4
Friday, April 15, 1977
University Daily Kansan
Comment
Opinions on this page do not necessitate the views of the University of Kansas or the School of Journalism
Carter critics rash
Since 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt stormed into office carrying a rash of radical programs, there has been a fascination with the first 100 days of a President's first term.
Those first days are viewed as an indication of the man's abilities and as a peek at what will come during the remainder of his days in office. The danger in this practice is that Americans have come to expect that of their presidents in those first days or office.
AFTER ALL, America isn't usually in the midst of a depression, and the man taking office usually doesn't have the abilities of a Franklin Roosevelt.
Jimmy Carter is now in the 85th day of his 100-day testing period, and many observers have again fallen into the premature judgment trap. There are those who are upset because Jimmy Carter has been in office several years and hasn't heard of the inflation, the high rate of unemployment, the arms race and the common cold.
Carter has been criticized for listening to classical music in his office, going to too many plays and letting his daughter build a tree house. He has been criticized because of what his brother says and does and what his wife says and does.
PERHAPS that is what happens when Americans, drained from the days of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, look to a newcomer for a bit too much. Bill Clinton has a more good things Brian had to be said for Jimmy Carter's presidency at this early stage.
Carter has endured the strongest criticism for his most recent downfall: the failure to reach an arms limitations agreement with the Soviet Union.
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance had hoped to begin constructing an arms limitation package while he visited the Soviet Union earlier this month. But the Russians shoved Vance's proposals back in his face, scowling that they were too silly to discuss.
So America's conservatives, who had been forced to admire Carter's human rights stance earlier this year, saw their chance to get back to more comfortable ground. They said, with enviable hindsight, that Carter's stance on human rights had been too strong
and hinted that, on second thought, he had no right to tell other countries what to do.
THAT'S AN easy enough stand to take. But anyone who was surprised to see the Soviets use their first chance to strike a counterblow has forgotten his lessons in international politics.
The Soviet rejection of Vance's proposals was a public relations move, pure and simple. The Russians made their point, in banner headlines, and quickly used quieter routes to tell Washington they really are interested in reaching an arms limitation.
Meanwhile, the Carter administration's stance on human rights remains as valid as ever. In the end, there will be an arms trade that will not be unjustly unaffected by the human rights issue.
In the economic arena, Carter is proving to be a fiscal conservative, much to the relief of businessmen. Except for his $50 tax rebate proposal—which is shaping up as the major blunder of his early days in the White House—Carter has approached the economy with a rational, sound view that has relaxed some of the fears of businessmen.
PERHAPS THE MOST ludicrous criticism of Carter is the on-going gripe that he is in George Meany's hip pocket. If anything, Carter is in Meany's doghouse now, and any fears that labor leaders would walk a red line to the Oval Office should have been laid to rest.
Carter has taken the hard-line, right-wing approach to two crucial labor issues, the minimum wage and the right to work laws. Labor leaders have grimaced all the way, yet Carter is still pictured as a lackey of labor.
The criticism makes one think that Carter's detractors are determined to picture him as a free-spending, big-dealing liberal who has no grasp of foreign policy. And the critics aren't going to let the facts get in the way.
The point to remember is that Jimmy Carter has barely been in office long enough to get the furniture arranged. If, a year or so down the road, Carter's critics haven't changed their minds, they feel free to make mistakes in the office. In the criticism for the sake of criticism makes for good conversation but it doesn't make much sense.
It didn't take a clairvoyant to see that when Andrew Jackson and his mud-spattered troops attacked the Union in 1829, and promptly disposed of the predecessor's aides, that some sort of political immunity was a necessity if the D.C.ocracy was to be effective.
Hatch Act squelches nepotism
That protection came shortly after, in the form of the U.S. Civil Service. Gone, its proponents hoped, were the days of nepotism and cronyism; now they have been the interruptions of the careers of government officials who were just beginning to become proficient at their jobs. And gone, too, were the days when a small group of elite economic life or death spilled the lowly public servant.
THE HATCH
when he overtly civil servants from overt political support of national candidates, served to back up that insurance policy.
The reasoning behind the passage of the Hatch Act was sound. It correctly assumed that a government interest in seeing to it that their chief was re-elected, or that their champion was elected, to preserve their own jobs. It was further reasoned, with equal validity that the Hatch Act forced to campaign for their bosses, thus depriving the nation of their expensive and, more-often-than-not, necessary services.
The Hatch Act may have seen its last days. President Jamaica, after and Congressional leaders are seeking its demise. Their arguments center on the contention that these same civil servants, because of the Hatch Act, constitutive guarantees of freedom of political affiliation and expression. They contend the Hatch Act, now affecting about 2.8 million civil servants nationwide, denies fundamental rights.
questionable. Under the Hatch Act, civil servants are prohibited only from running for political office while still employed, making speeches are other overt public gestures or for particular candidates and participating in poll-watching.
THAT CONTENTION is
sanitation workers and teachers. And that, as is so evident in Kansas, are important to the happening. The legal community's response? They have no right to strike—they are public serv-
Civil servants can belong to
But so are U.S. Civil Servants. The similarity—that of denying
Bill Sniffen
Editorial Writer
political parties and make financial contributions like their non-governmental counterparts.
If the opponents of the Hatch Act are to carry their reasoning further, it's also a denial of that. The defense has prevent strikes by police,
supposed rights to selected groups-is a matter of practicality, more to the point, a matter of common sense. It basically is, a question of the greatest good for the largest number. Cities effectively can be shut down by strikes.
process can be effectively screwed up by the introduction of 2.8 million political participants whose jobs are at
unstead of repealing the Hatch Act, Carter and his buddies ought to consider the problem of muddy, be a notorious failure. The mere mention of one name—Richard Daly, former Chicago mayor—highlights that fact. Chicago's public servants, who have many local "mini-Hatch acts" dotting the country, were required to contribute to Daley's political machine or more than the loss of jobs. He has billed the other major U.S. cities.
MANY FEDERAL and city government employees favor retention of the Hatch Act for precisely the Carter Carter
opposes it, when approached by candidates for political support, they need only reply that legally, they cannot comply.
As if to make the Hatch opponents' argument even more ludicrous, they state that federal employees already are entrenched and active in government, but privileges to already active participants, won't make much difference
They conveniently forget that the Hatch Act was passed in 1839, when there were far fewer servants than they are now.
All of which bolls back down
o the issue of clairvoyance—whether Carter and his fellow Hatch Act opponents are capable of foretelling the future
That's a bit hard to swallow.
THE LONG BRANCH CASE? SURE I REMEMBER...OPEN AND SHUT.
Peace Corps rebirth laudable
The Peace Corps, one of the last remnants of President John Kennedy's "New Frontier" and President Lyndon Johnson's
"Great Society" programs, has, like some other things in Washington, been reborn.
The youth-oriented program captured the imagination of not only the United States, but also much of the rest of the world its bevy in the mid-1960s.
BUT THOSE were the days of unlimited American self-assurance, when there was a strong feeling of manifest destiny in the country and a belief that the Peace Corps could make its greatest contribution to the more uncleavened warfare of the world by imposing on them our values, technology and way of life. To a degree, it was a success. Then . . .
Along came President Nixon, with his suspicions about the "typical" Peace Corps volunteer; a college graduate with art arts degree, coupled with a liberal political viewpoint.
Nikon was prohibited by law from eliminating the program entirely, but he restructured the program in a way that severely reduced the use of such "generalists" in the Corps. He replaced them with middle-aged, technician specialists from education and industry—the kind of people who wouldn't cause any political trouble after they returned from their experiences.
WELL, AS any Sixties' kid remembers, the trouble came anyway, the Peace Corps
notwithstanding. But these events, followed closely by unsettling revolutions in areas of civilized societies and general disillusionment
in retirement by enlisting in the program.
Carter's concern for human rights has ignited new interest, and young and old alike are
The thought of spending two years in an "uncivilized" foreign land that had grown increasingly hostile to immigrants and Americans in general proved an anthem to many.
with the Vietnam conflict,
caused many to take an isolationist view of the world
because because they were too beset with their own.
IN 1969, the Peace Corps had approximately 15,000 volunteers in the field. Today, they have 6,000. The number of refugees in our country is drastically down from a high of 48,000 to its present 18,000.
But conditions for the rebirth of the Corps are better than ever with the advent of the president of the President's 78th cohort, mother Lilian Carter, proved to be a model for many older Americans as she was a Peace Corps volunteer in India for two years. She is a teacher, teachers, doctors and many lay persons are finding new careers
Paul Jefferson
Editorial Writer
providing the Peace Corps with a necessary shot in the arm.
The appointment of Sam Brown to the head of Action, the federal agency that runs the Peace Corps, will volunteer programs, is signaling the return of the Peace Corps to its former headquarters.
A poised, articulate and talented organizer, Brown is best known for his leadership of the 1969 Vietnam "Moratorium" in Washington—the largest single protest against AIDS (A. A. III), Brown is no stranger to politics or political office. He is a former state treasurer of Colorado.
BROWN SAID that he had some "serious intellectual concepts" in the concept of the Peace Corps, because it had the potential to become the "the vanguard of American cultural im-
technology, Brown wants to make the Peace Corps more relevant to the host countries it is supposed to serve. This could be accomplished by what he calls the "solution" of locally available materials, large quantities of labor and small amounts of capital.
The Peace Corps should be used to help other people become self-sufficient, but not by imposing our own demands on them as a service as a catalyst to help others make the most of their own potential.
Among other things, the Peace Corps has been accused in the past of being a refuge for radical developers, and CIA agents.
IN DESCRIBING his vision of the revitalized Peace Corps, Brown said, "The places where the Peace Corps goes are not post-conflict civilization and host landmarks and traditions that have survived far longer than ours and are often deeper and richer than our own. We have a great deal to learn from the rest of the world
"Fifteen years ago, filled with hope when the Peace Corps was initiated for this 'new' mission in America, thought that America had all the answers. Five years ago, divided and discouraged, we thought it had none. We were shocked when we journey through this period, individually and as a nation, has both tempered our arrogance and deepened our appreciation that make our country unique."
This is today's argument: first, that in promoting a healthy economy, a restoration of confidence is the most important goal; second, that Carter's $50 rebate plan won't achieve that aim; third, that a permanent tax cut probably would.
THE PRESIDENT'S costly rebate plan is in trouble. No one in either chamber–virtually no one-has any keen enthusiasm for it. The plan survived in the Senate Finance Committee by a single vote, and if it had not been for some misguided partisan loyalty, the plan would not have survived at all. the Democrats' 'feeble thinking is that what Jimmy wants, Jimmy ought to believe they will go along with the rebates, but they will hate themselves in the morning.
Permanent cuts promote confidence
sides of the aile share the same conviction: A stable, healthy recovery must depend primarily upon the creation of jobs in the private sector. The rebates will contribute little or nothing toward that end. Neither will the elaborate programs of government provide adequate incentives for private industry are seen as too mild to do much good. As a package, the administration's Tax Reduction and Sim
In place of a program that emphasizes sophisticated
The curious thing is that spokesmen on both
James J. Kilpatrick [c] 1977 Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
So Sam Brown is in back in Washington, but this time he's on the other side. Let's hope he goes to Peace Corps live up to its name.
KEMP AND Roth are pleading for something better. The two Republican wants a permanent tax cut, benefiting taxpayers in every bracket. This would put spendable money in the pockets of wage earners everywhere. Their approach would permit the marketplace to plan for the long range. They feel strongly that only the bold stroke of permanent tax relief will stimulate the capital
F
plification Act of 1977 is a flimsy product—as worthless as a plastic Christmas toy that falls apart by New Year's Day.
That mystical thing called confidence is the key. It is the finest medicine ever contrived for economic ills. In the ordinary household it stimulates demand; in the business community it promotes the taking of risks. One has only to glance at the stock market to comprehend the realities of the economy. Carter's Vegetable Compound is a kind of quick conception that -bic -can achieve no lasting good.
The objections to the Kemp-Rath plan are largely, perhapsWholly, political. It is, first of all, a Republican plan. An overwhelmingly liberal group of Democrats, President, is not about to accept a Republican plan. Second, there is much concern that the revenue losses from a permanent tax cut would spill the wind from the Democrats' spending salals and increase the burden for Carter to produce a balanced budget by 1881.
KEMP AND ROB argue persuasively that their permanent tax reduction would help the revenue stream and provide them with a larger base.
1 2
investment that means jobs without the risk of inflation.
President Kennedy's tax reductions 15 years ago. The Kennedy people figured that their tax cuts would cast the treasury $2 billion in the first year and $8 billion over six years. To the contrary, the Bush administration just calculated that the treasury gained $7 billion in the first year and gained $4 billion over the six years.
True, the economic conditions of 1962 and 1977 are not identical, but economic principles do not change. If the people could look forward with reasonable confidence to a permanently lower level of taxation, they would react positively. They would senselessly increase their earnings and the first of the month. A $40 rebate, by contrast, is a one-time thing; it is gone with the summer wind.
My guess is that the Democratic leaders are pursuing not only bad economics, but poor politics also. They look at Carter's high popularity ratings, and they come down with the jitters. They fear the consequences of defying their business but. There is a huge difference between what we advocate as such. Smart politics, in my own view would see the Democrats' kidnapping the Krug-Roth plan and trapping it for all their own.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas daily August 18, 2014 *New York Times* July 7, 2014 June and July expire Saturday, September 1 and Sunday, October 3. Subscriptions by mail are $9 or $11. Subscriptions by phone are $6. A year outside the county. Student subscription rates are $50.
Editor
The Editor
Managing Editor
Greek Hack
Editorial Editor
Stewart Brann
Campus Editor Alison Gwinr
Associate Campus Editor
Lynda Smith
Associate Campus Editor
Bartra Bowersow
Copy Chiefs
Bernett Jubakeh. Tiphir Pimpinelli
Sports Editor
Associate Sports Editors
Courtroom Thompson
Business Manager
Janice Clements
Advertising Manager
Anti盗贼 Management Manager
Randy Hagebe
Assistant Classified Manager
Pet Treurnor
Dana Dunlap
National Advertising Manager
Brian Groinder
National Advertising Manager