Low Resolution Image: Become a member to access this full resolution image at 375% higher quality.

OCR Text

Cedar Rapids Gazette (Newspaper) - June 14, 1974, Cedar Rapids, Iowa $ht &Mtr RttpitUHenry’s threat reflects ‘polished paranoia Editorial Page Friday, Jon* 14, 1974 Political checkoff mistake IT WOULD be interesting if some earnest young candidate for a doctorate in political science undertook to study this subject: “How Many Iowans Wofild'Have Used the State’s Political Checkoff System in 1974 If It Had Been Established on a Nonpartisan Rather Than on a Partisan Base”? Don’t laugh. This wouldn’t be the first goofy-sounding study undertaken by a student in quest of an advanced degree. Moreover, it could be a valuable study. It might come up with the facts and figures needed to prove to the legislature that it made a big mistake when it adopted a partisan checkoff system, requiring taxpayer participants to designate which of the two major parties they wanted to receive their SI contribution. The first problem came up recently when Iowa’s revenue department received some income tax returns from single taxpayers designating that their SI should be split 50-50 between the two parties. State Revenue Director Briggs notified the state campaign disclosure committee which, in turn, asked the attorney general’s office for directions. Solicitor General Hasemeyer held,in an opinion, that single taxpayers cannot split their $1 donations under the law. Nor can married taxpayers filing joint returns split a $1 donation. However, a husband can designate that he wants his SI to go to the Republican party and the wife that she wants hers to go to the Democratic party, or vice versa, since the law permits those filing joint returns to checkoff $2 of their income tax. The $1, in the case of single returns, or $2 in the case of joint returns, is deducted from the tax due — if the checkoff is used — so the state treasury is the loser, not the taxpayer. Revenue Director Briggs reports that as of May 31, his department had processed 587,865 of an anticipated one million returns. The political checkoff was used by only 13 percent, with $49,381 designated for the Democrats and $27,254 for the Republicans. This means that the partisan political checkoff is being ignored by those filing 87 percent of the returns — as of May 31. It is likely that the checkoff would have been used on a significantly higher percentage of returns if it was on a nonpartisan basis. That is, the checkoff money would be divided equally between the major parties. Thousands of taxpayers, obviously, have the same reluctance to participate in a partisan political checkoff that a million-plus voters show toward closed primary elections. Under the partisan checkoff system available to federal taxpayers, checkoff money is divided equally between the major parties after qualifying minor parties get their proportionate share. Iowa legislators should take note and act accordingly. Cornplanters’ plight AS IF all the woes besetting Iowa farmers this disastrously wet planting season were not enough, a man-made reversal , now has added to the damage. This is the five-day rollback in the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation’s Iowa cornplanting deadline for insurance purposes. 4 * Until this year, farmers south of Dubuque county had until June IO to plant corn and still qualify for FCIC coverage. But last January, the deadline for central- and southern-tier counties was made identical with the northern Iowa cutoff date for corn crop insurance As explained by FCIC officials, the move was merely an administrative adjustment aimed at making deadlines uniform. Under usual spring weather conditions, there is no appreciable difference in crop insurance liability between June 5 and June IO. But for some farmers the five-day reduction in corn crop insurability has brought added hardship. People’s forumRights run over To the Editor: Should businessmen ever be allowed to make a higher profit if by doing so they jeopardize the health, safety and wellbeing of others7 And should they be permitted to intentionally violate a law? I don’t think so. Yet this is what the farmer-trucker group protesting the new truck-route ordinance is threatening to do. All they seem to care about is their profit, with little or no regard for those who would suffer from the noise, pollution and safety hazard they would cause on residential streets We live here, and we have children. If the truckers really want to be able to roar and rumble past our homes, let them buy the homes on those streets they would use, and live there. This seems only fair to me. They should have to endure the annoyance their group would cause, and not be allowed to force others to suffer. t An alternative solution might be to require the farmer-truckers to reimburse us for the reduction-in-value of our When May’s savage storms made it obvious that many rain-soaked farmers would be unable to replant before the June 5 insurance cutoff, Iowa’s Senator Clark entreated U.S. Agriculture Secretary Butz to extend the deadline to the normal date. No deal. As a result, about a third of the acres usually insured were not covered by the deadline date. Meanwhile, the heavy rains of June 7 and 8 have compounded the crop-insurance debacle. Had the deadline been extended, corn planted on the 6th and 7th but washed out hours later would have been covered by FCIC. Secretary Butz says the administration has suffered perhaps a 10-percent loss in popularity among farmers who helped harvest the bumper-crop of pro-Nixon votes in 1972. Hardship stemming from the crop insurability reduction heightens belief that Butz grossly underestimates discontent in the farm belt. homes that they would cause, so that we might move to another street without trucks at no financial loss However, I think it would be to their advantage to obey the law and push for a rapid completion of the expressway instead. In the meantime they are going to have to quit running over the rights of others. The ordinance protecting dwellers on residential streets from trucks has been needed for a long time. Let’s let city hall know that we want more intensive patrolling of these streets, and a hard crackdown on anyone who dares to flout the law. Big trucks have no place on a residential street. Steve Keller 1045 Oakland road NEPoor Choice To the Editor: Special thanks to E W. Khrlieh for his letter of June 2 concerning Hep. John Culver’s election to membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. My regret is, it did not appear in every newspaper in the state and was not read on every TV and radio prime time news as well. Members of the CFR have dominated the high appointive positions in our government in all recent administrations. The first Nixon administration had over a hundred CFR members The By Rowland Evans and Robert Novak WASHINGTON - Henry Kissinger’s first serious thought of resigning came not last week but in April, 1973, as the Watergate crisis exploded — and it was directly linked to his precarious position as an outsider in the Nixon White House. For four years, Kissinger had been the target of chief of staff ll. R. Haldeman, who used to refer to him in the inner sanctums as ‘‘Superkraut. ” Despite rising popularity and diplomatic triumphs, Kissinger always felt imperiled. Partly from that sense of siege came his ready consent to wiretap his own aides in the name of security. From it, too, came his brooding 14 months ago that the wiretaps would someday bt' used to entangle him in Watergate. He was prophetic. Intimates are convinced that Haldeman’s chief associate. John D Ehrlichman, has leaked information against him But the irony of his resignation threat is this: It fortifies both Mr Nixon and indicted Watergate conspirators including Haldeman and Ehrlichman. All now seem under the same tent. Mr. Nixon and his disgraced aides benefit from association with Nobel Prize winner Kissinger. But both his brilliant career and American foreign policy are threatened Suspicion of Kissinger by the Haldeman gang came from his associations: Harvard professors, Georgetown dinner parties, Vietnam sessions with Nixon-haters. He had also hired scorned “eastern elitists." In the paranoiac White House, where everyone beyond Haldeman’s inner-circle was an enemy. Kissinger’s political antecedents as intimate adviser of Mr. Nixon’s political foe. Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, were suspect. Kissinger had his own ample share of paranoia, and the Nixon White House polished it. Thus, two years ago Kissinger ended an early-morning Oval Office session with the President and Haldeman to keep a breakfast appointment. When Haldeman asked who with, he named the author of a new Nixon book. “He’s no friend of ours,” Haldeman exploded in anger. Kissinger turned to the President and said the book had praised the Nixon foreign policy, but that he had skipped the rest of it. Mr. Nixon was amused, but Haldeman was outraged. When the decision was made in May, 1999, to start tapping telephones of reporters and national security aides, Kissinger offered not the slightest resistance. He himself was enraged at the leaks. They threatened his network of secret diplomatic activity. He felt that a government unable to keep its secrets could not operate \ But beyond that was his own endangered flank. Surrounded by aides whom Haldeman regarded as Nixon enemies, Kissinger was “holier than the pope,’’ listing his closest associates on the national security staff among those having access to secret information When Watergate broke, Kissinger quietly suggested that both Haldeman and Ehrlichman resign in Mr. Nixon’s interest. They did not react favorably, and Ehrlichman later became a source of newspaper stories seeming to link Kissinger into the enveloping scandal. Kis- Jurors who saw co-conspiracy singer kept silent, but even in April, 1973, he was privately talking resignation if a spurious tie-in connected him with Watergate. Thus, when he went public in Salzburg, the words that flowed had been practiced in his mind for many months. In going public, Kissinger is seeking a total exoneration that may be beyond anyone’s power. Ambiguities over his exact words about the wiretapping issue can’t bt* resolved. EVANS NOVAK Kissinger has now given Mr Nixon his best anti-impeachment ammunition: Linking his celebrated name to the President’s, in the tense that, for totally different reasons, both are now under attack from press and politicians. As one member of the house judiciary committee told us: “This affair has robbed the impeachment proceedings of its viability.” Kissinger’s enemies are now cheering liberals who will never forgive his toughness — and success — on the Vietnam war; Zionists who feel he has betrayed Israel; anti-Soviet hardliners who hate his policy of detente. Kissinger’s public outrage over the.issue of the security taps has now crystallized an international dilemma. But the real problem stemmed from a White House that fed and fostered paranoia in everyone who touched it. Publishers Hall Syndicate Where probity did not erode By Jack Anderson WASHINGTON - The American people are entitled to know more about the historic grand jury which named President Nixon an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Watergate crimes. The 23 grand jurors, selected from all walks of life, watched the Watergate drama develop behind guarded doors. They heard the secret testimony; they listened to the presidential tapes. Four were absent when they met on March I. The remaining 19 voted for the first time in history to accuse an American President of criminal conspiracy Were they fair to Richard Nixon? Or were they out to get him. as he has said of his accusers? We have broken through the secrecy which has surrounded the Watergate grand jury. Inside sources have described the closed-door drama; we have had access to actual transcripts. We are perhaps in a unique position, therefore, to assess this red-leiter grand jury The 23 citizens — including an economist, a cleaning woman, a retired army officer, an elevator operator, a receptionist, a taxi driver — were called together on June 5, 1972, to hear evidence of crimes in the District of Columbia. Courthouse sources say one grand jury in IO is outstanding. This one, in the opinion of Assistant U. S. Attorney John Forney Rudy II, then in charge of the grand jury section, was “exceptional.” Most of the jurors were alert and responsive, with a keen sense of civic duty. At least one woman gave up her job to stay on the jury. They were well informed and asked sharp questions. So when chief Watergate prosecutor Earl Silbert asked for an experienced grand jury, Rudy immediately recommended this one. They had already served several weeks and could have begged off. “We asked whether they would be willing to sit on a case that might last five or six months,” recalls Rudy. “They were not told it would be the Watergate case.” Without hesitation, they agreed to stay beyond the normal period of duty. The early transcripts revealed no hint of prejudice against the President. On the contrary, the grand jurors at first seemed to shy away from implicating the President in the Watergate horror. We spotted many openings in the secret testimony, where it would have been logical to ask about his involvement, But in the beginning, the follow-up questions weren’t asked, al- ‘Oh, darn it — and I had so hoped to clear myself! ’ membership roll includes lions of industry, controllers of the news media and heads of the tax-exempt foundations. Yet since its beginning only two articles about the CFR have ever been published in the general news media With all of this political clout working for one-world socialism, the mere lack of publicity is significant in itself. If Mr. Culver does not believe this charge about the CFR he should read the book, “Hope and Tragedy”, by Dr Carrol Quigley, a professor at Georgetown university and a member of the CFR. He writes proudly of the organization’s accomplishments toward this end. Another excellent point Mr. Ehrlich made was the fact Mr. Culver has misrepresented us here in the Second district. Neither is everyone 95 percent socialist in philosophy nor are we 95 percent avowed socialists in number Any way you cut it, Mr. Culver has been voting his own views and not ours. For the most part Iowans are hardworking patriots who would just as soon stand on their own two feet wherever possible. They would like to see our friends treated better than our enemies and above all are not in favor of sacrificing our national sovereignty for world government under socialism Culver’s opponent in the November election is David Stanley, who is a former member of the United World Federalists, an organization working for the same goals as the Council on Foreign Relations. Unless the American party comes up with a man willing to drive home the truth, this race shapes up to a no-holds-barred game of pattycake between liberal A and liberal B Iowans should not Im* electing to the senate a member of the CFR Instead they should be electing a man who would lead or at least vote for its full investigation Jim Whitford VolgaOffensive To the Editor: The civic obligation of media news is to report a reality that affects a majority. "Reality” is an elusive term. What is reality to a Wilson packinghouse worker may not be reality to me. On June IO Wilson’s seriously mishandled the retrieving of a stranded steer. The fumbling was cruel and stupid. Beyond that it was not reul or pertinent to me or to anyone else outside of the Wilson gates. With this in mind, WMT news had no need to Is* there filming the entire incident in excruciating color This film presentation was ugly, senseless and, what’s more, disturbing It was highly typical of the WMT news format On other occasions WMT has been pleased to Ik* on the spot with video tape as cattle were shot to death or fire victims were carted away. This blatant featuring of man’s cruelty to himself and other creatures is more than offensive; it is a wound to all living things. It is unbearable to watch. That same night I switched the channel to watch the KC’RG news program. They ran a story about children splashing in puddles left by a flood Admittedly this was not a pertinent reality, but it was cheering And in the long run it was equally as essential for me to know about the children playing as it was for me to know about the stranded and mangled steer The only difference is that one makes a more sensational news story than the other It seems that WMT's intention is to Im* morbidly sensational. Personally, I find too much dignity in life than to Im* snared by such baseness. I hope others feel the same and will join with me in turning off vulgar news coverage masquerading as reality Rob Nassif Thirty-fourth street at Cottage Grove SE Isn t it the truth? Bv Curl Bibl*!, lr No man is ever a match for a woman before he marries, and he isn’t a match ever after, either That explains why there are more well pleased old ladies than well-pleased old men Woman always hat the last word She lives longer. ” Dictionary of Opinions most as if there was an unspoken wish U keep the President out of it. As the evidence piled up, the feeling seemed to grow inside the grand jury room that Nixon was responsible at least for the Watergate atmosphere, that his own suspicion and hostility had infected the White House with a moral rot. Occasionally, the growing outrage would surface. During a discussion of propriety, for example, a juror snapped: “Is ‘proper’ an obsolete word these days?” The grand jurors were irritated with the special prosecutors, incidentally, for restricting the questioning. After the special prosecutors took over the Watergate case, they stopped inviting the jurors to cross-examine witnesses. The jurors had a high attendance record and put in long hours. Once they stayed in session until midnight and found the cleaning crew had locked them in. They had to pound on the doors to rouse a janitor to let them out. They were scrupulous about the grand jury rules and kept the Watergate secrets locked behind the tightest lips in Washington. They were absolutely furious at us for publishing excerpts from the grand jury transcripts. They were highly upset, too, with the Washington Post’s intrepid Watergate sleuths. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, for attempting to question grand jury members. The 23 Watergate jurors, a cross-section of the people of Washington, closely followed the case as it evolved from a foolish burglary into a plethora of dirty deeds. The coverup came apart before their eyes. White House witnesses lied and cried. The high were humbled; careers were ruined. In the end, they concluded that the President was implicated. Seven days after they named him an “unindicted co-conspirator,” we reported that they believed he was involved in both “the Watergate coverup” and “an alleged conspiracy to buy the silence of the Watergate defendants.” We even gave the nose count on March 7, reporting that “all but four of the 23 grand jurors (sought) some way to hold Nixon accountable for the coverup” but “the prosecution informed them it would be impossible to indict a sitting President.” The best commentary was given by President Nixon himself who declared over nationwide television on April 30. 1973: “It is essential that we place our faith . . . especially in the judiciary system.” United feature Syndicate Way with wordsWow word By Theodore M. Bernstein BEAUTIFUL and useful. The wort beoutility, coined by the architec ture critic Ada Louise Huxtable, was in trodueed in this space some time back. I means something that is useful as well a beautiful J. S. Campbell of Montreal calls it “ wow word — an elegant description of it own etymology,” but he wants to kno\ what the adjectival form of the wort would be: bec useful^ beauteous? Nti because at first glance neither th derivation nor the pronunciation of thos words is apparent He asked your host t propose a definitive derivation All righi then, how about beautilitarianf One or two. A misunderstanding i phase one or two can lead Into e lake this sentence, for example: “r is always one or two players out wi juries.” It is true that when nou unlike number are linked by eithei or, neither . nor or simply or the takes the number of the noun that nearer to It. In the cited sentence, however, are not two independent nouns rather a phrase, one or two, which ii “a few,” Therefore the verb shou are N#« York Tim#* Syndical# ;

Clippings and Obituaries for the Cedar Rapids Gazette