Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, June 9, 1994 TAG: 9406090032
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-12 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The U.S. Senate candidate predicts a banking crisis the likes of which haven't been seen in the United States since 1933. Her ``recipe'' calls for elimination of the independent and ``privately owned'' Federal Reserve due to its ``strangulation'' of the economy with high interest rates for the purpose of saving financial markets and preserving banking profits.
The Federal Reserve System, established through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, was endowed by Congress and made responsible for correcting a variety of serious defects in American monetary and banking organization that had been revealed by recurrent money panics and banking failures. As a direct consequence of the panic of 1907, a National Monetary Commission had been appointed by Congress to consider changes in the U.S. monetary system and in banking and currency laws. That commission determined that there was a lack of means for mobilizing individual banks' reserves in troubled times - an inelastic currency system, a narrow and inadequate money market, and a lack of facilities for securing effective cooperation among banks. From this study, the Federal Reserve Act evolved. The Federal Reserve Board is chaired by an astute economist, and has members with great fiscal management ability. It's independent, and should remain that way - not subjected to political pressures.
Throughout the years, there've been ups and downs, and in all probability the board has made some mistakes. However, the U.S. economy is a part of an international economy, and the board's duties are more complicated now. It isn't possible for it to manage all countries' economies, and it wouldn't be possible to eliminate this body in favor of political handling of its responsibilities by the president and Congress. We've seen their actions and absence of bipartisan decisions, and such control spells disaster.
Spannaus and her associates should invoke fear in all of us with irresponsible views directed not toward monetary control but toward a political goal.
CALVIN C. KNOTTS
DALEVILLE
Anti-gun vote will haunt Bell
IN HIS May 23 news article, ``1995 contest forming,'' staff writer Dwayne Yancey fails to point out the main reason why state Sen. Brandon Bell is very vulnerable to a Democrat challenger next year. Bell voted for the law limiting gun purchases to one a month.
Yancey points out that Bell relied heavily on suburban and rural voters for his election. Most likely, these voters are offended by his vote. Democratic lawyer William Hopkins is quoted as saying he assumes that Bell will still have an advantage in the county. Quite the contrary. The county represents a tremendous opportunity for Democrats in that district, if they nominate a pro-gun candidate.
A conservative, pro-gun Republican would be doing his party a favor by challenging Bell for the nomination, since county voters that the Republican Party relies on will almost certainly vote against Bell, no matter who the Democrats nominate.
Although she'd never admit it, I'm confident Mary Sue Terry had this same gun issue in mind when she endorsed pro-gun Democrat Virgil Goode for the U.S. Senate nomination. She knows as well as I do that she shot herself in the foot last year with her waiting-period campaign. Her plummet in the polls coincided with the release of those ads, and she spent the rest of the campaign airing pathetic pleas to gun owners.
Goode has the best record in the General Assembly in defense of gun rights. He even votes against the National Rifle Association's surrender bills. (The NRA calls them ``compromises.'') Obviously, Terry knows Goode is the only Democrat on the Democrats' June 14 primary ballot who has a chance to beat Col. Oliver North, about whom gun owners have serious doubts.
WILLIAM D. STUMP II
PULASKI
Robb's honesty sets a good example
I SUPPORT Sen. Chuck Robb. Regardless of his personal ethics, I believe he is doing what he was elected to do for Virginia. He looks out for our interests.
One example is the large sum of money he returned to the treasury from his office. And even though our elected officials are entitled to free postage, he doesn't abuse this privilege, and he encourages his colleagues to do as he does.
If more politicians were as honest as Robb, our country would certainly be much better off than it is now.
ELEANOR H. WATSON
ROANOKE
Pro-health candidate is Clute
ON JUNE 14 in a Democratic primary, Virginia voters have the chance to elect their nominee for U.S. Senate, because in Virginia there is no voter registration as Democrats, Republicans or independents.
Sylvia Clute is the only candidate in either party supporting smoke-free environments in the work place and public places as a preventive health-care measure. She also supports increasing federal excise taxes on tobacco if some of the money is slated to help tobacco farmers and workers make the transition to healthy crops and products.
Charles Robb voted to block the airline ban on smoking. The tobacco industry thanked him in a newspaper ad on March 11. He also opposed strengthening the Clean Air Act, which would help us breathe easier outdoors. Lyndon LaRouche supporter Nancy Spannaus opposes smoke-free environments and a tobacco tax, and she has taken her Senate campaign into the Philip Morris plant.
State Sen. Virgil Goode's 20-year track record is anti-health. It includes: backing an unsuccessful bill mandating smoking areas in public places, including schools and elevators; opposing all efforts to limit public smoking; opposing tobacco taxes, including local options for such taxes; and opposing any restrictions to sell or give tobacco-product samples to children and teen-agers. Goode sponsored bills to put smoking in the civil-rights category and to block businesses from responding to employees' and customers' health needs. He even voted against no-smoking restrictions in schools. He isn't good for breathing.
Robb and Goode are political insiders, with baggage and debts owed to many people and groups, especially the tobacco industry. Spannaus is also not a free agent; she is bound by LaRouche agendas. Clute is the only one talking with and listening to the people. That's why she supports smoke-free environments. After all, breathing is still a popular thing to do.
ANNE MORROW DONLEY
Executive Director
Virginia Group to Alleviate Smoking in Public, Inc.
RICHMOND
North nomination is GOP's grave
THE GREEDY Old Puritans (GOP) have done it this time! They've chosen a pre-indicted, far-right fanatic as their senatorial candidate. By nominating Folly North, the Republican Party has dug its own grave.
I don't agree with every Democrat every time. Actually, I'm more of a libertarian who usually votes Democratic. America has enough prejudice, discrimination, division and deficit without more ``help'' from a meaner version of Ronald Reagan.
Chuck Robb has done a fantastic job for Virginia. Don't judge an employee by a couple of alleged moral indiscretions from years past, but judge him by work he's already done and by the good he can continue to do.
Government should work for us. Robb does. We don't need a dictator in Washington. If North represents us, then ``Virginia is For Lunatics!''
JEFF THOMPSON
DUBLIN
Boucher wasn't straightforward
WHEN Congressman Rick Boucher visited Sugar Grove on March 5, I asked him: ``What does the Clinton health plan say concerning abortion?'' His answer: ``Abortion is so controversial that this subject would dominate any debate on health-care reform, so his proposal is silent.''
The following quotes are from Jill Lawrence's Associated Press article in the Roanoke Times & World-News on April 17: ``There's a deceptive silence on Capitol Hill these days. It's the sound of people not talking about abortion.'' ``Abortion rights advocates are quiet because they have won round one: they managed to get coverage into the Clinton bill.'' ``The Senate voted narrowly last fall to retain abortion coverage in health plans for federal employees.'' ``Removing coverage from basic benefit package means taking away from insured women a benefit they now have.'' Yes, federal employees do have this coverage, but most women do not.
Why did Boucher not supply me with this information? Are there other ``controversial'' subjects hidden in the health plan? Can we trust our representative to give straightforward answers?
SHEILA L. MYERS
MARION
by CNB