Tucson Daily Citizen from Tucson, Arizona • Page 30

WEDNESDAY, 9, 1076 Perspective Investigative Reports Analyses Opinions Of Others TUCSON DAILY I I PAGE 31 Air pollution, strip mining, nuclear power Where do candidates stand on environmental issues? By MARGOT HORNBLOWER The Washington Post have could The issues are controversial. Should the government encouraae The Democrats generally favor strict laws and more funding to a 1 Uti and TM TMwtr! The? tn 7 COI TM li solar power as alternatives to nuclear, coal and oil development. President Ford and his Republican challenger, Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, favor fewer restrictions on industrial polluters, and prefer an aggressive nuclear, coal and oil development program to environmentalists' strict energy conservation proposals. Ford's record Although environmentalists are divided in their opinions of the Democratic candidates, few would disagree with the League of Conservation Voters' recent assessment that President Ford's record on environmental issues is "hopeless." The league, a coalition of officials from the Environmental Policy Center, Friends of the Earth the Sierra Club and state ecology groups, released a 38-page profile of the Ford record. "Under the banner of energy independence, he has in effect demanded that the American people sacrifice the Clean Air Act accept increasing risks of a nuclear catastrophe, deplete their western water supplies, ruin coastal spawning grounds for fish (and) strip mine their grazing lands," the league asserted.

"If accomplishing every worthy environmental objective would slow down our effort to regain energy independence (from foreign oil producers) and a stronger economy, than of necessity I must weigh all factors involved," Mr. Ford has said. Both Republican candidates are antagonistic to government regulation, but some environmentalists say the former California governor is more of a conservationist than the President. While he was governor, Reagan cracked down on water pollution and refused to spend money on massive dams and canals. However, he was a firm opponent of government intervention to determine land use or to enact firm coastal protections and air pollution controls.

Reagan has advocated vigorous nuclear energy development, while many environmentalists oppose it as expensive and unsafe. "We must cut through bureaucratic red tape and obstacles thrown up by some who call themselves environmentalists, but who, in reality, want us to feel guilty for being a prosperous nation," he said. Udall, Carter well thought of Among the Democrats, Arizona Rep. Morris K. Udall and former Georgia Gov.

Jimmy Carter get environmentalists' highest marks on their records and current positions. California Gov. Edmund G. Brown has been criticized for not translating philosophy into action, and Idaho Sen. Frank Church for promoting expensive synthetic fuel and nuclear power development.

Carter has said, "If there is ever a conflict between development and environmental quality, I will go for beauty, clean air, water and landscape." While governor. Carter increased spending on natural resource programs, appointed conservationists to state office and used political muscle to pass bills protecting rivers, marshes and parks. A former nuclear engineer, he criticizes the Ford Administration's promotion of nuclear energy and advocates stricter environmental controls to prevent potential radiation accidents. Udall was an environmentalist before ecology became a popular issue. He led the fight in Congress for strong strip mining controls and for land use planning to limit urban sprawl and preserve critical environmental areas.

In the House, Udall has voted to restrict nuclear power and has introduced legislation to fund energy conservation and solar energy. He has spoken out against administration and labor efforts to weaken auto emissions standards in the Clean Air Act. To deal with energy shortages, Udall urges strict efficiency standards for appliances, better home insulation and factory conservation techniques, requirements for better gas mileage in cars and more federal support for mass transit. Brown's record 'fair' Brown has called his environmental record an "outstanding" area of accomplishment in his administration. He cited his support for a $75 million urban parks bill, for strong air pollution controls and for mass transit instead of highways.

However, some California conservationists have criticized Brown. "Brown says important things about the capability of natural ecosystems to absorb our excesses and backs up his words with a simple lifestyle (but) his performance in office is fair at best," said the League of Conservation Voters. He "has followed a pattern of endorsing general concepts but then failing to support the bills that are necessary to implement his ideas," the league charged. Church was an early leader in the Senate for legislation to protect scenic rivers, to establish wilderness areas, to require clean air standards and to clean up polluted rivers and lakes. But some environmentalists have criticized him for supporting Bureau of Reclamation dam and irrigation projects, which, while they help farmers, often pollute rivers and destroy wildlife.

They say his Senate votes show Church to be more of an "energy developer" than a conservationist. He favors government subsidies for developing synthetic fuels, coal gasification and liquefaction and oil shale production techniques considered expensive and wasteful by environmentalists. Copyright 1976 Rights of suspects Miranda ruling 10 years later By I A L. WORSNOP Editorial Research Reports It is now 10 years since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Miranda v.

Arizona on June 13, 1966. That landmark ruling on the rights of criminal suspects was acclaimed by civil libertarians and denounced by law enforcement officials, who argued it would impair their ability to bring criminals to justice. The Miranda decision in effect consolidated several previous Supreme Court opinions on the rights of the accused. It asserted that a suspect must be informed of his right to remain silent and of his right to have counsel present during interrogation. Moreover, it stated he must be told that anything he says may be held against him.

Miranda reinforced the court's decision in the 1964 case of Escobedo v. Illinois, which laid down the rule that any confession was inadmissible as evidence if the police questioned the suspect without letting him see a lawyer and without warning him that he had a right to remain silent. Among the many critics of. the Miranda decision was Truman Capote, the author of "In Cold Blood," a book about the 1959 murder in Kansas of four members of the Herbert W. Clutter family.

Testifying before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee in July 1966, Capote asserted that the two murderers in the Clutter case "would not even have been brought to trial, much less convicted" if the Miranda decision had been in force at the time of their capture. The Miranda decision has remained i a intact despite numerous challenges. A a i and again, the Supreme Court has affirmed the basic substance of the decision. At the same time, the court has consistently held that Miranda does not apply to persons not actually in police custody. In a 1971 decision, Harris v.

New York, the court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Miranda rules could nonetheless be used by the prosecutor to cast doubt on a suspect's credibility if the suspect chose to take the stand in his defense. The suspect in the Harris case had talked with the police after his arrest without having been advised of his right to remain silent and then had given contradictory testimony at his trial. The prosecutor proceeded to base his cross-examination on the earlier statements to the police. In upholding the defendant's subsequent conviction, the court declared: "The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances. We hold that petitioner's credibility was appropriately impeached by the use of his earlier conflicting statements." Ernesto Miranda, whose conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court decision that bears his name, was fatally stabbed in Phoenix on Jan.

31. At the time of his death he was reported to be printing and selling "Miranda cards" that spelled out suspects' rights. Two such cards were found on his body by the police. When Miranda's suspected murderer was arrested the following day, he was advised by the police of his right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during his interrogation. Copyright 1976 LURE'S OPINION "I'LL SAVE YOU FROM HIM!" "NO, PLL SAVE YOU FROM HIM!" Future of tax cuts to be decided soon Letters to the Editor Summer supervision Editor, the Citizen: On a recent warm day, I thought it would be nice for my 16-month-old twins and me to cool off in our backyard.

We filled our wading pool and proceeded to have a fine time, splashing and giggling. Through the spaces in our fence, I could make out two young boys on bicycles making their way slowly up the alley. I paid little attention, enjoying my children, the water and the sun. I was stunned when suddenly a stone larger than a walnut sailed over the fence and into our wading pool. It struck my wrist with enough force to break the skin and raise a large welt immediately.

shudder at the thought of what harm or injury it could have caused had it struck either of my children. By the time I got out of the water and to the fence, the boys had fled. During summer vacation youngsters will find idle time on their hands and will quite naturally set'k some form of recreation. 1 sincerely hope that the parents of these children will caution them, to respect others' rights uf privacy and not to interfere in other people's enjoyment. This could be a much more enjoyable summer without the worry of malicious behavior of idle youngsters.

MRS. M. D. WILSON 323 N. Norris Ave.

Insensitive editorial Editor, the Citizen: In the editorial "City Flood Plan More Dangerous Than Flood Threat" (Citizen, May 25), I detect elements of arrogance, insensitivity and irresponsibility. The title is both arrogant and insensitive; arrogant because it i i a conclusion and not a question, and insensitive because the threat to tax base through regulation is unequivocally superior to the direct flood threat to persons and property. It is undeniably irresponsible in the statement "And Tucson still hasn't recorded a severe storm of the century in any century!" This denies the very existence of floodplains because they are here and consequently must have originated in some century. Might I suggest that the Citizen start over with the premise that floodplains are for real and ask itself how they got that way. If the Citizen can't answer this question then perhaps it shouldn't inflict its thoughts on a generally innocent public.

It also is insensitive to demand that a catastrophe occur and thus prove itself before precautionary measures are taken. H. WESLEY PEIRCE 4511 E. San Carlos Place Supports West Point Editor, the Citizen: Our society sent the following letter to the superintendent oJ the U.S. Military Academy at West Point: "The members of the West Point Society of Southern Arizona have asked me to tell you that they support you and your command to the hilt in doing whatever needs to be done, in these difficult times, to maintain the standards of honor that have always been the hallmark of West Point." A I Society president 105 Sierra Vista Drive The clock is running toward another confrontation between the President add the Congress over budget policy.

On June 30 the tax cuts first enacted for 1975 and then extended for the first half of 1976 will expire. The Congress will almost certainly send the President a bill further extending them. The question will be whether the President will sign the In the budget he sent the Congress in January, the President proposed expenditures of $395 billion for next fiscal year (Oct. 1, 1976 to Sept. 30, 1977).

He said that if expenditures Herbert Slain wax chairman of thi' Council of Economic Advisers from 1972 until tember of 1974. He nine is professor of at llie University of Virginia. were held to that figure we could afford not only to extend the tax cuts of about $20 billion enacted last year but to increase the cuts by about $8 billion. That Herbert Stein would leave a deficit of $43 billion for next fiscal year. Congress has been working on the budget since January and has tentatively reached a program of its own.

The congressional program calls for expenditures of about $413 billion, or $18 billion more than the President proposed. However, the Congress would not increase the tax cuts beyond those made last year. Instead it is working on some reforms to pick up a few billion in revenue. The net of the congressional program wouid be a deficit of about $50 billion, compared with the President's $43 billion. The President made two main points in support of his program at the beginning of the year: First, he wanted to hold down the budget deficit.

That was defended as necessary to hold down the rate of inflation. It was also defended as necessary to reduce federal competition with private borrowers and thus to permit a high rate of private investment which would raise real incomes. Second, he wanted to hold federal spending down and cut taxes so that private individuals and businesses would retain and spend a larger proportion of their incomes and turn a smaller proportion over to the government. The main congressional argument has been that the larger total spending and larger deficit are needed in order to keep the recovery going at anything like a satisfactory rate. They also argue that many of the spending programs the President wants to cut are essential for the support of the poor and the provision of jobs for the unemployed.

In economic terms, it would appear that if the administration's proposal was logical in January it is still more logical today. The economy so far in 1976 has risen faster than anyone expected when the year opened. If a deficit of $43 billion was a good estimate in January of the amount we could tolerate without inflationary expansion, it is probably even a better estimate today. Politically, also, the administration's budget seems as appealing today as it was in January. The platform of lower budget and lower taxes has much support in the country.

But the President cannot get his program through by vetoing the tax bill. In present circumstances, it would be unclear whether he should veto it because it is too smalt or too large. It will be a smaller tax cut than he proposed himself, but with the congressional spending program it will leave a larger deficit than he wanted. Vetoing a cut of $20 billion will not get him a tax cut of $28 billion, and he presumably wouldn't want the $28 billion cut anyway unless he could also have the spending cuts he proposed. A more favorable ground for carrying on the budget fight with Congress will come on the spending side.

The President will have lots of opportunities to veto spending bills he doesn't like. Some of these vetoes will be sustained, and leave him in the position he wants to be in. And when his vetoes are overridden by the Democratic Congress he will have established more clearly the platform on which the Republicans will run this fall. Cnpynghl 1976 Ann Landers How to tell if you gamble too much All letters bearing writer's true name and address will be considered for publication. The editors reserve the right to edit letters In the Interest of clarity and brevity.

Mailing address: Box 267S7, Tucson KTtt Dear Ann Landers: I am a compulsive gambler and a member of Gamblers Anyony- mous. I read about this wonderful group in your column eight years ago, went to a meeting and have not gambled a penny's worth since. Please tell your readers again about Gamblers Anonymous, Ann. It is a unique fellowship of men and women who share their experiences and their strength in an effort to solve a common problem. It costs nothing to join.

The only requirement is the desire to quit gambling. How does one tell if he is a compulsive gambler? Here is a list of 20 questions. Anyone who answers yes to seven or more of these questions has a serious gambling problem. I hope you will print my letter, Ann. Millions people need help, and they don't know what to do or where to turn.

You can tell them. Do you lose time from work due to gambling? Is gambling making your home life unhappy? Is gambling affecting your reputation? Have you ever felt remorse after gambling? Do you ever gamble in the hope you will win some money so you can pay your debts or solve other financial difficulties? Does gambling keep you out late at night and prevent you from performing efficiently on the job the next day? After losing do you feel you must return as soon as possible and win back your losses? After a win do you have a strong urge to return and win more? Do you often gamble until your last dollar is gone? Do you ever borrow money to finance your gambling? Have you ever sold any personal property to finance gambling? Are you reluctant to use gambling money for normal expenditures? Do you ever lie about your losses? Do you ever gamble longer than you had planned because you just can't stop? Do you ever gamble to take your mind off your problems? Have you ever committed, or considered committing, an illegal act to finance gambling? Does gambling cause you to have difficulty in sleeping? Do arguments, disappointments or frustrations create within you a compulsion to gamble? Do you have an urge to celebrate good fortune by a few hours of gambling? Have you ever considered suicide as a result of your gambling? I repeat, anyone who answers yes to seven or more questions needs Gamblers Anonymous. Sign me SAM G. (CHICAGO) Dear Sam May I add a word? Any reader who flunks this test (or is married to someone who flunks it) is invited to write to the National Headquarters of Gamblers Anonymous, P.O. Box 17173, Los Angeles, Calif.

90017, for information on how to join your local chapter. This group has performed miracles and changed thousands of lives. It has my solid backing. Ann Landers 0 Planning a wedding? What's right? What's wrong? Ann Landers' completely new "The Bride's Guide" will relieve your anxiety. To receive a copy, send a dollar bill, plus a long, self- addressed, stamped envelope (24 cents postage) to Ann Landers, Tucson Daily Citizen, P.O.

Box 26767, Tucsffh, 85726. Copyright 1976.