Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 30, 1982)
opinion Battalion/Pm November 30,1 Slouch By Jim Earie It’s now or never — defense by Maxwell Glen and Cody Shearer Congressmen who emerged from elections two weeks ago armed with new found vendettas against a swollen de fense budget have about 30 days to deliv er their quarry. Unless they can agree on some cuts by Christmas, they could guarantee severe federal deficits for the duration of the decade. Cognizant that more than a third of Ronald Reagan’s 1983 Pentagon request for $245 billion is slated for weapons pro curement, congressmen realize that a $5 billion cut today could mean as much as $80 billion irf savings through the 1980s. As Bob DeGrasse of New York’s re spected Council on Economic Priorities put it, “Without some quick changes, the 1983 budget is going to lock Congress into a significant amount of spending.” Unfortunately, there is little chance that lawmakers will find the political courage needed to bolster words with ac tions. While many congressmen have harped loudly about Reagan’s lopsided commitment to the military, few will speak out — much less vote — against expensive arms projects when the time comes. Of course, it might appear that the end is near for several controversial weapons systems. South Carolina senator and presidential hopeful Ernest F. Boll ings announced last week that he could ‘guarantee” the votes needed to kill the $25 billion MX in the Senate. Meanwhile, on Nov. 15, Rep. Joseph P. Addabbo (D- N.Y.) convened his subcommittee on de fense appropriations behind closed doors to hammer out reductions that could axe both the B-l bomber and at least one nuclear-powered aircraft car rier. Nonetheless, lawmakers may simply lack the votes needed to gut the big-ticket items. While the MX survived a House test this spring by a mere three votes, both the B-l and the Navy’s request for two $3.5 billion carriers subsequently passed muster by 3-1 margins. Moreover, unlike the MX, whose basic plan has stir red the ire of many Western residents, grass-roots opposition to the $40 billion manned bomber is minimal; meanwhile, contracts on the carriers, according to one study, are held in more than 400 House districts. Said one aide to Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.), who opposes the carriers, “There’s enough pork for almost everyone on those ships.” Another factor is leadership. Against strong presidential support for military procurement, some Democrats complain that House leaders are still unwilling to foresake weapons proposals rejected by former president Jimmy Carter. By and large, Democrats continue to support Reagan’s military buildup. (Even Sen. Boilings asserted last week that his new born opposition to the MX was simply a way to force downsizing of tlie modernization program.) When congressmen fail to tad MX or the B-1, they’ll still beundei ure to cut defense, and they'll where it hurts most: in construct sonnel and maintenance, assert control over long-term gro the military budget, Congress make short-term economiesina are already short-changed. “The basic lay of the lan changed,” said Warren Nelsonian Pentagon critic Rep. Les Aspin( “Members don’t want to challen military experts on a particular« system.” For Democrats, a standoffonij would negate whatever spoil! earned in the 1982 elections. Af| responsible defense spending almost universal theme among Del tic candidates. Unless they move™ on their vow now, they’ll bevulnef charges that their forte is win tions, not leading the nation. For the country at large, theirBj resolve would only extend theecool misery caused, in part, by the tk| If fall is continuing deficits. Short of pressure from constituents, lawn will continue to see short-term) advantage in funding weapons( tors at the expense of the ecouj health. “It would have been a satisfying victory if we could have beaten t.u., and a win that would have been a credit to the strength and cohesiveness of our team and student body; but besides that, I sure had counted on having Monday off.” Get more peace by Helen Thomas United Press International WASHINGTON — President Reagan’s address to the nation Monday was billed in advance as an arms control speech. His aides attempted to fix a time to beam it live to Europe by satellite, but after looking ; over the final draft, prepared mainly by the National Security Council hardliners, they de- - cided that home consumption was preferable. 1 The speech was originally intended to con- ‘ vey that the United States was in the forefront * of the disarmament drive, and to blueprint - proposals that Reagan first suggested last ’ June for preventing a nuclear accident ‘ through surprise or miscalculation. * Instead, events caused Reagan to focus on * his decision to go ahead with deployment of ’ the MX ballistic missile and $1.6 trillion de- '■ fense budget. His proposals to the new Kremlin leaders ■ for an expanded “hot line” and a “broad rang- ing exchange of data” on nuclear forces to clear the air of “some of the mutual ignorance and suspicion between our two countries” were overshadowed by his chalk talk on why - the United States had to play catch up with the I Soviets. “You often hear that the United States and * the Soviet Union are in an arms race,” Reagan - said. “The truth is that while the Soviet Union I has raced, we have not.” * “Today, in virtually every measure of milit- ' ary power of the Soviet Union enjoys a de- - cided advantage,” he said. - “Unless we demonstrate the will to rebuild ~ our strength and restore the military balance, ' the Soviets, since they are so far ahead, have - little incentive to negotiate with us,” he said. . “If we had not begun to modernize, the Soviet * negotiators would know we had nothing to ' bargain with except talk.” ^ Many lawmakers and Reagan himself view . the nuclear arsenal more as a bargaining chip I than as deadly weapons that can obliterate the ' world. The United States has been building nuc lear bombs since the 1940s and its own stock pile is nothing to sniff at. Terror on both sides has served as the deterrent to a nuclear holo caust. But is either side willing to lessen the dan gers of an Armageddon? From the angry rhe toric, it may be hard to believe, but in fact the United States and the Soviets have reached negotiated agreements and abided by them, starting with the comprehensive test ban in the early 1960s. Also, the SALT II treaty initiated by Richard Nixon and the late Leonid Brezhnev and negotiated by Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, while never ratified, is in force by both sides. Reagan says he wants “deep cuts” in nuc lear arms and Brezhnev’s successor, Yuri Andropov, has likened the U.S. proposals on the negotiating table as “unilateral disarma ment.” “We are not a naive people,” Andropov told a meeting of the Communist Party, and promised to maintain Soviet military strength “at the proper level.” But tough as Andropov sounded in Amer ican terms, he still stressed the need for nego tiation rather than confrontation and said he would seek detente. So both sides are seeking peace through strength. At the Pentagon and the White House, some of the planners must, and do, concentrate on the nation’s ability to survive a first strike. But there appear to be precious few who are focused on possible comprom ises. by Rebel 1 Ba iBryan Cit ml olliciab Jmies cleba nance whk: Hie compai the use ol | special w Honda v. E Recent finds in the prompted t er how the •moved fr Iv, natural the city by burned off [in the city. The coi ares need Em questii lines are th r COULWirSTANP ir„. HEKePf MAKING A m OFME, > PMAmmmmmm'B&PBe&.mm. anp then r HMPwme nmmmsmomi Identifying Charlie McCarthy Reagan has expressed his concern that schoolchildren are discussing “the most night marish aspects of a nuclear holocaust in their class rocams.” “Their letters are often full of terror,” he added, and said: “This should not be so.” And the president said he considers it a “sacred trust” to wipe out those fears. The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member ot Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference Editor Diana Sultenfuss Managing Editor Phyllis Henderson Associate Editor y Denise Richter City Editor (iary Barker Assistant City Editor . Hope E. Paasch Sports Editor Frank L. Christlieb Entertainment Editor Nancy Floeck Assistant Entertainment Editor Colette Hutchings News Editors Cathy Capps, Jennifer Carr, JohnaJo Maurer, Daniel Puckett, Jan Werner, Todd Woodard Staff Writers Jennifer Carr, Susan Dittman, Beverly Hamilton, David Johnson, John Lopez, Robert McGlohon, Carol Smith, Dana Smelser, Joe Tindel, John Wagner, Rebeca Zimmermann Copyeditors Elaine Engstrom, Jan Swaner, Chris Thayer Cartoonist Scott McCullar Graphic Artist Pam Starasinic Photographers David Fisher, Jorge Casari, Ronald W. Emerson, Octavio Garcia, Irene Mees, John Ryan, Robert Snider Editorial Policy paper operated as a community service to Texas A&M University 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 Texas A&M University administrators or faculty mem bers, or of the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography clas ses within the Department of Communications. Questions or comments concerning any editorial mat ter should be directed to the editor. 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. Letters Policy Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 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 and 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 Uni versity, College Station, TX 77843, or phone (713) 845- 2611. The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting news- The Battalion is published daily during Texas A&M’s fall and spring semesters, except for holiday and exami nation periods. Mail subscriptions are $ 16.75 per semes ter, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Adver tising rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. by Arnold Sawislak United Press International WASHINGTON — There is a theory that many ventriloquists are basically shy people who need a dummy to express their true feel ings. Thus, Edgar Bergen was the reasonable, avuncular nice guy and Charlie McCarthy was the brash, acerbic smart guy. But it was clear always that Charlie McCarthy really was Edgar Bergen. That may have been what Gov. William Janklow of South Dakota was driving at at a recent meeting of Republican governors in Kansas City. The blunt-talking governor sug gested that one problem GOP candidates brought on themselves in 1982 campaigns was their ambivalent, perhaps hypocritical, atti tude toward the campaign tactics of groups like the National Conservative Political Action Committee, also known as “Nikpac.” Richard Richards, the soon-to-depart Re publican national chairman, came under some fire in 1981 for attacking Nikpac and other “independent” conservative political ac tion groups that specialize in harsh “negative” attacks on candidates, usually Democrats. The groups are not formally linked with Republican candidates and as a result have no legal limits on how much they can spend on their campaigns. It was Richards’ point that such groups are bad news for major parties and their candidates because they are respon sible to neither and engage in questionable campaign tactics. But Richards’comments were contradicted by some friendlier observations about Nikpac by Lyn Nofzinger, at that time the White House political chief, and it was widely assumed that the president’s political advisers did not want to read such groups out of the GOP campaign equation. At the governors’ meeting, White House pollster Richard Wirthlin conceded that some of the tactics of Nikpac-type groups had boomeranged against Republican candidates in 1982, and that their won-lost record this year was not good. But he stopped short at any suggestion that the party take a strong stand against them. Janklow was not so shy. “When are we going to just stand up and speak out against these people like Nikpac?” he asked his colleagues. “We dance around it all the time, but the fact of the matter is that they’re not helping any candidates. They’re creating nothing but turmoil,” said Janklow. Referring to Nikpac director Terry Dolan, Janklow said, “You only need to listen to Dolan for five minutes . to realize that he can’t help anyone’s campaign. Yet candidate after candidate secretly wants him to come into the state . (even if) they disvow him publicly:’ Ever since 1978, when Dolan and theoli independent conservative political acti groups began coming into the political pit® in a big way, the targets of their highspeni hobnail-boot campaigns have claimed tl® was more than an arms-length relatioitsk between those groups and the candidates#! benefit from their activities. Janklow, in ef fect, confirmed that in f tics as well as show business, that thevenri quist and the dummy are only one personal 1 that eventually, the audience catches on that fact. Berry s World © 1982 by NEA. Inc “HEY! CM ON, MAN! I’m ‘arrogant, rude and smug’ because I got LOW SELF-ESTEEM. ’’