OCR Text |
Show The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand HER FOR FIGHTING October 6, 1977 The Utah Independent Page RIGHTS Bv CARTER AND CROWD RENEW PANAMA GIVEAWAY PUSH Washington: Mrs. Connie Hansen, the attractive wife of Idaho's conservative Republican Representative from the states Second' Congressional District, isnt one to duck a good political fight especially when her familys honor and financial fate are at stake. Faced with what she describes as an impossible debt burden from past political campaigns and election challenges, Mrs. Hansen has taken matters into her own hands and launched a campaign to try to solve her family's most pressing money problem. The unprecedented political action by a lawmakers spouse came after the new House Ethics Committee advised her husband, Rep. Rep. George Hfansen, Pocatello, Ida., that he couldn't solicit funds to pay for private debts related to his campaigns. Rep. Hansen had asked the Committee for permission to seek contributions to pay politically-relate- d personal debts, totaling several hundred thousands of dollars, and including legal fees involved in refuting charges of tion law violations. Although the Federal Election Commission (FEC) approved his fund raising proposal, Hansen personally decided against any campaign after the House Committee advised against it. He didn't want to face a new confrontation with that Democratic controlled panel. But it was a different story with the strong willed Mrs. Hansen. In deciding to launch her own fund raising campaign to pay off half the debt, which she is liable for under Idahos community-propert- y laws, she fired off a letter ), to Richardson Preyer, Chairman of the House Ethics Committee, telling the lawmaker of her plight and plans, as follows: Faced with this burdensome personal indebtedness, I have as a matter of love for my husband and five children and the financial inpreservation of our family sisted upon a financial settlement between my husband and myself legally, and properly dividing our property. In part, the property settlement provides that my husband assume the debts as those of the family, the home, car, charge cards, and such, and that I assume a substantial portion of those debts politically incurred. HER OWN EFFORT Stressing that her husband plans to abide by the Committee's decision not to allow him to solicit funds to pay off the debts, Mrs. Hansen carefully explains her position, FOR HEAVY ON FLIMFLAM, LIGHT ON FACTS . , The Carter administration renewed its offensive to obtain ' congressional approval of the Panama Canal Treaty recently by saying the treaty protects U.S. security interests while showing that the United States is not an imperialistic exploiter. The Carter administration failed completely, however, in presenting to the American people both the script of the treaty which would prove the above statement or even a solid The evidence is explanation of why it is so. overwhelmingly to the contrary: giving the Canal to the Panamanians would seriously jeopardize U.S. security. The administration statement implies that if we do not give the Canal to Panama, wewould be imperialistic exploiters. The American people have a distinct right to question not only President Carters implied accusation of those who wish to retain the Canal as being imperialistic exploiters, but of his views on the right to own and control property. After all, we did purchase and pay for all of the rights we hold to the Panama Canal. Now, what is wrong, we ask President Carter, of maintaining control over property we honorably, rightfully and legally obtained by purchase from the seller according to terms agreed to by both parties? Does Carters statement really reflect the wisdom and understanding which we should be able to expect from the President of the United States? CARTERS PROMISES FRAUGHT WITH DISCREPANCIES Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the committee that the United States will have the right to protect the Canals neutrality and keep it open even after Panama takes control of the Canal in the year 2000. Vance failed, however, to quote any part of the text of the proposed treaty which would guarantee such right. He probably failed to do so because such words do not exist in the' treaty. Contradicting Vance, Senator Richard Stone cited an August 19 speech in the Panamanian assembly in which Panamanian negotiator Romulo Bethan-cou- rt said, We are not giving the United States the right of intervention. In response to Bethancourts statement, Sol Linowitz replied, No matter what he says, we have the language of the treaty. ..we decide what remedy is best to keep open the Canal. If we do indeed have the language of the treaty, as Mr. Linowitz insists, why then is said language not presented to the American people for them to make their own decision? It is evident that such language does not exist in the treaty. Probably, the language is just the opposite. And ifa dispute should arise in the year 2000, when Panama is to take over complete control, the words of Sol Linowitz in the year of 1977 would prove most insignificant in resolving any dispute. (D-NC- (D-Fl- a) IS U.S. DEFENSE FORCE INCAPABLE OF DEFENDING PANAMA? Secretary of Defense Harold S. Brown, in testimony evidently designed to persuade members of the House to ratify the treaty, recently stated that he doubted that the U.S. could defend the Canal from the Panamanians under present circumstances or future circumstances, is given the fragility and vulnerability of the Canal. This surely frightening. If our military forces cannot protect the Canal against the renegade forces of the Panamanisan dictatorship, then how could it possibly protect the United States from an attack from a far superior aggressor? If Browns statement is true, then we need not only a new Secretary of Defense, but a new President as well. Your Man Paul Scott stating: Neither he, nor I, nor an independent committee will solicit funds in his behalf. However, I believe the Committee has been totally unreasonable in this matter, and I cant help but be disturbed at the double standards I have witnessed. While . husband Federal asked the carefully tion Commission and your my on page S has ElecCorn-Continu- ed In Washington By U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch - A Mistake National Health Insurance The most immediate problem facing the nation's medical community is the skyrocketing costs of health care. These costs, so visible to the consumer, are now becoming visible to the medical profession itself through increased malpractice litigation. At the same time, in order to offset the great expense of medical care, the public is looking to the federal government for relief in some form of National Health Insurance. j In 1976 this country-spen$139.9 billion on health care. This represents a per capita expenditure of $638 for every man, woman and child in the country. That figure translates into five 'full weeks of work, by the average Utahn to pay the medical expenses for each of the members of his family. Fortunately the average Utahn enjoys better than average health, so his health care costs are less. The national health care price tag, however, has nearly doubled in the last six years. In the lifetime of this year's high school graduate, the cost of health care has int creased eleven-fol- d. Naturally when a consumer pays this kind of premium for health care services, he expects that service to be complete and faultless. President r Jimmy-Carte- said on May 17, 1977, I would like to a com- have established plete national health in surance program before I go out of office. We will be developing the com- pro prehensive .and I would guess that I will go to the in Congress early posal. 1978. . . ." National Basically, Health Insurance is the beginning of medical collectivism and the first material step towards socialized medicine. The argument is often offered that National Health Insurance is the only answer for even and impartial distribution of health resources and services. This argument is the same old tired attack on the free enterprise system and at the same time says the medical world cannot adapt adequately to take care of the needs of the people. In addition. National Health Insurance advocates are saying once again that the federal government is the to the current situation. That assertion is unfounded. Health care costs can be adequate in meeting the needs of the population and, hopefully, at a price most can afford. But it will take new dedication on the part of the medical community and a guarantee that the federal government will stay out of the industry. The trite campaign statement still remain true "anything the federal only-answe- government can do, private enterprise can do better and make a profit." BUY AND DISTRIBUTE EXTRA COPIES OF THE UTAH INDEPENDENT 250 each 12 for $2.75 25 for $5.00 50 for $9.00 100 for $17.50 Dozen assorted copies older than 2 months $1.00 1 Price includes postage and handling. ISSUE DESIRED . NAME ADDRESS ZIP CITY & STATE Enclosed $ r Total amount 57 East Oakland Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 . 3 |