New Braunfels Herald Zeitung, April 9, 1985, Page 4

Publication: New Braunfels Herald Zeitung April 9, 1985

New Braunfels Herald Zeitung (Newspaper) - April 9, 1985, New Braunfels, Texas KOO Saturday's elections caused confusion for voters, euphoria for winners, see below O pinions Herald-Zeitung Dave Kraaer, General Manager Robert Jobasoa, Editor Robert JohnsonConfusion marks local elections I x It’s always nice to tell someone he’s won. It’s not much fun to tell someone he’s lost. Dana Stell did the former Saturday; I did the latter a few years ago. Dana, the Herald's City Hall reporter, called District 3 candidate Ed Sciantarelli at home Saturday night shortly after the results came in. Sciantarelli won handily, defeating two other candidates without a runoff. Dana soon found out that Ed didn’t know he’d been elected. “Did you know you won?” she asked. “I won, really? All right!’’ he said. Then, turning to a group of supporters at his house, he announced, “Hey everybody — I won! ” The resulting background noise made the rest of the interview a little difficult, Dana said later. I sort of envied her. Five years ago, I called Doug Miller for a comment, only to discover (much to my chagrin) that he didn’t yet know he’d been beaten by Gerald Schaefer. That realization took me aback. I remember apologizing profusely for being the bearer of bad tidings. He took it pretty well, considering the circumstances. Debbie De Loa ch, our Comal ISD reporter, had an interesting evening as well. With three candidates running for three trustee slots, she thought she was in for a dull evening of waiting for the votes and writing what would essentially be a non-story. Wrong. A last-minute write-in campaign in Bulverde nearly elected two candidates whose names weren’t on the ballot — David Beene and Tony Chase. Until the last (and largest) box came in, Tom Potter was the only one of the three candidates on the ballot in the top three. Beene and Chase were in second and third until the Canyon High votes dropped them to fourth and fifth. But the highlight of her evening was tracking down Potter after the votes had been counted. Calling his house, she heard a little girl’s voice on the other end say that her father and mother were out. She didn’t know exactly where they had gone. "But my grandmother probably does, and she’s in the bathtub now,” she added. Debbie gave her time to dry off, and called back. Grandma had a thick German accent, and it was a while before Debbie finally found Potter — at a victory party for San Antonio City Councilman Jim Hasslocher, who had been re-elected handily. Another candidate was out of town Saturday, but still got a quote in the paper. Victorious New Braunfels ISD candidate Don Bedford was vacationing in Rockport Saturday night, and called the NBISD office for the results while our reporter, Lillian Thomas, was there. She made the most of her opportunity for an interview, realizing she wouldn’t get another. Judging from some of the comments I heard, voters around town had an interesting day themselves trying to find their polling places. I count myself in that number, since I went to the wrong poll first. Ifs not surprising there was confusion. City voters in Districts 3 and 4 were electing their first representatives under the city’s new voting plan. NBISD voters in Districts I, 2 and 4 had new polling places to get used to — only Districts 3 and 5 had elected trustees under NBISD’s new plan. Add that to the fact that NBISD was electing a District I trustee and two at-large trustees and you have the right ingredients for confusion. The jagged boundary lines in the NBISD districts didn’t help. For example, my street (Merriweather) is in three different districts. If you live west of Unicom Drive, you’re in District 2; if you’re between Unicom and Old McQueeney, District 3; and Old McQueeney to IH 35, District 4. Since I live in District 2,1 couldn’t vote in the city election Saturday, and when I left to vote in NBISD, I had forgotten what district I was in. I did have it in my mind that I voted at Seele School, although that was strange. New Braunfels Middle School is two blocks from my house, and here I was going halfway across town to vote. En route to Seele, I saw the sign “District 3 votes here” in front of New Braunfels Presbyterian Church, figured I had made a mistake and went there instead. Of course, I found out I had been right the first time when I discovered the church was the city’s District 3 polling place. After voting at Seele, I asked one of the poll workers if anyone was confused under the new system. “Oh, just everybody,” he replied.Your representatives Sen. Lloyd l^entsen United States Senate Room 240 Russell Bldg Washington, D C. 20510 Sen. Phil Gramm United States Senate Washington D C., 20510 Gov. Mark White Governor's Office Room 200 State Capitol Austin, Texas 78701 Sen. John Traeger Texas Senate Capitol Station Austin, Texas, 78711 Rep Edmund Kuempel Texas House of Representatives P O. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78769 Rep Mac Sweeney (Guadalupe County) U S. House of Representatives Washington, D C., 20515 Rep. Tom Loeffler U S House of Representatives 1212 Long worth House Office Bldg Washington. D C. 20515Jack AndersonU.S. agencies argue about Soviet arsenals But the CIA believes the Soviets are abiding by the warhead-limitation portion of the unrattfied Salt II agreement, which sets a maximum of IO warheads per ICBM. The DIA, however, assumes that the Soviets attached as many warheads as they have successfully tested - and that’s 14 per ICBM. With more than 300 SS-lfts deployed, that accounts for much of the 2,000-warhead discrepancy between CIA and DIA estimates. The remaining 700 or 800 involve recently deployed new ICBM systems, including the mobile SS-16 missiles banned by SALT II. So who’s right? In this case, we’d be included to lean toward the DIA. Though the Pentagon agency has gone off half-cocked at times, more often that not its view of the Soviet threat has proved correct over time, compared with the CIA’s usually rosier analyses. An example of this occurred in 1975, when the CIA finally agreed that its estimate of Soviet military spending had been seriously understated — by 50 percent for the year 1970, for instance. When the embarrassing figures could no longer be denied, the CIA brought in its word doctors to sugarcoat the bitter pill of confessed eror. In its top-secret admission, the CIA wrote: “The Soviets evidently have been spending substantially more rubles for defense than we had previously estimated. The indications for higher Soviet defense costs do not mean that we have discovered new defense programs or that the threat to the U.S. or its allies has increased. “They do mean that Soviet defense industries are far less efficient relative to their U.S. counterparts than we once thought, and that the burden of defense programs on the Soviet economy is, therefore, greater than we previously believed... “New information has come from a number of different sources ... according to this information, total defense spending was expected to amount to almost 50 billion rubles in 1970, about twice our estimate for that year.” What a relief to learn that such a whopping mistake wasn’t serious after all. Declining dollar What does the dollar’s recent decline mea for you? One internal government document thi foresees a 15 percent decline rn the dollar international value this year predicts thi the cost of living will go up for Americans. "If the dollar’s decline is sustained, would increase the inflation rate over a lor period,” the analysis warns. That’s beearn we’ll no longer be able to import consume goods at bargain prices. Everything froi foreign cars to French wine will cost more and this will relieve the pressure on domest producers to cut prices to the bom Americans traveling abroad also will fir fewer bargains. The bright side of thie picture, of course, that the declining dollar will give America industry a better chance to compete in wori markets; its products will no longer I priced beyond reach. And that should he] redress the record-breaking trade deficits i recent years. The development may also slow the fligl of hard-hit U.S. companies overseas search of cheaper production costs ar healthier markets. If this off-shore tref continues, it will cost an estimated 3 millii actual and potential U.S. jobs by next yea the experts predict. Another thing the dollar’s decline wi accomplish is a merciful end to suggestioi that the trade imbalance be cured by sla ping a 20 percent surcharge on all import That would only invite retaliation by otto countries and dry up U.S. export markets. I PONT KNOW TORTURE MUTT THAT AIR STRIP'S FOR, MI6CT A PRETTY GOOP IPEA! BKNNEROF- fem? Me n5,000 to unidap a r I PLANE! I PONT PLAT POUJN, NEPHEW    PUW MTH VWS THE    MUNCIE J PROBLEM7    OURS I FORA    HES JUST A *30 MILHON    KIP, MAN. I SHIPMENT7 THOUGHT HE TOU CHEAP    SHOUP INTERN. SON OF A..    ^ A TAP SUSPICIOUS. $75,OOO7 MWN. ujoulpNt \ I TOU SAT7 rn nm*# w if iou Mono, SET UP SOME SLEAZOIP Rffneps? OPERATION OU OUR CAM '—J5* PUS, TM OOHS STRAHM ~    0    I XTOTHE POLICE! LISTEN, UNCLE PUKE, TOU MAT THINK THERES NO HARM IN SMUG OHNO IN BOOTLEG RECORPS, BUT I TRT TELLING THAT TD THE FAMILIES J    ne    y    I    rn01 ANT    OFFHAND7 SUGGESTIONS7    PIANO I    WIRE. f*\s\ As far as the United States is concerned, the most fundamental fact underlying any arms-control agreement is the number of nuclear warheads the Soviet Union can bring hurtling down on this country. Yet the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency don’t agree on this basic fact of life of death — and their disagreement is enormous. The CIA thinks the Russians have 6,500 ! intercontinental ballistic missile warheads, ! or roughly three times the U.S. number. The !. DIA insists that the correct figure on Soviet warheads is 8,500, or roughly four times the - U.S. arsenal. The DIA has declared its higher figure in its last secret reports on the subject. As late as last week some analysts in the DIA were trying to have their 8,500-warhead estimate published in the latest issue of “Soviet Military Power.” That’s the booklet that is issued as part of the Defense Department’s effort to persuade Congress, the American public and our European allies that the Soviet threat is real and growing. But at the last minute, the DIA chickened out and allowed publication of the CIA’s less scary estimate. The new booklet was scheduled for release last week — originally on Monday, until some Pentagon official wise in the ways of public relations pointed out that it would then be dubbed the “April Fool’s Report.” Why can’t the two intelligence agencies agree? How can they be 2,000 warheads apart? Quite simply, intelligence on someone else’s warheads is hard to obtain. There’s no way to count what’s inside of ICBM’s nose as ifs photographed in the silo. So ifs basically a matter of guesswork based on known capability. A Soviet SS-18 could hold some two dozen warheads. On that both agencies agree. ;

Share Page

Publication: New Braunfels Herald Zeitung

Location: New Braunfels, Texas

Issue Date: April 9, 1985

RealCheck