Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, January 29, 1995 TAG: 9502010003
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: B2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
When comparing spending levels over several years, one should consider two adjustments to the year-to-year budget levels. The first adjustment is for inflation, resulting in what is called ``real'' spending. The second adjustment is for population increases. To account for this factor, per capita spending can be used. If we consider these two adjustments, how much has state spending grown over the past decade or so?
From 1980 to 1992, spending growth did exceed the rate of inflation - that is, real spending did increase. But, according to material published last year by Virginia Tech, the increase in real spending during that 12-year period was approximately 50 percent, considerably less than a ``doubling'' or a ``tripling.'' On a per capita basis, moreover, real spending increased 27 percent during the same 12-year period.
The governor, Garland and others may consider this 27 percent increase in inflation-adjusted, per capita spending to be excessive (or ``enormous,'' to use Garland's word). If they do, then by all means they should advocate for spending cuts. But let's try to avoid basing the debate and decisions on numbers that tell only part of the story.
ALAN RAFLO BLACKSBURG
Gov. Allen offers no free lunch
I HOPE Virginia lawmakers will take a very close look at all ramifications of Gov. Allen's proposals, and keep in mind that the principles of managing a government's finances are basically the same as managing the finances of a household, only on a much larger scale.
Such as? Be it government or household, you cannot spend out more than you take in. Yes, tax cuts appeal to all voters, but sometimes this can be compared to one who supports a household having to take a salary cut.
Taxpayers wonder how we plan to pay for so many new prisons while we enjoy these tax cuts. These prisons shall ultimately be paid for by taxing all Virginians in one form or another. Also, let's keep in mind that after any building is completed, there will always be the cost of maintaining that building in the future. This money, too, will come from taxes in one form or another. These costs won't come to pass, though, until the original authors of these present proposals have moved on!
In every generation, there will always be a young politician to come along with what seems to be new and fresh ideas for turning the plight of society around. But a very wise man once stated, ``there is nothing new under the sun.''
The saddest commentary concerning our state and society is the need for so many new prisons. Let's all keep in mind that whatever man or society needs or think they need, it must be paid for. And in the long run, we all pay the price in one way or another.
BARRY A. JONES NEW CASTLE
Who's afraid of an informed public?
THE INTENTION of the Republican leadership to eliminate funding for public broadcasting should signal an alarm for all Americans. Republicans have always displayed a proclivity for suppression of information. With associates like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Oliver North, et al, who can blame them?
It does, however, contradict recent statements by their new banner boy, Newt Gingrich. Why would an outspoken proponent of the ``third wave information society'' want to eliminate a major source of information? Could it be that Gingrich and his cohorts have something to hide?
W. DEAN LIPSCOMB ROANOKE
Conclusions drawn in second volume
STEPHEN K. White (Jan. 14 letter to the editor, ``The quality of political discourse takes a mugging'') writes in his mean-spirited and confused letter about my piece on Tocqueville that I drew my conclusions from Tocqueville's ``famous volume, `Democracy in America,' published in 1835.''
I drew my conclusions from Tocqueville's second volume, published in 1840. In his first part of ``Democracy in America,'' Tocqueville describes and interprets American social institutions as they existed in the 1830s. In the second part, he offers his thoughts on democracy's future.
RONALD M. LARSON WYTHEVILLE
Military readiness is threatened
NOW THAT Republicans have taken control of both houses of Congress, more deficiencies of the Clinton administration are surfacing. One serious failing that can no longer be denied is the sharp decline in our nation's military preparedness.
On Nov. 15, in-coming House Armed Services Committee Chairman Floyd Spence, R-S.C., sent a letter to Defense Department officials. In it, he said: ``U.S. military units are caught in the early stages of a downward readiness spiral that shows no prospect of easing in the immediate future. Wholesale categories of combat units are in a reduced state of readiness, and those that are not are managing to preserve short-term readiness only through engaging in a desperate `shell-game' with limited resources.''
Defense Secretary William J. Perry promptly substantiated this. He conceded that Army combat divisions had been forced to cancel maintenance operations and training exercises due to the lack of funds.
But the reason why funds are short is the real story here! Perry pointed to an excess of missions in such places as Rwanda, Haiti, Cuba and Kuwait. The Army has been using funds to carry out President Clinton's orders, requiring our nation's forces to be the United Nation's policemen of the world!
Perry has appealed regularly to Congress for additional funding. However, this administration has no intention of abandoning its policy of carrying out unconstitutional U.N.-directed missions. Funds needed to maintain military readiness have gone down a U.N. rat hole. Compounding the problem, Joint Chief of Staff Chairman John Shalikashvili maintained in his Nov. 16 speech at Georgetown University, ``These sorts of operations, other than war, will stay with us well into the next century.''
Like Clinton, who will do whatever the U.N. wants, Shalikashvili stands ready to do whatever the president and the U.N. want. Those wearing the uniform of this nation deserve better leadership, and so does the entire nation.
GEORGE KELLY BEDFORD
Abortion protesters' blasphemous claim
MY FIRST encounter with Vietnam protests was during my freshman year at college. Artless in politics, I had no idea why a small group of protesters would want to hold a sit-in squarely in the path of the ROTC dress parade. I didn't even know about the dress parade until a crowd formed and swelled, and I joined them in the walk across campus to witness the protest. I remember feeling a deep dread that the protesters wouldn't just be pelted with eggs and tomatoes, but would be seriously injured by the angry crowd. No one was maimed that day, but by the time the war was over, protesters had been fire-hosed, tear-gassed, arrested, imprisoned, shot at and killed.
The protesters' main argument was that the U.S. military, with full consent of the law, was killing ``innocent Vietnamese people.'' Today, protesters are arguing that abortion clinics are, with full consent of the law, killing ``unborn babies.''
The two protest movements have similarities. Both appeal for a change in national policy. Both defined their terms so as to stand on the moral justification of taking action to prevent ``innocent deaths.'' In both cases, the national policy stance had been taken to preserve rights of an identified group of people, and simply pulling the plug on national policy would mean abandoning the defense of one or another group's rights.
Despite similarities, the scenario has changed. This time, it isn't protesters being killed. The people being killed are ones performing their duties with full consent of the law. The difference is striking.
The most appalling characteristic of the abortion-protest movement is the blasphemous claim to be following the example of Jesus. When I compare abortion protesters' behavior to those of Vietnam protesters, and consider the consequences endured by both groups, only one of those protest movements seems to follow Jesus' example. Which one? Here's two hints:
Jesus never killed to enforce his moral beliefs. Jesus was killed for expressing his moral beliefs.
BO CHAGNON ROANOKE
by CNB