Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 24, 1983)
—opinion Rich Republicans, poor Democrats by Steve Gerstel United Press International WASHINGTON — Democrats, de spite signal successes in the elections, are deeply concerned about their inability to even keep up with the Republicans in the vital area of fund-raising. The Democrats made sizable gains in the House, added a parcel of new gov ernors and held the GOP to a dead heat in the Senate although Republicans raised and spent much more. The House Democratic Study Group, after sifting through the financial re cords at the Federal Elections Commis sion, found the outlook bleak. The Study Group found that “the dol lar trap between the two parties widened substantially, both in total receipts and in the amount of financial help the parties provided their House and Senate candi dates.” The comparison between the Demo crats’ and Republican three party com mittees — national, Senate and congres sional — lends no encouragement. The GOP party committees outraised their Democratic counterparts $180.4 million to $27.4 million — an astounding $158 million. Both parties raised more than in the past but the gap widened, from $109 million in 1980 and $47 mil lion in 1978. The Study Group said that in terms of f inancial help to candidates, “the bottom line in campaign fund-raising,” the dis parity is worse for Democrats. 4’he party gap more than doubled, growing f rom $6 million in 1978 to $ 1 5.4 million in 1 982. And as fund-raising begins for the 1984 elections, the Republicans are in much, much better shape. The GOP starts out the year with a $8.5 million surplus and $2.2 in debts, for a net seed money of $6.3 million. The Democrats, on the other hand, have only $876,000 on hand and $3.1 million in debts, for a net minus of $2.2 million. Fund-raising efforts may be prove even more dif f icult this year and next for the Democrats as the multitude of pres idential candidates siphon off potential money. One of them, Sen. Alan Cranston, D- Calif., is considered superb at raising political money and for the last two years conducted a a one-man foray for Demo cratic megabucks. His adroitness is shown by the fact that he already has qualified for federal matching funds for his presidential campaign. But he’s not the only one plumbing the same source. There’s former Vice Presi dent Walter Mondale, Sens. Ernest Hol- lings, Gary Hart and John Glenn, for mer Florida Gov. Reubin Askew and maybe Rep. Morris Udall. Republicans have no such problem. It President Reagan seeks a second term, he will not be seriously challenged. But even if Reagan steps down, there remains all sorts of Republican money around the country — recession or no recession. In a bow to the GOP, the Study Group says: “The growing money gap between the partiesis due to the phenomenal effectiveness of the Republican fund raising machine rather than to failure on the part of the Democratic fund-raisers. The Study Group pointed out that the Democrats raised $8.5 million more in 1 98 I -82 than in 1979-80 but Republicans increased their haul $52.3 million. “Thus, the persistently widenining dollar gap raises serious questions as to whether it will be possible, as has been hoped, to significantly reduce the differ ence over the next decade — if ever,” the Study Group concluded. But in the very next sentence, the Study Group showed the reason why the gap cannot be narrowed and puts into question the Democrats’ hope that the difference could grow smaller by the end of the decade. The Study Group said that the Repub lican committees have nearly 4 million contributors and growing while the Democrats have 300,()()(). And if history is a guide, the Republicans have the richer donors. Slouch Earle “That’s it? I come to you, an experienced upperclassman, in all seriousness and ask you how I can make good ■ The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member ot Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference Editor Diana Sultenfuss Managing Editor Gary Barker Associate Editor Denise Richter City Editor Hope E. Paasch Assistant City Editor Beverly Hamilton Sports Editor .I 0 ! 111 Wagner Entertainment Editor C'olette Hutchings Assistant Entertainment Editor. . . . Diane Yount News Editors. . . Jennifer Carr, Elaine Engstrom, Johna Jo Maurer, Jan Werner, Rebeca Zimmermann Staff Writers Maureen Carmody, Frank Christlieb, Patrice Koranek. John Lopez. Robert McGlohon, Ann Ramsbottom, Kim Schmidt, Patti Schwierzke, Angel Stokes, Tracey Taylor, Joe Tindel Copyeditors Daunt Bishop. Jan Swaner, Chris Thayer Cartoonist Scott McCullar Graphic Artist Pam Starasinic Photographers David Fisher, Jorge Casari, Ronald W. Emerson, Octavio Garcia, Rob Johnston, Irene Mees Editorial Policy The Biittulion is a non-profit, self-supporting news 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 matter should be directed to the editor.. 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 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. 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. Battalion/Paf January 24, Ic GREKT HEWS, SER6EANL0URBIWE13 BEEN CUT WITHOUT 0E0PARPIZ1NG OUR DEFENSE,, by Da) Battalii Exploring f ; laxin£ in the Hjppean mai ijng six st t at the sj if the ad •xperienc gough a spi ■fered by T( Dr. Caroh f student acti fAMU in It being offer immer sessi iat most ma pcourses i lan. The cot ■ment, 1 Space H by Brig Battal Can we neglect programs Lone Star )on will be foject HAP nee prograr istrict man atnpany sail District N (tv said Pn ,igm d to h< j,one Star’ss laving diffi icating bills In 1957, the Soviet Union placed Sputnik in orbit. Sputnik was not a re markable technological achievement but its existence so shocked the United States that they launched the largest peaceful venture in U.S. history based solely on the advancement of technology. Twelve years later, the U.S. placed the first man on the moon. Why did the United States respond in this manner to Sputnik? Why did the country pour billions of dollars into the space program to accomplish this scien tific novelty? when we have released a billion dollar burden? The answer is simple. The space program was never a burden, it was an investment; an investment that never failed to produce a profit. And yet this .HCarol N NASA’s main goal was thedevi jC t e s tar q of the Space Shuttle, a |3rojeci«| only a minor part of NASA’™ plan for space colonization. I Then, in 1975, the HouseG® on Science and Technology 11 [ Reader’s Forum In 1957, someone realized the space program would not only benefit science, it would also produce a profit. That per son or group of persons was able to con vince the legislature of this and for 12 years the space program brought un countable scientific advancements to the United States, including automated qual ity control procedures, superconducting and semiconducting electronic materials. Teflon, f irefighting methods, medical in struments and communication systems. All of these advancements produced re venue. The country develoj^ed high technolo gy and sold it throughout the world. In 1969, our chief export was technology. We improved the world’s standard of liv ing and made a profit. We also came to a greater understanding of the Earth and its many systems. We increased the amount of time our race could survive on the Earth while working towards inde pendence from the confines of a fragile planet that cannot support us forever. Today, our space program is in serious trouble. Recent budget cuts have cancel led a planned mission to study Halley’s comet. An industrial park in space sujd- ported by lunar materials has been re jected. Plans for a solar powered satellite that would supply about as much power as the Grand Coullee Dam are in serious trouble. T he benefits of the space prog ram are being sacrificed to support a weakening economy. Because of this our chief export is now agriculture. Howev er, our economy is still weakening. Why has our economy not responded investment has been withdrawn by our recent legislatures on the advice of eco nomic advisers. Neither of these groups can be ex pected to understand research at the level necessary for ventures outside Earth’s atmosphere but they are ex pected to understand the basics of econo mics. A profit cannot be made without investment. New technology produces profit but it needs money to keej) it pro ducing. The space program has consis- tantly produced new technology, it has consistantly applied this technology to marketable developments and it has con sistantly produced a profit directly to the U.S. government through exports and indirectly through private enterprise. Ignoring this, current legislatures have reduced the space program to less than 1 percent of the national budget. The profits produced by the space program were not enough to overcome the lack of understanding, and thereby lack of confidence, in space technology. Industrialization and colonization out side of Earth’s atmosphere is viewed by our nation’s leaders as nothing more than fantasy. In 1969, however, the Space Task Group, chaired by Spiro Agnew, announced plans to land men on Mars. Included in these plans were a 100- man sjjace base, orbiting lunar stations, a station on the lunar surface, a reusable space shuttle and a manned expedition to Mars tentatively scheduled for the mid- 1980s. These projects were planned using technology available in 1969. In 1969, Congress was confident we could move successf ully into space and benefit econo mically and scientifically. In 1971, $750 million “to lay the found advanced projects, such as mw and orbital colonies.” These collapsed. Would a space colony on® park have jmned profitable ing economy I he space progfii^p^ record ol success said yes. f fexas A&E 1971 and 1975 said no. WitlHsemeste budget cuts we may never knoiate this sur Our nation’s leaders are williii|flcial says lect our space program evenRob can benefit the United States ecu® ^ assistai , here i,|Maha.r nachines a ly and scientifically, another reason for rejuvini™„ R . . space program. We know that! )sed Union has jdans for colonizingii® betweei well as a budget that suppo!| the teller plans. We also know that theSo'fersity,” Sir established a military foothold lone, a cor and have the capability of destni# of th satellite presently in Earthd'Prded.” course, the Soviet Union current!B nsta N at ’ reason to do this but suchpowB viewed as a threat to national r since it endangers worldwide col cation and scientific research, i With this knowledge, can wet ■ to neglect our space program:| content to leave all research in ly our Department of Defense? HB cessful could any peaceful ventR sj^ace be in tbe presence of all outside our atmosphere? We are choking a good portiot high technology research, failinj advantage of an investment i „ helped our economy without fa I past and jjossibly trappingound| planet that must eventually been habitable. Can we afford to neglect o* program? Our national leaders * ing to, but in our representativi the choice is ultimately ours. < S N Doug Dalglish is a freshman gineering major f rom Sari Ant* ‘Bonzonomics’ booming by Dick West United Press International WASHINGTON — Call it, if you must, “Bonzonomics.” Unlike “Reaganomics,” named for the human half of the famous 1951 Holly wood collaboration, “Bonzonomics” is booming. Ever since Ronald Reagan got into politics, the commercialization of his chimpanzee co-star has prospered accordingly. Last year, Reagan’s second in the White House, the sale of posters featur ing the heroes of “Bedtime for Bonzo” topped the 100,000 mark. Bonzo T- shirts and bumper stickers also were sell ing like Smurfs. And now comes word that a Bonzo cartoon character is being introduced. Created by Bill Rechin, who also draws the “Crock” comic strip, it will appear on greeting cards, knapsacks, lunch boxes and the like. I’m not suggesting a switch to “Bonzo nomics” would be a sure-fire prescription for recovery. But if “supply side” mea sures don’t end the recession soon, it may be necessary to try something on the si mian side. Here are a few programs that might be considered: Bonzo smoke detectors — As you may be aware, the original chimp who appeared on the silver screen with our chief executive died in an animal dormi tory fire in 1952. So what could be a more appropriate than to imprint the new Bonzo cartoon on smoke detectors? Only instead of sounding conventional alarm signals, this model would emit monkey chatter. Bonzo stamps — Supplementing the food stamp program, stamps imprinted with the Bonzo cartoon and issued by welfare agencies could be traded in at supermarkets for bunches of bananas. Would greatly strengthen the economic “safety net” as long as nobody slipped on the peelings. Bonzomobile — Built to compete with Japanese imports, this auto would be s N equipped with a prehensile t* enabling it to swing from trees „ suit would be cheaper parkingth* S hel|4 revive the auto industry, thf> S mulating the entire economy. Video game — Bonzo cartooi swings across top of screen di coconuts. Players try to zapthe«S before they hit the ground. Extf awarded for zapping Bonzo. On 1 of each quarter collected would' to reduce the budget deficit. Bonzo World — An amusemt 1 with a jungle theme. Workers"* hired to dress up in chimpani tumes, thereby reducing the ment rate. Tm not convinced the preside 1 self should indulge in blatant tion. But there is nothing, app‘ that Congress won’t do, partis campaign contributions or hono [i for after-dinner speeches are in" Just form a Bonzo politicalacti^ mittee (BONPAC), and the nn legislation will be forthcoming. N << c V. M 325