Before You Cast Your Ballot .
Ford, continued from page 1
make him more conscious of
possible ramifications the proposal
would have in other areas.
Second, there is a far greater
precedent for Presidents with
legislative backgrounds than for
those with gubernatorial experi
ence.
Jimmy Carter brings few
“Presidential qualities” to the
race. He has a truly frightening
penchant for demagoguery, ap
pealing to the electorate to “trust”
him while never giving them sub
stantive reasons for its bestowal.
Having enunciated his promise
never to tell a lie on numerous
occasions, he nonetheless has
been caught stretching the truth
from Los Angeles to Plains in
discussing everything from his
academic experience to his re
cord in Georgia. The man is not
what he would have the elector
ate believe.
Before turning to specific
issues, an elaboration on the
conditions surrounding Ford’s
term as President is in order. In
addition to the unique position in
which Ford was placed in being
the first appointed President of
the U. S. the widespread anti-
White House sentiments held by
the electorate placed him in an
unenviable position. Faced with
three major priorities at the out
set of his administration, Ford
acted in the soundest manner
possible within the constraints of
Presidential powers and public
opinion.
The top priority was the re
storation of domestic stability
following Watergate. He gambled
by pardoning Nixon, hoping to
focus public attention on other
problems facing the nation, a
course which he deemed more
productive than continued con
centration on Watergate. In
terms of the cost of continued
national obsession with the course
of criminal proceedings against
Nixon and the nature of the pro
blems facing the nation both
domestically and internationally,
the gamble was probably a sound
one, despite the public outrage
over the pardon.
The second priority, the with
drawal from Vietnam, was ac
complished with a minimum of
costs within a short period of
time, leaving only the problem of
energy independence to be solved.
There was little that Ford could
do on the energy front without
Congressional appropriations. He
did formulate an energy con
servation program, coupled with
a proposal for increased gasoline
taxes and an R & D priority list.
It was at this point that he en
countered the last of the oddities
of his administration: a “Crazy
Congress.”
The Congress elected in 1974
was one of the youngest and least
experienced ever, one which was
determined not only to reorganize
the organizational structure and
power structure of the House, but
one which was determined to re
assert itself to a position of domi
nance in national affairs. Given
the political climate in which it
was elected, the 94th Congress
saw 1975 as the year of Capitol
Hill and was jealous of any initia
tive emanating from the White
House. In this climate, any Presi
dent would have had problems
getting legislation passed, much
less one who was appointed to
succeed the first president to
resign in disgrace. Hence the
charge from the Carter camp that
Ford took no action on energy:
Congress refused to pass Ford’s
proposals. Considering the cir
cumstances, Ford can hardly be
blamed for “inaction.”
The phenomenon described
above is but an extreme case of
a problem confronting all Presi
dents: they can only fulfill their
campaign promises on domestic
issues if Congress passes the bills
they introduce. It is on this pre
mise that Ford and Dole base their
contention that tax laws, econo
mic policies, and bureaucratic
inefficiency, are directly attribut
able to 22 years of control of Con
gress by the Democrats. With the
realization that another egotis
tical Congress will hinder whom
ever is elected in November from
instituting their programs, let us
examine the course of action that
each candidate would pursue,
Congress and the electorate will
ing.
On the still unresolved question
of energy policy, Ford takes a
very realistic stance in advocat
ing the use of nuclear power. He
has obviously examined the facts
concerning the relative safety and
usefulness of nuclear generation
instead of being swayed by the
mass hysteria which charac
terizes anti-nuclear forces. Some
of these “facts” include the high
improbability of a nuclear ac
cident causing death (1 in 5 Bil
lion reactor years), the lack of
empirical evidence to link low
level radiation to any increase
in malignancies or morbidities
and the existence of evidence that
low level radiation
THC SAL€M1T£
Neal/Mizell,
continued from page 1
national groups. The Republican
National Committee has given
Mizell $5000 and a full-time staff
member, while the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Commit
tee has donated $2000 to Neal’s
cause. Mizell has received $1000
from the Committee for the Sur
vival of a Free Congress and
from the American Conservative
Union. Neal hasn’t raised quite
so much money from out-of-state
groups, but his polls could com
pete with anyone’s — they are
being conducted by the Democra
tic Study Group, a Washington re
search group.
So keep an eye on the local con
gressional race on election night
— Carter and Ford may not be
the only ones who have a sus
penseful race.
emissions
from nuclear generators are less
concentrated and less harmful
than either x-rays or background
radiation from the sun. His ration
al approach to the issue exhibits
not only sound judgment but
also the ability to resist hysterical
claims.
His priorities in R & D expendi
tures are a further indication of
the rationality of his policy judg
ment: nuclear power develop
ment, breeder reactor develop
ment, fossil energy development,
nuclear fusion research and
development, solar energy and
geothermal energy development.
The low rank of solar energy in
the President’s priorities reflects
the true insignificance of solar
energy to U.S. energy needs: it
can provide a maximum of 15%
of our total energy needs by 2000
if we cover the western desert
regions with collectors.
Carter, on the other hand,
stresses the increased use of
coal in generating plants along
with massive research and deve
lopment funding for solar energy.
In the first debate, he responded
to queries about the increased
pollution levels related with the
use of coal by advocating the in
creased use of low-sulfur coal by
power generators. While claiming
to be such an expert on energy
matters. Carter has apparently
failed to realize the true identity
of low-sulfur coal in the market
place: its other name is metal
lurgical coal and it is the primary
ingredient in the coking process
for making steel! If power com
panies followed Carter's advice,
they would bid the price of the
coal up to a point where one of
two things would occur: either the
steel industry would continue to
purchase the coal and thereby
create an exorbitant increase in
costs resulting in devastating
cost-pull inflation throughout the
economy, or the steel industry
would be priced out of the market,
having to rely on lower quality
coal, increasing production costs,
decreasing steel quality and
causing inflation.
The increased usage of high
sulfur coal, while safeguarding
the steel industry, would drastic
ally increase deaths caused by
sulfur dioxide poisoning and other
less noxious pollutants. Either
option entails risks which are
avoided with the increased use
of nuclear power. Though Carter
may claim to be a “nuclear
physicist”, his criticisms of nu
clear energy point only to his
true ignorance of the situation
and the extent to which he is
influenced by hysterical claims
unsubstantiated by fact.
Turning to the economy, one
finds additional indications of
Carter's ineptitude and Ford’s
sound judgment. The Democrats
are using unemployment as their
primary issue in the campaign,
trying to hold Ford and the Re
publicans responsible for it. Car
ter promises to decrease unem
VOTE or
Nov. 2nd
ployment to 4.8% overall through
a number of measures. In so do
ing, he fails to consider two major
factors in the economy. First,
he apparently fails to realize that
the only times in the last 28
years when unemployment was
at or below 4.8% were during the
two periods of American involve
ment in military conflct, 1951-1953
and 1965-1969, and during part of
Eisenhower’s administration, 1955-
1957. It is interesting to note that
it took a war for the Democrats
to achieve “full employment”
while the Republicans were able
to accomplish it during peace. It
is a widely accepted fact that
war decreases unemployment.
When coupled with the end of the
draft in 1973, the resulting decline
in college enrollment, and in
crease in the labor force, the
contention that a “break-out of
peace” caused the current un
employment situation gains credi
bility. Additionally, because of
the increasing educational level
of the labor force, unemployment
became the rule rather than the
exception, forcing those with
little or no skill out of the labor
market. Apparently a problem
exists within the economy which
neither “make-work” programs
nor rhetoric can solve.
That problem is the second
factor in the economy which Car
ter chooses to ignore: the severe
capital shortage facing the na
tion and the world today. When
capital reserves are low, in
vestment is more difficult and
less encompassing. Investments
mean jobs. Therefore, unemploy
ment is an inherent characteris
tic of any economy facing a
“Capital Crunch.” The economic
policies suggested by Carter
would not only help the capital
situation, they would most likely
exascerbate the problem. The
programs he suggests would com
bine a significant hindrance to
capital accumulation through the
decrease in personal and busi
ness deductions for investment,
with increased government spend
ing primarily in the area of trans
fer payments. The results m\,
be demand-pull inflation, hurtii,
all persons in the U.S. not in
the unemployed, and a long d(
lay in increased production ajj
investment.
Ford’s policies would attaci
the problem at its heart by cn|.
ting taxes on corporations, there,
by allowing for greater accumula.
tion of capital reserves whicl
would be used for investments!
new and expanded facilities
creating jobs all along the line'
Additionally, he would cut in.
dividual taxes to place more
money in the pockets of consuii.
ers for spending as they see fit.
The importance of this aspect!
consumer satisfaction: one gets
greater satisfaction from spend,
ing $100 on what he wants than
from hearing that the government
spent an equal amount of monet
on something which has littli
direct affect on that consumer.
The areas of energy and tlit
economy have been viewed
many as Carter’s strongpoints
and Ford’s weaknesses. '
preceding analysis of the
issues should demonstrate I
Carter’s strength lies solely
rhetoric while Ford retains
true strength of reason. If Ford!
reasoning capabilities and sound
judgment can show through Car
ter’s muddling of the issues iii
domestic affairs, then it can
deduced that, despite Ford’s
misstatement about East Europe,
Ford’s margin over Carter in
terms of true significance
issues and policies in
policy and defense. Ford’s area
of expertise, is overwhelming.
In view of the personal attri
butes of the two candidates, their
respective performances in pre
vious offices and their positions
on certain crucial issues, I
be betraying both my sense of
justice and my sense of reason
able policy analysis if I did not
vote for the better of the two
candidates on November 2: Presi
dent Gerald R. Ford. Can you
justify any other choice in your
mind?
2- 4
5-26
Arts and Entertainment
November
2 The Wake Forest Chamber Music Society presents
Ingrid Dingfelder and Larry Shilzer, flute and harp
sichord, at Reynolda House. Admission is by season
tickets.
3 Wake Forest University presents a Biology Seminal'
in Winston B at 4:00 P.M. with Dr. Thomas Murphy
giving a lecture on “Population Biology: The Ameri
can alligator, in a South Carolina Reservoir.”
MESDA. At 7:30-9:30 P.M., three evening sessions
will be given on the Connoisseurship of Furniture.
Cost is $10.00 for the three sessions.
SECCA. A two man exhibition of the works of photo
grapher Stan Duncan and painter Bill Dunlap.
11- 13 & 15-20 Wake Forest University presents “Purhe
Victorious” by Ossie Davis at 8:00 P.M.
12- 14 & 16-20 NCSA presents “I Am a Camera” by John Van
Druten at 8:15 P.M. Admission: $2.00 for students.
MESDA. At 8:00 P.M. there will be a lecture and pen
formance of Southern musical works composed be
fore 1820. Cost: $1.00.
Wake Forest University presents pianist Andie
Michael Shub at 8:00 P.M. in Wait Chapel. Admission
is by season tickets to the Artist Series. , ,
NCSA. At 8:15 there will be a program of classica
music with strings and piano called “Kaleidoscope -
Admission: $2.00 for adults. $1.00 for students.
The Carolina Theatre Company presents “Light OP
the Sky” by Moss Hart. The performance is at the
Reynolds Homestead Learning Center. Admission-
$2.00 for adults, .75 for students.
MESDA. Audrey Michie will give a slide lecture on
Some Early Practices in Interior Room Arrange
ments.” Cost: $1.00.
16
18
19
26-27