Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 22, 1983)
e Page 2/The Battalion/Tuesday, March 22, 1983 Garage sale U.S government by Art Buchwald The U.S. government is continuing its garage sale. First James Watt announced he was going to sell off a lot of federal land that we didn’t need, and now the White House has announced President Reagan’s plans to sell the U.S. Weather Service. The reason given, of course, is to save money arid involve the private sector in activities that it might perform as well or better than the federal government. The irony of the decision is that while most Americans always complain about the weather, I’ve never heard anyone gripe about the U.S. Weather Service. It was one of the few services the govern ment provided that worked well, whether you were on land, sea or in the air. , I have no objection to Mr. Reagan sell ing off our weather satellites and ground stations to private enterprise, but the big question is how would a company make any money on the weather? A weather analyst with Merrill Lynch told me he thought the profits were there, provided that enough people were willing to pay for a forecast. “The company would have to set up a rate card for different types of weather,” he told me. “For example, if you wanted to find out what the weather would be like tomorrow in your own town it might cost you a dollar. If you wanted to know what the weather was like in another area, it would be $3 a prediction. And if you wanted the weather profile for the entire United States, it would be $10.” “What about hurricanes and bliz zards?” “I believe hurricanes and blizzards would be worth $25. Tornado warnings would be $50, and there would be a sur charge for any predictions coming out of Canada.” “Why would someone pay for a weath er forecast if they could get it f ree on television?” “No company would buy the weather satellites unless it was assured that they would be the sole distributor of weather information. The TV stations would have to pay substantial fees for the ser vice, if they’re going to transmit this copyrighted information to their viewers for nothing.” “Who do you foresee as the large users of the private weather service?” “The government will probably be the number one customer. They need weath er information for planes, ships, and when the Queen of England visits the West Coast. I predict the large govern ment contracts for weather will pay for the system, and everything after that will be profit.” “If the government is going to pay mil lions of dollars for the service, why don’t theyjust keep it, instead of selling it off?” “The president wants the government out of as many things as possible. His philosophy is that the federal weather forecasters should get off the people’s backs. He doesn’t believe some Washing ton bureaucrat should be telling the far mers in Nebraska they’re in for a hail storm.” “What worries me,” I said, “is that if a private company takes over the weather service it might tend to predict better weather than is actually coming, just to attract new subscribers.” “The company might at the beginning. But if they’re wrong too many times, the customer will just cancel out on them, and tune into the BBC, for their weather Extra costs unfair to consume^ reports. USPS 045 360 Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editor Diana Sultenfuss Managing Editor Gary Barker Associate Editor Denise Richter City Editor Hope E. Paasch Assistant City Editor Beverly Hamilton Sports Editor John Wagner Entertainment Editor Colette Hutchings Assistant Entertainment Editor. . . . Diane Yount News Editors Daran Bishop, Brian Boyer, Jennifer Carr, Elaine Engstrom, Shelley Hoekstra, Johna Jo Maurer, Jan Werner, Rebeca Zimmermann Staff Writers Melissa Adair, Maureen Carmody, Frank Christlieb, Connie Edelmon, Patrice Koranek, John Lopez, Robert McGlohon, Ann Ramsbottom, Kim Schmidt, Patti Schwierzke, Kelley Smith, Angel Stokes, Tracey Taylor, Joe Tindel, Kathy Wiesepape Copyeditors JanSwaner, Chris Thayer Cartoonist Scott McCullar Graphic Artists Pam Starasinic Sergio Galvez Thompson, Fernando Andrade Photographers .... David Fisher, Eric Lee, Irene Mees, John Makely, William Schulz .->c I I 111/. Editorial Policy The li;Ut;ilion is ;i non-profit, sclf-suppoitinu news paper operated 'as a eoninntnit\ scr\ice to I e\as \MM University and lirvan-C.ollejre Station. Opinions ex pressed in The Battalion ate those of the editor or the author, and do not net essat it\ t epiesent the opinions ot Texas AfL-M Univeisil\ administrators ot fat iilt\ mem bers. or of the Board of Repents. The Battalion also seis es as a l;ihorator\ new spaper lot students in reporting, editing and photographs t las ses within the Department ot ( amununit at ions. Questions or comments com erning am editorial matter should be directed to the editor. Letters Policy Letters to the Editor should not exc eed d()0 words in length, and are subject to being cut if diet are longer. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make evert ef fort 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 arid correspondence to: Editor. The Battalion, 21b Reed McDonald, Texas ARM Uni versity, College Station. TX 7784.'?. or phone (7 IS) 845- 2611. The Battalion is published daily during Texas ARM’s fall and spring semesters, except for holiday and exami nation periods. Mail subscriptions are $ 16.75 pet semes ter. $33.25 per school year and $35 per full y ear. Adver tising rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building. Texas ARM 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. by Maxwell Glen and Cody Shearer Every American must eat and, conse quently, purchase groceries as a matter of survival. But imagine, for the sake of argu ment, that grocery shoppers were re quired to fork over extra cash at the check-out counter each week to help build a new neighborhood supermarket. Never mind that the old store is amply stocked; never mind that the new super store may be 10 years in construction and even then may never open; we’d all have to foot the bill anyway. Despite the unfairness of bilking cus tomers for goods they haven’t ordered, an Energy Department agency last week OK’d the inclusion of power plant con struction costs in wholesale utility bills. As in our parable above, the decision sticks it to the consumer. The complex ruling by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), involving an esoteric area of utilities reg ulation, is designed to bail out hard- pressed electric utilities. Though the me asure directly affects only those large firms which sell power to smaller utilities, the new rule is expected to boost electric bills nationwide by at least 6 percent (and as much as 20 percent in some areas). Since its creation seven years ago, FERC has granted “Construction Works In Progress” (CWIP) authority only for pollution control or fuel conversion pro jects. Traditionally, however, Uncle Sam has almost always prevented the inclu sion of CWIP costs in utility bills. For one, the arguments against CWIP lie in an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court requirement that “assets” (rates) be “used and useful.” If granted CWIP authority, utilities can demand “front” money for power yet un generated and undelivered. Secondly, regulators have been reluctant to subsi dize utility investors on the backs of rate payers, insulating utility owners from marketplace risks. Indeed, for the record, utilities have provided good evidence for such wor ries. Some, like the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), under took massive building projects on the basis of flimsy demand projections (lur ing the 1920s. As a result, they’ve sunk their affiliated utilities into debt and ruined their credit ratings. Yet, after years of pressure from utili ties, FERC jilted American consumers last week, giving an effectively monopo listic industry the power, as Rep. l orn Harkin (D-Iowa) put it, “to gouge” as well. EERC voted unanimously to consid er CWIP-based financing for up to one- half of a utility’s construction costs. That is, a utility investing $100 million in new plant is now eligible for rate hikes of up to $50 million, in increments of no more than 6 percent a year. by 1 pay CWIP rate hikes todayn« around when the plant go« Senior cit i/en’s groups, whichfi lative restrictions on CWIP,: their members would he forced:| something that mam • -rhelu' m i Mt .mu hill . monger ••O highh mohilr .md hnsinea come and go ind.” an Vs til Pmvnh. an anonievlH|le. H with the Nai u>iiaI Com,,'ik! I poken m in Bosinii oild om ieporter,^» et t . 1 ) Did I \ Willi pn'it-tt leadtin)8^B^! ia times st i et( hing ovet a do ror j ts j n t I».n mm will hkeh he quitedi from tin.sr served later." RTnaui istration Moreover, since 1975 uti e [|bmen «.Dueled in* >1 e ih.in lOOpoM^llhe Sione 11,i\ e <osi ii|)w.ud of$4l^Bogra| build .md then dismantle 1 helped t<> m nd iiiilin hills up in the last decade. Warns CWIP had been routinely sure that investor-owned utM have waited longci than they(|*high, ( am (hug iheii |'l.intv and thllSI^nhS. i would li.iu is a blue FERC said the change will ease capital formation and reduce “any teiideno which may discourage construction of needed generating facilities.” It would also help, the feds said, to prevent sud den rate hikes when construction is finished. Added FERC Commissioner Georgiana Sheldon, “Ultimately, the ex pense is borne by the consumer whether you pay as you go, or not.” In only the largest sense, however, is Sheldon right: Consumers have to pay sooner or later. But which consumers pay is another matter. One case study has shown that at least one-third of those who to the consumei stantially higher.” lie eartl roiri the < >1 i (uii m . I I l\( s ilet isionii^Bnden seem iminrdiairh h.u infill.Acco^Bides .1 spokesman Im the Edison stittiii*. ih< in\mini-owned in oui). m > m iht\ ' ' F 3 ? 1 '' f’ iires ot | plant «< mis11 m i mii last year. anc j 5 ct in x< right vears,i^B^ , demand pi< t u i r u ill he diffettfll^H, gj tt in.i\ want to< .ipiiali/eonCWIR^P (on whether oi not we’ve forgotten■ pensive <>\ et building of the ISi'tH be worth i ememhering that (Iuh undelivered goods are toolsoftlw rupt. Unite Frogso ieir skii t only t e ab Letters: Politics dirty business Editor: Troopers reunion Concerning Greg Richard’s “Reagan and the Circus” letter of March 11. Thank you for a very enlightening and informative response to my letter. I know full well how the political system works. Unfortunately politics is dirty business: It is too bad Reagan’s campaign Editor: speeches could not match his actual pres idential policies. But I do not think that any presidential candidate’s platform has been able to match his presidential poli cies since Washington; and he did not have a presidential platform, except to serve the country. T he think I really thought was in teresting about your letter was your state ment about the New Deal’s basis’s as being facist. I guess what you must be trying to say is that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a facist and his democratically con trolled congress was also composed of facists. Furthermore, everyone since 1936 or so must be a facist in your eyes because most if not all of the New Deal (proposals are still intact. Not only that The 187 th “Rakkasans” of the Korean War fame, have recently formed after waiting 31 years. I served as a paratroop er with this elite “Team” during the Ko rean War and will appreciate your help now. “The 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team Association, known as the “Rakkasans”, composed of paratroopers who served during the Korean War, as the only Regimental Parachute Combat Team to Fight and serve in that war, has just recently formed their association. They are conducting a campaign to lo cate all former “Rakkasans,” and mem bers of Airborne/Ranger Companies. Please contact the undersigned or Robert F. Gilbert, National Membership Coordinator, 3657 Irwin Way, Col umbus, Georgia 31906 for detials of the association, as well as details about the ities at Texas A&M,” I still am their recognition because I believel will be to the greek institution and' the Twelfth Man. I’m not against greeks in genefl at A&M. Participation in a liaten 1 sorority can develop respond leadership skills and camaraderii person. reunion. Contact me at: 2833 Milton Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75205, (214) 368-4431. Leslie E. Beilharz but most of them have been expanded to proportions beyond belief. Moreover, as President Reagan quickly found out, they are difficult to get rid of; and as President Carter found out, nobody wants to pay for them. Loyalty to A&M Editor: The things that set this Uni apart from other universities are tin it and loyally. 1 believe that loyalt) shift from being an Aggie to ^ member of a particular frat sorority. A primary illustration ofl the scheduling of greek activities^ Silvefr Taps, basketball games and activities that make Texas A&MwW Everytime I see a bumper stickerot promoting greeks around camp think to myself, “ I hat could havep oted Texas A&M.” Many greeks claim to havetheirl# 1 to A&M first and then to theirorp tion. While they’re not recognized seems to be a predominant attitude question is where will the loyalty Id or 10 years after they’re recognize! If I could he convinced that ties and sororities would not trimental to the Spirit of Aggiel® would not object to their recognition until I’m convinced, I believe fortd nefit of this University, they shoul be recognized. Stephen Weiss ’84 After attending the debate on the “Value of Social Fraternities and Soror- Kirk C. Patte' Do! shop i