The Brattleboro Reformer from Brattleboro, Vermont • 4

'wr Thursday, November 1, 1990 Brattleboro Reformer OPINION ROBERT LAWSON Jirattlebero Reformer Kelton Miller, Publisher Richard Macko, General Manager, Advertising Manager Stephen Fay, Managing Editor Bruce Whitman, Circulation Manager Robert Rand, News Editor George Class, Composing Manager Marianne Ogden, Assistant Editor Julie Brooks, Office Manager Linda DuCharme, Night Managing Editor Michael Blackledge, Pressroom Manager Garry Harrington, Sports Editor Sandra Atkins, Systems, Operations Manager AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER, DEDICATED TO CONSERVATION AND PROGRESS IN PUBLIC AND HUMANE AFFAIRS SINCE 1913 Letters to the editor are welcome and encouraged. Letters must be signed by a full name in order to be published. Address andor phone number should be included for verification. Address letters to Letter Box, Brattleboro Reformer, Black Mountain Road, P.O. Box 802, Brattleboro, Vt.

05302, 802 254-2314 W06mL0VO990. Til kG ft AN INEUMB6NT EDITORIAL, LETTER BOX No thanks. Peter Smith. Ill take Bernie the greatest deficit reduction measure in history purporting to cut deficit spending by $492 billion over the next five years which is in reality built upon lies and deception. A brief explanation: The announced deficit for the year just ended is $220 billion.

False $60 billion for one years worth of bailouts is conveniently kept off-budget. One billion dollars per month for the Middle East military adventure is off-budget (this will no doubt rise to $2 billion or more guaranteed). And $50 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund is falsely counted as income against non-Social Security expenses. So the true deficit for this year is really about $333 billion one-third of a trillion dollars So much for deficit reduction, one year before Gramm-Rudman promised a balanced budget! So much for an effective Congress! I expect my congressman to be effective in dealing head-on with the critical problems that are fast bringing America to its knees. I expect him to be effective in spreading the tax burden to the well-to-do and very rich who have so effectively avoided any burden up until now and more than just token measures No thanks, Peter Smith.

Ill take Bernie. He will, as my dictionary says, make a striking impression. The sort of effectiveness to benefit America and its people. Richard D. Blazej Guilford Editor of The Reformer: There seems to be a question of effectiveness in the campaign for Congress.

Has Peter Smith been effective? Will Bernie Sanders be effective? Answer: Yes, to both questions. So what? A more important question: Will your congressmans service in Washington have the effect of advancing your goals, or simply ensuring a continuation of business as usual, with the kinds of effects that have already resulted from Reagan-Bush voodoo economics and a docile Congress: Drastic increase in homelessness, impossibility of achieving the American Dream for a majority of Americans, ever-greater disparity between rich and poor; Increased reliance on oil imports, no national energy policy, relaxation of fuel efficiency standards, stonewalling of global warming threat; Deterioration of national infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) Savings and Loan crisis, HUD scandal, Iran-Contra scandal, still-to-come banking crisis, phony debt-reduction measures like Gramm-Rudman; Obscene levels of military spending and continued funding of boondoggles like Star Wars and the B-2 bomber. This Congress has been effective enough to produce Smith for Congress The Reformer endorses the candidacy of Peter Smith, the Republican incumbent, in the race for the states lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Choosing between Smith and his formidable opponent, the former mayor of Burlington, Bernard Sanders, was difficult.

Sanders has a proven record of effectiveness and competence in political office. His message is progressive, humane and appealingly iconoclastic. Smith, too, has a message. But what is more, he has a track record. Elected in 1988, Smiths voting record shows that he is an independent-minded, liberal Republican who votes his conscience.

He voted for cuts in defense spending, spit in the eye of the NRA, championed public education, and has won top marks from conservation organizations while causing despair among certain conservative organizations. This is a very good track record. What is not good is Smiths record of seeking and accepting PAC money. Political action committees have turned the political process into an auction. Offices, and the people who hold them, are bought and sold.

Publicly financed election campaigns are the only rational means of preventing candidates from prostituting themselves. Unfortunately, until campaign finance reform is implemented, neither the worthy nor the unworthy can ignore PAC money. Still, although Sanders was clearly more choosy than Smith in his quest for PAC support, it was disillusioning to learn that this particular idealist had sought PAC money. More disillusioning than that is Peter Smiths use of negative political ads to advance his candidacy. Not only are the attacks distortions, they are full of the red-baiting crap Joseph McCarthy made infamous.

May they backfire. Sanders is also stooping, though not nearly as low as his opponent, in these final days of the race. His estimate of the cost to taxpayers of the bailout which he unfairly blames on Smith goes up and up as Nov. 6 approaches. His call for a one-on-one debate with Smith, excluding candidates Dolores Sandoval and Peter Diamondstone, shows how far he has strayed from the old Sanders, who fought like hell back in 76 when he was running for governor and the mainstream candidates tried to exclude him from debates, his effort to appease the gun crowd was a groaner: People pull the trigger, not the guns themselves, he told a group of Ludlow sportsmen.

Enough, already. Smith is a conscientious congressman who has done a remarkable job as a freshman. Sanders is an astute and capable leader with an admirable populist agenda. An excellent case can be made for either one. But one must, finally, choose between them.

If Peter Smith were a less worthy congressman, if he had failed his constituents, if he had been lazy, unimaginative or lacking in courage, it would be easy to join the merry throng that cries, Throw the bums out. But Smith has not been a bum. Hes been very good. He has not been a party to the business as usual to which Sanders supporters would link him. To turn him out after one term would be a foolish waste.

Smiths attack ads demean political process A passing fancy BRATTLEBORO For years Ive pushed for the con-strqgion of more turnouts along Vermont roads and signs that compelled slow-moving leaf peepers and other tourists to get off the road and let the rest of us go by. I wish someone in Montpelier would listen. I wish someone in Montpelier had listened several years ago, as it might have saved me from a rather expensive speeding ticket this summer. Sure I have a personal interest in seeing turnouts built every few miles along Vermonts busier roads: I like to get places on time. But the travel industry in general would also benefit.

If the travel industry wants more tourists accepted in Vermont, and indeed to use our tax dollars to attract them here, its certainly in the travel industrys self-interest to make tourists as unobtrusive as possible. And there is nothing more obtrusive than a slow-moving car with out-of-state plates with seven Vermont cars following impatiently. In fact, the roads are where Vermont residents come into contact with tourists the most. Why cant we make it a more pleasant experience? If Vermont were Nebraska, we wouldnt need turnouts. The roads there are both flat and straight.

But Vermont' has hills and narrow, winding roads with few natural places to pass slow-moving cars. Such was the terrain that led me to pass a motor home one sunny Sunday afternoon on Route 2 in the Northeast Kingdom. I wish I hadnt, but I still insist it was a necessity. Unfortunately, the judge wasnt able to see it my way. Heading west from Lunenburg, Route 2 leaves the Connecticut River and heads over a ridge toward St.

Johnsbury. For nearly 10 miles I followed a motor home, together with several other cars. Slowly it made its way up the hill and around the bends. Then slowly it maneuvered the curves down the other side. II' A It was a beautiful day to be driving through Gods Country, but I was headed home for a soccer game.

The driver of the motor home may or may not have been enjoying the scenery. In either case, his vehicle just couldnt go uphill faster than 30 or 40 mph. As the road flattened out again, the cars ahead of me made their move and passed the camper. At the next straightaway, where passing was permissible, I passed too. Sadly, a state trooper had his radar pointed in my direction.

The motor home couldnt do more than 30 or 40 coming over the ridge, but naturally it sped up to 50 on the flats, which was the speed limit. Even though it was moving faster, I knew I had no choice but to pass it before we started going up another hill. So I did. The trooper clocked me at 71. Self-defense is an accepted defense in criminal cases, so I figured I could easily beat this speeding ticket by simply pointing out the role the motor home had played in the speeding incident.

Judges are people, too. They drive to work and have surely been stuck behind plenty of campers in their time. Id plead guilty, but with my explanation. I was sure the fine would be suspended. Judges are people, too, and soon I had both the judge and the state trooper on my side.

I gave them the full explanation in six-part harmony and I had them eating out of my hand. But my moment of glory didnt last. When I was through, the judge explained that she had no authority to waive the fine or the points on my license and that by state law, if I was found guilty of speeding, the fine and points were automatic. Since I had already admitted to speeding, there was nothing more I could say. My day out of the office and three-hour drive to Guildhall were a waste of time.

(For you geography buffs, Guildhall, population 214, is the site1 of the Essex County Superior Court.) I beg the Legislature not to let this happen again. If youd like, make motor homes a permissible defense in speeding cases. But better still, put some money aside for the construction of turnouts along state roads. If tourism is so important and profitable for Vermont, the state should help secure a future for tourism by making out-of-state drivers less troublesome on our highways. solve the deficit crisis on the backs of those with low incomes, the middle class and the elderly.

Bernie has called for a 50 percent reduction over five years in the military budget. Peter is content with a paltry $14 billion cut. Is it any wonder, since Peter receives PAC money from military contractors such as TRW and General Electric? Peter calls himself an environmentalist yet as Vermonts lieutenant governor he worked hard to gut legislation to preserve the quality of Editor of The Reformer: Peter Smiths series of attack ads against Bernie Sanders demeans Vermonts political process and is an insult to the thoughtful people of this unique state. Because Peter appears to be losing the race he has let his Washington handlers design mean-spirited political ads that are completely devoid of a discussion of the important issues. Peter is losing the battle of integrity and issues to Bernie who continues to discuss the critical needs of our state and nation.

Peter, whats your position on the crisis in health care? All we know is that you have accepted PAC money from the American Medical Association and from drug manufacturers. Bernie is working for a national health care system similar to Canadas. Bernie is fighting for tax justice while Peter dithers over the Bush budget. Peter votes to cut Medicare benefits while Bernie says you cant water in our upland streams. He took the position advocated by the profit moguls of our large ski area developers.

Peter has also accepted PAC money from the king of polluters the Exxon Corp. Bernie is advocating a stronger EPA enforcement policy and legislation designed to stop pollution at its source. The corporate polluters, not the taxpayers, should be responsible for environmental protection. Peter, you have proven to be the practitioner of politics-as-usual with your willingness to vote on both sides of an issue and now you have brought the politics of Jesse Helms to our state with big money, professional handlers and porcine political ads. In the meantime, Bernie Sanders will continue talking about the issues of economic and political democracy.

Tim Kipp 3 Chase St. Brattleboro Notice Tuesday is Election Day. Saturday is the last day before the elections that the Reformer will publish letters advocating or criticizing candidates. Time for a change in sheriff department ALMANAC Lir i By The Associated Press Todays highlight in history: On Nov. 1, 1952, the United States exploded the first hydrogen bomb, in a test at Eniwetok in the Marshall Islands.

On this date In 1512, Michelangelos paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel were first exhibited to the public. In 1913, Notre Dames football team upset Army, 35-13, in a game at West Point that popularized the forward pass, and drew attention to Notre Dames team captain, Knute Rockne. He has had nearly 20 years experience in law enforcement as patrolman in Wilmington, Deputy Sheriff and 1st Constable of Newfane. Ive known Lynn Kent for nearly 20 years, and know that when it comes to law enforcement he is a no-nonsense individual. He dedicates himself to the job at hand, and has no outside interests that would distract him from his duties.

He would Editor of The Reformer: Voters of Windham County, the 1990s are' here and it is a time for many changes. After 21 years ak sheriff it is time for Sheriff Bill Graham to evacuate that office for a younger, clear thinking, modernized individual to take the reins. The individual Im referring to is Lynn Butch Kent of Newfane. be a working sheriff, and youd find him in a cruiser, as much as time permitted. In Lynn Kent, you wont find a pencil-pushing sheriff, but you would find the fair, hard-working sheriff this county needs for the 90s.

He has my vote come Nov. 6, 1990. Leonard E. Petrin Brattleboro I see the executive branch moving fast toward starting a war VIEWPOINT led me to the disheartening conclusion that men in power may well take a high risk of killing any number of people and causing societal catastrophe rather than suffer an otherwise certain, short-run humiliation or political failure. Their own prospective loss, which they perceive as the nations loss, of face and power and prestige, is more important to them, more real and frightening, than the risk or sacrifice of other peoples lives.

Those are sobering observations from someone who has seen such calamitous decision-making up close. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to protect the republic from wrongful wars spurred, in Thomas Paines phrase, by the pride of kings. It is up to Congress now to do its constitutional duty and make sure that George Bushs pride does not lead the United States into a war without a congressional The Berkshire Eagle PITTSFIELD, Mass. As President Bush moves the nation closer and closer to a war against Iraq, the words of Article Section 8, of the Constitution should be ringing in his ears: The Congress shall have power to declare war. A president, who has no power to declare war, can get away with ignoring that clear statement and take the nation into hostilities without a congressional declaration, but he does so at great risk.

Franklin Roosevelt got a declaration of war from Congress in 1941 and kept the nation united through a bloody, two-front war. Lyndon Johnson used a skirmish in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 to hoodwink Congress into passing a resolution authorizing action by U.S. forces. It was far short of a declaration of war, however, and disunity over the Vietnam War destroyed the Johnson I presidency and weakened the nation. Daniel Ellsberg, in, a recent issue of Express, a San Francisco-area weekly.

Once again, Mr. Ellsberg said, as in 64, 1 see the executive branch moving fast toward launching a war that may well be catastrophic; a war that we could avoid, a war that the great majority of the public would almost surely reject if it were put to them, and if they understood what it will probably mean. To illustrate what it could mean, Ellsberg cited a study by the Center for International and Strategic Studies estimating a minimum of 30,000 U.S. soldiers killed or wounded. That, of course, does not even include casualties among other combatants and civilians.

Ellsberg believes, and rightly so, that it was remiss of Congress to adjourn without using the budgetary process to forbid any unilateral offensive initiatives by Bush. Instead of leaving town and forfeiting any role in the decision-making process about the Gulf situation, Ellsberg thinks committees of Congress should be conducting hearings and debates on Jhis issue if only to raise public consciousness about it. The truth is, Ellsberg said, that Congress doesnt have any more important decision to make, ever, than whether or not to go to war. And theyve never had so clear a warning before the event not before Korea, or Vietnam, or Grenada or Panama that if they dont act to restrain him, the president is likely to take us to war on his own. Ellsberg proposes scaling down U.S.

forces to defensive needs and replacing them as much as possible with Arab units. All of these steps would have the useful effect of making the situation less explosive and less of a Bush-Hussein confrontation. My own experience and study of government operations for a third of a century, he said to Express, has Those are the stakes that Bush faces as he and his secretary of state, James Baker, go about the country rattling sabers at Iraqs Saddam Hussein. Their words are accompanied by massive new shipments to the Gulf of U.S. forces of a distinctly offensive character and by leaks from the Pentagon about the need to go beyond the stated goals of getting Hussein out of Kuwait and freeing the hostages to destroying Iraqs war-making capacity.

At the same time. Bush and Baker are refusing to make any commitment about securing congressional approval before a y.S. attack on Hussein's forces. The peril in this situation is spelled out in an interview with the former Pentagon official and long-time peace activist,.