Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 • Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Impossible terms
U.S. has responsibility to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure it helped destroy in war
DAVID
SHOEMAKER
T he United States has
been a rather generous
country when it comes
to giving aid to other coun
tries in need, especially since
World War II. This generosity
was most prominently mani
fested in the grand Marshall
Plan, by which the United
States helped fund the
rebuilding of a Western Europe that was
wrecked in part by American explosives.
Although such programs cannot be under
taken solely for their moral merits, those and
the other more pragmatic benefits from such
programs, when well run, can be great. The
U.S. Senate’s recent decision to change some
$10 billion of the $87 million needed for Iraq
from grants to loans destined for Iraq is a
shortsighted misstep that must be corrected.
Iraq is in dire need of money to get its
economy and infrastructure back on its feet.
According to an article from the BBC, a World
Bank team sent to Iraq told the Coalition
Provisional Authority that $35.6 billion is
needed to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure in areas
such as water supplies and electrical service.
An additional $19.4 billion was considered
necessary by the same panel to improve
other essential areas, such as security and
the oil industry.
This contrasts with a study done by
McKinsey Consulting, quoted in the same arti
cle stating $90 billion was really needed, with
$35 billion to $40 billion for the oil industry
alone. Projected oil revenues of $10 billion for
the year cannot cover the government payrolls
of roughly $15 billion or even make a dent in
the $134 billion debt left by the previous
regime. Clearly Iraq is in no shape to tap its
massive oil reserves and has no pot of cash in
the national treasury. Thus, the Senate’s vote to
make loans of $10 billion of the first $20.3 bil
lion appropriations in the Bush administra
tion’s $87 billion plan makes no sense.
Specifically, according to The Houston
Chronicle, the first $10 billion will be given as
a loan rather than a grant unless the countries
Iraq owes outstanding debt to forgive at least
90 percent of the debts. This is supposedly to
prevent the use of the money
to pay down the Iraqi nation
al debt.
Such terms will be
almost impossible for
the Iraqis to
meet.
The countries to which they owe debt have
no concern if the Iraqis have to pay the United
States back. This will not give the United
States any more leverage in the upcoming
meeting of the countries and organizations
about contributing funds to rebuild Iraq.
It will take Iraq a while to export enough oil
to begin paying off its debts, and even then it
will be subject to fluctuations in oil prices.
Saddling Iraq with another $10 billion on top of
the more than $130 billion in debt helps no one.
But it also raises a larger issue: Does the United
States and its allies bear a moral duty to help
pay to rebuild what their explosives helped
destroy for more than 12 years?
The United States and its
allies bear responsibility for
rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure
now that Saddam has been
deposed. The power grid,
roads, bridges and water sys
tems all suffered from dam-
Mahesh Neelakantan • THE BATTALION
age done during the 12 years between the wars.
Some of the damage done by coalition aircraft
from the first Persian Gulf War still had not
been repaired completely by the time of the
second war.
Now that Saddam has been defeated, the
United States and its coalition partners owe it
to the average Iraqi to help restore his power,
transportation and running water.
According to the BBC, the European Union
has offered only $320 million to the effort, and
the United Kingdom has offered nothing. Even
though the United States fought the war, the
coalition that fought Saddam in 1991 also owes
something, at least for any damage incurred by
their forces still remaining from 1991.
Regardless of the reason, by any appraisal,
asking for loans from Iraq at this point is pure
folly. It will only hurt Iraq’s financial situation
and hurt the United States’ reputation with
Iraqis and in the Arab world. It will raise even
more questions about why the United States is
still there.
Those in the Senate looking to use this
episode for personal benefit should heed Sen.
John McCain’s warning — that changing the
money into loans show that the United
States is only in Iraq for oil — and fall in
with the House and administration on
this matter. They should do what is
practical and what is right, and give the hand
up to the Iraqis, even if it has to be a handout
for now.
David Shoemaker is a junior
management major.
Personal pay raises should not be a priority for Congress
E arly'20th century journalist H. L.
Mencken once quipped that the govern
ment consisted basically of ordinary
people with “no special talent for the business
of government; they have only a talent for get
ting and holding office.” While this statement
contains both elements of truth and humor, the
fact that these same people whose talent is in
question — the members of the U.S. Congress
— are treating themselves to a fifth consecu
tive pay raise is quite serious, boosting their
annual salary to about $158,000 in 2004.
But, it gets better. In 1989, Congress members got around
the public and political hassle of having the media report that
they were openly voting to give themselves raises. Since that
year, Congress automatically raises its salary each year unless
lawmakers specifically vote against it. It would be interesting to
see what a corporate manager would call it if an employee gave
himself an “automatic pay raise,” as Congress is calling it, from
the cash drawer after each year of service. The term would cer
tainly not be as forgiving.
Sen. Russel Feingold, D-Wisconsin, recognizing the wrong in
this activity, has opposed this year’s pay raise despite the fact that
he would get his cut along with everyone else. “This automatic,
stealth pay raise system is just wrong,” Feingold said. “I, for one,
would be interested to hear someone explain just why Congress
should get a $3,400 pay raise in the face of record budget deficits,
an economic downturn and record unemployment.”
Feingold isn’t alone in his opposition; however, the majority
of Congress was not honest enough to agree. The Senate voted
against his bill to block the raise, 60 to 34. Members supporting
the pay raise may argue that their 2.2 percent pay raise is still
less than the average pay raise in private busi
ness, which was an average pay increase of 2.7
percent last year, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
But are the two comparisons really applica
ble? Anybody who has worked in the corporate
world — be it from the office to the back of a
fast food restaurant — knows that getting a raise
requires clear, documented proof to management
that one has earned it. Has Congress proven to
the taxpayers funding the pay raise that it has
earned it?
Though many critics would answer “no,” con
sider their argument about the corporate world.
The fact is that if the company isn’t doing well
and having a hard time keeping its books in the
black, employee raises are the first expenditures
to be put on hold or cut altogether. Despite a
weak economy and Congress’ recent reluctance
to grant the president his request to continue funding the war
on terrorism’s Iraqi front. Congress apparently feels a salary
increase is still in order.
This logic leads one to wonder about congressional priorities.
Do their interests truly lie with the priorities of the people who
elect them? This is certainly not an easy question to answer but
consider that this salary increase will be the fifth in a row for
Congress, totaling $21,000. This is more than a U.S. worker
making minimum wage earns in a year and a half. Speaking of
minimum wage — though Congress has raised its own wage
five times in the last five years, the minimum
wage hasn’t been increased since 1997. While
the government’s policy of forcing private busi
nesses to pay their employees a minimum
amount is inconsistent with the capitalist ideals
the founders formed our government upon, the
fact is worth considering when wondering about
congressional priorities.
Earning a worthy salary for productive effort
is the basis of the prosperity that is the
American dream. However, without giving peo
ple a reasonable basis for spending more of the
country’s tax dollars on giving Congress a pay
raise, the government hasn’t shown that
Congress members deserved such prosperity. If
they want to increase their salary, they have to
do so like any other hardworking American —
they have to earn it. Sneakily awarding them
selves more money with no explanation and
against what Americans know about the country’s budget prob
lems does nothing to prove to the nation that its Congressmen
deserve it.
Mike Walters is a senior
psychology major.
u
Despite a weak
economy and Congress'
recent reluctance to
grant the president his
request to continue
funding the war on
terrorism's Iraqi fronty
Congress apparently
feels a salary increase is
still in order.
MAIL CALL
Remake of movie fails
to meet original
In response to Jose Cruz’s Oct. 27
movie review:
The review by Mr. Cruz was so
incorrect in that it constitutes an
absolute disservice to any potential
filmgoer who reads them. 1 was sur
prised and a little offended that Mr.
Cruz chose to rate the remake of
“The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”
more highly than Tobe Hooper’s
original visionary masterpiece. I am
in no way trying to deny that Mr.
Cruz has a right to express his opin
ions, but I am disturbed that The
Battalion would choose to print
what is a sadly illiterate interpreta
tion of one of the greatest horror
films ever made.
Mr. Cruz states that Hooper’s film
doesn't “inspire or articulate.” A
more knowledgeable viewing of this
film would yield exactly the opposite
impression. “The Texas Chainsaw
Massacre” is an intellectual experi
ence as well as a horrifying one.
Embedded within its bloodshed is
an intense, convicting examination
of violence, poverty and feminism.
The remake simply lacks the intelli
gence and originality of its prede
cessor. It’s an ugly film that I hope
will be wiped from the memory of
cinema by Christmas time.
Clint Bland
Class of 2006
Space program could
be used against U.S.
In response to Hayden Migl’s Oct. 27
column:
If I am reading Hayden Migl’s arti
cle correctly, he is suggesting that
we, the United States, should assist
China in its space exploration
because it “might bring some of the
excitement back into the space pro
gram.” We just spent the last half
century fighting the communists in
the Cold War. Thousands battled
the Chinese in Korea and Vietnam
trying to stop the spread of commu
nism. Now he is suggesting we
help them launch missions into
space that can potentially threaten
our national security.
Why would we want to help them
launch satellites which can be used
as weapons and to spy on us? To
motivate the American people to
become excited about NASA
again? Or maybe the Chinese gov
ernment will have an awakening
and become democratic like its sis
ter Russia did. Sorry, son, we do
not aid the enemy, and communism
is the enemy.
Charles Holland
Class of 2005
Constitution should
be corrected if wrong
In response to an Oct. 27 mail
call:
Ms. Scarmardo does have a point
that this country’s belief system was
founded on religious principles, but
that is about the only one. Please
do not forget that slavery and the
massacre of the Native American
population was also based on these
principles. Not only do we have the
right to “correct” the U.S.
Constitution (that’s why we have
amendments), but an obligation to
do so when it is necessary.
Allison Lothman
Class of 2003
On-campus students
need garage spots
In response to David Ege’s Oct. 28
column:
By paying extra money, resident
garage spot holders do deserve a
designated spot. That is the whole
point of the garage. You mention
that with an increase in garage
passes sold, a price decrease for a
parking garage spot might be
observed. Not only would this be
compulsory because the worth of
the pass would have dropped dra
matically, but this unjustified state
ment answers no questions nor
does it solve any current problems,
for there is no outcry for the
decrease in garage parking fees.
On-campus people live on cam
pus, they don’t commute here. If
they own a garage spot and can’t
find a spot to park in the garage
,they do not have the option of
using A&M’s well-established bus
system to get to class as off-cam
pus students do, unless you’re will
ing to let us park in your driveway.
Neal Landfield
Class of 2006
The Battalion encourages letters to the edi
tor. Letters must be 200 words or less and
include the author’s name, class and phone
number. The opinion editor reserves the right to
edit letters for length, style and accuracy.
Letters may be submitted in person at 014 Reed
McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also
may be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS
1111, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX 77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email:
mailcall@thebattalion.net