OCR Text |
Show The Paper That Dares To Take ' ' m"'1 f How Do You Vote on the Primary Ballot? Continued from Page i September 1, 1972 Stand MARK E. ANDERSON out of your paycheck or they turn to the Federal Reserve System and literally create the extra money out of thin air and thus take the $200, $300, or $500 out of the purchasing power of your paycheck. And Government Is Like Fire Is fire useful? Of course. We cook with it. We use it to heat our homes, generate electricity, refine metals, and on and on. Is fire destructive? Yes, very. When out of control, it destroys life, property, homes, forests. George Washington likened government to fire. If kept within bounds, under control, it is a useful servant , he said, a protector of rights, a promotor of justice. But when out of control, beyond the bounds of the constitution, government becomes a fearful master, " agreement with the way a destroyer of rights and liberty. candidate Sherman P. Lloyd has Today- - the federal government is breaking loose -voted. out of control. It is beginning to destroy the very rights it a Rep. Lloyd voted for HR-was designed to protect. The. checks and balances seem bill to provide a 1, so-call- ed Bill Editors Outlook (HR-5037- ). In December, 1971 Lloyd announced his support of deficit spending and of a bill to increase the national debt. Continuation of wage-pric-e controls is supported by Lloyd, as indicated by his vote in favor He has also favored of revenue sharing. Lloyd voted to extend the Johnson surtax. August 8, 1971 Lloyd voted for a bill which allows our government to give loans to the communist allies of North Vietnam. On August 22, 1972 Mr. Lloyd announced his support of public housing projects. He has also supported other subsidy programs in the past. Candidate Mark E. Anderson opposes Sherman Lloyd on every one of these issues. If you marked the ballot, whose views did you agree with most Andersons or Lloyds? Do you vote on the issues or just on personalities? HR-424- 6. As in a game of athletics, so in the game of life, it is by no means sure that because you have made a goal once, you can do it again. It sometimes happens in life, as in games, that he who begins the brilliantgame not only well but ly, may lose his form and then finish all but lamentably. J. Reuben Clark, Jr. If there is any one thing that will bring peace and contentment into the human heart,-- and into the family, it is to live within our means. And if there is any one discourthing that is grinding and is to aging and disheartneing, it have debts and obligations that one cannot meet. IleberJ. Grant without injuring the serious sportsman and gun collector. Does that give you confidence that he will protect the right of citizens to own handguns without infringement? There seems to be room for doubt. In that same year Mr. Lloyd also voted for the Civil Rights Act which had a gun control section in it. Congressman Laurence Burton opposed the bill on the ground that it was an infringement of rights. Burton said: The Senate capriciously tacked on as an amendment some gun control legislation. I regard this as an abridgement of the constitutional right to bea; arms and also an' abridgement on the rights of millions of sportsmen and gun hobbyists. To further cast doubt on Lloyds dedication to the 2nd Amendment, we quote Gordon Eliot White, Washington Correspondent for the Deseret News, who said in the June 18, 1968 issue of that paper: b, the Utah delegation only Rep. Sherman Lloyd, "...hasofadmitted that there might be an acceptable federal action to restrict the use of guns in the U.S. Rep. Lloyd, with most of his constituents in Salt Lake City, has been under a little less intense pressure than the other three, who bear constantly from g Utahns in the wide open spaces, who cherish the right to shoot unimpeded by gun registration laws. ' gun-totin- If Sherm Lloyd believes there might be an acceptable federal action to restrict the use-- of guns in the U.S., as reported by Gordon Eliot White, where do we stand in relation to future gun controls if Lloyd is once again elected? GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME Lloyd voted for the Family Assistance Plan (guaranteed annual income), the biggest handout of them all. Eveii the proponents of the measure admit it will double the welfare rolls and more than double the cost of welfare in this country. In his newsletter of June 23, 1971, Lloyd admitted this program will cost more but stated that eventually it will cost less. This shows an amazing lack of understanding of government programs.. When have you ever seen a government subsidized program cost less than it did initially? Government programs, by their very nature, continue to expand and cost the taxpayers more. Even now, those who support this concept are frothing at the mouth in anticipation as they talk of increasing the minimum guaranteed wage from $2,400 per year to $6,500, and the bill has not yet become Uw! We do The people of Utah have a history of being not think that Lloyd represented the people of Utah when he voted for this bill. that-initiall- self-relia- nt. FOREIGN AID ' In the area of foreign aid Lloyd has consistently voted to give away our tax dollars even though he admits his constituents are against it. He previously said: 7 have seldom found in the 2nd Congressional District, of Utah a hearty supporter of foreign aid. . . . While realizing the Continued on Page 4 they hope you wont notice the loss until it is too late. And who is blamed for the sinking dollar the higher prices of goods? The farmer, or the grocer down the street, the middleman or the unions. But when have you ever seen the big daily newspapers put the blame where it lies on deficit spending by the federal government? President Nixon told a joint session of Congress that the deficit spending of the Sixties caused prices to rise 25 percent. However, instead of holding the line on spending, the Nixon Administration is doubling the deficit in half the time, bringing a new round of inflation. The answer to inflation lies in the Congress. Congress controls the purse strings. A Congress, representing the grass roots of America instead of the administration or big business or big unions can hold the line on spending and can cut back the size of government. And Utah can help by electing a responsible Republican Congressman who is loyal and representative of the tens of thousands at the grass roots level instead of the few at the top. - - On Course JOE H. FERGUSON Continued from Page 2 reasonable 3 $5.00 more Candidate for United States Congress Second District, Utah guaranteed annual income of $2,400 per year. Lloyd voted for handgun controls in 1968 when he supported the Omnibus Crime Page no longer operative hb loriger' able to hold down spending and costs. Government, unchecked, is getting bigger and bigger and is becoming a fearful master. As the government spends billions and billions more, who pays for it? You do and I do. You pay for it in one of two ways. Either the government takes $200, $300, MARKS MESSAGE 1 read the rest of the article to see how your views compare with the views of the Republican congressional candidates. Mark the ballot how. If you have marked the Unofficial Primary Ballot, count up the number of times you marked in the boxes labeled A. If you marked eight of the A boxes, then you are 100 percent in agreement with the views of candidate Mark E. Anderson on these issues. Count up the number of times you marked the boxes labeled B. If you marked eight of the B boxes, then you are in THE UTAH INDEPENDENT Candidate for United States Congress First District, Utah My Position on Revenue Sharing To begin with, this revenue sharing scheme is misnamed. It should be called deficit sharing. While it does have some superficial appeal, there is a hook in the bait. The bait is the easy handout promised to the local governments. The hook is the fact that these monies have to come from the taxpayers FIRST. This is nothing more than a scheme to buy from us with our own tax monies the control over our local governments, and forcing us to pay a big commission on the sale. The local government leaders will become much more sensitive to the demands of the federal government than to the needs and desires of the people of their communities. The citizens will be taxed to pay for inefficiency and corruption in other communities in which they have no vote and absolutely no influence. It is truly taxation without representation. This scheme will not only breed inefficiency and corruption, but make it very difficult to locate and remedy. It reminds me of this new deodorant called Stereo. It doesnt stop the smell, but you cant tell where its coming from. This scheme was proposed in this election year to get the local government leaders to line up in support of the national leaders who proposed it. Any local leader who advocates revenue sharing does not understand it or is willing to sell your birthright for a mess of pottage. This is one of the most corrupt schemes ever devised, and is very destructive to our Constitutional form of government. President Nixon, by executive order, has divided the country into ten geographical areas. He called it decentralization of power. It is exactly the opposite. It is centralization of power in the hands of the federal government. We live in area number eight. Our headquarters is Denver. The man in control in Denver is directly and completely controlled by the executive branch of government in Washington. He is in no way responsible or accountable to the people in the area. The plan is for the federal government to administer more and more programs through these areas, assuming more and more of the functions normally performed by the local governments. Consequently, the federal government would become more powerful and the local governments weaker. I am for Constitutional government and retaining local control. I am opposed to this revenue sharing scheme, and am for leaving the local money in the local areas under local control. ; . |