Editing 76-14-A6 (section)

=== Transcript ===
It's too bad that more people aren't aware of some of the publications
available in our land that bring us, on a regular basis, gems of information
not usually found in the daily press. One such is Bill Buckley's NATIONAL
REVIEW.

In a recent issue (the magazine comes out every-other week) there were
a number of factual items illustrating some of the foibles of bureaucracy --
the things done with deadly seriousness by those who dwell in the marble puzzle
palaces on the Potomac, but which contribute exasperation to working, earning
Americans.

One example is news of a report I hadn't seen elsewhere about the
artificial sweeteners the Federal Drug Administration is determined to take away
from us. You'll recall their most recent decision, on saccharin, was based on
a test made in Canada that found if you fed rats saccharin in tremendous
quantities, a few developed cancer. Now, through NATIONAL REVIEW, we find those
Canadians, the Japanese and the Europeans have conducted massive new tests
and have given another artificial sweetener "sodium cyclamate" a clean bill of
health. In the meantime, however, one wonders how much dislocation has taken
place in that industry and at what cost as a result of the saccharin ban. Have
there been lay-offs of workers and cancellation of plans and programs? One can
wonder when the Federal Drug Administration will accept the new cyclamate finding.
It certainly didn't lose any time accepting the first report.

On another front, the Consumer Product Safety Commission reaped headlines
when it banned the sale of nearly 100 million dollars worth of children's
"nighties and jammies" because they were treated with the flame-retardant
chemical called "Tris". The chemical is now believed to threaten us with cancer,
or so they say. But NATIONAL REVIEW asks, -- QUOTE -- "guess who ordered the
manufacturers to treat the sleepwear with flame-retardant chemicals in the first
place?" -- UNQUOTE. That same Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Other items, which do not add to the dignity of government's image, have
to do with dog collars and a 12 year old boy's tree house. On the first item,
the Food and Drug Administration is reported as suing the manufacturers of
two dog training collars which, it alleges, hurt laboratory researcher's necks.
NATIONAL REVIEW suggests the collars don't keep the researchers from howling.
I don't think any of us would like a bit in our mouths either, but they are
pretty useful if you are riding a horse.

The tree house incident has to do with a local building inspection department
in Florence, Alabama. It seems that the 12 year old boy in Florence has an
8-by-10 tree house complete with shingled roof, windows, and a carpet on the floor.
Such comfort, the inspectors have ruled, is out of keeping with a tree house.
Therefore, Jamie's house is declared, -- QUOTE -- "Fit for human habitation." -- UNQUOTE.
Having so ruled, the inspectors then carefully surveyed and discovered
the tree house was less than 20 feet from a city street, therefore in violation
of a city ordinance. Jamie's choice, according to the inspectors, is to tear
down the tree house or move the tree. I wonder if anyone has looked into the
possibility of a little house wrecking -- say breaking the windows, ripping off
a few shingles and removing the carpet? If it wasn't so habitable it might be
allowed closer to the street.

Well, I'm grateful to NATIONAL REVIEW, and those other publications,
for reminding us of what a whale of an improvement just a little common sense
could make.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">