Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 6, 1995)
The Battalion Opinion Wednesday September 6,1995 13 nto caid xas Gov. 'ion’s capi- d funding 'fficial vis' )f fice last breakfast 'ressional meetings ed by the members projects, ’k grants fairly in 'okesman 'alanced- billion xt seven hat pro- how to Palatable Politics Another Modest Proposal: The solution to ending hunger in the U.S. lies holding politicians to their promises, or else . T X c wo summers ago, l took a three week mini- course at TCU on British literature. My main intention was to get enough hours to order my Aggie King and to learn nothing. While I was successful with the first goal, 1 didn’t quite reach my second. Brian Beckcom Columnist rce hs in oth- laws/he counters touts is the law not been g. Tm a id. Tm re capa- ave not its the film aid her :t with ect and mtinue mr en- lation, is try- ie con- e con- >y the ant to work Although I learned almost nothing, in between sessions of deep sleep and slobbering on my Be owulf text, I actually remember one reading in par ticular— Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal. And with that in mind, I’d like to suggest Another Modest Proposal ... What’s one of our country’s biggest social prob lems? Not enough food for all the hungry masses, of course. Politicians, pundits and preachers have tried in vain for years to solve this dilemma and have ex hausted seemingly every possible avenue. Well, I have a suggestion they’ve never tried. But first, a few statistics to strengthen my sim ple proposal. Did you know we have more than 600 members of Congress at the federal level? If you figure each state has about 2,000 elected officials, that brings us to a grand total of more than 100,000 politicians (and that’s undoubtedly a low estimate). Let’s assume the normal adult eats three meals per day. If our present politicians were to give up their meals to the hungry, that’s 100,000 needy peo ple who would no longer be hungry. But what are the politicians going to eat? Before I answer that question, let me ask another: What exactly do politicians contribute to our society? Some might say legislation, some might say lead ership, but I think most sane Americans realize that the political leaders of today provide nothing but hot air and empty promises. Since America is a capitalist country, and those 4) can’t compete normally don’t hang around for loo long, how come we’ve got legislators who have 1 field office for 30 or 40 years? Quite simply, our politicians have avoided capitalism for decades. What should we, as concerned citizens, do about this? Consider the following — one 5-pound chicken can provide an adequate meal for two people. If you figure your average politician weighs 170 pounds, you can probably estimate that one politician could feed five to six hungry people. With over 100,000 politicians, that’s 500,000 hun gry people with food on the table. You’ve probably guessed my proposal by now. I know at first it may seem a bit extreme, but try to get around the initial discomfort of cannibalism. After all, if we’re serious about the hunger prob lem, shouldn’t we devise a serious solution? I know what most of you are think ing — Jessie Helms’ brain could barely serve as an appetizer. While that’s certainly true, imagine how many hungry children could be fed by Jessie Jackson’s big mouth. And imagine how many otherwise serving children could be fed by the lie- publican windbags in Congress. Although a Phil Gramm burger would probably be dry and tasteless, the nutritional value could be an adequate substitute for the lack of flavor Newt Gingrich could feed a family of five for a week. However, to answer the question of what the politicians will eat: lobbyists can fatten them up so they are good and tasty. r lYue, the role of the lobbyist changes little here, but they will finally have a desired effect on the po litical institution. I realize this little proposal is silly and extreme. However, is anyone else totally dissatisfied with our political leadership? . While we do have some very capable politicians, for the most part, America’s leadership is lacking. Is anyone really excited about another Bill Clinton presidency? For that matter, is anyone really excited about Sen. Bob “Dull” as the Republican front-runner? What this country needs is a politician leader in the mold of John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan. Regardless of your feelings toward either man, it is evident that both men brought excitement and passion to the political scene. The current presidential contenders bring nothing but boredom and business as-usual. No wonder Ross Perot is still considered a viable candidate. Even though Perot is suffering from neuro sis and paranoia, his independent party characterizes the mood of the American public. At this point, I think I’ll cast my vote for P.J. O’Rourke. But what do we do when •our current crop of politi cians has been devoured? Well, it’s simple. Every time a politician runs for office, we give him or her one year to make good on their promises. If they haven’t achieved the goals set forth by their platform, then we hold a vote on whether to keep them around or boil them in a stew. That way, politicians are truly held accountable, and we lick the hunger problem as well. Brian Beckcom is a senior computer science major Eating your cake now, paying later Clinton supporters are nowhere to be found when budget cuts draw near “If you never budge, don’t expect a push. ” -- Malcolm S. Forbes T imes are tough. Across this broad nation there are signs of strain: O.J. Simpson T-shirt sales have topped off, President Clin ton is being forced to hang out with veteran’s groups and students may I have to start footing the bill for the nation- | al budget deficit, f That’s correct. J If you paid attention this summer you i are certainly aware of the fact that Con- J gress is trying to slow the money leak that j threatens to sink the federal government. A difficult task indeed has been assumed j by the mostly-Republican 104th Congress. •• j Forty years of neglect by Congressional Democrats has left a wasteland of unfund- 1 ed mandates. Each year these mandates I consume more than $200 billion not allo cated to the government. By the end of the 1980s there was no , longer an arms race or a strong Soviet Union to justify budget overdrafts, thus the j Presidential election of 1992 became the j face to control the budget deficit. Those who supported budget | cuts so vigorously when Clin ton promised them want noth ing to do with them now. Generation X turned out for this election like no similar age group in the history of democratic elections. Rock stars, sports figures and even MTV e ncouraged -every legal voter to educate themselves and exercise the right to vote. Doy did they. Sound bites of George Bush breaking his ■amous “no new taxes” promise skated in j 0l tf heads, while Bill Clinton, with his j Promises of extinguishing the deficit wild fire, skated into the Oval office. Three years later, President Clinton’s promises appear des tined to be broken. According to the figures from the Pres idential Budget Of fice, President Clin ton is perfectly comfortable with over spending his budget by at least $190 billion every year for the next seven years. That is unless the Republicans, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen. Bob Dole, have their way. Ironically, the Republicans are now fighting to fulfill the President’s own cam paign promises by trimming federal spend ing down to a tolerable level. This summer the budget ax-wielding Re publicans debated defunding numerous government organizations, including the National Endowment for the Arts, the Cor poration for Public Broadcasting and many other nonessential programs. In each instance, screams resonated from the Generation X culture junkies. In addition, the liberal elite decried these pro grams as necessary. Most recently, Congress entertained the idea of reducing spending in the area of college loans. College loans would still be substantial and numerous; however, the government would no longer pick up the monthly interest due until graduation. If enacted, students will assume payment on educational loans immediately, just as any other loan requires. This again brought about much ado from the twenty-somethings and raises two per tinent points. First, it is possible to give someone something long enough that they soon be lieve it is owed to them. Secondly, when all these Generation X, loan-holding, culture freaks voted for Pres ident Clinton, did they think they would not have to sacrifice anything in the name of spending reduction? I’m left pondering the question: Did my generation waffle en masse on beliefs held so dear three years ago, or did Congress actual ly strive for the last year to make “Genera tion X” synonymous with “senseless”? Many of the same individuals who sup ported budget cuts so vigorously when President Clinton promised them want nothing to do with them now that they seem imminent. President Clinton told us there would be a need for sacrifice, but only Congress and a few others believed him. Apparently, we have been brought up with a “what we want, when we want it” attitude that may prove as disastrous to public policy as 40 years of Democratic dominance has. We want to eat our cake and purchase it later. We as a generation, I gather, will cease to exist if the government doesn’t pro vide us with Sesame Street, subsidized bal let and our education all at the same time. It may be time for us to stop and decide what is important. I for one would rather spend money on the defense of our nation and the education of our people instead of paying for someone to arrange poetry on various parts of their body under the auspices of “art.” Call it “cultural censorship” or anything you like. We as a generation overwhelmingly sup ported the idea of fiscal responsibility three years ago, and it has come to bear. Hopefully, we can sacrifice some of the extraneous expenditures and save the col lege loans from the cuts. However, we must begin to rely on someone other than the United States government for what defines and educates us culturally. We simply cannot afford it anymore. Alex Miller is a senior bioenvironmental science major The Battalion Established in 1893 Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the editorials board. They do not necessary reflect the opinions of other Battalion staff members', the Texas A&M student body, regents, administration, faculty or staff. Columns, guest columns, cartoons and letters express the opinions of the authors. Contact the opinion editor for information on submitting guest columns. Editorials Board Rob Clark Editor in Chief Sterling Hayman Managing Editor Kyle Littlefield Opinion Editor Elizabeth Preston Assistant Opinion Editor Cinematic Sin? The MSC Film Society should show the controversial film about priests. One purpose of a university education is to encourage an open exchange of thoughts and ideas. For this reason, the at tempts by members of the Catholic Student Association to prevent the MSC Film Society from showing the movie Priest are misguided. Priest features one priest who sleeps with his housekeep er, another who is homosexual, and raises the issue of break ing the confessional vow of con fidentiality. It has offended many Catholics, who interpret it as being anti-Catholic. Others, however, argue that it is not anti-Catholic, but rather that it criticizes certain elements of the church’s beliefs. Nevertheless, conflicting in terpretations of the movie should not discourage the MSC Film Society from showing it. On the contrary, the debate it has created should encourage the presentation. Just as people protested Priest when Miramax re leased it earlier this year, some Texas A&M students do not want the film shown at the University this Friday. Unfortunately, those who argue against the showing of Priest are, in effect, trying to stifle a legitimate debate over controversial elements of the Catholic doctrine. The committees should be commended for engaging in thoughtful discussion during the selection process. In fact, the MSC discussed potential concerns before approving it unanimously in the Program Review Committee and the entire MSC Council. The film society’s efforts to accommodate the concerns of many should be commend ed. The proposed open forum to discuss the issues raised in the film, as well as distrib uting a survey at the film, are both good ways for view ers to discuss their reactions to the movie. Not everyone who sees Priest will like it, but that does n’t matter. The important thing is that Texas A&M stu dents have the chance to see it and make a judgment for themselves — not allow others to do it for them.