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