Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 8, 1993)
Opinion Tuesday, June 8,1993 The Battalion Page 5 »ges from $5 le players of Dm enjoying iry is usually litrator who er a player salary, "team." To- eir teams, igement. Of on the play i shops hiiiy ; to the high if you will, layers ofto- a sons as th n I though oe constant game is, it's nost brawls, Celtics oy play mselves and efeat theen- s mortal en- d Celtic for- s in the kid i the blocks ss after the nast season, ■en over the f the other nut the true s and theri- w the play- nr and then the games, is if some of ? new NBA the players nany of the i latever itis, A'hole have Mfi&VU&S me pevra? tJrw NEY7 WOULD 017TOU The Battalion Editorial Board Jason Loughman, editor in chief Mark Evans, managing editor Stephanie Pattillo, city editor Kyle Burnett, sports editor Dave Thomas, night news editor Anas Ben-Musa, Aggie//7e editor Mack Harrison, morning news editor Billy Moran, photo editor range in its to be mon victory has ncentives. ut just get- iy with the the season ■ontract ex- ly left the m over the ■ams in the ■ happened lever have ■alers leave he was of- ave proba their next lowboy he that base- ! true con- s of today, past. Like uick buck, ig from us Editorial Freedom's last chance? U.S. can't afford not to build station inusi ;ed ? 1 for 1 CD’S ss I T" ’5 Like the Skylab program's end during the 1970's, the current Unit ed States space station program may go down in a ball of flame this week. The proposed space station Freedom faces the danger of having its budget pulled out from under neath it, leaving the program to fall into obscurity. In Washington, last week's ap pointment of David Gergen as a se nior presidential advisor signifies a lack of executive support for the program. Gergen has repeatedly recommended the space station be axed as a way to cut costs. As edi- tor-at-large of U.S. News & World Report, he recommended in a col umn that President Clinton could improve his economic plan by can celing the space station. Yesterday, Clinton's blue-ribbon panel to study the space station re ceived three differently priced re designs of Freedom from NASA. The new designs were presented as $5 billion, $7 billion and $9 billion alternatives to the proposed $14.6 billion cost for the actual hardware needed to house four astronauts permanently. Later this week, the panel will send its report to the president. On Capitol Hill, the chairman of the House Science, Space and Tech nology Committee, Rep. George Brown, proposed a vote on yet an other design adapted from Freedom that would end up costing $500 mil- The content of our character ... Skin color no qualification for government officials ROBERT VASQUEZ Columnist lion more than the most expensive design President Clinton said he would sign. The vote most likely will come before the recommenda tion of the president's panel is made. This type of disjointed decision making is part of the problem with the space station funding. Few politicians want to appear to the public as being against progress and the exploration of space, but the na tion is calling for costs to be cut, so the officials must look for ways in which to cover their true intentions. Washington needs to realize that spending for the space station is not an investment that will pay off in the short term. Research and devel opment costs are high, but the real benefits of a permanent laboratory in space will be realized after the station is up and operating. The present funding situation can be compared to the government in vestment in railroads, canals and seaports during the 19th century that led to the growth and eventual worldwide domination of the Unit ed States economy. The cost of the construction was a burden at the time, but the eventual benefits far outweighed the expense. The United States cannot afford to drop programs such as the space station in the name of budget reduc tion for the present year, because the real expense will come from not investing in the future. I like green M&M's. I don't know why. Maybe it has to do with something I once heard about their effect on people. I just know that when a bag of M&M's is opened, I search out the green ones. It's kind of silly, really, because green M&M's don't taste any sweeter or crunch any louder than the others. They don't make me feel any better than yellow M&M's do, or brown M&M's do, or even, say, oysters do. But for some stupid reason — be cause someone once told me that green M&M's were better — I favor them. Lani Guirder has been removed as the president's choice to head the Justice Department's civil rights division be cause people charged that she, too, played favorites. Guinier, people said, favored minorities for government positions simply because they were minorities. She has been called the "quota queen" because of articles she wrote suggesting that Congress encourage diversity in govern ment "until enough nominations have been made to estab lish a pattern of 'affirmative recruitment.'" "Affirmative recruitment" as suggested in Guinier's arti cles refers to the prioritizing of Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities when appointing leaders to balance the U.S. gov ernment, a government which Guinier suggested is not a fair representation of America's diverse population. "Affirmative recruitment," like "affirmative action," is based on the belief that restitution must be made for the ne glect and unfair treatment of minorities, for the wrongs im posed against them, due to prejudice and racism, which prevailed for so long in this nation's history, and ostensibly survives today. Affirmative action suggests that passing and enforcing laws which guarantee equal rights and benefits to everyone — regardless of race, religion or color — is not enough. Af firmative action demands that preference be given to those people who were wronged so that they may be made equal in practice and not simply in word or theory. Picture, if you can, that your family has been abused, ne glected, treated like animals for centuries. Then, one day, the abusers say, "Sorry, we were wrong. We're now equal." Well, the gesture may seem like a good one, but how can two parties be equal when one has the benefit of centuries of advantage? Are the two instantly equal? Are the posi tions of power instantly divided and distributed evenly to ensure that privilege and opportunity are available to all? Not likely. No, the abusers who enjoyed the advantage of the upper hand for so long remain in control, no longer by written law, simply by vote. Who knows how long it would take to balance the scales when one side is empty, the other full from centuries of gluttonous bounty? What should be done? Are those who "have" obligated to give to those who "have not?" Are those who "have not" en tided to that which they have not earned? The process of equality is a slow and tedious tug of war, we have learned. Who has the right to what? Well, we all have rights to the same. Well, then who has earned what? Must it be earned? Can't it be given? Assigning preference to candidates simply because of their race, religion or color is tantamount to preventing people from voting because of their race, religion or color. A people's right to govern themselves should not be deter mined by the color of their skin, just as the color of skin should not determine who will be elected to govern. Assigning preference to green M&M's because of their color is a silly practice based on myths and ignorant beliefs. Assigning preference to people because of their color is ille gal and violates certain basic human rights and civil liber ties. Across the nation, in cities large and small, leaders from every race, religion and color have been selected to govern, to represent a diverse electorate who have chosen the best candidate, the most qualified individual to do the job. Whether they be man or woman, young or old, liberal or conservative, the leaders of our nation must be chosen for what they can do, not for the color of their skin. Vasquez is a senior journalism major S kIo ienesis For a Democratic Congress, a chance at redemption ems :30 7:009:30 •PG 13 :35 7:109:4 •PG 13 :40 7:20 9:50 •R 5 7:00 9:35 •PG 5 7:20 9:30 •G :20 4:40 •PG 13 10 9:45 •PG 0 7:15 9:50 •PG 0 7:20 9:40 •R 5 7:00 9:35 The Democrats in Congress have brought so much shame and despair to our country, and have through proac tive tomfoolery and passive/negligent ineptitude, made our House of Repre sentatives and Senate less than they were. What follows is a newer per spective that downplays the usual examples, and goes straight to the heart of the matter. First, and most importantly, even though we have had Republicans in the White House, a lack of cooperation from Congress has made it rather difficult to accomplish seemingly minor tasks that snowball into major problems. For instance, it seems that in both 1982 and 1984 President Reagan asked Congress to stop allowing businesses to take large losses on paper when they had very small stakes in certain real es tate investments. These people were GUEST COLUMN MARK G. CLEMENTS using losses on paper to keep from having to pay taxes on the earnings, and were using the money to pay back their loans. Banks felt compelled to make such risky-sounding loans because if money that people were trying to spend dur ing the time of unprecedented high in flation went for purchases and not in vestments, inflation would have been further fueled. Loaning money to investors looking for tax shelters, to build shopping malls, or even to Third World govern ments all helped keep the inflation down during the Carter administra tion. Congress seems to have not acted with near the speed in "shifting gears" for the new economic policies after the end of Carter's presidency. Then Con gress seems to have done something with too much haste, and enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This reduced the paper losses being counted on by investors in tax shelters much too quickly. At this very point of the enactment of the new tax laws, banks were al ready suffering from Third World countries not being able to pay back loans. Also, shopping malls and de partment stores were suffering because people were no longer trying to get rid of seemingly "worthless dollars." It seems like the Democratically con trolled Congress kicked America when it was already down. This, along with basic ludicrous fis cal mismanagement, have helped con tribute to the demise of our Federal Treasury. There are more side effects than a weak economy because of actions and inactions by the Democrats in Con gress. You see, when there is a weak economy, there is a perception by many that the government represent ing those fiscal numbers is weak as well. Civil disturbances, crime, riots, and absolute chaos abound and thrive when a government is perceived to be destabilized. The recent bombing in New York City is not the original prob lem in and of itself; it is the perception by foreign entities that we have a weak draft-dodger President, and an ineffec tive Congress. A possible solution: First of all, give Congress SIX years to clean everything up ...everything. Step 1: A debt swap: Swap out all of our-existing Federal debt for 6%, non renewable, 50-year bonds. Step 2: Give attractive tax credits to individuals and business who take hold of real estate and improve it and help pay the old debts to the original (or modern version) of the lending banks. Step 3: Starting with the savings on debt repayment and interest repay ment, with no off-the-record anything, make Congress have the budget in bal ance. They have until the end of six years to do it. Step 4: Eliminate the personal in come tax as we know it today: it is rather inefficient and is more of a pow er trip for Congress and government bureaucrats than it is a beneficial way of funding our treasury. If it were ef fective under our present system, wouldn't it be enough of a safeguard that Congress would not have run astray? A more effective way of handling things may be to rely primarily upon businesses (since they already have to plan with budgets), along with certain types of private transactions. Then Congress would be forced to plan a budget based upon a percentage of projected business activity, and indi vidual members of Congress who were responsible for misrepresenting out comes of the business climate (those who fraudulently presented unrealistic outcomes) would be imprisoned. Now we would truly be holding Congress accountable. Step 5: Have auditors from Fortune 500 companies come in and audit gov ernment operations: and make the government entities come into confor mity with the standards the auditors present to them, or else suffer impris onment. Step 6: The people would be the ones who set the tone for what Con gress did; business would be in charge of funding it, because of the benefits of efficiency involved. People would vote on spending priorities. The debt from the six year transition would be put into 10-year, on-the-record payment schedules from issuing new bonds for the transition debts. It is a real challenge for the Democ rats who have brought so much shame to Congress to turn things around. They have made it less than it was - now is their shot at redemption. Mark Clements is a local businessman.