Cedar Rapids Gazette, September 26, 1974, Page 6

Publication: Cedar Rapids Gazette September 26, 1974

Cedar Rapids Gazette (Newspaper) - September 26, 1974, Cedar Rapids, Iowa <£h* €#dtiir ftnpitb Turnover lessens alienation — very little Editorial Page Thuriday, September 26, 1974 Gumption: good word Hard-pressed Republicans can win this fall if “we get up our gumption.’’ That’s what Arizona’s Congressman Rhodes, leader of house Republicans in Washington, told Iowa Republicans at a $100-a-plate fund raiser the other evening in Des Moines He went en to explain that “gumption’’ was something people had in the early days of this country; that “no one knew exactly what it meant but you could tell people who had it — they got up, got going, looked the odds in the eye and did what they set out to do.’’ Somehow, it is difficult to accept that the people back then, including the hardy pioneers, didn’t know the meaning of the word gumption. Presumably the congressman really was aiming at today’s generation, which finds it a strange word if only because it is seldom heard any more, at least in political circles. Webster lists a primary and secondary meaning for the word, giving preference to “common sense, shrewdness.’’ But in the context it was used by the congressman, its secondary meaning — “enterprise, initiative” — better served his purpose. His purpose, obviously, was to try to persuade Republicans to come out of the doldrums of W atergate and “the pardon.” to shake off the apathy that seems to be permeating the political atmosphere today, and to get out on the hustings and go to work. In other words, Rhodes was urging Republicans to cheer up and get to the business of beating Democrats at the polls in November. Republicans, he said, “need a lot of gumption right now.” Or, to translate “enterprise, initiative” into more common language, the party needs “a lot of get up and go” as the campaign works toward its climax. No slavery brewing ‘Plot’ seers spanked By James J. Kilpatrick WASHINGTON - Charles McC. Mathias, the senior senator from Maryland, is catching a touch of the old high life these days from Liberty Lobby. The senator’s sin is that he has been a Bilderberger. not once but several times, and to be a Bilderberger is to be a “Secret Conspirator.” Several weeks ago, Liberty Lobby published an ad in the Washington papers, asking the senator what he was hiding. ‘‘With all due respect.” said Liberty Lobby, in a tone of voice suggesting little respect is due. “we find it strange that you refuse to disclose any information concerning your trip to the Bilderberg meeting in Megeve, France, April 19-21, 1974 ” Liberty Lobby went on to ask what was discussed at the secret meeting, and to remind Mathias that his loyalty lies with his Maryland constituents, not with international bankers. “Or,” asked Liberty Lobby, putting a little spin on the ball, “do you feel your senatorial oath of office is superseded by your oath to the Bilderbergers9” The senior senator from Maryland. now up for re-election, doubtless can take care of himself He is a high-toned gent, civilized and soft-spoken, with a voting record that runs from medium to medium-rare. His response to Liberty Lobby is to raise a defense of innocence by association, or maybe fuzzy* uzzy-ness by association Many of his best friends, he says, are Bilderbergers. And so what9 These Bilderberg meetings have been going on since 1954, when a group of global thinkers gathered at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Ooostebeek. Holland Ordinarily about IOO participants are invited They include politicians, bankers. industrialists, journalists and academic’s from Europe. Canada and the United States. In the jaundiced view of my friends of the Far-out Right, their purpose is to promote the Secret Conspiracy that soon will enslave us all. Senator Mathias says their purpose ts to discuss problems confronting the Atlantic community. Last spring they talked about inflation, energy and natural resources. The Secret C mspiracy, as is well known, operates from several locations Henry Kissinger is manager in charge of the Washington office. David Rockefeller runs the branch in New York The Bilderbergers have the European franchise. (Actually the North American Conspiracy is in charge of the Council of Foreign Relations, which secretly manipulates governments through a small clique of power-mad billionaire bankers whose goal is world domination through a new socialist order.) Everyone knows this. Being a Secret Conspirator used to be an exclusive kind of thing. To judge James J. Kilpatrick from a rollcall of recent Bilderberg meetings, the Conspiracy is getting a little down at the heels. Among the participants over the years, one finds such United States senators as Edward Brooke, Clifford (ase, Frank Church, Ralph Flanders. William Fulbright, Fred Harris. Bourke Hick-enlooper, Henry M. Jackson, Jacob Jav-its. Gale McGee, Mike Monroney. Hugh Scott and John Sparkman Most of these are sinister types, of which anything could be believed, but Hiekenlooper? The late senator from Iowa? Say it ain’t so. Gerald Ford has been a Bi Ider berger. So have Congressmen Richard Bolling, John Brademas, Chet Holifield, Peter Frelinghuysen. Dante Faseell, F. Bradford Morse, Henry Reuss and Brooks Hays. Not surprisingly, columnist Joe Kraft is a Bilderberger; no plot to promote slavery is beyond Mr Kraft. Barry Bingham of the Louisville Courier-Journal also is a Secret Conspirator. And Seotty Reston of the New York Times And Bill Moyers How do you like that? Moyers' Well, all I can say is that the Bilderbergers never have asked me to their annual convention I am just as ready to plot, conspire, manipulate, dominate, control and enslave the world as Scotty Reston or Barry Bingham, lf Liberty Lobby would just give me a little endorsement. maybe I could caddy for Mathias next year Wa**!retort Stor Syndicate Arguing in vain Finds minds fixed By Jim Ftebtg “H OW TO argue and win” That was the headline over a small ad in The Wail Street Journal offering a new book entitled. “The Art of Argument”. For just S5 95 plus SIJ cents for handling, the reader was promised a basic guide to spotting “the prejudices, emotionalism anti inappropriate analogies in the other fellow 's argument ” Ten years ago I would have snapped it up Fresh from college and armed with a course on logic, I was an argumentative fool, swaggering about cocktail lounges and coffeehouses just pleading for someone to knock a syllogism off my shoulder Poised like a praying mantis to pounce upon and devour every non sequitur, fallacy and generality. Religion, politics, philosophy, sports, ethics — pro or con. right or wrong — it didn t matter. As long as there was a good argument to bt* had. I never kept a record of how many won or lost, but I did keep track of how many minds my arguments changed none. And how many friends they earned again, zero. I finally concluded that the only thing worth arguing about is who picks up the check. Today, you can walk right up to me and beg the question and slap me around with a faulty premise until I'm blue in the brain I won t raise a single analogy in my defense. You think what you want I’ll think what I want. Let s not argue. Let’s be friends. G«n#rol Fea*ure» Corporation By Louis Harris The Horns Survey TNESPITE the resignation of President aJ Nixon from office, disenchantment and alienation remain high among the American people. A majority of 55 percent of the adult public still expresses disaffection with the general state of the country, down from the 590 percent high recorded a few days before Mr Nixon’s departure from office, but at the same level of a year ago in September, 1973. Here is the trend of alienation as measured by the Harris Survey periodically since 1900 September* 1974    55 June ......................................   59 September, 1973............................   55 1972............................................................. 49 1971............................................................ 42 1969 .............................................................36 1968............................................................. 36 1966 .........................  29 Back in 1900, less than a third of the public felt alienated from the mainstream of American life. By 1972, this number had jumped 20 points to 49 percent. By 1972, this number had jumped 20 points to 49 percent. With the Watergate disclosures and intensified inflation, it rose to over a majority for the first time in 1973. Then as demands for Mr. Nixon’s impeachment increased this past summer, this disaffection reached a record 59 percent. With Gerald Ford’s ascension to the presidency, there has been only a slight easing of the country’s sense of alienation, and it is still far from drawn together. Any quick recovery of a national spirit and unity simply does not appear imminent. The greatest improvement in public attitude appears to be in the belief that “the people running the country don’t really care what happens to you.” which has declined from 63 to 48 percent since last June. However, the number who feel "left out of things going on around them” has remained at an all-time high of 32 percent. And the number who feel that “most people with power try to take advantage of people like yourself’’ has decreased only slightly, from 60 to 56 percent. Underlying these results, of course, is the public’s deep, abiding distrust of both public and private leadership, and its reluctance to believe the pronouncements of people in high places. Evidence of this skepticism is reflected in the high 77 percent of the people who still believe that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” down only 2 points from 79 percent in June. Earlier this month, a national crosssection of 1.527 adults were asked: “I want to read you some things some people have told us they have felt from time to time. Do you tend to feel or not that (read list)?’’ Sept June 74    74    73 66 % % % % Rich get richer, poor get poorer    77    79    76 45 Mo*t people with power try to toke odvantoge of people like yourself    56    60    55 X 54 t 60 61 37 48 63 55 26 32 32 29 9 What you think doesn t count much any more People running country don' really core what happens to you You feel left out of things going on around you X — Not asked in 1966 Those groups that feel most alienated are lower income people, those over 65 years of age, blacks and big city residents, all of whom suffer most from escalating prices and rising unemployment. The increased disaffection of high-in-come and college-educated groups stems from the collapse in leadership credibility. With the emergence of the Ford administration, some hope existed for a rapid turnaround in American morale. But after the pardon of President Nixon, which greatly dampened the country’s spirits, it now seems almost certain that restoring national confidence and eradicating this pervading sense of disaffection will be a long hard route. Chicago Tribune New York News Syndicate Should congress vote Nixon $850,000 for transition? By Congressional Quarterly WASHINGTON - The Ford administration’s request for $850,000 to pay for former President Nixon’s expenses during his first year out of office has stirred up a hornet’s nest on Capitol Hill. The funds are being sought under two statues: the presidential transition act of 1963 and the former Presidents act of 1958. Under the transition law, $900.-000 is authorized to cover expenses of the new president and former Presidents for a six-month period. Ford, who is not asking for his half of the appropriation, has requested $450.-000 covering ll months for such expenses as safeguarding files and tapes from the Nixon presidency and providing equipment and staff for answering mail The General Services Administration (GSA) argues it will cost another $238,800 to complete the transition in six months rather than ll. Another $400,000 has been requested for such items as Nixon’s $60,000 annual pension office space and staff, furnishings and equipment. The proposal is running into heavy opposition as it makes its way through congress. Much of the criticism stems from widespread anger and frustration over Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon for any crimes he might have committed while in office. Opposing views on both sides of the issue follow : Proposed Transition Budget Proposed Nixon Staff, Allowances August 9. 1974 to June 30. 1975 Fiscal yaar 1975 Personnel compensation t.tf, - . /». * /•<*, $171,000 Pension $55 OOO Overtime 15.000 Office staff 96.000 Benefits 12.000 Travel 10.000 Travel 15.000 Personnel benefits 8,000 Printing 3.000 Equipment 50 000 Office supplies 67,000 Communications 35,000 Communications/telephone V i>- F> *> .*•< 37,000 Printing 10,000 Postage 75.000 Security of presidential material 110,000 Equipment 55,000 Miscellaneous contingencies 26,000 Total $450,000 Total $400,000 The Arguments YES The Argumenl NO THE ADMINISTRATION argues that the funds would serve two important needs, which congress acknow ledged when it passed the two laws; the personal welfare of the former President and the orderly conclusion of his official affairs. The former Presidents act of 1958 reflects a "reality about the presidency.” says Arthur F. Sampson, administrator of the GSA. “The stature and special experience of the presidency follow an individual from that office, and these characteristics make him a figure of public attention and a figure in public service.” In recognizing this “special role of a former President, Sampson noted, congress has authorized such benefits as a pension, office space, staff, travel funds and other support "so that he can maintain a creative presence as an adviser in national and international public life." Moreover, argued framers of the legislation, it would be a national disgrace to allow a former President who was not independently wealthy to suffer economic hardships While funds under the former Presidents act would provide for Nixon’s personal well-being, the $45<UNM) requested under the transiton act would give Nixon until June 30, 1975, to tie up the loose ends of his five-plus years in office. To a suggestion that the transition budget be geared to six months instead of ll, Sampson argued that the costs for that would be “far greater.” A six-month job would be a "physical impossibility,” he said. no matter how much money was appropriated. A major item planned under the proposal is $110,666 for transporting the voluminous cartons of Nixon's files and tapes from Washington. D C., to a site near the forme'* President’s San Clemente, Calif, home, and for security arrangements for the material. Since much of the material is sub- People s forum Top issue cited To the Editor: The similarity between Richard Nixon and John Culver in the area of campaign financing is incredible. John Culver has accepted thousands of dollars from a special-interest group: organized labor. He voted to continue ject to subpoena in the upcoming Watergate trials *he GSA has worked out an elaborate security arrangement including deposit of the boxes in a locked vault, to be guarded around-the-clock for five years. < < W/E WILL accord every consider-VV tion to the former President,” says Sen. Joseph M. Montoya (D N M ). "But we don’t want to indulge in any excesses.” That position is mild compared to some of the advice members of congress The Gazette's opinion Ax-swing necessary EVEN IF the whole impeachment buildup had not [muddied Richard Nixon’s exit from the White House, a taxpayer tab of nearly $1 million for his transition out would seem inordinately high. The sullied circumstances of his exit and the public mood on what is simply fair in such a case make it altogether unacceptable. Few dispute that sizable expenses follow from a presidency’s closeout — legitimately — even one beclouded as the recent change was. No one can contend supportably that such expenses ought to be a burden on the man who held the office. Hardly anybody would begrudge a reasonable funding of Mr. Nixon’s transition from the nation’s highest office to civilian life. But $850,000 — more money than most of us earn in a lifetime? Including some $22H,(MHI for staff help at salaries as high as $36,IKK) a year? At levels that would average $79,963 a month, according to Senator Montoya, when former President Johnson’s transition-spending averaged only $31,271? For a comfortably pensioned Chief Executive who, had he not resigned, unquestionably would have been removed through impeachment? Whose being “pardoned” since departing doubtless saved him from immense additional expenses that the trial process would have brought? It is inconceivable that most Americans could possibly consider $850,IMM) as anywhere near a fair and legitimate burden on themselves for the Nixon change of scene. For congressmen who fail to pare it drastically, the people’s wrath is apt to come down hard. furnishing food stamps to labor strikers for four more years. The September issue of The Nation's Business reveals that COPE the political arm of the AFL-CIO gives Culver an 82 rating for favorable votes He likes to compare his voting record — H R Gross got a 4 Nixon was accused of raising price supports for milk producers because of campaign donations, and Culver has done the same thing by his votes to benefit a special interest group What’s the difference? Wouldn’t John Culver be a little more credible when he tells us almost dally that he is a vanguard of reform if he set an example without having to wait for a law to keep him in line9 I think special-interest money in the Culver-Stanley race is THE issue in the aftermath of the Watergate revelations. Elaine E Smith Route I. Monticello Fast service To the Editor I noticed the letter of Frances Gun zenhauser (Forum, Sept. 18 commend* ing Tom Riley for his assistance to her have been receiving from their constituents about the request. Sen Mark O. Hatfield's (R-Ore ) reports that his mail and telephone calls from constituents is running “99 and 99-one-hundredths percent” in opposition to congress allowing all of the request. "Many thought the Nixon administration was a costly one," Hatfield says. "And they ask why additional money is needed — particularly when President Ford is asking the nation to hold down spending Hatfield says most of his constituents regard the request as "unnecessary' and extravagant.” Many members of congress recall the millions of dollars spent by the government on Nixon’s home at San Clemente and Key Biscayne, Fla. Nixon would receive more under the administration’s proposal than any other former President. The request is more than doubled the $370.(Kl that went to former President Lyndon B. Johnson. According to the GSA, the increase is due partly to the expense of the security arrangement, partly to the fact that Johnson completed some of his transition activities while still in the White House, and partly to inflation. The security provisions themselves, which hinge on passage of the request, also are being severely criticized Cnder an agreement signed by Nixon and Sampson, Nixon will donate his tapes and documents to the National Archives in 1979 on conditon that he can destroy any tapes he believes could injure or harass anyone Another conditon is that all the tapes will Im* destroyed in 1984 or on Nixon’s death if he dies before then. I’m concerned whether the people are getting their money’s worth," says Rep Tom Bovill (D AU ). Bovill and others say the agreement provides no assurance that the tapes will ever be available to the public or historians Congr«»»iortal Quarterly in obtaining a passport to fly to Irelai fin- her father s funeral This type of service is a way of Ii for Tom Riley. Several years ago, ii wife was discharged due to a mixup personnel records of a former employe I called Senator Wiley and expected t note's he made on my call to wind up his wastebasket. Instead, within two hours my wi was reinstated at her job and has Im*' working there since. I'm not a Repu bean, but I (bink Tom Riley is the p< son who can represent everybody Duane* Klshu Route 2, C edar Rapt a t *. ;

  • Arthur F. Sampson
  • Barry Bingham
  • Brooks Hays
  • Chet Holifield
  • Dante Faseell
  • David Rockefeller
  • Edward Brooke
  • F. Bradford Morse
  • Fred Harris
  • Gale Mcgee
  • Gerald Ford
  • Henry Kissinger
  • Henry M. Jackson
  • Henry Reuss
  • Hugh Scott
  • James J. Kilpatrick
  • Jim Ftebtg
  • Joe Kraft
  • John Brademas
  • John Culver
  • John Sparkman
  • Joseph M. Montoya
  • Louis Harris
  • Lyndon B. Johnson
  • Mark O. Hatfield
  • Mike Monroney
  • Nixon Staff
  • Peter Frelinghuysen
  • Ralph Flanders
  • Richard Bolling
  • Richard Nixon
  • Scotty Reston
  • Seotty Reston
  • Tom Bovill
  • Tom Riley
  • William Fulbright

Share Page

Publication: Cedar Rapids Gazette

Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Issue Date: September 26, 1974

RealCheck