Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 7—October 16,1980
1980 Party Platforms & U.S. Bishops’ Positions
In 1976 NC News sent out a comparison of the
Democratic and Republican Party platforms with
the positions taken by the U.S. Catholic
Conference on various political issues. That
comparison was compiled by the USCC itself; NC
simply ran the text of the USCC document.
At this point, however, the USCC has no plans
to put together a similar comparison of this year’s
platforms. Instead, NC has compiled a
comparison divided in 10 parts.
The 10 parts focus on separate issues raised in
Bishop Thomas Kelly’s testimony before the
party platform committees last spring. The 10
issues are: jobs and housing, Latin America,
abortion, food and farms, education, justice and
civil rights, defense, health care, Middle East and
undocumented aliens.
In addition to the Democratic and Republican
positions, the series includes positions taken in
the Anderson-Lucey independent campaign
platform.
The comparison will begin in this issue of the
paper and conclude in next week’s issue.
UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS
Bishops: “A truly just and comprehensive immigration
policy should first strive to clarify our immigration goals,
laws, policies and structures so that they reflect the best
American interests and values.
“Additionally, such a policy should provide a generous
amnesty going back several years.. . The speedy
reunification of families should be a goal and integral part
of this policy.
“While effective enforcement of immigration laws is
needed, it is important to avoid employer sanctions whose
practical effect would very likely be to discourage the
employment of minority groups U.S. citizens and aliens,
especially Hispanics, who are in this country legally.”
Democrats: “We must work to resolve the issue of
undocumented residents in a fair and humane way. We
will oppose any legislation designed to allow workers into
the country to undercut U.S. wages and working
conditions, and which would re-establish the bracero
program of the past...
“We will work with other nations to develop
international policies to regularize population movement
and to protect the human rights of migrants even as we
protect the jobs of American workers and the economic
interest of the United States .. .
“The Immigration and Naturalization Service, in
enforcing the immigration laws, must recognize its
obligation to respect fully the human and constitutional
rights of all within our borders. Such respect must include
an end to practices affecting Hispanic, Caribbean, and
Asian-Pacific American community such as ‘neighborhood
sweeps’ and stop-and-search procedures which are
discriminatory or without probable cause.”
Republicans: “The traditional hospitality of the
American people has been severely tested by recent
events, but it remains the strongest in the world.
Republicans are proud that our people have opened their
arms and hearts to strangers from abroad and we favor an
immigration and refugee policy which is consistent with
this tradition... At the same time, United States
immigration and refugee policy must reflect the interests
of our national security and economic well-being.
Immigration into this county must not be determined
solely by foreign governments or even by the millions of
people around the world who wish to come to America.
Anderson-Lucey: “The 2,000-mile border we share
with Mexico presents unique problems, but unique
opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation as well.
The immigration of undocumented Mexican workers
affects the interests of many parties, not just those of our
two governments. It affects local communities on both
sides of the border; it affects the American worker as well
as the undocumented Mexican worker, and it affects our
own Hispanic-American community.
“We believe that any attempt to close the border
would be detrimental to our relations with Mexico. We are
opposed to any policy which requires the carrying of
work cards. Such a policy is inconsistent with this nation’s
fundamental commitment to civil rights.
“We must deal with the issue of Mexican immigration
within the context of other border issues. The existing
mechanisms for handling specific problems in the border
region have not been satisfactory. Therefore, an Anderson
administration would propose the creation of a joint
Mexican-American commission to promote cooperative
border development in an integrated fashion ...”
JOBS AND HOUSING
Bishops: “We call for an effective implementation of
the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act. This will
entail a concerted national commitment to genuine full
employment through comprehensive economic planning,
structural reforms and job creation programs, including
public service employment. ..
“We also call for a guarantee of a decent income for
those who cannot work and adequate assistance for those
in need ...
“While we believe that a full-scale effort to combat
inflation is urgently needed, we stress that this can and
should be done without cutting back on those social
programs which meet basic human needs . . . Federal
spending is not the primary cause of inflation, and cutting
the federal budget is not an adequate solution . . .
“National housing policy should provide sufficient
resources and programs to meet the housing needs of
low-and-moderate-income families, . . . oppose
“redlining” . .., focus effort on the special needs of
low-income families, blacks, Hispanics, rural people, the
elderly and the handicapped ...”
Democrats: “Current unemployment is too high and
must be lowered. .. We specifically reaffirm our
commitment to achieve all the goals of the
Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act...
“The Democratic Party supports federal legislation to
assure adequate minimum benefit levels to those who are
unemployed, including expansion of coverage to all wage
and salary workers and extended benefits for the longterm
unemployed ... We will take no action whose effect will
be a significant increase in unemployment, no fiscal
action, no monetary action, no budgetary action ...
“During the 1980s, we must work to meet the nation’s
needs for available, affordable housing by: ... continuing
progress toward eliminating sub-standard housing and
meeting the housing needs of this nation’s low and
moderate income families, the elderly and the
handicapped, including a substantial increase in the
authorization for public housing ...
“ The Fair Housing Act must be amended to give the
Department of Housing and Urban Development greater
enforcement ability, including cease and desist
authority...”
Republicans: “We propose to put Americans back to
work again by restoring real growth without inflation to
the United States economy. Republican programs and
initiatives detailed in this platform will create millions of
additional new jobs in the American workplace ...
“Despite the almost $100 million spent on
well-intended public sector employment and training
programs, the structural unemployment problem
continues to fester among minorities and young people. In
addition to creating a growth climate for job creation,
specific and targeted programs must be developed to
alleviate these problems . . .
“Guaranteed annual income schemes” would not serve
to preserve the family. “By supplanting parental
responsibility and by denying children parental guidance
and economic support, they encourage and reward the
fragmentation of families. This is unconscionable . . .
“Our citizens must have a real opportunity to live in
decent, affordable housing. Due to the disastrous policies
of the Carter administration and the Democratic Congress,
however, the goal of home ownership and all that
aspiration entails is now in jeopardy . ..
“We favor expansion of the Republican-sponsored
urban homesteading program as a means of restoring
abandoned housing . . .
Anderson-Lucey: “A sound economic policy must
incorporate a commitment to full employment. We
reaffirm the goals of the Humphrey-Hawkins Act and
condemn the president for his failure to consult with
Congress this past January before altering the timetable
set forth in that act. . .
“While the central focus of America’s full employment
policy must be on the creation and preservation of
productive, private sector jobs, there will be continuing
need for creative and complementary federal employment
programs to reach areas of unmet needs . . .
“We cannot remain indifferent to the hardship of those
who have lost their jobs, nor to the threat of future
layoffs. . . (But) we must resist appeals for either
large-scale spending increases or massive tax cuts that
would serve to further exacerbate the $30 million deficit
anticipated for fiscal year 1981 ...
“To deal with our housing problems, we propose . . .
programs such as urban homesteading . . ., encouraging
the conversion of abandoned buildings from other uses to
housing . . ., (and) extension of current programs that
encourage low and moderate, income urban residents to
develop a stake in their community through the
ownership of their own residences.”
ABORTION
Bishops: “The right to life is a basic human right which
should have the protection of law. Abortion is the
deliberate destruction of an unborn human being and
therefore violates this right.
“We reject the 1973 Supreme Court decisions on
abortion ... In order to restore basic legal protection for
the right to life for the unborn, we urge the adoption of
an amendment to the Constitution, and we specifically
request the (political parties) to support this endeavor.”
Democrats: “We fully recognize the religious and
ethical concerns which many Americans have about
abortion. We also recognize the belief of many Americans
that a woman has a right to choose whether and when to
have a child.
“The Democratic Party supports the 1973 Supreme
Court decision on abortion rights as the law of the land
and opposes any constitutional amendment to restrict or
overturn that decision.
“The Democratic Party recognizes reproductive
freedom as a fundamental human right. We therefore
oppose government interference in the reproductive
decisions of Americans, especially those government
programs or legislative restrictions that deny poor
Americans their right to privacy by funding or advocating
one or a limited number of reproductive choices only.
“Specifically, the Democratic Party opposes
involuntary or uninformed sterilization for women and
men, and opposes restrictions on funding for health
services for the poor that deny poor women especially the
right to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed right to
privacy.”
Republicans: “There can be no doubt that the question
of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various
issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights
under the law. While we recognize differing views on this
question among Americans in general - and in our own
party - we affirm our support of a constitutional
amendment to restore protection of the right to life for
unborn children. We also support the congressional efforts
to restrict the use of taxpayers’ dollars for abortion.
“We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the
family structure through its denial of the parent’s
obligation and right to guide their minor children.
“We will work for the appointment of judges at all
levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family
values and the sanctity of innocent human life.”
Anderson-Lucey: “The Anderson administration will:
(1) oppose government intrusion or coercion in the most
private of decisions - to bear or not to bear children. We
support freedom of choice for the individual; (2) oppose
any constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion and
urge that federal programs providing funding for medical
care of pregnancy and childbirth should include funding
for abortion; (3) strictly enforce federal regulations to
insure that sterilization is voluntary; (4) increase
government funding of family planning services, including
services for teen-agers, and (5) increase research to find
more effective methods of contraception, with the hope
the time will come soon when no woman finds it
necessary to have an abortion.”
EDUCATION
Bishops: “We believe that the rising costs of education
diminish the right of parents to educate their children in
the schools of their choice. Freedom of choice in
education is basic to the American tradition and must be
maintained if we are to achieve true social justice in our
society. We strongly urge support of tuition tax credit
legislation and other proposals such as educational
opportunity grants which help to insure the right of
parents to choose the education which best meets the
needs of their children.
“We also urge the support of federal education
legislation which provides for the equitable participation
of students and teachers attending the nation’s non-public
schools. We further recommend that this policy of
providing for the participation of non-public school
students be incorporated in all existing and future
legislation.”
“We advocate policies to improve the educational
opportunities available to economically disadvantaged
persons and minorities, including bicultural and bilingual
education, as well as compliance with legal requirements
for racially integrated schools.”
Democrats: “Our primary purpose in assisting
elementary and secondary education must be to assure a
quality public school system for all students. Private
schools, particularly parochial schools, are also an
important part of our diverse educational system. The
party accepts its commitment to the support of a
constitutionally acceptable method of providing tax aid
for the education of all pupils which do not racially
discriminate, and excluding so-called segregation
academies. Specifically, the party will continue to
advocate constitutionally permissible federal education
legislation which provides for the equitable participation
in federal programs of all low and moderate income
pupils.
“We support an effective bilingual program to reach all
limited English-proficiency people who need such
assistance.”
Republicans: “Federal education policy must be based
on the primacy of parental rights and responsibility.
Toward that end, we reaffirm our support for a system of
educational assistance based on tax credits that will in
part compensate parents for their financial sacrifices in
paying tuition at the elementary, secondary and
post-secondary level. This is a matter of fairness,
especially for low-income families, most of whom would
be free for the first time to choose for their children those
schools which best correspond to their own cultural and
moral values. In this way, the schools will be strengthened
by the families’ involvement, and the families’ strengths
will be reinforced by supportive cultural institutions.
“We are dismayed that the Carter administration
cruelly reneged on promises made during the 1976
campaign. Weilding the threat of his veto, Mr. Carter led
the fight against Republican attempts to make tuition tax
credits a reality.
“Next year, a Republican White House will assist, not
sabotage, congressional efforts to enact tuition tax relief
into law . ..
“We support Republican initiatives in the Congress to
restore the right of individuals to participate in voluntary,
non-denominational prayer in schools and other public
facilities . . .
“Because federal assistance should help local school
districts, not tie them up in red tape, we will strive to
replace the crazyquilt of wasteful programs with a system
of block grants that will restore decision-making to local
officials responsible to voters and parents.”
Anderson-Lucey: “An Anderson administration will
oppose tuition tax credits for primary and secondary
education. Tax expenditures of this nature would drain
much needed resources from public education needs at a
time when the public school system’s long-standing role as
the principal provider of quality education is endangered.
An Anderson administration, while recognizing the
important role of private primary and secondary
institutions, is committed to preserving the traditional
importance of free public education.”
“We recognize the special education needs of the
disadvantaged or the specially situated. We reaffirm our
commitment to quality education for all and for federal
support of special education initiatives, including targeted
assistance for low income and low achieving students and
bilingual education programs for those who possess
limited English language skills .. .
“Bilingual programs should not simply be transitions
toward a single language education, but rather should be
jointly designed by government and community
representatives with minority participation to maintain
and cultivate a student’s multiple linguistic capability.”
HEALTH CARE
Bishops: “We support a national health policy rooted
in the fundamental belief that every person has the right
to life, to bodily integrity and to the means which are
necessary and suitable for the development of life. In spite
of the enormous national commitment to health, the
present health care system has serious inadequacies.
Consequently, we strongly support comprehensive
national health insurance. We also strongly oppose the use
of national health insurance to pay for abortions.”
Democrats: “To meet the goals of a program that will
control costs and provide health coverage to every
American, the Democratic Party pledges to seek a national
health insurance program with the following features:
universal coverage . . ., comprehensive medical
benefits . . ., aggressive cost containment provisions . . .,
enhancement of the quality of care, an end to the
widespread use of exclusions that disadvantage
women . . ., reform of the health care system . . ., building
on the private health care delivery sector and preservation
of the physician-patient relationship, provision for
maximum individual choice of physician . . ., maintenance
of the private insurance industry . . ., redistribution of
services to ensure access to health care in underserved
areas, improvement of non-institutional health services so
that elderly, disabled, and other patients may remain in
their homes and out of institutions ...”
Republicans: “Republicans unequivocally oppose
socialized medicine, in whatever guise it is presented by
the Democratic Party. We reject the creation of a national
health service and all proposals for compulsory national
health insurance.
“Our country has made spectacular gains in health care
in recent decades. Most families are now covered by
private insurance, Medicare, or in the case of the poor, the
entirely free services under Medicaid.
“Republicans recognize that many health care
problems can be solved if government will work closely
with the private sector to find remedies that will enhance
our current system of excellent care. We applaud, as an
example, the voluntary effort which has been undertaken
by our nation’s hospitals to control costs. The results have
been encouraging. More remains to be done.
“What ails American medicine is government meddling
and the strait-jacket of federal programs. The prescription
for good health care is deregulation and an emphasis upon
consumer rights and patient choice.”
Anderson-Lucey: “The underlying strength of the
health care system in the United States lies in the quality,
ingenuity, and diversity that is a hallmark of a free and
diverse society. Federal health care policy must build on
these strengths.
“We cannot afford comprehensive, nationalized health
care at this time. Nor can we afford a laissez faire attitude
that simply blames our problems on federal regulation.
The fundamental federal objective must be to contribute
toward the overall health of our society while providing
for those who cannot adequately take care of their own
health care needs. We need an innovative, practical federal
health policy which closes the gaps In our health care
system, and complements and sustains the inherent
strengths of a private-based system.”
FOOD AND FARMS
Bishops: “We support nutrition programs which help
to meet the needs of hungry and malnourished Americans,
especially children, the poor, the unemployed and the
elderly. In this context, we feel it is essential that the food
stamp program be funded at adequate levels.
“We are witnessing an increased concentration of
ownership and control of land, resources and the means of
food production, processing and distribution. The U.S.
government. . . should support an agricultural system
based on small and moderate-sized family farms.
“We urge that U.S. policy for overseas food aid: (1)
make a clear separation of food aid from strategic and
political considerations; (2) give priority to the poorest
nations; (3) establish an international system of grain
reserves, and (4) promote agricultural development at the
level of the small farmer and the rural poor.”
Democrats: “We are committed to ensuring that
America’s poor do not suffer from lack of food. To this
end, we support continued funding of the food stamp
program and expansion of the Women, Infant and
Children (WIC) program . ..
“As state and local governments modify other benefit
programs on which low-income people depend, the food
stamp program becomes increasingly important ... We
remain committed to our current policy of full
funding. . .
“The real genius of American agriculture is the role and
prominence of the family farm. It is this form of
organization that provides agriculture with its vitality,
independent spirit, and progressiveness. We must protect
farmers from land speculators, giant farm combinations
and foreign buyers . . .
“We are deeply concerned about the growing problem
of world hunger as reported by the President’s
Commission on World Hunger. We are determined to
increase our resources, and to seek a similar increase on
the part of other nations, with a view toward solving this
problem by the end of the century.”
Republicans: “We plege a system that will. . . tighten
food stamp eligibility requirements . . .
“Those features of the present (welfare) law,
particularly the food stamp program, that draw into
assistance programs people who are capable of paying for
their own needs should be corrected. The humanitarian
purposes of such programs must not be corrupted by
eligibility loopholes. Food stamp program reforms
proposed by Republicans in Congress would accomplish
the twin goals of directing resources to those most in need
and streamlining administration . . .
“Federal estate and gift taxes have a particularly
pernicious effect on family farms. Young farmers who
inherit farm property are often forced to sell off part of
the family farm to pay their taxes. Once these taxes are
paid, young farmers often must begin their careers deeply
in debt. Our tax laws must be reformed to encourage
rather than discourage family farming and ranching. . .
“We will . . . aggressively expand markets abroad by
effectively using the Eisenhower Food for Peace program
and revolving credit incentives, working to remove foreign
restraints on American products, and encouraging tiie
development of dependable new markets in developing
countries.”
Anderson-Lucey: “Despite some of the earlier
problems associated with the program, the food stamp
program remains a vitally important element of our public
assistance delivery system. Food stamps have provided
timely and critical assistance to millions of Americans
whose household budgets have been disrupted by
temporary or permanent layoffs or whose incomes have
suffered due to age or physical handicap. As a
compassionate and humane society, we cannot ignore the
legitimate nutritional needs of those who would otherwise
go hungry. We shall continue to support full and adequate
funding of the food stamp programm .. .
“The real strength of American agriculture is the
family farm. If we are to preserve this institution,
however, we must adopt new measures designed to insure
the continuity of family farm ownership and eliminate
those aspects of current law that discriminate against the
family farmer.
“An Anderson administration will support further
reform of estate and inheritance tax policies. ..; insure
smaller farmers fair and equal access to federal credit
programs; expand current, long-term low-equity financing
programs to better enable young farm families to begin
full-time farming enterprises . . .
“The United States should return to its long tradition
of extending assistance to the needy peoples and countries
of the world . .. Our national interests, humanitarian
obligations and international responsibility demand that
we provide more funds for foreign assistance.”
(To Be Continued Next Weekl