Democrat and Chronicle from Rochester, New York • Page 10

LEE KRENIS MORE, Editorial Page Editor MARK HARE, Deputy Editorial Page Editor DAN HALL, Speaking Out Editor BILL O'BRIEN, TED CASE, RICHARD PRINCE, SEBBY WILSON JACOBSON, Editorial Writers BILL MITCHELL, Editorial Cartoonist Published by Gannett Co. Inc. 55 Exchange Rochester, N.Y. 14614 DAVID J. MACK, President and Publisher J.

KEITH MOYER, Editor A. JAMES MEMMOTT, Managing Editor M1EI TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1992 Democrat anil (Chronicle TIMES-UNION ROCHESTER, N.Y. EDITORIALS Warned, not absolved a New smoking risks Within the last year, researchers have tentatively concluded that: Smokers are twice as likely to have colon polyps as non-smokers. Smoking may damage sperm cells, and as a result, the children of men who smoke have an increased risk of brain cancer and leukemia. Smokers are less likely than non-smokers to feel the chest pains that can warn of a heart attack.

9 Women smokers have twice the risk of a tubal pregnancy. Nicotine may damage the linings of arteries leading to the penis, causing impotence in men who smoke. I i I Cigarette labels should not immunize tobacco companies from lawsuits A day in court is as American as apple pie. And a warning label on cigarette packs shouldn't prevent smokers from having theirs. The right to a hearing, not the right to compensation from cigarette companies, is the issue in the case of Rose Cippolone, argued last week before the U.S.

Supreme Court. Cippolone, a 40-year-smoker, sued several cigarette makers before her death from lung cancer in 1984. She became addicted to smoking long before Congress required warning labels in 1966. She couldn't stop, but switched brands often. She remembered radio star Arthur Godfrey, who smoked two or three packs a day, citing medical research proving that "nose, throat and accessory organs were not adversely affected" by smoking Chesterfields.

Godfrey died of emphysema and pneumonia in 1983. In 1988, a federal jury awarded Rose Cippolone's family $400,000 the first monetary judgment ever against a tobacco company. But an appeals court later said she could sue only for damages alleged before 1966, since the labeling law shields the companies from lawsuits. IT SHOULDN'T. The companies like to say that no one with a pulse could be unaware of the alleged health risks from smoking.

After the original Cippolone verdict, for example, two tobacco companies noted that in 1604, King James I denounced smoking as "a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs But the companies, despite the warning labels, continue to deny there is any conclusive evidence linking smoking with heart and lung disease. And they STEPKEH CHAPMAN continue to market their product by portraying smokers as the embodiment of good health, good looks and good times. Indeed, some advertising is especially appealing to children too young to fully understand the risks of smoking. Camel cigarette's Old Joe cartoon character, according to one recent survey, is as well known among six -year-olds as Mickey Mouse. Since the Old Joe campaign began, the percentage of under-18-year-old smokers using Camels increased from less than 1 percent to at least 25 percent.

And what about victims of health consequences not now mentioned in the warning labels? What about the victims of second-hand smoke? Are they not entitled to seek compensation? WITH SO much evidence of the harmful effects of smoking, smokers must be responsible for their actions. But with 400,000 Americans a year dying of smoking-related illnesses, it's unfair to deny smokers a chance to try to prove wrongdoing by tobacco companies. The labels are there to warn cigarette users not to absolve cigarette makers. pre-season games have to do with the outcome of the Super Bowl. We have been reminded of the fate of Lyndon Johnson, who in 1968 let Eugene McCarthy capture 42 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, denying the president a majority a "defeat" so humiliating that LBJ pulled out of the race.

But any resemblance between that contest and this one is purely superficial. McCarthy was a U.S. senator of some stature who offered a clear solution to a genuine national disaster, the war in Vietnam, and an alternative to a president who had alienated much of his own party. Even Americans who disliked him could imagine McCarthy in the Oval Office. Given his showing in New Hampshire, he had every prospect of running strongly elsewhere.

Johnson also had to face a post-New Hampshire entrant who was even more formidable: Robert Kennedy. Buchanan, by contrast, is the electoral equivalent of a fax machine. His only function is to deliver the message that the residents of New Hampshire do not enjoy recessions. Plenty of people will Journalists remember McCarthy but forget Ronald Reagan who in 1976 came within 1,300 votes of beating President Ford in New Hampshire. Even though Reagan was an important party figure with the means to run a national campaign for the GOP nomination, and even though Ford had never been elected president, Reagan ultimately couldn't unseat him.

Buchanan is no Reagan and Bush is no Ford. The primary is portrayed as a heavyweight title fight in which the challenger could deliver a knockout blow. It's more like a marathon in which the underdog's fondest hope is to be ahead at the end of the first Buchanan has little money and no campaign outside New Hampshire. After the primary, he will have just three weeks to mount an attack on Bush in the 11 states that vote on Super Tuesday, when nearly a quarter of the GOP convention delegates will be chosen-The job demands dollars and political organization, the precise commodities he lacks. IT ISNT impossible for a candidate without vast resources to convert a New Hampshire upset into victories elsewhere as Gary Hart did in 1984.

But Buchanan can prosper only as long as he is merely an instrument of protest. Buchanan's voters want to send a message; Hart's wanted to elect a president. "At the point Buchanan begins to look like a serious candidate," says CNN political analyst William Schneider, "Republicans will close ranks behind Bush." Tweaking the king is one thing; killing him is another. In the next month, the GOP race in New Hampshire may provide more suspense than 77ie Hand That Rocks the Cradle. But Pat Buchanan looks about as much like a genuine threat to George Bush as Rebecca DeMornay looks like your baby sitter.

Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. Stop panicking in public, Mr. President Voters can tweak Bush without abandoning him Over the next few weeks, American voters will be treated to an elaborate suspense drama that grows ever more tense with each passing day, until it reaches a spectacular climax on Feb. 18, the day of the New Hampshire presidential primary. They will be occupying themselves with one urgent question after another: Can Pat Buchanan capitalize on economic pain to gain a symbolic victory over an incumbent president? Can George Bush rally to fight off this challenge and save his presidency? Will New Hampshire voters turn the political world upside down? This is the kind of story journalists love.

But it's only a good yarn as long as they can distract their audience from the most important question of all: What if the worst happens to Bush? The answer is simple, certain and thoroughly undramatic: nothing. EVEN if Buchanan should get an actual majority of the votes he would be thrilled with 40 percent he is not going to win the GOP nomination, Bush is not going to lose it, and by the time November rolls around, no one is going to remember what happened in New Hampshire. The primary has as much to do with the outcome of the presidential election as last August's vote for him who wouldn't dream of letting him within two miles of the nuclear button. And no major Republican is going to step in to carry on the fight that Buchanan started. New Hampshire Republicans, while they may want to Buchanan What's happening to George Bush? He's plummeting in the polls.

Only 45 percent of Americans approve of the job he's doing, according to last week's ABC News-Washington Post poll. And yet he's the same president he was 10 months ago, when his approval rating was 90 percent. What's going on? Simple: For years he's taken credit for good things he didn't cause. Now he's getting blamed for bad things he didn't cause namely, the recession. And instead of being philosophical about the poetic justice of it all, he's panicking.

In public. After months of refusing to say the R-word and insisting there was no recession, last week he declared that the economy "is in free fall." If you didn't know better, you'd be terrified. Imagine: Our entire economy falling from the sky without a parachute, or with a parachute that doesn't work. In fact, the economy is stagnant. The president has overstated the problem now as badly as he understated it before.

When he isn't being scary, he's being silly. His trip to New Hampshire produced these memorable lines: "I am sick and tired every single night hearing one of those carping, little liberal Democrats jumping all over my you-know-what." "Don't cry for me, Argentina." "You're going to hear all kinds of cheap promises coming out of deep left field, past the running track, up against the fence in the left field, offering a quick fix to a troubled economy." Barbara Bush, whose approval ratings remain stratospheric, needs to take her husband aside and tell him to get a grip. Stop whining, wallowing in self-pity and striking foolish poses. And remember that those who live by the opinion polls will someday find themselves in free fall. abandon some of Bush's policies, don't want to abandon Bush, because doing that would deliver the election to the Democratic nominee.

No one relishes the state of the economy, but no one holds Bush responsible for it the way the country held Johnson responsible for Vietnam. Is nuclear threat higher in post-Soviet world? HAYKES JGHfJSG JAY GALLAGHER '(ft "it f' k. 1 1 I "tr- vwH 'm mm i i tews. A dangerous, still a threat to Mideast stability. Noble talk about fighting for democratic principles and ensuring a new and better world order notwithstanding, Kuwait remains an example of a despotic fiefdom.

Mideast peace prospects have brightened, but the region remains a tinderbox and the specter of war still hovers there. A year ago, the Bush administration repeatedly cited oil as a reason for its massive military buildup and ultimately the war. But despite warnings that Iraq posed a grave threat by imperiling the industrial world's access to oil, America's dependence on foreign oil continues. In fact, it has increased. On Wednesday, the American Petroleum Institute reported that the nation's oil production in 1991 fell to its lowest level in 40 years.

Americans exulted in the superb performance of their military, but a year later, the armed services are undergoing a major "downsizing," with announced forced reductions of as much as one-fourth of the defense establishment. MEANWHILE, the nation battles the ravages of at least a harsh recession. Substantially more than one-third of Americans even believe that full-fledged depression is gripping the nation, according to a survey made public Thursday. While Americans turn inward, they also are turning on the president cheered so lustily a year ago. In the glow of victory, Bush soared to the highest approval ratings ever recorded for a president.

His plunge in recent months also has been among the greatest ever, and the national mood has swung sharply from soaring optimism tc: brooding pessimism. A presidential election year hat dawned, and Americans face an important question: Can this nation recapture the optimism and sense of purpose briefly experienced during the gull wai and apply them to problems at home? Johnson writes for The Washingtor Post. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf ar yes, that war, remember? India's military chief of staff reportedly drew this lesson: "Never fight the U.S. without nuclear weapons." Recalling that perhaps apocryphal remark in a recent speech, Les Aspin, chairman of the influential House Armed Services Committee, drew a similarly somber lesson from the conflict. Wars are more likely, not less, to occur in the new post-Soviet world, he said and, equally paradoxically, the threat of nuclear conflict has increased.

Aspin reasons that the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism, while they are events that hold great potential for good, also present major new risks. For nearly half a century, the two nuclear superpowers were mutually driven by policies of nuclear deterrence. Together, they kept a lid on the spread of nuclear weapons and on risk of escalation to total war. No longer is that the case. NOW, with the Soviet empire disintegrating, the world faces the threat that nuclear weapons and knowledge of how to produce them could slip out of the former Soviet territory and fall into the wrong hands.

Therein lies the link with the gulf war and with some military minds concluding that the only way for small nations such as Iraq to combat the U.S. is to have nuclear weapons. As Aspin puts it: "Only mass destruction weapons, particularly nuclear ones, can offset huge U.S. advantages in conventional military power. Nukes in the hands of thugs like Saddam Hussein won't give rogue leaders the wherewithal to win a fight against the United States, but they could be used as instruments of terror against American forces and allies." Saddam and the gulf war thus become a symbol of what Aspin called perhaps the most demanding challenge of the new post-Soviet era: "a rogue power with mass-destruction weapons The Associated Press $12 billion spent on Medicaid pays for care for the elderly most of that for nursing homes.

The cost of nursing homes about $120 a day is rising, but the more important factor is the increase in the number of people in nursing homes. About 104,000 live there now and another 15,600 beds are planned. New York's administrative cost of $166 per case is the nation's highest. MYTH: The state's low credit rating makes buying state bonds a risky investment. REALITY: The recent downgrading by Standard and Poor's makes New York look bad compared to other states only Massachusetts is lower but since states have the power to tax and the interest on their bonds is tax-exempt, the bonds are still a very safe deal.

The lower rating will mean slightly higher interest payments, but with interest rates in general so low now, it's not a significant problem. MYTH: If the Legislature doesn't act, the state will end the fiscal year with a deficit of $875 million. FACT: Without the Legislature, Cuomo can delay Medicaid payments, freeze hiring and take other administrative steps that would save a total of about $400 million. And the state recently got a Medicaid windfall from the federal government worth another $100 million. MYTH: The state is looking at a $4 billion deficit next year.

REALITY: That figure assumes that planned cuts in the income tax and some business taxes take effect. That's about as likely as Pierre Rinfret being elected president. Adding revenues from those taxes cut the possible deficit by $1.25 billion. WHAT gives life to these myths? It serves the interest of all sides right now to make things look as bad as possible. It helps the Republicans pressure Cuomo and the Assembly for deeper cuts in social-service spending.

It helps Cuomo paint the Republicans as leading the state over the fiscal cliff. The only party not helped is the public, for whom it's hard enough to figure out what's going on here without officials blowing smoke at them. Gallagher writes fur Gannett News Service in Albany. Don't be fooled by myths that obscure state's real problems If you think New York is drowning in red ink because tax collections are down and we're being overrun with out-of-state people who want to cash in on our generous welfare benefits, think again. Those are just a couple of the myths that have helped to obscure what the state's problems are, making a solution even harder to reach.

So with Gov. Mario Cuomo scheduled to make his budget proposal today, now is a good time to try to dispose of some of the rhetorical fog. MYTH: State tax revenues are plummeting. REALITY: Receipts for the first half of the year were up about 10 percent over a year ago because of new taxes passed last year. Receipts from existing taxes are holding steady.

MYTH: Our high level of welfare benefits are attracting poor people from out of state. REALITY: Only about 12,000 of the state's 1.45 million welfare recipients have lived here less than a year, according to the state Social Services Department. And the state's average grant of $557 a month for a mother and two children ranks only fifth in the country despite our high cost of living. California pays $733 for the same sized family. MYTH: Paying for the health care of poor people through the Medicaid program is driving the state bankrupt.

REALITY: Medicaid spending is up between 15 percent and 26 percent, depending on who's doing the counting, but it's taking care of the elderly that's hiking costs. About $8 billion of the Rep. Les Aspin talks to reporters. and a strong bent for terrorism." Aspin's points are disturbingly valid. They are reinforced by reports from U.N.

officials that Iraq has admitted making large purchases of uranium enrichment materials before the war so it could produce four or five nuclear weapons each year. Americans and other world powers thus have all the more reason to pause on this anniversary of the gulf war and to contemplate lessons learned and not learned. That is not happening. Americans, from President Bush down, are immersed in domestic problems. The gulf war seems like ancient and irrelevant history.

When Americans do stop to think about the war, increasing numbers are wondering what it was all about and what was accomplished. A year later, long after memories of massive patriotic victory parades have faded, Saddam remains in power, still.