| OCR Text |
Show B "...We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our Utile From "The Tempest," by life Is rounded with a sleep. " William Shakespeare (15(4-1616- ). Tuesday, April 23, 19S6 The Daily Herald Majority shouldn't rule when it comes to taxes From THE AKRON (OHIO) BEACON JOURNAL Like the balanced-budge- t amendment, the amendment to require a two-thir"supermajority" vote of Congress to raise federal taxes was supposed to fix the nation's fiscal ills. In each case, however, the cure would hae been worse than the disease. Fortunately, the U.S. House of Representatives did not opt for quick and simple, defeating Monthe proposed amendment 243-17- 7 vote of day night. It takes a two-thit- ends meet. The national debt and the deficit are crippling our ability to step up to other challenges. But altering the ds ds each house to approve constitutional amendments. Punsfitniinn utrt nut radi- What Congress needs is the backbone to cut spending, starting by paring the growth of entitlements. These programs such as Social Security, Medicare, the The framers of the Con- stitution were not radicals. They had won a revolution just sparked . to a large extent by usurious taxes levied without the VOte Of taX- - usunous taxes levied without the vote of taxpayers, Still, they deliberate- !y rejected the notion of a supermajority to P3VerS. lev y taxes. iewed tinkering with the Thev machinery of democracy as more serious, and required supermajorities to change the Constitution. The appeal of both balanced-budge- t and supermajority votes in raising taxes is understandable. Voters are justifiably disgusted with Concress' inabilitv to make is not the nation's governing framework solution. tax-and-spe- cals. They had just won a resolution sparked to a large extent Gonnnontesy nd deduction of interest on home mortgages transfer vast amounts of tax revenue directly to individual Americans. Unchecked, are entitlements conto projected sume all federal tax revenue bv the ear 2012. Republicans, who overwhelmine- - supported the supermajority amendment, will undoubtedly make political hay over the measure's defeat. Their frustration, however, would be better channeled into hacking away at politically popular but fiscally unsound income ly transfers. Old news isn't news Property rights bill vote would lend aid to many By NANCIE G. MARZULLA however, is land. As Sen. Charles Glasslev. wrote in a recent Senate Judiciary Com The Senate will soon ote on legislation, already approved by the House of Representatives, that would end the anguish thousands of Americans experience each year when their plans to build homes and businesses are blocked by federal regulations that strip them of their property rights. Regulations rooted in the legitimate desire to preserve the environment now affect every conceivable land use. Under the Endangered Species Act ESA. Clean Water Act and countless other federal law s enacted to deal with water quality, toxic substances, tvean dumping, the protection of marine mammals, "coastal one" management, air emissions, global climate change, mining, forestry, energy production and other activities, property owners are increasingly finding that they possess little more than title to their land and the "right" to pay taxes on it. All other uses be must first gJJauaat? ftfdtfral the senate s vote on the Omnibus Property Rights Act won t soon enough Colder the res,- - dents of Springfield rights treaties, The one exception. erty Guoct Opinion mittee report on the Omnibus Property Rights Act. "...virtually every government regulation in some way affects the ability of low a landow ners to use their property ." In Iowa, where 8 percent of the land is privately owned, the conflict frequently involves the Clean Water Act's "wetlands" regulations. In many other cases, the focus of controversy is endangered species. Under the ESA. the government can take away the legal owner's use of his or her land if any species listed as potentially endangered (itself the subject of great controversy!! lives, feeds, mates, or trav- els on or over this land. They may also y, regula-Unfortunatellose their land if. in in the view of the government, such a ,r.her-comspecies might somee day want to do one of these things on the land. DUlId Since most people can't afford the time or money needed to mount a lesal Environmental tions, enacted the to protect earnest desire , America s natural itage, are denying people the right tO homes and businesses on their City Utah, for exam Qwn pie. who were count- inc on a new indusd trial park to bring jobs to their community. The industrial park w as developed with financial assistance from the Economic Development Administration, a federal agency. To complete the project, however, it was necessary to relocate a small stream bed. Easy enough, except for one minor detail: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, another federal agency, has declared the old stream bed a protected "wetland" un ier the Clean Water Act. It refuses to consider the new stream an acceptable replacement for the old one. Springfield City residents find themselves caught between one federal agency which wanls to help pay for the industrial park, and another federal agency seeking to bliKk its development Similar incidents are occurring all the time, all over the country. Environmental regulations, enacted in the earnest desire to protect America's natural heritage, are denying people the right to build homes and businesses on their ow n property. Yet. the concept of private property rights is not some legal abstraction. It. ux is part of America's heritage. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall property be taken for public use. without just compensation." The Constitution places this emphasis on property rights because the right to own and use property is a bedrock principle of a free society. pr0perty. much-neede- Properly understood, "property" means not only land, but buildings, machines, retirement funds, saving11 accounts, even ideas. In most instances, the government ho very specific laws to protect the sanctity of such property, from banking laws and federal deposit insurance to patent laws and intellectual prop- - challenge against such abusive regulations, the government is frequently able to "take" private property without challenge. Property owners have found themselves in trouble even after following the rules. Bob and Mary McMackin got ali of the required permits to build a retirement home in Pennsylvania's Poconos mountains, only to learn four years after they had moved in that they were violating "wetlands" regulations. Similar stories abound. The House of Representatives, in March of IW5. passed legislation that would compensate property owners if 20 percent or more of their property was taken under wetlands or endangered species provisions. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved an even stronger bill just belore Christmas. The legislation will soon come up for a vote in the full Senate. "I hose in favor of the status quo point to publ.c opinion polls showing strong public support for env ironmental regulalions. which should come as no surprise to anyone. What they fail to point out is thai poll results also show that the vast majority of Americans oppose arbitrary and unreasonable regulation and want their property rights protected. In short, people want government to protect both the environment and their property rights. Property rights is the civ il rights issue of the I W(K. The longer Congress w aits to restore its rightful place, the less chance we have of reclaiming our birthright. Sonde G. Mantilla is president and chief legal counsel of Defenders of Property Mali ts. o Washington-lmselegal defense foundation devoted exclusivity to Sometimes people who are involved in an incident are amaed at how the press reports the story. Their reactions may vary from amusement to anger. But the recent reporting of alleged improper donations lodged against a certain candidate for political office in Utah was outrageous. Ladies and gentlemen of the press, do y ou realize the heavy weight of the power you hold w hen y ou take a person's life and reputation in your hands and twist or misrepresent the facts for the sake of a few columns of print? To report a few honest mistakes that were made (and corrected instantly upon determining the errors) as current news two y ears after the issues were resolved is not giMxl journalism. F urther. I'm sure you are aware that the EEC regulations regarding campaign contributions are about as voluminous as the IRS code, and about as interesting to read. Even w ith an attorney 's adv ice, it is easy to make errors. A responsible news item is written with the most important facts first, trailing oft" to less important items so that readers can get the most important facts at a glance, and then decide whether to bother reading the rest of the article. By y our choosing to report old allegations at the top of the story and the candidate's replies in the trailing paragraphs, you are legally innocent but morally wrong. This format was followed again in your Wednesday article about some candidates' complaints about a fundraiser. This is not news; it is opinion. If it was worthy of print at all. it belonged on the editorial page. Although careful reading of the article showed that it was a lot of huff about n banner headnothing, your line proclaimed "(candidate) accused." The obligation of the press is to report news, not spurious allegations. Shame on the other candidates for making an issue of this where none existed. Double shame on you for reporting it. I have a suggestion: Why don't you run front-page a story with the banner headline. "Local citien accuses press of irresponsible reporting"? You can print your rebuttal in the bottom third of the article. I beg you to realie that journalistic irresponsibility harms more than just the candidate. It does irreparable harm to our country by making good people afraid to run. It is no wonder that it is so difficult to find gHd politicians. Worthy candidates will say. "Sorry. I can't run for office. I made a mistake on my taxes in 1977. Or. sorry, but the neighbors complained about my dog barking last year. It's obvious that I'm inhumane to animals." Katy Parks Spanish Fork five-colum- Forget new county Who w ill decide the liquor laws for the proposed Tinipanogos County? Even if the county is created, are we sure that the NAPBL won't find some other excuse to deny us a baseball team? I laud Mayor Stewart for his ingenuity, but encourage him and his team to find another wav. Paul Black Orem Axe social security ing if there w as one less accident. Putting fences around canals would be an important investment for our state, and it may save you or your child's life. Sybil Hacking Lindon Tobacco veto good The Coalition on Smoking OR Health, of the American Cancer Sx.i-etAmerican Heart Association and American Lung Association, commends Governor Michael O. Leavitt for his strong statement of support for Utah's public health by vetoing HB43. the Cigarette Excise Tax Increase. The original bill was a good one. which we wholeheartedly supported. Raising prices through a lax increase is the single most effective way to reduce tobacco consumption, especially among youth. Many studies show that children are the most apt to give up smoking (or never start) as the price goes up. However, a "preemption" amendment that was attached to the bill in the last 40 minutes of the legislative session not only made the revised bill unpalatable, but threatened to undermine the progress Utah has already made in dealing with tobacco's impact on our health through the passage of the Utah Indoor Clean Air Act by the 1W4 legislature. It also directly threatened ongoing efforts of people in many of Utah's communities to work towards stemming the epidemic of tobacco use by s our children and by restricting their access to tobacco products. Preemption is one of the tobacco industry's primary tactics for countering local tobacco control initiatives such as reducing access to tobacco by minors and limiting smoking in public places. Preemption is a strategy in which the tobacco industry promotes state legislation that prevents local communities from taking their own action on tobacco. Paulson Craig Provo Although such legislation sounds good on its face, supposedly "establishing" statewide tobacco control measures, it in fact is designed to weaken by limiting any future tobacco control initiatives I am hearing more and more stories desired by individual communities. In about tragic accidents and deaths from the case of HB43. it also threatened to people who drown in canals. Why? One negate much of the progress Utah has reason is our state is growing, and new already made in dealing with the homes are being built on farmlands. risks of tobacco use by previous There have always been canals that don't legislative, regulatory and community have fences to block people off. but while actions. more people are moving in. we could The American Cancer Society and the reduce accidental deaths by blocking off other members of the Coalition on Smokand putting fences around dangerous ing OR Health would like to publicly canals. thank Governor Leavitt for his ability to Many canals appear to be shallow and see through the "smoke screen" of the harmless, and perhaps some are. but one tobacco industry and for his courage to accident is one too many. This is an issue stand up for our health by vetoing HB4.V we need to become more aware of. as We appreciate his leadership. there is such an easy access into many Kenneth S. Buchi. M P. canals for both children and adults. President. American Cancer Society. No, fencing canals may not keep everyUtah Division one awav, but fences would be worth hav Salt Lake City After conducting extensive research. I realie that more Americans and politicians need to recognize that the current social security program violates the central principles of financial economics. The current program cannot continue to prov ide reasonable benefits to retirees in return for their taxes. Instead, it is a failsystem ing, unfunded that social security actuaries predict will go bankrupt by the year 2030. Government claims that a social security trust funds exists: however, the government spends excess balances immediately. With liabilities present, the government and the American people need to recognize the liabilities as sunk costs that cannot be recovered. Short-terrepairs will only temporarily mend the ailing sy stem. Raising taxes to provide an increase in revenue and reducing benefits will imply long-terfailure. Government must not continue to amend the fa'ally flawed program. Congress must replace the outdated system with one stemmed from the free market and operated by this nation's free people. A new privatized system will bolster the United Stales economy and help Americans save adequate savings for retirement. Will government continue to force Americans to tolerate a bankrupt system or w ill it erect a financially healthy structure for future generations? The decision lies with Congress and the American people who elect their representatives. a "pay-as-you-g- YOUHSATTHKPa HARRIS' THftlSHSe.VOUU, Be pMi6 The MMXA81UA. rrn teen-ager- Fence off canals public-healt- Doonesbury IVSTE JUST THROW 10HAVB y. BY GARRY TRUDEAU 1 WUlBSEWNGf&lC10&. CARPS, &,7D FAN9F0RSi6NIN6! VOrt youcANttxmuHAweRrou CKmarR.zANrsf&me YOUCHOOSeUHICM OCCURS TO tOUUMTDUSe! ACTUAL r ihise pens venAvtAiisni& W0FC0U&,m XJtyaavtne rum x TURS-WX- SI6NA X. AA6RW d protecting constitutionally property rights. 1 guaranteed V h |
