Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 4 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
It is often pointed out that his conviction was overturned on appeal. So it was. It was overturned, not because the facts of his guilt were insufficient or impeachable, but, rather, because they were the same facts for which Congress had granted him immunity during the Iran-Contra Hearings. It would appear that his lawyer advised him to spill his guts at the hearing so that he would be judgement-proof later on. ' ,
A communication from Mr. North to me, asking me, among other things, to be a member of his special advisory committee, suggested that during the Iran-Contra Hearings, “You were undoubtedly proud to see me stand up to those liberals,” or words to that effect. Apparently, Mr. North believes that if he doesn’t like a particular law (i.e., a law passed by “liberals”), he is justified in opposing it by lying, obstructing justice, and sneaking a little something off for himself on the side. The constitutional procedure would be to work to get the law changed, but otherwise obey it so long as it is in effect. To do otherwise, as Mr. North did, is to invite anarchy.
We should also hear a lot more about Mr. North’s program, if elected.
He says, for example, that he would reduce taxes and spending, but in the same breath, he promises to “rebuild our nation’s defenses in the face of growing threats from around the world.” Apart from the inherent inconsistency of these proposals, his intentions regarding defense spending are preposterous. A recent graph, depicting defense expenditures in all the significantly armed countries around the world, showed that the U.S. is currently appropriating more for defense than all the other countries combined. What, pray tell, are the “growing threats?” And is defense spending not spending? Seventy thousand jobs in Virginia, he says, will be lost as a result of President Clinton’s defense cuts. Is defense a jobs program? Or is it just pork?
It is also said that Mr. North would have voted with Sen. Warner to defeat the “largest tax increase in American history.” The reference is, of course, to Pres. Clinton’s budget deficit reduction plan, enacted over unanimous Republican opposition in 1993. That plan reduced taxes for many at the lower end of the income scale, left taxes relatively * unchanged for most of us in the middle, and increased taxes only for a relatively few upper income people who" could well afford the increase. The plan also made substantial reductions in the annual budget deficit for five years. The results: a rapidly improving economy, lowered inflation new jobs, and a more balanced and progressive tax structure that is fairer for all Americans.
Finally, it is said that Mr. North would favor “limited government and individual freedom.” In a complex industrial society such as ours, it is imperative that there be laws and regulations to secure the physical, intellectual and religious freedom of all citizens, as well as their property rights. For example, the unwise relaxation of regulations affecting the savings and loan industry led to a boondoggle that will ultima
90.3%