Economic Bill of Rights

President Reagan’s plan for a constitutional amendment (July 3) to require a “super” majority vote by Congress to raise needed revenues is a blueprint for the destruction of one of the most basic concepts of our federal union. It is a call for tyranny by the minority and is completely at variance with the philosophy of majority rule. Thus, what was established 200 years ago by a group of leaders possessing great intellectual capabilities would be struck down by a person having one of the lesser intellects of all who have been elected to the highest office in the land.

With the proposed amendment, the President would perpetuate his voodoo economics into near-unchangeable law. The man who has given us $200-billion deficits, $2 trillion in a colossal debt, a staggering trade imbalance, and has placed us in a debtor-nation status, now assumes the role of our economic savior.

Reagan’s plan calls for greater emphasis on the private sector. Certainly no thinking person is advocating socialism, but I believe it is fair to ask what might happen in a completely unregulated society. Do the Ivan Boeskys, the Michael Deavers and their ilk take over? How often have either industry or labor successfully tried to regulate themselves? Is it not true that we have, over the past two centuries, been able to establish effective controls which protect us all? As imperfect as we know their implementation sometimes to have been, we also know that they have, by and large, protected the public interest. Few would deny that we have prospered under the sound philosophy of the founding fathers and legislation enacted throughout the years to prevent excesses of greed and uncontrolled exploitation.

What Reagan has been unable to do through appointments such as Interior Dept. secretaries James Watts and Donald Hodel, he now seeks to accomplish by a massive reduction, if not complete elimination, of controls over the economy. If he has his way, we can expect to see further despoliation of our forests, coastlines and national parklands, more acid rain, no safety rules for workers, to mention only a few.

Further, his plan is designed to curtail the powers of Congress, and thus to create an erosion of the entire system of checks and balances. I hope Congress and the American people will have the courage and foresight to nip this hare-brained scheme in the bud.

JOHN C. DAVIS

Irvine