ustxtxb_obs_1981_05_15_50_00008-00000_000.pdf

wished, to guarantee that there be at least some surplus. For the 1982-1983 biennium, the spending limit used up all available nondedicated revenues. But should Clayton’s amendment be ratified, the incentive to limit state spending and generate surpluses for water projects might increase greatly. The important point, however, is that nobody knows what anyone will do. Therefore. Clayton’s funds might receive a lot of money or nothing. It is impossible to forecast. The most recent figures on surpluses in the 325 state funds give one an idea of the immensity of the issues involved in whether the Clayton plan is limited to the general revenue fund surplus or, at the other extreme, covers all 325 fund surpluses. As of the end of the 1978-’79 biennium, on Aug. 31, 1979, these were the “net cash balances” \(which are similar to, but state’s large funds: Special game and fish fund $5 million, Texas parks fund $25 million, Texas highway beautification fund $5 million, operators and chauffeurs license fund $10 million, railroad commission operating fund $6 million, unemployment compensation special administration fund $6 million; Welfare administration operating fund $136 million, University of Houston current fund $5 million, North Texas State University current fund $5 million, motor vehical inspection fund $17 million, criminal justice planning fund $22 million, public transportation fund $53 million, disaster contingency fund $6 million; Available school fund $56 million, state textbook fund $11 million, state highway fund $668 million, Capitol complex building fund $9 million, available university fund $28 million, Texas A&M University available fund $36 million, county and road district highway fund $9 million. A.W., R.D. Hobby in a Wide-Ranging Discussion YOu and Mrs. Hobby opened your home for a fund-raiser for Congressman Bob Eckhardt in the last election. That surprised folks who are Hobby-watchers because ordinarily you don’t get into campaigns like that in such a way. Why did you do that? Oh, that’s not all. We’ve had fundraisers for “Women in History,” and the symphony, and what-not. No, but I mean in politics. Bob’s one of my oldest friends, and I spoke at a fund-raiser for him last Friday in Houston which hopefully wiped out his deficit. Bob and I have been close friends for 20 years. What do you make of his having been defeated? He was a victim of the same sort of tide that got 13 Democratic senators \(in think Bob did not adequately perceive the change. Didn’t campaign hard enough, or didn’t adjust to it enough, which? Didn’t adjust to it enough. No, for probably only the second time in his life, Bob really did campaign hard. Does this trend of PAC committees, and so much money to win any office I just noticed the mayor of Dallas spent $177,000 getting elected this last election, which is just a commonplace does that worry you any That’s very low. , Yeah, that’s not only not stunning, but low. I’ve begun to wonder about the future of the democratic system, actually, and I wonder about being a Jeremiah there. Do you have any philosophical concerns about the direction of money in 8 MAY 15, 1981 elections? Many of the legislative outcomes seem connected to PAC patterns. No, I think the development of political action committees is a very positive development. It’s gotten people into political involvement who for one reason or another had not been involved. I think it’s raised the level of political participation. The perception then that they’re generally financial interest groups or special interest groups, you would reject? Oh, no, of course they’re financial interest groups. By definition political action groups are interested in a particular area of legislation. Of course they’re special interest groups, just as school teacher’s are special interest groups, labor unions. . . . Yeah, sure. But the connection, then, between a member’s political funding and his voting doesn’t worry you? You think the independence of the legislature is intact? Oh, it’s a perfectly normal part of the electoral process for voters to vote for elected officials who they basically agree with, for people to contribute money to candidates with whom they basically agree. Okay. This pending legislation that companion-bill approach which makes it clearer who the PACs are. Does that have your support? Yes. . . . What’s Going On? Now, I was reading the Houston Post the other day for May 1st, and there was a story about your talk to the Democratic Forum of Houston, a group of young moderate Democrats, at the Houston Club. According to that story, you said at least half of the 12 or so Democratic senators who lost in ’80 “asked for it” and “brought it on themChurch had done much damage to the Democratic Party, and the others who lost had not done much for it. That, I regret to say I will stand by that statement to what I said that he had done great damage to the nation. To the nation. Yeah, He has done more to lessen the effectiveness of our intelligence services, he has done more to damage the intelligence services of this country, than the KGB has ever been able to do. You mean by the Church committee reports and exposures about the assassination attempts and so forth? Yes, right. He has created a situation, which I hope will gradually over the years be repaired, where any foreign intelligence service and cooperation between allied intelligence service is essential if they can’t rely on the , security of the Central Intelligende Agency, if they can’t rely on sources being protected, then obviously they’re not going to exchange information, and who can blame them? They’re not going to imperil their own sources because of a perceived lack of security in United States intelligence services. I remember when those revelations were coming out filling up the New York Times in 1973, 1 think it was, my own reaction to it was that, well, the people had a right to know, for example, that