4
Wednesday, October 15, 1975
University Daily Kansan
Ford's juggling act
Here we go again—another grandstand play by a politician in the year before an election. At least that's the way it seems.
President Ford's recent proposal to cut taxes and federal spending at the same time looks good at first glance. The tax cut of $28 billion would result in a yearly tax savings of $224 for a couple with two children earning an adjusted gross income of $10,000. For a single person earning $10,000, the tax savings would be $249 yearly. In addition, the federal government would chop $28 billion off the amount projected for federal spending next year. After all, who wouldn't like a tax break now and then?
Many of Ford's associates have been singing praise for his proposal. Ron Nessen, presidential press secretary, said Ford was initiating a historic turnaround in the way society was run. However, some disquieting questions about the proposal arise after a second look.
For one thing, Ford wants the tax cut to take effect Jan. 1, 1976, but he doesn't intend to reveal where he wants to cut spending until sometime later in January. A recent paper issued by the Democratic party whip's officer for Democratic members of the House is planned to cut veterans' programs? Or school lunch? Or health? Or education? His vetoes of health and education and nutrition bills this year are a good clue to his thinking."
Also, the delayed effect of spending cuts would give Ford a political advantage before the election, according to the Democrats. His tax cut would begin next January, but the $28 billion reduction in federal programs for fiscal 1977 wouldn't begin until October 1976. Thus, Ford would offer voters a tax
reduction plus a full set of government programs during the election campaign, but soon after the election the programs would be cut.
However, even if Ford were to institute spending cuts immediately, making $28 billion worth of them might not be as easy as he thinks. Ford has said the cuts wouldn't be concentrated in any one area but would affect all areas of government spending. Yet, the government already is committed to making about three-quarters of expenditures because of laws made in experience years. Previously committed expenditures include funding of programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, revenue sharing and unemployment assistance. Whether cuts could be made in these areas is debatable.
But the clincher is what Ford and his associates don't say when they talk about equal reductions in taxes and spending. They rarely mention the fact that even a balanced budget has an effect on the level of output in the economy. A glance at any basic economics textbook reveals that an equal reduction in taxes and government spending would result in a drop in the level of output, something that many economists are against now because the emphasis is on getting the economy geared up, not on slowing it down.
Perhaps Ford plans to boost the economy by a Jan. 1, 1976, tax decrease, and then moderate it with a spending decrease next October. Whether the effects of this would be good or bad is an open question. What should be done is that Ford is relying on the appeal of a balanced budget without touching on the issue of where it will lead economically. That's a good way to get more votes on election day.
**Paula Jolly**
Contributing Writer
"JERRY WHY DO THEY KEEP SANING THIS TAK CUT IS POLITICAL?"
James J. Kilpatrick
Lunch program bloated
WASHINGTON-The Congress blundered once more last week, when both chambers voted to override the President's veto of the Schoolunch and Child Nutrition Act. The veto should have been sustained. Both financially and
philosophically, one more bottomless pit has just been dug
The vetoed bill (H.R. 4222) was bad enough in itself. The measure is still more ominous for what its enactment portends. Last week's decisive
vote surely will encourage sponsors of the languishing Child and Family Services Act to seek action on their bill. In the name of little children, we are about to be led over one more watershed toward the total welfare state.
Kansan Forum / from third parties to first names McCarthy offers third choice / Gary Borg
"Third-party candidacy" has a ring of incredibility and hopelessness about it. But because the words "Democrat" and "Republican" now have a similar ring, perhaps the third-party option will benefit in next year's election.
Voters registered discontent with the enthroned two-party system this past fall in a referendum on a ballot, poll, 55 per cent said they would like to see some alternative to the traditional two candidates.
Exactly what they had in mind is hard to say. Wallace supporters probably can forget the bantam Alabaman, who has offered allegiance to, although not necessarily endorsement for, the Democratic party this time around.
Nader and Gardner are mentioned regularly in liberal circles. In fact, Nader has received editorial support from Mary McGroory, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, and the writer of *In Defense of the Public*, mention the public, which consistently has placed him high in polls of recognition and trustworthiness.
However, of these would-be and wished-up potential candidates, only McCarthy is running, and only McCarthy has
McCarthy's organizational viability, tenuous though it may be, could allow a campaign finance law that puts a premium on early fund raising, almost ensures that he will be the only candidate in charge to challenge the Democratic-Republican monopoly.
assembled a serious political organization (he prefers not to stand) who stands a chance of putting him on the ballot in every state.
New weapons evil /
Further inquiries into that complex octopus called the CIA have shown the malicious purposes behind the creation of poison and lethal weapon for the war of "chemical warfare."
The shadow of a new ghost seems to be haunting the already crippled peace of the world. It's as ghostly as answering the typical question "What are your advantages and disadvantages, poses to man: What's coming next?"
Now the menace might not be the devastating atomic missiles or the multiple warheads, but rather small capsules containing fatal substances capable of annihilating a human being in a matter of seconds, or darts carefully treated with shellfish toxin that can hit the victim without his knowledge, produce almost instantaneous death and not show up in an autopsy.
Surprisingly enough, it seems to be the beginning of the end. Just imagine such biological weapons in the hands of a maniac or, possibly, in the hands of the middle-level CIA employee who refused to obey orders and had mass poison developed by the CIA. Imagine the power of a country that has fully-acquired control over chemical weapons and wouldn't have to use them when facing a direct threat to its national security.
Evidence such as the death of three CIA members who were seriously affected by the processing of chemical poisons
The curtain behind which potential biological warfare hides has been drawn. The immediate step to take is an international treaty entirely the possible use or even development of weapons. If the United States and Russia have already reached agreement on a draft of an international treaty to broadly ban the use of environmental warfare techniques,
Rafael Santos
or the alleged plans to poison Congolese patriot Patrick Lumamba suffice to show the dimensions and tremendous mortal potential of chemical warfare techniques.
Recent declarations by CIA director William E. Colby to a Senate committee have opened a new door to one of the many obscure operations of the CIA. Perhaps it is possible for a human being to conceive the feasibility of biological warfare, but his mind and conscience are more at ease when he thinks that such an option still exists only in the minds of treacherous creators and not in the hands of government agencies.
It was the hell of the Andromeda virus that wiped out a great portion of the human race in that famous novel and film, the Andromeda Strain." Unfurently, it isn't unfuriously.
Now that the possible use of poisons and deadly darts has been revealed, a serious question is posed. Should military forces deploy warfare efforts to building up chemical weapons stock?
Let's keep living with the nuclear stocks and hope that, for the sake of peace, they're not used. With malevolent revelations by CIA officials, camouflaged aggression and the arms race could very well be getting out of control.
why shouldn't all nations do the same thing with chemical warfare?
Chemical weapon ambitions by any country must not be allowed. Let's wait, if we must, the nuclear mushroom to appear is but for God's sake let's stay away from biological warfare.
Anyhow, what is the difference between manipulating the climate, triggering earthquakes or disturbing the ozone layer and increasing ultraviolet radiation, and destroying by means of chemical solutions and gases? It's still destruction of the human race, and that is all there is to it.
could be the beginning of collective manipulation and eventual human destruction, they said.
A recent TV demonstration of the effects of an elementary chemical gas on the senses of a human being impressed and even made some of the viewers tremble. Chemical warfare
have grown weary enough of the mediocre to dare to move in new directions. The coming election could be a time to set aside government by stalemate and veto, ineptitude and inaction—a government in which party alignment often becomes more than that of the biting heads rather than to a combination of talents to set reasonable courses for the nation's energies.
However, McCarthy's appeal to voters is virtually untested. Certainly, his liberal espousals won't win many of those who supported Wallace in 1988. He also appealed to voters a decent showing based largely on popularity in one region, such as the South. His appeal must be nationwide and must reach a broad range of voters.
This is the point at which McCarthy may stumble. In the past, he has appealed to the intellectual upper crust. His approach to campaigning has been scholarly, dry and impetuous. He was a strong support was broad in 1968, only because his opposition to the Vietnam war appealed to those with similar passions.
The absence of the war issue leaves only McCarthy the scholar. Garry Wills, adjunct professor of humanistics at John Hopkins University, said an intellectual stance is the poorest kind for a politician to take. In the September issue of Harper's magazine, Wills wrote that politicians must shun violence or adherence to principles if they hope to keep their constituents' favor. He maintains that people like to think they should vote for politicians. Therefore, they elect those who appear to be their equals or inferiors.
McCarthy noted this himself when he reminded us that George Washington, in his farewell address, issued a stronger warning against anticommergers against entanglements. Washington's fears were borne out, McCarthy said, when Democrats continued to support the war in Vietnam until the very last days of Lyndon Johnson's presidency and opposed the war only when it became clear that although Nixon essentially held to Johnson's war policies.
But maybe enough people
But even if one sets aside the emotionally powerful Vietnam issue and other subjects about which liberals smugly may hold that there is no "sos," McCarthy still deserves to be listened to, if only because he represents a departure from a tired system.
McGovern's campaign slogan was, "Come home, America!" The campaign has a stern, "Pay attention!" Maybe we can learn something.
The question ought to have been asked years ago and it should be been asked last week: How in the name of the Founding Fathers did the federal government get into the business banking industry? Constitution impose no limits upon the legislative powers of Congress? Has the general welfare clause become a boundless reservoir in which the Tenth Amendment drowns?
No one knows how much H. R. 4222 will cost. The best estimate is about $3 million for fiscal year, roughly $1.2 billion more than what the White House had recommended for such programs. Those who worked with the program to the food stamp program will recognize a mushroom spore.
Name abuse blasted /
Next to the latrine affiliation,
my secondary gripe is against
the hookers who traduced John
That is what this liberal Congress seems to be saying. The vote to override was 397-18 in the House, 79-13 in the Senate. Democrats thought to be conservative voted to override. Politically speaking, they felt they could not do otherwise.
John Tharp
Under H. R. 4222, which now becomes law, the old familiar school lunch program will become beyond demand. The aid designates nonschool food programs, with feeding programs for mothers and with summer feeding programs to make the school breakfast program permanent. Under this measure, children from families of four with incomes of $10,000 or higher are eligible for subsidized meals
Then the damn Yankees invented Johnny Reb, a contemptuous sobriquet for their southern countrymen. The bloody British, not to be outdone by that or (John Q.), conceived John Bull, an average subject. How do Anglos operate to steers?
Johns, let's liberate our name, which is of Hebrew origin, meaning "the Lord's grace." How in Lord's grace could it mutate to become synonymous with toilet? Twenty-one popes and five rabbis did and did they have anything in common with a bathroom? Call it a Ken, or if you are a femliber, a Joan, or a head, but not the name which appears 30 times in the Roman calendar on saint's feast days.
For almost 22 years I've noticed the gross misuse of the most popular and common name in the western world: John. I have an above average aversion to the defamation of John, because it is the name I have chosen to retain.
What about his living cousin, John Q. Public? That makes little sense. John Q. was our sixth resident's first name and initial.
John the Baptist dunked Jesus. John the beloved apostle was the only one of the dozen who died a natural death. So why refer to an unknown corpse on a cold slab as a John Doe?
Because it is so prevalent, people continue to deviate it. We can see this by saying guage expert wrote that Jack became recognized as a familiar equivalent of John, "by some mysterious process."
John exists in over 100 forms.
Jon, Jonathan, Johnny, Jean
(French), Johann (German),
Ian (Scottish), Shane (French),
Jan (Dutch), Hannah (German),
Nan (Spanish), Giovanni (Italian)
and Jan (Dan) are forms that make it the most popular name in Europe.
Much mystery surrounds the vilification of my name. How I am associated with cornbread (Johnny cake), or an open-back hospital gown (johnny), or a Leuteen hat (first John's) John-Boy years before the Waltons were created, but now several people use the hyphenated version. Dad still does.
The same sentiments that propelled H. R. 4222 to enactment will provide fuel for S. 626, the new child development act which nessata Sen. Walter Mondale. (A companion bill, H. R. 2966, sponsored chiefly by Rep. John Brademakes of Indiana, is pending in the House). Hearings on this dangerous measure were held on Thursday and has been napping quietly in a subcommittee ever since.
Today, numerous groups are rallying around specific causes. Certain lethanders, farmers, teachers, and students all share an entity, the name John. Brothers, let's do something about the masses. I will help them. I advocate an end to the misuse of the name John.
as a nickname for their clients, not the most virile, but all their tricks. If most of my brother Johns are like me, the closest contact with Xaviera they have had is reading her Penthouse advice column.
Senator Mondale doubleshall will wake it up. If "child is familiar," Congress adopted such a
the sleeping Senate bill. True, a token effort has been made to paper over the most sinister implications of the 1971 proposal. The revised bill is replete with fulsome gestures toward parent participation. It also stresses that parents pleased to see parents become "partners" with government in the rearing of their children. A more presumptuous "partnership" could be devised. No one should be fooled by a parental plan. The basic BraDEramas bill is the same bold, far-reaching scheme advanced in 1971 for the essential Sovietization of the American family. For all its deceitive trimmings, this bill represents the prime parent of millions of children. In the formative years of early childhood, under this massive program, the role of natural parents would become merely social, psychologist, psychologists and behavioral specialists would shape the infant clay.
program as Title V of the Economic Opportunity Act of On December 10 of that year, Press Nixie imposed a restraint veto.
It is useful to recall what Nixon said about the 1971 bill. Its laudable intent, he said, "its overshadowed by fiscal irresponsibility, sensitive and frankness, weakening implications." Nixon termed the bill, "A long leap into the dark for the United States government and the American people." To adopt the bill, he said, "would commit the national government to the side of communal approaches to child rearing."
Compared with the Mondale-Brademas measure, the just-enacted school lunch bill is chickenfeed. If "child development" becomes law, the cost swiftly will escalate into multiple billions. Longfellow once remarked on nature's plan: "The child should grow into a monster." The Mondale-Brademas baby one day will become a monster. *c* 1975 Washington Star Symbibic Inc.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas weekly journals, *The College Review*, and *American Journal of Periodology*. Second-class postage paid at law-terms or $15 in travelable County and state tax, or $25 per subscription. $1.95 a semester, paid through the subscriptions are $1.3
Editor
Dannie Wilworth
Associate Editor
Debbie Gump
Campus Editor
Cefr Gump
Associate Gump Editor
Baehle Myglen
Assistant Campus Editors
John Smith
Chief Photographer
Don Smith
George Millett III.
George Millett III.
Business Manager
ind v
Assistant Business Manager Advertising Manager
Assistant Business Manager Linda Beckham
Antient Advertising Manager Manager
Assistant Claimed Agent
National Advertising Manager Debbie Service
National Advertising Manager Dan Spencer