Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

The Augusta News - Review January 26,1985, Mallory K. MillenderEditor-Publisher Paul Walker• Assistant to the Publisher Georgene Hatcher-Seabrook'General Manager Rev. R.E Donaldsoißeligion Editor Mrs. Geneva Y. Gibson Church Coordinator Charles Beale Jenkins County Correspondeni Mrs. Fannie Johnson Aiken County Correspondent Mrs. Clara WestMcDuffie County Correspondent Mrs. Been Buchanan Fashion & Beauty Editor Linda Starks-Andrews Reporter Roosevelt Green Columnist Al Irby. Columnist Philip Waring Columnist Marva Stewart Columnist George Bailey....,Sports Writer Carl McCoyEditorial Cartoonist Oiando HamlettPhotographer Roscoe Williams Photographer “THE AUGUSTA NEWS-REVIEW (USPSB.B7B2O) is published weekly for sll per year in the county and sl2 per year out ot the county. Second-class postage paid at Augusta,GA POST MASTER: Send address changes to THE AUGUSTA NEWS REVIEW, P.O. Box 2123, Augusta, GA 30903-2121." (404) 722-4555 AMALGAMATED National Advertising Representative FUBUSHERS/rNC. W View from CapitolHitt Looking calmly at nuclear armstalks by Gus Savage Now that the euphoria resulting from the unprecedented media hpye surroundint the event has subsided, it is possible to take a calm i look at just what occured in Geneva! recently when | Secretary of3 State Georgej Shultz and Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko sat down to talk about resuming American-Soviet arms control negotiations. Both parties agree that a decision was reached to reopen arms talks in three separate areas: long-range intercontinental balistic missiles systems (sometimes referred to as strategic weapons); medium-range missiles systems (often called intermediate weapons); and space-based defense systems (popularly known as “star wars” weapons). Based upon latest developments, it now appears that this is all that was agreed upon. Period. American officials and obser vers, however, came away from Geneva glowing about how Reagan’s deployment of Pershing II and cruise missiles in Western Europe in/1983 had forced the Soviets back to the conference table with no strings attached, and how they had agreed to discuss defensive systems without the United States retreating from its stated determination to test and deplov such systems. In other words, our spokespersons bragged that the Soviets had agreed to come back to the bargaining table on our terms -a clear-cut victory for Reagan’s get-tough policy. Then, on January 14, a week af ter Shultz and Gromyko first sat down in Geneva, the Soviet prime minister held a rare televised press conference in Moscow and presen ted an entirely different picture of the Geneva meeting. Gromyko declared that con tinued deployment of U.S. missiles in Europe would jeopardize the coming arms negotiations. He further stated that progress in future talks was directly related to American testing and deployment of the “stars wars” system. “If no progress is made on questions of space,” he said, “it would be superfluous to talk about the possibility of reducing strategic armaments.” Additionally, American officials had indicated that progress in any one of the three areas was not necesarily restricted by progress in another area. Gromyko, on the other hand, stated: “Without reaching an accord, simultaneous and interrelated in all three direc tions, there can be no advancement in the realization of what was agreed upon in Geneva.” The extent to which the Soviets and the Americans disagree in principle going into the new talks is probable best symbolized by the way the two sides view the so called “star wars” system. The Soviets seem to believe .that >*«•■*■ ... Support your local | UNCF school Page 4 the very idea of attempting at this stage to develop defensive systems against nuclear arms is destabilizing. Kremlin strategists agree the “star wars” approach helps to create the idea that a defensive deterrence against nuclear destruction is possible, thus weakening belief in the concept the only deterrence available is the ability of the United States and the Soviet Union to destroy each other. The Soviets have stated that the only way to move away from reliance on offensive deterrence against war is the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Theorists who support the Soviet view argue further that belief in deterrence through defen sive systems promotes adventurism by encouraging one of the super powers to believe that superior defensive weapons could provide it with the ability to engage in blackmail, or with the power to launch a first strike without fear of equal, effective retaliation. The Reagan administration, on the other hand, believes that the time has come to develop a system which would make offensive nuclear weapons obsolete. As the President puts it: “We should build weapons which destroy weapons, not weapons which destroy people.” The international scientific community, however, seems to be of the opinion that the technology is not available to develop the type of defensive systems that would make offensive nuclear weapons obsolete, and that to attempt such a thing at this stage would probably bankrupt the ecohomies of both the United States and the Soviet Union. These experts point out that even if we and the Soviets suc ceed in developing a workable “star wars” defensive system, it would have to be 100 percent effec tive to change the method of 1 deterrence from offensive to defensive. In my opinion, the defensive systems concept should not be discarded entirely. Just because defensive systems might not ever be wholly effective against massive offensive nuclear weapons, it does not mean that such defensive systems could not serve a purpose in a world where offensive weapons had been radically scaled down or eliminated. If radical reduction or elimination of offen sive nuclear weapons occured, and both sides possessed effective defensive systems or if such systems existed under the control of a world body then deterrence could be shipped from the offen sive capability of mutual destruc tion to the capability of mutual defense. This mutuality of defense would exist as much to deter other adven turous nations and terrorists as to keep Soviet and American am bitions in check. However, if the scientists are correct, none of this is possible without first halting the offensive arms race and beginning the pain staking process of reducing the stockpiles of death already in place. \ / IFOUR \ \ / f MORE, \ \ / \ TEARS/ ) \ / RONALD O \ / REAGAN, D 0... ©nee black fzesomzces imc- Walking With Dignity William Gray captures Budget Chairman post by Al Irby Philadelphia’s Rep. William H. Gray 111 captured the all important post of House Budget Committee chairman by a skillful campaign that caught better-1 known can didates nap ping. He be-l comes the top ranking Black congressman in the nation. Congressman rj '■Sk - ■ OTWBn Gray sought help from the House leadership early and even gathered some conservative ‘boll weevil’ Democrats into his camp. He would also appear to be a staunch White House opponent. The liberal congressman has helped defend federal spending for education and welfare against the Reagan budget knife in his past two years as a back bencher on the House Budget Committee. The handsome Rev. Gary replaces Rep. James R. Jones (D) Civil Rights Journal Shielding corporate murderers by Charles E. Cobb The right to punish or seek redress from those who injure us has been a tenet of most societies throughout history. There is an inconsistency, however. Those who advocate harsh penalties for convicted murderers do not demand the same punishment for ■ corporate criminals whose crimes have had an even more devastating effect. A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court heightens this in consistency. The Court unanimously decided that the owner of a toxic waste site was protected from an order to asume the costs of cleaning up his dump because he had filed for jjersonal bankruptcy. To Be Equal The battle of the budget by John E. Jacob The battle of the 1986 budget is heating up fast, and the results will have a tremendous impact on all Americans, but :specially on poor people. Programs ben nefiting thej poor have, in fecent years,' been offered as sacrifices to the war gods t'JMk * ir ' and this year is no exception. Faced with massive deficits, the; Adminstration is proposing to cut some $34 billion out of domestic spending programs. About a four th of that total-over $6 billion— would come from programs that directly serve the poor. And despite considerable talk among conservative Congressmen, business interests, and others that the Defense budget is far out of line and ought to be trimmed, the Ad ministration plans to continue the relentless rise in military spending. Such limitless spending does not necessaily enhance our national security. In fact, many believe it of Oklahoma, a moderate to con servative who was prevented from running because of tenure rules for the committee. Rev. Gray said of the Reagan plan as revealed so far, “Jif it was shipped up here today, it would be DOA--dead on arrival.” But the articulate Baptist minister-lawmaker is capable of surprises, as his budget chairman ship victory reveals. While other hopefuls held back, awaiting a House decision on whether to ex tend the terms for Budget Commit tee members, the good clergy set his eye on the post months ago and quickly began seeking supporters. He sought help from me House leadership early and even gathered some conservative along the way, so that by late last year, other would-be-contenders awoke to the realization that minister had already outflanked them. When the vote came, no one op posed him. Even colleagues who had preferred others were ap plauding the political skill of the After the terribie illnesses and deaths which resulted from im proper use and storage of chemical wastes at Times Beach and Love Canal, the need for such cleanup was, of course, never was in question. Instead, a New York Times article implied, it was the sanctity of the Bankruptcy laws which was being upheld in this case. Hiding behind the bankruptcy statutes is not a new trick. When the Johns-Manville Company, a major producer of cnacer-causing asbestos, was faced with thousands of lawsuits, the company simply took the easy way out - they filed for bankruptcy. The company will therefore have to pay only a por tion of each claim filed. Documents released during a 1978 Congressional hearing clearly show that, even in the early 1930’5, Johns-Manville and other asbestos producers were well aware further endangers it. And giving the Pentagon the key to the Treasury undermines a nation’s strongest weapon—a flourishing economy. A former President who was also a great general, Dwight D. Eisenhower, once said: “There is no way in which a country can satisfy the craving for absolute security-but it can bankrupt itself, morally and economically, in at tempting to reach the illusory goal through arms alone.” Somebody ought to print that in large type on the title page of the Defense Department’s budget submission. There’s no getting away from the fact that the soaring federal deficit is due to the combination of the sweeping tax cuts passed inl9Bl and the rapidly escalating defense budget. As has so often been poin ted out, not enough money can be cut from domestic programs to make a difference in the deficit. And further cuts in poor people’s programs would be un conscionable given the massive fourth-term ‘Man-of-the-cloth’ 'from the “City of Brotherly Love.” Although his vote record is almost Simon-pure liberal. Congressman Gray is no ideologue. He has always been the type of person who says ‘Let’s see what we can do.’ Gray convinced the Black Caucus to go along with the House budget plan of 1983, despite cutbacks that the Caucus opposed. Republicans have mixed emotions about the new chairman, who has a reputation for being a willing listener to all sides. “I think he will be a fair chairman in allowing people to expres views,” said Rep. Thomas Loaffler (R) of Texas, who has served with him on the committee. But the conser vative Representative Loaffler also said, “I can see the committe becoming even more liberal than in past sessions.” The polite Rev. Gray responsed to the “too liberal” complaint of of the hazards of asbestos. They did all in their power to suppress medical evidence about the stomach, cancers and incurable lung disorders which employee medical exams were uncovering in astounding numbers. This is more than a question of fines and bankruptcy statutes, however. What is really at issue here is equality of law. Clearly, it is much easier for society to deal swiftly with the murderer of one store owner during a robbery than it is to punish the corporate giants whose actions result in the suf fering and death of thousands. Our minds are often unable to comprehend the magnitude of this greater guilt. How can we adequately respond, for example, to the Johns-Manville medical director who callously tells us that his com pany didn’t put warning labels on insulation containing asbestos cuts that have already been made in them, and gives the reality that every such program could be i totally eliminated and the deficit would still be in the stratosphere. The Administration’s 1986 budget proposal includes elimination of the Job Corps and the Legal Services Corporation, and cuts in Head Start three programs that are universally agreed to have been successful. Other cuts would result in 500,000 low income pregnant women and infants and children losing food supplements. Older poor people would have their social security supplemental benefits cut. And million of other who depend on fool stamps, welfare benefits and other survival programs would be victims of lower federal spending levels. This repeats the pattern of past years, in which the 35 million poor face sacrifices not sought from the majority who continue to enjoy the benefits of an economic recovery that excludes the poorest citizens and tax loopholes that don’t affect Republicans with a smile and tljis statement, “They might be quite' surprised.” “I would remind them—that Richard Nixon went to China.” The new Budget Com mittee chairman struck a moderate pose after his election, as he called for reducing federal spending and vowed to be a “consensus builder.” Possibly the good minister’s most serious challenge beside the budget deficit will be satisfying his home district, an 80 percent Black urban and largely poor area where federal domestic programs are popular. He already has faced criticism for his attention to third world countries, including South Africa. But the alert clergy keeps close tabs with his supporters and retur ns weekly to expound the Gospel at ‘Bright Hope Baptist Church in North Philadelphia, where the 3,000-member congregation provided the core of support that launched his political career. because: (Quote) “...if the ap plication of a caution label iden tifying a product as hazardous would cut out sales, there would be serious financial im plications .’’(Unquote) We can no longer permit such wanton corporate criminality to go unpunished. If the federal bankruptcy laws offer corporate officials protection from financial responsibility, then Congress must move quickly to amend these laws. But fines are not enough. What price should we put, for instance, on the thousands killed and maimed by the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal, India? Industrial murderers should be no more shielded from criminal prosecution than are other criminals. Certainly jail sentences will not bring back the dead, but they can act as a deterrent against future corporate disregard for the well-being of our citizens. the poor. There’s something very wrong about this brutal, persistent cam paign against the handful of relatively modest programs that enable poor families to survive and’ offer at least a modicum of hope and opportunities for the disad vantaged. And there’s something very short-sighted about fiscal policies that savagely slash investments in our greatest asset —human resour ces, while squandering many billions on wasteful and excessive military spending. The new chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. William Gray, has indicated that the Ad ministration budget would be "‘dead on arrival” in Congress. So there are hopeful signs that responsible lawmakers see the current deficit as being dangerous to the nation’s economic health and will refuse to accept a budget that continues irresponsible spen ding while unfairly punishing poor people who were victimized in previous battles of the budget .