OCR Text |
Show The Enterprise Review, July 14, 1976 Page lib Investment Summary Chuck Akerlow There is little question but that the government and its policies have a great impact on real estate investments. And so it is fair, 1 think, to examine what present and potential government leaders are saying regarding American fiscal policies, particularly in relation to the governments role in stimu- lating the economy. By the time you read this column, Jimmy Carter, the enigmatic peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia, will have hIT uxtie AU? RDUSHT- - swept his partys nomination for President on a platform of nothing much specific. Mr. Carter appeared on Meet the Press last Sunday g against a panel of tired-lookin- newspaper editors whose questioning was duller than their editing pencils. And through an hour of smiles and goshes we learn a bit more about Carter the President. He claims that priorities of federal spending must favor human needs. He told the I 8W PSIX AFIER A PAIR OF PIATR5RH SHOE'S- - I Sr interviewers that he would put more emphasis on human programs than on construcAnd tion and buildings. later allowed as how he would not have vetoed the recent jobs bill passed by the Democrats. Said he: at a time when the construction industry is down we should provide construction jobs for all those Americans out of w'ork. Im left wondering what they would build. If his policy is no federal dollars for construction and buildings what will all of these newly hired construction workers do? He elaborated on a related point by saying that he did not favor a national policy which encourages the unemployed to move to where the jobs are but would rather see us build factories, etc. right where the poor and unemployed live. There you have it, Jennings Phillips. You wrere worried about the rezoning problem of Central City. The convert it result is simple Continued on page 12b Bou&iHT A HI6Hfc RtATFORH FHT STDPIP SHO. AMP WEEK- - useuess- - AUP ' WEEK1 SS. W) r eamr HISHSS PLATR5RM m SH0&. I FECT SUPERIOR, ammuovs, AM? IRRESIST-IB- Le FOR A wee. BUT AFTER A toaacr f&tuke.a, if sty r coup a A RATKRM V. WPHOW on., ?-- i( Pragmatic Dogmatics Delegates in Hiding by Kent Shearer Unlike their counterparts at party National Conventions, delegates to Utah political conventions vote secretly upon candidates for nomination. State law so provides. On the surface, the practice appears reasonable enough. Why should those interested enough to serve in the electoral process be required to wear their hearts on their sleeves? And, it must be admitted, a delegate who drives to a State Convension in Salt Lake from Loa is differently situated than a delegate who travels to a National Convention in New York or Kansas City. vote Upon analysis, however, the secret at this level and in this context constitutes a perversion of accepted American republican principles. Local delegates act in a representative and not in a purely individual capacity. Those delegates are chosen by their respective mass meetings and County Conventions. The entitled to public who have selected them are know how faithfully their representatives have exercised the mandate afforded, and, if in the disappointed, to refuse a like mandate future. Thus, were I to discover that the delegate for whom I voted because he seemed a nice chap had hewed at convertion to the John Birch line which I detest, 1 could refuse him my future approval. Under the current system, such a misrepresentative may if he desires, secrete his record from his constituents. In this light, one who argues for the continuance of the concealed vote at Utah partisan conventions would be inconsistent were he not to accord identical hiding places to other representatives, including United States Senators and Congressmen. Further, secrecy begets untruths. If a candidate who solicits a delegates support will never know how the delegate voted, it is all too tempting for the delegate to promise a ballot not meant to be cast. To illustrate, some years ago, a friend of mine ran for the State Legislature. Three delegates guaranteed him their allegience. When the convention tally was announced, only one of the three had honored his pledge. To this day, each of them claims to by friend that it was the other two One, in my friend's position, who has expended the time, effort and finances to run for public office is surely entitled to demand a system which does not foster perversion. Some will rejoin that the hidden vote militates against political machines. It can more accurately be said that corruption is better prevented in an open than in a closed society. In addition, safeguards against spoils manipulation are provided by the Utah Corrupt Practices Act. For instance, a public employee cannot be a delegate to a convention which nominates the officer under whom he, directly or indirectly, holds his office. I do not, of course, suggest that those who participate in mass meetings should be deprived of a secret vote. But they are The different, for they act individually. and are statute the delegates representatives should be changed to promote delegate responsibility and discourage delegate prevarication. The Utah Legislature can-aat first should-reme- dy the problems opportunity, in posed by delegates hiding. who lied. nd, |