Page 2rThe Battalion/Friday, April 18, 1986
Million dollar boo boo
Gov. Mark White thought he was rescuing the state from the
rising tide of financial shortfall when he ordered 13 percent
budget cuts for higher education. But the governor’s life-pre
server policy floats as well as a brick.
White planned to save us from an anticipated $1.3 billion
dollar shortfall in state revenue created by the recent decline of
oil prices. But his budget-cutting remedy is in for some unex
pected cuts itself.
The governor’s plan ran into its first snag when Texas A&M
announced it would cut only 7 percent from next year’s budget.
Now White’s staff has discovered community colleges are
exempt from executive and legislative orders.
White assumed'that community colleges were under state ju
risdiction because they receive 65 percent of their funding from
the state. But community colleges are considered local agencies
that are controlled by local governing boards — not the State
Legislature. Neither state universities nor community colleges
have to conform to White’s executive order. But while the Legis
lature can mandate a budget cut for state schools, community
colleges are exempt.
The governor’s shortsightedness means a $115 million
shortfall in his plan to rescue the state from the revenue short
fall. It’s ridiculous that White didn’t research his shortfall pro
tection plan more thoroughly before submitting the state’s uni
versities and colleges to the budget ax.
Before the governor pulls out his scissors, he should know
whereof he cuts.
The Battalion Editorial Board
No startling secrets
in Stockman’s book
A short quiz.
Who wrote the fol
lowing?
“I was appalled
by the false prom
ises of the 1984
campaign. Ronald
Reagan had been
induced by his ad
visers and his own Richord
illusions to em- Cohen
brace one of the
more irresponsible platforms of mod
ern times. He had promised, as it were,
to alter the laws of arithmetic . . . After
four years in of fice, the Reaganites had
no more sense that governance involved
facing facts and making palatable
choices than they had at the beginning.”
(a) Walter Mondale in his book,
Where’s the Beef? (b) Tip O’Neill in an
offhand remark to his caddy (c) Gary
Hart in his book, My Favorite New Jer
sey Jokes (d) Jesse Jackson in his book,
If I Can Make It Rhyme, I Can Make It
Shine, or (e) David Stockman in The
Triumph of Politics.
Logic says that the correct answer is
anything but (e). After all, Stockman is
the self-styled conservative ideologue,
the man the Washington Post described
in a headline as “zealot.” That man
would not have waited until now to have
written such a statement. In all good
conscience, he would have spoken out
during the campaign itself. He would
have told the American people that he
— a Reagan administration insider —
knew the president was spouting hog-
wash.
But, alas, it is Stockman who now con
fesses that he was, by his own characteri
zation, the Albert Speer of the Reagan
administration — the technocrat who
knew better. There he was, surrounded
by dummies, PR men and bootlickers
who served a president who only dimly
understood his own economic program,
and he said nothing. Aside from his pe-
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conferehce
The Battalion Editorial Board
Michelle Powe, Editor
Kay Mallett, Managing Editor
Loren Steffy, Opinion Page Editor
Jerry Oslin, City Editor
Cathie Anderson, News Editor
Travis Tingle, Spot ts Editor
Editorial Policy
1 he Buitulion is u non-profit, self-supporting newspa
per operated as a community service to 7 exas ASc.M and
Br\an-College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the
Editorial Board or the author, and do not necessarily rep
resent the opinions of Texas AXr.M administrators, faculty
or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for
students in reporting, editing and photography classes
within the Department of Communications.
L Uited 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 re
served.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday dur
ing Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and
examination periods. .Mail subscriptions are $ 10.75 per se
mester. $30.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Ad
vertising lutes furnished on request.
Our address: 'The Battalion. 216 Reed .McDonald
Building. Texas ASc.M University. College Station. 1X
77843.
Second class postage paid at College Station. TX 77843.
POS'TMASTER: Send address changes to The Battal
ion. 210 Reed McDonald. Texas ASL\M University, College
Station TX 77843.
riodic indiscretions to William Greider,
pulbished in Atlantic Monthly, for
which he was sent to the woodshed,
Stockman clammed up. The 1984 elec
tion came and went with nary a word
from the the man. He had other obliga
tions. He was writing a $2.3 million
book.
What is the obligation of the public
man? Should Stockman have resigned
for policy, rather than personal, reasons
and made his differences clear? Did he
have a responsibility to a public that in
-1984 was going about the dismal busi
ness of choosing a president? After all,
he couches his policy differences with
the Reagan administration in gravest
terms: “If we stay the course we are now
on, the decade will end with a worse hy
perinflation than the one with which it
began.” To Stockman, at least, this is no
trivial matter.
The trouble with asking about the ob
ligation of the public man is that the
question is posed in a vacuum. In Stock
man’s case, the answer is complicated by
money. In other words, the question be
comes something like, “Should I enter
the debate now (probably to no avail) or
should I keep my mouth shut and put it
all in a book?” The $2.3 million answer
will be in bookstores by the end of the
month.
In some sense, the money Stockman
received for his book represents a kind
of bribe. Of course, we don’t see it that
way — and that word would never be
used to describe a book advance. But
what is it, if as seems to be the case it in
duces a public official to serve himself
first, a publisher second and the, last,
the public that paid his government sal
ary? In other words, would Stockman
have kept mum all this time if there had
been no book contract?
Only Stockman can provide that an
swer. And it may not be fair to come
down top hard on him. After all, it was
his candor that got him into trouble in
the first place (and probably accounts
for his whopping book advance). But
Stockman personifies what money is
doing in Washington, how the very
sound of vast amounts of it washing
around gets the attention of most gov
ernment officials — and not a few jour
nalists. Government service, like grad
uate school, is seen as a rite of passage
— something you do before making lots
of money. Prudence says you keep one
eye on a potential employer while, with
the other, you do the public’s business.
In Stockman’s case it means holding
your indignation until it can be sold.
In the end, Stockman’s book will
amount to nothing. We already know'
Reagan is disengaged, that he is allergic
to facts, in love with anecdotes and, by
afternoon, in need of a nap. Indeed,
Stockman comes across as yet another
Reagan child, petulantly trying to get
the old man’s attention by hurting him
just a bit. But Stockman has hurt him
self instead. He wrote a book that’s al
ready been written. It’s called “Looking
Out For Number One.”
Richard Cohen is a columnist for the
Washington Post Writers Group.
Opinion
Wet-c not the N.R.A
We just happened to be
our lives m peace when we
were sltot bj nuts mi
criminals who were able to
easily bu^^uns. |
Hmt s all we wanted to
Th
! Gabri
■MM ■ ■ M m ■ ■ i V OdUl 1
The price of tough-guy imagsp
President Rea
gan says that by
b o m b i n g Libya
and demonstrat
ing that we will re
spond to violence
with more vio
lence, the United
States has raised
the price of terror-
i s m . U n f o r t u -
nately, the United
jH*?
Si
Michelle
Powe
States also has raised the probability of
more terrorist attacks against Ameri
cans.
The air attack on Libya won’t stop
terrorism — Libyan or otherwise. All it
has accomplished is uniting Arab na
tions with Khadafy against the United
States; straining U.S. relations with
other nations, including the Soviet bloc;
killing innocent people; and sustaining
U.S. casualties. Tw'o U.S. pilots are miss
ing after the air attack and presumed
dead.
Is the likely loss of these pilots, the
cancelation of a meeting next month be
tween the Soviet foreign minister and
President Reagan and worldwide con
demnation worth the price of relieving
Reagan’s trigger finger?
There is no doubt that Moammar
Khadafy is a madman and a threat to
world security. He must be stopped or
contained somehow. But when we use
his own tactics against him, are we any
better than he? The United States has
attacked a city and killed innocent civil
ians. Our bombs took a 15-month-old
baby’s life. I guess that makes us one-
for-one with the terrorists now.
Even if the injured and killed people
were bombed accidentally by us, we are
still responsible. Even if all the damage
caused to our non-targets, including the
French embassy, actually was caused by
Libyan anti-aircraft missiles (which is
doubtful), we are still responsible be
cause the Libyans were trying to protect
themselves from our attack.
But what is the real message we have
sent to terrorists? Have we shown them
that the United States will not tolerate
any more anti-American aggression?
No. We don’t respond to terrorist acts
unless we know we can win.
Reagan did nothing when 248 ma
rines were killed in Lebanon in 1983.
He did nothing when an American sol
dier was shot and killed by a Soviet sen
try in East Germany is 1985.
Lebanon, Iran and Syria all are ha
vens for terrorists. Most experts believe
that Iran and Syria are much more re
sponsible for terrorism than Libya. But
their ties with the Soviet Union make
them hands-off to the United States. A
confrontation with one of these nations
might lead to a showdown with the So
viet Union.
So instead the United States picks on
the little guys. Instead of sending a
tough message to terrorists inclined to
attack Americans, the United States has
to
By
sent quite a different message
cowardly enemies: Besuretoal
self strongly with the Soviet Unioi
the United States will leave you all
If Reagan is going to esiii
strong anti-terrorism policy, htH
make sure that policy is cons The wor
must make ii < Ir.u !<> .ill terroiil^Js
s< >i 111c; ii.tt n ms ih.it the lHitedSuB? 016 * 1
i esp< m<I to .ill .k is i>1 lerrorisaiB 1 fj* 1 j,-.
si iiim not just w lien it sumvennM 11
Reagan also m fnaerous
, ‘Herons,
countrv lie represents is the i, a febi teS .
States — a country which is supp«fact, ;
value the sanctity of human 1 tported ii
man lilt We .tlilu>i tetrnrismlxa^Vious :
iis tnw.udue ,iiul senselessnejHoccur
mostly because its victims usual®
ikh cut b\ slanders. Yet whohatt® 1011 s ‘
tacked? Innocent people. Peopsl
did nothing to justify
homes bombed.
of
Mnisl'fiv
gnmon.
I error ism is a worldwide piHany ti
which will require the nation®
world banding together to erj
problem. Reagan, by his actiot
week, has further destabilized
ready unstable situation. He
more distance and more animo:
tween the nations of the wii
made a bad problem worse.
How many bombs will havt|
dropped before Reagan rets tel
my-day attitude out of hissysttiB
we start making real progress:
world peace?
Michelle Powe is a senior join
major and editor for The Battalie
Mail Call
Obvious liberal bias?
One for the Gipper
EDITOR:
I am becoming more and more convinved that a
banner should be hung over Reed McDonald building that
reads, “Objectivity Ends Here.” I can count right off the
top of my head at least six incidences this semester w here
The Battalion’s staff reporters have taken pot shots at
either religious leaders, moral stands on issues or
conservative views. Loren Steffy’s article attacking Pat
Robertson is just another classic example of The
Battalion’s obvious liberal bias.
It is more than obvious that Steffy does not have the
foggiest idea about what the Bible says about how to deal
with unrighteous immoral men. This is not surprising
because, as is the case w ith many of your staff reporters, he
has never examined the scripture to figure out what God
says about some of the issues. Pat Robertson, of course,
has, but Stef fy naturally considers himself a better
theologian.
You would think that if the journalism department was
at all interested in objectivity you would allow someone to
express an opposite opinion. I understand that the
University of Maryland allows one of the campus
preachers to have his own column in their newspaper.
T hey obviously have enough integrity to allow' both sides
of the issues to be expressed in their newspaper. Does The
Battalion have this sort of backbone?
Michael Foarde ’87
EDITOR’S NOTE: Loren Steffy is not, and never has
been, a staff reporter. He is Opinion Page editor and a col
umnist, meaning it is his job to express his opinions. Natu
rally, an opinion is not objective. Opinion in The Battalion
is expressed only on this page and in analyses labeled as
such. The journalism department and The Battalion are
separate entities, so the department could do little to con
trol the expression of opposite opinion.
Furthermore, The Battalion is always open to other
opinions from students, faculty or residents of the sur
rounding area. However, such expression requires effort
on the part of the individual.
EDITOR:
I rejoice with many Americans across the country
w'hat seems a yeoman gesture by President Reaganio
inflict a blow on what the United States calls the terroii
capital of the world — Libya.
Pictures do not lie. U.S. F-l 1 1 bombers attacked
Libyans in the black of the night, shelling and killing
innocent civilians, including children.
As I ponder over this action, I come upwithmixed
feelings. First, the U.S. has violated internationalbk
invading another country in a time of peace (yes.itisti'
Although I do realize the right of Americans to pi
themselves, I wonder if the best method has beenseleff
European diplomats unanimously agree thatottifl
Arab nations, such as Lebanon, Syria and Iran areetp
guilty of conducting terrorist attacks against theUniid
States. Why Libya was selected as an example needsto!
explained to the rest of the world when allies starttotn
their backs.
The British have strong evidence of support f
Irish Republican Army from the United States.!
has conducted terroirst activities against the British^
years. Would it not be logical then to assume thatIW
States supports terrorist activities?
What do you think the U.S. government is doing®
Nicaragua? Supporting a rebel regime to overthrown;
legitimate government is against international politics!
Americans do so and w ill continue to do so becausetW
carry a “big stick.”
The reactions from the major allies accuratelyib
the effects of this seemingly unpopular act. Germany, j
Italy, Greece, France, Norway, Sweden, Holland,Eeyfj
and Japan all opposed the action for a more civilized
approach.
Not surprisingly, Israel, Canada and the United
Kingdom support the move, but British Prime Minis® 1
Margaret Thatcher is under intense criticism for her
decision to allow take-off and landing of those 32 F-l'
bombers.
Frankly, only time will tell the effects of this acttlj
has the whole world hissing.
This sure is one for the Gipper, eh?
Gabriel Elliott J
Tic
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in length. T l ' |
rial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length^
make every effort to maintain the author's intent. Each letter 1 ’
signed and must include the address and telephone numberofth 1 '
Noi
Sr.