Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Wed, Mar 4 1992 Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 05:50:52 EST Message-ID: 03-04 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update March 4, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Wednesday morning in USA TODAY: Defense; Salaries; FAA. TODAY'S DEBATE - DEFENSE SPENDING: USA TODAY'S OPINION: How much defense is enough? In lean times, the answer lies somewhere between what makes us feel perfectly safe and what we can afford. The difference between the two can save billions. On Thursday, the House of Representatives will vote on a measure that falls nicely into that middle ground - a $91 billion, 5-year cut in military programs initiated by House Armed Services Chairman Les Aspin, D-Wisc. Pentagon planners say we can afford to cut only half that amount. They think the U.S. should be able to fight two Desert-Storm-size wars at once while fending off a Russian expansion into Europe. That is a capability we no longer need and cannot afford. Aspin's plan rests upon more realistic assessments of the state of the world and the economy. The world is safer these days. Our principal enemy - the Soviet Union - no longer exists. ... In this safer, more financially strapped decade, a less-than-all-powerful military is good enough. OTHER VIEW: FRANK J. GAFFNEY JR., director of the Center for Security Policy in Washington: It is all too predictable: As soon as an immediate military threat passes, American politicians start thinking about spending taxpayers' dollars on things other than defense. This invariably proves to be penny-wise and pound-foolish. After World Wars I and II, after Korea and Vietnam, the United States indulged in precipitous dismantling of vital military capabilities. Each time, the world proved less peaceful than expected. The nation was obliged to spend immense sums to recover the defenses it had so recently given up. Inevitably, the resulting expenditures vastly overshadowed fleeting "peace dividends." So, too, today, we are being assured that world conditions permit the USA to dispense with much of its military might. Never mind that, just a year ago, we were in the midst of a full-scale war with Iraq - a conflict that precious few had anticipated. ... Next time the United States probably won't have the advantages it enjoyed in the Persian Gulf. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON BASEBALL SALARIES GETTING OUT OF HAND: NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y., Gloria Ferraro, 29, homemaker: I don't think sports figures should be paid so much more than anybody else. I can see a professional person like a doctor or a lawyer, who provides real public service, making that amount of money. But I can't see paying people that much to do fun kinds of things. ATLANTA Ga., Bill King Jr., 38, medical technologist: I think they're way too high. They're taking away from the meaning of the game. There's more emphasis on salary than on baseball itself. That's becoming a bigger story than what the team is doing. MELBOURNE, Fla., Lillie McMillon, 40, admin. coordinator: I think it's ridiculous. They make more per game than some people make a year. If the teams have that much money, perhaps they should look at giving it away to someone who needs help. A young person isn't equipped to handle that much money. TEXARKANA, Ark., Dennis Young, 46, ind. insurance agent: It is time we paid better salaries to people who make things happen in this country involving education, business, etc., which affect the earning power of others. People need to start boycotting sports activities because the price of tickets has become unreasonable. GREEN BAY, Wis., Charlotte Des Jardins, 63, housewife: As far as Sandberg is concerned, it's wonderful, but for me it really seems out of hand. It's like winning the lottery. Everybody should be able to dream. I can see where players should be able to get as much as they can, but from my point of view, it's too much. TOPIC - THE FAA: BARRY HARRIS, 53, acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, was interviewed by USA TODAY's Lori Sharn. DOES THE USA HAVE ENOUGH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS? Yes. A REPORT SAID THE FAA IS 700 PEOPLE SHORT OF ITS GOAL OF 18,300. The stated goal is a staffing standard based on predicted traffic demands. Those traffic demands fell off in 1990 and 1991. We find that with our revised standards, we are within 1 percentage point of having the numbers necessary. ARE THERE SHORTAGES AT ANY SPECIFIC FACILITIES? The Los Angeles tower is within three people of its staffing standard. At the time of that report, we were 11 people short. We went out in Los Angeles and started assigning people there. WHY IS THE FAA CHANGING THE WAY IT RECRUITS AND TRAINS CONTROLLERS? It creates personal hardships for people who participate. It produces an employee who is in conflict with management almost from the day he or she starts. If you were a candidate, you'd go to a local Office of Personnel Management office and take a written test. Within 30 days you'd find out what your score was and if you scored above whatever the cut-off was - currently 90 - then you went on a list. You might wait 18 months before you ever heard from the FAA. In the meantime, your life is on hold. Then one day you get a call from the FAA saying: "We have a class starting next week. Be there." So from the beginning, we send a message to them -and it's not a very good message. Issues & Debate Editor: Michele Coleman. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM