St. Louis Post-Dispatch from St. Louis, Missouri • Page 14

SUNDAY, JANUARY 14, 19962 THE POST-DISPATCH PLATFORM I KNOW THAT MY RETIREMENT WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IN ITS CARDINAL PRINCIPLES, THAT IT WILL ALWAYS FIGHT FOR PROGRESS AND REFORM, NEVER TOLERATE INJUSTICE OR CORRUPTION, ALWAYS FIGHT DEMAGOGUES OF ALL PARTIES, NEVER BELONG TO ANY PARTY, ALWAYS OPPOSE PRIVILEGED CLASSES AND PUBLIC PLUNDERERS, NEVER LACK SYMPATHY WITH THE POOR, ALWAYS REMAIN DEVOTED TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE, NEVER BE SATISFIED WITH MERELY PRINTING NEWS, ALWAYS BE DRASTICALLY INDEPENDENT, in NEVER BE AFRAID TO ATTACK WRONG, WHETHER BY PREDATORY PLUTOCRACY OR PREDATORY POVERTY. Founded by JOSEPH PULITZER December 12, 1878 JOSEPH PULITZER, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER 1878-1911 JOSEPH PULITZER, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER 1912-1955 JOSEPH PULITZER EDITOR AND PUBLISHER 1955-1986, CHAIRMAN 1979-1993 MICHAEL E. PULITZER, CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT NICHOLAS G. PENN1MAN IV, PUBLISHER WILLIAM F. WOO, EDITOR FOSTER DAVIS, MANAGING EDITOR EDWARD A.

HIGGINS, EDITOR OF THE EDITORIAL PAGE April 10, 1907 JOSEPH PULITZER 900 North Tucker Boulevard 63101 (314) 340-8000 EDITORIALS ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH ff I-W ft i i I Postpone The Budget Fight SStioh W- 611 Sr. uvs ftsr-visewz Ground Zero LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE President Bill Clinton's remarks about the budget at his press conference last week were both true and a little bit misleading. He rightly pointed out that he haS" submitted a seven-year plan to balance the budget that Congress' own budget analysts certify will do the job. And he was on the mark when he accused right-wing Republicans who are rejecting his plan with having another agenda gutting key federal programs and giving the rich a tax cut.

But the president was less than candid about how easy it will be to overcome the differences that still divide the parties. At issue are key policy disputes that many Republicans won't easily give in on: eliminating the entitlement status of Medicaid, making structural changes in Medicare that would ultimately destroy the program, and starving key programs in the environment and education. ft, may be more realistic to accept House Speaker Newt Gingrich's characterization of the chances for resolving the budget dispute. He put them at "no more than one in five." But that may not be all bad. The structural changes in federal programs the Republican budget calls for are so drastic and public support for them so uncertain that putting them to the-people in next November's elections makes more sense.

Fortunately, both the president and the speaker are willing to do just this. The key question is whether a deal can be struck to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year that cuts the deficit but postpones everything else. A resolution funding the government at present levels down 25 percent from last year for the next nine months would be required. But the speaker doesn't want to do that. Instead, he muses about a series of short continuing resolutions, each lowering the level of spending still further, starving particular programs the GOP doesn't like.

The president would be forced to accept this to avoid the public's wrath over shutting down the government, which the GOP has lately borne. Selective, rolling cuts and short-term increases in the federal debt ceiling soon to be reached would only confuse federal functions, waste money, downsize government without clear priorities and destabilize the financial markets. It would be unwise, if not simply immoral. The speaker and his colleagues should forswear that route if they decide to abandon the search for compromise on their grand seven-year plan to return the government to what it was 70 years ago. Time To Mend City And County Differences the paper's position at all, detrac-, tors arguing about the next step will defeat your reasonable and desperately needed initiative.

Over the last 40 years, I have watched the various plans for ing our crazy-quilt metropolitan area go down to defeat because some suburbs feared they could not avoid being joined with their neighbors by unwanted incorporation. I hope former Sen. Tom Eagle-" ton and other influential voices stubbornly refuse to discuss "what; lu ifs" and stick to just turning St. Louis back to a normal Missouri city. Eugene K.

Arnold Glendale Drivers Can't See The Billboards For The Trees appeal for unity of government and decision-making for the St. Louis area. Surely there will be a surplus of civic leaders of all skills and ethnic and religious backgrounds willing to serve on the proposed "civic committee call it Forward St. Louis, say, or St. Louis 2000 to make re-entry the priority project for 1996." J.F.

Hornback St. Louis A loud hurrah for whoever wrote the New Year's Day editorial advocating getting the city of St. Louis back into the county of St. Louis. The Post-Dispatch presented similar thoughts of mine in an Aug.

12, 1993, Commentary article. Now I merely wish to prophesy that the opponents of the paper's position will implicitly or overtly raise the objection that this would lead to incorporation of decaying suburbs into affluent suburbs, with the resultant disintegration of the moral, social and cultural fabric of the affluent, not to mention the crushing financial burden. Although this is not the point of What's a billboard company to do when those pesky trees obstruct motorists' view of billboards frditi the highways? Well, the answer apparently is to Jop those trees in half. That's what happened to a stand of pine trees blocking a billboard on Interstate 270- near Dorsett Road. In a poignant twist, the trees had been planted in the '60s in the spirit of Lady Bird Johnson's highway beautification campaign.

Their destruction shows just how far behind Missouri lags in reining in the billboard industry. Hank Milford of Gannett Outdoor says the trees were only supposed to be trimmed and that what happened instead was "a mistake." The owner of the tree service disputes those instructions; he says hewas told "to reduce the top by a third or so." Whether the destruction was intentional or accidental misses the point. The real issue is the power of the billboard companies to supersede state efforts at beautification and their abuse of that privilege. -Billboard companies are allowed to get a permit from the Missouri Highway and Transportation Department to trim or remove a tree if it is within 450 feet of a sign, which is, all things considered, a generous concession. If the tree is removed, it must be replaced, and that can be expensive.

So the sign companies have resorted to excessive pruning in an effort to save money by not removing the trees. Billboard companies say owners of commercial or industrial property along a federal highway have the constitutional right to rent space to a billboard company. That's a debatable proposition, but even if it were so, that doesn't mean that it should necessarily have the right in effect to tell the state that trees on its property are too full or too tall. Increasingly, the public has indicated that it wants more controls on billboards. In Creve Coeur, Lake Saint Louis, Shrewsbury, St.

Louis and other communities, residents have demanded local control: the ability to impose more stringent standards than the state. In past sessions, state Rep. Nancy Farmer, a Democrat from St. Louis, tried unsuccessfully to pass such a law. But with more cities embroiled in lawsuits trying to curb billboards, the Legislature may finally be receptive to change.

Enough already. I am sick and tired of hearing whenever the city, i gets in financial straits that it wants to take over the county. The city had us once and want us. Let the city solve its own problems; we don't want them. v'" Get an administration that knows what it is doing.

Eve Hillmeyet Jennings. In the face of obvious criticisms from vested interests in all the parts of our fragmented metropolitan area, I want to thank and congratulate the Post-Dispatch for trying to see the picture whole, and for supporting re-entry of the city into St. Louis County (Jan. I editorial, "A Civic Project For The New as the next modest step toward solving some of the area's mounting problems. Many individuals, municipalities and other governmental units are prospering in some cases because of their deliberate separatism.

But the whole area is losing out in the competition among American cities because of the worldwide publicity given to the misleading "statistics" of rapidly falling population within the outdated boundaries of our namesake city of St. Louis. Rates of crime, congestion, poverty, racial ghettos, pollution and infant mortality are high in all old central cities, but most have had the good luck or the good sense to expand their city limits to include their safe and prosperous bedroom suburbs and shopping malls. Statistics have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. Growth stimulates more growth, and a high quality of life can be a source of pride and enthusiasm.

High rates of crime, on the other hand, create fear of crime and thin out the population even more in the statistically high crime area. They also spill over into adjoining areas, however proudly they boast of their separation from the "cancer" of the central city. The editorial pointed out that a year ago, after former Sen. Thomas Eagleton's challenging speech as a St. Louis Man of the Year 1994, our city could still be sixth if added to the million-plus in suburban St.

Louis County alone. Few people except intellectuals and media marketers seem to know or care about the SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area), which adds another million in the six or seven counties around the city and county in both Missouri and Illinois. All these are vital parts of "St. Louis," however little input they may have in planning or government for parts beyond their own small municipalities or unincorporated areas of counties. I.E.

Millstone, on receiving the 1995 St. Louis Award, joined Eag-leton and the Post-Dispatch in the Sharing Medicare Costs The Next Remake OfLaClede Town As Congress and the president debate how to control costs of Medicare, which everyone admits are skyrocketing, the annual premium for Part of Medicare has been reduced (yes, reduced) by $43.20 in 1996! Monthly premiums will be reduced to $42.50 a month from $46.10 a month, or a savings of $43.20 for the year. If we have as many as 25 million seniors on Medicare, that amounts to $1.08 billion a year, or some $7.56 billion for the seven-year period being considered for deficit reduction. Why? Something to do with the beneficiary paying no more than 25 percent of the actual costol Part B. Outrageous! Earlier proposals, by the Republican majority, would have increased the 1996 premium to $53.50 a month from $46.10 per month, which would have increased revenue $2.22 billion a year or $15.54 billion over the seven years.

Comparing the GOP proposal ($53.30) vs. the reduced premi- urn ($42.50) means that some $3.3 billion of revenue has been waived for one year, or $23. 1 billion for the seven-year period. These "reductions in premium" have now been embedded in the premium structure for I Part B. How can Medicare be con- 7 trolled if the president and Con-; gress are unwilling to increase -premium costs to Medicare beneficiaries? Are we always going to place these costs on the backs of hard-working American families? It is one thing to try to cut costs, but another thing to look the other way when seniors should be asked to share in -these rising costs.

Ralph B. Cox Rock The Bosley administration has decided that a mixture of development, rather than new housing, would be better a better use for the old LaClede Town apartment site. A mayoral panel set up to find new uses for the has recommended that 14.7 acres of the property be handed over to St. Louis University. The school would use it to expand its existing outdoor sports facilities west of the site.

Seventeen acres would go to Harris-Stowe State College for a library, classroom buildings and a daycare center. A.G. Edwards would get five acres to expand parking west of its complex, and 14 acres would be used by Sigma-Aldrich Corp. for a $7 million expansion project and for its world headquarters. The only questionable aspect of the mayoral panel's recommendations is the suggestion that a group known as Belcom Redevelopment Corp.

be allowed to renovate a high-rise apartment building at 60 Ewing Avenue for rental housing. A HUD official says the building contains asbestos and probably cannot be redeveloped. The big issue, then, is whether debate over the future of that relatively small project will be allowed to overshadow or even hinder the rest of the pro posed development. City officials promise that won't happen, saying the projects are all being developed independently of one another. Belcom's consultant is listed as Charles L.

Bussey but the organization itself is part of the Carpenters District Council of St. Louis. The council has been using its pension funds to spur development projects as a way of helping to keep its members employed. It wanted to invest millions of dollars in the LaClede Town site for housing, shopping, commercial and recreational facilities. Perhaps Belcom will now conclude that the hassles and controversy over the high-rise building won't be worth the trouble and decide to invest its money in other, larger development projects.

Eight groups submitted proposals to redevelop all or parts of the LaClede Town site. Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. had favored more housing on the property, but his panel's proposals are generally quite good and deserve the support of the Board of Aldermen. The panel's recommendations suggest that the site be used to help strengthen business and institutional anchors that have made a commitment to the mid-town area. The plans by these businesses and institutions should go forward, regardless of the outcome of Belcom's high-rise proposal.

DEA Is Learning From Mistakes Will Tlwy Get It Right This Time? As the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, I write in response to the Jan. 2 editorial, "DEA's Bias Against Fairness." The editorial discussed a recent court case that awarded $180,000 to a DEA agent and concluded that the DEA will simply "go on with business as usual." That is simply not true. The case discussed in the editorial arose from a challenge to a 10-day suspension imposed upon Special Agent Peter Probst on the basis of an investigation into suspected misconduct by DEA's internal affairs body, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), in 1991 and 1992. During the litigation, it became clear that the underlying OPR investigation had been deeply flawed. Because I concluded that the unprofessional handling of the OPR investigation had deprived Probst of a fair hearing, I authorized the attorneys who were defending the lawsuit to agree to rescind the suspension and enter into negotiations to make Probst whole for his losses.

When the parties could not agree on the amount of money damages, the district court was asked to determine the amount. I was concerned by the deficiencies in DEA's OPR process that were revealed by this lawsuit, and the DEA has acted to correct them. Since becoming administrator of DEA in 1994, 1 have made the establishment of a meaningful integrity program my highest pri- ority. To implement this management philosophy and ensure that DEA employees are held personally accountable for their actions, DEA has thoroughly revamped and reorganized its internal investigative and discipline programs. Because of my concern about the handling of the Probst matter, I have directed that an internal inquiry be conducted into how our Office of Professional Responsibility can avoid such mistakes in the future.

I must, however, take issue with the editorial's conclusion that DEA is indifferent to racism and sexism in our ranks. As administrator, I have made it very clear to all DEA employees that I simply will not tolerate vicious and divisive behavior toward other individuals because of their gender, race or ethnic background. DEA is doing everything possible to protect our employees from reprehensible and divisive activity. When I authorized settlement of the Probst case, I did not believe that the poor treatment Probst received was the product of a racist conspiracy to retaliate against Probst for his efforts on behalf of his black junior partner. Probst's complaint that DEA had retaliated, against him for his support of a racial minority was fully investi- gated.

That investigation, which, under federal EEO procedures must be conducted by an indepenr1" dent outside agency, concluded that there was no evidence of racism by any employee of DEA in this matter. In conclusion, I can only expres.s my regret for any mistakes that were made. We are doing every-thing we can to earn confidence the integrity and competence of the overwhelming majority of honest, committed and fair-minded employees who are doing their best to combat the scourge of drug-related crime that afflicts our communities. Thomas A. Constantine Washington, D.C "Though it is unlikely that President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton can ever do enough to satisfy congressional committees trying to discredit them over a failed savings and loan and the firing of the White House travel staff, it is encouraging nevertheless that the president has said his wife would answer questions fully.

Partial and evasive answers have characterized too many of their responses up to now. The discovery of long-missing billing records and of a memo relating to the White House travel office ignited the most recent round of moral indignation and suggestions of wrongdoing. At his press conference Thursday, Mr. Clinton sought to assure report-ers'that Mrs. Clinton would do whatever was necessary to clarify matters.

What most needs clarifying is the first lady's credibility. She denied involvement in the firing of the, seven-person White House travel staff in 1993, but a recently unearthed memo from a former aide portrays her as directly involved. 'And she said another attorney at the Rose Law firm in Little Rock secured Madison Guaranty Saving's and Loan as a client, but that attorney doesn't remember things that way. On the other hand, her claim that her legal work on behalf of Madison Guaranty was minimal seems to have been born out by the billing records. The records show that over a 15-month period in 1984 and 1985, Mrs.

Clinton devoted only about 60 hours to Madison Guaranty, the equivalent of one hour a week. The Senate Whitewater committee won't let the matter rest there, however. It will undoubtedly want an explanation for each and every notation in the 116 pages of records. If the public still can't get as exercised as congressional Republicans, perhaps the reason is that Whitewater is mainly about events that occurred 10 years ago and more. The only thing that could make Whitewater relevant to the Clinton presidency would be strong evidence that the White House sought to block a criminal investigation into the collapse of Madison Guaranty.

The owner of Madison Guaranty was also a business partner of the Clintons in a land development venture. As for the White House travel staff, this would not be the first time a new administration had made way for its friends. The difference in this case is that Mrs. Clinton was not willing to admit as much. Such evasion casts a cloud over everything she says..