OCR Text |
Show Page 14 THE HERALD, Provo, Utah, Thursday, January 6, 1983 The Herald, its readers, syndicated columnists and Opinions cartoonists discuss vital issues The Herald Comments Detectors Well Worth Price The recent holiday season taught Central Utah a valuable lesson but not at the tragic price too many people pay to learn it. A smoke alarm obtained with community block grant funds and donated to the family only three days before by the Orem Fire D- epartment saved the Brad Pendleton family from serious harm. Firefighters said a fire in the Pendleton home would have enve loped the living room within 15 minutes had the smoke alarm not alerted the family. The alarm that allowed Brad Pendleton to get his wife and three children out of the burning home safely was one of 1,000 the Orem Fire Department made available to the community through community block grant funds. The alarms were made available to the public at no charge on application. Since the supply was exhausted many more people have called the Orem Fire Department to inquire about alarms. The department is to be commended for going to the Orem City Council and lobbying effectively to use community block grant funds for the alarms. different points in the home. One in an upstairs bedroom hallway will do a family little good if the rest of the home is enveloped with flames or choked with smoke by the time it goes off. At $10 to $40 each, the alarms may seem a high-tick- And the lesson to the rest of us is clear. All of us should equip our homes with at least one smoke alarm and preferably several at item to many et fami- inflation-strappe- d lies, but who can put a price on the tragedy that could have befallen the Pendletons and others without them? Lee Roderick ;VJ - Panel Leaves Coal Lump By LEE RODERICK WASHINGTON The commission responsible for outlining how to save the Social Security system had an opportunity to give the nation a much-neede- d Christmas gift. Instead, it left behind a lump of coal and sneaked off into the night. The bipartisan commission, headed by Republican economist Alan Greenspan of New York, was appointed by President Reagan in an attempt to the hot potato. But its members have wrangled over various approaches, compromised very little, and failed to agree on a plan to save Social Security from bankruptcy. Although a comprehensive proposal is still possible, more likely the commission will simply offer a laundry list of possible ways to cut Social Security costs and raise revenue. Commissioners officially eight Republicans and seven were to report by Democrats Dec. 31, a few days before the start of the 98th Congress in January. "A bipartisan agreement reached before the 98th Congress gets under way is essential," commission member John Heinz, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania, said a month ago. "Without it, no one will want to yield negotiating positions." But the White House has given the commission another two weeks to complete its report, which will now be issued when the 98th Congress is in full bloom. Some commission members blame the impasse on President Reagan and House Speaker Tip the two men who O'Neill finally must approve any agreement before it will be swallowed politically by their respective followers. But the president has been burned before on the issue, and neither he nor O'Neill wants to take the first step this time around. Meanwhile, as Reagan, O'Neill and commission members display anything but profiles in cougarage, 36 million Social Security recipients are left to wonder about the future of a system many of them look to for daily bread. Washington's indecision is all the more exasperating given the fact that, despite a projected deficit of up as much as $200 billion in the 1980's, Social Security could be fixed with solutions that are financially, if not politically, simple. Although factions on the com- mission have their pet ap- proaches, most members apparently would go along with advancing to 1984 the Social Security taxes now scheduled in the future; paying cost of living increases three to six months later than July; and tying the increases to prevailing wages rather than inflation. But there are many variations on those themes, and unless the commission bites the bullet and actually proposes a plan before it wraps up its work in the difficulty of a more mid-Januar- y, politically charged Congress doing so increases greatly. Florida Rep. Claude Pepper, a Democratic member of the commission, says that, regadless of whether the group comes up with a bipartisan agreement, "the Democrats who control the House of Representatives, where legislation on this issue must originate, are committed to developing a prompt and fair solution for the problems of Social Security." Perhaps, but others see extremely choppy waters ahead as the 98th Congress wrestles with the issue. "... Many Republicans, including myself, are sorely tempted to sit back and let the heavily Democratic House make the hard choices on Social Security so that it is the Democrats who carry the Social Security monkey in the 1984 elections," Pennsylvania's Heinz says candidly. He emphasizes that the "political pitfalls" of getting a reasonably balanced Social Security package through theflormal congressional process "are likely to be insurmountable." That's why the commission, injection of barring an llth-hocourage, is about to do the nation and its Social Security beneficiaries a severe injustice. ur Feedback: Lot's Get Priorities Straight Editor, Herald: When I read the article in the Dec. 26 Daily Herald, I was appalled at our Justice System and the Parole Board that would release Kenneth Glen Roberts to a Halway House after twice being convicted for rape and robbery and now it may include murder if the Sandy woman dies. Even worse than that, what if she is to live and be paralyzed the rest of her life. Who will pay for the care of this woman? The Taxpayer? The Parole Board? Or some group such as the Civil Liberty Group that wants to protect the criminals' Jobs Plan Not So Easy "There are more businesses in the United States than there are unemployed," said. The implication the President was obvious; everybody could be working starting tomorrow if every business would hire just one more. That sounds great! But is it? There is no doubt about it, the filling station where you gas your car could hire another employee. The only disadvantage is that the operator of that service station would have to charge more for gas. Unions, for a generation, sought to increase the number of jobholders without concern for resultant consumer price creases backfired. in- and that practice where Foreign competitors were unit labor costs are less able to produce more for less, and the eventual result was fewer, not more, United States jobs. The only salutory effect of recessions is that they discipline us - to practice economic efficiency. Bethlehem Steel under-price- d has disby outsiders covered that it can close most operations in Pennsylvania and New York, eliminate 10,000 jobs, and reduce production only 15 percent. Yes, it is an acute hardship for the displaced workers. No, we cannot be oblivious to the human factor in these statistical equations. But neither can we ignore this basic economic fact of life: High costs beget high prices and reduce demand. And while it sounds plausible for the President to suggest that each business hire one more worker, such a practice could only result in less efficiency just at a time when American productivity is improving. For the first time in 30 years, labor costs per unit of output rose more slowly than prices during the second half of 1982. This was true not only in the United States but in the United Kingdom and in West Germany. Workers were producing more for less. Since the President's remark I have heard from many busi nesses purposely seeking to cooperate with the President's thesis. And businesses are much more likely than bureaucrats to find useful employment for the unemployed. But the long distance race to recover world markets requires discipline. Then, when lower unit costs increase public demand, industry has to hire more workers to keep up. Economic recovery must begin with the consumer. You bring down his cost of building a and he home or buying a car will. (c) 1983, Los Angeles Times Syndicate Rod Collett Resolutions Not for Me BY ROD COLLETT Herald Staff Writer I must have heard a dozen times already that the New Year is the time to establish resolutions for 1983. d Well, for those people who make their resolutions, I wish there was some study somwhere in the annals of science to explain the real success of people who set goals. If my friends are any indication of New Year's resolutions, then the human race is in for goal-minde- another "typical year" in '83. Everyone I have talked to thinks 1983 is going to be a great year. Most of the comments I have heard range from: 'Anything is better than what 1982 was like," to "1983 has got to be better because the previous year was the ultimate pits." And of course, once again there are those jovial souls (dreamers) who once again are wishing marriage on me in 1983. To these people, I simply shrug my shoulders and say, "No thank you." I am perfectly happy being single. How else, except if a person is can he be his own boss, set his own hours, spend money on nobody but himself and stay up as late as he wants? The luxurious class of the single lifestyle offers all these benefits and more. d, In my opinion, 1982 that bad. wasn't all My health didn't have any drastic downturns, I have a good job, I traveled a lot, made some new friends and didn't set any resolutions one year ago. In fact, the final month of 1982 a trip to was very enjoyable San Diego for a quick week vacation. I know many people were heartbroken about the Cougars' e loss to Ohio State, but the was about one percent of ball-gam- the reason I went to Southern California. My jaunt included Sea World, Palm Springs, Old Town in San Diego, Las Vegas and a nice drive into Mexico. In coming weeks, there will be some exclusive travel features on these places from the Herald staff. Being an old California native, specifically Coronado, I was impressed by some of the comments I heard from people in the Cougar Club staying at the Hotel del Coronado. They found the little island quaint and hospitable, refreshing compared to Happy Valley, and the smell of the ocean for most was hard to give up after a week. But most of the people I heard simply wished they had palm trees in Utah and lots of sand. Mexico is rather enjoyable if you avoid Tijuana. I found Esen-ad- a much more palatable for playing tourist. But the most enjoyable part of the week was a quick afternoon spent in Old Town near San Diego to catch the flavor of its Spanish past and a two-da- y stay in Palm Springs. The desert flavor of Palm Springs oozes with class and money. Nowhere will a tourist find more limos, Mercedes, Lin-coland Rolls Royces. Yes, 1983 is here and I would imagine that everyone will plod through another 12 months just as in previous years. To those if the lust of who set goals achieving goals is your bag, go for it. For those of us who have self initiative and don't have to rely on posters, sayings and PMA (Positive Mental Attitude) all the time, let's just get our duties done in 1983. And to the poor BYU football team, I think I'll bypass Jack Murphy Stadium next year and spend a day at the beach. do it again and again. When are the victims and their families going to get some of the rights that are due them? Who cares about the victim families of the Gary Gilmore killings?" Mr. Gilmore had a long history of crime since a small boy. It disgusts me to save a killer's life and release him to return to society to kill yet another innocent person. Whose life is the most precious, a known killer or an innocent, girl?. Let's get our values in order! Bryan Dell Cox Provo Fishing Soon a Memory? Editor, Herald: I was reading a letter to the h Editor from a Mr. W. L. about the fish and game now going to charge a new fee Green-halg- Paul Harvey rights and set him free to for fishing. I agree, I should say all of the local people agree with him completely. They are absolutely destroying the purpose of the fish and game licensing by the charges being sought every year. The people are getting tired of paying more and more and get- ting less and less for their money. We were used to going fishing and getting off on a lonely spot to our selves, where we could be alone, or with our own crowd, but now it is only the designated parking places with a thousand other people, kids, dogs, and motorcycles. Paying another fee to park. I believe as Mr. Greenhalgh that if they would do away with a few of the game wardens and the fancy trucks, they would be able to stock the streams and lakes with abundant fish. And the fish hatcheries wouldn't have to close. They would or could be self sufficient. But with the new regulations, on all hunting and fishing and the exorbitant fees, in a few years I will feel sorry for the younger generation coming up. They won't know just what it was like to fish and hunt. They will just have to sit back and listen to the tales of old. Vida Sorensen Spring City, Utah Interpretation Editor, Herald: Your editorial entitled, "Judge Sees Cable Correctly" on Dec. 28 was so blatantly incorrect on such a vital matter that I must write to set the record straight. Your flagrant statement was "Each of us is entitled under the Constitution to choose what we want to read, tq choose what we want to see in a movie theater and to choose what we want to see on television." How ludicrous to anyone who has made a serious study of the U.S. Constitution. What the Constitution actually does say of any relevance to this subject is the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Entire text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.) What our great Founding Fathers were trying to accomplish by this statement in the Bill of Rights was the exact opposite to" the twisted interpretation indicated by your state- ment quoted above. Rather than to prevent local governments from adopting their own standards of deceny, the amendment was intended to prevent the national govenment from dictating standards down to a state and local level. I trust you and Judge Jenkins can read the opening lines of the amendment "Congress shall All Wrong make no law...." Anyone would be able to recognize the intended target of this injunction is the U.S. Congress. George Mason and Patrick Henry were the principle authors and promoters of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. They were very concerned that the federal government would become too powerful and begin telling states and local governments what to do in areas that were not vital to national concern. Anyone who has studied the lives of these two men would know that this concern of theirs was very demonstrated and fierce. Mason, who was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, even voted against ratification of the Constituionl because it did not at that time contain the Bill of Rights. If these great men can see what their First Amendment is used for- - to enable a federal judge to dictate community standards, I am sure they are weeping. Especially since they tried so hard to word the amendment so clearly as to prevent the very thing that is being done. Please read and study the Constitution and the lives of its authors before presuming to comment on its interpretaiton. As for Judge Jenkins, I don't know what his problem is, but he is certainly ignorant or perverted when it comes to his own so called field of expertise, interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Robert L. Crawley 382 E. 520 N. American Fork, 84003 |