Opinion
Promises, promises
Environment bill yet another election ploy
In yet another timely act, the Bush administration has
endorsed a bill that would support the development of
energy alternatives to case America’s dependence on
foreign oil.
The so-called “made-in-America” bill would, among other
things, make it easier for companies to build nuclear power
plants and natural gas pipelines.
Surprisingly, the bill lacks an element Bush has lobbied
heavily for: the lifting of restrictions on oil drilling in an
Alaskan wildlife refuge.
~~' , In spite of the missing clement, Energy Secretary James
Watkins said, “This is a tremendously powerful bill.”
Well, we wouldn’t go that far.
In fact, one of the most “powerful” sections of the bill could
signal a compromise in safety standards at nuclear power
plants.
The licensing process for atomic power plants would be
streamlined by eliminating the need to obtain both a construc
tion and an operating permit. Nuclear watchdog groups have
said the move would compromise safety. Of course, the nuclear
industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission disagree.
But the bill docs have some sound sections. One would
require more energy-efficient light bulbs. Another would call
for 4 million more alternative fuel vehicles by 2(XX).
Environmentalists say the bill is shaky, at best. It still
depends too much on fossil fuels and nuclear energy* while
making modest gains in energy efficiency.
From Bush’s standpoint, the “madc-in-Amcrica” bill is
made to order. It’s a plan that everyone can live with. The
Senate passed the bill 94-4. The House of Representatives
should pass a similar bill without much trouble.
In a year in which Bush is sure to draw fire for backing
down on election-year environmental plans of the past, he
should support all kinds of ecologically minded bills. But his
lobbying against wildlife protection proves he won’t support
just any environmental plan.
It also proves that Bush’s support of this bill should be taken
at face value. It is nothing more than another timely ploy in his
bid for re-election.
‘Daytime home’ idea misguided
I am writing this letter to give
readers an idea of an “average” resi
dent’s view of the proposal to give
commuter students a daytime home
(“UNL to offer commuters daytime
home,” DN, Feb. 18). This is an opin
ion that I share with most of the
fellow residents to whom I have spo
ken.
My major problem with the new
proposal is that V ice Chancel lor G ric
sen did not attempt to get input from
residents. Through my research 1
learned that he passed the idea by the
Residence Hall Association and told
it of his plan. I also learned thatRHA
is adamantly opposed to the idea. I
think further research could have been
done by Vice Chancellor Griesen to
get an idea of how residents would
feel about such a proposal. This is just
another ease of an administrator ig
noring student input and deciding what
is best for students.
The article mentions that Griesen
“met with residence hall directors,
complex directors and student assis
tan is” to decide if the plan was worth
a try. Through my discussion with
some student assistants I learned that
Dr. Griesen simply informed them of
the plan. Contrary to the article, there
was no discussion as to whether the
plan should be implemented. Dr.
Griesen already had made that deci
sion. He was met with opposition, but
that didn’t change anything.
Dr. Griesen thinks this plan will
promote unity between residents and
commuters. Quite the contrary, these
students will be strangers on the floors.
Their major lime spent in the building
will be during the daytime hours.
Most of the friendships on a floor arc
built late at night. Since the com
muter students won’t be on the floor
at this time, they will remain outsid
ers on the floor. The presence of strang
ers will damage the openness and
community atmosphere on the floor.
With the enactment of this proposal,
the residence halls will cease to be a
home and become no more than a
motel or a locker room. I do not want
to live in a locker room.
For just S48Q a semester these
students arc going to reap the same
benefits for which I have to pay, at
minimum, over SI,300 a semester.
They will have 24-hour access, a desk,
a shower, five meals per week (I gel
13), and numerous other conveniences
that make the residence halls special
and worth SI,300 a semester. While
they arc not supposed to sleep here,
removing the beds from the rooms
will not stop them from doing so.
What this plan boils down to is that
they will be gelling a very cheap
residence hall room.
This plan must sound great to those
commuter students interested. It
should, they arc getting so much for
so little. For what they arc saving by
paying so little for a room, they will
lose by incurring the wrath of those
residents who arc paying their fair
share. Simply put, they will be un
wclcomcd strangers in our commu
nity.
Vice Chancel lor Gricscn asked the
opinion of everyone BUT the resi
dents before acting on his proposal. I
believe he will find this is a major
mistake. There arc better ways to
raise revenues than inviting unwcl
comcd guests into our home.
Heath Kramer
sophomore
broadcasting
-LETTER POLICY
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes
brief letters to the editor from all read
ers and interested others.
Letters and guest opinions sent to
the newspaper become the property
of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned.
Anonymous submissions will not
be considered for publication. Let
ters should include the author’s
name, year in school, major and
group affiliation, if any. Requests to
withhold names will not be granted.
Submit material to the Daily Ne
braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R
St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
S,t',COKJE GEL BREAST 1MPLNMT ^
_LimiBMM-—
MARK FAHLESON
Postal Service incompetent
Proud sponsors of the 1992 Olym
pic Games.
Such is the label carried by
the likes of Coca-Cola, Visa, United
Airlines, McDonald’s and M&M Mars.
All are leaders in their respective
industries,epitomizing the American
ideals of diligence, hard work and
success in the free market. All have
contributed to the Olympic effort to
express their yearning for good, old
fashioned, barc-knucklc competition.
But, like the famed Sesame Street
game, one of these sponsors is not
like the others.
The United Stales Postal Service.
Believe it or not, our Postal Serv
ice, that bloated bureaucratic behe
moth, is attempting to cast itself as
just another frcc-markct competitor
gleaming in Olympic pride.
In an unprecedented move, the
Postal Service became the first gov
ernmental agency to throw its hat into
the Olympic ring as an official spon
sor. For a mere SI22 million, the
Postal Service is going for the gold,
displaying the famed rings on postal
trucks, stamps, mailboxes and uni
forms.
As Assistant Postmaster General
Deborah Bowker pul it, the service
hopes its sponsorship will “change
the way people think of us.”
Sorry, but it will take something
more than a fancy Olympic public
relations campaign and syrupy rhe
torical glib to overcome the Postal
Service’s abysmal record of service
and inefficiency.
I he Postal Service is the quintes
sential example of governmental
incompetence and bureaucratic bun
gling. Created in 1971 to replace the
now-defunct U.S. Post Office De
partment, the service was established
as a quasi-private enterprise to unite
the country through universal service
and uniform postal rates.
To accomplish this lofty goal, the
Postal Service was granted monopoly
power over all first-class mail service
via federal law.
Although the service is shielded
from frcc-markct forces in first-class
mail delivery, this governmental
agency operates in a world of make
believe competition, calling itself a
private enterprise while refusing to
sever its umbilical cord to the public
womb.
Because no private sector alterna
tives to the Postal Service arc avail
able for first-class mail, consumers
are forced to pay whatever this over
weight monopoly charges, regardless
of its inept service. And with each
passing year, the prices go up as the
quality of service goes down.
The average first-class letter now
Believe it or not, our
Postal Service, that
bloated, bureaucratic
behemoth, is attempt
ing to oast itself as
just another, tree
market competitor
gleaming in Olympic
pride.
lakes 22 percent longer to reach its
destination than it did in 1969, ac
cording to James Bovard, a policy
analyst for the Cato Institute.
In 1764, the goal of delivery be
tween Philadelphia and New York
was two days. Today iloften takes the
same amount of lime for mail to go
from one New York address to an
other.
Last month, USA Today, the
newspaper of scholars, conducted a
test of the Postal Service’s efficiency.
After mailing 1 ,000 letters in all 50
states, the newspaper found that one
of every four letters arrived late.
Even worse, one-fifth of the late
letters were severely late, often three
day s or more past the Postal Service’s
delivery guarantee. One month after
the test was completed, 10 letters
were still missing.
whai used lo be a mollo of “nci
ihcr snow, nor rain, nor heal, nor
gloom of night” will slop ihc mail,
has given way lo “We’ll see.”
Somclimcs ii lakes nothing more
lhan leaves lo slop our once impervi
ous postmen. The Washington Times
reported that ihc posi office in Altad
cna, Calif., informed one disabled
woman ihai il would no longer de
liver her mail until she picked up the
leaves on ihc parkway outside of her
home. Apparently postal officials
feared that ihc leaves would make ihc
road too slippery, thereby endanger
ing postal carriers.
The Postal Service is nol oblivious
to its poor record. The Postal Rate
Commission concluded that its pro
ductivity “peaked in 1978 . . . and
generally has declined with some
fluctuations since that time.”
Productivity is so bad that the serv
ice even refused a SI0,000 challenge
from economist Walter Williams that
he could beat a letter mailed from
Washington, D.C., to New York on
his bicycle.
The Postal Service’s inefficiency
is not caused by lack of funding. As
its service record has deteriorated, its
prices have soared.
Since 1970, the price of a first
class stamp has jumped from six cents
to 29 cents. Despite these rate hikes
and more than SI billion in annual
taxpayer subsidies, the service is in
the red almost every year.
One of the reasons for Postal Serv
ice inefficiency is its inextricable tics
to unionized labor.
The Postal Service is the largest
civilian employer in the country, with
most of its employees belonging to
the powerful American Postal Work
ers Union. Thanks to the bargaining
power of the union, the average postal
worker cams more than S40.000
annually. Rcccntaltcmptstocutcosts
by contracting out remedial tasks have
been scuttled by the union.
Don’t expect politicos to challenge
the union’s power anytime soon. The
postal union contributes more than S1
million annually to congressional
campaigns.
Another explanation for Postal
Service inefficiency is the archaic
policy of charging the same rate no
matter what the destination is. Re
gardless of whether I am sending a
letter across the street or across the
country, the rate is the same. This can
lead to absurd results.
The Washington Post reported that
an Alaskan freight company recently
found it cheaper to mail 10,000 con
crete blocks and bags of cement I rom
Anchorage to Wainwrighl, Alaska,
some 700 miles away, than to haul
them itself.
The Ircight company paid oniy
S34,(XX) in postage. It cost the Postal
Service S232,(XX) to deliver. And we
citizens of the lower 48 states picked
up the difference through ovcipriccd
postage.
Thc fedcral government has only
one way to resurrect the Postal Serv
ice’s reputation as a lazy, incflicicnl
sloth.
Sell it.
Certainly an entity such as United
Parcel Service or Federal Express could
make first-class mail efficient and
dependable. If you doubt this, ask
yourself when was the last time you
saw a Postal Service employee run
ning around to deliver packages like a
typical Type-A personality employed
by UPS.
Fahleson Is a third year law student and a
Daily Nebraskan columnist.