13
Thursday
October 19, 1995
^The Battalion
Opinion
mm
f “
fi.OClAI, SECHIN
Solutions found in private sector
Answer to Social Security dilemma not in entitlements, government interventions
David
Taylor
Columnist
E ntitlements.
What a beautiful
word. Kinda
slides off the tongue
like Formula 44D on
strep throat.
It’s that time of year
in Washington.
Time for the semi
annual “guns or butter
debate” in the friendly confines of Congress. Yep, time
to talk about those pesky entitlement things again.
We call them “entitlements” because ... well. I’m not
really sure why. The only thing anyone should be enti
tled to is to be left alone.
Yet, in this country, entitlements means I am enti
tled to give the government money that I earned.
Then a bureaucrat who is entitled to receive the
money gives my money — minus the bureaucrat’s
salary ... and his or her boss ... and their Christmas
party on Grand Cayman — to someone else who feels
entitled to my money.
Entitlement is a word I will never understand.
Big on Congress’ agenda is Social Security.
Surveys of our age group indicate that more of us
believe in UFOs than believe that we will ever receive
any Social Security benefits.
The President tells us not to worry because he’ll
save us. Yeah, and proof of UFOs exists.
First of all, the claims of Social Security’s imminent
demise are greatly exaggerated.
Second, Social Security, as it exists today, must die.
Our Baby-Boomer parents decided to have this
grand experiment wherein they would all support our
grandparents in their old age. Social Security, of
course, was the perfect vehicle for this. Its scope was
increased dramatically in the 60s toward this end.
Unfortunately, now we’re screwed.
It’s a numbers game. There are more baby boomers
than Generation ... (I refuse to say the next letter).
I have a drastic idea: Do away with Social Security.
Now before I get lynched, let me explain.
The program as is will go bankrupt in 2027. We
have two choices right now. Either we cut benefits to fit
reality — it’ll never happen— or we blow the budget
and increase funding.
Fortunately, another option does exist. Take the
whole program away from the government and put it
in the hands of the private sector.
This privatization idea has been tried in Chile.
In Chile, workers are still required to invest a cer
tain percentage of their income in a retirement trust
fund. The difference comes in the investment itself.
Here in the bastion of free choice — that would be
the U.S. of A. — we get to put our retirement money in
the fiscally responsible federal government. A govern
ment that has not been able to balance its books since
1969. Excuse me while I whoop.
In Chile, 24 different funds compete for investment
by that country’s workers.
The Chilean government helps to guarantee that
the funds will still be around come retirement, but the
money is in private hands — meaning it will actually
increase between now and then.
Edward Crane, president of the Cato Institute, ad
dressed this idea. He observed, “A system of private
pensions is likely to have the occasional failure, but our
government controlled retirement system is on the
path to failing our entire generation”
Of course, for this system to work here, our politi
cians have to believe in free enterprise and the market.
Well, elections are coming ...
This brings us to the fundamental question: If the
private sector can do a much better job with entitle
ments, what is the government’s role?
In the words of P.J. O’Rourke, “There is only one ba
sic human right, the right to do as you damn well
please. And with it comes the only basic human duty,
the duty to take the consequences.”
Government exists to keep that right balanced. In
the case of harm, again in the words of O’Rourke, “...
that had better be clear and provable harm.”
Freedom is another word that flows off the tongue.
If we really want to provide our senior citizens and
ourselves with freedom from fear about our future, we
must consider some drastic alternatives to govern
ment-mandated solutions.
Freedom, not entitlement, will keep us on even footing.
David Taylor is a senior management major
01
MIR
iBTBWiiiiiiinwiwiimr
Christian ads offered third option
The recent ads merely meant to offer homosexuals a new way of thinking
I ntolerant.
Anti-homo
sexual. Dis
respectful. In
poor taste.
These are
just a few of the
emotionally
charged criti
cisms leveled at
last week’s “Every Student’s Choice” (ESC)
ads in The Battalion.
These charges promote tremendously pow
erful and emotional pictures about the “ram
pant” bigotry on the Texas A&M campus.
However, nothing could be any further
from the truth.
I think we all can agree that there are
jerks in every camp. Yes, there are some who
claim to be Christian who truly are intoler
ant and bigoted toward gays.
I have read reports of the overt sex acts
performed on public property during gay
rights marches in Washington, D.C. and
San Francisco, and of the desecration of
Catholic churches in New York City by the
radical group ACT UP!
Yet, I know of no gays who feel these
acts should be considered representative of
all homosexuals.
Whether you agree or disagree with the
ads, the Christian message is motivated by
compassion. If I see a tornado headed for a
neighbor’s house, I run and shout loudly to
alert the residents to get out.
They may choose to ignore my pleas or
may not believe in them, but they cannot
logically claim I am intolerant to their
“right” to stay in their house.
As a Christian, I believe a lifestyle moti
vated by a personal relationship with God
through Jesus Christ is preferable to any
other lifestyle.
Therefore, Christians offer options for
others to consider.
As I looked at the Coming Out Week
ads, I saw them as offering only two op
tions — a person can either be gay and in
the closet or openly homosexual and out of
the closet.
Being out of the closet was advertised as
the preferred option. The ESC ads simply
added, “There is another option ... another
way out of the closet.”
It seems that homosexuals who are open
about their chosen lifestyle are called car
ing and supportive when they offer an op
tion to join them.
On the other hand, Christians are called
intolerant and disrespectful when they offer
a third option.
Why is it caring and supportive to call a
person from heterosexuality to homosexuali
ty and homophobic and anti-gay to call a gay
or lesbian person back into heterosexuality?
I could call the overreaction on campus to
the ESC ads “Christophobia” — fear of Chris
tians who are offering options.
After all, these ads simply put forth a
message by former homosexuals that their
deepest needs were not met through homo
sexuality and homosexual relationships.
Instead, they had found their peace and
purpose in a personal relationship with God
through Jesus Christ.
If homosexual individuals have prob
lems with these testimonials, then their
problem is with those who were active,
practicing homosexuals and then found a
different way.
Their problem should not be with the
Texas A&M Christian community at large.
I know some readers are very upset at the
notion of my saying there are other options
preferable to the homosexual lifestyle.
The ads simply put forth a mes
sage by former homosexuals
that their deepest needs were
not met by homosexuality.
That’s O.K.
We are not forcing anyone to do or change
anything. If you are truly satisfied with your
choice of lifestyle, then enjoy your life with
my blessing.
Options — not criticism.
Compassion —not condemnation.
Possibilities — not either or choices.
These are what the “Every Student’s
Choice” ads presented.
And, just as the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexu
al Association seeks to promote its world
view, so should Christians present and pro
mote theirs.
Christians have the right and responsi
bility to declare our pride and speak out
against Christophobia. Intolerance toward
Christian ideas and ideals is a not proper
reaction to these ads.
H. Michael Neely is the South Region
Director for Christian Leadership
Ministries, the faculty ministry of
Campus Crusade for Christ
H. Michael
Neely
Guest Columnist
1
Easy to critique
when not involved
Chris Stidvent’s Oct. 16 col
umn on homosexuality was offen
sive as well as disappointing.
Typically Stidvent’s columns
are insightful and well-written.
They are usually witty, ironic
compositions that invite the read
er to think about issues from a
different vantage point.
His style works well: howev
er, in this case his style was
not appropriate.
Stidvent had every right to dis
agree with the Christian groups
that placed the ads featuring for
mer homosexuals.
In the same manner, the
Christian groups had every right
to place those ads.
I was struck by the way Stid
vent’s style backfired on him.
While writing about the ills of in
tolerance, Stidvent was being in
tolerant himself.
Even his paradox was forgiv
able given the uniqueness of
every person’s opinions and per
spective, but the clincher comes
when Stidvent casually sprinkles
in the part about the first time he
knew he liked girls.
From the context of the article,
it seems logical to assume that
Stidvent is not a Christian, and
he conveniently mentions that he
is not a homosexual.
Thus, he really had no person
al stake in the issue. Because of
the style he uses, Stidvent mocks
both groups who have real, legiti
mate concerns about the issue at
hand. It is easy to feed the fires of
controversy when you will be far
removed from the smoke.
Jenny Magee
Class of’96
Only 'whoop' if
it's your wildcat
A&M is a school rich in its
traditions, most of which serve
some valid purpose.
One is the wildcat, used to
distinguish classes. The fresh
men ‘A’, the sophomores ‘A-A-A’,
and the juniors and seniors
‘Whoop!’ while performing the
accompanying hand signals.
Why is it then, that on the
front page of the Oct. 11 Battal
ion, the newly elected freshmen
officials were pictured whooping?
Not everyone had the oppor
tunity to attend Fish Camp and
learn the ways of A&M, but
these are the people just elected
to represent their class. They
should know about the tradi
tions of Texas A&M.
Most of us worked hard to get
where we are. Being able to
‘Whoop!’ may seem like a little
thing, but it is our privilege. Re
spect it, and start pushing.
Jennifer Beckner
Class of ’96
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
submitted in person at 013 Reed McDon
ald. A valid student ID is required. Letters
may also be mailed to:
j The Battalion - Mail Call
j 013 Reed McDonald Fax:
Texas A&M University (409) 845-2647
| College Station, TX E-mail:
[ 77843-1 111 Batt@tamvm1.tamu.edu
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
Tabled Again
The Student Senate debated about
multiculturalism and decided nothing
After a long and exhaustive
debate last night, the Student
Senate could not reach a deci
sion about the cultures require
ment. This inability to make a
decision does not benefit the
University or its students.
The Senate first voted to
repeal the bill it had passed
two years ago, which recom
mended that a three-hour
cultures requirement be
added to the curriculum.
The bill was essentially
meaningless, because more
than 90 percent of students al
ready meet the requirement.
However, the weak cul
tures requirement was better
than none at all.
Then, the Senate voted to
reconsider the bill and then
tabled the issue in order to
get more input from their
constituents, effectively leav
ing it in limbo.
Apparently, those who falla
ciously argued that the cul
tures requirement would only
serve to promote a liberal agen
da are winning the debate.
In reality, a cultures re
quirement would prepare
students for the global mar
ketplace they will face after
graduation.
Although a Student Senate
resolution is non-binding, the
Senate’s indecision fails to give
the body any credibility, and of
fers little direction for Univer
sity President Ray Bowen.
In an ideal situation, Bowen
would be able to consider all
points of view before he makes
a final decision.
However, the Student
Senate has failed to give him
anything new, and if it ever
passes a bill, it will be devoid
of resolution.
In the end, he should real
ize the Faculty Senate’s al
ternative is the best.
Its six-hour cultures re
quirement would not add any
hours to any student’s degree
plan, it covers national and
international cultures and it
allows students to choose
from hundreds of courses.
No matter what conclu
sion Bowen reaches, he
should make a decision soon,
because this divisive issue
needs resolution.