Thursday
October 5, 1995
The Battalion
Opinion
Snip,
Snip,
Snip.’
ff
Sounds of
budget cuts only
Democrat
imaginations
Republican plans for revamping Medicare have Democrats acting like children
O h, for the life of a six
year old. Things were
pretty simple back then.
I’m especially fond of the
problem solving style of six-
year-olds: If you don’t like the
way the game is going, take
your ball and go home.
Of course, that only works
for six-year-olds ... until now,
or to be more precise, until this past Monday.
On Monday, the Democratic members of the
House Commerce Committee decided they didn’t
like how the game was going. So they took their
balls and went home.
I suppose we should start this story back a
few months.
The Medicare program is in trouble. Money
for this important program comes from contribu
tions to a trust fund — just like Social Security.
These “voluntary” contributions are deducted
from every paycheck we receive (we’ll save the
discussion of “voluntary” for another column).
Medicare provides the only source of health
care for millions of older Americans. For many
others, it functions as a kind of “safety net” in
case of severe illness. No one on Medicare would
ever claim it to be efficient, but it is necessary.
There’s only one problem: it’s broke, or soon
will be. According to a commission appointed by
President Clinton, the Medicare trust fund will
run out of money within seven years.
So a few weeks back, the Republi
cans began working on a plan to sal
vage Medicare. The response was al
most predictable.
Well, the plan came out this past
week, and it went to the House Sub
committee for debate. Some debate.
While the House Democrats went
out for recess, other alleged leaders of
the Democratic party stood in front of the ever-
so-eager cameramen.
The President cried (read this resolutely), “We
can’t cut Medicare!”
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said
(read this indignantly), “The Republicans are
cutting Medicare to fund a tax cut for the rich.”
In the Senate, Minority Leader Tom Daschle
urged (read desperately), “Workers of the world
rise up and overthrow your capitalist masters.”
Whoa, boys. Them’s some nasty fightin’ words
... too bad they ain’t true.
First of all, under the new plan, average
spending per Medicare recipient will go from this
year’s expected $4,800 to $6,700 in the year
2002. Now I must have missed that day when my
English teacher told us that “cut” and “increase”
mean the same thing.
Maybe the President is just using some of that
“new” English.
As for Gephardt, Medicare isn’t funded by tax
es, so how can it provide a tax cut to anyone?
What about Sen. Daschle? Well, he didn’t say
that. He just sounded like it.
Sen. Daschle claims to be looking out for the
“working people” of America — he really said
that.
Just a thought: How do you look out for them
by making sure the Medicare fund is gone by
2002? Oh yeah, by 2002, the Democrats’ econom
ic plans will be complete, and none of us will
have jobs anyway.
By the year 2002, the Democrats'
economic plans will be complete ...
and none of us will have jobs anyway.
This week, a few Democrats proposed a
Medicare revamping which will save almost $90
billion over 10 years (the Republican plan will
save about $270 billion over seven years).
This represents a good thought, but poor
math. The fund goes broke in seven years. Just
when you thought the story couldn’t get any bet
ter, along came last Tuesday.
At a hearing that day, “only for people with
the super-secret decoder ring,” House Democrats
valiantly fought the Republican hordes by calling
them names.
One Congressman referred to the Republicans
as “bloodsuckers.”
Not to be outdone, another called the Republi
cans “vampires.”
One claimed that House Republicans “are ani
mals on the attack.”
Yeah, they also eat their young.
In response to Republican claims that the De
mocrats were being “childish,” my sources report
hearing one Democratic Congressman taunt, “I
know you are, but what am I?” Another was
heard to say, “I’m rubber, and you’re glue. What
ever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.”
This Medicare problem sounds pretty remote
to us, while our parents may still provide our
health insurance. Or even if they don’t, most of
us are a long way from having to use Medicare.
So why should we care?
Simple. A few years down the road, our par
ents will need Medicare.
More importantly, our grandparents probably
already do. They deserve better than these stu
pid games.
Sick of this yet? So am I.
If the Democrats are really interested in solv
ing this problem — or any other one, for that
matter — they need to grow up and stop throw
ing temper tantrums when things don’t go the
way they want.
The rest of us learned that when we were six.
David Taylor is a senior management major
Bus Ops not to
blame for rain
I’m writing in response to
Scott Emory’s letter in the Oct.
3 Battalion.
After reading the article I
couldn’t believe that he and 75
other people actually stood in
the rain for half an hour. Espe
cially when shelter was only 20
feet away.
Obviously that rainy day was
chaotic, but the bus drivers were
also confused by the situation.
Bus Operations did not shut
down! The University Police
Department and College Sta
tion Police Department had
closed some streets, rendering
service impossible.
Also, we were instructed to
stay on the bus. This was done
for safety — our primary goal at
this point.
Emory was at the MSC,
which has plenty of free phones
inside. Being a former driver,
he knew who to call to find out
what was going on.
Why didn’t he?
He could’ve stayed dry and
then informed all those people
out in the rain (or under the pro
tection of the overhang) what
was going on.
If he had been a driver, would
he have gotten out of his bus
and run across Simpson field to
tell the customers?
Mail
I doubt it.
This was not blatant incon
sideration, nor was it poor ser
vice. We feel the customer has
the right to know what is going
on, but we were doing what we
were told to do by UPD.
We are extremely sorry for
the inconvenience that day, but
Bus Ops should not be blamed
for the confusion.
Blame mother nature.
Sean Kilgore
Class of ’95
accompanied by 32 signatures
Simpson would be
"guilty" in Texas
Yeah, yeah. Go ahead and cel
ebrate. The Juice is loose!
But don’t forget what else
O.J. supporters are celebrating:
The decline of the American ju
dicial system.
We’ve told the world, “Model
after our sense of justice and fair
treatment under the law.
Then you too can kill anyone
you want. The more heinous and
bloody, the better. Then go free,
if you have enough money.
Most important though, don’t
forget the media. Those blood
suckers are on your side!”
Johnny Cochran turned the
trial into a racial issue.
That is a disgrace to America
and African-Americans who
have stopped hiding behind race
as a reason for injustice.
Letting Simpson go free was
a slap in the face to anyone who
wanted equal treatment.
Those jurors were Los An-
gelites. They were worried about
the consequences of what a
guilty verdict might do.
They chose to save themselves
rather than let justice be served.
They were also star-struck,
believing that this could only
happen in the movies.
Not famous O.J.
If O.J. had been tried in
Texas, where we aren’t intimi
dated by riots, movie celebrities,
or even dilapidated football
stars, then he would have been
found guilty, and hung.
Chance J. Word
Class of ’97
Accompanied by 4 signatures
Times, Post made
correct decision
“Never Fold,” the editorial con
cerning the printing of the Un-
abomber’s 35,000 word essay, did
not take both sides of the story
into account.
This essay, which journalism
has supposedly “bent” to, may
be the very thing to end the Un-
abomer’s killings.
By publishing the essay,
there may be someone who rec
ognizes a certain phrase, a par
ticular expression or a familiar
diction they have heard before.
The Unabomber obviously
feels strongly about his cause,
and the FBI have reason to be
lieve he’s spreading his message
by mouth, too. Someone could
lead authorities to the man be
hind these bombs.
In addition, though his
promise may be completely bo
gus, he has said he will to end his
bombing streak if his manifesto
was published.
The newspapers involved dealt
with this ethical dilemma the
best way they could.
They gave it a shot.
' Yes, journalism is submitting
to being held hostage by print
ing the manifesto under the
threats of the terrorist.
Perhaps this route will be tak
en by other terrorist groups to at
tain media attention.
But what alternative did
they have? Risking someone’s
life because we couldn’t give up
our standards?
We obviously didn’t have a
choice, and this could stop him.
Giving in to the demands of a
terrorist could set a dangerous
precedent, negatively affecting
all media organizations.
But as a society, we are all
being held hostage.
We are all afraid of what’s
next; but he has murdered in
discriminately.
Almost anyone in the United
States would fit his profile.
Teachers.
Students.
Us.
I’m not saying that printing
the essay will stop the Un-
abomber’s hate crimes.
I’m just not saying it won’t.
I’m saying that we should put
this on a level where every hu
man life is valued as much as
standards in journalism are.
Did we really have a choice?
Lori L. Lee
Class of ’99
The.Battalion encourages letters to the
editor and will print as many as space al
lows. Letters must be 300 words or less
and include the author's name, class, and
phone number.
We reserve the right to edit letters for
length, style and accuracy. Letters may be
i submitted in person at 013 Reed McDon-
j aid. A valid student ID is required. Letters i
I may also be mailed to:
| The Battalion - Mail Call
* 013 Reed McDonald Fax:
Texas A&M University (409) 845-2647
j College Station, TX E-mail:
] 77843-1111 Batt@tamvm1.tamu.edu I
The Battalion
Editorials Board
Established in 1893
Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views
of the editorials 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, cartoons
and letters express the opinions of the authors.
Contact the opinion editor for information on
submitting guest columns.
Rob Clark
Editor in Chief
Sterling Hayman
Managing Editor
Kyle Littlefield
Opinion Editor
Elizabeth Preston
Assistant Opinion Editor
No Respect
ABC should not have reneged on
its decision to air A&M game.
Once again, the A&M foot
ball team has not received the
respect they deserve.
ESPN, ABC, Raycom and
Prime Sports all decided not to
show the Texas A&M — Texas
Tech game this Saturday.
Thus, Aggies who want to
watch the game will have to
fork over $19.95 for a pay-per-
view broadcast on TCA cable.
Perhaps the reasoning be
hind this action is be due to
A&M’s loss to Colorado. Losing
this game eliminated A&M’s
hopes of a national champi
onship title, and knocked them
down six places in the polls.
However, the networks
failed to notice that A&M is
still ranked in the top 10 in the
country. Also, A&M is the
hands-on favorite to win the
Southwest Conference.
A&M remains one of the
most important teams in col
lege football.
Usually a top 10 team could
be confident that they would
be shown on regional network
television, especially if they
were playing a formidable con
ference opponent.
However, A&M fans are be
ing robbed of this right.
Not to mention that Texas
Tech has been in the top 25
this year, and they almost
beat national powerhouse
Penn State.
This game measures up to
be one of the most exciting and
challenging conference games
of the year for A&M. Yet the
networks have overlooked this
fact, resulting in yet another
slap in the face to the A&M
football team.
Usually, the lack of respect
given to A&M only hurts the
football team’s rankings in the
polls. But this time, A&M fans
are the ones that directly bear
the costs.