Cedar Rapids Gazette (Newspaper) - August 29, 1974, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Thursday, August 29, 1974
Ambulance standards needed
STATE REP. JOAN LIPSKY of Cedar Rapids has been fighting a somewhat lonely battle in the legislature for a law authorizing the state department of health to set safety standards for ambulance service — meaning the vehicles themselves, the equipment and the personnel.
Her bill hasn’t made it to the house floor yet for a full-scale debate, but objections raised so far seem to be economic-based for the most part — the “it would cost so much it would run us out of business” type of argument. She has moved to meet such objections in a manner that has won the approval of some who offered them in the first place. So it would seem that her bill would have a chance for passage if it ever makes it to the floor.
Certainly there should be minimum standards that those furnishing ambulance services should have to meet for, as Mrs. Lipsky told the delegates to the Emergency Medical Services conference in Coralville recently.
many lives are lost each year because of inability to deliver “adequate, speedy and appropriate care.”
The bill Mrs. Lipsky presented to the legislature was the product of a group of representatives of the medical profession, of hospitals, of volunteer ambulance services, of independent ambulance operators, of persons with specialized knowledge and experience in this area and of the state departments of health and public safety.
Because many states, like Iowa, haven’t moved on this problem, the federal government is beginning to exert some pressure to develop ambulance standards. Unless the states move, the first thing you know the federal government will step in to fill the void, a move which would result in an outcry from legislators in general. The way to preclude such a happening would be for the state to move first so it gets what it wants in the way of a law before it is forced to take one it might not want.Isn't it the truth?
By Carl Riblet, |r.
The writers for television have proved something and that is the great idiot-ap-peal of their commercials. They have found that there are in the country just as many people who arc mindless as they estimated there were; something politicians have known all along.
"Government has become to be a trade, and is managed solely on com mercial principles.''
— R. VV. Emerson
We cannot avoid what the future will bring, but we can use common sense and caution in anticipating it, like not asking
a son what he wants to be when he grows up, and giving a daughter her own telephone next year.
The future comes like an unwelcome guest. ”
Do not confuse the rebel with the activist. A rebel is born, not made. The sun makes him, the forest shapes him, the city depresses him and greed fries him. He would rather be true than successful and he often shaves, wears clean socks and pays his taxes; although screaming like an eagle when he does it.
"Rebels make good citizens.
— The Dictionary of Opinions
Despite gloom, public sees no depression
By Louis Harris
The Harris Survey
A SUBSTANTIAL 65 percent of the American people feel that the country is in the throes of a recession and 56 percent expect that there will be still a recession a year from now. However, by 54-28 percent, a majority also does not believe “the country will be in a depression by this time next year.”
The root of the trouble in the eyes of most people is not hard to find; Eighty-two percent feel that prices are still rising faster on most things they buy than they were a year ago Nor do people see
I nail! Ii Is
by Cb'Cago V N*w*Synd (re
World P'ght* Braved t Z7
MUKAI, INDIGNATION Jealous v\ ith a hah*
ll (’. WELLS-
Stanley fires back
To the Editor.
A recent letter to the People's forum. in the name of William E. Stroope. contains this false statement:
"Checking into Stanley's legislative record, I find that for three straight years he opposed a plan to give property tax relief to the elderly and wouldn't even allow his ways and means committee to take it up. He blocked his own governor on this issue ...”
The truth is that I was floor manager for the new Iowa law giving property lav
much price relief in sight any time soon, with 62 percent expecting prices a year from now to be rising at rates as great as today.
The net impact of this gloomy mood on the part of the public is to lead 51 percent to “put away what money they can for a rainy day,” although 25 percent conclude that this is the time to “buy things they want and need before the prices go up further.”
There are marked signs that both the instinct to put money away into savings and to make purchases of products now instead of later are on the rise. A rise in savings was the earmark of earlier inflationary crunch periods. The increased desire to buy now rather than later might be classified as panic buying.
Periodically, the Harris Survey has asked cross-sections of the public this question:
' Af this time, do you feel it best to put away what money you can for a rainy day, to invest it in something that will grow as inflation increases or to buy things you wart and need before prices go up further'5"
relief to the
helped to get it adopted
This law was passed in 1873. the same year when I became chairman of the house ways and means committee. During the three previous years I was not a member of the Iowa legislature. How does the writer suggest I blocked it for “three straight years” when I wasn’t there?
Whoever wrote this letter failed to mention my active support of the Iowa laws which increase tax exemptions for the elderly and blind, repeal the taxes on household property and other persona! property, repeal the livestock tax, and limit local property taxes while increasing state financial support for education
In the opposition s “dirty tricks” campaign, the letter attributed to Mr. Stroope is one of the dirtiest tricks yet.
Dave Stanley Muscatine Republican candidate for
ll. S senator
Over the past year, roughly one family in four reported looking for opportunities to invest their money in order to allow it to “grow as inflation increased.” In a survey conducted July 17-21 among 1,447 households nationwide, it was apparent that there had been a sharp fall-off in public confidence that such investments could be found. This in turn signaled that any early return of individual investors to, say, the stock market is highly unlikely.
At the same time, in late spring worries about inflation had reached the point where people felt they had better make purchases of products they want now rather than later, since “prices might tie going up even more in the future. ”
This “buy now. not later” motivation presents a double-edged problem for the economy. One of the real pressures on rising prices has been grow ing consumer demand, especially in product lines marked by shortages. To cut demand could help relieve inflationary pressuresRehabilitation
To the Editor:
The cheapest and quickest way to rehabilitate a drunk is for the individual to accept Jesus Christ in his heart as his Lord and Savior. Then that person will not drink anymore and therefore will not be a liability on the taxpayer
There are nine million alcoholics. Jesus Christ is the only one w ho can solve their problems.
If there wasn’t any liquor there would be less accidents, less crime and happier homes. I do not drink I never have and I never will.
“Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise " (Proverbs 1:20).
Phyllis Crosier Manchester
On the other hand, a too drastic cut in consumer spending could send the economy into a downward spiral and into a much deeper recession.
Although savings institutions have not yet reflected increased consumer propensity to put money into savings, it must be viewed as a last resort. People not only worry about how much they have to pay for things, but also about how long their jobs will last and how secure they are financially when they put money into savings. After a real fall off in desire to save during the spring and early summer months, the urge to save has now shot back up again.
Part of the reason for this inclination can be found in continuing consumer pessimism over the state of the economy. The Harris Survey has regularly asked people:
Do you feel the country is in a recession today
A majority also believes there will be a recession in 1975. People were asked:
By this time
country will be in a recession or not?
Nov , 1973
lf people are gloomy about the recession lasting well into next year, they have not yet reached that point where they feel the country is on its way to a full-scale depression:
"By this time next year, do you think the country will be in a depression or not5
Will be in a depression Will not be No* sure
In short, the people feel that they are living through hard times and that inflation goes on unabated in a recession period But by no means have they reached the panic stage where they feel the economy is falling apart and depression is imminent.
Chicaoo Tribune New York News Service
Question: Should Richard M. Nixon be prosecuted?
THE CENTRAL lesson of Watergate is that all men. regardless of power or position, are subject to the law . argue those who advocate the prosecution of the former President if the evidence warrants.
It would be dismaying, concedes Rep Charles E. Wiggins (R-Calif.), to have a former President in prison, but it might be necessary “if we are truly to have ‘equal justice under law ’ ”
Wiggins, Nixon's most effective defender on the house judiciary committee, called for his resignation after learning the contents of the additional tapes which Nixon released Aug 5.
“How can we tell our young people that they ought to respect the law if a man who commits a most heinous crime is granted immunity (from prosecution)?” asked Assistant Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D W Va.).
American Bar Association President Chesterfield Smith noted that, “judgments should be made on the merits of Mr. Nixon’s case, just like anyone else ”
A resolution introduced at the ABA convention the week after Nixon's resignation carried the argument further. “It is unfair and unequal treatment for other Watergate defendants to be convicted, sentenced, and disbarred for actions and conduct apparently condoned and participated in by the President of the United States, if the latter is not also prosecuted.”
The ABA later approved a similar, less specific resolution, which reaffirmed a commitment to “impartial application and enforcement of the law, regardless of the position or status of any individual alleged to have violated the law ”
By Congressional Quarterly
WASHINGTON - Should Richard Nixon, private citizen, be prosecuted for crimes charged against Richard Nixon. President of the United States? That is the question upon which the future of the 37th President now hinges.
The answer is up to a federal grand jury in Washington, which already has named President Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate coverup, and to Special Watergate Prosecutor Leon Jaworski. Jaworski must decide whether to present to the grand jury additional evidence, chiefly recorded White House conversations, which he has received since their first decision on Nixon's involvement last February.
The six men indicted by that grand jury for obstruction of justice include former top Nixon
advisers H. R. Haldeman. John D. Ehrlichman and John N. Mitchell. Their trial is scheduled to begin early in September unless they win a postponement Nixon already has been subpoenaed to appear as a witness.
Prosecution of Nixon is a very real possibility Although the question of whether an incumbent President can be indicted before he is impeached is still unresolved, the Constitution makes clear that its framers contemplated the prosecution of a President who was impeached, convicted and removed from office. It states that such removal does not preclude subsequent indictment, trial and punishment according to law.
Lawyers estimate that the charges lodged against Nixon in the three articles of impeachment which the house judiciary committee approved in late July could bring penalties cf up
to 30 years in prison and nearly $60,000 in fines Nixon is considered most vulnerable on the obstruction of justice charges concerning the Watergate coverup, included in Article I.
Jaworski made it plain, immediately after Nixon announced his intention to resign, that no bargains had been struck by the President with his office. Even then the debate had begun in congress concerning the wisdom of prosecuting a President who had resigned his office under threat of certain impeachment and probable conviction by the senate.
Arguments in favor of prosecution are based on the premise that the law applies equally to all men — including former Presidents. Arguments against prosecution are more emotional: Nixon has paid an already high price, and this is a time for reconciliation, not for further persecution of an ex-President.
The Gazette's apili ion
Unstoppable drama: Institutions dwarf the players
THOUGH THE most watchful observer probably could not peg the hour ar day that it happened, there came a point in Watergate where exhausted investigators finally commended their frightening task to the tireless machinery of institutions. From then till now the experience has seemed like a journey in a powerful ship. engines throbbing down under, no way to miss destination, no means of turning around. One need not to have been in Washington, D C., these many months to have felt the surge
With that sensation now common to all, we wonder how in the world anyone thinks the prosecution of Richard Nixon can be1 avoided. Certain congressmen have fancied themselves empowered to place the ex-President beyond the law s reach, and the citizens in sundry quickie opinion polls have generally agreed that Nixon has suffered enough
But none of this ego-tripping or sentimentalizing can halt the Constitution’s inexorable thrust. To quote that timeless document s section 3 of article one: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to remove from office...but the party convicted shall nevertheless bi* liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
The Constitution’s authors could not make their intentions more vivid if they had materialized on Capitol Hill at high noon today. Their hope was that the Republic could endure a thousand years without a Chief Executive bringing monumental discredit upon his administration. But if the President were suspected of breaking the law , he would bt* held culpable.
Thus it is ridiculous to picture Special Prosecutor Jaworski as straddling a fence, not knowing which way to leap. His undeviating adherence to the Constitution makes prosecution of Richard Nixon a certainty. It is similarly ludicrous to imagine the Watergate grand jury reeling backward from the will of the
original grand jury. Last winter, when Mr. Nixon’s status as sitting President shielded him from pre-removal prosecution, the grand jury wanted to indict him in connection with the Watergate coverup With Nixon no longer ruling and the evidence against him having grown more mountainous (owing in no small part to his own public confession), one cannot see how the present grand jury can stop short of indictment.
What a travesty the obstruction-of-justice trial of Nixon's top aides would become if the former President’s name is not added to the roster of indictees. Those defendants would claim they were acting on order of the President, then scoot free of all blame. Meanwhile, 13 of the now defunct administration’s lesser lights would be in jail or headed there. All of which would fortify the contention of civil libertarians that mercy in this society is for those who can arrange it.
It is true, as Columnist William Buckley has argued, that the only cries for Nixon’s imprisonment come from “the fever swamps of vindictiveness.” But the unyielding force pushing Mr. Nixon into the dock needn’t bring a jail term upon verdict of guilty. President Ford would have the power to pardon a convicted Nixon and it is inconceivable that any rational thinker would oppose the move.
Distressing as it is to contemplate Nixon's esteem plummeting further still, it is important that the cobwebbed Watergate trunk be aired out in congress and in the courts. Should the momentum somehow be halted now, the few shrill voices still proclaiming Nixon a saint, and likening him to Christ, could become a chorus of historical revisionists. For the sake of school children KH) years hence, that cannot be allowed to occur
It won t happen, though, thanks to ancient statesmen who insured so well against abuse of the presidency.
k 4fpHK man has been punished, and
A for God’s sake, enough i enough! Senate Minority Leader Hugl Scott (R-Pa ) declared after Nixon’ resignation.
This was the thrust of the less legals tic and more emotional argument again: prosecution, made by those who urge reconciliation - not further harassmei of an already disgraced man
What useful purpose would be serve (by prosecution)?” asked Sen. Job lower (R-Texas). “The man has su fered very considerable punishment an humiliation, and I think that's enough '
By having to leave office less tha halfway through his second term -under the threat of being ousted b congress — Nixon already had “stuffere the ultimate political penalty,” argue Assistant Senate Minority Leader Robe I Griffin (R-Mich ). “Most people ai satisfied with that.”
And. Scott argued later, it was doubtf; whether Nixon could get a fair trial c any Watergate-related charges lf he wei indicted, because of the massiv publicity which had accompanied ti Watergate and the impeachment sagas
In my judgment, Dick Nixon cou not get a fair trial . . especially in ti District of Columbia, which has been ti focus and the burning fire of all of ti charges and innuendos against the Whi House,” Scott said.
Internal Revenue officer to taxpayer Three teenage daughters do not entitle you to count the telephone company as a dependent."
DHr ult I t $*<p Pf