Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona on April 6, 1969 · Page 11
Get access to this page with a Free Trial

A Publisher Extra Newspaper

Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona · Page 11

Publication:
Location:
Phoenix, Arizona
Issue Date:
Sunday, April 6, 1969
Page:
Page 11
Start Free Trial
Cancel

J fc *** iff** jitk * ttor) iktt you uy t hi / till to ike fath your tifit to sq ii ., .Voltaire 'Left Try To 'Get A Permit To Sleep In Lincoln Park During The Trial? April i, im Page 7 The People Speak Intellectual' Campus Speaker Gave Pointless, Shallow Talk MM*, TM Arfcoaa Republic: Looii E. Lomix, columnist, "educator, historian, and Negro intellectual" spoke to an overflow audience Friday, March 38, in Phoenix College auditorium, ostensibly on '"Hie Role of the Negro in American History." Lomax elicited frequent response from a small but loud minority segment of the audience — while others walked out. Lomax favors withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam on the basis that America can not solve her own problems, much less those of a country on the-other side of the world. This was typical though of the manifold gaps in logic used to justify many of Lomax's conclusions. HE TERMED the Vietnam conflict a "civil war," a conclusion which many respected intellectuals and historians reject, and said we have no business being Depletion Allowance It is now charged that the 27.5 per cent depletion allowance is a tax loophole which must be closed. The allowance on oil is one of more than 100 depletion allowances on irreplaceable commodities. Its elimination would be the equivalent of placing an additional tax between producer and consumer, most of which would eventually fall on the consumer. This allowance became law in 1926 to relieve the oil and gas producers of a tax on capital in addition to tax on income. Eighty per cent of the operators who started in oil production went broke. The government would gain annually from the elimination of the depletion allowance funds sufficient to operate less than two days. The government would realize much less tax from an unhealthy oil industry than from the industry now with its many entities and gifted personnel. With so many oil producers liquidated, it would be necessary for the government to drill the wells and produce the oil required for national security at the excessive cost to the consumer of transacting business by all government bureaus. Since its inception, every Congress has actively reviewed the 27.5 per cent depletion allowance and agreed it was best for our national economy. H. L. HUNT, Dallas, Texas ?. ; April Fool Joke The Supreme Court decision of April 1 is a grotesque April Fool joke on a country founded and advanced by individual effort. It punishes our nation's most. productive workers by giving labor unions power to take away a man's livelihood for doing his best at his job. decision stated that unions have "legitimate interest" in holding down production to ease "competitive pressure" among employes. This is the same as giving less industrious or less able workers a raise because they are legs productive. Union-contracted wages and fringe benefits will be received by all employes. But the highest-producing wage earners must return a portion of their earnings to the union in fines. TKus they are getting less in proportion to : the amount of work they do. X union-enforced production drop will cause the. price per unit to rise. The price always goes up when a commodity becomes •career. No price is unrelated to other prices. For example a rise in the price of paper increases the cost of labeling' which increases the production cost of aspirin and simultaneously raises, the drug company's overhead by increasing the price of all paper products (letterheads, packing cartons, toilet tissue) which it consumes in business operation. No union can shield its members from all the bard facts of reality. These same workers the union wants to protect from competing with their fellow workers must compete with their fellow consumers. All of us will pay more money for the fewer goods available. SONDRA GARNER Mesa Social Ills J am writing in reference to an article which appeared in The Arizona Republic on March M which reported the formation of a "social action" group by a number of the Valley clergymen. A trend seems to be developing in this country for our clergy to form action iraupc to deal with the social ills of the in the country. He carefully neglected to mention the Geneva Agreement that the country was to be divided, nor did he mention the countless North Vietnamese violations of this agreement "Forgotten" too, was the fact that we were requested to come into the country by the South Vietnamese government. Lomax is in favor of racial equality and repeatedly struck out at the WASP ethic which he feels places an insurmountable burden on the shoulders of the Negro in America. HE SPOKE of hunger and poverty in America and mentioned "black and brown babies in South Carolina with foot-long .worms in their bellies." All these things he spoke of in emotionally charged terms. He did not tell the audience, though, of his home in an exclusive upper - income bracket, "WASP" neighborhood in Beverly Hills. Nor did he comment on his remark of the day before at an interview concerning Gen. Curtis Le May, one of his neighbors, which stated, "I don't want that cat or anyone like him living next door to me." Le May is representative of a segment of American society which Lomax obviously detests. OVERALL, it was a pointless and shallow "speech" delivered in hollow words with one hand held out offering a gilded dream and empty promise while the other hand clutched securely at his wallet. Manure by any other name is still manure, though, and there are always those who are willing to buy it, if it is packaged attractively enough. But hypo- cricy is not something that is new in the world. RAY ALLEN VILLANUEVA Another Reason Relative to the recent comments by the Honorable Stewart Udall as to why he thinks the State of Arizona.is going solidly Republican, I should like to point out^ the following: I have always been a Democrat since the advent of the New Deal and I have always given President Johnson the benefit of every doubt with respect to integrity and sincerity. As I now look back on it, I think of Lyndon B. Johnson not as one who will go down in history as a good or a bad President, but as the most disastrous President the United States ever had. The only perquisites that he did not take with him to Texas were the White House and Fort Knox because he probably figures it was not worth the trouble to move them such a long distance. I believe that I echo the sentiments of many former Democrats. CHARLES J. SULLIVAN U.S. Reconstfuction Programs Demand Defense Budget Cuts By JAMES RESTON New York Times News Service Review Of News Events In Washington Last Week By CHARLES BARTLETT Reporters are puzzled because Nixon aides, in talking of the prospects for 1972, make such a point of stating their anticipation that Sen. Edward Kennedy will be the Democratic opponent. The strategy behind this talk is to stamp Kennedy as quickly as possible as a candidate in the public's mind so that he will face an increasing risk of overexposure. The risk already exists, because the media give so much attention to every statement by the senator that he appears to be making his move when he is in fact anxious to keep a noncommittal stance on 1972. He is also drawn into the big picture by friends and aides of his late brothers who feed him issues and talk as if they were girding for combat in 1972. * * * •>. ?: >' THE FAILURE of British Prime ^Minister Harold Wilson to turn up in Washington for the Eisenhower funeral was something of a surprise since he earlier advised President Nixon that more has been accomplished by world leaders in informal exchanges at recent state funerals than in elaborately staged summit talks. There is no sign of any significant developments as a consequence of the meetings in Washington last week. Vice President Spiro Agnew is credited with gracious handling of the visitors. To some he passed out cufflinks embossed with the seal of Maryland. Some were miffed because foreign ambassadors were required to stand for two hours in the Capitol rotunda before the ceremony there. * * * ' THE LONG MEETING between Presidents Nixon and De Gaulle did not produce any solid breakthrough in Franco-American relations. The two men are concentrating on building a climate of confidence in their dealings and have not, as far as is known, agreed to any concrete moves except an effort to intensify scientific co-operation in nonmilitary areas. There is no hint of new flexibility on De Gaulle's part in regard to NATO, although his foreign minister, Michel Debre, will be on hand for the anniversary observance next week. De Gaulle is not, French sources say, making any requests of the American President. * * * REPUBLICAN SENATORS, long dismayed by the tendency of their leader, Everett Dirksen, to dominate their weekly policy luncheons with rambling talk about himself and his dealings with the White House, are delighted by the tactics of the new chairman of the policy committee, Gordon Allott of Colorado. He carefully plans an agenda for each meeting which includes pro and con discussions of the key issues and leaves little tune for Dirksen's interjections. The new whip, Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, is also participating in the effort to bring more cohesion to the Republican ranks. * * * THE FEDERAL RESERVE Board is taking a philosophic view of attacks on Fed monetary policy that are being floated in the press by Nixon treasury aides. Fed officials maintain it is customary for the Treasury to turn on the FRB when an economic squeeze looms. Meanwhile, the White House is drafting a statement which will point the way to a relaxation of controls on American investments abroad and the Fed will respond with some loosening of its restrictions on the outflow of credit. Controls will not, however, be completely scrapped by the administration or the Fed until the inflation has been slowed. By JAMES RESTON New York Times Service WASHINGTON - The strategy of the Nixon administration is now beginning to come clear. The indications are that the President has decided to reduce the level of violence at once in Vietnam, begin withdrawing substantial forces from that conflict by the end of 1969, and negotiate a ceasefire, A compromise settlement and'a complete withdrawal of American troops from that country by the end of 1970. There are, of course, many variables in this strategy. President Nixon's principal advisors, for example, are divided now over just how many men can be pulled out this year — the figures at issue are from 50,000 to 100,000 — and they are also divided over continuing or reducing the present level of search and destroy missions in Vietnam, but the general direction of policy has apparently been set. It is toward de-escalation and disengagement and this has already started the quiet struggle over the post - Vietnam defense budget. # * * THE DEBATE over the antiballistic missile system is only the beginning of it. The scope and scale of the battle over the defense budget has not yet emerged in public, but in private it is developing into a major effort, not merely to cut back the armed services by a few billions, but to challenge many of the basic assumptions of the Pentagon, and swing it back from around $80 billion a year to $50 billion or $55 billion. This is the really big political confrontation that is over the horizon in America, and it dwarfs all the other confrontations over the cities and the races, and the universities, and poverty and the health services, for it is a $25 billion question that influences not only defense policy but the whole field of social and political reconstruction. This is not the kind of fundamental question President Nixon likes. His way is to modify existing policies and to give the impression of change without changing things very much. But he is faced with radical and even dangerous problems which cautious adjustments will not remove. After all the polite talk and Sunday supplement articles about the military industrial complex, there are now powerful men and forces in the U.S. which are finally determined to take this issue by the throat and force a major reallocation of national resources away from military defense and toward reconstruction on the home front. THE PENTAGON, the lobbyists for the aerospace industries and the powerful congressmen whose districts benefit from the big defense contracts have recognized this coming defense budget battle quicker than the politicians, preachers, publicists and students who are writing and demonstrating for social reconstruction in the U.S. They are already arguing that after the Vietnam war it will be essential to develop the new weapons systems that have been postponed because of the war. They are not very original but they are very determined. They are warning on Capitol Hill at precisely the right points of power about a new "missile gap." They are talking about "new intelligence" that "proves" the Soviets have an intercontinental first - strike missile that can destroy U.S. defenses and place its security in jeopardy. Therefore, while they admit that we have to cut the defense budget somewhat after Vietnam to make more money available for the problems at home, they are arguing with considerable skill that we must be "realistic" and keep ; the cuts to a very few billion. This appeal to national pride and fear of the Soviet may not be very original but it is directed very accurately at the key men in Congress whose power and political interests rest on a continuation of vast military budgets. * * * ALSO, THE NEW secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird of Wisconsin, is the' only man in the Nixon cabinet who has a powerful political constituency of his own. He has great influence with the political leaders of the Republican Party. His personal view of how to defend the country coincides closely to the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the views of chairmen Russell and Stennis and the other military - oriented elders of Congress, and this is a formidable coalition not only of political but of military, industrial and, one must now add, labor union forces that would like to keep the military budget about where it is, even after Vietnam. This is not a political conspiracy. These are not cyncal men. They honestly believe that the best way to defend the country from its external enemies, keep the national economy booming along and minimize unemployment is to maintain a defense budget of $75 billion to $80 billion. The issue is really philosophical. How best to defend the nation? What threatens it most — its external enemies or its internal divisions and chaos? Arid specifically whether to take $20 billion to $25 billion out of the military budget. for the home front, or go on assuming that the external threat is greater than'iA anything else. .. .'.\ * * • ...'•: .(I "•••>;•' THESE ISSUES will come up even if the administration's de-escalation and disengagement policies in Vietnam do not work. The country has gone through these same arguments about how much money had to be voted for the Pentagon in the Truman administration — only then the hawks were saying we would be destroyed if we didn't vote $15 billion for military defense and the doves were saying the budget had to be kept to $10 billion or $12 billion. The difference now is that the military has prevailed for more than a generation, and even with over $75 billions for military defense the external problems remain, and the internal problems ';. have become much more serious. So we are now approaching a defense budget debate of major proportions, for only by deep cuts in this budget will it be possi-' ble to pay for the reconstruction ' grah.j c.i tii2 iv.;me front. The Eisenhower Years, In Retrospect, Were Peaceful Ones I might suggest that if these clergy would preach the Gospel with the same farvor as they form groups, maybe we SEN. TERRY JONES, By JOHN S. KNIGHT The Eisenhower years, scorned by the partisan press and leftish theoreticians of the academic community as a "do nothing" era, are viewed in retrospect as a time of peace and tranquility. This nostalgia for the good days of Ike and his famous grin was evident in every phase of the ceremonies paying tribute to the most popular President in American history. Dwight David Eisenhower held the affection and respect of his countrymen. Candor and complete honesty shone on his face. He was totally incapable of cant and hypocrisy, of scheming or artifice. These personal attributes removed President Eisenhower from much of the criticism which comes to every Chief Executive. Ike somehow stood above the tumult and the shouting. He held the people's faith and trust. They liked him for what he was, a man of humble origins whose distinguished career left intact the simplicity and unpretentiousness of his earlier days. To Americans everywhere, in war and peace, Ike was the father image — a good and kindly man who typified the meaning and traditions of the American heritage. * * * THERE ARE THOSE who maintain that President Eisenhower was either unaware of the pending social revolution in this country, or reluctant to plan for the many and varied challenges to come. Other Eisenhower critics assert that had our 34th President anticipated the problems which would later afflict our land, much of the present disaffection could have been allayed in time. I see little or no merit in these assertions. The nation liked wtwt it had in Ike — and barring the constitutional limitation — he could have been reelected for a third term despite poor health and advancing years. Moreover, the mood of the country during Ike's tenure of office was not attuned to sweeping reforms or dramatic change. For these were the moderate years, soon to be overtaken by the New Frontier and later the Great Society. True, President Eisenhower was no innovator except for creation of the new Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He opposed precipitous change on the sound theory that progress — to be effective — must be orderly. To lend support to this view, we have only to look upon the disorganization and failures of the politically motivated Great Society programs. Whether it be welfare or civil rights, more was promised than could possibly be delivered. * * * UNDER PRESIDENT EISENHOWER, inflation was held in check by the simple device of holding federal spending within reasonable bounds. This was in direct contrast to Lyndon Johnson's policy of assuring the people that the government should do more and more for the people on the rationalization that since the "United States is the richest country in the world, we can afford anything." We are now paying the price for our profligate ways, as witness the cruel in* flatten which is eroding the savings and pension checks of our elderly people now beyond the point of gainful employ* ment. Public revulsion against the war in Vietnam am) excesses of the Johnson administration on domestic programs contributed significantly to the election of Richard M. Nixon. As with Eisenhower, our new President correctly senses the need for a breathing spell, a period of reexamination to determine how the legislative measures voted by Congress in the Johnson years can be administered to make the programs work more effectively. Nixon's critics, as did Eisenhower's, are already clamoring for "more action" as if activity alone or a new mass of federal projects could somehow solve the nation's ills. • • • LEST THE IMPRESSION is left that Dwight D. Eisenhower merely suited his times as a kindly, benevolent gentleman exuding good will while residing at the White House, there was also the Eisenhower who disciplined his good friend and fellow soldier. Gen. George Patton, for what Ike considered to be an unfor- giveable incident. Other U.S. officers felt the lash of Ike's tongue when he thought they were out of line. As supreme commander of the allied expeditionary forces in World War II, it was General Eisenhower who composed differences and made the gut decisions. It WJM Eisenhower who was able to d«tl with the testy Field Marshall Montgomery, and often to the extreme displeasure of Gen, Omar Bradley who was Ike's intimate and the best combat planner in the European theater, It was Ike who sent U.S. Marines to Lebanon in 1958 in a decision with which I emphatically disagreed. Yet the act called for courage. It was Ike who condemned the Israeli* invasion of the Sinai peninsula and the French-British attack upon Egypt in 1956. History will always recount this as a questionable decision in the light ol events to follow. However, President Eisenhower supported the United Nations view that these acts constituted aggression and were therefore in violation of the U.N. charter. It was Ike who prevailed over his po- titical and military advisers in 1954 when they were urging the President to send American forces to rescue the French prior to the fall of Dien Bien Phu. And it was not Ike, but President Harry Truman who deployed the first military assistance team to Vietnam in 1950. President Eisenhower did later increase the number of these advisers, totalling 327 by the end of his second term, but only on the pledge by the Saigon government that certain land and other reforms would be made. These assurances were never fulfilled. It remained for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson to send troops to Vietnam, first in small detachments but later by the hundreds of thousands. So the claim that the Vietnam war was inherited from Eisenhower is in collision with the truth. GENERAL EISENHOWER'S venture into politics was hesitant since he recognized himself as a novice in that field. I flew to NATO headquarters in the spring of 1952 to ascertain his interest in the presidency. Ike talked of "duty,to his country," but seemed displeased over the pressures being put upon him by Republican businessmen and politicians who wanted him because the late Sen. Robert A. Taft "couldn't win." But the more appealing call to duty became too much for Ike to resist. He won the nomination in a bitter contest with Senator Taft and went on to capture the election from the late Adlai Stevenson. As President, the former general be- lieved in staff work and delegation of authority. He was first embarrassed in 1957 by Gov. Sherman Adams, chief presidential assistant, who remarked. after Russia launched Sputnik I that the United States shouldn't be playing basketball in outer space. Adams later resigned following a minor scandal. The greatest tragedy of the Eisenhower years was the appointment of John Foster Dulles as secretary of State. The late Mr. Dulles was an advocate of "bluff and bluster" in foreign affairs, and architect of the Southeast Aeia Treaty Organization which was cited so often by apologists for the Johnson administration as "a solemn commitment." Actually, it was nothing of the kind, but the fiction has continued to this time. • * * PRESIDENT EISENHOWER stood in awe of Secretary Dulles, though his own intuitive judgments on foreign policy were far more perceptive. In measuring Ike's convictions, let it be remembered that he was the first to warn of the dangers of the military' industrial complex if permitted to |et out of hand. Eisenhower was less than courageous in failing to stand up against, Sen, Jo* seph McCarthy when the Wisconsin senator impugned the man who really . made Ike, the late Gen. George Mar- . shall. Charitably, one can attribute tbis mistake to poor political advice, But as we think of Ike, the Man who survived countless illnesses, the contemptible attacks by the John Birch S> ciety and a lack-luster second term — our hearts are full with gratitude tor his . devoted and unselfish «eryfeM to fee country he loved so much. .. .. . • -•. At ease, Ike. \

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

Publisher Extra Newspapers

  • Exclusive licensed content from premium publishers like the Arizona Republic
  • Archives through last month
  • Continually updated

Try it free