Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 14, 1983)
r Page 2/The Battalion/Friday, October 14,1983 It takes more work to get paid today by Art Buchwald I never believe government figures when it comes to how the nation’s eco nomy is doing. I talk to people. In the past months I discovered, while orders are up in the building business, payments are slowing down. A painter told me, “I can get all the work I want right now. The only problem I have is collecting for it after I do the job.” “Why don’t you ask for the money up front?” I asked. “If I do that I can’t get the job. I have this building contractor I work for and he couldn’t sell his condos until they were painted. So he came to me and said, ‘I’ll give you $25,000 to paint my apart ments.’ I said, ‘When will I get paid?’ And he said, ‘As soon as you finish the job.’ Then I said, ‘Where do I get the money now to pay for the paint and my work ers?’ And he said, ‘The same place I get mine, from the bank. Look, just tell me if you don’t want the contract. I can always get somebody else.’” “So what did you do?” I asked. “A job’s a job, so I painted his condos. When I finished I gave him my bill. He said he’d send me a check in the morning. A week later I called to find out where the check was, and his secretary said the con tractor was racing a sailboat to Bermuda. “Three weeks later I bumped into him coming out of a fancy restaurant with a bunch of friends, ana he introduced me as the best painter in Washington. He said it was lucky he ran into me because he was going to call me in the morning to ask me if I could paint a second group of condos he just finished in the same de velopment. “I said, ‘I’d love to do it but I haven’t been paid for the other condos yet.’ He said he couldn’t pay me for the first con dos until he sold the second ones. I said, ‘Why is that?’ And he said because the bank wouldn’t lend him any money to finish the new condominiums until he paid back his loan on the ones I painted. I said, ‘It doesn’t solve my problem because the same bank wants me to pay back the 25,000 plus interest I borrowed to paint the first condos.’ “He said I should never borrow more than I can afford to pay back. He wanted to know if I would do the painting job on the new development or not. “I had to say okay. If I didn’t paint the second ones I had no chance of getting my money back on the first ones. But I was tough about it. I demanded a deposit before I picked up a paintbrush.” “As a down payment for the second job?” “No, as partial payment for the first one. How could I ask him for money for the second job when he still owed me for the other?” “And he agreed to do it?” “He said it was only fair. The next morning he sent over a small check with a nice note saying as soon as I finished the condos of the seecond development I would be paid in full for both jobs.” “So you painted the second condos, and then what happened?” “I didn’t hear from him for three months. I was about to turn it over to a lawyer when I got a call from him asking me if I was interested in painting an old building he had just bought in downtown Washington. I said, ‘Where’s my money for the other two paint jobs?’ “He said he use it as a down payment on the old building he wanted me to paint. Once it was fixed up he planned to sell it at a large profit, and he had me down for a $5,000 bonus. “I said I wasn’t born yesterday and if I agreed to do the job it would cost him $90,000 plus a $15,000 bonus.” “What did he say to that?” “He said, ‘What choice do I have? Workmen always have contractors over a barrel.’” Reagan’s still mum about future plans By Helen Thomas United Press International WASHINGTON — Backstairs at the White House: There has been widespread specula tion in Washington circles that Nancy Reagan is not very gung ho about a second term for her husband. But she has said all along that she would be suppor tive of whatever he decides. Mrs. Reagan, like all first ladies, has enjoyed some aspects of life in the White House. But she often feels confined. The president himself let the cat out of the bag when he said in a recent interview that Mrs. Reagan was reluctant about a bid for another four years in the White House but is “willing” to go along if he gives the word. So far, Reagan has not given the word. He is holding out, he says, until the last possible moment. That can be read many ways, and is. His aides believe 100 per cent that he will run again. But they also admit that they are somewhat out on a limb until he gives the green light. Clearly he cannot be pushed into announcing his decision, one way or another. The aides have tried that, gent ly, and so have many of his political advisers. There is no longer any doubt that the first couple have discussed their political future but so far they have not tipped their hands. Deputy press secretary Larry Speakes, who has developed a warm friendship with the Los Angeles Dodgers, made arrangements to attend the last playoff game in Philadelphia between the Dod gers and the Phillies. He spent time with the team and, with some help from manager Tommy Lasor- da, had his son Jeremy outfitted in a Dod gers uniform as a bat boy for the evening. But the power of the White House did not prevail: the Dodgers lost. The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member ot Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference Editor Hope E. Paasch Managing Editor Beverly Hamilton City Editor Kelley Smith Assistant City Editor Karen Schrimsher Sports Editor Melissa Adair Entertainment Editor.... Rebeca Zimmermann Assistant Entertainment Editor Shelley Hoekstra News Editors Brian Boyer, Kathy Breard, Kevin Inda, Tracey Taylor, Chris Thayer, Kathy Wiesepape Photo Editor Eric Evan Lee Staff Writers Robin Black, Brigid Brockman, Bob Caster, Ronnie Crocker, Kari Fluegel, Tracie Holub, Bonnie Langford, John Lopez, Kay Denise Mallett, Christine Mallon, Michelle Powe, Ann Ramsbottom, Stephanie Ross, Angel Stokes, Steve Thomas, John Wagner, Karen Wallace, Wanda Winkler Copy Editors Kathleen Hart, Kristal Mills, Susan Talbot Cartoonists Paul Dirmeyer, Scott McCullar Photographers Michael Davis, Guy Hood, John Makely, Dean Saito 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 telephone number of the writer. Columns and guest editorials also are 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 (409) 845- 2611. Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting news- The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holi day and examination periods. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertising 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. Idea of ‘industrial policy’ won’t sell to some officials by Maxwell Glen and Cody Shearer WASHINGTON — September was the crudest month yet for those who want to chart America’s ecomonic future. Their cause, “industrial policy,” took a thrashing from Right ana Left. Yet October, and the prospect for con sensus in Congress on the need for gov ernment activism in the economy, won’t necessarily bring a better reception. Out side the incestuous confines of Washing ton and academia, industrial policy may always have an image problem. In a Sept. 30 speech in San Francisco, James C. Miller, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, condemned the no tion that America needs a central author ity to select and subsidize industries most likely to be internationally competive. Miller warned implicitly that such a body, “insulated from politics,” would encour age “despotism.” Only two days earlier, Charles L. Schultze, the former chief economic adviser to Jimmy Carter, had expressed his own doubts that a collection of gov ernment, business and labor leaders could pick “winners” more efficiently than the marketplace without protecting “losers” against foreign imports. Having challenged the very premise of industrial policy in a paper for the Brookings Insti tution, Schultze blamed recession and the dollar’s strength — not, for example, pri vate mismanagement — for industry’s troubles. The professor’s critique came just as the AFL-CIO was preparing to release a report echoing many Democrats’ calls for massive government participation in in dustrial development. It could only have been a blow to those who are trying to inject credibility and clarity into what appears to be confusing and partisan concept. gourmet restaurants with fresh- imported — fish and vegetables.Ac mg to Venture magazine, FlyingFa: now a $3-million company, withoi five cities. Yet industrial policy enthusiasts face a more significant obstacle to public sup port. That is the highly-hyped emerg ence of modern-day Horatio Algers. Take Bill Gates. Eight years ago, while a sophomore at Harvard, the Seattle na tive concocted an easily understood lan guage, called BASIC, for programming personal computers. Today, Cates’ dorm room/lab has evolved into Microsoft Corp., a supplier of software for almost half the personal computers shipped in America and a $70 million company this year. Take Mitch Kapor. Five Years ago, Kapor interrupted a career that had in cluded transcendental meditation and psycological counseling to buy a personal computer and refresh programming skills he’d learned in high school. Last week, Kapor’s 18-month-old company, Lotus Development Corp., went public, basking in profits ($2.8 million during the first six months of this year) princip ally from the sales of a computer prog ram designed by the 32-year-old Long Island native. Or take Walter Martin, Paul Moriates and Andy Udleson. Two Years ago, the young trio (none is over 26) pooled sav ings and founded Flying Foods to supply These successful entrepreneurs others like Apple Computer’s Stevt and Fred Smith of Federal ExpressM - come to rival professional athlete Sr actors in star quality. Morethanamlt pie of Adam Smith, they’ve helptll convince many Americans that fr#B.l terprise survives rather well intlitp dow of adversity. Unfortunatelij advocates of industrial policy, sudil cation has only helped to sap# M momentum. a ^" to / Industrial policy suffers foranutprst of reasons, not the least of whicltipcal proponents’ continuing proclivitt I ^ vague and often impractical expl?sP ul lions. Everyone involved still seen have his or her own idea aboutwliM 0] industrial policy should be. Moretl \ despite calls for a “national developr||j s , bank” and “infrastructure refurl^iut ment,” staff members now draftee House and Senate industrial policys# ments aren’t likely to give their propp 1 ^ any teeth in the present fiscal ditnift^ But as losers give way to winnerc, jc ernment, not private industry, wilftn mately shoulder the biggest burdeilut easing workers’ transition fromjobtojftes Managing that burden may evenlil* C come to be what industrial policyi are about, and at some point even theslf ass ‘ tics will have to take it seriously, gra Korean crisis aids Reagan image By Norman D. Sandler WASHINGTON — The temperate U.S. response to the Sept. 1 Soviet attack on Korean Air Lines Flight 007 created thunder on the right for President Reagan, but may have a beneficial impact on his overall political standing. White House strategists, who probe public opinion on a daily basis for Reagan’s strengths and weaknesses, re port favorable reaction to his handling of the KAL 007 affair may stem a tide of eroding confidence in his foreign policy. some perceptions of the Reagan foreign policy.” Reading between the lines, Reagan’s advisers hope that the same restrained reaction that has infuriated one critical political constituency — the far right — will help allay the fears of voters with more moderate views that he is prone to sudden, drastic action guided by an in stinctive aversion to communism. While Reagan has boasted then ambitious arms control agenda i president, his aides have acknowld that it “takes two to negotiate.” And# significant breakthroughs surely fj cause his political stock to soar,, den setback to the talks — perhapseitj continued stalemate — could nave opposite effect. Since the days of the campaign, Reagan has had to contend with what one senior aide calls “the warmonger image” — the view that he is too quick to use military power and the politics of con frontation in response to crisis. “But we’re still not out of the woods,” said one White House official. Republican strategists attribute anxie ty about Reagan’s stewardship of foreign policy to persistent reports of factional fighting within the administration as well his recent decisions to respond to trouble in Central America, the Middle East and Africa with shows of military force. Slouch b yJ imEi 4i Despite his best efforts, Reagan has been unable to completely shake that tag since taking office. But in recent months, the “war and peace” issue has become an even greater concern to his political advisers. While Reagan boasts his policies have cured the nation of the Vietnam syn drome, survey findings suggest the same bitter legacy has caused new alarms to sound in the minds of many voters. Polls show voters have greater confi dence in the Democrats’ ability to prevent nuclear war, spend defense dollars with prudence and create an atmosphere of better relations between the super powers. What was once viewed as a Reagan strength — his 1980 campaign relied heavily on warnings of a weakened America — has become a sore spot in his appraisal by voters. Ironically, the eco nomy — the issue on which many Demo crats had hoped the 1984 election might hinge — has been going in his direction. But there are signs this problem may be mitigating. “He’s gotten a big boost from the way he handled the KAL 007 shootdown,” said one top Reagan aide. “It appears to have helped his overall job approval rating and may straighten out But the prevailing attitude at the White House has taken on a new under tone of optimism in recent days, bol stered most by polls showing most Amer icans agree with the way Reagan has dealt with the Soviets. Reagan’s advisers also draw encour agement from the ceasefire in Lebanon and his announced plan to visit China next year. The former is still regarded with crossed fingers, while an election- year trip to China is viewed as a certain political plum. The trip indicates Washington and Peking share a desire for closer relations and have agreed to disagree over the thorny issue of Taiwan. Still a variable on the Reagan foreign policy scorecard is the outcome of the arms control negotiations now under way in Europe. “It could be that you are cof fused. Most of us sun our mi tresses once in awhile, you’re the first guy I evf heard of who leaves hi springs in the sun.”