses. ibpchint que cikincil v<hopm< T d Ce utase Hes in e car mac council Int de This le ma< lirposi a' Aggi d iy sci< Mid in I With ■wards April : Budy tfopos; w!::rh t Letters: Teaching the world a lesson about torture Editor: T his letter is addressed to Perez de Cuel lar, Secretary-General of the U.N. Khomeini’s regime in the past three sears has taught the world a lesson about torture, terror and a destruction of Isalm and Iran, that is both stark and undeni able: as a means of organizing trepida tion and providing for the well-being of a citizenry, Akhondism (the role of the clergy) is a failure. The result is a society that perverseh manages to combine con tradictors vices: profligacy on the part of collective and scarcity for the individual; Draconian control and hopeless ineffi- ciencv; laziness and zealotry; cynicism and dogmatism; subservience and bul bing. Khomieni is a demagogue. In I ran, there are over 30.000 political prisoners in doleful conditions. T his is more than three times the numbers held by the Shah's bloody regime. How long will these atrocities continue, and who will put an end to it? Presiding over this disaster is an entity that calls itself the Iranian Republican Party (IRP), a euphemism that the founders of Khomieni’s regime adopted in 1978. We ask For your support in seeking an end to the atrocities perpetuated by the IRP. In keeping with the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights, we ask all heads of states, governments, parlia ments. political parties, media, councils, unions, and democratic forces of the world to condemn the widespread tor ture and executions by Khomieni’s re gime. We petition the U.N. to send their own delegation, and a delegation from Amesty International, to Iran, in order to investigate these violations of human rights. Finally, we request that a Red Cross delegation be sent to Iran to treat those who, at present, do not receive First-aid. Dr. Bill Edwards The Telecommunications Society Freedom of speech question Editor: MSG Political Forum, a nonpartisan organization, planned a program featur ing Gus Hall, who is and has been Gener al Secretary of the Communist Party USA since 1959. (Hall canceled due to illness.) This is an indictment of those people who feel that freedom of speech should be reserved for only those who believe as they do. Members of MSC Political Forum spent large amounts of time and money attempting to make the public aware of this program. Others, it seems, have spent considerable time and effort re moving and vandalizing the advertise ments. T hursday night a banner hanging on the MSC walkway publicizing the Gus Hall program was cut down and stolen. The walkw ay banner area is reserved for University approved programs and is im portant to inform students and faculty of this L'niversity of programs and events of all kinds. Political Forum sponsors programs from across the political spectrum. Americans have always prided them selves on their right to f reedom of speech and the protection of this right for others. Has freedom of speech dis appeared from the Texas A&M campus? I his program is not designed to convert, only to inform. If anyone has any com ments they should attend the program and then voice their opinion, instead of cowardly vandalizing advertisements in the dark of night. Personally, I despise the entire con cept of communism, but it is not my posi tion to decide other peoples’ opinions for them. Gary L. Hickman Editor's note: This letter was accompa nied by 21 other signatures. Letter tells true story of Taps Editor: For a long time now, I have felt that something needed to be said about the apparent apathy in attending Silver Taps. I never really knew though, just how to express my concern for this prob lem, while also expressing somehow, the experience of Silver Taps itself. Well, now I don’t have to. The article written by Ross Rutherford expressed every thing I’ve ever wanted to say about the beauty and solemness of Silver Taps and how little it asked of us as people and Aggies. For those who didn't or haven't yet read his article, please take the time to read it. (Battalion, March 5, 1982 pg. 2). It’s Aggies like Ross Dale Rutherford that make me so proud to be a part of this great institution. Gig ’em Ross Darrell Pickard Dunn The Battalion USPS 045 360 Mcnil>er of Texas Press Association Southwest |oiirnaltsm Conference Editor Angelique Copeland Managing Editor JaneG. Brust City Editor Denise Richter Assistant City Editor Diana Sultenfuss Sports Editor Frank L. Christlieb F<kus Editor Cathy Saathoff Assistant Focus Editor Nancy Floec k News Editors (iary Barker, Phyllis Henderson, Mary Jo Rummel. Nano Weatherley Staff Writers Jennifer Carr, Cyndy Davis, Gave Denley. Sandra Gary, Colette Hutchings, Johna Jo Maurer, Hope E. Paasch Daniel Puckett, Bill Robinson. Denise Sechelski, John Wagner, Laura Williams, Rebeca Zimmermann Cartoonist : Scott McCullar Graphic Artist Richard DeLeon Jr. Photographers Sumanesh Agrawal, David Fisher. Eileen Manton. Eric Mitchell. Peter Rocha, John Rvan, Colin Valentine Editorial Policy The Bjtulion is a non-profit, self-supporting news paper operated as a communits serxicc to Texas A&M Universits and Bryan-College Station. Opinions ex pressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of l exas A&M L'niversity administrators or faculty m liers, or of the Boaid of Regents. The Battalion also seis es as a laboratory neuspjpfl lor students in reporting, editing and photographs i ses within the Department of Communications Questions or comments concerning am editott matter should be directed to the editor. Letters Policy Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words( length, and are subject to being cut if ihcv are lonp’ The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letlersX stvle and length, hut will make every effort to maoitX the author's intent. Each letter must also be signed,sb,’ the address and phone number of the writer. Columns and guest editorials are also welcome, a are not subject to the same length constraints as lette* Address all inquiries and correspondence to: f.dit The Battalion. 216 Reed McDonald. Texas A&M l versitv. College Station, TX 77843. or phone (713) St- 2611. The Battalion is published dailv during Texas A&V fall and spring semesters, except for holiday and ever nation periods. Mail subscriptions arc $16.75 persenx* ter. $33.25 per schtxrl year and $35 per full sear. Advr tising rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDon* Building. Texas A&M University. College Station. T' 77843. United Press International is entitled exclusivrh i the use for reproduction of all news dispatt hes crediifi to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matter Itctrt reserved. Second class postage paid at College Station. P S I