Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Wed, Jun 3 1992 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 05:20:41 EDT Message-ID: 06-03 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update June 3, 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; Television. TODAY'S DEBATE - DEFENSE SPENDING: USA TODAY'S OPINION: The U.S. House on Thursday will vote on a leaner defense budget, but it should be even meaner, especially to its parochial interests. The plan protects some hefty local pork by dictating that the Pentagon spend, among other projects, $755 million for three Osprey airplane:helicopters the Pentagon thinks won't work. ... In dozens of other ways, large and small, the House would direct how and where billions in military dollars go. ... (Congress') overall aim should be to tighten the purse strings, not tie the Pentagon's hands. Given a freer hand, the Pentagon should be able to meet our security needs for much less than the $274 billion proposed. And it must. ... Federal Reserve Board economists estimate that the deficits of the 1980s, bloated by the defense buildup, helped reduce the nation's economic growth by $250 billion and cost 5 million jobs. ... To tame the deficit tiger, Congress must tighten the cap on Pentagon spending. But it should loosen its own grip on where the money goes. OTHER VIEW: FRANK J. GAFFNEY JR., director of the Center for Security Policy: Of the many arguments to be made against sharp and hasty cuts in U.S. defense programs, three deserve special attention: First, last year's conflict with Iraq illustrates that, in this still-dangerous world, wars are "come-as-you-are" affairs. ... A sustained investment must be made in research and development, defense production and military personnel if the United States is to be able to defend its vital, worldwide interests. ... Second, U.S. strength can serve to deter conflict. Compared to the costs of fighting a war, investments which serve to make wars less likely to occur are cheap. ... Finally, over time, far fewer resources will be available for housing, AIDS research, education and other needs if we indulge again in an approach too often used in the past: Grossly underfunding defense when the threat seems to recede and then trying to compensate when it re-emerges (as it always does) by wildly spending to restore needed capabilities. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING: CHICKALOON, Alaska, David Harrison, 33, tribal administrator: The public should fund public television. When government gets into communications, it spreads wrong information. When the government is in control of something, like a radio or TV station, and I blast the government, is it going to let me put out my point of view? No. MILFORD, Del., Lillian Burris, 72, homemaker: I certainly think the government should, but everyone thinks the government can do everything. I don't know what they can cut; there are so many problems and so many people need money. The government should support it to the extent it has, but not increase it. ST. LOUIS, Mo., Kevin Brown, 29, act. assistant city counsel: The government should fund public broadcasting. If it were not funded by the government and were solely funded by the private sector, it might not be as objective as it is. And it might tend to slant its views toward people who have the most money. MERION, Pa., Michael Hausman, 47, sales director: I support government funding. There isn't enough quality programming coming from commercial channels. Commercial broadcasting seems to be aimed at the lowest common denominator. Perhaps public broadcasting is elitist, but it doesn't particularly bother me. MONTEREY PARK, Calif., Rose Ochi, 53, lawyer: What I have heard has been more thorough, accurate reporting of events. We listened to the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas. The coverage was thorough. I guess the radio newswoman had an opinion, but I just happened to agree with it. 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