—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