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

OCR Text

Cedar Rapids Gazette (Newspaper) - March 20, 1974, Cedar Rapids, Iowa ®b* Cf ti ut ftttpub No sitting duck, this peripatetic President Editorial Page Wednesday, March 20, I 974 Turnover immaterial: Presidency will survive SIDE BY SIDE below, two versions differ diametrically on what is fast becoming the central issue of all Watergate-related action and concern:-the effect of past or possible events on the presidency of the United States, as distinguished from its occupant. President Nixon repeated his view last week to a business-executive audience in Chicago: To resign under pressure would destroy the presidency itself. Conservative Sen. James L. Buckley of New York, a lifelong Republican and active Nixon backer in the past, took his stand at a news conference Tuesday: NOT to resign is what will ruin the presidency now. The words are worth examining in some detail:President Nixon * * “Now under these circumstances, because the impression has been created ... doubts, mistrust of the President — I recognize that — why doesn't the President resign? “Because if the President resigns when he was not guilty of charges, then every President in the future could be forced out of office by simply leveling some charges and getting the media to carry them, and getting a few congressmen and senators who were on the other side to exploit them. “Why doesn't the President resign because his popularity is low? . . . Because if the time comes in this country when a President makes decisions based on where he stands in the polls rather than what is right or what is wrong, we’ll have a very weak President. The nation and the world need a strong President ...” “Resignation of this President on charges of which he is not guilty, resignation simply because he happened to be low in the polls, would forever change our form of government. “It would lead to weak and unstable presidencies in the future, and I will not bt* a party to the destruction of the presidency of the United States of America.”Senator Buckley “The house will or will not vote articles of impeachment. But in neither case will action by the congress bring an end to our national agony. . . . “Public opinion would compel the proceedings to be televised. . . . The ruler of the mightiest nation on earth would be starred as the prisoner in the dock. . . . Can anyone imagine that such a trial could bring the nation back on an even keel and steady course — that it could fail to hurt the presidency itself?. . . “If future Presidents are to carry out their grave responsibilities in the free and unfettered manner President Nixon desires, they must be able to inherit an office that has not been irrevocably weakened by a long, slow , agonizing, inch-by-inch process of attrition. “As it now stands, the office of the President is in danger of succumbing to the death of a thousand cuts. The only way to save it is for the current President to resign, leaving the office free to defend itself with a new incumbent. . . “A new President would be at the helm, with the capacity to inspire and restrain the congress; to reach out to the people with the restored authority and moral strength that is so essential an ingredient of the presidency.” Senator Buckley premised his suggestion on no judgment as to guilt or innocence on the President’s part; he left that question open. President Nixon premised his position on an apparent assumption that what one President has done another has to do if similar conditions face him in the future. But the fevers of a trouble time should not sell short the office either way: The presidency has a long history and a constitutional foundation that no one man’s performance can erase. The office of the President will not be irretrievably wrecked if Mr. Nixon steps out. Nor will it be emasculated fatally if he does not. Whatever course the present occupant may follow in the end, voluntarily or otherwise, the public should not be stampeded into judging it as life or death for the office. A presidency’s wounds can heal either way, and will. People 's forumWorkers' rights Tu the Editor. The March 17 issue of The Gazette detailed campaign support that had been received by supporters of the collective bargaining bill for public employes. State legislators, who had opposed the bill, were quoted as they lashed out at wage earners for contributing to political campaigns within the stale. In a March 8 Gazette report, Hep. Frank Crabb of Denison was quoted as saying that the bill would cost Iowa $10(1 million. In truth, the bill only provides a means by which public employes can receive the “most reasonable” offer in wage nego tiations “not lo exceed legal spending authority.” Therefore, Mr. Crabb and his supporters seem to be saying that public employes are being grossly underpaid in Iowa and he is opposed to any changes being made concerning the matter. It is a sign of immaturity to expect something for nothing. I ani reassured that Iowa legislators, who wish the citizens of Iowa to receive dedicated, competent service from their public employes, have begun to recognize the importance of extending this group the respect and rights under law that other workers have enjoyed for 40 years. I still await a report of the expenditures of merchant groups and the Farm Bureau in their massive lobbying efforts against the public employes. Also, I would be interested to learn how the Farm Bureau believes their attacks upon public employes best serves the interests of farmers in Iowa. Will .Jacobs 4700 Wenig road NEDazzling double play can’t erase realities By Tom Wicker LOS ANGELES — That was a pretty I good weekend parlay Diehard Nixon staged for himself — Saturday night at the Grand Ole Opry, then back to the White House Sunday morning for a st. Patrick’s day sermon by the Rev. Norman Vincent Beale. lf this city is any sample, Nixon’s weekend dominated headlines and telev ision screens everywhere, and (hero can’t In* too many Americans who didn’t see him pounding out “God Bless America” on the Opry piano. That’s touching a lot of bases — the South, country music fans, tho Irish, positive thinkers, amateur pianists aud patriots. With a coalition like that, who needs the plumbers to win elections? It has to be said for Nixon that he is most skillfully presenting a moving target these days. Only a week or so ago, it was suggested in this space that he seemed to have abandoned any effort to win back public or congressional support, or to repair his personal reputation, and had instead opted for a determined legal effort to hang onto his office no matter w hat people thought of him. Now, in an almost frenetic burst of action aimed at the public, Nixon has held two news conferences in prime time, confronted an audience of Chicago business persons who lobbed up slow balls for him to knock out of the park, and pulled off that weekend double play — Nixon to Opry lo Pcale — which was notable particularly in that the Tennessee end of it was nicely calculated lo appeal to his vital political base in the South. Taking yo-yo lessons from Roy Acuff at the Grand Ole Opry, with George Wallace looking on, won’t lose many votes in Dixie, which still has 22 senators eligible to vote in an impeachment trial. Beyond this new, or renewed, offensive, however, there are certain harsh realities which won’t go away. That was suggested again Monday by Judge Sirica’s decision to send a sealed grand jury report on Watergate and the coverup to the house judiciary committee, which is conducting the house impeachment inquiry. In fact, in his public relations efforts, Nixon well may be making a serious tactical error by his and his staff’s repeated attempts to demean and deride the committee, and by seeming to seek a confrontation on the question whether to turn over White House tapes and documents sought for the inquiry. Vice-president Ford, who knows theSecond-class mantle shed house as well as anyone, has warned publicly that a “totally adamant" refusal to cooperate would make Nixon’s impeachment more likely. And while Ford has occasionally joined iii the general administration course against the judiciary committee, he is known to Mieve privately that if Nixon wants to be impeached, the best way to achieve it would be to defy the house’s subpoena. And although Rep. Wilbur I). Mills has backed away from his suggestion that the forthcoming report on Nixon’s income taxes might force him to resign, enough is known already to indicate that the report will add considerably to his troubles. Even if its specific effect is only to cause Nixon to pay additional taxes, other taxpayers aro likely to feel there was an element of evasion not suitable to the Chief Executive of the government. As it now appears, that feeling will be reflecting itself in congressional mail at about the same time the judiciary committee puts the impeachment issue squarely to the house. Another reality that neither Minnie Pearl nor Dr. Beale can long obscure is the election campaign. All members of tho house, except those retiring, are running for re-election; and while, in tho middle of a gasoline shortage and a surging inflation, Watergate may not be the major issue, tho evidence so far suggests that it is an important issue indeed. Again, the campaign pressures thus created will be making themselves strongly felt by the time of an impeachment vote. But the harshest reality of all Is the multiplicity of indictments, guilty pleas and trials that have been set in motion by the Watergate case. Aside from Hie fact that such a sweeping involvement of the high leaders of an administration In so many crimes has never before been alleged in American history; aside, loo, from the virtually irresistible conclusion that the highest leader of that administration must have known SOMETHING of what was happening — aside from all that, the headlines and news reports these eases generate will doom Nixon’s public relations efforts. He can’t spend all his time at the Opry, and not even Norman Vincent Peale can make people think positively about breaking and entering. New York Times Service Up! Up!' Union women shoot for top By Sandra Stencel WOMEN’S Liberation finally has come to that long-time bastion of male chauvinism, the trade union. Representatives from around 40 different unions are expected to attend the first national conference for women trade union members, to be held in Chicago starting Saturday. The Coalition of Labor Union Women, which is sponsoring the meeting, has demanded equal pay, equal rights, equal opportunity and “more women in union structures and policy-making decisions.” The Chicago conference is only the latest indication of a growing “feminine revolt” within the labor movement. At the local level, women unionists are forming social action groups to fight for such benefits as liberal niaternity-leave policies, industry-financed day care centers and flexible working hours. About 450 women attended the United Auto Workers’ first women’s conference in June 1972. Since then, similar conferences have been sponsored by the Communications Workers of America, the International Union of Eleclileal Workers, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Newspaper Guild. Pressure is being applied to the AFL-CIO to hold a women’s conference at the national level and to add a woman to the labor federation’s civil rights staff. More than 4.5 million American women belonged to unions in 1972 — ITH percent of all women in the labor force. An additional 1.2 million women belonged to public and professional employe organizations, such as the National Education Assn. and the American Nurses Assn. Women played an Important role In the birth and development of organized labor in the United States. Some of the most effective union organizers in American labor history were women: Bessie Hillman, co-founder of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America; Mary Kenney O’Sullivan and Margaret Drier Robins of the Women’s Trade Union League; and Mary Harris (Mother) Jones, one of the founders of the Industrial Workers of the World and a United Mine Workers organizer.Sick pay To the Editor: Some possibly misleading information with regard to sick pay exemption was contained iii Sylvia Porter’s March 5 column. That column related to the ease with which employes could report sick pay under a recently publicized Internal Revenue Service policy allowing the employe to simply pick up the amount of sick pay shown on the W-2 furnished him by bis employer. Because of the complex sick pay rules, primarily those relating to the waiting period before sick pay can be excluded, It is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible for employers to determine how much sick pay is excludable from taxable income. For example, the waiting period may be seven days or it may be 3(1 days, depending on the percentage of the employe’s normal income paid to the employe as sick pay. That fact is determinable by the employer, however, if the employe is hospitalized at any time dur ing his absence, the seven-day wailing period does not apply. For that reason it is necessary for the employer to keep very detailed records to accurately determine the sick pay exclusion. If an employe’s absence extends over the end of a calendar year and the employe is hospitalized at some time toward the end of his absence, the employer may have no way of knowing the correct waiting period at the time tho W-2s are prepared and delivered to Hie employes. As a member of the Cedar Rapids chapter of the National Assn. of Cost Accountants, I recommend that every person receiving sick pay keep an accurate record of the sick pay received, the days absent from work and the date of hospitalization, if any. Use of these records, the form provided for calculation of sick pay by the Internal Revenue Service arid a good set of instructions will give that, jrerson tho greatest assurance of excluding the maximum permissible amount of sick pay from taxable Income. Dave I Sudden 2138 Grande avenue SE For the most part, though, women have been excluded from policy-making positions, even in those unions with large female memberships. Today, according to the Bureau of Bailor Statistics, women account for 21.7 percent of all union members, as against 19.5 percent in 1988. At the same time, they hold only 4.7 percent of all major elective and appointive positions in union leadership. No woman sits on the 33-member AFL-UIO Executive Council. The reasons given for this underrepresentation vary. Family responsibilities often keep women workers from attending union meetings, which commonly take place at night, or from accepting union positions that require extra hours of work or travel. Some husbands, moreover, are reluctant to see their wives assume prominent union positions. Still another obstacle is the fact that w omen tend to occupy unskilled'and semi-skilled positions, from which relatively few union leaders (‘merge. Today, women hold only 4 percent of all craftsmen and foremen positions. Less than one percent of the 365,0(11) persons in registered apprentice training classes are women. In this as in other fields, women are no longer content with a second class role. The growing numbers and rising political consciousness of women union members indicate that the battle against sexism In tho labor movement is well under way. notorial Rpsfarch Report*Global feats outweigh domestic disservices By Roscoe Drummond WASHINGTON — Thoro has been another Nixon “bombshell” — and this time it has exploded In tho ranks of the opposition. The accumulating success of Nixon administration diplomacy in the Middle Roscoe Drummond Fast adds a weighty new factor tipping the scales against impeachment. It works this way. Quite a few members of congress believe that Richard Nixon should he impeached on the grounds that ho has badly misused the presidency to the great harm of the nation. That is an honest contention, but when such a broad indictment is advanced to justify removal from office, then the other side of the argument w ill rightly be weighed very carefully; namely, that Mr. Nixon has well used the presidency for the great benefit of the nation. This is the point at which the President’s climactic achievements in the Middle Fast — furthering the peace of the world and ending the Arab oil embargo — became pertinent and, to many, persuasive to the end that the services of the President to the nation considerably outweigh his disservices to the nation.Tightrope walked Naturally, there will be differences of opinion on this matter; and the purpose of this column is not to try to settle the debate but lo lay out the record of accomplishment of American diplomacy in this most combustible area of the world so that it can lie examined as part of the total impeachment equation. The record is not slight: Without deserting its commitment to the safety of Israel as a sovereign state, the United States has become an ally of both the Arabs and the Israelis in tho Interest of a mutually just and secure peace. This process began the day after Mr. Nixon was elected and has been carried out with brilliant skill — and success. Perhaps most significantly, it has shielded the whole Arab world from being dominated by the Soviet Union, and today the Soviets find themselves second to the United States among Arab leaders and Arab peoples. Without the good offices of the United States, there would be no Egyptian-Israeli disengagement along the Suez Canal. Without the good offices of the United States, a Syrian-lsraeli disengagement would nut be within reach as it is today. Without the good offices of the United States, there would be no Arab-Israell negotiations looking toward a permanent settlement. Such negotiations will start in Geneva in the near future. The reason these remarkable, almost implausible, achievements have been attained is that the United States bas demonstrated t hat it can lie and has been widely accepted as an honest broker between the Arabs and the Israelis in the cause or bringing an end to their recurring wars. By proving ourselves a trustworthy ally of both, we have acquired great influence with both.Singular power Today the United States is Hie only nation which can talk with and is trusted by both sides. The United States is the only nation which can exert influence on both sides to promote an acceptable compromise. These arr achievements over and I beyond all expectation. They are the dis-ti net ive achievements of the Nixon-Kis-singet conduct of American foreign policy. And these do not exhaust what has happened. Egypt and the United States have restored diplomatic relations. President Anwar Sadat bas drawn close to the United States by using his ascending influence to end the oil embargo. He bas emerged .stronger than ever throughout the Arab world, and has liecoine the very model for other Arabs who want to end the wasteful Arab. Israeli conflict. Tho United States has bellied moderate Arab leaders to acquire Hie dominant voice. lf a fourth or a fifth or a sixth Arabist ach war is to be averted, now is the moment when a sensible settlement can be won and the I lilted States is the nation whit Ii has the influence and the trust to bring it about. ll is within reach. It is attainable because ut the way Mr. Nixon bas used the presidency to the great benefit of tho nation and the boon of all mankind. I <»* Angel#* rim#* by odic, at#Insights A woman has to be twice as good as a man to go half as far. Fannie Hunt ;

Clippings and Obituaries for the Cedar Rapids Gazette