Editorial A Wise Approach Hutchinson News Saturday, Oct. 9, 1971 Page * Storing Our Grains Under Ezra Taft Benson, the surpluses of major grains grew mountainous, and costly both to farmers and to taxpayers. Remembering that previous GOP experience, the present USDA is skittish of accumulating reserves which, as the Farm Bureau puts it, "overhang the market and depress prices to farmers." That is one reason a new bill to establish a "strategic" reserve of wheat, corn, and soybeans faces trouble. This proposal authorizes the USDA to buy as much s.s 875 million bushels of feed grain, 300 million bushels of wheat, and 100 million bushels of soybeans. The purpose is to have a reserve available for short years. The reserve would be above the usual carryovers held by the trade and stored by farmers under loan. The theory is that government should be in a better position to meet emergencies, and to stabilize supplies. In turn, this program would level the up and clown price pattern. Those who oppose government grain reserves do so chiefly because of the price threat. But it must be noted that the problem with Ezra Benson is that he maintained a high price support system, but ruled out production controls. This meant a big surplus, and no management over its size. It is possible to conduct a practical supply-management, program in grains, as the new bill seeks. Our reserves, planned or unplanned, have been useful. They have been a tool of foreign policy, and our large wheat surplus forestalled famine in India just five years ago. If the price questions can be answered, this strategic reserve should 'be established. If possible, it should be extended to the international market, with cooperation from Canada, the Common Market, Great Britain, and Japan. It is always wise to be prepared for calamity. Rogers 9 Formula: Two Chinas With One Voice By C L. SULZBERGER (C) 1971 New York Times News Service PARIS—Secretary Rogers has devised a subtle formula to solve the issue of Chinese admission to the United Nations in a way that should eventually prove acceptable to both Chinas and most other governments. In essence his proposal, which is strongly to be commended, implies basing resolution of the problem on the Yalta agreement by Rloosevelt, Stalin and Churchill that the Soviet Union should have three votes in the United Nations Assembly, one for the U.S.S.R. itself and onel each for the Ukranian and| Byelorussian republics. That device, giving the! Soviets three assembly votes although all three spoke with one voice, proved with time to have little significance in mustering or opposing majorities. It is hard to imagine that an assembly resolution presented to the United States today could succeed or fail because of the Ukraine or Byelorrussia. Tentative Form Rogers' theory, which has so far been offered only in tentative form, is that "After all, we know Byelorussia and the Ukraine are not separate states" so Pe- Sulzberger king in no way need condemn the idea as implying that acceptance means recognition of two Chinas, communist and Taiwanese. On the contrary, if the concept is developed in debate it might be seen as laying the groundwork for two Peking 1 China votes in the U.N. some years hence —if Taiwan ever accepts absorption by the mainland. Meanwhile Taiwan would have to yield its permanent seat on the Security Council. This, after all, was set aside for China as such and not for this or that political China. But Taiwan would in no sense be called upon to give up its U.N. membership or assembly seat. Thus, for the present and perhaps for many years to come, there would be two Chinese voices in the Assembly, that of Peking and that of Taipei. .However, it would be clear that nothing could prevent the Taipei voice from echoing that of Peking if at some future date the two regimes should merge. Conversely, there is no legal insurance that if Byelorussia or the Ukraine ever seceded from the U.S.S.R. they would lose their U.N. membership. The original Russian bloc of three votes might simply disintegrate or spsak with more than one voice. Similarly, a technical problem could be posed before the U.N. by the proposed confederation of Egypt, Syria and Libya. They are to have one paramount chief of state while retaining national autonomy. But there is no likelihood that the three would agree to yielding two of their U.N. Assembly seats. On the contrary they may be expected to vote as a unit just like the three-vote Soviet bloc. Harmonious Voices Chiang Kai-shek's regime is clearly pre pared to fight any move threatening to weaken its present excessive position in the U.N. but the reality of the matter is obvious: Peking, not Taipei, deserves the permanent Security Council seat plus its own seat in the assembly. If there is also a Taiwanese Assembly seat, Chiang's regime continues to be free to speak out against Peking — or anyone else — for so long as it wishes. If Taiwan were still independent of China in the year 2000, it could oppose China in the Assembly. But if Taiwan had reached an accommodation or unification with China, there would be two harmonious Chinese voices in the Assembly just as there already are three harmonious Soviet voices. This is a wise approach which should be acceptable to everyone in the end although it is bound to be initially attacked by Taiwan and Albania, communist China's spokesman on the issue. By joining the U.N. Peking would formally commit itself to acceptance of a peaceful solu- tuion of outstanding problems — including that of Taiwan. But at the same time it could take comfort from the probability that within a few years it may well gain from having two Chinese voices in the U.N. 'Insidious' Consumerism John J. Kenyan of Wichita, an agent for the Better Business Bureau, was in Hutchinson the other day to complain about "the insidious rise of consumerism." Which brings to mind the story about the consumer who ordered a "guaranteed reliable time piece" for $50, and received a sun dial. The Better Business Bureau may have performed a fine job on its own terms, just as the sun dial does, but it doesn't perform anywhere near the function implicit in this "insidious rise of consumerism.'' If it had been doing that, we wouldn't have Ralph Naders and Bess Myersons and Virginia Knauers and Lance Burrs. Nor would we have consumer complaint columns in the newspapers, and Action Line programs on television, and a flock of new consumer laws. The BBB has worked to eliminate business frauds and shady sales techniques. It has fought the confidence man and the fly-by-night promoter. But it hasn't done much, if anything, about the quality of merchandise offered the consumer, whether he is buying an automobile or a child's rattle. It hasn't examined the extravagant advertising claims of detergent manufacturers, nor helped the housewife to leam whether the "giant economy" package is a better buy than the "big thrift" size. These are a few of the things "consumerism" is all about, and in which much progress has been made. If that be insidious, so be it. In the long pull, it can only be a boon, not only in the interests of the consumer but also in the interests of better business. Air Quality Qualms The pollution control unit of the State Board of Health wants to set air quality standards that will allow an increase of certain polluting materials. So says the attomey-general's office. The board has been asked to come up with standards that will better match the Kanses Air Quality Conservation Act. The board appears the view from here reluctant to do that, and has even refused to run its own tests in certain pollution areas. Federal air quality standards will go into effect in Kansas Jan. 1 unless the state control unit, headed by Mel Gray, tightens up its own. The federal act is less tough than the Kansas act, but both are tougher than Gray's proposal. Why this indifference to air quality? by s.a. The Talk Show Frank Gifford must be an oddball. He rambles along on television Monday nights with the apparent assumption that the viewers actually tuned in to watch a football game. That, of course, is just plain silly. They tuned in to hear the fascinating story of how Dandy Don Meredith got his nickname. That, and to hear Howard Cosell pronounce all those strange words. • • • IF YOU haven't caught up with this triple-play, Gifford to Cosell to Meredith, you haven't missed muc in the way of football, butl you have avoided whatl Sportswriter Jim Murray! calls the Chico, HarpoJ and Groucho of sports 1 * broadcasting. It's a talk show, earlier! 18 " in the evening. It does . have one defect: those fat fellows fumbling around- down there on the plastic grass occasionally get in the way of the dialog. • • • THIS DOESN'T often deter Cosell, who would be to ABC what Heywood Hale Broun is to CBS if he had Broun 's ear for the language. (Meredith apparently wants to fill in Junior Sample's spot for his network; at least, much of his material seems to come directly from "Hee-Haw") Cosell obviously gets irritated on occasion when a complicated fly pattern interrupts his monolog, but he resumes the story as soon as the football is dropped, as it usually is. Cosell is great on words like "derogate" and "rudimentary." As in, "I would not derogate the great work of the Colts' great back, but when he is facing a rudimentary offense like that of the Vikings he should Meredith not be so venturesome." "Venturesome" to Cosell may be translated as "silly." • • • IN ADDITION to his thigh-slappers, Meredith is noted for confusing the action. He once spotted Norm Snead quarterbacking the Vikings, although Snead remained on the bench throughout the evening. That same game, he kept assuring us that Snead surely would replace Gary Cuozzo, which was a bit baffling in view of the fact that Cuozzo passed for 232 yards—his career high. Meredith also gets the offensive and defensive players mixed. This may be deliberate because it gives Cosell the chance to observe that this confusion helps explain why Meredith threw so many interceptions in his quarterbacking days. • • • ONE MUST register a couple of complaints, i It is inevitable, perhaps that Meredith so frequently adopts the grammar peculari- ties of coaches and some broadcasters, referring to a contest as "real tight," a pass play as "real fine," a successful field goal as "real good," and a game delay as taking an "awful lot of time." Another irritation is Cosell's frequent use of the phrase, "out of," as in "Marvin Hubbard, out of Colgate," as though Colgate were a brood mare hatching a young thoroughbred. Finally, repetition may ruin the show. Gifford says, "he picked up about half the loss toward the first down," and Meredith says, "You're right, he picked up about half the loss toward the first down." That does seem redundant. But this is carping. The game plan is not to be too concerned over what is happening on the field. The plan is to be more entertaining than "Monday Night at the Movies" or the Doris Day show on the other networks, and usually the Marx Brothers of sports do that, real fine. Economy-Phase Tivo Trust and Cooperation Keys to New Game Plan 'YOK know — like Attica, or Kent State, or . 5> By MAX FRANKEL (C) 1971 New York Times News Service WASHINGTON — President Nixon has put teeth in his economic stabilization machine, as promised, but he obviously intends them to be used more for talking than biting. He is asking for major restraint on wages, prices and rents, but he is counting on business and labor interests to evolve the habit of restraint by common consent rather than formal government contraint. The structure of supervisory agencies that Nixon has designed to guard the economy after the absolute freeze ends on Nov. 13 n i add a brand new maze to the charts of government, There will be the "coun- ?™ cil" of government super- j| visors and the "board" to™ watch over pay and the "commission" to look after prices and assorted I committees to worry about' special problems in the health industry, about the actions of state and local governments, and about dividends and interest charges. Hold the Line But if they work as intended, they will not resort often to litigation and other instruments of federal power. They are sup- Frankel 4 If America Dies . . Predicting Destruction New Fad By RUSSELL BAKER (C) 1»71 New York Timet News Service WASHINGTON — Some days it seems that everybody is in love with catastrophe. The imminent destruction of the country is forecast casually over hamburgers. Unless, of course, certain conditions are met. "I'm telling you here and now that unless something is done, and done quickly, about the quality of hamburger rolls in this country, America is going to be destroyed." "If America dies, where will we bury it?" inquires an advertisement placed in Life magazine by the American Medical Association. The A.M.A. is worried about pollution, ecology and such because, as doctors of medicine, a sick environment can t make people sick, or something like that. The message of the ad doesn't matter; it's just that it's odd to see the staid old Baker nineteenth century A.M.A. falling so easily into the popular swinging catastrophe metaphor. Have we always sat around with smiles on our faces so calmly predicting the destruction of the republic? Or have we taken it up as a social past- time only since the hot speech of the late, great 1960's made it so trendy to discuss politics in terms of burning the country down, blowing the country up, kicking the Congress in the shins, and, in general, making revolution, revolution, revolution? All this talk about revolution has to be handled with sterilized tongs. The people who indulge in it so often make revolution sound like a really fun happening, sort of an evening at Truman Capote's. Whatever the reason, when the A.M.A. joins the chatter about the dying of America it is obvious that the contemplation of national catastrophe has arrived as a fact of fashion to be coped with. Talk about the country being destroyed induces visions of slam-bang movie endings — Samson pulling down the temple, John Wayne wiping out the entire army (enemy, of course). Everybody wiped out; thunder followed by echo, then dust, then silence. Scare Ourselves But this is not what happens when real countries are really destroyed. It is the imagery of movies, melodrama, television. We scare ourselves by sitting in the dark contemplating the possibility that we may not, after all, solve America's mass-transportation problem and that—. Thunder! Fantastic explosions of lights, followed by terrifically appropriate background music — just like "2001" — and then this really moving silence which fills the whole theater. And America has got what she deserved, we think, although we are very moved, very affected. And then we get up and leave the theater because the show is over, and the country destroyed, and we have to remember to pick up a quart of milk somewhere in the debris on the way home. The country probably is being destroyed right this moment. Certainly a good bit of It has been destroyed over the past 30 years, and an awful lot of it was destroyed before that. In fact, destruction of the country probably goes on pretty regularly, even during toe decades when nobody is sitting around predicting it. Where is the extroverted optimistic country that Franklin Roosevelt led off to war in 1941? Destroyed. Destroyed with the country that adored movies by Louis B. Mayer, admired gangsters, suspected bankers. Well, change destroys everything, even whole countries if you give it enough time, but it is not often very good melodrama, and when you reduce it to tinder- statement — "Change destroys everything sooner or later, even countries" — the banality of the idea thunders louder than the closeout of a De, Mille epic. And day after day, while the roof falls in all around us, we go right on trying to remember to pick up a quart of milk on ths way home. Looking Backward Ten Years Ago in 1961 Two Negro students of Claflin College in North Carolina were turned back from worshipping at the St. Paul's Methodist church in Orangeburg, S.C., a white church. The mayor suggested they worship with their own people. Townspeople said it was a publicity stunt. Twenty-five Years Ago in 1946 A buying scramble developed for meat, soap, sugar, toilet tissue. Stamey Hotel owners, Larry Beck and W. B. Cross, announced they were planning on enlarging the eating facilities. They bought a 50 feet lot just north of the hotel from George Gano. Fifty Years Ago in 1921 Financial troubles halted work on an oil test hear Halstead. Ed Frizell built the largest bam in Kansas on his Pawnee County land, longer than city block, 44 feet wide, 324 feet long. posed to hold the line and prod truants back into line by persuading the public and the key economic factors that almost everyone is indeed doing his part and restraining his appetite to reach a fair and common goal. Accordingly, the President's economic advisers were not prepared to answer any of the hundreds of policy questions that are raised by the prospect of transition from total freeze to a prolonged but indefinite period of restraint. They hope that the public persons watching prices and the public, labor and business representatives supervising wages will evolve their own standards, procedures and regulations to help drive the inflation rate down to 2 or 3 per cent by the end of next year. Even inside the government's new stabilization machine, therefore the crucial requirement will be for trust and cooperation. The wage monitors must came to feel that the price watchers are in step, and vice versa. To start with, the President granted the labor movement's wish to have wages administered by a quasi-autonomous board, with direct orders or standards imposed by the government. Here, too, he will count on voluntary submission to the public interest. But he is holding the government's own cost-of-living council in visible reserve in case the pay board proves too lax. Visible Club Similarly, the price controls and standards will be projected for largely voluntary compliance. Only some of the most important industries will have to get permission to raise prices. Another category will be trusted to act alone, povided it notifies the government. A third and fairly large category will be allowed to operate normally, with only the knowledge that its books and practices may come under surveillance and government ordsr. Here, too, the President will hold a visible-club — the threat of fines, injunctions and contempt proceedings. But he is not now creating the kind of bureaucracy that could check the size of every candy bar or catch the added charge for every dress and overcoat. Nor could his system work if it depended on constant court action. On profits, as on other factors, such as labor strikes, he is saying in effect that if mutual trust breaks down, no amount of government control can rescue the effort. This approach derives not only from the President 's well-advertised mistrust of bureaucratic controls but also from his basic objective in the fight on inflation. The ultimate aim is to break the psychology of inflation, the endless cycle of expectations among office boys and business executives and housewives that next year's pay must be substantially larger than this year's, to convey a sense of progress and to cover the universally expected increases in the costs of living and doing business. New Era As the President's advisers see their problem, it is essentially to persuade the citizenry that everyone will be getting fewer increases in pay and prices, that the cost of living will rise more modestly in the 'future and that a monetary restraint will contribute to the objective without seriously injuring anyone. The administration believes that it can change expectations in this manner only by demonstrating that a new era is at hand. What people see and feel is what they will expect for the future, Nixon believes, and he is confident mat they will comply if they see most everyone complying. Nixon has designed not only a machine but what promises to be the greatest test yet of his powers of leadership and persuasion.
What members have found on this page
Get access to Newspapers.com
- The largest online newspaper archive
- 11,100+ newspapers from the 1700s–2000s
- Millions of additional pages added every month