Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 14, 1988)
PT FHitnfiPi 1 Netraskan • ^ A-l Vft A lr A A A®. A Monday, March 14,1988 —-^——.. ..■— —————mwwm—a—————————— NetSaskan University of Nebraska-Lincoln Mike Reillcy, Editor 472 / 766 Diana Johnson, Editorial Page Editor Jen Dcsclnis, Mana^in^ Editor Curl Wagner, Associatee Sews Editor Chris Anderson, Associate Sews Editor Joan Rc/ac, Copy Desk Chief Joel Carlson, Columnist A surprised party Opposed bill shows poor communication Lack of communication has once again stalled progress in the Ne braska Legislature. What’s odd though is that in a non-partisan unicameral one party has ganged up against Gov. Kay Orr. And oddly enough, it’s Orr's own party. Orr, whose recent tax-cut proposal has been under fire, was met with opposition after Republican senators made a group cl lort to forestall the issue. Orr’s tax-cut bill failed to advance from the Revenue Committee on Fri day. More than a dozen Republi can senators met Friday morn ing to discuss their views on Orr’s tax-cut bill. Some agreed not to cooperate with the Re publican governor on the issue until she sat down to talk with them, several senators said in interviews with the Omaha World Herald. “There arc some senators who aren’t happy with the tax package the governor offered without saying anything to any of us,” said one Republican member who asked not to be identified. Orr’s LB 1238 would pro vide $8.8 million in income tax relief for non-itemizing elderly and lower- and middle-income taxpayers by increasing the standard deductions for 1988. The tax-cut would be offset by a 2*ccnt increase in the cigarette tax and an increase in the pickle card tax from 3 percent to 10 percent of gross sales. The committee declined to move the bill to the floor after a public hearing Friday. Sen. Lorraine Langford of Kearney said some Revenue Committee members at the morning meeting had appar ently already decided they weren't going to support the bill. “They were bothered that they had to do it because it was the governor’s bill, but they weren’t consulted and they didn’t like it,” she said. The bill had come as a sur prise to some senators last week and there w as some opposition to the tax increases, Langford said. But as Sen Rod Johnson of Sutton said, “1 think there are just some bruised egos right now.” It’s understandable that some senators feel the governor lias neglected her obligation to keep them informed of her stand j on issues. It’s possible they feel that if she had consulted them, I the tax-cut bill would be better written. It is unlike Orr to demon strate a maverick attitude, but in order to have a moic well-in formed Legislature and perhaps one that is more smoothly run, communication is a must. Responses lack critical thinking I’m not surprised that my friend and colleague, Dave Reiter, has stirred up a hornet’s nest with his letter (Daily Nebraskan, Feb. 17) concerning proposed state-provided condom dispensers in the residence halls. W hat doesn't surprise me is the prevalence of knee-jerk reactions to that letter that arc nearly devoid of any critical thinking on the parts of their authors. It really seems as though Dave’s commentators have either failed to read the letter or have read too much into it. Consider: One response raises Dave’s question whether there arc students who arc incapable (physi cally, psychologically or socially) of not having sex — an interesting question, surely rhetorical and un doubtedly meant to emphasize just how visible an option abstinence really is. How docs the commentator respond, with an answer to the ques tion? No. With a re-evaluation of the situation under discussion? No. The commentator calls Dave names — self-righteous, naive and what-not. This being such a profound method of refutation, a second com mentator calls Dave immature. That’s funny; the guy who advocates self-restraint over state-catered con dom dispensers is the immature one? Hmmn ,n ... What’s funnier is that Dave is so labeled because he alleg edly uses the phrase "action x" as a euphemism for the expression "hav ing sex .’’Call us silly, but we philoso phers prefer to operate on principle rather than on whims. Dave was suggesting by his use of "action x” that having sex is but one action that must not fall outside the scope of our general principles of proper action. “Action x” is a generalization, not a euphemism. (If this explanation is insufficient, take note that Dave uses the word “sex”about live times in his letter.) So be reminded, folks. Dave did little more than ask some provocative questions and forward some plau sible principles an acceptable solu tion must aidhcrc to. Respond as it suits you to, but remember; Critical thinkers will attack Dave’s reason ing. Those who fall short will attack Dave. Rob Rcvock graduate philosophy ^UnsignOTfdilorials represcnU)^ ficial policy Of the spring 1988 Daily Nebraskan, Policy is set by tl.j Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Its members mt Mike Reilley, editor; Diana Johnson, editorial page editor; Joan Reznc, Copy desk editor, Jen Deselms, managing editor. Curt Wagner, associate news editor; Christine Andaraon, associate news editor; and Joel Carlson, columnist. Editorials do not necessarily re fleet the views o nr university, its employees, the students or the NU Board of Regents. The Daily Nebraskan’s publishers are the regents, who established the UNL Publications Board to super vise the daily prod'iction of the pa per. According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the edito rial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its editors. — Playing on public’s emotions | Environmental issue on waste site spars Nebraska group , Environmental issues have often been at the forefront in drumming up emotional support from the public. Many people view environmentalists as patriots because they often resemble the underdog David in his fight with Goliath. Goliath, of course, is played by either the big bad corporation or the insensitive governmental agency. With this framework in mind, some environmentalists are stirring the emotions of Nebraskans by at tacking the placement of low-level nuclear waste in this state. For those who have missed all the media attention to the issue, Nebras kans will receive and store low-level nuclear waste from a five-state re gion. Nebraska was selected through a process set up by a compact agreed to by the five stales. Congress set up the compact to deal with this issue on a regional basis. Some environmentalists have claimed Nebraskans should have the right to vote on whether to accept the low-level waste. A group, the Ne braskans for the Right to Vote, has organized to put the issue on the ballot and planned to actively cam paign against the stale’s membership in the compact. As stated before, environmental issues can stir up a great deal of emotion in the public, particularly nuclear issues. One would be hard pressed to find anyone who does not want a safe environment and even harder to find someone who has no fear of nuclear waste. Since there is such a common concern for the environment, Ne braskans for the Right to Vote has found it particularly easy to play on the emotions of people who may not understand the issue very well. However, there are many reasons to suspect the motives and sincerity of this group. First, its approach has flaws. With a name like Nebraskans for the Right to Vote, there may be a perception that people can essentially voteaway the problem. It is the “Not you, not me, but the guy behind the tree” philosophy. A volt to pull out from the com pact would require Nebraska to store its own waste anyway. Of the five states. Nebraska produced the most low-level waste from 1979 to 1986. Nebraska also would have lo pay more to store since the funds would be lost with the compact. A vote to pull out from the com pact would also upscl a carefully crafted regional scheme set up by a publicly elected Congress. It would also fly in ihc face of the publicly elected Nebraska Legislature which voted overwhelmingly to join the compact. Further, Nebraska might not be able to refuse to take other states’ waste, including those outside the five-state compact, if the compact structure was altered. U.S. Sen. J.J. Exon cautioned, the U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause may not allow Nebraska to refuse waste from other states. Second, some of the rhetoric es poused by Nebraskans for the Right to Vote has not given them a lot of credibility. Instead of talking about responsible solutions and alterna tives to the problem, the group has spent much of its lime bashing indus try and governmental agencies. Sam Welsch, the head of the group, has accused public officials of placing efficiency ahead of safely considerations. Welsch said mem bers of a five-state commission su pervising the program “arc going to want to site a facility as cheaply as they can, regardless of the health and safety risk of Nebraska citizens.” It is one thing to disagree with the methods of storing low-level waste, but it is quite another to suggest public officials will forget their re sponsibility to the public by con sciously cutting comers on the proj ect. Welsch should realize that many of the public officials he accuses ‘ have strong environmental track records. Some were professed envi ronmental activists in the late 1960s and most have been in environmental planning for many years. They have proven environmentalists can make a difference by working inside the system rather than outside of it. Welsch may be motivated by other desires. Welsch was noted in a national report by an anti-nuclear group as a Nebraska contact. The report was entitled, “Shutdown Strategies: Citizen Efforts to Close Nuclear Power Plants.” An environmental colleague, Dr. David Hoelting of Pender, said Wclsch told him numerous times that "his goal was to shut down the nu clear power plants and that he would never accept any storage site in this stale if he could help it.” Nebraska Public Power District officials said a compact withdrawal could result in the premature closing of power plants that supply 30 per cent of Nebraska’s electricity. Third, this group seems to act as if the placement of low-level waste in Nebraska is somehow unique. This radioactive waste is low-level as opposed to high-level. High-level is fuel produced by nuclear power plants, while low-level waste refers to such items as clothing and tools that have been used in those plants. Nebraska has already been storing low-level waste for years. Further,a reccn! study indicates a “major failure” in a low-level dis posal facility would expose the pub lic to about as much radiation as a person would receive from a gastro intestinal examination once a year. Larry Grimm, a University of Ncbraska-Lincoln radiation safety officer, said a farmer living next to a waste site and receiving a maximum lawful dose of radiation for 60 years might reduce his life expectancy for 15 days. He said a farmer reduces his lifccxpectancy by about nine months because of the threat of accidents, chemical poisoning and other farm ing risks. Jim Neal, Departmentof Environ mental Control public information officer, said Nebraska’s 300-pkis open dumps arc a far more serious harm than the storage of low-level waste. Such low-level waste would be stored in an above-ground, double-containment structure. The waste site would not be placed overi any aquifer regions even if an un-IK likely leakage would occur. Thus, Nebraskans have every 1 reason to be skeptical of this group. Its rhetoric and motives arc suspect, and its urging of a compact with drawal would present more problems than it would prevent. Environmentalists usually do the public a service by playing the role of David against Goliath, but unfortu nately this group appears to be noth ing more than a wolf in sheep’sclolh ing. Carlson is a third-year law student.