Newspapers / The Carolina Times (Durham, … / Dec. 12, 1981, edition 1 / Page 14
Part of The Carolina Times (Durham, 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
14-THE CAROLINA TIMES SAT., DECEMBER 12,1981 $TOP THE FLIGHT OF 6UCK CAPITAL FROM RIACKCO/HMUKITIES/ GUN6 70 MEET THE HIGH COST OE THEFT INSURANCE. VANDALISM SHOP-UFrmROBBERY AND BAD CHECKS. wipROBLEM CENTERS AROUND NARCOTICSANP drug RELATED CRJJ^ES. MtCHIGAhT CHRONICLE Editorials So, You Disagree Quite often in this newspaper, as in any other, opinions are ex pressed or situations are reported with which some readers * Times strives to serve it’s readers willi “The Truth Unbridled” as clearly as can be determined. Sometim^ the truth hurts We do not attempt to hurt anyone or anything. Sometimes we may err. Try as hard as we may to make sure facts are correct, we, too, are human and subject to make mistakes. But it is the duty and function of a newspaper to subject issues to scrutiny. , „ „ Its fine to call and tell us or send verbal messages of agreement or disagreement, but it is far more valuable to us and to all ot our readers for you to put your sentiments in writing so that your viewpoint, pro or con, can be published, too. We may not agree with your opinion, but that will not stop us from publishing i . We do not necessarily agree with all of the opinions expressed in columns we carry regularly, and say so every week m our mast. But it is important that many sides of issues be examined, ror of several positions and can draw his/her own conclusions.^ So when you disagree, don’t keep it to yourself. Write it (avoid slander and libelous statements), sign your name (legibly), send it to us and we will print it. Mr. Salim Withdraws Voting Rights Faces Uphill Fight By Vernon E- Jordan, Jr. President Reagan’s lukewarm endorse ment of extending the voting Rights Act of 1965 is a big roadblock in the uphill fight for voting rights against entrenched opposition in the Senate. The House of Representatives has already passed extension of the Act, keep ing its protections firmly in place. It also allows local governments that have records of not attempting to iniringc on citizens’ voting rights to “bail out” from the Act’s coverage. The “bail-out” issue is one ot the keys to continued protection of voting rights. Under the present law all proposed changes in voting rights by covered governments — state, city or county — must be cleared with the Justice Depart ment. The procedure is routine. Federal lawyers go over the proposed changes to see if they would have a negative effect on citizens’ rights. Then they either allow the change or disallow it, in which case the local government may appeal to a federal court. Virtually all proposed changes are ap- prov’ed by the Justice Department. The procedure does not place any special burdens on local governments — no mountains of documents have to be sub mitted nor months of hearings prepared for. Despite the routine nature of pre clearance, many say that as a matter of fairness covered states and localities, siiould be allowed to escape this pro cedure after a “good-conduct” period. That’s why the House passed a bailout feature. But the President took no note of the House action; he clearly wants a much looser bailout amendment along the lines favored by Senators opposed to extending the Voting Rights Act. The real meaning of any easy bailout would be to gut the Act. Provide an escape hatch for some of llie governments that traditionally discriminated against black and minority voters and you practically invite them to reinsiitutc traditional abuses. Even more dangerous is the President’s support for an amendment that would make intent to discriminate the test of federal intervention in local election laws. The House bill clearly says that the test shall be whether the laws and regulations have a discriminatory effecl. The reason for this is obvious. Local officials will never admit they want to discriminate, nor will they leave a paper trail behind them. Proving “intent” is virtually impossi ble; proving effects is straightforward and supports the intentions of the Voting Rights Act. Under the'intent standard, it would be up to people whose rights were violated to try to prove that changes in local election laws were deliberately intended to deprive them of their voting rights, a virtually ini. possible task. We should not forget that the VoiiiJ Rights Act of 1965 was passed bccausi many states placed legal barriers in th, way of blacks and other minorities tha prevented them from exercising what ih. President has called “the sacred right” i( vote. That’s why the law' w'as passed. Thai'^ why those states — and not others — wen brought under the provisions of the Aci That \ why the Act should be extended i) the strongest form possible. And that’s why the Presideni' backhanded support of extension is m, uood enough. He should have made a ringing on dorsement of the House bill. He shonk have told the bill’s opponents in iii. Senate that he wants a strong bill passed not a sham measure full of loopholi through which local governments e;it escape their constitutional respon sibilitics. Instead he said he supports exlensio with some minor changes, which turnon to be major, radical revisions in the w' the federal government can protect citizens’ voting rights. His endorsement of the Act amounisi, a rejection of it. and can only cncourai! the die-hard segregationists now sharpen ine their knives in the Senate. A Sorry History Can Be Made Right By Congressman Augustus F. Hawkii It is regrettable that the United States has persisted in its posi tion of casting the only vote against the nomination of Sahm Ahmed Salim to become Secretary General of the United Na tions. .. c Mr. Salim is a Tanzanian, an African, a representative trom the Third World. Our country’s objection to his nomination sends one more very strong message, not only to every so-called minority citizen in this country, but to the world, that this coun try intends to persist in it’s racist practices. Mr. Salim has been deemed eminently qualified for the position and acceptable to the other members of the United Nations. The prospect of Salim’s nomination was not a rejection ot Mr. Waldheim, who has held the post for two terms. It is simply believed that after two terms, it is time to give someone else a chance at leadership. .j .• Both men have withdrawn their names for consideration so that the United Nations can nominate someone else and get on about the business of that body. , c. .v. How closely our country’s stance resembles that ot boutn Africa — the minority must rule the majority. Four-fifths of this world’s population is non-caucasian. . . u • We pray that our country’s leaders will soon rise above their apparent racist hangups and realize that, as the world teeters on the brink of nuclear holocaust, how stupid and short-sighted they appear. There will be a lot of equality for everybody — in pain, suffering and death — if those leaders don’t begin looking beyond their pale skins. Nobody wants nuclear war. We re all on this planet together and together we will survive in a civilized manner or we’ll all be cooked together. , c. i- a In the interest of unity and pursuit of peace, both Salim and Waldheim have moved aside. They have shown vision in doing so. As the first session of the 97th Congress winds down to an end, I’d like to take this opportunity to briefly summarize some of the more significant actions taken in Washington during this extraordinary year. Let me state at the outset, that in all my 48 years of serving our community, 1 have never seen a President and Congress more intent on writing laws which so blatantly favor the rich, and special in terests. Thus far, the Administration, with the help of many on Capitol Hill, has pushed through an economic program which has three basic components; cutting on high income taxes, slashing federal spending and rtttiintaining a tight money policy; As promised, personal tax reductions began October 1; however, if you earn le.ss than $50,000 per year, you probably barely noticed the few extra dollars a month. At the .same time, big business was given special breaks which virtually wiped out corporate income tax in this country. As a result, the federal deficit may soon reach $100 billion and President Reagan has now retreated from his campaign promise to balance the budget by 1984. This tax cut is proving to be inflationary to the na tion and costly to the federal Treasury, while providing little relief to those tax payers who need it mo.st. President Reagan has also led a drive to slash federal spending by over $35 billion this year. While I fully support improving the administration and efficiency ot federal programs. I have opposed cutting valuable and needed programs such as food stamps, AFDC, housing and educa- tional assistance to the bone. The hypocrisy of this Administration and its Conaressional allies knows no siiame. While school lunch programs are slashed, aericuUural price supports are mandated which will mean higher costs to con sumers. While energy conservation pro grams are virtually eliminated, oil com panies receive $12 billion in tax giveaways. While jobs and training .pro- r grams are cut in half, the Pentagon is ■given an all lime Trigh budget. This shameful list goes on and on. The final component of the Reagan plan is a tight money policy. The Presi dent holds that by maintaining astronomically high interest rates and thus making it hard to borrow, he can “squeeze” inflation out of the economy. Unfortunately, this policy is only squeez ing out the small businesses which are the backbone of our economy. Inflation is still averaging around ten per cent, businesses are failing at an unprecedented rate, and as a result, unemployrrient is at eight per cent, the highest level in years. We have been forced into a severe reces- sion by the Reagan policies. Unemploy- ment levels, already well into double digits for minorities, may v\c!l rc: figures unseen since the Great Depressk Even the most optimistic of the / ministration’s supporters, in and out government, admit that it will be yei before the booming economy the Prt dent evisions is a reality. 1 ask these pi pie, what is the country to do until th( What are the 8'/’ million people out work to do until the economy recove What are consumers everywhere to about double digit inflation? What are young to do w'iihoul jobs or training p grams? The answer the Administraii •.:>'gi>*efi!is'that we must suffer now in on to prosper later. 1 cannot accept this pianation. Our economy is in a shamb and the Reagan plan is only a bluepi for disaster. We can not afford any mi of this great economic gamble becaust is clear that the American people already the losers. The policies adopted this year geared to benefit the rich over the p( and middle class, large corporations o job producing small business and military over social welfare. Presidi Reagan and a compliant majority in G gress are working to divide this natk and as we know, a nation divided can stand. We must work now to unify country and our government in a m( humane and progre.ssive direction. The Same Old Stuff By Norman Hill A. Philip Randolph Inslilu William Wells Brown The first Negro novelist in America! He trained as a printer with aboiitionist editor Eiijah P. Lovejoy and became an agent of the Western Massachusettes Anti-Siavery Society! His book “Clotel” or “The President’s Daughter” was pubiished in London in 1853, in the U. S. in 1864, and was widely read! When the Republicans took the White House and the Senate one year ago, the political pundits and analysts were quick to assert the basis for the OOP’s success. Republicans were victorious, the argumennt went, because they had become the party of new ideas. Supply- side economics — w’ith its argument that if you decrease taxes substantially you will increase industrial productivity— was be ing trumpeted as the theoretical innova tion that would resuscitate the economy. Now come Budget Director Davis Stockman’s comments to newspaperman William Greider: supply-side economics was merely a new language and argument u.sed to conceal standard Republican practice: tax cuts for the rich. “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down’;” rioted Stockman, referring to the traditional Republican practice of cutting taxes for . corporate interests and the wealthy. “So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down’.” The Kemp-Roth tax cuts were “always a Trojan Horse to bring down the top/tax/rate.” While one must be sur prised at the candor with which Stockman spoke, there can be no possible deflectioii of the indictment of the cornerstone of the Reagan Administration’s economic program contained in Stockman’s remarks. The Reagan program is nothing new; it is merely a rehash of the old Republican “trickle down” approach. While most of the controversy over the Stockman affair focuses on his manipula tion of budgetary figures and his personal deception in “foisting” the Reagan- Kemp-Roth tax and budget' cuts on an “unwitting” Congress, the true significance of his comments is that they serve to shatter the basis of the Reagan Most political observers agree that the reason Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter was because Reagan suggested that he would offer the country a “new begin ning”, a significantly new departure and approach to government, American voters, confronted with a-decade of high inflation and high unemployment, voted for a new approach and not for a return to the old Republican policies. What David Stockman tells us, in effect, is that the American public was deceived. Several questions are suggested as a result Of the Stockman scandal. Why was it that SO few political and economic analysts saw through the charts and figures with which the Reagan Ad ministration deluged and dazzled Con gress? How could our legislators allow themselves to be stampeded into voting on . . tax and budget bills that were so carelessly prepared? Why were so many “experts taken in by the Reagan-Stockman sales pitch? Regrettably, the answer to these ques tions is that at the root of recent legislative policy-making we find for the most part a bankruptcy of ideas and an appalling lack of competence, indeed, in the last year only the representatives of the labor jnovement, a few courageo'- liberal legislators, and the civil rig. community have succeeded in seeing through the rhetoric and have challenged the Administration’s economic prescrip tions. The few who opposed the Reagan pro gram are today being vindicated by the ef fects of the “supply-side” approach. We are now in the midst of what may turn out to be the most severe recession since the 1930’s. Unemployment has reached eight per cent and is heading toward nine per cent and worse. Among blacks unempj ment stands at over fifteen per cent, construction industry has been paral) by high interest rates to the point « housing starts are at a fifteen-year The auto industry also is in the midsl severe slump. , . The Stockman revelations provide Americans with an opportunity to (Continued on Page 15) Chir L.E. AUSTIN Editor-Pubiishsr 1927-1971 [USPS 091-380) Published every Thursday (dated Saluidi Ourham N.C.. by United Publishers. Incoipi Mailina address: P.O. Box 3825, 27702-3825, OHice located at 923 Old Fayij Street, Durham, N.C. 27701. Second Class« paid at Durham. North Catolina 27702. POSTMASTER; Send address changes » CAROLINA TIMES, P.O. Box 3825, Durlia* 27702. SUBSCRIPTION RATES: One year, S12.M 48« sales tax for North Carolina residenlsf ■ copy 30e. Postal regulations REQUIRE advan ment on subscriptions Address all commcji and make all checks payable to: THE in" TIMES. ' NATIONAL ADVERTISING REPRESENJj Amalgamated Publishers. Inc., 45 West 45ti New York. New York 10036. , • Member; United Press International Phole i National Newspaper Publishers Assoctahon. Carolina Black Publishers Association. Opinions expressed by columnists ' newspaper do not necessarily represent tire p *'"Th?s'newspa%r WILL NOT BE RESPONSU the return of unsolicited pictures.
The Carolina Times (Durham, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Dec. 12, 1981, edition 1
14
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75