■Oiioiià j t coucou
Ethics And Politics
By Hoyle H. Martin Sr.
Post Executive Editor
A recent issue of THE CHAR
LOTTE NEWS (Nov. 18) reported
that three black ministers had re
ceived $1,021.81 from Ken Harris'
campaign fund for services render
ed. This is a cause of concern to the
POST as well as the fact that the
report failed to mention how the
remaining 80 percent of the $4,894 in
campaign worker money was spent.
Inquiries at the NEWS revealed
that Harris' campaign headquarters
had provided a list of 133 campaign
workers of which 130 individuals had
received payments ranging from $20
to $30. However, the three black
ministers, James E. Barnett, W.iyi.
Cavers and James Palmer were
paid $518, $383.81 and $120 respec
tively or over 20 percent of the total
amount paid to campaign workers.
Reportedly, these funds were used
for legitimate campaign expendi
tures.
The POST sees nothing wrong with
single individuals receiving pay
ment for services rendered. How
ever, individuals - such as ministers
- who profess to be community
leaders should be sufficiently strong
in their convictions and influence to
beable to raise funds for the support
of a political candidate. In so doing,
the leader can truly offer support to
the candidate or candidates of his
choice, and, of equal if not greater
significance, he can demand in
return that the candidate, if elected,
respond to the needs of such a
supporter. On the other hand, if that
support is primarily a reflection of
the compensation received for ser
vices given to the candidate, then
the supporter is nothing more than a
hired-hand going to the highest
bidder.
A paid supporter of this type is not
in a position to make demands on an
elected candidate because it could
easily be argued that he'd been paid
for his services and thus no further
obligation is necessary.
In summary, the POST has long
opposed the idea of community
leaders accepting money from poli
tical candidates to aid in the latter's
bid for public office. We believe if
such leaders truly favor a candidate
they should express that by raising
funds on their own effort to help the
candidate and at the same time
maintain their sense of indepen
dence, self-respect and integrity. To
do less is to prostitute one's self and
cloud the issue of the sincerity of the
individual's beliefs and convictions.
Houston, Another Look
Ci*t/tA iltA α. τ τ a ■ l_ A.
wu.w Miv ι. ν*v.win Y lOlt tu nuusiuil
by a group of Charlotte business and
political leaders, the local news
media has had much to say about the
booming Texas city. In addition, a
survey by Battalia, Lotz and Asso
ciates Inc., a New York City-based
recruiting firm, reveals that the
cities favored most by business
executives seeking new jobs lists
Houston second only to San Francis
co and far ahead of Atlanta. Fur
thermore, the 2,000 delegates to the
National Women's Conference ap
peared to be unanimous in their
praise of Houston's convention faci
lities in spite of some minor mixups
over hotel reservations.
Even with all of this fan-fare about
a city that the WALL STREET
JOURNAL recently referred to as
"currently one of the most prospe
rous in the country," a second look
at Houston reveals "all that gutters
is not gold." For example, many of
the local business and political
leaders who visited Houston came
away with the feeling that the city is
without question making consider
able progress but considering its
size - more than three times larger
than Charlotte - its progress is not
substantially greater than that of
our Queen City.
Significantly too, Houston's pros
perity may be short-circuited by a
development that should only be in
the past history of a truly progres
sive city. That development is in
Houston's affluent nearly all-white
West Side's continuing battle to
separate from the Houston Indepen
/
dence School District and reduce
■
uvuoiuii ο ιαλ icvcuuc uy ιυ jjci lcul
to establish a separate school dis
trict.
During the midst of the Charlotte
ans visit to Houston and the women's
conference, the Houston West Siders
took their separate school district
batttle to court. The Houston school
district, with support of the U.S.
Justice Department and civil rights
groups, is strongly opposing the
secession attempt on the grounds
that the loss of the 8,000 predomi
nantly white students and $5.3 mil
lion in operating funds could lead to
a serious deterioration of Houston's
inner city schools. The secessionist
group claims that they simply desire
quality education, not "white flight"
from the Houston district where 66
percent of the 206,000 students are
black and Hispanic.
We support the Houston school
district's opposition to the secession
ist plan even if the existing system is
offering something less than quality
education. We believe this because it
was a historic pattern of falsified
"separate but equal" education that
created the conditions that gave*
Houston's schools whatever quality
of education they now have. Fur
thermore, it proves that to deny your
neighbor something means, in the
final analysis, to deny yourself
something. Thus, the many years
that Houston and other school sys
tems were preoccupied with denying
blacks a quality education they were
also denying, or setting the stage for
denying, themselves the same quali
ty education. The current develop
ment in Houston is simply evidence
of that fact.
r««v - mm m ' " ' tit
CRIME IS BECOMING A MAY OF LIFE!J
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The Promise Of Humphrey-Hawkins
ay tsayara Kustin
Special To The Post
The most tragic aspect of
the unemployment crisis af
fecting the black community
has been the discouraging
prospects of speedy and signi
ficant improvement. Over the
last several years, the Hum
phrey-Hawkins full employ
ment bill has come to express
our concerns and represent
our hopes. Unfortunately, des
pair and frustration have be
come so pervasive that now
that President Carter is sup
porting the bill whispers have
begun that Humphrey-Haw
kins is an empty promise.
Some people argue that the
bill has been so watered down
that it is virtually meaning
less.
Rarely has there been as
much confusion about a single
measure as about TUnphrev·
Hawkins. The éorttradictcry
press portrayals of the bill as
both ineffectual and wildly
infaltinnnrv houo onmo
to transforming enthusiasm
into skepticism. An unwar
ranted disillusionment with
the bill could, in the end, prove
more damaging to the cause of
full employment than the on
slaughts of outright oppo
nents.
President Carter's support
for the Humphrey-Hawkins
Full Employment Act repre
sents a major political victory
for blacks and working people
in general. The bill is still
sufficiently advanced that an
administration preferring
caution and uncomfortable wi
th bold domestic initiatives
had to be persuaded to give its
support by intense pressure
from a broad coalition includ
ing the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights and the labor
movement.
The Humphrey-Hawkins bill
is much more than a pious
repeuuon οι me employment
Act of 1946, which first com
mitted the United States to the
goal of full employment, thou
gh in a vague and ambigious
manner. It not only reaffirms
the goal of full employment,
but it also provides effective
means to achieve that goal.
For the first time there would
be a declared ceiling in how
much unemployment the Uni
ted States is willing to tole
rate. Targets for economic
performance and jobs would
be established with a degree of
specificity and concreteness
never before known. The Pre
sident would be required to
prepare programs to cut the
seven percent joblessness rate
to four percent within five
years, while reducing adult
unemployment to three per
cent,
- ,jUndèr HumphrQy-Jia>vKms,
Ύν* President.J»» required
each year to give numerical
goals for employment, unem
ployment, real income, and
production. In addition, he
must present his projections
of the programs and appro
priations necessary to achieve
the goals. A third major pro
posal in the bill calls on the
Federal Reserve System to
explain to the Congress how
its plans for monetary policy
would affect the President's
program. Finally, if, after two
years, not enough jobs are
being created to meet the 1963
goals, it will be the President's
duty to present a program for
"last resort" jobs in such
priority fields as energy, mass
transportation, environmental
improvement, housing,and
health.
The compromises which
were necessary to gain the
support of the Carter adminis
tration resulted in both less
ambitious goals and a less
realistic program for achieve
ing full employemnt than con
tained in earlier versions of
Humphrey-Hawkins. The bill
will not itself immediately
create new jobs. It may not
even lead to significant in
roads aginst unemployment
until two years after its pas
sage.
While the present version of
Humphrey-Hawkins is not
perfect, its shortcomings,
nonetheless, are clearly out
weighed by its promise. With
out the clear goals and frame
work for policy-making pro
vided by the bill, substantial
progress iti reducing unem
ployment will only happen
accidentally and with extre
mely good fortune. In fact, if
the bill is not passed, then the
chances of yet another reces
sion in the near future will be
miioh ffrooter ΑΗΚλιμιΚ I
. wpuld have preferred more
ambitfofis and socially
conscious goals, the bill still
merits strong support. The
goals in the bill should be
understood as a declaration of ,·
the minimum progress the
nation aims to achieve in
reducing unemployment. It is
my hope that we can move
more rapidly and effectively
toward full employment than
the bill envisions.
The Humphrey-Hawkins bill
will come before the Congress
in 1978. It is an important first
step, but achieveing full em
ployment will require on-go
ing work: mobilizing support,
registering more people to
vote, and electing more crea
tive and concerned people to
office. It is essential that we
wage a hard fight for the
passage of Humphrey-Haw
kins and then continue to fight
just as hard for the job-creat
ing and economic stimulus
measures which are needed to -
make genuine full employ
ment a reality.
I By Vernon E. Jordan Jr.
TO
BE
EQUAL
Vernon Ε. Jordan Jr.
The Hmrçhrey-Hawkine Cxrrçrorrœe
The now famous Humphrey-Hawkins Bill had
its origin in the valiant effort of Congressman
Gus Hawkins and his colleagues in the Black
Caucus to frame legislation that would guaran
tee jobs for all.
Such a tremendous change in our traditional
acceptance of unemployment as a fact of life is
likely to be accomplished by smaller steps. And
one of those smaller steps is the President's
acceptance of a compromise Humphrey-Haw
kins Bill.
The proposed new Bill creates no new jobs, nor^
does it create structures that would deliver new
jobs. Instead, it sets a national goal of four
percent unemployment by 1983.
The compromise has been criticized, but it
would be self-defeating to take an all-or-nothing
stance. The revised Humphrey-Hawkins Bill has
great symbolic value. It commits the President
and the Congress to pursue policies that will
shrink the numbers of unemployed.
That represents a maior new commitmpnt
Instead of vague promises to bring down
unemployment, the Bill provides a firm promise
to do so. It represents a short-term promissory
note to be redeemed in jobs.
By setting a national goal, the Bill places
Congress and the Administration under pressure
to meet the goal, and it provides a much needed
framework for further full employment legisla
tion.
And even while admitting that a four percent
unemployment goal is inadequate, it is far better
than the five and even six percent some
economists pretend is full employment.
So the first order of business is to get the
revised Humphrey-Hawkins Bill passed. And
that has to be followed up with swift action to
create the jobs to meet its modest goal.
That action should include greatly expanded
public service employment and training pro
grams. But it also has to be directed at
increaftipg private sector job-creation through
incentives that expand capital spending-and
production artd aid businesses in hiring and
training the jobless and young people.
The private sector has to be given a central
place in job-creation efforts. Most jobs are ~ and
will continue to be - in the private sector, and no
full employment policy can or should ignore that
fact.
Some of the steps necessary to get full
employment may be unpopular since too many
citizens don't mind high joblessness so long as
they are not among the unemployed. It's always
easier to tell someone else that unemployment is
inevitable when you've got a job.
There's also the barrier of tne questionable
link between full employment and inflation.
Experience has shown that high unemployment
doesn't necessarily mean low inflation, but the
conventional wisdom is that it does. But how fair
is it to tell someone he shouldn't have a job
because full employment may be inflationary?
It is just incredible tor a society sucn as ours to
consciously waste the human resources and
productivity of so many millions of people just to
satisfy the myths of old-fashioned economics. «4
THE CHARLOTTE POST
/
"THE PEOPLES NEWSPAPER"
Established 1918
Published Every Thursday
By The Charlotte Poet Publishing Co., Inc.
2606-B West Blvd.-Charlotte, N.C. 28208
Telephones (704) 392-1306,392-1307
Circulation, 7,185
58 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE
Bill Johnson Editor-Publisher
Hoyle H. Martin Sr Executive Editor
Bernard Reeves General Manager
Julius Watson - Circulation^irector
Albert Campbell Advertising Director
Second Class Postage No, 96&500 Paid At
Charlotte, N.C. under tt^Act of Mardi 3,1878
Member National Newspaper Publishers
Association
North Carolina Black Publishers Association
Deadline for all news copy and photos is 5 p.m.
Monday. All photos and copy submitted becomes
the property of the Post, and will not be returned.
National Advertising Representative
Amalgamated Publishers, Inc.
45 W. 5th Suite 1403 2400 S. Michigan Ave.
New York, N Y. 10036 Chicago. 111. 60616
(212 ) 489-1220 Calumet 5-0200
OS i see ic
All About F.LCA.
Β^ Gerald Ο. Johnson
Editorfte Note: This is the firs
of a two-part series. The se
cond will appear next week.
"Each pay period most of us
receive a check stub explain
ing why our net pay differs so
drastically from our gross
pay. The stub will display
indications that so much of our
money goes for general taxes,
so much for group insurance
plans, and finally PICA.
I recently discovered that
few people actually know what
PICA is or why they pay it. So
take a few minutes and read
about PICA; what is was,
what it is, and what it should
be.
PICA are the initials for
Federal Insurance Contribu
tion Act. This act requires by
law that each employer with
hold a portion of an employees
earnings as a tax to go into an
endowment for Social Security
purposes The amount with
held from each employee is
that employee's contribution
to the program A company
must match each employee's
contribution as is contribution
to the program
The amount withheld is de
termined by a set base and
rate scale The rate of pay is
the percentage taken out of
your paycheck each pay peri
od. The base is the maximum
amount subject to this tax
rate. For instance, a rate of
5.85 with a base of 97,800 would
mean that 5.85 percent of your
'paycheck would be deducted
each pay period, until you had
earned $7,800 At this point no
more FICA would be taken out
of your check.
Both the rate and the base
are set by Congress The
purpose of this money is to
fund one of the two parts of the
Social Security System of this
country. Social Security is
made up of Public Assistance
and Social Insurance. FICA
Finances the Social Insurance
part
The Social Insurance Pro
gram covers (1) old age,
survivors, and disability bene
fits; (2) Railroad workers'
retirement benefits; (3) Un
employment Insurance; (4)
Workmen's compensation;
and (5) Sickness insurance
It must be stated here that
the amount you contribute to
the Social Insurance Program
has no relationship to the
amount you are eligible for
The amount you are eligible
for is based on need and even
then vou are limited to a
fey fleraldo. Johmon
maximum amount you can
receive. But as long as you
work you must pay according
to the dictates of the Govern
ment. Recent laws have been
passed so that a person may
receive benefits without ever
having contributed.
Also, Government workers
are exempt from Social Insu
rance Programs Therefore,
they pay no FICA. They have
their own program that is
similar to the Social Insurance
Program This makes the
whole thing ironic since Con
gress are Federal employees
and therefore are exempt
from FICA Yet thev deter
mine the laws that give Social
Security its structure. More on
this later.
The initial conception of the
Social Insurance Program
was in 1935. With rigid rules
set up to handle who was
eligible for benefits the pro
gram appeared to be a good
one. In 1940, $550,000 waa
contributed to the program
and this amount collected ano
ther $42,489 in interest.
During that same year $15,
805 was paid out in benefits
with a mere $12,288 for admi
nistrative coat. Aa the year's
passed congress became libe
ral with who was eligible. By
1950 $728,000 was issued in
benefits $58,841 needed to ad
minister the program. But
since the work force waa
strong in the 50's, primarily
because of the wars, $2,109,992
was contributed to the pro
gram.
Congress in the meantime
was steadily liberalizing the
laws to include more and more
people and to increase the
minimum benefits that by I960
there were 15,400,000 people
receiving benefits It took $10,
798.013 in payments and $234,
291 to administer the pro
gram.
During this same period
only 10,829,764 was contribut
ed with another ISM,000 added
by interest. This was the first
year that contributions to the
program barely equalled be
nefits paid by the program. To
rectify this situation Congress
raised the rate of the tax from
3. IS percent of a base of 94,800
to a rate of 3.62 percent of a
base of 94,800. But at the same
time they increased the mini
mum payments and liberali
zed the laws to include even
more people to the program.
In 1969 the program had
20,000,000 people receiving be
nefits. The rate of tax was
boosted to 4.20 percent on a
base of 16,600.
By 1976 the program had
contributions totaling 967,867,
099 plus interest of 92,618,9*3
From this 971,462,416 was paid
out In benefits with 91,200,326
going to administrative coat.
During'this same year em
ployees were paying S.8S per
cent on a base of 914,100.
It was at this point that
Congress stupidly decided
that more money rather than
better management was what
was needed to revive an inse
cure Social Security Program
Congress passed in November
a bill that would gradually
graduate employee and em
ployer contributions through
1907 so that by 1967 an em
ployee would pay 7.1 percent
on a base of $42,600. While
passing this bill our overly
liberal Congress still increas
ed the benefits.
This Social Security hike
coupled with the minimum
wage bill increase will have
the country in a depression by
1962. Before eluciding the why
of this point let's break down
the Social Insurance Pro
gram.
The Social Insurance Pro
gram gets its funds from
working people. It pays out
money to non working people
and to people to administer
the program. This means that
the program only works when
the majority of the people are
employed. Thus when a per
son is employed he contributes
to the program and when he
becomes unemployed he
draws from the program. This
unemployment can be be
cause of retirement, disabili
ty, layoff*, or even death.
Here lies the problem with
the program. There is nor can
there be any control on the
payouts of the program. "rv
To be continued next week