Past opinions offer perspective

Looking Back reviews opinions published in The Spokesman-Review during this week in history.

Marines to Vietnam, March 9, 1965

An S-R editorial commented on U.S. Marines landing in Vietnam, a huge shift in strategy.

“Stiffening of United States resistance to Communist aggression in Southwest Asia, particularly as represented by the current landing of Marines in Viet Nam, should have occurred a long time ago. Failure to deal with the issue before now appears to be distastefully connected with partisan politics.

Vacillation in policy and avoidance of the issue have led to unnecessary losses, and have permitted communism to strengthen its hold in Southeast Asia politically, militarily and economically. Delay has been an ally of the Reds.”

The editorial continued: “If a Red victory is permitted in Viet Nam, communism will control Southeast Asia, all of Asia will be insecure, and Alaska and Hawaii will be ‘front lines’ of the United States defense.”

Thirsty Texans, March 7, 1966

The editorial board was not enamored with a bid by Texas Gov. John Connally to join the Western States Water Council, with the thought of transferring water to the Lone Star State.

“The Western States Water Council was not created by 11 governors to ‘transfer surplus waters.’ But its mere existence has inspired some water-thirsty leaders of West Texas to think that their local irrigation problems might be solved by the import of waters from the Columbia River system – just as some interests in the Pacific Southwest so believe.

“The West Texas idea is fantastic when you consider that its major promoters in the Lubbock area live about 250 air miles from the Rio Grande, and about 700 miles from the Colorado and some 1,700 air miles from the Columbia. Equally fantastic is the lack of any suggestion or offer with regard to payment for water or payment for construction of a hypothetical long-distance transmission system.”

Balanced budget, March 10, 1986

An S-R editorial panned the debate over the balanced budget amendment.

“President Reagan, the biggest deficit spender in U.S. history, never looks sillier than when he stumps for a balanced budget amendment. Now the Senate is playing the role of hypocrite.

“The same assembly that helped the Reagan administration spend its way into the record books opened the debate on a proposed constitutional amendment that would require the federal government to spend no more than it receives each fiscal year. Naturally, the amendment contains two exceptions: Expenditures may exceed revenues if a three-fifths majority of both houses of Congress approves, or if Congress declares war.

“In order to become law, the amendment would have to win approval from the Senate, the House and 38 state legislatures. Fat chance. Americans couldn’t even enact the Equal Rights Amendment – a worthy cause if there ever was one. “

It went on to say: “What’s lacking is political will. Congress and the president could balance the budget tomorrow if they were willing to pay the price.”