OCR Text |
Show June 30, 1972 IQdl?8 Continuad from Pag 2 to my surprise found that my money, or should I say money I am forced to contribute, helped make its publication possible. This paper is printed without my consent and delivered to my door without any request from me. It is in competition with regular channels of news in that I it solicits advertising, proclaiming no cost to the advertiser. It contains no information of benefit to me, and as evidenced by the number still below the mail boxes in the hall is void of interest to anyone in the building, yet money is being demanded from us to Candidate for United States Congress First District, Utah Forced Bussing of School Children . order forced bussing 3 manipulate the people and destroy their liberty when the people allow them to do so. Forced bussing was forced upon the people contrary to both their desires and the Constitution. This imposed such tremendous hardships on both the parents and children that the politicians use it as a club over their heads to beat them into accepting ANYTHING that would stop it, or would supposedly stop it. So the people condescended to the $21.S billion dollar Federal Aid to Education bill that suspends, BUT ONLY TEMPORARILY, forced bussing. So we get more socialism just to temporarily stop a terrible situation that we should have never put up with in the first place. Not only that, there are going to be problems come from this massive aid to education plan that will make the forced bussing one pale into insignificance by comparison. For one thing, H.E.W. has been working for years on a plan to implement a system of behavioral science that will completely destroy the childrens faith in God and religion. They include in their program a plan for eliminating from the school system the good teachers who will not go along with their scheme. Sound fantastic? Just wait. JOE H. FERGUSON The issue of forced bussing demonstrates clearly now the politicians are running the government contrary to the desires of the people. The black people, by an overwhelming majority, do not want forced bussing. make further publication Neither do the oriental or Caucasians. Then who does? possible. I object to such Could it be the powerful socialist pressure groups unconstitutional activity. operating behind the scenes in Washington? Who else? I do not object to paying Forced bussing did not come ais a natural or legal proper taxes, for I know they is unwanted and unconstitutional. There is no are necessary, but if that money process. It is to be squandered on such provision in the Constitution, including the Fourteenth states or implies that we have to have things as this, I feel there is no Amendment, that need for my money in the racial balance. The decisions of the federal courts to government budget. If I choose to waste my earnings I claim the right to do it myself rather than have it demanded of me that others may waste it as they see fit. Why should we taxpayers be forced to subsidize projects in which we have no interest? Page This issue demonstrates how the politicians On Course mftlbek The UTAH INDEPENDENT were clearly political, -- not constitutional. Those who think the forced bussing scheme is a satisfacory solution to any problem should ask themselves, where will it stop? If we are to achieve racial balance, would families be forced to relocate from Utah to Alabama, from San francisco to Chicago? The answer, of course, is yes. Next Week: Loyalty To Party or to Country ? Campaign Report am both thrilled by and appreciative of the reception to my speeches at the county conventions. Much of this response is of course due to the groundwork I done in the counties before the convention by our campaign workers. Special thanks to Vicki Veltry and Pat Hyita in Price; Carl and Clela Tilby and Gordon Olson in Morgan; Helen Sanders, Jean Marshall, Pat Madsen, Val and Carolyn Hodson, and Marian Mann in Davis County; and John Poulson, Kathy Woolf, Beth Gray and my wife Marie in Utah County. And a SPECIAL thanks to Mr. and Mrs. Dale Thurston for the wonderful reception for all the candidates and delegates in Morgan County. J. Freeman Salt Lake Citv just a few percent. MARKS MESSAGE Second: What is objectionable about 54 different systems throughout the country? Why shouldnt people in every community have the right to determine and operate and pay for their own welfare system? Improvements in a program are easier at the local level. Less bureaucracy is present at the local level. Less corruption is at the local level Costs are lower in local programs. Programs are better adapted to meet the particular needs of local citizens. On the other hand, changes in Washington are virtually impossible. A federal program will cost billions . Welfare Socialism If Congress can employ money indefinitely for the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner MARK E. ANDERSON Candidate for United States Congress Second District, Utah pre-em- pt Lloyd Voted for Guaranteed Annual Income schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision Reprinted from Our Dec. 17, 1971 Issue of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in Question: What causes a Republican congressman the latitude contended for, it vote for a guaranteed annual income? would subvert the very to Answer: A Republican President sponsoring the bill foundations, and transmute the Mr. Lloyd issued a report June 23, 1971 endorsing HR very nature of the limited 1 and the Family Assistance Plan (guaranteed annual government established by the To justify his support Mr. Lloyd argued: James income). people of America.. and (1) that present welfare systems are outdated conflicting (2) that present costs are spiraling out of control I am sure that is regrettable 54 different (3) that there is no uniformity and a point of real hazard to individual liberty that in many programs (4) that present systems penalize work and encourage countries, even to some extent Madison. . in our own beloved America, a clearly discernible tendency to relieve people of responsibilities which they have long been accustomed to bear there is and to extend paternalistic solicitude and care to vast portions of the population, however well intentioned such policies, I am confident they are destined to result in weakening of moral fiber, increased dependencies, and, more importantly and worse than all, eventually, a destruction of the and philosophies that have been responsible for the progress of fundamental concepts humanity in the world. Stephen L. Richards, April 1939. local programs, and will create more more, will federal bureaucracy. Third: Constitutionally, Mr. Lloyd knows, or should know, that Congress does not have authority to establish a federal welfare program. James Madison, often referred to as the Father of the Constitution, wrote in a letter dated January 21, 1792: I consider the idea that Congress has unlimited power to provide for the general welfare as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government; as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. Thomas Jefferson said, Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action. President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized in an address March 2, 1930: As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Washington must not be in a great number of vital encouraged to interfere problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance; of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare, and of a dozen other How can our congressmen swear important features. under, oath to uphold the Constitution then continue to act and vote contrary to it? Why do we, the people, continue to elect such men? idleness (5) that present systems encourage desertion by fathers (however, not in Utah) (6) that, although HR 1 will cost initially more, eventually it will cost less (7) that the present welfare programs promote migration What are the arguments which refute Mr. Lloyds position? First: HR 1' will cost $14.9 billion the first year -$5.5 billion more than the federal government is now spending on welfare programs. Can anyone who has witnessed the gigantic mushrooming of the federal government believe that HR 1 will be less expensive later on? Federal programs have a way of perpetuating and enlarging themselves. The initial $2,400 minimum annual wage will increase year after year. Remember the first income tax rate? No one expected income taxes to exceed ... |