OCR Text |
Show Page 3 REVENUE SHARING: Tax Spenders Welfare has become a gigantic make-loa- f program which is destroying the character of those residing permanently in its womb, while it bankrupts and socializes our nation. In Fun City alone, 1,140,000 people are now getting government relief checks. Thats one out of every seven residents. (They call New York Fun City because its a riot.) The Food Stamp program was begun in 1964 as a small part of the welfare program. It has mushroomed into a scandalous racket. Food stamps are now purchased not only by the needy, but by college students, hippies, military men and unionists out on strike. The food stamp program has become a bargaining tool which encourages striking unions to hold out against management at taxpayers expense. In 1968, the food stamp program cost $118 million. In 1971, it will cost approximately $1.42 BILLION, and is projected as a $2.5 billion operation this coming fiscal year. The combination of public welfare and food stamps has enabled the unions to force management capitulations in the General Electric strike of 1969, the 1 967-6- 3 copper strike, and others. the 1970 General Motors strike Thus, the government is sabotaging collective bargaining at taxpayers expense. A large part of our outrageous welfare expenditure is stolen by the bureaucrats who administer the multiplicity of over lapping programs and by crooks like the welfarer in Massachusetts who registered under ten different names, got $18,000 and then left the state for more fertile fields. Of course, it's worth $18,000 to get out of Massachusetts. The General Accounting Office is presumably now investiofficials in New York City who reportedly gating lost" $8 million during a three-yeperiod. (But who's lost word means $8 million The the guards?) guarding disappeared, unaccounted for. One dollar out of every four they handled merely vamoosed. Your tax dollars arc financing riots, anarchy, subversion, crime syndicates and Marxism. For instance, in New York, there are karate schools and various headquarters of cultural organizations in which hang large photos of Mao Tse Tung, Che Guevara, Castro and Ho Chi Minh. Millions of taxpayers dollars are being used by killers, karate instructors, Maoists, Marxists, anarchists and Castro-ite- s. Vast sums of money are flushed through intricate pipes going to countless regional, sectional, municipal, neighborhood and street divisions, organizations, agencies and fronts. O.E.O. has been repeatedly charged with graft, inefficiency, waste, extravagence, rowdyism,, subversion, and fraud. Evidence of gang rapes, extortion, theft, arson, bribery, homosexuality and use of narcotis is routine, especially in the Job Corps centers. Public funds have been used for union organizing and strikes, and voting is virtually drives. and forced O.E.O. integration campaigns, Relief Continued from page 2 the inevitable clamor for more money to meet government needs (read wants has been met by a still louder outcry of Stop! So now the spenders have come to Washington in force looking for relief not for the taxpayer, but for themselves. They want more money in a less visible form. And in Federal revenue sharing they think they have found the magic carpet to carry them over the angry ranks of aroused taxpayers. They are all but beating down the doors of Congressmen to get their hands on the $5 billion President Nixon would with no strings offer them attached. The rhetoric of sharing anti-pover- ty ar revenue pleases many supporters of limited government because it speaks ofreturning more authority to lower levels of government. But this talk is utterly meaningless unless Federal authority , or Federal taxes, or local taxes are reduced as a result. The revenue sharing proposal now being presented to Congress would reduce none of these. It would simply add $5 billion more on top of everything else government at all levels is now spending. It is highly undesirable to separate the level of government which collects taxes from the level which spends the. money collected, because this makes it so difficult to call government to account for how it ues or misuses the money it takes. This point was made in my newsletter two weeks ago, and deserves repetition and even greater emphasis as the drive for revenue sharing escalates. Local government profunds-argrams financed by Federal for all practical purposes out m, voter-registrati- By and overlaps 42 existing programs. It hires and fires and fixes salaries, employs consultants, pollsters and advertising and promotion media; makes contracts; shifts funds between accounts and activities and establishes new programs all without the consent of Congress. On March 31, 1969, The Washington Star reported that in the past five years, O.E.O. had contracted for 818 resolutions, reports, studies and surveys of activities, costing more than $30 million. Senator Peter Dominick reported that O.E.O. has paid pollster Louis Harris $803,650 in the past 2 Vi years to interview Job Corps youths. And how many people have been lifted out of poverty through the billions spent by O.E.O.? None. The average cost of a Job trainee is between $8,000 and $9,000 a year, or the equivalent of the cost of four years in a state college. Some O.E.O. Poverty executives making from $15,000 to $30,000 a year (tax money) spend their time organizing revolution, picketing, battling police and aiding the enemies social-welfa- re anti-pover- ty of our country. A columnist reported recently: Like revenue-sharina federal takeover of welfare costs would mean major financial relief for states and counties. Their welfare costs now total $4 billion annually and are projected to rise to $5 billion in fiscal 1971. That is a deliberate distortion of truth. Federalized welfare, like federalized anything, will cost more, not less. No government, federal, state or local, has any money except what it confiscates from the people. On the round trip to and from Washington, the bureaucrats take out 35 cents of every dollar. Welfare, like virtually everything else, should be bought, run and paid for at home. The goal of the federalists is to do away with state welfare. And later, to do away with the states. Government has nothing to give except what it takes from the people. For government to give people who prefer to loaf rather than work, a part of the workers reward, forces the worker into involuntary servitude. And that is just a fancy term for slavery. Some naive souls still cant believe that the Puppeteers on the Potomac are deliberately delivering us to bankrupey, surrender and dictatorship under the United Nations. The trusting souls are like the husband who answered the phone and said, How should I know? Why dont you call the Coast Guard? His wife asked: Who was that, dear? The husband replied, I haven't any idea. Some stupid slob just wanted to know if the coast was clear. The American Way g, Jesse Helms MORE ODDS AND ENDS FROM THE MISCELLANEOUS FILE: e of the peoples hands, and quickly become bucaucratic nightmares. Congressman John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin, senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee and a leading opponent of the revenue sharing proposal, ha pointed out that in Germany during the 1920s, beforelliller came to power, a revenue sharing system was in effect. The disastrous results were explained in an official report in 1930 by S. Parker Gilbert, Agent General for Reparation Payments: 77ie Government on a law unto itself. It reportedly duplicates of the Reich collects the taxes, but does not feel the full responsibility for them since, it must pass onalarge share of the proceeds to the Continued on page 10 More and more state governments are launching investigations to determine how much fraud is going on in their welfare programs. But the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in Washington is fighting the investigations every step of the way. Take the case of the State of Arizona, for example. Following a careful investigation, Arizona reduced its welfare rolls by 22 per cent after checking every recipient in the state. It was discovered that more than 50 per cent of the welfare recipients were getting more money than they were entitled to receive. And what was the reaction of H.E.W. in Washington? Well, H.E.W. went into a bureaucratic tantrum. Unless the State of Arizona puts every one of those welfare recipients back on the list, said H.E.W., the federal government would cut off all federal welfare aid to the state, effective April 1. Thus far, Arizona is standing its ground. Unless H.E.W. backs up, thousands of eligible and presumably deserving welfare recipients still on the Arizona rolls will be without funds. That includes nearly 60,000 children, more than 13,000 elderly people, 8,000 disabled persons, and more than 500 blind persons. The same situation exists in Jwo other states, which have s. Nevada discovered that apcracked down on proximately 50 per cent of the welfare recipients in that state were either ineligible, or were receiving more than they were entitled to. Nebraska and Indiana, likewise, have conducted investigations, and have been given warnings by H.E.W. that theyd better not cut any recipients off the rolls. If Mr Nixon really wants a welfare reform, he could make a good beginning by rolling some heads down at H.E.W. It frce-loadcr- might even be the finest service he rendered the nation while President. The narcotics problem is being solved in Iran. Latest reports indicate that the illicit drug traffic has been reduced by an estimated 75 per cent. Smuggling has just about stopped, and use of drugs has dropped dramatically. How did Iran manage to accomplish this? Very simple. Two years ago, Iran passed a law making it a capital crime to smuggle or otherwise deal unlawfully in narcotics. During the past two years, 75 dope peddlers have been executed. Two weeks ago, five smugglers were executed in one day by firing squads. Somehow, that "easy money doesn't seem so appealing to narcotics pushers in Iran anymore. Congressman John Rarick of Louisiana made a little proposition in Washington the other day. Noting that the communists are protesting the arrest of Professor Angela Davis for her alleged conspiracy in a brutal murder out in California, Rarick suggested that the United States make a trade with Russia. Let's send Professor Davis to Russia in exchange for Simas Kudirka, the Lithuanian sailor who tried to defect to the United States a few weeks ago. Professor Davis is an avowed marxist who was fired by the regents of the University of California at Los Angeles. Since she likes communism, Congressman Rarick says, let her go to Russia to live and since Simas Kudirka wants to escape the slavery of communism, let's give him a chance to become an American citizen. The Congressman has an interesting idea but lets first require Professor Davis to stand trial on that murder charge out in California. If the Supreme Court turns her loose, then she can move to Russia. The American Way -- |