New Braunfels Herald Zeitung, January 18, 1987, Page 8

New Braunfels Herald Zeitung

January 18, 1987

View full page Start A Free Trial!

Issue date: Sunday, January 18, 1987

Pages available: 109

Previous edition: Friday, January 16, 1987

Next edition: Tuesday, January 20, 1987

NewspaperARCHIVE.com - Used by the World's Finest Libraries and Institutions
About New Braunfels Herald ZeitungAbout NewspaperArchive.com

Publication name: New Braunfels Herald Zeitung

Location: New Braunfels, Texas

Pages available: 312,040

Years available: 1952 - 2013

Learn more about this publication
  • 2.05+ billion articles and growing everyday!
  • More than 400 years of papers. From 1607 to today!
  • Articles covering 50 U.S.States + 22 other countries
  • Powerful, time saving search features!
Start your membership to the world's largest newspaper archive now!
Start your genealogy search now!
See with your own eyes the newspapers your great-great grandparents held.

View sample pages : New Braunfels Herald Zeitung, January 18, 1987

All text in the New Braunfels Herald Zeitung January 18, 1987, Page 8.

New Braunfels Herald Zeitung (Newspaper) - January 18, 1987, New Braunfels, Texas Opinions Dave Kramer. Editor and Publisher Jim Webre. Managing Editor PSQ* 4A    Herald-Zaftu/10,    New    Braunfels,    Texas    Sunday,    January    18,1987 Forum LETTER POLICY The Herald-Zeitung welcomes correspondence. All letters should be signed and include an address or telephone number. The newspaper reserves the right to edit. Letters should be sent to Forum, New Braunfels Herald-Zeltung, P.O. Drawer 311328, New Braunfels, Texas 78131-1328, or brought to our offices at 186 S. Casten. Accolades to Joe Michie Dear editor: Accolades to Joe Michie, city manager, for his artful simplicity used to pluck “the crew” off the hook in the city’s garbage department. (New Braunfels Herald Zeitung, Jan. 14) I, among many other gray-haired old ladies, interpreted as Gospel Truth what KGNB’s Party Line announced Dec. 29. “As of today garbage pick up will be limited to five items. This is done in consideration of the crew.” How happy I am to learn about Michie’s compassion for the crew and the disposal of leaves along with Santa’s Christmas wrappings and wasted food. (New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung, Jan. 14) Reprieve is especially welcome after the recent rate hike to $7.50 per month. Andy Rooney While hustling and bustling at the crack of dawn in the mobilization of a troop of love thy neighbor as thyself patriots, I felt the sting of injured pride as my neighbors consented to sharing my 16 extra leaf bags among their lesser contributions. Herewith, I thank my generous neighbors for their usual caring. Orchids to Laris Priessmeyer, too, for her masterful research on the knotty problems concerned in the selection and use of trash containers. (New Braunfels Hearld-Zeitung, Jan. ll) Orhids to manager Joe Michie for declaring the five-bag limit “over.” Whoopee! Volunteers, anyone? To whitewash the Iran-Contra ‘ ‘ misunderstanding’ ’ ? Shakespeare said it, “All’s well that ends well.” Thelma Schleyer Very rich people aren't necessarily bad people The stock market is at an all-time high and while this news probably doesn’t excite you much, it s good news for rich people and you ought to find it in your heart to be happy for them. Rich people have terrible public relations. No one ever says or writes anything good about them. It’s a funny thing because here's something we're all trying to get to be, rich, and yet none of us speak well of those who already are. All the warmth and compassion we have goes to the poor. The hen* in novels, movies and television dramas are never rich. Writers always save their rich characters to be villains Where would Dickens have got as a writer if his sympathetic characters has been rich instead of poor. Rich people are always being criticized for something they can't help. Is it their fault they're rich? Can they help it? You don’t hear people going around criticizing the poor and saying “Ifs their own fault “ Is it any more the fault of the rich that they’re rich than it’s the fault of the poor that they don’t have any money? Rich people are mere victims of circumstances. Perhaps they were bom with a knack for making money Maybe they have some special talent they sell for large amounts of money Or. perhaps, instead of having parents who were on welfare, they had parents with lots of money They shouldn't be expected to take the blame for something their parents did. In a way. the rich are handicapped You'd never know it from reading about them but the rich have probably done more for the country than the poor have I hesitate to even suggest such a crazy thought but it seems probable that the rich are. generally speaking, more capable than the poor The rich support the arts, charities and educational institutions There are no government agencies devoted to their welfare Ifs just the opposite, there are government agencies devoted to trying to make the rich poorer People have a natural prejudice against wealth. We are propagandized from birth to mistrust anyone who has it. Most of the famous quotations about money suggest negative ideas. “Money is the root of all evil.” Nonsense. Evil is the root of all evil. “Money isn’t everything,” a father will tell his son. The father is out all day breaking his back to make more of it. but he tells his son money really isn't very important. What kind of a double standard is this? A writer named Austin O’Malley said, “God shows his contempt for wealth by the kind of person he selects to receive it.” That wasn't a nice thing to say, Austin. I don’t think God gets into petty details like who gets the most money and if he does, he certainly wouldn't choose a lot of undesirable people to receivce it. You sound like a sore loser. O’Malley. Political activists are always suggesting that one of the reasons we have so many desperate poor people is because we have so many filthy rich There doesn’t seem to be any connection though. No one has ever proven there s any relationship Ifs even possible that the more rich people there are, the fewer poor people there will be. The time will probably come when the rich band together and organize like workers, veterans and women The rich might call themselves the National Organization for the Wealthy, NOW for short. Or. wait a minute NOW has been taken, come to think of it, by the National Organization of Women, maybe the rich could call themselves WALL, after the name of their street It would be an acronym for Wealthy Americans Looking for Love. So. I thing ifs a good thing that the stock market is at an all time high and that the rich are getting richer It couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people. I hope you trust me when I tell you my opinion has nothing to do with the fact that I own a few shares of stock myself Your Representatives Gov. Bill Clements Governor'sOffice State Capital Austin, Texas 78711 U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith United States House of Representatives 509 Cannon House Washington, D.C. 20515 U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen United States Senate Room 240, Russell Bldg. Washington, D C. 20510 U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 State. Sen. William Sims Capitol Station P.O. Box 12068 Austin, Texas 78711 State Sen. Judith Zaffirini Capitol Station P.O. Box 12068 Austin, Texas 78711 U.S. Rep. Mac Sweeney (Guadalupe County) United States House of Representatives 1713 Longworth House Off ice pidg. Washington, D.C. 20515 State Rep. Edmund Kuempei Texas House of Representatives P.O. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78769 Ronald Reagan President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D C. 20500 James Kilpatrick Congress needs and deserves a pay raise WASHINGTON - The president sent his budget message to Congress this past Monday morning, including a prososal for salary increases at the top levels of government. By that afternoon Senators Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms had introduced a resolution of disapproval. The resolution should be defeated. Reagan’s recommendations are fair. Members of Congress now are paid $77,400 a year. Computed in constant dollars, this salary is less than members 20 years ago. The president’s proposal calls for a raise to $88,500, far less than the $135,000 recommended last month by the non-partisan Commission on Executive. Legislative and Judicial Salaries. Unless both houses of Congress agree on a resolution of dissapproval by Feb. 5, the new scale would go into effect at the next pay period thereafter. The raises should be conditioned, however, on a simultaneous agreement restricting the amount of money a member can earn from lecture fees. At present, senators and represenatives may supplement their salaries by thousands of dollars in honorariums. The practice is a bad one. It carries a faint aroma of impropriety. When a member of a banking committee accepts $2,000 for talking to a convention of bankers, an impression is bound to be created that the bankers are after more than an hour of oratory. Last month's overly generous proposals from the non-partisan commission brought a loudly unfavorable reaction. Ralph Nader, demagoging it. thought it “absurd” that top officals can't get by at salary levels “five times what the average worker receives.” But as Chief Justice William Rehnquist pointed out, in urging a substantial raise for federal judges, the Judiciary is not looking for "the average worker.” Executive agencies need skilled administrators, not ribbon clerks and hod carriers. The pay raise proposals affect the highest, most responsible levels of government. It is absurd to suggest that their pay should be irresponsibly fixed. Even so. as the Thurmond-Helms resolution suggests, members of Congress are squeamish about raising their own pay. Voters historically have regarded Congress as a kind of hog trough in which politicians wallow. Bureaucrats are always “bloated bureaucrats.” And judges have cushy jobs for life. This flat-earth perspective regretably is widely held, esseclally by candidates thinking of running in 1988 against Incumbents. Members fear that Nader’s “average workers” may take out their envy at the polls. My own thought is that these apprehensions are overblown. American voters, as a whole, are sufficiently mature to understand that public officials are not second-rate citizens. They are as entitled to fairness as those in the private sector. The cost of the Reagan recommendations, estimated at $35 million a year, can be recouped cutting fat in executive and legislative budgets. Looking to the future, it might be useful for state legislatures to consider a pending constitutional amendment on the matter of congressional pay . The amendment has been pending for almost 200 years; it was part of the original package of proposals that wound up as our Bill of Rights. In theory, the resolution still is pending for ratification today. This is how the long-forgotten amendment reads: “No law varying the compensation of senators and represenatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened.” Six states ratified the proposal in 1789-90, Ohio ratified in 1873, Wyoming in 1978, Maine in 1982, Colorado in 1984, and South Dakota and Arizona in 1985. The I8th-and 19th-century ratifications may be void for want of contemporaneity, but the proposal itself appears to be very much alive. Its adoption would get members of Congress off the hook of immediate self-interest. If voters wanted to make a pay raise a crucial issue, they could turn the rascals out, but the probabilities are overwhelming that proposed raises, so fairly presented, would arouse little commotion. The president’s proposal for members of Congress lands nicely on the line that divides too much from not enough. At $89,500, subject to the same income taxes that everyone pays, no member will be living a luxurious life. Many of the members have children in college; they have two homes to maintain; and though their base pay is supplemented by perquisites, they are not to be numbered in the class of tycoons. Members should screw up their courage, vote down the Thurmond-Helms resolution, and get on with more important business ay hand.Washington Today Who will sit at the table in Geneva? An AP News Analysis By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - In a visit dictated by protocol, Yuri Dubinin, the Soviet ambassador, called last week at the State Department to report a shift at the top of his government's arms control negotiating delegation. Yuli Vorontsov, a fast-rising star in the Soviet hierarchy and the first deputy foreign minister, would take over for Viktor Karpov in Geneva. The Soviet ambassador also had a request to make as he informed Assistant Secretary of State Rozanne Ridgway of the change; Would the United States match the Russians by appointing a higher-level negotiator? As Dubinin was to explain this week at a news conference at the Soviet Embassy, Moscow's intention was not to "send any arrows” in the personal direction of Max Kampelman, who has headed the U S delegation since the missile-reduction talks began 22 months ago. Nor, he said, were the Soviets seeking to engage in a "propagandistic duel” with the Reagan administration. Dubinin said Moscow simply wanted to elevate the position of chief delegate and hoped the United States would go along. The implication was that more powerfully placed negotiators could more readily come to terms. The U.S. response was to give Kampelman a second job, one he had been in line for anyway: counselor of the State Department. That raised his status while he stayed on as chief U.S. negotiator. Actually, there is no precise equivalent to first deputy foreign minister in the State Department hierarchy. Deputy Secretary John Whitehead and Undersecretary Michael Armacost are roughly comparable in position to Vorontsov but not exactly. Larry Speakes, the presidential spokesman, said he hoped the dispute "is "not an excuse by the Soviets to avoid serious discussions” in Geneva. Both sides entered the latest and seventh round of talks pledging to do their best to reach agreements. But while they are close to an understanding to reduce their missile stockpiles, they apparently are too (ar apart on space-based defenses to come to terms. Should it make a difference, then, who is in charge of the delegations? Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, says he does not think the appointment of Vorontsov "matters substantively.” He views the move as an attempt by Moscow to give the impression of movement since President Reagan's summit meeting in October with General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. "The Soviets are making a symbolic issue out of it,” he said in an interview Wednesday. Approached separately, Paul Warlike, the chief U.S. negotiator under Carter. basically agreed. "It does not matter really,” he said. "The negotiators do not have any authority to deviate from the position of the United States and the position of the Soviet Union.” A critic of Reagan administration policy, Waroke said, "The problem is they are sending Max over there without anything he can sell... And you can’t make chicken soup out of chicken feathers.” Earlier in the day, Wamke and William Colby, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, unveiled a report by the Committee for National Security, a private research group. It called on the Reagan administration to curb "Star Wars” tests that might be interpreted by Moscow as part of a plot to quickly mount a defense againt missiles. Tests of other components would be permitted. The idea is to reach a compromise with the Soviets that would allow agreements to reduce offensive weapons to go through. Dubinin, at his news conference, did not seem receptive to the idea. He said the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty prohibits the testing of all components in space. The Reagan administration, on the other hand, does not appear to be in a mood to make concessions on a program that the president said Monday should "proceed as expeditiously as possible.” With that gulf, it really may not matter who is sitting at the negotiating table In Geneva. ;

RealCheck