OCR Text |
Show BEHINM By PaulMalloh Released by Western Newspaper Union, 'BILL OF RIGHTS' AND U. S. DEMOCRACY WASHINGTON. The Roosevell tocsin which range the wildest reaction reac-tion in his current program was his Second Bill of Rights. He listed eight: The right to a good job, wage, fair farm price, business freedom from monopolies (and foreign cartels), a decent home, medical care, social security, education. This new Bill of Rights Is not a bill of new rights. They always existed ex-isted (wilh the possible exception ol foreign cartels, , formerly beyond their reach). They exist today. Every man has a "right" to a good job, home, medical care, and so on. We have long had laws for business i freedom against monopolies, have something of a social security system, sys-tem, and an unequaled educational system. The only difference of opinion which will cause any dispute is whether the federal government shall furnish them that is, materially material-ly and directly provide more ol them, as Mr. Roosevelt apparently wishes. Formerly, the working theory of this democracy was that each man should be given the opportunity to provide them for himself that is, to earn enough to pay for his home, medical care, and so on. Here now, planning for a fresh start at the end of the war, the question ques-tion must arise as to which of these courses is best to follow not just best politically, but what is most practical. If Mr. Roosevelt is going to undertake un-dertake in peacetime to have the federal government itself furnish each man each job, fix his wages, fix his farm price, build his home, provide his medical care and direct his education as is being done now in wartime this nation will be totalitarian, to-talitarian, not democratic. A FEW TOINTED QUESTIONS But that is an academic argument, even though it Is the most decisive focal point of all questions today. What the citizen now will want to figure out for himself is: Will it be better for him that way? Will the common man, the average citizen, get more out of it? Will he get more by having the federal government gov-ernment provide all these things than by having the government fulfill ful-fill only its old responsibility of providing pro-viding leadership for a prosperous and stable country? I think the question answers itself hi the light of all incontrovertible facts of history. No government ever did provide better homes, jobs, medical care, or education than in this country or better rights of any kind, especially individual freedom and independence. Can the government build better homes than the people build fer themselves? Will it provide better medical care if you must have a political drag to get a good doctor, and will the doctors doc-tors themselves have the same initiative ini-tiative in your behalf if they work on a federal salary and the whole nation medically becomes a clinic? Would education be any better under un-der more federal control? Would there be more and better jobs if the government assumes more responsibility for providing this "right" than If the right of good business is maintained and the man is allowed freedom of employment? Would wages be higher, or just unions? If so, prices will be higher and no one would benefit. Perhaps the average man would suffer, as has the white .collar man during this war. As for farm prices, they are supposed sup-posed to be fixed now, and the farmers farm-ers are dissatisfied. But if the federal fed-eral government satisfied them, would the average citizen get any more out of it. or would he have to pay higher prices? Nearly all these steps require more federal spending. With what? Not deficit financing, wilh the debt mounting to $200,000,000,000. Only from taxation, money from the pocket pock-et of the average man. SOLDIER VOTE AND POLITICIANS So much political nonsense has been heaped upon the soldier vote question, it is practically Impossible to find the solid facts. The administration seems to have won a publicity conflict on the issue. It has managed to build up the popular popu-lar notion that its federal measure is a soldier vote bill, while the opposition oppo-sition state-voting measure would prevent soldiers from voting. The radio and news headlines have helped particularly to build up this fallacy originally conceived by the ! radical groups. The truth is no man , In public life in any quarter would ! dare oppose the right of the soldier to vote. The only question on both I sides is how to make the most of it for your side. What most Republicans fear is that War Secretary Stimson and Navy Secretary Knox will build up a ( fourth term drive for Mr. Roosevell in the army and navy and run away with the bulk of the 11,000,000 votes involved. |