Newspapers / The News-Journal (Raeford, N.C.) / July 19, 1984, edition 1 / Page 3
Part of The News-Journal (Raeford, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Opinions uk? "Nil's is A rvfew pafck. T^e i isjctavfct at peiRk is jus+ up Ro2t<{ f. Philosophies on collision course Privatization is the opposite of nationalization. It means turning things over to the private sector in I stead of the public sector. It means more private enterprise as opposed to socialist enterprise. The Marxist idea is losing ground a lot of places around the world. Margaret Thatcher is selling telecommunications and aerospace companies owned 'by the British government. From Hungary to China, communist governments are turning to the profit incentive and other forms of private in itiative as a way of increasing food production or to liven up other sec tors' of ITTeir economies. But here in the U.S., privatiza tion seems to be becoming a dirty word. Any proposal to sell off some government surplus parcel of federal land, no matter how unscenic or how unrelated to any useful federal purpose, guarantees a lot 'of wailing arid gnashing 6f teeth. From the city power plant in Cleveland to public hospitals in many cities, to the federal govern ment actually selling a weather satellite or two, the answer is definitely "no" Every proposal to reduce federal employment by contracting for services with private business meets with determined resistence. It seems rather ironic that while a good part of the socialist world is toying more and more with private enterprise, here , in , the - world's center of private enterprise, we sometimes seenvjAdfrg moving in the opposite dirdetjpy'" u MAXWAY Edenborough Center 876-2512 Rent The Rug Doctor. the orisinal steam carpet cleaner with a vibrating brush. Improved brush agitation that scrubs back and forth, and powerful water extraction make this the most professional rental of them all. As simple to use as a vacuum cleaner. Works faster and leaves carpets drier than other steam cleaners. Rug Doctor's steaming mad at dirt. Improved 3-wiy cleaner Do it yourself, and do it better, at a tremendous saving. *3 OFF Stewmng Mad At Ort !S9S! Rug Doctor Rmntml Coupon Qood Thru July 31, 1984 ?ass. Federal tax increases in wind There they go again. Congress has approved another package of tax increase that will in crease the deficit. Yes, increase the deficit, the same way that each of the three other tax increases since 1982 has increased the deficit. I'll explain, but first let's examine the new tax bill. As expected, Democrats in Con gress overwhelmingly supported the tax hike. But most Republicans in the Senate, and almost half of them in the House, also supported the measure. As The Washington Post put it. "Debate on the House floor on the bill, which was backed by the White House and the leader ship of both parties, was mostly perfunctory. " The increase affects about 200 provisions in the tax code. Barring last minute changes, the bill raises taxes on? . . .telephone service, savings ac count interest, fishing tackle boxes, arrow, home computers, diesel fuel, pensions, liquor, in heritence (including family farms), and on people whose income varies greatly from one year to the next. It increaes taxes on starting a new business, on retired people who get royalties from oil companies, on pollution-control equipment, and on cattle feeding. (Not everyone will be hurt by the tax bill, though. It erases a tax debt of nearly S 1 2 billion owed to the government by such corporations as General Elec tric, Boeing, Dow Chemical, Du Pont, and McDonnell Douglas.) I mentioned that the tax hike will increase the deficit, not reduce it. That's because, in order for a tax increase to cut the deficit, two things must happen: 1) Spending must remain the same or be cut. But spending has continued to increase at every level Richard A. Viguerie of government--and tax increases have simply given Congressmen more money to spend. 2) The tax increase must bring in more revenue. But the greatest in crease in government revenue has come when taxes were cut, not when they were increased. Presi dent Kennedy's tax cut led to an explosion of government revenue (too much revenue, in my opinion, because it allowed Lyndon Johnson to the Great Society and the no-win Vietnam War at the same time). And the 1981 income tax cut that took final effect in 1983 has already cut the projected deficit in half by stimulating the economy to produce more jobs. Naturally, a tax increase has the opposite effect as a tax reduction. The tax hikes of the 1970s slowly strangled the economy until we ex perienced Jimmy Carter's Reces sion (Depression?) that began in 1979 and lasted until Reagan's in come tax cut took effect. The tax hikes of 1982-84 may already be slowing down the recovery. In years gone by, when taxes ranged up to 5 or Kyfo of the na tion's income, the government took in plenty of revenue? enough to run all necessary programs, with a surplus left over. But today taxes take 40 percent of all income. The cost of government has risen so high that consumers have less money to spend on refrigerators, television sets, and other goods. As a result, there are fewer jobs for people who make those goods. That means there are fewer people who can afford to pay taxes, and more people on welfare and unemployment compensation. Every time we raise taxes to "reduce." the deficit, the cycle starts over again. Remember the earlier tax in creases? The big spenders promis ed the President that they would cut $3 in spending for every dollar in increased taxes. Of course, the opposite happened-they increased spending even faster than taxes, so that as taxes went up, the deceit went up, too. For each dollar of. new taxes, spending went up SI .14; therefore, for each dollar of new taxes, the deficit went up by 14 cents. There's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Are we goiung to be fooled again by empty promises of spending cuts in return for tax hikes? The fact is that Con gress, as currently constituted, has no desire to cut spending. None at all. So the columnist Evans and. Novak were correct when they said promised spending cuts are "blue, smoke and mirrors" (that is," tricks) to get the President to sign another tax infcrease. For too long, we have allowed the Democrates and the Republicans to gang up on us. We have given them a blank check to. spend as much of our money as they want, whenever they want," for whatever they please. They treat us with contempt, assuming' that we are not smart enough to recognize their shell game. Are we going to let them get away with it again? When are we going to stand up and fight tike Americans? Co-op rescue plan floundering The financial rescue plan for the Rural Electrification Administra tion (REA) is meeting some op position in the U.S. Senate and in the White House. The U.S. House has already ap proved the REA rescue proposal, in fact, I was one of the bill's co sponsors. The rural co-ops say this bill is necessary to prevent the extinction of rural electric and telephone ser vice. Without some sort of rescue plan, the REA's ability to lend will dry up in the 1990's. The bill Congressman Bill Hefner changes the terms under which the REA must repay the U.S. Govern ment for what it lends 10 rural elec tric and telephone systems. The problem comes from some members of the Senate who believe the financial rescue will not work. They also want to stop REA from % getting involved with the nuclear power industry and from lending low cost electrical power to large companies. The people in the Senate and the Whi'e House have some concerns which need to be discussed, but #iot at the expense of this rescue plan. Agriculture and rural life are the backbone of this nation. They must not lose this importani part of their lives ... affordable electric and telephone service. I believe the plan will work and should be pass ed by the entire Congress. MALAFIER9EM. AND ON WEEKENDS AND SAW. When you sign up forCP&L's newTime-Of Use Rates, turning on your dishwasher is like making a long-distance call. And so is washing a load of clothes or cooking a roast or taking a shower Because when you do those things during off-peak times, you'll pay a lower rate. When you haveTime-Of-Use, we install a special meter that records not only how much electricity you use, but when you use it. Then, at billing time, we'll charge you less for the electricity used off-peak. It's a way you can pay less for electricity without having to use less, lb find out more, simply dial CP&L. cm Thntme of year op :<eck AWktM?3v/kyn9t>rnfoK)orri Arrl & dtry kri/rtov crvf Si/vJoy
The News-Journal (Raeford, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
July 19, 1984, edition 1
3
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75