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 Thu, Mar 5 1992 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 05:55:52 EST Message-ID: 03-05 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update March 5, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Thursday morning in USA TODAY: Checks; Television. TODAY'S DEBATE - BAD-CHECK ACCOUNTABILITY: USA TODAY'S OPINION: After a five-month investigation of House members' penchant for writing bad checks, a House panel may recommend as early as Thursday that the public be told who were the worst offenders. No punishment could be worse for a politician, or more deserved. For those members then would have to explain to voters how they can seriously budget for government when they are so sloppy with their own. They also can explain why they didn't pay a penny for a service run with public funds. ... So many bad checks indicate an attitude of privilege that wrongly puts lawmakers above the citizens they are supposed to serve. The bad checks also betrayed a trust. The House bank wasn't funded solely from members' salaries. The public employees who ran it cost taxpayers more than $700,000 a year. The bank was subsidized by the U.S. Treasury, and shortfalls were picked up by public funds. OTHER VIEW: JAMES K. GLASSMAN, editor of Roll Call, a twice-weekly independent newspaper that covers Congress: Even the staunchest advocates of making the names public will admit that the bouncers broke no House rule, no federal law. No government money was at risk, and every check was covered, not by the U.S. Treasury but by the accounts of other members of Congress. ... The problem at the House bank was not so much that members bounced checks but that the bank's management let them bounce checks. ... The best solution would be for the House Ethics Committee to send letters to all 435 representatives, detailing their check-bouncing activities or lack thereof. Announce that the letters have gone out and say it's up to the members themselves to release their contents. Then let the political consequences flow. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TV: HENDERSONVILLE, N.C., Lucy Clark Crawford, 34,nutrition consultant: I would love for all the money needed to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to come from the private sector. But the only way we can continue seeing such wonderful educational programs is through government help. It's a worthwhile cause. OROSI, Calif., Robert Vargas, 20, student: The federal government should fund only programs with a non-political message. Funding programs that are educational, that present an ecological or scientific view, is worthwhile, and I think the government should fund as many of those kinds of programs as possible. DAVENPORT, Iowa, Christine McCreight, 44, associate principal: The government should continue to provide funding. Public broadcasting offers another point of view from the networks and more in-depth programs. My kids enjoyed "Sesame Street" and "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood," and schools use their educational programs. WASHINGTON, D.C., John Epps, 46, administrator: The right to free press and free speech is a basic human right. The funding is all right as long as it is not dictatorial in terms of the content and the ability to operate. If the situation becomes overly regulatory, then the government should reconsider its contribution. NORTH MIAMI BEACH, Fla., William F. Stone, 68, stockbroker: I absolutely think the government should continue to fund public television. There are many fine programs the public would not get to see if they were not on public TV. Frankly, I think it's debatable that the programs they are against are that bad. Issues & Debate Editor: Beth Mann. (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