Tucson Citizen from Tucson, Arizona • 11

i 1 i er 11 'Ci i i' iri T'f wr1 M'f 'TJ ww-ynr Tucson Citizen Established 1870A Gannett Newspaper Page IB James Geehan Editor and Publisher Dale Walton Managing Editor Ted Craig Editorial Page Editor Paul A McKalip Senior Editor Spend billions upon billions for defense against what? easy enough to argue about the social programs that have been axed by the Reagan administration You know how you feel about Neighborhood Legal Services school lunches and CETA jobs not much harder to form an opinion on the tax program Either you are for helping the rich confident that the benefits will trickle down or not the defense expenditures that defy rational discussion The same Reagan people who have slashed all kinds of programs from student aid to food stamps want to spend $15 trillion for defense over the next five years But there is no way for a layman to look at those brain-numbing figures and reach any useful conclusion You can be for Head Start or against Head Start or provisionally for Head Start depending on whether you aja William Raspberry TO TH6 6IO FoR TH6 MX MlSSllfe SI16S LOW g6 L10MSY IS IfO TH6 COST OVERRUNS Think about the refinements in nuclear weaponry since the relatively crude little A-bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Whole generations of improvements have come and passed into obsolescence without ever having been used We get so wrapped up in questions like alleged missile gap that we forget that gap or no gap never used the missiles The odds seem overwhelming that we never will And eveq if through some tragic error we found ourselves using them the questions remain: wrong with the old ones our leaders used to tell us were capable of wiping out the entire enemy population just as the were capable of wiping us out? Will the clever new missiles wipe them out more effectively? Kill them a hundred times instead of a mere dozen? Incidentally the administration tells us got another missile gap The Russians have 2010 ICBMs and only got 2000 a fact that means nothing unless you also consider that we have twice the number of metropolitan areas as the USSR The experts say these things the issue The issue is deterrence: military credibility If we stop developing new weapons if we stop impoverishing ourselves with defense appropriations the Soviets will read it as a sign of weakness and loss of military will The Soviet experts say the same thing as they spend themselves into bankruptcy We both are obliged to remain strong and not just strong but stronger than each other because everybody knows that weakness invites aggression But does it? Does all the stockpiling of ever-more sophisticated weapons really make us safer from enemy attack? Was Iraq safer because it was believed to be developing nuclear capability? If the Israelis are to be believed the attack on Baghdad came precisely because Iraq was thought to be getting stronger The whole question of defense spending seems to have very little to do with defense Since no one in authority really expects war on a global scale any more for the simple reason that everybody understands that such a war would be unwinnable by either side both US and Soviet militarists have reduced military preparedness to a board game a sort of missile-rattling Monopoly played with real dollars and rubles The point if you think of it this way is not what the money buys but how freely it is spent Both sides dream up new and nightmarish weapons not because they expect to use them but because each new zillion-dollar outlay moves one side or the other temporarily ahead in the game Is it naive to hope that somebody perhaps us will decide that the game is silly and refuse to play any more? And if it happened would anyone (aside from those involved in the manufacture of armaments) feel less safe? William Raspberry is a columnist with The Washington Post Letters to the Editor Public will pay Not such a bad job think the program is useful affordable and an appropriate concern of the federal government The pattern work for matters of defense No rational American can be against national defense not even provisionally No cost is too high to pay if the alternative is nuclear annihilation The troublesome thing about defense budgets and not just is that no one can be sure what the money goes for or whether the expenditures buy anything worth their cost easy to say yes to the notion that we ought to be stronger than the Soviets hard to know whether MX missiles or B-l bombers make sense You cannot judge defense outlays the way you judge proposals for say guaranteed annual income You cannot speak intelligently of giving the militaiy the hardware it needs without knowing just what it needs it for or how it serves the national interest not "even possible to demonstrate that the countless trillions spent on defense since World War II has been money well spent except to point out that so far we been attacked Which is the way the old folk used to prove the efficacy of asafetida bags worn around the neck as a polio preventative: The kid got polio has he? The easiest thing is to do what most Americans have been doing: accede to the demands for incomprehensible new weapons systems the best that US technology can dream up even when you doubt they will ever be used In the Aug 1 Citizen Gov Bruce Babbitt says the public will be the final arbiter of the issue of his signing of the $588 billion road-funding bill I proposed that large trucks which do the most damage to our roads be required to pay their fair share but the trucking lobbyists killed that proposal I proposed that oil companies be required to pay their fair share but the oil lobbyists killed that proposal In the dictionary is "to frequent the lobby of a legislative chamber to influence the Babbitt can call it lobbying but I call it bribery When election time comes next year not forget this and let us not re-elect anybody who voted for the bill It be too hard for them to get a job with all the friends they have in the trucking and oil industries They can get a job driving a truck or pumping gasoline The next time Bill Proposition 106 comes up vote it in show the legislators that they work for us not the trucking and oil companies JL PEARSON As a retired FAA air traffic controller I would like to make a few comments about the PATCO strike During my 29 years of federal service 21 years were spent in the actual control of air traffic or in the direct supervision of those who did An additional five years were spent in the management of FAA air traffic facilities I have worked in Los Angeles and in San Francisco I retired at the ripe old age of 50 and am enjoying a very attractive retirement as the result of my efforts as an FAA air traffic controller Personally I loved the job There were periods of peak traffic when we worked very hard and periods of slack traffic when we hardly worked The decisions that were made and the resulting pressure were part of the job To me anything less would have been boring In the early part of my experience we have such aids as radar transponders or computers wih target tagging I find it very hard to believe that conditions are or that controllers are being by the system Controllers today have it much better than controllers of yesterday When I became the chief of the Tucson International Tower in 1963 we had nine controllers When Lufthansa Airlines was training here we had more jet landings and takeoffs on one shift then they do all day at the present time and we have radar in the tower cab Today the same tower has cab radar 17 controllers and a lounge with a microwave oven and a television set These are conditions? PATCO members have hyped themselves with much fist waving to the arrogant belief that they are indispensible and cannot be replaced or fired They seek to make the rules rather than follow them They have forced a position from which they must now commit career suicide too bad but they brought in on themselves No One can their union By making impossible and unjustified demands they have already it RALPH WHEATON Kill-proof commission blows a bundle planning memorial FDR want Disputes charge The Governing Board of Education of Amphitheater Public Schools wishes to respond to the July 30 article wages battle against Amphi by Citizen staff writer Marguerite Bantiin which we find misleading in a variety of aspects Both Superintendent Richard Wilson and Don Scott assistant superintendent for special services vacationed in Southern California and performed duties at the behest of the school board for which they were reimbursed However both of these officials sacrificed a portion of their personal vacation time to perform school functions which most assuredly should be paid for by the school district We do not believe' any reasonable person would wish it to be otherwise By their dedication to the school district money was saved the taxpayers rather than The Governing Board of Education would like to go on record that at no time has Faye Hall brought her concerns to the board pertaining to the issues raised in the article NANCY THOMAS president Amphitheater Governing Board of Education DARRELL SABERS clerk VIRGINIA HOUSTON member RICHARD A SCOTT member JOHN WELSH member $500000 had been spent in the 26 years of the existence with literally nothing to show for it Another several hundred thousand dollars has been spent on various projects Glickman who was in three-cornered pants when FDR died even brandished a photograph of the existing FDR memorial on the floor of the House and read aloud an excerpt from a plaque beside the monument: any memorial is erected to me I should like it to consist of a block of stone about the size Of this (Oval Office) desk and placed in the center of that green plot in front of the Archives It was all to no avail The Glickman amendment to kill the FDR commission was defeated 201-216 The vote had an eerie touch to it: The electronic voting system broke down for the first time in three years prompting one member to whisper to Glickman "The ghost of FDR has What astonished Glickman was not just the economy-minded colleagues who voted to keep the $30000 budget intact Reps Jack Kemp R-NY and Jim Jones D-Okla but the way some of his fellow Democrats chided him as a traitor to his party who was into the hands of the The House showdown over the FDR memorial followed by a few days an Investigator magazine article on the commission The author Lucette Lagnado called it classic example of the truism that a government agency once created never dies it just keeps on Footnote: Congressional supporters of the FDR Memorial Commission observe that building a monument to FDR would be one way to assure the end of the FDR commission The Investigator magazine I should add was started by me as an outlet for other investigative reporters Jack Anderson is one of foremost investigative reporters By JACK ANDERSON United Features For more years than they like to remember Republicans ground their teeth in frustration over Franklin Delano I 1 Roosevelt who rode roughshod with irritating good humor over the GOP Now of course the shoe is on the other foot Ronald Reagan an erstwhile New Dealer is tromping the remnants of liberal coalition underfoot with a coalition of conservatives from North South and West When in difficulty with Congress Reagan stages the modem equiva- lent of radio "fireside and appeals directly to the people His delivery is every bit as persuasive as and members of Congress know it So perhaps not surprising that one of the hoariest boondoggles to survive the onslaught of President budget cutters is the FDR Memorial Commission For more than a quarter of a century the commission has been squandering the money in a bootless attempt to achieve a suitable memorial to the only president who ever was and thanks to the 22nd Amendment ever will be elected more than twice The commission has accomplished nothing since it was founded in 1955 It has demonstrated little likelihood of accomplishing anything in the years to come In fact its whole reason for existence was obliterated years ago when private donors errected a modest memorial to FDR in downtown Washington a marble block on Pennsylvania I Avenue outside the Archives Building the size and location of which were selected by Roosevelt himself 1 But when two members of Congress Reps Dan Click- man D-Kan and Bill Dannemeyer R-Calif recently tried to save the government a little money by abolishing the FDR commission they were astonished to learn that ghost still carries weight on Capitol Hill I The feckless bipartisan duo thought they had persua- sive evidence that the FDR commission was a "waste of i money Their evidence included the fact that more than Parents appreciate help We would like to offer our heartfelt thanks to members of the Pima County Department and all other individuals involved with the recovery of victims of the Tanque Verde Falls tragedy They are to be commended for a job well done Their persistence in continuing the search until all persons were found is appreciated Additionally we are deeply appreciative of the sensitivity and concern demonstrated by employees of the department when in contact with family members Their tactfulness and support when it was necessary for us to identify our daughter made the most difficult task of our lives easier Although there is little that others can do to ease the pain of our loss knowing that there are dedicated caring persons available in such times of crisis is in itself a comfort THE PARENTS OF MICHELE BALSER The Citizen welcomes letters from readers Letters must include the name address and telephone number We reserve the right to condense or reject any letter and to limit frequent writers We regret that we are unable to acknowledge or to return unpublished letters Address: PO Box 26767 Tucson 85726 Questions? Call 2944433 ext 406 a Guindon Politicians make hay with Voting Rights Act pioyed to prevent blacks from registering or voting were indeed devious Congress had been given power under the 15th Amendment to prevent and to punish these practices It was high time to invoke that power Having said that however much more remains to be said The act as it operates in 1981 is not as evil as Ervin ensnared by the law must submit every change in their election procedures to federal approval It is immaterial that a particular locality may never have discriminated against blacks Even the most innocuous changes such as the shifting of a polling place must be examined for some concealed intent Under the Rodino extension this humiliating process would continue at least to 1992 Very well This is how men make hay But the valid and commendable purposes of a Voting Rights Act can be better served by amendments that act as rifle shots rather than as rounds of grape Rep Caldwell Butler R-Va' has proposed precisely such an approach He would reenact every major protective provision of the existing law not as a limited extension of the act but rather as permanent legislation But he would revert to elementary princU pies by punishing only demonstrated wrongdoers and by affording law-abiding localities a reasonable opportunity to get out of bondage This makes sense Recent hearings before the Rodind committee turned up a rash of horror stories These sup- ported the undeniable truth that here and there 1 persist But the evidence fell far short of establishing a pattern or practice in all of the affected localities In the name of simple justice and old-fashioned federalism the law ought to keep punishing the bad boys but it ought to get off the backs of the good guys James Kilpatrick former editor of the Richmond News Leader is a national political columnist If the debate over the future of the Voting Rights Act concerned only half a dozen Southern states the matter might be taken off the national agenda as a merely regional affair Critics of the law rightly contend however that some important principles are here involved and these deserve more thoughtful consideration than they now seem likely to get In the House of Representatives a rush is on to extend the act for another 10 years Sponsors 0 the extension bill notably Chairman Peter Rodino of the Judiciary Committee know a politically good thing when they see it There is no significant constituency opposed to the Voting Rights Act but there is a large and powerful constituency supporting the law Rodino knows the rule for making hay: You make hay when the sun shines and the sun is shining now The Voting Rights Act adopted originally in 1965 and subsequently amended and extended in 1970 and 1975 is scheduled to expire in 1982 The law is not quite as bad as former Sen Sam Ervin Jr described it in a statement last month The venerable North Carolinian denounced the act as devious crafty irrational and tyrannical among other things 1 The senator protests too much At the time the act was passed precisely a century had passed since Appomattox but the states of the old Confederacy were still engaged in their old shenanigans The situation was disgraceful or if you prefer a stronger word shameful The devices em- i contends but it is bad law It is clumsy law and it violates elementary principles of justice and fair play One such principle is that law should operate to punish the guilty but to leave the innocent alone The act assumes that the affected states and localities are guilty of racial discrimination The law then punishes every locality indiscriminately And the act goes further: It makes it virtually impossible for a condemned county or city ever to regain its rightful power to govern its own elections As a consequence the localities that have been crudely 'V.