Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 28, 1992)
Opinion esday, April 28, 1992 The Battalion Page 7 The Battalion Editorial Board DOUGLAS PILS, Editor-in-Chief BRIDGET HARROW, Managing Editor BRIAN BONEY, Opinion Editor JASON MORRIS, Night News Editor MORGAN JUDAY, Night News Editor MACK HARRISON, City Editor KARL STOLLEIS, Photo Editor SCOTT WUDEL, Sports Editor ROB NEWBERRY, Lifestyles Editor The following opinions are a consensus of The Battalion opinion staff and senior editors. Cleaned out Lawyers take money meant for environment .ICK/The Battalion sicians for six id, the Brew. In the effort to clean up toxic waste tes, lawyers were the only ones who ally cleaned up. Twelve years ago. Congress enacted a law called Superfund that empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to extract the costs of cleaning up major pollution sites from the businesses that caused the lollution. However, a new study found that 90 lercent of the money p. id by insurers on Superfund claims has gone to litigation costs jjihstead of cleanup costs. 1 Superfund was created to extend liability to any individual or company that contributed waste to dumping Show to mm page 5 rovided the con ic songs, idem dance duo, tation of Stints i," expressing^ ng High, anil- ic group tumble: and vaulted inli ngs moving wai ionics Greg Rat,f enormous amounts of detective work area or polluted site. The system was designed to force the polluters to pay the costs of cleaning jup dangerously polluted areas rather I an use government funds for the job. However, since the Superfund places blame, the system is considered 'liability based," which means lawyers will be involved. Since most Superfund sites cost as much as $30 million to clean up, court fights over who pays are practically unavoidable. Such lawsuits between government, alleged polluters, insurers and policyholders are incredibly expensive. They require st acts, the Aggs Miss TAMUJI , the Wrangle ditional countn- le type of dart- tried something ;ed their countr- etting of a 'Sfc something outo! night delivered rent in the name variety - within ig the same type >r the audience /e made things iges - which in ox, author of “1 id Muster speak the year Barbara n. >ecause it's hard lity of a f a dance act, e time to bal ably had to gut feeling as to ght entertained act of Friday Day obviously ition of the audi- > of the judges. ecessary to recreate events that can ian decades. To further complicate e suits, contracts must be interpreted in the process, and contract laws vary aetween states. The extra litigation is a waste of anpower and prolongs cleanup of the most toxic areas of the country. Only 84 of the 1,245 sites targeted under Superfund have been actually cleaned up. The study released last week by the Rand Institute for Civil Justice indicates that insurance companies spent about $1.3 billion on Superfund claims between 1986 and 1989. About $1 billion of that went to pay lawyers. The research indicates the litigation costs could pay for the cleanup of 40 polluted sites. The EPA continues to voice support for the liability system. EPA officials suggest the system is just coming into its own and cites the record-high $1.4 billion the agency received from offending polluters last year as proof. Unfortunately, the total cost of Superfund-related cleanup is estimated to be at least $60 to $90 billion, and many estimates are far higher. The EPA's data seems to run against its conclusions. The Superfund law is up for reauthorization in 1994. At that time, Congress may change the law's focus if it so chooses. Congress must take the liability out of the system. The law is inhibiting the cleanup of the most toxic sites in our country by placing the process in the hands of lawyers. Earth Day was celebrated just last week. Congress and the EPA should begin to worry about who is running the restoration of the environment. Requiring more and more litigation is not the answer to our concerns. <S>I<?<?Z TUB NEW NEWEST A wealthy Texan who's not part of the mess in Washington im&uuts OWZ THE F-ECPPP NEW JEP4EY Wasted money Politicians spend too much on their too lengthy campaigns W hile the government is busy trying to rebuild its reputation after its congressmen were caught with their hands in the cookie jar of hot checks, the American public is busy preparing itself for another round of mud- slinging and negative campaigning as the election year progresses. The negative nature of presidential and congressional campaigns has been around for quite some time, but it was especially prevalent in the 1988 presidential election between George Bush and Michael Dukakis. In the summer of 1988, Bush realized that he was behind in the polls and took on a negative campaign strategy. Does this ring any bells for those of you who paid slight attention to the political arena four years ago? It should. And for those of you who are remembering the 1988 election with extreme disgust and are glad to be rid of this political garbage, don't get too happy too soon. We can expect the 1992 election to be just as bad, if not worse. Negative campaigning will be found most often in media advertisements, especially television ads just as it has been in the past. Although candidates always buy some ads which show themselves and their platforms on issues in a favorable light, they are increasingly buying negative air time because these negative ads actually seem to work just as well or even better than positive ads. For example, in 1988, 60 percent of voters were upset with the fact that Bush waged a dirty campaign, but due to his victory, one can assume that many of these people must have voted for Bush anyway. A candidate's goal is to win the election, therefore he or she will do what they know works best in order to achieve this goal. Since voters' actions seem to contradict their words, candidates are able to use negative advertising techniques in their campaigning to get the results they want. Candidates are also able to employ negative campaigning because of their seemingly endless supply of campaign funds. Campaign financing issues have comprised a field of inquiry since the very first presidential election, and have risen tremendously in the last few decades with the increasing reliance on television for advertising, and with the swelling costs associated with campaigns. In the 1920s, and again in the 1970s, political corruption caused the government to pass legislation to try to reform campaigns, but these laws alone have not been enough to solve the problems of campaign financing. The most noticeable fact is that public officials have wasted far too much money on campaigns. This is because they are given too much money to work with initially. Having this excess amount of money is what allows candidates to spend millions of dollars on mud-slinging at their opponents. If voters want to decrease the amount of time they have to spend watching presidential nominees call each other bad names, they must lobby their legislators to put limits on campaign spending. Although Congress has limited the amount of money each individual may contribute to a candidate's campaign, citizens have found many loopholes in which to pour additional campaign funds. The worst of these is the "soft money" loophole in which voters who want to surpass the maximum contribution amount give funds directly to a candidate's party. These funds are then used indirectly for things such as voter registration, election polls and local party functions. Supposedly, these "indirect" funds do not benefit individual candidates, but this is not actually the case. Soft money can be viewed as dirty money given by a nation's wealthiest people whose goal is to sway candidates into voting the way they want on issues, resulting in tainted government officials and unfair treatment of voters. There are many more loopholes available for individuals and interest groups to saturate with extra campaign money. These sources of funds, in addition to candidates' personal resources, need to be watched more closely by the government only if we want to make a change in the current situation. But we do have a choice. If we want to continue to be irritated by immature name-calling in the middle of Monday Night Football in the Fall, then we should sit idle and do nothing. Similarly, if we want to be overrun by meaningless candidate accusations and charges while not being informed of important issues, then we should remain as we are and not say a word. But, if we as citizens wish to have a voice in government and keep a check on the actions and words of candidates, we must become involved and actively direct the ' government to take badly needed steps in the direction of campaign reform in order to put an end to negative campaigning. Saddler is a sophomore psychology major r Editor's note: The number listed for Dim itri ■ilippov in Student Locator is incorrect. The lumber belongs to two women. ’ITS stops as to be a reas at the end." 1 L. they all did a fa® : s do3, r S bicycles, too dson's direction Watch out Ags, the University police are out or cash. With all of the funding being taken way from various programs recently. Porky has lecided not to be a victim of the hatchet. Last reek I got a ticket for "Disregard of Stop Sign' on ny bicycle. I understand that a bicyclist could cause a iroblem at a busy intersection with cars and oedestrians, but when I got mine there was no )ne walking near me and no other vehicles but he police car, which I had seen and thought lothing of, at the side of the corner in the bike ane. To make a 90-degree turn I obviously was lot going fast. Porky must have gotten up on the ntv sheriff leave if r ong side of his pen and been bored out of his nout tellingflif ^ to the need to pull over a bicycle. I'm ure he snorted with delight in getting to play •vith the siren and light on his brand new levrolet that was essential in tracking down my feeding bicycle. Maybe they can use my $70 to buy some hains for those naughty prisoners. I am being ^ie not to n# ■ an action-sut -1 there has to h undercurre^ something wolf s more akin I® Han anything ty ock. Weseealol and even chang y, the parts ofW ? as a whole, many implai® e movie, that ^ Tieve what's go heriff le telling i!«f -iend. He nevef Iuding the slier' e has the skilH 0 id several arm 5 white Sands"for pretty rough, but it is due to my anger in the ridiculousness of this situation. I do respect the police, but I ask them to use better sense of judgment. Will this lead to a course in defensive pedaling? My advice is to haul if you see the lights behind you. Brian Smits Class of'95 PTTS space helps students I would like to express my gratitude to the PTTS for their concern for our campus. In case you have not been over to pay a ticket recently, (fat chance of that), they have moved to a new location in the Student Services Building (appropriate since they are a service to the students.) The new office is much larger and the expanded receptionist staff can more effectively handle the crowds of ticket holders. This expansion should be able to handle the PTTS's ever expanding market for at least another six months. (I am afraid another expansion will be necessary after that.) This expansion is the best thing since bicycle cops. I am sure that I speak for the entire campus when I express my thanks to the PTTS for the fine work they have done in making Texas A&M a better school. It must be a rewarding job. Todd Blackmon Class of'95 Piece of 'art' blights campus If you are walking by the Engineering Physics Building you might notice the University's newest piece of modern art. This of course being a very loose definition of art. A scientific definition would call it a twisted piece of once-shiny-now- scratched metal. Then, you might overhear an estimation of the cost to tear up a sidewalk, build a concrete base, erect the piece, and landscape the area. This projected estimation is close to $180,000 and the actual cost will definitely exceed that projection. Regardless, next time you walk by this selection of art feel proud that your school can erect these pieces. Forget your worries about the state of our school library which always needs funding. Forget all these monetary concerns, and just appreciate the beauty of this expensive work of art. I doubt it. Charles Elliot Class of'93 Have an opinion? Express it! The Battalion is interested in hearing from its readers. All letters are welcome. Letters must be signed and must include classification, address and a daytime phone number for verification purposes. They should be 250 words or less. Anonymous letters will not be published. The Battalion reserves the right to edit all letters for length, style and accuracy. There is no guarantee the letters will appear. Letters may be brought to 013 Reed McDonald, sent to Campus Mail Stop 1111 or can be faxed to 845-2647.