The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Opinion NORTHWEST HERALD Section B Tuesday, September 14, IWSPageJ 'Farm Aid' a success K t TJie 'Farm Aid' concert Sunday appears to have been a success. - Some 78,000 music fans showed up at Memorial Stadium in Cham­ paign to listen to some top country and rock stars, while helping to raise money to assist this nation's farmers. Between $30 million and $50 mil­ lion was expected to be raised by the concert through attendance re­ ceipts, and mail and telephone pledges. Obviously, that amount of mon­ ey is not nearly enough to provide relief for all the nation's farmers. But it is more than a drop in the bucket. In addition, the concert .bpught millions of dollars of pub­ licity for the plight of farmers. National attention was focused on the event. Even Gov. Thompson assisted in the publicity for 'Farm Aid.' Country music star Willie Nelson, however, was the driving force behind the concept. It was he who enlisted the aid of others to make the idea become a reality. Hie concept of the concert was to raise money for farmer's legal assistance. The concert also was held with the idea that it would publicize the problems of farmers. In both respects, the concert seems successful. The music brought both country and rock per­ formers together. It also brought country and rock music fans to­ gether. Many of those in atten­ dance went to the concert, not be­ cause of the plight of the farmer, but because of the opportunity to s e e a n d h e a r t o p m u s i c performers. Those fans will have benefited because of the concert, and farm­ ers will have benefited because the concert has raised money and the public's consciousness of the prob­ lems facing farmers. Reagan-Media summit This newspaper holds the hereti­ cal view that President Reagan should negotiate arms control with Mikhail Gorbachev rather than witty Sam Donaldson and Helen mas, and thus it remains un- sturbed by his Tuesday night tews conference remarks about strategic weapons. Under persistent questioning -- some may regard it as badgering -- the president seemed to say that he ruled out trading a halt in re­ search, testing or development of his proposed missile defense in space for deep cuts in Soviet offen­ sive rockets. In declining to trade off defen­ sive missile research, the presi­ dent was on firm ground. A cessa­ tion of research cannot be verified, and iie was correct in stating that the Soviet effort in that field was greater than this country's. The president was right to com­ plain that his negotiators had made six proposals for the reduc­ tion of nuclear warheads at the Geneva talks and that the Soviets refused to discuss them or to negotiate. In the diplomatic preparations for the summit meeting, our side should stress Reagan's willingness to discuss any Soviet offer. Gorba­ chev should be challenged to make specific proposals, which he has failed to do yet. (Scripps Howard News Service) About the two-term limit It's an unhappy fact of American Apolitical life that a president is no «g«ooner elected to a second term £lhan he's labeled a "lame duck" Cand maneuvering begins to suc- jyceed him. »£• This has two major negative ^effects. * v The sitting president loses some ^authority because opponents have !; less reason to fear a leader who is 1 barred from running again. 5 Discipline in the president's own party tends to break down as po- s tential presidential candidates and \ their supporters become inclined £ to disregard the White House agen- >da and to make decisions designed *> to improve their own political ^prospects. >• President Reagan reportedly > told a group of legislators during a vprivate meeting in Tampa the oth- \ er day that he felt somewhat ' "handicapped" because of his « lame-duck status. : Although he said he has no per- sonal interest in seeking a third term, he favored repealing the * 22nd Amendment to the Constitu- : tion that limits presidents to two * terms. That amendment was proposed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the states in 1951. It clearly was a reaction to the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt to four terms. Supporters of the amendment were motivated by various rea­ sons. Some simply thought that two terms were enough for arty president. Some so disliked Roose­ velt and his policies that they wanted to retaliate, even though posthumously, against his break­ ing the two-term tradition. Others saw it as a way to diminish presi­ dential power and enhance that of Congress. Reagan was reported to have told the Tampa gathering that, "The people ought to have a right to decide who their leadership would be." Undoubtedly many American voters would agree with him. In any event, it might be well to debate the issue again, in a time when the shadow of the only man who was elected to more than two terms is not hanging so closely over the discussion. (Scripps Howard News Service) -V LOOK/ HaLLeY'S coMet' MUJg-NlA NORTHWIST HERALD •••• Fair pay for federal officials "Nothing is so fa­ tiguing as the eternal hanging on of an un­ completed task." William James ROBERT A.SHAW Editor and Publisher LEONARDM. INGRASSIA MICHAEL E MORSCH Executive Editor News Editor/Regional WASHINGTON - The story has been attributed to Socrates, who supposedly met an acquaintance one day on the streets of Athens. "How's your wife?" asked the friend. "Compared to what?" inquired the sage. So it is in the difficult matter of the salaries paid to members of Congress, federal judges, and top officials in the executive branch. The members now earn $75,100 a year; a district judge makes $76,000; a Cabinet secretary gets $86,200 and a Level IV assistant secretary grosses $72,300. The first question is, Are these salaries too high or too low? The second ques­ tion is, Compared to what? In its report a few weeks ago, the Commission on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries made its own view clear: The pay scales are much too low. In 1969 we paid senators and representa­ tives $42^,500. Because of inflation, they now make the equivalent of $25,724 in 1969 dollars. Their pur­ chasing power has dropped by nearly 40 percent. A federal dis­ trict judge earns less than half the salary of a law partner in a major city. The executive branch cannot recruit the top-notch managers it sorely needs; potential managers cannot live on a Level IV income and put their sons and daughters through college. Such comparisons are as statisti­ cally valid as they are politically unimpressive. To the ordinary vot­ er, $70,000 is a fortune. The ordi­ nary voter has other things in the back of his mind. He knows gener­ ally, if not precisely, that mem­ bers of Congress benefit from all kinds of perquisites in addition to their salary. The voter often re­ gards federal judges, securely ten­ ured for life, as tyrants on the bench. As for "bureaucrats," the very word carries a scornful ring. Besides, the voter asks, aren't these 3,147 members, judges and officials supposed to be public ser­ vants? Why should servants earn so very much more than their masters? These considerations historically have weighed heavily upon the conscience -- or the courage -- of the Congress. In 1789, Congress fixed its pay scale at $6 a day while sitting. In 1816, a few reck­ less fellows managed to change JamtsJ. J Kilpatrick this to $l,500 a year, but the move created such a storm that the act speedily was rescinded. The pro­ cess was repeated in 1873, when Congress marched up the hill to a substantial increase -- and then marched back down again. Every subsequent effort to in­ crease congressional pay has seen the same conflict between equity and expedience. In 1967, members sought bravely to get themselves off a political hook. They created the Commission on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries, and gave it authority to recom­ mend new pay scales every four years. The commission would send its recommendations to the presi­ dent. He could accept or modify them, but if either house of Con­ gress voted formal disapproval within 30 days, the new scales would not take effect. It was a nice idea. It worked admirably in 1969. In 1973, no raises were approved. But in 1977, when the commission and the pres­ ident had agreed upon a hefty in­ crease, public indignation erupted. The Congress, suffering a bad case of cold feet, changed the system to require a recorded vote of approv­ al, instead of permitting a voice vote of disapproval. Since then matters have drifted, and the problem has worsened since mem­ bers of Congress tied pay raises for top executive officials to pay raises for themselves. Because of a Supreme Court opinion in what is known as the Chadha case of 1983, the commis­ sion's procedure no longer can be employed. Presidents must have an opportunity to veto substantive legislation. Tlie -commission pro­ poses a sensible solution. In the future it will recommend salary adjustments to the president; the president will send them to Con­ gress; the Congress will have 30 days in which both houses may send a resolution of disapproval to the president for his signature or his veto. Absent such a resolution, ' the presidential recommendations could then take effect. This is a kind of hook slide around the Chadha decision, but it might pass judicial mustpr. In any event, some mechanism needs to be devised to take these top pay scales out of the timid hands of members of Congress. They are politically fearful of vot­ ing themselves a salary of, say, $90,000 a year, and their reluc­ tance operates directly upon judges and executives. (James Kilpatrick is a columnist for Universal Press Syndicate) Helping the Senate get ready for T. V. STEVEN H. HUNTER Marketing Director KAREN A. ANDROS Saturday Editor DENNIS M. McNAMARA Editorial Page Editor RONALD L. STANLEY Circulation Director WASHINGTON - The Senate is finally getting up the nerve to vote to put itself on television. The problem up to now was not that most senators didn't want to be on television. Rather, the fear was that the Senate as an institution would look foolish and futile on television. What is overcoming the fear is jealousy of the House of Represen­ tatives, whose proceedings have been televised since 1979. C-Span, a cable service, carries the broad­ cast, and excerpts are available to the commercial networks for their news shows. The consensus around the Capi­ tol is that the House has not looked especially foolish or futile on tele­ vision. In fact, a good many House members have been shown to be thoughtful and forceful -- positive­ ly senatorial, you might say. Sena­ tors worry about that, of course, and surely they also care about the opportunity for the people to see both sides of the Congress in action. As for the fear that the Senate might look foolish and futile on television, senators note that their rules are different from the House rules. The House is tightly run, its speeches are kept short, and ev- \ erything is kept moving pretty briskly to up-and-down votes. The Senate, alas, is allowed to wander from subject to subject; speeches can be very long, and votes can be postponed for days by tactical time-killing. It should be said that a great strength of the Senate is its devo­ tion to protecting the rights of the Charles McDowell minority on any issue, and that makes for a certain persistence and even seeming fatuity that might well cause bewilderment, dismay and ridicule in a television audience. Before it votes to admit televi­ sion to the chamber, the Senate is considering limiting the coverage to certain debates and time-peri­ ods, and jiggering its own rules on those occasions to try to prevent long-windedness, camera-hogging and excessive parliamentary in­ trigue. Some senators dread the public's seeing the vast expanses of empty seats that are a hallmark of the Senate, or they are afraid somebody will be caught asleep, or they regret that they will have to rush to the chamber to be seen on television when they could be do­ ing more important work in committee. What the Senate might not un­ derstand is how difficult it is to anticipate the effects of television coverage by making rules and reg­ ulations about it. As the House has discovered, the members take care of themselves pretty well un­ der the big eye, and the public adapts pretty well -- often with remarkable sophistication -- to what it sees. My hunch is that if you just pointed television at the Senate without any new rules or regula­ tions, the Senate soon would be doing its job better and more briskly and with no los& to trea­ sured principles. Still, the Senate being the Sen­ ate, rules and regulations probably will be demanded. Below, I sug­ gest several whose adoption would not surprise me much. -- Senators will not occupy their assigned seats but will fill the chamber from the front, and the cameras will not pan beyond them. -- When there are not enough senators to fill the front row, tele­ vision will superimpose an expla­ nation of the committee system with reference to its importance. -- No senator will speak for more than 15 minutes at a time, and no senator will speak more often than twice a week unless he has certified to the Secretary of the Senate that he is not a candi­ date for president. -- Every senator is entitled to one 45-second sound bite once a week. -- If a senator says something abjectly stupid -- or, come to think of it, if he doesn't -- there will be no commentary on television. -- When the Senate Is involved in purely - parliamentary maneuver, and the majority and minority leaders agree that an interruption of live television coverage would be In the national interest, the tele­ vision will play video-taped homi­ lies by the late Everett McKlnley Dirksen. -- If a senator Is caught asleep during any broadcast, the camera^ man will answer to the Rules Committee. ( Scripps Howard News Service. Charles McDowell is a columnist for The Richmond Times-Dis- patch)