Newspapers / Jones County Journal (Trenton, … / April 23, 1970, edition 1 / Page 3
Part of Jones County Journal (Trenton, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Flaws in President Nixen's Guaranteed-lncome Welfare Plan by Cpngmimin L. H. Fountain As appealing as it sounds, a guaranteed annual wage by the Federal Government -is some thing this country doesn’t need and can’t afford — materially, morally or Spiritually^ I have always strongly felt that — individually and collec tively — we have an absolute mdral and spiritual responsibil ity to help those in need — the .sick, the blind, the disabled. We -simply must look after the help less. This ft the American Way. But, in my opinion, the decep tively attractive ‘-Family Assist ance Act of 1970” Jp^t too much of a giant step toward, an eventual guaranteed annual wage by the Federal Govern ment for milUohs of Americans. Much of the Act has merit — including the increase in cash. Other Editors Say Issue / une must conclude that there ► is repsonsible reason for a House of Representatives inquiry into the fitness of Justice William 0. Douglas to continue serving on the Supreme Court. This inves tigation should not be Vindic tively motivated — a retaliation for the Senate’s rejection of the presidential nomination of Judges Carswell and Haynes worth, It would need'tp be a bipartisan move, to carry weight in public opinion. £ut if handl ed with a strong1, sense of na tional responsibility, the inquiry could be a protection to the Su preme Court. Justice Douglas has had a long tenure on the high be»<?h. He has written powerful opinions, for the majority and in dissent. His liberal advocacies have help ed carry the court into its con troversial remaking of Ameri can institutions. His travels in faroff lands have displayed a lively interest in mankind. But recent statements and view points of his, uttered off the bench, raise serious questions of both ethical and judicial pro priety. Justice Douglas’ latest book, “Points of Rebelion,” in effect approves if it does not advo cate violence as “the -only effec tive response” to the nation’s ills. It is totally irresponsible for a member of the Supreme Court to seem to condone the often senseless violence disrupt ing the nation — a violence which, as manifested in the courtroom, was denounced within the month by the Su preme Court. And it only adds to the impropriety for Justice Douglas to have permitted the pertinent excerpts from his book to appear in the Evergreen -■-Review-with its content of ero ticism. Again, Justice Douglas in a recent law school talk behaved like a left-wing pamphleteer in declaring that “Our greatest con tril>ut*ons abroad — apart from expeditionary 'forces — have been Coca Cola and comic books/v Add in the Justice’s earlier acceptance of income from the Parvin foundation relation -to La Vegas s, and the record payments to the aged, blind and disabled from |68 to $ 110 month ly for individuals; but, in my opinion, the Act’s guaranteed income for certain categories of people would simply clear the way for later, more serious de velopments; such as periodic in creases in the guarantee. Within my lifetime we may see 30-40 million Americans drawing from the Federal Treas ury under this program. At the vjery outset the Act would cost us $4 to $5 billion extra each year for . welfare. : I don’t like to be a prophet of doom, especially when, it looks like this proposal is go ing to 'become law, but I have grave fears that the Act would erode away, the vitality of our free enterprise system by de stroying the incentive of mil the South and other conserva tives, could stir national emo tions anew. But there is noth ing to prevent Justice Doug lass from taking heed, if the bill of complaints mounts, and de ciding as no doubt Justice Fort as did, that his resignation would indeed serve to protect the Su preme Court from its detractors. Hons of responsible American citizens to work. In addition, it see&s appar ent that the states, which now 'Spend huge sums of their own money on welfare, would lose control of their own programs through increased red tape and even more rijpd, centralized con trol from Washington. The most radical change un der the Act, which, regrettably, has passed the House and been sent to the Senate, is the pro gram to replace Aid for Depen dent Children (AFDC), under which financial assistance is now provided to needy families where there is no father in the house. The Administration - propos ed bill would broaden eligibili ty requirements to include all those described as “working poor” — families with fully em ployed fathers and an income below the so-called poverty lev el. Over two million families (tot aling over ten million people) would be placed on welfare, in addition to, the present rapidly grooving AFDC rolls of 1.8 mil lion families (7.1 million peo ple). If the Act secures final pas sage, the tax burden to support the costs of welfare will dou ble. In. all probability, it would soon require a new and perma nent 10 per cent income tax sur Farm and Hattie Requirements Of Petroleum Pfoducts -0 HODGES-BELL OIL CO., INC. Phone JA 3-2338 P. O. Box 666 U. S. 70 East of Kinston, N. C. - ■ * charge. I hope I’m wrong. Under the Act, a family would get $500 each for the first two members and $300 for each ad ditional member. To illustrate, a family of four Would get $1, 600 a year and a family of ten, $3,400. Any money earned by the family would cut down on Federal benefits at the rate of about 50c on the dollar, starting after the first $720 earned. But a large family would still draw down $760 a year in welfare money even if i{ had an income of $6,000 annually. And the food stamp program continues for millions of the same .people. In short, the Act would: — Federalize our public wel fare program, — institutionalize poverty, not eliminate it — destroy responsible pride and initiative for millions — cause an upward spiral of taxes — create a new Federal bureaucracy to administer it — still be welfare, not “work fare,” rising in cost with each national election — have hidden costs, impos sible now to even approximate Beyond any doubt, our pres ent welfare system should be soundly and properly reformed. This we should try first before even considering such a purely socialistic step as this. We should not go off the deep end and endanger our basic ec onomic structure and our priv ate free enterprise system with the “Family Assistance Act of 1970.” Frosty Mom Meats Inc. Helping to build a better Livestock Market for Eastern North Carolina" Top prices paid for Hogs &,Cattle Daily No Commission Charge No Waiting Phone JA 3-5103 Kinston, N. C. IVhat Is vl Good Judgef A GOOD JUDGE is one who believes in God and puts his belief to wiork in his life and his profession. A GOOD JUDGE should be so informed of the law1 that he can preside whereby the court may function in such a manner as to insure the rights of citizens and preserve the life of our society and State. A GOOD JUDGE should realize that a court proceeding is a search for the truth. .A GOOD JUDGE should have the courage to pass judgment with j out evading justice, realizing it is his duty to serve the best in terest of the, citizens of the State. A GOOD JUDGE brings respect'and dignity to the Court. A GOOD JUDGE should ever be aware that he is a product of the people and duty bound to he their servant. Walter P. Henderson fll District Court Judge ^ '• , , 'i. rW -Lfc y
Jones County Journal (Trenton, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 23, 1970, edition 1
3
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75