Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Download Folder

0 items

Houston Breakthrough, November 1980
Page 12
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Houston Breakthrough, November 1980 - Page 12. November 1980. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. March 6, 2015. http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/3680/show/3663.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(November 1980). Houston Breakthrough, November 1980 - Page 12. Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/3680/show/3663

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Houston Breakthrough, November 1980 - Page 12, November 1980, Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters, Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries, accessed March 6, 2015, http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/3680/show/3663.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Houston Breakthrough, November 1980
Publisher Breakthrough Publishing Co.
Date November 1980
Subject.Topical (LCSH)
  • Women
  • Texas
  • Periodicals
  • Feminism--United States--Periodicals
Subject.Geographic (TGN)
  • Houston, Texas
Genre (AAT)
  • periodicals
Language English
Physical Description 28 page periodical
Type (DCMI)
  • Text
  • Image
Format (IMT)
  • image/jpeg
Original Item Location HQ1101 .B74
Original Item URL http://library.uh.edu/record=b2332724~S11
Digital Collection Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters
Digital Collection URL http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist
Repository Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries
Repository URL http://info.lib.uh.edu/about/campus-libraries-collections/special-collections
Use and Reproduction Educational use only, no other permissions given. Copyright to this resource is held by the content creator, author, artist or other entity, and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the copyright owner. For more information please see UH Digital Library Fair Use policy on the UH Digital Library About page.
File Name index.cpd
Item Description
Title Page 12
File Name femin_201109_565j.jpg
Transcript CAMPAIGN '80 * *j at the height of his capacities. But I am genuinely appalled at the thought of Ronald Reagan — simplistic, irascible, impulsive, and reactionary — in command of our nation and its nuclear strike force until 1989. I will vote for Carter on Nov. 4 with- CLARK out any hesitation or apology. I see no other rational choice. Chandler Davidson is chair of the sociology department at Rice University. This article originally appeared in The Texas Observer on October 17, 1980. 'He wants to eliminate every vestige of Toryism in Washington." BY JEFF DAIELL- Most presidential elections have been decided on one or more of three fundamental issues : peace, prosperity or freedom. This election will be no different: Jimmy Carter is talking peace, Ronald Reagan is talking freedom, and both they and Anderson are talking prosperity. It's hard to believe any of the three can do well on any of those issues, however. On peace: Reagan's itch to send in the Marines is well-documented, and both Carter and Anderson favor expanding the American military presence abroad. On freedom: Carter's record could be summed up by Jefferson: "He has erected a multitude of new off ices, and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out of their substance." Reagan has shown little tangible sympathy for civil rights or the women's movement. Anderson repudiated his "Christian nation" moves of a few years back, but has shown a reflexive tendency to look to Washington for answers to virtually any problem. On prosperity: Carter doubled "the Misery Index" to a point where fiscal responsibility is defined as 10 percent inflation and a boom these days is being laid off instead of fired. Reagan's record in California is one of higher taxes, more government spending, and an expansion of the bureaucracy; don't let his rhetoric hide the facts. Anderson is talking about a federal budget of $946.2 billion four years from now. The 48 percent increase in spending would have to be financed by either higher taxes or more inflation. So, if you want peace, desire prosperity, and long for freedom,for whom should you vote in 1980? If you hold those values I urge you to vote for Ed Clark, the Libertarian nominee for president. Let's take these issues one at a time. Peace: Ed Clark's Libertarian platform calls for a noninterventionist foreign policy, coupled with free trade between the United States and the rest of the world. By noninterventionist, Clark means we would no longer interfere in the affairs of other countries; no more military expeditions to the Domim'can Republic, no more engineered coups in Chile, no more assistance to the SAVAKS of the world. Clark has called for a $50 billion cut in defense spending in the first year of his administration, since a full 68 percent of our defense budget goes toward defending other countries, we could cut that much and more. (Prosperous industrialized democracies like Japan and West Germany spend a much smaller percentage of their respective Gross National Product on defense than do we; it's time we spent less to subsidize them). The defense of the United States would be strengthened by redirecting our expenditures into programs and materials better suited for defending ourselves. Clark would start closing down our foreign bases and eliminate our military foreign aid programs. The Libertarian platform calls for an end to foreign aid to communist countries (and others); it has been to a large extent American assistance over the years that has kept the Soviet government, our biggest challenger, afloat. With China and Japan from the East and increasingly rebellious former satellites on the West, Russia is unlikely to threaten world peace directly. With a defense oriented strictly to protecting the United States, a smaller military — and thus a volunteer Army — would be quite acceptable. This would not only promote peace on the part of the United States, but would eliminate one of the communists' main tools for whipping up violence elsewhere in the world. With a cut in defense spending, and an end to American interference abroad, Red agitators could no longer talk of "CIA devils" and "American violations of national self-determination." With no U.S. bugaboo to point at, people around the world would increasingly recognize Soviet inter- ventionism. Ed Clark of the Libertarian Party is the peace candidate in 1980, promoting policies that will ensure a secure peace for us and for the younger Americans who would be the victims of a new draft should our "bipartisan" foreign policy produce yet another war. And prosperity? A vote for Carter is a vote for the last four years; a vote for Reagan is a vote for the eight years before that; a vote for Anderson is a vote for a blending of the two. But voting for Ed Clark is a vote to break away from the politics of privilege and favor that has led us into double-digit inflation, high unemployment, and economic stagnation. Clark knows that inflation is caused , not by "greedy unions" or by "selfish businessmen," but by deficit federal spending. So Clark is demanding a balanced federal budget; his budget for 1981 would cut federal taxes by $180.7 billion and federal spending at $201.4 billion, balancing the budget at around $425 billion. Clark's call for free trade would tend to lower prices for American consumers, while his deregulation efforts would protect American jobs; his tax-cutting would end the process whereby the incomes of poor and moderate income Americans is redistributed to government contractors and special interests, and his elimination of the American military presence abroad would improve our balance of trade. To move toward quality education, surely a key to prosperity, Clark is calling for a tax credit, of up to $1200 per year, for contributions to the education of a child. Thus, parents who see their children trapped in public schools which do not teach could then afford to send their children to a competing school. Small companies, which cannot compete with big business in salaries, could then afford to subsidize the education of their employees' children as a fringe benefit. No longer would poor children be consigned to inferior education because their parents' property taxes are lower, and no longer would poor homeowners, and elderly homeowners on fixed incomes, be crushed by the rising costs of the ineffectual public school bureaucracy. All in all, then, Ed Clark, the Libertarian nominee, is the candidate for those who wish for prosperity in the 1980s and the chance for a better life for their children. Freedom is the value that gave birth to America 204 years ago, despite the Tory claim that the state could make our decisions better that we could. Today, it seems the Tories have reclaimed the upper hand and are trying to turn back the clock and return us to the days when a centralized authority ran our lives. Despite Carter's lip service to human rights abroad, he is busily erecting even more ministries than King George foisted upon us. Reagan , even aside from his inability to grasp that blacks, women, and Hispanic Americans have problems succeeding under the status quo, has a record of expanding, not reducing, government's REAGAN role in our lives: higher taxes, higher state spending, a bigger bureaucracy. Anderson, while making the appropriate phrases about civil liberties, has shown no real inclination to give you and me a little more space in making our decision. Ed Clark has that inclination. He wants to end the laws telling us how to act (and with whom) in our bedrooms. He wants to end the drug laws which prompt so much violence and theft. He wants to end the prostitution laws which make it so easy to victimize helpless women. He wants to cut our taxes, to let us decide for ourselves how to spend the money we — not the IRS, not the Pentagon, not the CIA -earn. The Libertarian platform calls for an end to discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, sex, national origin, or sexual preference at all levels of government. Clark has come out strongly for the Equal Rights Amendment. He opposes reimpo- sition of the draft. He wants to remove barriers to employment and to entering the business community which government has erected to protect its favored friends. He wants to eliminate every vestige of Toryism in Washington, to restore the radical concept of independence and banish the reactionary philosophy of government dictate. Ed Clark is the freedom candidate this year, the candidate for those voters who consider themselves adults and demand to be treated as such, even by the fat cats of the federal establishment. Peace, prosperity, freedom. Three good reasons to vote for Ed Clark of the Libertarian Party. Jeff Daiell is the former Harris County chair of the Libertarian Party and a former candidate for the Houston City Council. 'The simple ABC's will do. Vote for anybody but Carter." BY ED FALK The election of a President of the United States on November 4 is the single most important decision facing the world today. How we Americans vote will have a direct impact upon the lives of every single human being on this earth - the millions of people behind the Iron Curtain, the Bamboo Curtain, the Berlin Wall; the homeless refugees jn Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos; the enslaved people of Cuba, Dominican Republic, or Haiti; and, perhaps, most important of all, our American comrades who are being held prisoners in Iran. Our decision should not be based on party loyalty, peer or corporate pressure, single issues, union endorsements, or the backing of political action committees (PAC's) or similar groups — but rather on a true analysis of both the issues and the consequences of our decision at the polls. It is through an examination of the issues that I urge our votes be cast for Ronald Reagan for President of the United States. As I see it, the issues can be defined into four broad areas and the involvement of the executive branch in each vis-a-vis: (1) local (2) domestic (3) national and (4) international. LOCAL Normally, we do not associate the presidential campaign with local issues other than patronage, federal aid, pork barrelling, or taking a local case to the U. S. Supreme Court. But during the past four years, we Americans have seen the vilest abuse of the executive branch of the United States government intruding into local affairs since reconstruction days — the civil rights cases not withstanding. I will cite just two examples. The City of Houston's charter states that the people of Houston have the right of initiative and referendum. Well, 50,000 legal voters of Houston gathered and signed petitions in August 1978 to have the City of Houston place on the ballot a tax referendum. But the White House in HOUSTON BREAKTHROUGH