gust 3,1993
’t of the Mis-
in right on
i dropped
still well be-
7 feet.
ie metropoli-
ter Monday,
evacuated
avernight in
ig the River
fears that 51
ing danger-
eaters would
oked leaky
'S, Fire Chief
?d the situa-
al an explo-
' more than
:louds in the
ttle relieved,
>nservative,"
aokeswoman
icy Manage-
re's still too
rack
ons said the
ed by getting
as possible,
nted, saying
t interest has
1 be built in
,ed Bandera
: racing dates
■(proprieties,
so chairman
exas Depart-
lera officials
rperate with
:ently by the
pected bank
s at Bandera
et unmarked
rrruled those
roldinganil-
d of using an
ew
ie 1
n whether or
c or a compa-
lose kinds of
es of ques-
illegal, there
Questions re
condition of
?gal unless a
aade. After
ie employer
the medical
applicant
dship on the
icement su-
cas Employ-
f Bryan-Col-
b gets many
jpset about
nd of inter
ns the appli-
upset about
they should
e said appl*'
these types
>ly wouldnt
.at company
eople who
iction to the
for Huma 11
rtimes the
an Antonio
s two-thirds
as, receives
nually. Na-
• C receives
ier year,
receives a
e a notice to
in 10 days-
'nee and if
>rove there
al about the
ley take the
If they feel
a evidence,
■e and leave
ual to file a
aid.
ncern about
>t new.
f the Title 1
34," he said-
complaints
st advice he
s is to avoid
is they fee!
st them. Or
:hem and if
ob and feel
ited against
Opinion
Tuesday, August 3,1993 The Battalion Page 5
y AnYTirt»r>l<=» Forfisfy Akj
TE W W»p4 -Tc> F > » Ed EL'S. ^
The Battalion Editorial Board
Jason Loughman, editor in chief
Mark Evans, managing editor
Stephanie Pattillo, city editor
Dave Thomas, night news editor
Mack Harrison, opinion editor
Kyle Burnett, sports editor
Susan Owen, sports editor
Anas Ben-Musa, Aggielife editor
Billy Moran, photo editor
The Battalion
100 years at
Texas A&M
Editorial
Un-Open Records Act
Legislature blocks access to info
The public is up against govern
ment forces who would deny free
dom of information. And in Texas,
the government seems to be win-
iig.
The Dallas Morning News report-
ftion Monday that the Texas Legis
lature is disguising restrictions to
the Open Records Act as amend
ments to relatively obscure adminis
trative laws.
These restrictions include deny
ing the public information on dan
gerous health trends, inspections of
retirement homes and financial data
on shaky insurance companies.
The Legislature is misleading the
public by sneaking this anti-open
government legislation into amend
ments to non-related bills.
Texas Attorney General Dan
'Morales said if legislators "obscure
What you're doing to modify these
acts, then you don't get the open
discussion that it deserves."
The Texas Open Records Act enti
tles people — the general public
and media alike — to inspect
records maintained by state and lo
cal agencies such as basic informa
tion on police reports, tax appraisals
and collections, government bud
gets and expenditures and planning
and zoning proposals.
The original law listed 16 cate
gories of information that the gov
ernment could withhold. The num
ber of exemptions has since jumped
to 24, thanks to these amendments.
It is obvious that lawmakers are
adding open-records limitations to
administrative laws because it's eas
ier to get them passed that way.
They're going behind the backs of
consumer and media associations
who would oppose such measures.
For example, during this past ses
sion lawmakers expanded confiden
tiality to include additional records
maintained by the Texas Depart
ment of Insurance. But rather than
amend the closely monitored Open
Records Act, they changed the ad
ministrative statute that governs
day-to-day operation of the insur
ance department through an
amendment to a law that is well-
known only to insurance industry
insiders.
All of this follows an investiga
tion by The Dallas Morning News
that local government agencies
throughout the state routinely ig
nore the state's open records law.
The newspaper's survey found that
the public may have less access to
government documents now than
when the law was passed in 1973.
A Dallas Morning News poll in
1991 found that more than 20 per
cent of the police departments and
15 percent of the state's school dis
tricts refused to comply with their
request for documents whose access
is guaranteed by the state's Open
Records Act.
Texans are having a hard enough
time dealing with agencies who ille
gally refuse to release information.
We don't need sneaky legislators
trying to restrict freedom of infor
mation even more. Texans deserve
an Open Records Act free of these
"undercover" limitations.
Immigrants: Making the guest list
Only so much to go around in land of opportunity
A shipload of Chinese immi
grants floats along the Pacific
coastline desperately hoping to
dock somewhere in California. They
hear no cries of welcome. They see
no fabled Statue of Liberty holding
high her flame, bidding the huddled
masses, the tired, the poor, the hun
gry to find refuge here.
Meanwhile, near Laredo, a group
of Mexicans walk through a field of
dirt and brush, their eyes peeled —
not for snakes or scorpions, but for
men in dull green uniforms whose
sting would prove far more painful.
Though miles apart, these people
share a common problem. Whether
they seek the Americ? n dream or simply to live and be
treated as human beings, one sad, stony wall rises to stare
these people square in the face: The United States seeks to
return them to their countries — only partially because
they are breaking the law.
The immigration laws which prohibit people from sim
ply crossing the border and declaring citizenship have long
been maligned as cold and heartless, like an exclusive list
clause on a charter which designates who will be allowed
to join a club with a restricted membership. The laws seem
to slam shut our nation's doors and fly in the face of the
glowing invitation set forth in Emma Lazarus' poem which
declared our nation the world's refuge from hunger, pover
ty and human oppression.
Why then, are these laws enforced? What keeps us from
opening our arms and our harbors to the shiploads of im
migrants who seek the same good fortune sought by our
forefathers so many years ago? Surely a nation whose pop
ulation consists almost entirely of immigrants and their de
scendants would not deny others the same opportunity.
What happened to the open invitation?
Times have changed. Back when the nation begged for
immigrants there was a bounty of enticements spurring
would-be Americans to the great new world. States had
specific selling points to settlers seeking their piece of the
fortune. There was gold in California, fertile soil for farm
ing in Nebraska and land, land, land everywhere. Hun
dreds of acres could be bought for a song, or at least a few
dollars. If you didn't have the money, you could find a
spot, build a house, tie a mule to a post and call it "home."
With all the farming and industries sprouting up, jobs
were coming into being faster than positions could be
filled. A boatload of immigrants was instantly absorbed
into the economy and the boat sent back to bring more.
With images of golden streets and fields of opportunity,
the newcomers arrived and often flourished. The potential
for success, the American dream as well as its resources,
appeared unlimited.
Those opportunities, those jobs, those times have all but
faded into the past. Jobs once found in the farming and
textile industries are now filled by machines which provide
greater efficiency and a higher profit margin. When new
positions in industries such as electronics, business man
agement open up, they hardly replace the old positions so
readily filled by the new arrivals.
And now American citizens are fighting to keep their
own jobs. Once immigrants themselves, they don't particu
larly welcome competition. Yet immigration continues. It
seems the American dream has not died.
But illegal immigrants who reach our shores face a rude
awakening. Each year more than one million illegal aliens
are arrested and returned to their homelands. Many immi
grants promise to pay up to $40,000 to be deposited on
American soil. Not having the money up front, these peo
ple become servants until their debt is paid.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service says this in
dentured servitude is close to slavery because in many cas
es the "master" can abuse the immigrants, exploiting their
fears and ignorance in the strange land. Hiding from the
law, immigrants have little recourse.
Each year, the INS admits thousands of legal immigrants
into the country. The United States still stands as a refuge
from political and religious persecution, as it should. But
the millions who forgo the process and enter illegally force
those who seek legal immigration to wait. Many who seek
to enter the United States must wait up to four years before
being considered. The INS estimates that for every illegal
immigrant caught, two escape. That means more than two
million people enter the United States each year illegally;
consequently, those who chose to enter legally must wait.
Why must they wait? Because the United States has
only so many resources. Funding for schools, medical care
and other social services must meet the demands of the
population. Given the current situation with public ser
vices, our resources appear to be lagging.
It would be nice to welcome and embrace all who desire
to live in our nation. It seems inherent in the human spirit to
help everyone and deny no one. But the human race has a
mind as well as a heart. We must plan as well as feel.
We must assume responsibility for what we have been
granted. Take a look in any of the cities in our our glorious
nation. You will find the tired, the poor, the huddled mass
es. They are ours. The invitation issued so long ago has
been graciously received and overwhelmingly accepted.
The guests have arrived. And they keep coming. But
the party is over.
Vasquez is a senior journalism major
ROBERT
VASQUEZ
Columnist
DON’T DON’T DONT
ASK TELL >Ufi$UE
&l??2TVie.
Cigarette taxes, cigarette buts: New tobacco levy won't work
ew taxes
on ciga
rettes, re
cently proposed
by the Clinton Ad
ministration,
could be as high
as two dollars a
pack to help cover
the high cost of
the health care
plan. The project
ed cigarette tax
plan relies upon
conventional anti
smoking argu
ments susceptible
to challenge.
Because smokers harm themselves
and others, why not tax the activity?
Hie higher tax, projected to raise $40
billion next year, would deter smoking,
and the revenues could be used to help
others by funneling the tax revenues
into the health care system.
Certainly, smokers impose costs on
the health care system over and above
those of non-smokers. For instance, re
cent estimates by the National Center of
Health Statistics place the lifetime med
ical costs of the average male smoker 32
percent above non-smoking men.
But smokers will pay much of their
own higher health bills through higher
health and life insurance rates. Smok
ers also contribute more to the nation's
pension funds and Social Security, and
utilize less nursing home services be
cause on average they die earlier than
non-smokers. For Social Security alone,
by some estimates, more than $20,000 is
paid in and never collected by the aver
age smoker.
The disproportionate net contribu
tions of smokers to Social Security and
pension funds represents an implicit in
come transfer to non-smokers which
substantially offsets smokers' costs to
the health care system.
When the external costs — those not
borne by smokers — of smoking are
calculated and net pension and Social
Security transfers are subtracted, the to
tal cost comes to about 24 cents per
pack of cigarettes. And that sum falls
well below most taxes already collected
on cigarettes, and is substantially less
than Clinton's proposal.
In short, smokers are not getting a
free ride — they are paying their way.
But this may not convince many anti
smoking activists. Because smoking is
a habit typically picked up during one's
youth, the ability to weigh the conse
quences of taking up risky smoking is
questioned. Incorrect perception of
smoking risks might be a rationale for a
substantial tax.
A 1985 survey of some 3,000 smokers
and non-smokers was conducted to see
if the risks of smoking were correctly
perceived. The study found, as have
numerous earlier studies, that smokers
and non-smokers consistently overesti
mate the risks of smoking. Interestingly
enough, teenagers were more likely to
consider smoking a greater risk than
older age groups.
For instance, federal studies of the
lifetime risk of lung cancer due to
smoking range from 6-13 percent. In
the survey, smokers aged 16-21 placed
the risk at 45 percent, about three-and-
a-half times the upper rate federal stud
ies have deduced. Smokers 46 and old
er placed the risk substantially lower, at
33 percent, but still well above federal
studies' upper bounds.
But why tax adult smoking if the idea
is to stop teenage smoking? Better en
forcement of laws prohibiting the sale of
cigarettes to minors would be more ap
plicable. And if so-called "passive
smoking" is to be deterred, why tax pri
vate smoking? Restricting the use of cig
arettes in some public areas goes more to
the point. Tax-based solutions to these
problems appear misplaced.
If taxes are raised substantially on
cigarettes, a black market will emerge,
destroying any substantial tax gains. In
Canada, a three dollar increase in the
cigarette tax has doubled the price of a
pack of cigarettes since 1982. The black
market trade of cigarettes reached $1.03
billion in 1992 in Canada, and for which
the government lost some $1.3 billion in
tax revenues. Now the black market is
funding such criminal activities as nar
cotics and gun running.
The cost in lost tax revenues is just
the tip of the iceberg. The cost of pay
ing police officers, prosecutors, custom
officials and other personnel for ciga
rette trade enforcement is substantial.
The conventional wisdom for higher
taxes for cigarettes falls short of justifi
cation. Given Canada's problems with
black market cigarette trade, a substan
tial increase in cigarette taxes would
create more problems than it solved.
Dickerson is a sophomore economics major
Editorials oppearing in The Battalion reflect the
views of the editorial board. They do not
necessarily reflect the opinions of other
Battalion staff members, the Texas A&M student
body, regents, administration, faculty or staff.
Columns, guest columns, and Mail Call items
express the opinions of the authors.
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor
and will print as many as space allows in the
Mail Call section. Letters must be 300 words or
less and include the author's name, doss, and
phone number.
Contact the editor or managing editor for
information on submitting guest columns.
We reserve the right to «!it letters and guest
columns for length, style, and accuracy.
Letters should be addressed to:
The Battalion * Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald /Mail stop 1111
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843