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.