Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 4, 1990)
The Battalion OPINION Opinion Page Editor Ellen Hobbs We can make it without funding generated by Texas state lottery As the governor’s race heats up, we can expect that the pressing issues will be debated less frequently as the mud slinging intensifies. Yet there is one issue that must be addressed now — the one of a state lottery. The truth about state lotteries must be exposed before the notion gains legitimacy. State lotteries are t he t rutch that weak leaders rely on to do the tough work we taxpayers are supposedly paying them to do. If Ann Richards, or more likely, Clayton Williams can’t find the backbone to either cut spending or raise taxes to finance essential state programs, don’t look to the lottery as a cure-all that will solve the state’s budget woes. This recent lottery craze can be traced back to 1963 when a reluctant New Hampshire governor signed a bill establishing the New Hampshire sweepstakes. After a slow start, the lottery idea has caught on with 29 states now using a lottery to augment their treasuries. Lottery proponents are now eyeing Texas as the last big state to conquer. Once Texas has a lottery, their reasoning goes, all remaining states should follow. Advocates of the lottery system contend that a statewide lottery is a quick and painless way to generate revenue. The facts, however, say differently. Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize winning author, came out against state lotteries recently in an article in the New England Monthly. Branch cites a market study done for the New Jersey state lottery, which came up with some alarming statistics. Among them: the poorest citizens — those with household incomes of less than $ 10,000 — were seven times more likely than middle- class people to spend a significant fraction (at least 5 percent) of their income on lottery tickets. Of those Patrick Nolan Columnist members of the poorest families who did gamble, a third spent more than 20 percent ol their incomes on the lottery. Branch also states the interesting fact that f or centuries monarchs favored lotteries because of the simplicity involved: selling dreams to peasants earned substantial revenue with little risk of revolt. Facts like these are exactly why upstanding people have a hard time agreeing with the idea of a state lottery. What’s probably the worst thing about the lottery, however, is whatitreflects on us as a society. Forget the work ethic, forget the age-old truism that if you work hard and honestly, you will succeed. The lottery’s attractiveness is simple: it allows our leaders to dodge the demanding issue of fiscal responsibility. It’s only obvious that the poor will be more likely to purchase a lottery ticket than will upper middle-class citizens who are content with where they are and where they are going. Yet the lottery is still unfair even if every adult citizen purchases just one ticket. 'T hree dollars for a ticket is next to nothing for the president of a S&L, but it’s quite a bit more for the ranch hand or factory worker. The supporters of a state lottery really can’t believe that a lottery is a fair way to generate revenue, can they? How many successful businesspeople, doctors, lawyers and real estate developers are going to buy a lottery ticket with the hopes of winning the jackpot? Probably very few, if any. The lottery advocates persist with their argument by suggesting that the revenue created by a lottery be earmarked for such worthy causes as education. But if you’re looking foi education funds, and you’re going to stick the poor with the bill, there are much more efficient ways of generating revenue. Lotteries eat up roughly 60 cents for every dollar brought in; it’s no wonder when one considers who needs to be paid: advertising agents, computer companies, television stations and convenience store sale agents. Branch estimates that a lottery is 25 times more expensive to manage than a general tax increase. What’s probably the worst thing about the lottery, however, is what it reflects on us as a society. Forget the work ethic, forget the age-old truism that if you work hard and honestly, you will succeed. The state lotteries are marketed toward the person attempting to improve his or her situation. With such slogans as “This could be your ticket out,” it only exemplifies the get-rich-quick theme that seems to pervade our society. Who said the Eighties are over? The lottery’s attractiveness is simple: it allows our leaders to dodge the demanding issue of fiscal responsibility. The line must be drawn on this feel-good legislation. If the state needs funds for education, then cut spending or raise taxes. Let’s not implement a lottery under the guise that it’s fair and efficient. Patrick Nolan is a senior political science major. Mail Call- Aii Aggies should be able to use drill field The Batti SI Tuesday editor r . TL . .. Regarding the article on the front page of I he Battalion on August 10,L was deeply disturbed that our University officials now have decided to tell the student body how we can use our already limited gi een space. It makes absolutely no sense to restrict the use of Simpson Drill field to all groups except the Corps of Cadets. 1 he Corps uses this field only three or four times per year for about two hours each use. Sport clubs such as the la crosse, women’s varsity soccer, field hockey and ultimate Irisbee teams typ. ically use the drill field every day during the year. Are there any students on the committee that President Mobley appointed to look into this situation? I fear that we are trying to create another mon- ument to Old Army days without considering the needs of the Aggies of the 90s Sports clubs are being relocated without being given any proper field space. If the drill field is going to be used in a way that will benefit the student body then that’s fine. However, the last thing we need right now is a massive green space that is only used three or four times per year. Our administrators should see to it that projects are completed in a man ner that benefits students. 1 he drill field is a source of pride for this Uni vet sity not only because it is a memorial to those Aggies who died in World Warl but also because it is one of the best secondary sports fields in the Southwesi Conference. Please don’t take away our home field advantage. In closing, I would like to challenge the administration to reconsidei the use of the Simpson Drill Field. Please work with students to improve student services. Statues around a field will not make us a better school. Maintaining, not reducing, student services will continue to move this University into the 1990s. Jon Turton graduate student A thank-you note to T-Camp and campers EDITOR: I have recently transferred here to Texas A&M from Blinn College really was not aware of how nice and friendly the people of A&M were untill spent a short time at T-Camp. I would like to express my gratitude to the directors, co-chairs, T-Team and counselors of T-Camp for making my transfer into A&M all the mort easy. I would especially like to express a gratef ul “Thank you” to my counsel ors and friends of Camp Mosher’s DC #4. Once again, thank you to iw friends of T-Camp for making that short time we spend together the mosteti joyable time of my life. Bradley Dietz ’93 Have an opinion? Express it! Gn inc By JOE FEF Of The Batta It seems li gie in five ye nies. Texas A& survey that corporate re Many res swered the s well prepare “The pro of A&M stui Liberty Muti Mobil Oil similar thou$ “A&M ha< that compete Jenkins said. Other cori nates. “A&M is ; Salley O’Mali Brazos ( Polict charg Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit lem for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author's intent. There is no guarantee ti letters submitted will be printed. Each letter must be signed and must include the classification, address telephone number of the writer. All letters may be brought to 216 Reed McDonald, or sent to Campus Mi\ Stop 1111. Bill would create quotas rather than equality During this session of Congress, there almost certainly will be a tremendous battle over the fate of the Civil Rights Act of 1990. Storm clouds are already rising in anticipation of a presidential veto. A veto is precisely what the president should give this bill, considering its undesirable nature, despite the fact that the words “civil rights” are in the title. The objectionable aspects of this bill are too numerous and complex to list in any great detail. (For a good look at both sides see the July 10 Congressional Record for the Senate.) But I’d like to point out a few principal concerns. Section 5 of the Senate version is a perfect example of the unrealistic approach of this bill that will undoubtedly wreak havoc in our courts and in the workplace. It was drafted by Justice William Brennan (Price Waterhousen v. Hopkins). This fact alone should give some due as to how radical this bill is. Under Section 5, a disgruntled applicant could sue an employer for compensatory and punitive damages if William J. Brennan he or she believes that one of the supervisors involved in the employment decision had a discriminatory thought. And even if it can be proven that the alleged discriminatory thoughts had no effect on the employment decision, the accused employer must still pay the plaintiff’s legal fees. If you think the lawyers have had a good time with medical malpractice, just wait until this little gem hits the books. The most damning flaw in this bill is that it will undoubtedly result in quotas if passed in anything resembling its present form. You may have heard Ted Kennedy proclaim that this legislation does not requ/re quotas, which is true. But what the law will do is skew the judicial process in such a way that employers, under threat of ruinous lawsuits, must look to the color of any future employee’s skin first and his or her qualifications second in order to be sure of acheiving a “properly balanced” work force. The language and requirements of the bill are complex, but basically, all that need be shown by a plaintiff in a lawsuit is that a statistical disparity is present. Then, under the Senate version, the entire burden of proof shifts to the employer who must prove himself innocent of discrimination. heart-wrenching speech about the desperate need to enact the legislation as quickly as possible in response to certain decisions by the Reagan Supreme Court. As a tearful example he told the story of Ann Brunet: And to make the situation worse, if it is found that the plaintiff cannot identify which employment practices are causing the numbers to be off, it is up to the employer to prove that each and every one of his employment practices meet the nearly impossible standards of this bill. As Senator Orrin Hatch remarked on the Senate floor, “It does not take any brains to say, ‘Look, that is not civil rights. Those are lawyers’ rights to make all the money in the world by bringing any case they want and alleging anything they want at any time in order to make a case.’ ” It is no surprise that many of the bill’s proponents are fighting vigorously to divert attention away from the true nature of the legislation and cloud the debate with as much meaningless, deceptive language as possible. One of the most tireless laborers in this respect is Ohio senator Howard Metzenbaum. On July 10 he gave a “She wanted to follow in the footsteps of her grandfather and uncle to become a firefighter. What a wonderful objective for that young lady. But she could not get the chance because of a physical agility test that had nothing to do with the job of firefighting.” He went on to suggest that now our civil rights laws no longer protect people like Brunet. But Sen. Hatch pointed out a few minutes later that the types of tests like the one Brunet took are already illegal. The fact is, the left is reduced to this kind of emotional drivel because the realities of the legislation do not good would have serious misgivings about a law that must rely so heavih obfuscation and misrepresentation! facts to gain popular support. I believe that it is the duty of our government to vigorously enforced civil rights laws and stamp out discriminatory practices whereverd might exist. But that is not what this is about. Brazos Co needs inforr week’s most v\ Juana Rod Brazos Count for injury to : NISI. She cai following cha R; Se D< Hi W Orrin Hatch This bill spr from a world squarely at odds the individual principles of a market econo equality before law of all peo black or white, ai government seeks to procure all its citizen economic or poli system based equalii opportui Instead, it is a manifestation of same oldd warfare poll which is leaditt | down the path, of equality conform to the faade that is presented to the American people. I would like to think that anyone genuinely concerned with the public The Battalion (USPS 045 360) Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Cindy McMillian, Editor Timm Doolen, Managing Editor Ellen Hobbs, Opinion Page Editor Holly Becka, City Editor Kathy Cox, Kristin North, News Editors Nadja Sabawala, Sports Editor Eric Roalson, Art Director Lisa Ann Robertson, Lifestyles Editor opportunity, but of government- imposed equality of status acheivedf the disbursement of benefits accord] to group identity rather than merit Stephen Beck is a senior electrical engineering major. Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-sup porting newspaper operated as a commu nity service to Texas A&M and Bryan- College Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editorial board or the au thor, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during Texas A&M regu lar semesters, except for holiday and ex amination periods. Newsroom: 845-3313. Mail subscriptions are $20 per semes ter, $40 per school year and $50 per full year: 845-2611. Advertising rates fur nished on request: 845-2696. Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col lege Station, TX 77843-1111. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M Universitv, College Station TX 77843-4111. Adventures In Cartooning by Don Atkinson Ji\ weu., z did it. r sumi/cp m FIRST W66ti OF OASS6S. f z mv ro excmoc Pill of mv itxTBooF6\ PT least once and, XVC ALREADY HAD XTUPEE TESTS. ' ( MAIL'S' IF JVsr} f ONE MORE THING (BHD HAPPENS... J 'V00 ARE HEREBY INd/TED TO A FAMMl REUNION/" FERE. & TH Wit) your prot largt retir the i done man that man billit
