European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - February 26, 1993, Darmstadt, Hesse                                February ?6. 1993 commentary the stars and stripes 15 women in Battle Issue makes brass nervous William f. Buckley i d give my old dog tags to be present at West Point or Annapolis when the colonel in Washington explains Why the Pentagon will not permit a two hour television debate on these sacred premises on the question resolved women should not engage in combat  it has been arranged for firing line to organize  an exploration with four speakers on either Side and the Natu ral location for the debate is of course one of the great service academies. When word reached me that some lady colonel in the Pentagon vetoed the idea of the live debate attest Point or an Napolis i asked her through the producer Why and got Back that the subject was too  this was very difficult to take seriously and accordingly i wrote a letter to the then Secretary of defense pick Cheney remind ing him that after All War is also pretty controversial but it is discussed quite regularly within the tender hearing of plebes and cadets in the military academies. It happened that a month or so after dispatching the letter i found myself at a Small dinner party with Cheney. I nudged him. How was it he had not re plied to my letter he whispered that he was going to work on the air Force Academy. Presumably the Secretary of defense was not willing to override a decision already made respecting West Point and Annapolis. Hearing nothing a month or so later i put in a Call to Cheney. He returned it at a hour when i was not in the office. I re turned his Call approximately of 10 times always calling Back when told he would certainly be there. After the 10th Call i advised his Secretary that it was by no Means necessary for me to Converse with the de parting Secretary of defense 1 needed Only the simple answer to a simple question yes or no on the air Force Academy Cheney never got Back to me not eve with a yes or no via his Secretary. It must be that the answer was no and that he was Loo embarrassed to Tell me so. I Don t blame him. It is a quite extraordinary commen tary on the military academies that the High command will not tolerate let alone Welcome a spirited two hour debate Tele Vised to a National audience on a subject very much on people s minds. It was after All less than a year ago that a presidential commission voted on the ques Tion by a narrow margin recommending against women in combat. Surely it can t be that the military Aca demies must not be exposed to views so controversial so controversial As what that yes women should be permitted to fight or that no they should not be i have lectured three times at West Point twice at Annapolis once at the air Force Academy and a dozen times at the National War College and i have been politically incorrect since puberty shortly after which i was inducted into the army at fort Jackson in Columbia s.c., and commissioned in the infantry at fort Denning a. The producer having been rejected by the academies lined up fort Jack son for the debate which will take place at the end of March. But to the lady colonel got wind of it and zing exit fort Jackson. The Pentagon appears to have terrorized the entire military establishment. If the military bureaucracy is sufficiently powerful to Render Cheney incapable of effecting a Telephone Call or delivering a message or answering his mail then we Bow to Force Majerc. On the other hand if the opposition to a ventilation of the question in front of live soldiers male and female is the problem then one is entitled to ask what s going on lined up on the women should fight team Are among others rep. Patricia Schroeder d-colo., which is a Flat guarantee that All the wrong and demagogic things will be prop Erly said. Also Ira Glasser of the Ameri can civil liberties Union who is every bit As Bright As he is perverse. And when the request was made on the opposing team we had retired Gen. Alexander Haig who should t really Bethought of As unqualified to give his views on the subject before a couple of thou Frozen in time Sand cadets. Perhaps it has to do with feminist ideology. I assume this is How the conversation went when the Penta gon was giving the question its powerful attention if a debate is held at West Point the impression is Given that both sides Are thought to be tenable. That reasonable people can take either the one or the other position. But do we dare give out  an impression in an age in which sexual Equality is the passion if we hereto do so maybe president Clinton would punish us by. Subtract ing another $50 Bil lion from our budget better say  and these Are types who sometimes qualify for the congressional medal of Honor. C Unow Al pm synd Catt economic proposal is an exercise in deception president Clinton s economic plan is addressed he says not to one deficit but to three the Bud get deficit the investment deficit and the social deficit. Americans he says must shut Down the Drain of red Ink budgets that have virtually quadrupled the National debt in the past dozen years. At the same time we must increase the investments that Promise productivity growth and future Prosperity. And there Are he says unmet needs for aids research Public housing rehabilitation preschool education and a score of other things that cannot wait. Clinton is right to say All three deficits must be faced. But he is wrong dangerously wrong to do so in a Way that worsens a fourth deficit people s Trust in their leaders. The new president is being rightly praised for putting All these issues onto the table in a comprehensive and coherent fashion. But if his diagnosis of the nation s needs is accurate his prescription Falls far Short of a remedy. His plan just does t achieve us advertised goals. And it will Avail Clinton Little to push his economic program to passage if voters decide afterwards that they have been misled about what it will  about his reliability plagued Clinton All through the Campaign year and caused him to wind up with the lowest share of the popular vote of any Winner since Richard m. Nixon in a similar three Way race 24 years earlier. Now people Are discovering that Clinton really played fast and Loose with the facts in last year s Campaign. When reporters challenged the assumptions an the internal mathematics of Clinton s Campaign season economic plan putting people first the democratic nominee brushed off the questions. When republicans said he was being deceptive he issued indignant Deni als that ring hollow today. Last oct. 1, for example when the Bush Campaign ran ads based on the calculation that Clinton could finance his Campaign promises Only by raising taxes on every family earning More than $36,600 a year this is what the democratic nominee said it is blatantly false it is a disgrace to the american peo ple that the president of the United states would make a claim that is so baseless that is so without foundation so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false  last week Clinton a Zembar passed put Forward a revise program requiring tax increases the administration says will affect most families making Over $30,000, one sixth below the threshold George Bush had forecast. Clinton claims he has been forced to these Steps by the unexpected $346 billion size of the deficit he inherited. But last july he told business week that the deficits would approach $400 billion. The More serious problem i that the new economic plan a vision of change for David s. Broder America looks almost As Jerry built As the Campaign document it replaced. The administration s $30,000 threshold for example is not what most people understand As income or even the form 1040 s familiar adjusted Gross income line. Itis a figure concocted to include All kinds of non Cash income including fringe benefits and even the imputed rental value of the family Home. As administration officials have conceded the higher tax bites actually begin at a figure closer to $20,000 than to $30,000. These artifices were carefully concealed in Clinton state of the Union address helping him to gain a favor Able first Public reaction. Assiduous salesmanship on his part has so far sustained that image of evenhanded Uniss. But the More that is Learned about the plan the less solid it looks. As much As $54 billion of claimed spend ing reductions Are actually increases in taxes or fees. More important major Cost cutting moves Are of dubious value. The plan Calls for More than $38 billion in medi care savings Over the next four years not through any re forms but simply by cutting government payments to hospitals and doctors. In the past when Republican administrations have proposed  savings Democrat have objected properly that hospitals and doctors will be forced to shift those costs to private patients and to raise their rates to make up for the loss. The argument is still valid. In effect Clinton is proposing an additional tax on anyone unlucky enough to enter a Hospital As a non medicare patient in the next four years. Cath Washington Post