Opinion
Friday, March 5,1993 The Battalion
Page 6
Trans-racial adoption
A good thing for children, Texas
Last week 326th District Judge
Alete H cker allowed Philip and
Lane Je* ■ ins to adopt the child
who has lived with them for four
years.
Altl lough this might not seem
significant on the surface, the fact
that the Jenkins were awarded the
adoption rights of the African-
American boy offers hope for fu
ture trans-racial adoptions in Texas.
This is a monumental step in the
transformation of Texas into a toler
ant and integrated state.
Numerous adoption agencies
still feel that trans-racial adoption
is not in the best interest of the
child and do not allow it. Agencies
say that in these instances, the child
may experience an identity crisis.
Although it is true that the chil
dren may not be exposed to their
own cultural backgrounds, they are
beine placed in 1 ovine homes. Liv
ing in a loving home is infinitely
better than growing up in an or
phanage or being shuffled from one
foster home to another -- home in
which these children still would
find it difficult to experience their
cultural heritages.
The development of an ethnic
heritage is a fundamental part of
maturation, but it is not the only
part. Love and support are also
needed for a child to grow into a
healthy adult, and both love and
support transcend racial bound
aries. With the abundance of par
entless children in this country, it
seems that any approvable family
willing to adopt should be allowed
to do so — regardless of race or eth
nic background.
Judge Alete Hacker should be
commended for allowing the Jenk
ins family to adopt their new son.
Hopefully, this precedent-setting
decision will clear the obstacles to
trans-racial adoptions in Texas and
will provide more loving homes for
parentless children.
Freedom of religion
Debate good fomm for differences
As religious differences spark vi
olence around the world, the
Wednesday night debate between
the Campus Crusade for Christ and
the Agnostic and Atheist Student
Group demonstrated that differ
ences can be debated in a peaceful
and productive environment.
Before a crowd of more than 600,
the two groups explained the tenets
of their respective belief systems
and debated the existence of God.
In a forum which could have invit
ed carping and name-calling from
either side, the groups discussed
ideas in a controlled, rational man
ner, surprising many members of
the audience.
Founded on a belief in freedom
of religion, America has been large
ly immune to the religious turmoil
that has rocked the world through
out the centuries. Northern Ireland,
Bosnia and India are examples of
places in which religious differ
ences have turned into bloody bat
tles.
Freedom of religion is a Constitu
tional right that all Americans en
joy. The mere fact that this debate
even occurred reveals the desire of
students to discuss differences in
order to better understand one an
other.
The fact that the debate was such
a success shows that some measure
religious tolerance is alive and well
on the A&M campus.
Abracadabra! Budget plan magic
Numbers don't lie but Clinton's smoke, mirrors do
C linton's recent budget proposal
is supposedly the essence of the
kind of changes he wants to
make over the next four years. One
change Clinton wants to implement is
cutting America's ever-widening
deficit. However, the prospects for
real budget change are dim.
The devil is in the details. Flushing
Old Scratch out of Clinton's budget
was none too hard. A careful inspec
tion of the budget reveals an addition
of $1.04 trillion to the total debt over
the projected four years the budget
covers, as calculated by the Office of
Management and Budget. A billion
here, a billion there and pretty soon
you're talking real money. And this budget is ah austerity
program?
The fact is, overall spending increases every year in Clin
ton's budget plan. There is no cut in total spending, and
some $54 billion of the proposed spending cuts are actually
tax or fee increases. That there is no cut in total spending
does not bode well for a successful deficit reduction plan.
The plan relies almost entirely upon tax increases, and pro
jected revenues from the tax hike will probably not material
ize if history is any guide. Taxes were raised in 1982,1984,
1987 and 1990, ostensibly to reduce the deficit. Each year
following the tax hikes, the deficit increased.
Economist Matthew Kibbe, commenting on the 1990 bud
get deal, reported that "81 percent of the revenues expected"
from the tax increases never materialized. And most of the
tax increases that Clinton proposes are the product of a du
plicitous mind, to put it mildly.
Nationally syndicated columnist David Broder indicted
Clinton's obfuscation over the tax increases last week. After
the Bush campaign pointed out that Clinton could not fulfill
his campaign promises without raising taxes on families
earning $36,600 or more per year, Clinton replied, "It is bla
tantly false ... it is a disgrace to the American people that
the president of the United States would make a claim so
baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its at
tempt to get votes under false pretenses."
On Feb. 17 when Clinton unveiled his economic plan, he
promised — with a straight face — that his tax plan would
only effect those making over $30,000 per year, which was
HBanBaEF9R!UHBBIBBK3£ ! n
well below the Bush campaign forecast.
Broder goes on to point out that Clinton's $30,000 thresh
old is not what most people understand as income, but in
cludes all kinds of "non-cash-income," along with benefits
and the imputed rental value of a family's home. The higher
taxes will actually start falling at a threshold nearer to
$20,000 dollars than $30,000. This from the budget that
wasn't going to resort to "smoke and mirrors."
Clinton's repeated protest that he was forced into this po
sition because of the unexpected $346 billion deficit for 1992
rings hollow: In the July issue of Business Week, Clinton
said that the 1992 deficit would be close to $400 billion.
Clinton's budget proposal doesn't include an attempt to
reform health care, which will require even more taxes. In
fact, some two dozen new taxes are being considered for this
program. The administration claims it is determined to pro
vide "universal access to affordable high-quality health care
for all Americans." This gift to the American people comes
with $30 billion to $90 billion a year in extra spending.
When Clinton's Secretary of Health and Human Resources,
Dr. Donna Shalala, was asked how the contradictory goals of
cutting the deficit by 50 percent in four years and providing
universal health care could be achieved simultaneously, she
replied, "I'm not really sure I can answer that question at the
level of detail you want."
Universal health care would be the largest entitlement
program created in the last 50 years. Entitlement programs
represent the largest and fastest growing slice of the budget.
Clinton, instead of grappling with the heart of the budget
problem, will substantially exacerbate the issue.
The ghost of budget deals past sleeps uneasily after tak
ing a gander at President Clinton's budget proposal. It is all
too familiar. The 1990 budget deal was also advertised as an
austerity program. Domestic spending promptly grew at a
faster rate under Bush than under any president in the last
30 years. The deal, which was supposed to save $500 billion
over five years, lesd to a five year deficit estimated at over
$1,426 trillion. Economists Gary and Aldona Robbins found
that the 1990 budget deal led to "$2.74 of new deficit spend
ing for each $1 of new taxes." One of the main architects of
that plan was the "deficit hawk" Leon Panetta, then the
House Budget Committee chair, now the White House bud
get director. History looks set to repeat itself.
Dickerson is a sophomore economics major.
MATT
DICKERSON
Columnist
Racist heckling at
games is bad bull
• I understand that heckling is a part
of the fun in a baseball game, but where
do we draw the line? I, like most Ags, en
joy telling my friends what a wonderful
school this is and how great the people
are. Yet, I am sorry to s?* T "hat there are
still a few students atter.dhsg A&M who
make me wonder who I am. trying to con
vince.
Recently, I had a friend visit the cam
pus and by coincidence, her university
was playing A&M. We went to the game,
and after only two innings, I found my
self apologizing to her.
As a Hispanic player came up to bat, I
found myself in a very uneasy position
when racist comments were yelled at him.
The counting in Spanish as the player
took practice swings did not seem to
bother me as much as did the comment
made by one person that the player
should go back to Mexico after he struck
out.
I am not sure who this person was, but
I wonder if he is also as proud to call him
self an Aggie as I am. Is this what Texas
A&M represents? What kind of picture
does this behavior paint of Texas A&M
for the children, visitors, and other Ag
gies who have to listen to such racist com
ments? I can't help but feel that the com
ment was directed to me as well as every
other minority on this campus and in this
country.
It hurt to hear my friend tell me that
she could never attend a school like this.
I realize that not everyone here shares the
same opinions as that one outspoken per
son and therefore, day after day, I try to
regain the image I once had of Texas
A&M University, the school I love so
much.
Chris Valladares
Class of'95
• What's going on at the baseball
f ;ames? The games are always a lot of
un, but why make racist comments
against Hispanic players from the other
teams? I feel that it is OK to make fun if
they move their butts funny or something
like that, but just because the player is
Hispanic gives no one the right tc count
the swings in Spanish or to imitate
Speedy Gonzalez.
As a Hispanic student, I found these
cheers very offensive, and for the first
time, I felt embarrassed about being an
"Aggie."
I do not even want to think about the
impressions that the players from UT Pan
Am had of the Aggies. Let's stop this
racial cheering and respect the ethnicity
of the players. Remember, not all specta
tors are white.
Xavier Cervantes
Class of '93
Media inflates Vidor
problems, hurts city
As I read Julie Polston's column "Good
News Can be so Sickening" in Tuesday's
Battalion, anger filled my every thought.
I could not shake my hostile feeling to
ward the news media here and through
out the nation.
Vidor is a small town of about 20,000
people, including its surrounding popula
tion. Because of an extremely small yet
vocal group racists, Vidor is having its
name dragged through the mud by a sen-
sationalistic media.
Never mind the positive efforts of the
local churches to drown out the voice of
the Klan. Never mind the feelings of Vi
dor's average citizen who welcomes the
integration of local housing projects.
Never mind the several minority families
already residing in Vidor without prob
lems from Vidor's "Racist Klan Popula
tion."
Peace doesn't sell newspapers. Hatred
does. If hatred doesn't exist, why not fab
ricate it? Right?
Wrong. Polston's irresponsible jour
nalism is exactly what brews hatred in
this country. Before she reports the
"facts," Polston might wish to confirm
their validity first. The sign she spoke of
does not exist. Maybe Dec Quir feels he
has nothing to fear not only because he is
a brave man but also because the vast
majority of the Vidor population is not
the hateful, bigoted, cross-burning group
Polston claims it to be.
Her preformed ideas about Vidorians
are exactly what fuels the situation in Vi
dor. If the media would cease in its sen
sationalism, the situation in Vidor would
resolve itself without incident.
I feel that I speak accurately for the
20,000 living in and around Vidor. I am
tired of being labeled a racist because of
the actions of a few.
20,000 people can not be judged by the
actions of fewer than 100. Vidor is not a
racist town - it is just another victim of a
yellow press.
Russell Alan Miller
Class of'94
Majority did not vote
Clinton in election
Regarding Corky McMillan's letter on
Feb. 26: Yo Democrat "Wake up and Add
it up"
I think McMillan, his buddy Bill Clin
ton and the rest of the Democrats should
go back to school and learn some math.
Just like the numbers in Clinton's eco
nomic plan, McMillan's just don't add up.
The "majority of Americans" did not
want Clinton to be president. Statistics
show only 40 percent of the people voted
for Clinton while 60 percent, the "Majori
ty," did not.
. ]ohn P. Poskey
Class of'94
Editorids appearing in The Battafcon reflect the views of
the editorial board. They do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of other Batiaton staff members, the Texas A&M
student body, regents, administralion, facufty or staff.
Columns, guest columns, and Mail CaB items express the
opinions of the authors.
The Battafcon encourages letters to the editor and wfl print
as many as space allows in the MaS Call section, letters
must be 300 words or less and include the author's name,
doss, and phone number.
Due to space restrictions, guest columns wl not be
accepted unless the author contacts the opinion page for
prior approval before submitting columns.
We reserve the right to edit letters for length, style, and
accuracy.
Letters should be addressed to:
The Battalion - Mail Calf
OT 3 Reed McDonald /MaJ stop 1111
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843