Freeport Journal-Standard from Freeport, Illinois on July 15, 1975 · Page 6
Get access to this page with a Free Trial

Freeport Journal-Standard from Freeport, Illinois · Page 6

Publication:
Location:
Freeport, Illinois
Issue Date:
Tuesday, July 15, 1975
Page:
Page 6
Start Free Trial
Cancel

AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER Published daily except Sunday and six legal holidays by The Freeport Journal-Standard Publishing Company FREEPORT JOURNAL-STANDARD TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1975 FREEPORT, ILLINOIS Instead Of Welfare The creation of jobs, either paid out of public money raised by taxation or contributed by private foundations, is accepted as a suitable, if limited, means of alleviating unemployment. It is recommended also because it is assumed to promote morale which is not necessarily the case with direct welfare. The difference of opinion between individuals and between the two political parties lies in the extent to which artificially created employment should be used. The objections are twofold; first, that it does not necessarily produce anything actually needed; second, that it must be paid for by those who work to produce something actually needed or at least salable in markets. In so far as they earn wages, they contribute to taxation in some degree. Before debating whether to create jobs by act of government, one must first take stock of the large number of Americans who are already on government payrolls. The number is already large, and has been estimated to amount to something like one-fourth of all persons regularly employed, if one includes the employes of government at all levels, from local to national, and in all the armed forces and civilian services. Many of the government jobs are administrative only. They do not necessarily produce anything of marketable value, but are of importance in carrying out various functions of government, such as direct welfare. One of the complaints about what is often called the "welfare mess" is that it requires so many payrollers to administer and distribute it. Nevertheless, much artificially created work can have great and even lasting value. One of the examples of this was the work done by the Civilian Conservation Corps in depression days, in conserving timber, preventing erosion on shore lines, abating nuisances and protecting the environment. A current example is Peace Corps work of many sorts in stimulating food production. Though much artificially created employment can be. and is of social or economic value, much also is not. An example of the sort of created work which is not of value, though it could be, is discussed in an excerpt from a Detroit newspaper published on this page today, in which a project originally intended to be of social value proved, on examination, to be of almost none. Rockefeller's Non-Candidacy For all the pestering of Nelson Rockefeller, to get him to say something that can be used against him or against Gerald Ford, the facts about Rockefeller's position remain what they have always been and will always be. It is against tradition and against common sense for a vice president to conduct a campaign for nomination or renomination. He is hitched to the presidential bandwagon and cannot unhitch himself or be unhitched, save by the presidential candidate himself after the presidential candidate has been safely renominated. Since a presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate cannot be necessarily equally popular, it behooves the vice president to bide his time and await developments which are largely unpredictable. That is what vice presidents have always done. It is what it is in the public interest for them to do. Separate campaigns for nomination would introduce an element of unnecessary and highly undesirable confusion into the presidential campaign, which is of para- 'mount importance. But it is precisely to introduce those elements of confusion that cause the media, unintentionally teaming up with the opponents of Ford, to continue the pestering, and the general public, had better accustom itself to it and ignore it as much as possible, since it will go on unabated whenever there is a lull in more legitimate news, until the convention is over. The political probability and the prudent course is for Ford and Rockefeller to remain friendly but not campaign partners. It has never been otherwise. It was so with Nixon and Agnew, who was far less acceptable to more people than is Rockefeller today. Nixon may have felt an impulse to ditch him, but he had done yeoman service for Nixon in baiting the press and other critics of Nixon. So Nixon wisely kept hands off and left it to Agnew.to disqualify himself. But the effort to get Rockefeller to declare himself is of special interest in connection with the effort in the U.S. Senate to make public officials chargeable with crime if they lie or knowingly mislead the public. The present attack on Rockefeller, no flaming liberal, is a persistent attempt to force him to lie or mislead. So far he has resisted. Making Lying A Crime It is hard to believe, but the U.S. Senate was recently asked to put its approval on an amendment to a pending bill that would make it a crime for a government official to knowingly lie to or deliberately mislead the public. The reason why it is hard to believe is that the fashion nowadays is to decriminalize various offenses long held to be criminal. Gambling of many sorts is fast being legalized, the use of marijuana, however injurious to youth, is on the way to being taken out of the crime list, and every defendant convicted of a crime appeals, on the advice of his attorney, to be punished much more gently or not at all for what is perhaps a prevailing human propensity. There is no doubt that lying is the resort of both public officials and private citizens, and while the private citizen may get convicted of perjury, the public official seldom does in the course of his political career. The fact is that lying is of many sorts and degrees, and there exists for every spoken assertion or assurance a gray area in which there may be a portion of truth and a portion of something not truth. If Congress ever passes a law against lying, it ought also to pass a law against asking public officials to answer questions. The endless curiosity of the public and the news media which serve the public requires confronting public figures with questions which they can only answer at their peril, and which require them to dodge and equivocate. But even if Congress were to pass a law against lying, could it not be kept a misdeameanor rather than a crime? The risk of enacting unenforceable laws is illustrated by many that were put on the statute books and later taken off because they were being evaded and bypassed too scandalously. None was more dramatic than the prohibition amendment, that noble experiment, enforcement of which by the Volstead Act promoted bootlegging to such an extent that it had to be repealed. Moreover, the repeal was succeeded by a rise in the legal traffic in and consumption of alcohol far beyond that which had prevailed in pre-prohibition days. It is a chilling thought that making lying a crime might eventuaUy promote and popularize it Returning To London For 200-Year Reunion NOW IM A SELF-5TAKTIN6 TYPE." MAX LERNER The Changing Winds In Gerald Ford's unsurprising announcement that he will run for the Presidency in 1976, the dog beneath the skin is the fact that the major political parties are shifting, and that Mr. Ford is counting on the shift to elect him. We call these shifts party realignments, as if they were autos whose wheels have to be brought back in line. Actually, parties are parts of the social organism. They have largely lost touch with the directing centers of ideas and interests - in the brain and heart of the society - which, usually tell them what they are there for, and what to do. They have to get back in touch again. The last great shift of this sort came with Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, and it elected him. Harry Truman renewed FDR's insight in 1948. Nixon was the first Republican to see what was happening, in 1968, but he tried to force a change by sheer bludgeoning, instead of going with the organism. Gerald Ford means to use what is happening, but is quieter about it. The Democrats, of course, must have seen what is happening by now, but they act as if they are still wrapped in a dream from which they cannot'awaken. The point is that the old class system - the owning and managerial rich, the middle class, the industrial proletariat - has dissolved. A new system is emerging - partly class and ethnic groups (white collar, blue collar, the blacks, the ethnics, the welfare poor), partly geographic (Northeast, the two- party South, the Heartland, the Mountain States, the Southwest, the Pacific), partly functional and age groups (knowledge industries, managers, campus elite, media and other professional elites, politically conscious women, the aging, the young). Most of these are unhappy with the party system and their place in it. Hence the confused, shifting situation. If the elections were held next week or next month, enough of these old and new groups would coalesce uneasily around Gerald Ford to elect him. He would beat any of the three Democratic front-runners - Kennedy, Wallace or Jackson. Three months ago it wasn't so, and three months from now it n\ay not be so. Fifteen months from now anything can happen. But right now it is so - despite Watergate and the Nixon carryover and the traumatic pardon and the inflation-depression and the energy crisis and Mr. Ford's own unglamorous image. It was a combination which everyone expected to doom Mr. Ford. It hasn't. The crazy part of it is that the under- lying changes which have produced the party shifts should logically be favoring the Democrats. This Is true of the voting strength of the blacks and that of the welfare poor, the cutting of Democrats into the Heartland and Mountain States and Southwest, their dominance on the Pacific Coast, their influence with the young and with the women's movement, their skill in using nonmachine volunteers in campaigns. But mostly it is their capture of the knowledge industries and media elite which should largely be Shaping the political climate. . . . . -. Yet the fact is that the Democrats haven't known how to manage their pp- litical bounty. They pushed everything to excess. In the McGovern campaign they developed a quota image and a new populism of the left which frightened off many of their natural allies. They seemed to be abandbning the traditional value system, and as a result they lost the blue-collar groups and the ethnics more than they had to, scared the formerly Democratic South more than they had to, went further with their spending economy and welfare state image than was reasonable, allowed the people to identify them too strongly with campus and rriedia power. They alienated many whom they could have held or won over, and allowed a populism of the right to be strengthened in the Wallace wing of their own party and to emerge in the Reagan wing of the Republicans. That is where we stand today. Los Angeles Times .'LONDON - It seems only fitting that at the beginning of the celebration of our Bicentennial we visit the mother country to whom all of us owe so much. I am happy to report, with only a few exceptions, that most Englishmen have gotten over the American Revolutionary War. In a few of the private gentlemen's clubs in London you may still hear someone shout "We've gotlo send more military aid to the Tories in the Colonies!" : . But now these men are, thankfully, in the minority, and most of the British people are willing to write off the Revolution as a bad show that George III got them into by duplicity and overconfidence. Still, one hard-liner at White's Club' told me, "We should have never gone in there with the Hessians unless we expected to win. Our problem was we didn't use everything in our arsenal against the revolutionaries. The only thing those shifty-eyed Colonialists understand is force." "Do you blame George III for getting you into the war you couldn't win?" Never Understood "I blame the War Office. They never understood the terrain, and they didn't think the insurrectionists would fight. After all, they reasoned, how could a rabble of uncivilized frontiersmen face up to the superior quality of arms and training of His Majesty's troops? But we still could have won if Parliament had not tied George Ill's hands when it came to voting more aid." There is also still a great deal of criticism in some circles of the military. At Boodle's Club a retired major told me, "If Gen. Wolfe had not been killed at Quebec in 1759 we would have never lost. He was the only military leader we had. In London Lord North received so many optimistic reports from the likes of Gen. Howe and Sir Henry Clinton that we all thought His Majesty's boys would be home by Christmas. We were lulled into a false sense of security by Gen. Cornwallis' extremely inflated body counts. Every- one over there insisted Washington was finished at Trenton, N.J." Another Hawk on the Colonies, Col. Blaime, Ret., said, "I don't know whether to say this publicly or not, bUt the reason we lost is the navy. Adm. Grave's decision not to engage the ART BUCHWALD French off the Chesapeake Bay was a disaster. I'm still waiting for an inquiry, but I doubt if it will take place. Too many heads would roll." Although the war is still being fought at White's and Boodle's, the man in the street rarely thinks about the American Revolution any more. The consensus-among most Britishers is that it's over and done with and; England may be a better place for haying given the Colonialists their independence. Seeing Is Believing "I was for us being there at the beginning," an old man in Hyde Park told me. "But then they invented television, and when I saw with my own eyes the frightful atrocities being committed by British troops I changed my mind." j An English banker said he was glad the American war was over because it had been such a drain on the budget. "We never really needed the Colonies," he said. "I would hate to think of what this country would be like today if America was part of the Empire. The pound would be weak and we'd have to defend the dollar. We would be obliged to teach the natives everything from labor negotiating to productivity. Heaven knows how long it would have taken the Colonies to get their economy in order and bring their standard of living up to ours. Besides, you could never trust an American to remain a loyal subject to the crown.!' "Why do you say that?" I asked him. "Just look at what your people did to Nixon.!' Los Angeles Times Jobs That Don't Get Results (Dolores Katz In Detroit Free Press) In May 1968, in response to the Detroit riots the year before, the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity began funding a medical clinic for poor people on the near west side. The clinic was called the Comprehensive Neighborhood Health Services Center. Operating out of a rent-free building in the city-owned Herman Keifer Hospital complex, it is supposed to provide comprehefsive health care to the 193,000 people who live in the area bounded by Livernois, the Chrysler Freeway, Grand Boulevard and McNichols. In the last seven years, while millions, of dollars of the public's money has been spent on the clinic, five independent studies have failed to find any evidence that it has substantially improved the health care of,the people it is supposed to serve. . In 1972, investigators from the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia studied the center and told the THE BETTER HALF By Barnes 1975, The Register and Tribune Svndicai* 'The boss wasn't REALLY coming for dinner. I just was in the mood for a good meal." government the clinic was delivering poor quality care to relatively few patients at high cost. "This is a neighborhood health center that from all the evidence puts the delivery of health care at the bottom of its priority list," the investigators concluded. A second study that year, by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which had taken over responsibility for the clinic, concluded that the center was being used primarily to provide patronage jobs, not good health care. "High-paying jobs are created while requests for medical equipment and supplies were being denied," the investigators reported. "Only the needs of the people it was meant to serve justify even an attempt at saving" the clinic. Despite the two reports, in September 1972, HEW funded the center for another year, giving it $1.$ million. .Herman Glass, who wajj fired as commissioner of Detroit General Hospital in March 1972, took over as director of the clinic in November 1972. From December 1972 to December. 1973 the number of employes at the center increased to 50 per cent to 134. The .center's budget for the coming' year includes 59 employes. . In August 1974, HEW conducted another study which found that the clinic .was actually serving fewer than 9,000 of the 193,000 people in the target area, and was in serious financial trouble because Glass hired dozens of unnecessary employes and spent money on unneeded expansion programs. HEW then ordered a management study by a Washington -group and a quality review of the clinic by a! Los Angeles group, and insisted that the board of directors be restructured and expanded. HEW also decided that •Glass should be retained as director. And the clinic's funding was continued. / • .-• •'•. ' *;'..'*-•'"' ' •-• How many more reports and studies: and evaluations are necessary; before ' the federal government can safely conclude that our money is being wasted? Down Narrowing Into Past WASHINGTON - Why are the progressive Republicans silent? In the wake of President Ford's formal announcement of his candidacy, political attention has been monopolized by the presumed threat of a rival candidacy by Ronald Reagan backed by the Republican Party's reactionary wing. But the party's progressive faction though no longer dominant is still very much in existence and has more reason to be dissatisfied with Ford's performance. The progressives have been in eclipse since. Sen. Barry Goldwater captured the nomination in 1964 and helped place his ally, Richard Nixon, in the White House four years later. But they have as much strength in the Senate as the Goldwaterites. Of the 38 GOP members, approximately 15 could be counted as progressive, another 15 as right-wingers, and the remaining eight as middle-of-the-rpaders. Under the Ford administration, these progressive Republicans have access to the White House but their opinions on' legislation and national policy carry little weight. Consider the four Presidential vetoes which were upheld by the House of Representatives and which the Ford entourage regards with great satisfaction and pride. The 15 liberal Republicans voted almost unanimously for the housing bill, the emergency jobs bill, and the strip mining bill, Indeed, on the strip mining bill Senate Republicans voted 26-to-10 in favor of it. On the farm bill, the vote crossed ideological lines with both liberal and conserva- WILLIAM SHANNON tive Republican blocs divided. On final passage, 16 Republicans voted for the farm bill and 15 voted against it. President Ford's "veto war" is thus being waged not only against the Democrats but also against a substantial segment of his own party. These Senate Republicans recognize that there can be no sustained economic recovery without easier credit for housing, that much more has to be done to help the unemployed, that strip mining is an abomination,, and that many small dairy and grain farmers are in serious difficulty because of inflation. The vetoes are "victories" only in terms of a narrowly conceived political strategy, a strategy devised by men who are looking at Ford's traditional Middle Western political base or over their shoulders to see if Ronald Reagan is gaining on them. But as a long-term trend, Democrats have steadily picked up Senate and House seats in what was once the Republican heartland from Ohio to Iowa. Ford's own congressional district went to. the Democrats as soon as he vacated it. So did Melvin Laird's district in Wisconsin. One after another, the Middle Western' bastions- are falling. As for the Reagan threat, it remains to be proved that the hard-core reactionaries have any greater national support than they had in the catastrophic 1964 Goldwater campaign. For example, of the 20 Senators elected from the 10 most populous states, only two - James Buckley of New York and John Tower of Texas - are reactionaries of the Goldwater-Reagan type. The strength of this group remains concentrated in the South and in the thinly-populated mountain and desert states. By contrast, the Republican progressives may be said t6 have mastered the secret of how to transcend their party's minority status and attract independent voters, particularly in the metropolitan suburbs. There have been few more durable vote-getters than Clifford Case and Jacob Javits, and their political longevity is due to something more substantial than the accidents of personality since younger men like Charles Mathias, Richard Schweiker, and Charles Percy are emulating their successes. Despite their impressive track record, progressive Republicans watch on the sidelines as Ford rejects their • opinions on legislation and turns for political counsel to Dean Burch, the manager of the Goldwater campaign. Progressives also see their talented people ignored. Elliot Richardson and •William Ruckelshaus were the heroes of the "Saturday night massacre." Richardson has been exiled to elegant desuetude in the London embassy, while Ruckelshaus wastes his talent •' for public service in a private law , practice. Former Sen. Charles Goodell : has been used only in a part-time job in N the amnesty program. Outstanding Republican governors like Tom McCall of • Oregon and Frank Sargent of Massachusetts were allowed to retire to private life rather than given major federal appointments. • Progressive Republican senators and their supporters know that Ford is ' severely handicapping himself by proceeding on the comfortable assumption that old-fashioned, stodgy, Chamber of Commerce conservatism can still carry the day. But Senator Percy who would like to run is reluctant to take the risks. Others are immobilized by their past loyalties to y RiK-ki'fflliT \sho is at the President's side. Dis'pinu-d by past defeats in national conventions, the progressive Republicans watch in silence as Ford and his coterie of inti- : mates lead the party down a narrow- - ing road into the past. : New York Times Service

What members have found on this page

Get access to Newspapers.com

  • The largest online newspaper archive
  • 11,200+ newspapers from the 1700s–2000s
  • Millions of additional pages added every month

Try it free