The Election Process

Section Two
Democratic Presidential Hopefuls

Bruce Babbitt

Forty-nine-year-old Bruce Babbitt is many things: an accomplished outdoorsman, an attorney and an ex-attorney general who, by the process of succession, became Governor of Arizona and was later elected and reelected in his own right. He has been married for almost twenty years (August 1969) to a former Texan, now a practicing trial attorney in Phoenix, and has two lively young sons. Although Bruce Babbitt was born in Los Angeles, he is a third generation member of an Arizona pioneer family and was raised in that state. He has the intensity and drive required to run a hard political fight. His ambition and stamina were evidenced by his 397-mile bicycle ride across Iowa in an attempt to draw media attention to his campaign.

In 1960 Bruce Babbitt received a degree in geology from Notre Dame and immediately began working on a graduate degree in geophysics by doing field work in Bolivia. However, in 1962 he decided his destiny lay in public service and he left the pursuit of science and entered Harvard Law School, paying his room and board by working as a freshman dorm master in Harvard College. He spent his summers as an accion volunteer in Latin America and directing an international student workcamp in Peru. He is proud of his participation in the Selma civil rights marches which led directly to his involvement in several antipoverty programs after he received his J.D. in 1965. As an attorney with the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity (19657) he worked on migrant workers programs in the Rio Grande Valley, school desegregation programs and the creation of legal service programs for Native Americans.

Between 1967-75, Mr. Babbitt practiced law in a private firm in Phoenix, Arizona. In I974 he was elected Attorney General of Arizona and upon the death of former Governor Wesley Bolin became governor in March 1978 through constitutional succession. Later that year he was elected governor in his own right and received 62.5 percent of the vote to win reelection in 1982. When his term expired on January 5, 1987, he became affiliated with the law firm of Steptoe and Johnson, which has offices in Washington, D.C., as well as Phoenix. Since then he has been constantly on the campaign trail--mostly in Iowa and New Hampshire.

There is little doubt that Bruce Babbitt supports an activist's role for government. He has said, "We can use government to create a more just society" and has ridiculed the Reagan administration' s contention that what this country needs is for government to take a holiday. He wants to see government chart a course for the nation and envisions the President of the United States as the captain steering the country by that course. In his statement of candidacy Mr. Babbitt showed a certain naiveté by declaring, "I want to see an America in charge again. All it will take is leadership." Unfortunately it will take a great deal more than leadership to keep America number one in the world. Number one is, of course, the stated goal of every presidential aspirant who also professes to have what it takes to achieve the goal.

Mr. Babbitt claims that seeing that America is in charge again is the cause of a lifetime. Although he never specifies what he means by "in charge again," one is not really interested, assuming it is merely candidates' rhetoric. But Bruce Babbitt, unlike many of his challengers, offers more than platitudes.

Trade

Regarding trade, ex-Governor Babbitt rejects the Gephardt amendment but offers some innovative and concrete strategies of his own in its stead. He suggests that any nation running an overall multilateral trade surplus be required to reduce that surplus by a third each year or face across the board tariffs. He envisions an international agreement for balanced trade which says a nation must import and export in equal measure. If a nation sells too much it must see that it buys the same amount--not of the same goods, of course, but nevertheless this may be an artificial mindless non-market-oriented solution which can hardly be good for the world's consumers. Making people buy what they don't want is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole in order to satisfy some leader's grandiose scheme. Ridiculous!

Workplace Democracy

Mr. Babbitt thinks not only in specifics but he thinks big when he considers national goals. He wants the nation to set a goal of cooperation whereby American workers will share in the profits and losses of business (workplace-democracy). Of course if workers have little capital to lose it is a one-sided arrangement where the potential risk is no match for the potential gain. As things stand now, if a company fails to make a profit the owners stand to lose their capital, and in many instances time and energy, whereas workers stand to lose a job. Workers get their time and energy compensated as they go, by wages that have been negotiated and agreed upon. Owners are compensated from the potential profits. For workers to share in those profits without the risk is nonsense.

Mr. Babbitt spouts more nonsense when he declares that after two terms of his presidency "1996 will signal the end of trickle down economics and the arrival of an economy built from the bottom up." Mr. Babbitt seems to assume that workers are always responsible for greater productivity when he says that if he has his way "no American company will be permitted to deduct an executive bonus as a business expense unless it offers productivity pay for all of its employees." He forgets that it is often creative approaches to management and capital expenditures that are responsible for greater business productivity. On the other hand his idea that bonuses given for performance should not be taxed away would probably meet with universal approval. He would like to see a tax-exempt account set up for bonuses. The rest of us can no doubt give the ex-governor a myriad of suggestions for other such tax-exempt accounts. How about exempting savings for education or for self-improvement in general, for future health care needs, for money set aside toward achieving the American dream of home ownership? Please, Mr. Babbitt--why one without the other? How about an account for receiving withholdings that offers the taxpayer interest while the government waits at its turn to get at their money?

During a debate against Republican presidential hopeful Pete du Pont held at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, in May 1987, Mr. Babbitt told his audience that managers ask workers to take wage cuts and then give themselves bonuses for solving the problems. Bruce Babbitt wants to enact a law which forces managers and workers to have equal cuts and bonuses. Perhaps there ought to be a law against a politician rewriting the economy according to his own dictates.

Surely it is not too much to ask that politicians back up their facts. (No more Gary Hart-style vagueness even about his own birthdate.) Mr. Babbitt claims "...our productivity is growing at half the rate of Germany, one thirdany, one third the rate of France, one fourth the rate of Japan." What he failed to mention is that America is still the most productive nation on earth and that other nations have been extremely inefficient in the past and are now catching up. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the following are international productivity levels given as gross domestic product per employee for 1985: USA--100, Germany--81.5, France--82 and Japan--68.7 . As for growth (the average annual change in gross domestic product per employee) for the period 1983-86: USA--1.5, Germany--2.2, France--1.7 and Japan--2.8. ¹ Even with TEFRA (the 1982 tax reform) which repealed ERTA' s (the 1981 tax reform) deductions for equipment and machinery, manufacturing productivity grew faster in this country under the Reagan administration than during the average postwar expansion. According to the 1987 report of the Council of Economic Advisers, output per hour rose an average of 3.8 percent per year in the manufacturing sector between the third quarter of 1981 and 1986; more than double the average 1.5 percent rate reported for the 1973 to 1981 time period. That meant that labor costs (wages and productivity) had been rising, but at only a relatively small fraction of the average rise between 1946 and 1981. It is hard, therefore, to understand Mr. Babbitt's claim that for the last six years we've been standing still in this nation. Perhaps he and other presidential candidates should be asked to produce citations for their "facts."

In August 1987 he told his audience at the Southern Legislative Conference in Little Rock, Arkansas, this his workplace-democracy would encourage profit sharing, employee ownership and cooperation in the workplace. It would also eliminate greed and speculation and outlaw "greenmail" and "golden parachutes."

Taxes

Mr. Babbitt proposes a combination of new revenues while opposing oil-import fees as injurious to any concept of free open international markets and claiming also that excise taxes unfairly burden lower-income taxpayers. Progressiveness is all important to Mr. Babbitt. He has proposed a 5 percent federal sales tax which he estimates might bring in about $40 billion per year but he is not specific in his thoughts on how to ensure that it is progressive. He suggests there are many ways to do so as in exempting necessities such as food, shelter and medicine or, as another means, offering personal tax exemptions as an offset. He wants to broaden the tax base by eliminating all mortgage deductions on second homes and restricting the deduction allowed on expensive first homes (limit deductions to $20,000 for joint filers).

Education

Let's examine Mr. Babbitt's proposal that the federal government take over the state' s funding of Medicaid and put the savings toward education. Medicaid, according to the 107th edition of the Statistical Abstract of the United States (1987) cost the states and the federal government approximately $25 billion each in 1986, whereas federal funds to public schools was just under $17 billion. This then is what Mr. Babbitt calls a fair exchange. Not even exchanging a $25 billion obligation for a $17 billion obligation because it was not even suggested that the federal government be relieved of the $17 billion obligation. No--the states are to be relieved of the obligation to provide $25 billion in Medicare (Mr. Babbitt refers to $20 billion) in exchange for doing something they were supposed to do in the first place--fund education!

Education has always been the prerogative of the states with the federal government providing, in recent years, a mere 7 percent of educational funding. Under Mr. Babbitt' s plan the states must apply the windfall "directly into teacher salaries and education programs." Mr. Babbitt says:

Strengthening our educational system must be one of the nation's top priorin's top priorities for the 1990s and beyond. Of all the investments we make in our future, none is more important than education. The federal government has a responsibility to help state and local governments make the investment we need to give our children the best education in the world... (the federal government should provide) guaranteed access to educational programs and student financial assistance, including Pell grants and guaranteed student loans, help for special groups that are at risk in standard educational programs and training programs for the workforce... The Department of Education should fund research and development, develop model programs and establish educational objectives--based upon concrete measures of student achievement that challenge every school in the country to be the best."

Mr. Babbitt claims that states are already spending nearly $70 billion on education and local governments provide another $60 billion, but that is not enough. In his 1983 State of the State address, then-Governor Babbitt said: "Throughout the history of our nation, the public schools have been the driving force behind our economic growth, the source of much of our social progress and one of the great foundations of our democratic traditions." Mr. Babbitt believes that local communities, as opposed to Washington, D.C., are responsible for excellent schools. He would like to see poorer communities have the same amount to spend on education as more wealthy communities and suggests that federal subsidies and funds be allocated on a per student basis not according to property values. I would argue that an even more democratic answer to our education problems is the universal voucher whereby every youngster in the nation is given the same amount of credit to spend on private or public education as his/her family sees fit. This would have the added benefit of making certain the schools compete against one another for students and ensure that parents can get what they seem unable to get today--that is a quality education for their children.

At the Southern Legislative Conference in Little Rock, Arkansas, in August 1987, Mr. Babbitt told his audience that:

We must end the neglect of our children. Thirty percent don't graduate from high school... There is a federal role in education... we must get rid of (Secretary of Education William) Bennett, provide day-care, universal pre-school and more access to college.

There is no doubt that many of his achievements in Arizona deserve to be recognized. Mr. Babbitt takes credit for Arizona' s policy of allowing employees of high-technology firms to double as math and science teachers and for doubling the math and science requirements for high school graduation in the state.

Child Care

During the debate between the seven Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination held in Dubuque, Iowa, on August 22, 1987, Mr. Babbitt insisted that child-care is an issue of workplace democracy. He was incensed that single parents go out and take a low paying job and then are burdened with child-care payments. He claimed day-care is a moral issue and what is needed is a uniform day-care voucher.

While governor of Arizona, Bruce Babbitt fought for the right to use public facilities as child-care centers during their off-hours.

At one time there was a law prohibiting school districts from using public schools for custodial care, probably because government would be in direct competition with private custodial care facilities (those things used to matter) and probably because of liability insurance (something which along with government regith government regulations keeps down the number of private care centers available to working parents).

Although Mr. Babbitt does not support a national education voucher he has gone on record as claiming that, "It' s time nationally to create a uniform federal state voucher based day-care entitlement system for every child in this country." When confronted by those who would label such a voucher system as one more welfare scheme he responds that it is an entitlement. But Mr. Babbitt goes even further in justifying day-care vouchers--he claims they are the opposite of welfare and that they are rather an inducement for parents to be responsible.

Welfare, if you ask the ordinary man on the street, is acceptance of help from society at large. The opposite would seem to be the giving of aid to society at large. Perhaps Mr. Babbitt assumes society is helped by parents being responsible--a not uncommon view of things now days. Over and over an already responsible majority submits to blackmail (Pay for this or else!) They are told that they must spend more on schools now to avoid spending more on prisons later. Paying a minority to do what the majority already does responsibly is ridiculous and I wonder how long and why a responsible majority will continue to acquiesce.

Mr. Babbitt refuses to call a spade a spade--or in this case, day-care vouchers welfare. They may well be an inducement for parents who might otherwise be tempted to leave their children unsupervised to be more responsible and are in that sense a benefit to children as Mr. Babbitt claims. But there are many other ways society might achieve the goal of responsible parenting and supervised children.

Children come into this world neither rich nor poor on their own merit, yet it is fashionable to decry the poverty of children. Children suffer or rejoice in the irresponsibility or responsibility, the neglect or the care, of their parents. And don't tell me poverty negates opportunity when Charles Kuralt showed us all the wonderful example of Alex and Mary Chandler who raised nine children in a sharecropper's cabin on the poorest farm in the poorest state. With often nothing to wear and nothing to eat, all nine children managed to put themselves through college, many obtaining advanced degrees. It is love and care, not money, that determine success.

All societies adopt a particular role toward children. At one time, even in this country, children, as well as women and slaves, were considered chattel. A man could do with them as he pleased--PERIOD! The other extreme is a state which takes total responsibility for the welfare of the young--a kibbutz situation as illustrated in George Orwell's 1984--where all children are cared for by the state as to food, shelter, health and education. America today is vague on government's responsibilities to the young, with the rights of the child as a distinct human being often clashing with the rights of the parents to act as they see fit. The state towers over both omnipotently deciding whether it will tolerate certain actions (or lack thereof) and their results. Clashes can be seen in the ongoing battles over abortion rights, Baby Doe cases where medical care is mandated for a child contrary to a parent' s judgment and in the pleas to provide children from poor and often uncaring families (and by no means do the two always go together as evidenced by the Chandler family) with services (health care-school lunch programs) or their families with money (often the child never sees any benefit from those dollars) to bring them more nearly up to the level of their more fortunate peers.

Bruce Babbitt tells heart wrenching stories and as asks, "Who are we as a society if we are housing a generation of children too hungry to learn and too sick to dream of a better future." He backs that up by claiming that one quarter of our children live in poverty (should we take them away from their poor parents--no? Srents--no? Should we then let hardworking, self-sacrificing responsible non-poor parents give these poor parents some of their money?) and half don't have access to health care.

Figures for "children in poverty" were first calculated in 1929. In 1959 the figures stood at 26.9 percent and in 1985 at 20.1 percent; more like one-fifth rather than the one-quarter claimed by Mr. Babbitt. But when it comes to such statistics there is little accuracy at any rate. Poverty was one of those subjective words until policy-makers stepped in and gave it their own concrete meaning. Actually many people are counted as poor who are not deprived by any objective standard, because there is considerable disagreement as to what should be considered in determining poverty.

AFDC (Aid to Families With Dependent Children) benefits vary from state to state. Monthly AFDC benefits for a family of three are $118 in Alabama versus $389 in Maine even though per capita incomes in the two states are approximately the same. But no matter what is wrenched from a compassionate and responsible public it will never be enough. ² It is the philosophy itself that is bankrupt.

Social Security

Mr. Babbitt believes firmly in means testing. He would like to see all government support--Social Security and Medicare benefits, farm, trade and education subsidies and all tax deductions and credits, targeted on the basis of need. He advocates this policy despite the Democrats' long-standing principle first articulated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt that in order to win support for welfare programs one must appeal to the self-interest of the nation' s large middle class. The original purpose of Social Security was to maintain customary standards of living for retirees while waging a more general war against poverty. In 1935, President Roosevelt committed the country to payroll financing and convinced policy-makers that general revenue should not be used as a source of funds. He was shrewd enough to realize that it was the payroll that lent a legal, moral and political justification to the beneficiaries' claims. Even though those close to him pointed to the fact that since employers would pass their share of the taxes through to the consumer, making the payroll tax a form of sales tax falling hardest on those least able to afford it, FDR obstinately stuck to his guns.

I guess you're right on the economics... but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. ³

In a column which appeared in the San Francisco Examiner on December 31, 1986, Mr. Babbitt showed himself to be a politician somewhat less shrewd than his mentor, FDR, when he wrote under the heading "Don't Scuttle Social Security":

Some say that relating benefits to income represents heresy. But I've never understood why the Mellons, Hunts (and even Babbitts) should get the same federal entitlement as a widow living in a cold water flat.

Neither can we turn Social Security into welfare. The advantage of universal participation in the ticipation in the system is that everyone can feel they are part of a national community that looks to the care of those in need.

There's no denying the real psychological differences, at least in the minds of the recipients, in thinking of Social Security as insurance rather than assistance even though it is admittedly a combination of the two. In an insurance contract, the insured demonstrates that he has earned the benefits; in an assistance program that he has a need. Anything which might supplement that need, such as savings and earnings, are deducted from assistance, effectively reducing all recipients to the same low level. The insurance concept, on the other hand, encourages variation. Savings and private insurance don't detract from the government' s liability but instead supplement Social Security benefits.

Not surprisingly Mr. Babbitt sees,

Opting out of the Social Security system is no option: we cannot turn the fate of elderly Americans over to a capricious generational struggle of the fittest.

In 1982, the National Taxpayers Legal Fund suggested splitting the insurance and welfare elements of Social Security. It is an idea that, in one form or another, was promoted even earlier by such notables as William Simon, Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, Pete Wilson and James Buchanan. The welfare portion might be financed under SSI (Supplemental Security Income) from general revenue. That would leave the insurance segment of Social Security to accumulate and be invested in private sector IRAs. Benefits derived from their own investment choices would, in most cases, more than compensate citizens for any lost Social Security benefits. For example, if a thirty-five-year-old worker made an average of $25,000 per year, his combined tax, i.e. the amount withheld annually from his paycheck and matched by his employer, would amount to $3,500. If that money was invested at a currently conservative 8 percent, by the time the worker was ready to retire at age 65 he would have an accumulation in the neighborhood of $400,000. There's a good chance (depending on future economic conditions) that our worker could live comfortably on the interest and, if he wished, could leave the untouched principal as an inheritance for his children; something that, for many, makes working worthwhile. It can be a great feeling to leave a legacy, material as well as spiritual, to the younger generation. And, on the other hand, if the retiree has no family, upon retirement that $400,000 could be used to purchase a lifetime annuity that would yield enough to make retirement dreams come true.

The decision to tax certain Social Security benefits made as part of the 1983 Reform package was not a popular or welcome reform. The reason for the new tax was quite simple--the system needed money. The superficial justification for taxing Social Security benefits was that they should be treated in the same manner as private pension plans. For IRS purposes, the employee's contribution was already taxed when paid because the amount paid in payroll tax is included as part of the employee' s income even though never actually received by him. But to follow through in a logical manner on the theory that Social Security benefits should be exempt from taxation only for the value of the beneficiaries' contributions means that on the average, since early contributions were so small, 20 percent of today's benefits would be exempt and approximately 80 percent taxable, not 50 percent! That would probably be agreeable to Mr. Babbitt providing

the revenues can be used to finance the health care and income needs of the elderly, to scale back the regressive FICA payroll tax and to achieve greater equity for women. women. ⁴

As for targeting society's limited resources, I agree with Mr. Babbitt that it must be done better and soon. In 1981, certain members of the Greenspan Commission, which was formed to make recommendations concerning Social Security, argued that cutting the $122 minimum Social Security benefit could be defended on grounds the truly needy would be eligible for that much or more from the means tested programs already functioning, such as SSI. In response, a reader wrote a letter to the New York Times claiming SSI could never adequately replace the minimum benefit because many people would be reluctant to apply for SSI since it carried the stigma of a welfare program. Because of their reluctance does it make sense to collect a lot of taxes and deal them out again without regard to need? Overkill? You bet!

Among its many recommendations for Social Security reform the Greenspan Commission called for full catastrophic hospital coverage for long-term illness in exchange for the insured's shouldering more of the cost for shorter hospital stays. (David Stockman when he was head of the Office of Management and Budget and Dr. Otis Bowen as Secretary of Health and Human Services made essentially the same recommendation.) This is, in my opinion, always a good trade-off when it comes to insurance of any type. Currently, however, Medicare stresses the opposite priorities. Co-payments (the amount the insured must pay) increase the longer the hospital stay.

But Mr. Babbitt wants to have his cake and eat it, too. In the January 19, 1986, edition of the Los Angeles Times he said,

The Stockman and Bowen proposals have the right objective but the wrong approach. Medicare should be reformed to provide catastrophic coverage, but without imposing more hardship on those who cannot afford higher charges.... All enrollees would be fully protected (under Mr. Babbitt's proposal) against all hospital costs after the first-day deductible, no matter how large the bills become, and against physician's costs above $225. [Italics are mine.]

Energy

As an environmentalist, a respected geologist and a member of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island (the Kennedy Commission), Mr. Babbitt' s opinion on nuclear power deserves attention:

Anyone who thinks a utility company can plan the evacuation of thousands of citizens--coordinating resources from the private sector and from dozens of agencies of state and local government--has simply not considered the problem. Experience suggests that many nuclear power plants cannot even plan routine operations within their own four walls. Asking them to take responsibility for dealing with a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl, or worse, is nothing more than preposterous.

Mr. Babbitt takes the stand that no nuclear power plant--including Seabrook in New Hampshire--should be allowed to operate until state and local governments have developed emergency response plans. He is against the development of a second high-level waste repository in the East. "It doesn't make economic, environmental or geological sense. There is plenty of room to expand the existing western facilities." He would like to see Senator Moynihan's bill, which seeks to hold utilities fully liable in the event of an accident, replace the Price Anderson Act which expires in 1987. However he believes it should hold contractors accountable as well as utilities. He would like to see the Nuclear Regulatory Commission replaced by a single accountable administrator.

Agriculture

As for the farm crisis, Mr. Babbitt expressed several views during the debate held at Drake University, Des Moines, against Mr. du Pont in May 1987 and during the August 1987 Dubuque debate, which included all seven Democratic candidates. Mr. Babbitt berated Mr. Babbitt berated Mr. Gephardt' s mandatory production controls claiming they would only drive up prices and isolate us from the rest of the world. He again berated the present policy of sending $l0,000 checks to large farmers and declared that his policy would be to concentrate on the small family farms. He criticized Ronald Reagan for wanting to get rid of deficiency payments and Pete du Pont whom he claims said, "Let' s terminate all government programs." Bruce Babbitt says we'll make the Midwest a corporate farm by driving off all family farmers. He wants corporate agribusiness out of the farm program, no more checks for them "Family farms in the tradition of compassion and common sense." He reiterated that as a nation we must ask,

Is this program necessary and targeted? ...We must get rid of agribusiness subsidies and focus on family farmers... Mortgage subsidies are simply not needed for ski cabins... we must focus on first-home owners.

Priorities

Mr. Babbitt outlined three priorities he would have if elected president. The first was in reference to workplace democracy and involved mandatory regulations designed to bring labor and management together. The second related to the necessity for implementing a universal needs test. He said that a question must be asked of each and every item in the budget--"Is it really needed and really focused?" His third priority would be children. He would end the neglect of our children by providing day-care and education. He went on to say:

We are picking the pockets of our children by cutting taxes. Raising revenue is the only answer. Every $1 cut will raise $1. We must ask, "Do we really need that program and is it targeted?"

Mr. Babbitt left his audience in Dubuque with the thought that the major issue in 1988 is whether we, as a nation, can find the leadership to take charge of our economic future.

The April 1987 issue of the Atlantic Monthly presented Mr. Babbitt' s philosophy simply.

We, as a society, cannot afford to continue buying off the middle class in order to retain government subsidies for the "truly needy." . . .Targeting benefits allows us to move away from the notion that the only way you can expand the safety net is by buying everybody off in equal measure... As we have progressive taxation we will also have progressive benefits in society.

Bruce Babbitt appears to be a compassionate man with an ambition as big as his heart. He is a man of ideas, not merely rhetoric and that is assuredly in his favor except that his ideas would bankrupt the nation and forever change its character.

Joe Biden

It is impossible to run for the nomination for President of the United States without having an enormous amount of ambition--moxie, if you will. All candidates of both parties showed an extraordinary amount of ambition at an early age but none more than Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. Even while still a college student Joe Biden had his heart and mind set on becoming a United States Senator.

In studying the candidates I find many have several traits in common and to a greater degree than the traits or circumstances are found throughout the population at large. First, the extraordinary ambition I have been discussing; second, a strong and supportive wife (a surprising number of wives are attorneys); and third, a handicap or personal tragedy to overcome and in some cases an almost pathological need to prove themselves. Then, of course, there are the obvious accouterments which all politicians share--the vision for the nation, charisma and even, in some instances, intelligence and more likely than not, legal training.

Joe Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on November 2, 1942, the oldest of four children (three boys and one girl), and moved with his family to Delaware when he was ten years o when he was ten years old. He stuttered as a child and, like fellow presidential hopeful Jesse Jackson ⁵, he worked so hard to overcome his impediment that he emerged as one of the Democrats' most commanding and persuasive speakers. Senator Biden earned his B.A. degree from the University of Delaware in 1965 and enrolled in law school at Syracuse University because his future wife, Neilia Hunter of Skaneateles, New York, was enrolled at that institution. The Senator received his J.D. degree from Syracuse in 1968, was admitted to the Delaware bar and began to practice criminal law, first as a public defender in Wilmington and then in his own firm. His opponents might want me to mention his one brief digression from the Party when, as a new lawyer, he clerked for six or seven months for a GOP law firm before turning to more stimulating work as an assistant to a Democratic activist.

By the time he won his first election in 1970 to the New Castle County Council, he was married and the father of two sons, Beau and Hunter. No sooner did Joe Biden have his first political victory under his belt than he began planning for his second. The stakes were far bigger this time. This inexperienced 28-year-old had the chutzpah to aspire to the United States Senate and no one in the Democratic Party had any inclination to stop him. In fact no Democrat in Delaware thought it was possible to defeat the popular incumbent, Senator J. Caleb Boggs, who would be defending his seat in 1972. However, Senator Boggs had already served two terms as Delaware's governor and three terms as its at-large member of the House of Representatives and had agreed to run again for the Senate only at the urging of President Richard Nixon. Perhaps that reluctance worked subconsciously in Joe Biden's favor. At any rate, with raw ambition and the love and energy of his close family members (his sister was his campaign manager) and any others he could entice, the Biden for Senator campaign was launched in 1970. Really it had taken shape in Joe Biden's mind back in the sixties during his college years, as I mentioned earlier. In order to achieve name recognition Councilman Biden from New Castle County attended five to seven coffee hours, or teas, a day. "Biden's mother organized the thirty to forty coffee hours that her son attended each week." ⁶ Name recognition could never be achieved without a campaign chest for advertising costs in most states, but then Delaware is not California and Joe Biden was able to avoid the cost of postage and reach his constituents with the help of teenagers who distributed leaflets by hand. The victory was narrow, with Biden winning 116,006 votes to Boggs' 112,844. At the time Joe Biden was only 29 years old and did not reach the required age of 30 until November 20,which was, of course, well before he took the oath of office.

Joe Biden has had more than his share of personal tragedy. The teasing over his speech impediment that he endured as a youngster only made him determined to succeed and have the last laugh on his tormentors--a classic example of turning lemons into lemonade. However the tragedy which occurred on December 18, 1972, in Ockessin, Delaware, was enough to swamp any ordinary man. His wife, 27-year-old Neilia, sons 3-year-old Beau and 2-year-old Hunter and daughter, 13-month-old Naomi, were bringing home a Christmas tree in the family station wagon when it collided with a tractor-trailer. His wife and daughter were killed instantly and the two boys were critically injured. It was no doubt the hardest decision of Senator Biden's life to take the oath of office required to serve in the United States Senate, which with considerable urging, support and love from his family he did in his sons' hospital room. His sister and her husband moved into the Senator's house in order to care for the boys and the Senator began commuting daily betweenween Wilmington and Washington--a ninety-minute train ride each way. Again, if he had been elected to the Senate from California the decision would perhaps have been impossible to make. Luck--if there really is such a thing--seems to play a very large role in Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.'s life--luck intensely good and intensely bad. But then Joe Biden is an intense man. He was subdued somewhat for about three years until 1975 when He met Jill Jacobs, his second wife-to-be, and began at the same time eyeing the White House.

Joe Biden received some help in his 1970-72 campaign for the Senate from Patrick Caddell who was handling polling for George McGovern, the Democratic presidential candidate. The two (Joe and Pat) have remained fast friends over the ensuing years, with the Washington Post claiming that Biden once blurted that, "Sometimes I don't know where Pat's thinking stops and mine begins." Time magazine quotes a former Biden ally as saying, "In political terms Joe and Pat are really one candidate." ⁷ Patrick Caddell tried to get Joe Biden to run for the presidency in 1984, but the Senator decided he probably was not "lucky" enough to repeat his win against Senator Boggs in a second successful run against a popular incumbent--this time Ronald Reagan. Mr. Caddell then offered his not inconsequential services to Gary Hart who, we remember, came within a hair's breadth of capturing the Democratic nomination. Biden and Caddell could well prove to be a formidable team.

What has come to be known as "The Biden Speech" was actually drafted under the guidance of Mr. Caddell and first delivered to a group of New Jersey Democrats in the fall of 1983. On paper it's not bad if you like imagery, symbolism, demagoguery and what many call "lots of hot air."But when Senator Biden breathes life into it, it becomes pure poetry--with the cadence and gestures guaranteed to evoke the emotions of any audience and leave a good many of them weeping. The following is one of his best lines reputed to bring the house down: "Just because our political heroes were murdered does not mean that the dream does not still live, buried deep within the broken hearts of tens of millions of Americans." He loves to invoke the memory of Jack and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., and wraps himself too closely in their cloak for some tastes. But it works for those who like their politics with theatrics. Michael Barone, a columnist for the Washington Post, has said that ". . . the intensity of his (Senator Biden's) speaking seems not contrived or cynical . . ." I do not agree, but that is perhaps because I have heard the same speech over and over and find it hard to believe that each time it comes from the heart. But repetition is what is demanded of those running for office and it is beyond me how they can get up the enthusiasm and present as much sincerity as they do day after day--for years! Is it possible? Five to seven coffee hours a day for two years in the campaign against Senator Boggs? No wonder so many of us would never dream of running for office. Masochistic!

Senator Biden has been referred to as the Democrats' answer to Ronald Reagan--he is their own "Great Communicator" with the same ability to inspire and motivate. The speeches, whether or not they are masterminded by Pat Caddell, are carefully orchestrated to convey a "national message" saying nothing concrete as to specific issues but structured to convey a feeling. Such a talent to persuade can be dangerous. Some of history's best motivators led their followers into chaos.

No one would deny the Biden campaign has charisma and is long on strategy. In an appeal to the largest segment of potential voters, the Baby Boomers: "...a young generation is waiting to be summoned to great deeds." Or for a real blast of hot air how about this: "In the spirit of another time let ume let us pledge that our generation of Americans will pay any price, bear any burden, accept any challenge, meet any hardship to secure the blessings of prosperity and the promise of America for our children."

Even Senator Biden's attempt to palm himself off to the Baby Boomers as one of them is false and contrived. Baby Boomers are generally considered to include those born between 1946-1957 which would ordinarily disqualify Joe Biden leaving the field to genuine Baby Boomer Al Gore (born in 1948).

Many of Joe Biden's big name political managers and consultants worked for Walter Mondale. (Remember they got "big names" not because they pick losers. On the other hand no one picks winners all the time!) Some of Senator Biden's good luck is evidenced by having an illustrious team on his side while his bad luck is in having them feuding among themselves. Pat Caddell, David Doak and Robert Shrum used to have a consulting business together but had a falling out last year which may or may not have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. In spite of, or because of, is uncertain but nevertheless by the time Joe Biden formally announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination early in June 1987 he had already amassed a warchest of more than $2 million, a formidable campaign machine and a treasury of speeches guaranteed to mobilize the Baby Boomers and invoke the spirit of the 1960s. Senator Biden's stated goal is to inspire (pure poetry) ". .. untapped legions, whose success in other fields prepares them by disposition, experience, confidence and creativity to transfuse the tired blood of our politics with new ideas, new approaches and new energy."

The Senator's speech before the winter meeting of the Industrial Unions of the AFL-CIO held early in 1987 in Bal Harbour, Florida, illustrates the cursory approach given "new ideas and substantive issues."

He began claiming that in Ronald Reagan's America, Americans aren't idealistic anymore! Americans have supposedly lost their sense of compassion and their hearts. No, not their hearts, they've simply lost their leader. "America is at a crossroads," he pontificated and began talking about making fundamental changes in foreign policy, education, civil rights, labor and management and in determining the rightful role for economic policy in this country. "This is about breaking your back," he told his labor audience. "The question is whether you're going to share in the economic bounty." He then took a few minutes to denounce Star Wars and told his audience that it was up to them to decide whether we'll have two societies--one for the wealthy and brightest among us and one for all the rest. The way to prevent such an occurrence, he said, was via education. Again, no specifics. He claimed that every day 70 percent of our jobs are on the line to foreign competition. (No cite offered for this figure.) As for the debate between free traders and protectionists he affirmed the fact that there is no pure free trade practiced anywhere in the world, but if we accept our fate as pre-ordained and beyond our control our competitors will get the best of us. He informed his audience that more than half the jobs created during the Reagan Administration pay less than $7,000 per year. We have, he said, $16 per hour steel workers reduced to making hamburgers at $3.50 per hour. In perfect cadence and with just the right amount of imagery the Senator informed his audience that, "We don't have to resign ourselves to being the world's largest McDonald's outlet!" However, he offered no substantive plan to avoid such a fate.

Those who promote the all-too-popular image of America becoming a nation of hamburger flippers should check their facts. The stereotype of service work as menial and low paying is simply misleading. Of course there are fast-food and janitorial jobs which fit into that category but so do the jobs held by physicians, government officials,officials, professors and lawyers.

From 1983 to 1987, 75 percent of all new jobs were in the professions, in management, technical sales, precision repair or skilled production. Only 10 percent of the new jobs were menial minimum wage.

Labor Department statistics show America is upgrading her workers at the same time Labor Unions are losing membership. Special interests may distort the facts. The ways are infinite: for instance, using the CPI (Consumer Price Index)instead of the more accurate PCE (Personal Expenditure Index) and picking atypical years has been known to make the incredible credible.

Janet Norwood, Commissioner of Labor Statistics, issued a warning: an old-fashioned caveat emptor to concerned citizens attempting to ascertain the true state of affairs amid the conflicting information being pushed on us from all sides: ". . . the findings (supposed proliferation of low-paying jobs at the expense of high-paying) are extremely sensitive to the particular set of data used (as well as) the years chosen for analysis." For example, a report released in December 1986 by Congress's Joint Economic Committee found from 1919 through 1984 nearly three-fifths of all jobs created in this country were in the lowest wage category and that a startling 97 percent of new jobs recently acquired by white males paid $7,000 or less. The report was authored by Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison, who for many years have been arguing that the middle class was on the decline in this country.

On March 15, 1987, a labor lawyer argued that 44 percent of the new jobs created during the Reagan Administration paid $7,400 or less, and Senator James Sasser of Tennessee picked that comment up and embellished it a little more and it came out before the March 23, 1987, meeting of the Economic Competitiveness Senate Government Affairs Committee as: "Sixty-four percent-of the jobs created since 1979 pay less than $7,500/year; we're witnessing the de-industrialization of America." Unfortunately the questionable information was echoed by countless other politicians wishing to advance their own political agendas--Joe Biden being one.

Actually there are approximately the same mix of high and low-paying jobs as we had in this country a decade ago. You don't suppose anyone might wish to mislead the public on this score now do you? Citizens might well figure out the truth on their own, anyway--after all, excessive borrowing couldn't account for the entire rise in real (after inflation) per-capita disposable income.

Brian Motley, writing for the newsletter of the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco in January 1987, expressed an interesting view. He said that the rising share of service jobs may be beneficial because a more service-oriented economy is bound to be less affected by the cyclical ups and downs which are the hallmark of a manufacturing oriented society. "Because goods are durable and can be stored, producers tend to add to their inventories when business is strong and to draw them down when business is weak. Similarly, households tend to accelerate or delay purchases of durable goods in response to changes in current economic conditions." Employees are more readily expanded and contracted which means more flexibility within the economy. Where it would be unthinkable to build or dismantle plants and machinery, it is now possible to move workers to meet changing demand. Mr. Motley sees the trend to a more service-oriented society as a sign of America's strength rather than a cause for concern.

Mr. Biden has spoken of the need to eliminate greenmail, change anti-trust laws and education and encourage labor participation, but generally fails to mention how to go about it. He favors the idea that bankers should be made to write off the interest they' re not going to collect anyway and stretch out principal payments so that the lesser-developed countries can buy our goods again. (But woagain. (But would they with increased world competition?) He has suggested raising teachers' pay but it came out melodiously as "(Let us) reward the producers of real wealth, the teachers of our children." In deference to his labor audience, the Senator attempted to compliment American workers. (So what politician could have resisted?)

Fifteen years ago there was a joke--never buy a car made on a Monday. Not now--now there is excellence every day... It is up to the people to use wisdom, resolve and courage to meet the challenge.

I am dwelling so extensively on Senator Biden's speeches because that is what he does best--he's hardly a detailed issues man. He's more of a media event with a lovely (luckily) photogenic family, all of whom you would love to hug and can hardly help but wish well. And to be fair, he has addressed some issues.

According to the March 30, 1987, issue of Business Week, regarding trade Senator Biden eschews quotas and would rather prevail upon America's trading partners to open their markets. On the other hand, the June 29, 1987, issue of the Wall Street Journal portrays his stand: "Mr. Biden ...envisions temporary import protection for industries in the form of tariffs not quotas; he proposes to use the estimated $10 billion that such a plan would raise to train and relocate workers injured by unfair trade practices." Although he opposes the Gephardt amendment, he nevertheless favors automatic retaliation against countries with excessive (who's to judge?) trade surpluses and those that "fix" exchange rates, like the Taiwanese and South Koreans. Perhaps his political advisers have warned him that despite all the foreign cars out there on America's highways and TVs and VCRs in her living rooms, Americans wish they had the courage to restrict foreign goods. They feel in their hearts, bones, or whatever, that it is the morally right thing to do. Although they may personally be too weak to follow through with any resolve, they will nevertheless admire and perhaps elect a leader who comes out on the side of "right" as they--according to polls--see "right."

The Atlantic Monthly (April 1987) gave a brief rundown of Senator Biden on the issues thus:

He is a leading critic of school busing for purposes of racial integration. He supports freedom of choice on abortion but opposes federal funding of abortions for poor women... he has supported a crackdown on crime, a line-item veto for the President, an across-the-board freeze in federal spending and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings automatic deficit-reduction plan.

But writer Laurence Barrett matches Joe Biden when it comes to imagery. Mr. Barrett painted the following masterful portrait of Senator Biden in action in the June 22, 1987,issue of Time magazine:

His handsome features taut, his fist balled in indignation, Biden was in danger of losing his audience by painting a vivid picture of ghetto hopelessness. So totally did he capture his listeners, however, that their approval punctuated the meticulous cadence of his clincher."And these are not someone else's children. They are our children.(Applause begins.) America's children. (More applause.) Blood of our blood. (A louder ripple.) Heart of our soul."

The Senator claims that only 19 percent of American children live in a two-parent family with a non-working mother and that programs and policies must adjust to that change. He and his colleagues never ask the citizens whether they want to reinforce the changes that have thus far taken place or stop or even reverse them--the silent citizens, not the most vocal. Perhaps there should be some attempt by our self-proclaimed leaders to encourage discussion among all the people as to goals and priorities. We should ask if men, women and children are benefiting from the changes that have occurred in the American family over the past twenty years. If the answer is negative then perhaps we should think twice before setting up programs to ease a path which leads to more people in need of psychiatric help, drug and discipline problems, truancy, illiteracy and unhappiness. Politicians love to cry that America's greatest resources are her human resources. How then could we be thinking of ways to turn the care of children over to day-care centers? Ask Leo Buscaglia, Mario Cuomo, Dick Gephardt and, yes, Joseph Biden--all who profess to come from poor non-college-educated families--if they were loved, nurtured and encouraged by having attentive parents rather than material riches. Which do you think the children of tomorrow would prefer if we were to give them a choice?

Joe Biden proved that he is a flexible speaker with his address to the American Bar Association's annual meeting which was held in San Francisco during August 1987. Imagery and theatrics were out and logic and reasoned persuasion was in. His topic was "The Constitution, the Senate and the Courts" --loosely translated as "Why The Senate Is Justified In Rejecting Robert Bork's Nomination To the Supreme Court."

He began by asking two questions: (1) Should the Senate consider the constitutional views as well as the professional fitness of a nominee to the Supreme Court? and (2) How should a Senator go about forming a judgment in order to carry out his responsibility? He told his audience, consisting mainly of lawyers and judges, that delegates to the Constitutional Convention intended to give the Senate exclusive control over Supreme Court appointments; that only in the closing days did the advise and consent compromise occur (Article II Section 2 of the Constitution). He reported that since 1789, twenty-six Supreme Court nominees have been rejected, withdrawn or never acted upon--in all but one case political or philosophical reasons played a part. Senator Biden referred to stare decisis (the practice of adhering to precedent and not to disturb settled points) claiming that as a Court of Appeals Judge, Robert Bork has been bound by stare decisis. However, the Senator pointed out, the Supreme Court is not so bound--they say what the law is! "As a Justice," Senator Biden continued, "Bork would have an opportunity to change laws." ange laws." If Robert Bork had been on the Supreme Court years ago America would be very different today, according to Joseph Biden. The issue, the Senator claimed, is not whether the Court should change direction--it is about to change--the issue is can the Senate decide on facts beyond the intellectual and moral qualifications of a nominee. The Senator went on to explain that Andrew Jackson had attempted to tilt the Court in the 1830s and succeeded. FDR tried in 1937 and failed. He compared FDR and Ronald Reagan as presidents who intended to shift the balance of the court. Both the Senate and the House repeatedly rejected Mr. Reagan's programs, he said, while FDR's social programs had the support of both Houses. Then showing precedent for what he hopes will be the Judiciary Committee's action in 1987, Senator Biden interjected a bit of drama. In May 1937,he said, the outcome was uncertain in the Senate. The Judiciary Committee was controlled by all New Dealers, but somehow they summoned the courage to condemn their hero's(FDR) court-packing plan. The Executive's attempt to dominate the Judiciary was defeated. (No one applauded but cheers seemed appropriate.) Exhibiting his mastery as a speaker, Joe Biden lightened the atmosphere at this point by injecting a little well-received humor. In FDR's case the balance of the court (voting) shifted on its own. "A switch in time saves nine," he chanted, referring of course to the retention of nine Justices rather than fifteen as FDR had proposed.

The Senator ended his address to the Bar Association:

In case after case (the Senate) has rejected qualified nominees because it perceived those views to clash with the interest of the country. In the future... we'll have to make a judgment whether the case today--50 years after Roosevelt failed--150 years after Jackson succeeded(we) are once again confronted with (a) popular president's determined attempt to bend the Supreme Court to his political ends. No one should dispute his right to try to do that... but also no one should dispute the Senate's duty to respond... Let no one deny our right and our duty as Senators, to consider questions of substance in casting our votes--for the Founders themselves intended no less.

The distinguishing feature of Joe Biden's candidacy is his ability to move people. He sees the president of the United States as a leader not only of government but of society--as a crusader or missionary whose duty it is to motivate and change people's attitudes and lives. That is where Senator Biden leaves me cold--me and possibly a good number of independent, strong-minded Americans who are sick of being told what to do and what is best for them and their neighbors.

In a speech in Philadelphia on May 15, Joe Biden said a president must be able to mobilize America behind new patterns of work and behavior. He said he' d try to persuade business leaders to emulate the example of successful companies such as Ford and Federal Express, to promote day care, to convince schoolchildren to do their homework and skip watching TV. ⁸

As far as I' m concerned that is not government's role and assuredly not the role of a president. Senator Biden professes to believe the people are disillusioned with government and yet he offers them more!

If political sages are correct, Joe Biden's downfall maybe his reputation for inattention to detail. White House watchers point to the reactions voters have exhibited in the past. They turned from an old popular father figure with a loose rein (Eisenhower) to a young man full of grandiose plans (JFK), from a perceived scoundrel (Nixon) to a perceived missionary (Carter). These soothsayers predict the turn may now be from an old man with little grasp of detail (RR) to a young man who is detail oriented (alas, more like Gore than Biden).

On the other hand, thother hand, the American Association of Political Consultants (who is more savvy in these matters?) in December 1986 voted Joe Biden as the front-runner for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination.

Mike Dukakis

Michael Dukakis was born in Brookline, Massachusetts, in 1933, the second son of Panos and Euterpe Dukakis, both emigrants from Greece. Panos Dukakis had started life in America as a frightened 15-year-old with little command of the English language. Eight years later he was enrolled at Harvard Medical School. Euterpe Dukakis was the first Greek girl in Haverhill, Massachusetts, to go beyond high school; she became a teacher. Michael Dukakis is very proud of both parents.

After an illustrious high school career which included a stint as student body president, class brain and sports hero, he entered Swarthmore College, spent some time in peace-time Korea and then entered Harvard Law School. Like Joe Biden, Mike Dukakis' ambition bloomed and was expressed early. During his Swarthmore years he voiced his desire to become Governor of Massachusetts. Recognizing such a grand ambition early set him on the political track right out of law school. As a young lawyer he waged a reform campaign at the Brookline City Hall which soon spread to other parts of the state. He was elected to the Massachusetts legislature in 1962. In 1963, with considerable resistance from his parents, he married a Jewish divorcee with a five-year-old son, John. No one who has seen the two together can doubt that Kitty and Mike Dukakis is a good match. The two complement one another; she outgoing and impulsive and he more reserved and analytical by nature. In addition to John the couple have two daughters Andrea (born in 1966) and Kara (1969).

Unlike Joseph Biden, Michael Dukakis has experienced political defeat. He along with his good friend and fellow governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas who won, lost and then came back again, is a member of the "Phoenix Club"-- those who have risen from the ashes of defeat. Mike Dukakis was in the state legislature for eight years, was defeated in a race for lieutenant governor and sat the next few years out as moderator of The Advocates, a national public affairs television program. In 1974 he was elected Governor of Massachusetts but the elation proved to be short-lived. In 1975 when Massachusetts was laboring under a half billion dollar deficit and unemployment was just under 12 percent, Governor Dukakis reneged on his campaign pledge not to raise taxes and imposed the largest tax increase in Massachusetts history. (Now you know where the term "Taxachusetts originated.) As fate would have it 1978 was the year of the tax revolt, the year Proposition 13 was passed here in California. Not surprisingly then Michael Dukakis was punished for his tax transgressions and soundly defeated in his bid for a second term as Massachusetts governor. The political set-back was made all the more painful because of the debilitating effect it had on his father Panos Dukakis. High expectations and unyielding standards were ruling factors in the older mans life and defeat was not easy to accept. Unhappily Panos Dukakis died in 1979 with the taste of his son s political defeat not yet muted by the glorious victories that were to come.

Mike Dukakis took a couple years off and joined the faculty of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard where he had ample time to reflect on his mistakes and ended up perhaps learning more than he taught.

He returned to Massachusetts politics again in 1982 and by defeating Ed King who had been plagued by a series of scandals during his term in the capitol gained another try at the governorship. The success of this second term was evidenced by the landslide victory he enjoyed when he clinched his third term in 1986 with 69 percent of the vote!

Governor>

Governor Dukakis' hallmark seems to be his penchant for plans and programs. He's very much an activist governor who would like to be an activist president. Says Walter Shapiro writing for Time magazine, "Dukakis' strongest suit may simply be his record as an administrator who inspires creativity, closely monitors performance and eventually learns from his mistakes." ⁹ He certainly doesn't believe in laissez-faire and in fact his record as Governor of Massachusetts evidences his preference for a planned economy. Much in the cocky manner of a philosopher-king, Michael Dukakis did what he knew was the right and necessary thing to do in Framingham, Massachusetts, in 1985. General Motors gave the town an ultimatum--se1l it the land adjoining its plant so it could expand, or face the closure of the existing plant and the loss of 4,000 jobs. Now what town wouldn't jump at the chance to sell a piece of vacant land in exchange for more jobs and an additional $250 million investment in its community (GM's proposal)? You guessed it--Framingham, Massachusetts. But Governor Dukakis didn't miss a beat and in his great wisdom he rode in like a knight on a white charger and saved the town from itself. How? He called upon the state's right of eminent domain, purchased the land and then sold it to General Motors. What a good feeling to play philosopher-king!

Praise from Robert Reich, a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, reassures me that I was correct in my dislike of Michael Dukakis' highhanded ways, which Professor Reich prefers to call "bold experimentation." Says the professor: "He (Governor Dukakis) understood the critical role that government could play in mobilizing resources and accelerating industrial development." Government's role may be critical, but critical in the negative sense of destroying personal freedom and fostering a nation of dependents.

In a recent study of Massachusetts' economic policy, which was conducted by Ronald Ferguson and Helen Ladd of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Mr. Dukakis was lauded for his role as a catalyst in promoting development by bringing together business, academe, labor and government. A more apt description might be that of a broker. The governor has a sure-fire winning description for the process he imitates: "investing public resources in combination with private initiative and private capital." ¹⁰ Michael Dukakis is running a quasi-socialist government in Massachusetts. To some that is good news because, after all, he has proved that socialism works! But let's recognize that not all Americans are pragmatists--some are idealists. A large segment of Americans would rather be free to make mistakes than be protected from their own folly by those who would play king. Besides there are many that claim the governor' s policies are responsible for only a small part of the state's recovery and, if anything, laissez-faire capitalism would have speeded the process along and resulted in a greater boom in Massachusetts. (I know, you've heard that before!) These critics say Massachusetts could have had its cake and eaten it, too-- freedom and economic recovery.

What are the facts? No one can deny (and most would not care to do so) that the Dukakis policy involves subsidies-- direct and indirect-- by quasi-government agencies created by the philosopher-king. Massachusetts has an Industrial Science Agency that has made well over $3 billion in loans. Its "Centers of Excellence" indicate areas to be set aside for specific high-tech industries and offer grants to research projects jointly proposed by business and academe. The Massachusetts Capital Resource Co. and the Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency lend money to businesses willing to invest in depressed areas. Massachusetts has in fact a state UDAG ( UDAG (Urban Development Action Grant) system. The governor believes in order to entice business or individuals to do what he wants (ah, there' s the key--what the philosopher king wants, not what they want!) incentives must be provided in the form of good infrastructure, educational facilities and favorable loans. After all, he believes, people cannot be asked to take risks.

Risks! Risk was his mother and father's middle name. Risk is what American freedom is all about! The arrogance of the son of a successful self-made man in espousing socialist policy is that the Dukakis or Gephardt or Cuomo ancestors may have succeeded but the rest of us must keep faith with the myth that they were super folks-- that these men were not sired by ordinary mortals like you or me. The ordinary American needs to be enticed, coddled and protected from risk. What insolence!

Because much of the money has been raised through industrial revenue bonds, ¹¹ boosters of the tactics claim the state has paid little and gained much. Perhaps you, too, recall a caution to beware gaining great riches at the expense of one's soul. I wouldn't want to get that dramatic, but it does seem a bit untoward for a capitalist nation to embrace socialist programs because they work. On the other hand there may well be more real socialists in the United States today than there are real capitalists. It is most certainly true that many people are tired of labels and don't particularly care to know what fits or doesn't fit, nor even care to examine their own positions. Ignorance is bliss and precludes the hard choices. The temptation is to simply drift into intellectual nirvana.

So let' s look at the positive aspects of the Dukakis programs since the success of programs is assuredly the platform on which Michael Dukakis is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

After the gigantic tax hike in 1973 and the ensuing revolt which drove Mike Dukakis from office, the citizens of Massachusetts in 1980, under Governor King's leadership, passed Proposition 2 1/2. One of Governor Dukakis' own advisers, Professor Ralph Whitehead, Jr. of the University of Massachusetts, admitted to journalist Charles Kenney of the Boston Globe that, "Without Proposition 2 1/2 ... we would be on our way to becoming a banana republic." The remark, printed in the Globe, was widely quoted.

The high taxes of Governor Dukakis' first term discouraged all business investment within the state. (How ludicrous that government continues to get away with taking credit for solving problems it first creates!) There was a vast exodus of investment dollars to neighboring New Hampshire. (Laissez-faire and free market worked in this instance in New Hampshire's favor!) Proposition 2 1/2 trimmed the Massachusetts tax burden from 11 percent above the national average to approximately 10 percent below. Proposition 2 1/2 reduced Massachusetts' property taxes, which had been the highest in the nation, so that instead of property values increasing at 6 percent annually, as they had before Proposition 2 1/2, they increased at the rate of almost 20 percent a year between 1981 and 1986. This meant that Massachusetts enjoyed more than a $90 billion increase in property wealth--over and above inflation! In 1985 Massachusetts could boast the hottest real estate market in the nation with construction jobs up over 56 percent between 1980-86 (as compared to 13.8 percent for the rest of the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).

The excise tax on automobiles was cut from $57-per-$1,000 valuation to $25-per-$1,000 valuation and auto sales skyrocketed. Revenue from auto sales tax exploded from $102 million in FY 1980 to $319 million in FY 1986.

Thanks to Governor Dukakis and his industrial policies? NO. Thanks to Proposition 2 1/2 passed under former Governor Edward King's stward King's stewardship.

Between 1981-86 Pentagon funds for research and development increased from $15.3 billion to $27.1 billion and Massachusetts' share grew from 4.7 percent to 5.9 percent or from $700 million to over $1.6 billion. Defense procurement spending increased by $2.4 billion making a total increase of $3.3 billion in Massachusetts' share of the nation's defense expenditures between 1981-86. In 1986 the state was awarded $7.7 billion in defense contracts. ¹²

Thanks to Governor Dukakis and his industrial policies? No. Thanks to the much criticized defense spending policies of the Reagan administration. ¹³

Manufacturing jobs, including jobs in high-tech industries, decreased by 4.3 percent between 1980-86. (The national average was a decrease of 5.6 percent.)

Thanks to Governor Dukakis and his industrial policies? Now what do you think?

An overhaul of the tax collection system and the offer of amnesty to delinquent taxpayers has been credited with injecting a sense of fairness and integrity into the process as well as generating enough revenue to allow Massachusetts to boast about a $584 million surplus in 1986.

Thanks to Governor Dukakis and his industrial policies? Thanks to Governor Dukakis and his tax policies!

Unemployment in Massachusetts was 2.5 percent in the summer of 1987 and the personal income of its citizens was the fourth highest in the nation.

Thanks to the industrial policies of Governor Dukakis? At least partially, but cause and effect is debatable. The high cost of housing in the state means new workers cannot easily afford to live in Massachusetts, and that helps keep the unemployment rate down. That and the 120 colleges and universities with their periodic releases of well-trained and creative young men and women into Massachusetts' economy. It has been estimated that approximately half the 2,000 Ph.D.'s produced each year stay. But if you ask Mike Dukakis how it was accomplished he would say,

We worked at it. We invested public resources; we got the private sector in; we involved citizens, mayors, business people. ¹⁴

He has tried to sell >He has tried to sell the idea to farmers in Iowa. "Iowa has great strengths. It's all here. But you need somebody... who understands how you take those pieces and build a partnership and make them work and builds a very strong and bright and promising economic future." ¹⁵ Iowans have heard more than their share of fine-sounding words in the past months, but Michael Dukakis has so far been successful in using the economic turn-around in Massachusetts as credentials for being a doer, not just a fine talker. But there is always the sneaking suspicion that maybe Governor Dukakis is merely capitalizing on his incredible luck of being in the right place at the right time. Even if one completely ignores cause and effect he is bound to look more competent than his fellows. Whether and how much Governor Dukakis is indeed responsible for the turn-around in Massachusetts may never be known, so it may be prudent to move away from his past record for a moment and concentrate on his stand on other issues.

Social Security

Michael Dukakis, along with thirteen other candidates for the presidential nomination, was asked by the Associated Press whether he would keep Social Security benefits and COLAs exempt from budget cuts. His reply was released by the Associated Press on June 14, 1987. He said, "I believe that the United States government has an obligation to help recipients of Social Security." Unfortunately, Social Security is not a contract between the payer-recipients and the federal government, or so the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled. When Social Security was instituted in 1935 a hesitant population was promised a money-back guarantee. In 1939, when the refunds became too expensive, the government conveniently changed its mind. Then in 1945 the Supreme Court stated that benefits were to be given or withheld at the discretion of Congress-- but no one seemed to notice. The point was made even clearer by Justice John Marshall Harlan who wrote the majority opinion in the 1956 Nestor case. There he boldly declared that Social Security rights were not property rights because that would deprive the system of the flexibility it needs to adjust to changing conditions. In his dissent, Justice Hugo Black pointed out that no private insurance company could get away with such shenanigans. He wrote:

The court consoles those whose insurance is taken away today and others who may suffer the same fate in the future, by saying that a decision requiring the Social Security system to keep faith would "deprive" it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. People who pay premiums for insurance usually think they are paying for insurance, not "flexibility and boldness."

Welfare

But perhaps it is unfair to dwell so extensively on an issue which Mr. Dukakis is giving little weight in his campaign. Let's turn then to welfare reform, an issue on which the governor hangs his hat. He has won national attention for ET, Massachusetts' employment and training program that has reportedly helped over 30,000 welfare recipients off the welfare rolls and onto the taxpayer rolls. By some estimates ET has saved the state over $l00 million. Each job placement reportedly saved the state almost $8,000 through reduced AFDC, Medicaid and food stamp outlays. ET provides not only job training but also one year's free child care, a back-to-work clothing allowance, a travel allowance and four months of free Medicaid to all participants. Sounds great, so why does Warren Brookes, in the January 19, 1987, edition of the Wall Street Journal cast his vote for New Hampshire's workfare program over ET? Mr. Brookes claimed FIP (Family Incentive Plan--New Hampshireew Hampshire's workfare) is less elaborate and more than six times cheaper than ET. Under FIP the New Hampshire caseload for AFDC fell 30 percent whereas the Massachusetts caseload fell 4.4 percent, according to Governor Dukakis, over the same period of time. ¹⁶ (Brookes claimed an increase.) ¹⁷ New Hampshire's Governor Sununu attributes FIP's success to a booming economy with only a 2.2 percent unemployment rate (both Massachusetts and New Hampshire enjoy rates substantially below the national average) and caseworker incentives based on the number of AFDC recipients placed in jobs. New Hampshire also made an important commitment not to reduce staff as caseloads fell. Massachusetts may not have to cope with that problem. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the slightly more than three years of ET's existence, new applications for welfare have increased 9 percent. Under federal regulations an increase in benefits expands the number of eligible families. ¹⁸

Despite the increase in benefits afforded by ET, a welfare-rights advocate group called the COALITION FOR BASIC HUMAN NEEDS sued Massachusetts to force it to just about double its cash grants to welfare recipients. On January 5, 1987, Superior Court Judge Charles M. Grabau of Boston interpreted a 1913 Massachusetts statute ensuring adequate shelter to mean that the state must provide benefits sufficient to enable healthy circumstances for raising children. Admittedly vague, Judge Grabau has enlisted this broad interpretation of the statute to justify his ruling that monthly benefits to a family of three on Massachusetts' welfare roles be increased from $491 to $845. Massachusetts, represented by Judge Charles Grabau, is a state that would never think of legislating morality but it (he) is attempting to legislate compassion.

ET is all rights and no obligations. The only compulsion involved in ET is the registration. There is no requirement to work as in California (GAIN). Some experts believe that many of the 30,000 people ET is supposed to have helped were not really the underclass poor but rather those who simply took advantage of the help after a divorce, for example, and would have pulled themselves together and found a job without something like ET. That hard working poor should be taxed to let a proven able-bodied worker take a vacation and then get free baby-sitting services while looking for a job at his or her leisure is pure nonsense--no, it is outrageous! ET is sending the wrong message to society.

Trade

Just a word about Governor Dukakis' stand on trade. He approves some aspects of the Gephardt amendment but not enough to support it. He would provide protection for "endangered" American industries (here's more of those philosopher-king type judgment-calls) but would limit the protection to a specific time period. (More fun with rules and games.) He would make certain the protected industry takes certain steps to modernize and make itself more competitive. Governor Dukakis is the epitome of the old saw that "there's no such thing as a free lunch." Favors come with stipulations and business would soon become linked to government by chains consisting of past favors. All the governor's fine talk about permanent commitments-- about a government guarantee encouraging private leaders to make loans-- has one undeniable flaw. If it is a project that is desired by enough people they will prioritize and obtain it in an economic and forthright manner, but only if government first backs off. Government intervention skews business decisions in a most disastrous manner, leaving the mistakes for taxpayers to tackle and making wealthy men and women out of a favored few. (And you've heard that before too!)

Mandatory Health Insurance

As I write (summer oite (summer of 1987) it is unclear whether Michael Dukakis will succeed in his attempt to communize health insurance in Massachusetts. ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974) prohibits states from requiring employers to offer health insurance benefits. Mr. Dukakis has Senator Edward Kennedy working on a waiver for Massachusetts that would allow the government to offer a bill requiring all companies (over three years old) to provide health insurance to employees and their dependents.

The candidate who is well known for his partnership proposals will have one more to add to his credit with the creation of the Massachusetts Health Partnership if and when the bill is passed.

Communist-type practices (the rights of the community over individual property rights) are well established in the Commonwealth. Under Massachusetts' comprehensive health care finance law, hospital charges have, for some years, been increased 13 percent to pay the cost of care for the medically indigent. The new Health Partnership would place surcharges on hospital bills to fund health coverage for the unemployed and disabled. Not a bad idea-- sure universal health insurance is costly but the coverage is needed! Principle? What about principle? The American principle based on capitalism says the surcharge must be voluntary-- communism would see the efficacy in making the surcharge mandatory. Do we as a people want to change our principles? Could well be! Then let's be up front about it. From each according to his ability to each according to his need may yet become an amendment to our constitution. After all, the majority of those Americans in a recent poll identified it as part of our constitution in 1987-- our bicentennial year, no less!

If Senator Kennedy fails to obtain the waiver for Massachusetts (after all, the Senator has larger fish to fry with his efforts to pass S1265) ¹⁹ an alternate plan calls for all employers in Massachusetts to contribute to a trust fund with those employers who already provide health benefits to employees receiving credit against their payments.

A Winner?

Governor Thompson of Illinois has been quoted as saying: "It's not in the cards for a sitting governor to run for President." "Indeed," says William Schneider, "every non-incumbent elected President since Roosevelt, with the exception of John F. Kennedy, was out of office at the time of his election." ²⁰

But it may be that Governor Dukakis is on an unbeatable winning streak. After all, members of the Southern legislative Conference were told that in 1987 not only had Michael Dukakis been selected as the nation's most effective governor by his peers, but that Playgirl magazine had chosen him as one of the country's ten sexiest men!

Dick Gephardt

Richard Andrew Gephardt was born in St. Louis, Missouri, on December 31, 1941, the last day of the year. It would be understandable if he had a lapse of memory similar to Gary Hart's, as to the year, since only hours separated his birth from 1942. Only months separate his birthdate from Joe Biden's, so perhaps we'd forgive Mr. Gephardt if he tried to also pass himself off as a baby boomer. His birthdate definitely excuses him from service in WWII and explains his inability to present himself as a war hero or as a Vietnam veteran and true baby boomer as Al Gore can do. Nevertheless Richard Gephardt has a uniqueness all his own to commend him. What other candidate has been an Eagle Scout and has the wholesome "all-American-boy" look that Norman Rockwe1l made us believe requires red hair and freckles? What is more American than having a father who was a milkman and a mother who was a secretary? We can picture both in the "happy days" era in the Midwest--and don't forget to add a brother.

Dr.

Dick Gephardt received his B.S. degree from Northwestern in 1962 and his J.D. from the University of Michigan law school in 1965, the same year he married his lovely wife Jane Byrnes. (You knew it was Jane, didn't you!) Between 1965-1971 he practiced law, fathered three children and served in the National Guard. In 1971 he won a seat on the St. Louis City council and remained an Alderman until his election to the House of Representatives from Missouri's 3rd District in 1976.

Leadership

At a gathering in August 1987 in Baldwin, Iowa, his speech was full of what "we're going to do"--the "we" presumably Richard Gephardt and his cabinet if and when elected.

We're going to perform and we're going to accomplish and we're going to renew hope and make people believers again. We're going to have policies that include all the people in the country. And when this country has spoken, and when this country has goals and when this country has leadership, it's going to be magnificent. We need leadership that inspires, leadership that motivates, leadership that looks long not short, leadership that unites us together in common goa1sand national purposes, leadership that is worthy of our values and worthy of our ethics and worthy of our beliefs. Leadership that leads us to a greater day than America has ever seen. It can be done.

During the debate involving, then, seven Democratic candidates for the party's presidential nomination which took place in Dubuque, Iowa, on August 22, 1987, Mr. Gephardt was again forceful in his advocacy of leadership. He told of an experience he had in New Hampshire where a high school student told him, "We don't believe in any of you anymore." Mr. Gephardt tried to attribute the cynicism of youth to the wrong values promulgated by the Reagan administration. "Indifference and selfishness" have flourished over the last few years and, he claimed, must be changed. He talked of the bankruptcy of Ronald Reagan's values--of the selfish attitude inherent in a "survival of the fittest" approach to the nation's social problems. Although he didn't say so, he obviously prefers the Robin Hood redistribution approach. He ridiculed Mr. Reagan's notion that "the government has no role in organizing and harmonizing for the people's benefit." He claimed that leadership is the answer--that we need to invest in people--manage people better, foster cooperation between government, business and labor. He said, "The free market doesn't work!"

Earlier in Baldwin, Iowa, he had expressed many of the same ideas: that we need a new budget, energy, trade and agriculture policy, but most importantly the people need to trust their leaders. "Too many Americans are cynical. In a democracy you're in trouble when citizens stop believing." He then recited a litany of those even remotely involved in scandal during Ronald Reagan's years in the White House and claimed that the "Iran-Contra affair means the crowd in Washington doesn't trust the people." Referring, of course, to the judgment of "the people" as represented by Congress and the vote to withhold arms to the Contras which "the crowd in Washington" found a way to circumvent. "The outfit in the White House," he went on, "knew better than the Congress."

And then in one of his famous turn-arounds, Mr. Gephardt asked elsewhere during the Dubuque debate,

Why is this nation here? What do our basic documents mean? They mean that we trust the people, that we don't want a king, that we don't want a committee, that we want to diffuse the power, that we want the people to rule, that we want the people to set the policy, not the king.

Chameleon Like?

This ability to change the meaning of words at will, or to about-face when there is a greater opportunity in doing so, has become almost a hallmark of Dick Gephardt.

Once Dick Gephardt fought labor on the minimum wage issue, but now he's on the current bandwagon for an increase.

In 1979 Mr. Gephardt was allied with the American Medical Association in his advocacy of free competition among health care providers and institutions as the best means to keep health care costs contained. Now he has switched teams and lines up with Senator Edward Kennedy and various consumer groups as a co-sponsor of the Kennedy-Gephardt bill which calls for heavy government regulation. He would like to see Medicare and Medicaid merged (Medicaid is funded from the general revenue of federal and state governments) and long-term care for the elderly added as a benefit, apparently with no accompanying increase in Medicare Part B premiums. His bill also attempts to ensure that health care is provided for those who lose Medicaid by leaving the welfare roles and accepting low paying jobs. There is no doubt that changes need to be made in the system, but the Kennedy-Gephardt bill is a costly and inept solution to a very real problem and is an about-face for Mr. Gephardt.

Dick Gephardt sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, some say to please conservative voters when he was running for a city office; but somehow, now that he's running for the Democratic presidential nomination, he has seen a new light.

I am not convinced that (a) it's (a constitutional amendment to ban abortion) not going to happen, and (b) that if it did, it would be disruptive and would not obviate the need we have in our society to deal with the underlying causes that drive people to need and want an abortion. ²¹

At the Southern Legislative Conference in Little Rock, Arkansas, during the summer of 1987 he told the audience that we need to get our allies to help us with defense. We borrow money from Japan so we can protect the export of their oil. Mr. Gephardt incorporated this point into his answer to a question regarding the deficit posed at the Dubuque, Iowa, debate in August 1987: "It has taken us seven years to get into this mess and it will take us more than one or two to get out of it." His plan was hardly earth shaking--to impose an oil import fee, cut all spending, lower defense spending and, he advised, "the tax reform of 1986 will bring in more revenue than was originally thought."

During an interview telecast on C-SPAN on April 24, 1987, Mr. Gephardt told us that Ronald Reagan had cut taxes to 18 percent of GNP, raised defense spending and then made all the cuts in the 15 percent of the budget referred to as "all other." "This," he declared, "is everything you think of as the federal government. Veterans, Environmental Protection Agency, educational training, all the things designed to make the American people strong and high performance and for that reason many of these things need to be restored." To talk about reducing our deficit in one or two years while pledging to restore programs may involve some fancy about-facing.

Many of his views of yesterday regarding tax reform and less government are not highlighted in his campaign. Instead he would balance the federal budget by raising taxes from 18.5 percent to 22 percent of GNP. He leans toward NP. He leans toward higher rates for corporations and a steeper minimum tax for individuals. When asked during the August 22, 1987, Dubuque debate why he voted for Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cut he replied, "I led the fight for the Democratic tax bill but didn't succeed. Reagan's bill was better than no tax cut at all the recession (1982-83) was not as bad as it would have been with no tax cut at all." Another about-face? Perhaps not. Mr. Gephardt may have done the best he could with what was available.

Although in his clearer thinking days Mr. Gephardt favored cost-of-living freezes for Social Security recipients, he has found a renewed belief in COLA increases. The following is his answer to the Associated Press questions (see page 146) regarding Social Security and printed on June 14, 1987.

Social Security should be taken out of the budget so that it doesn't become part o f the budget battle each year. Social Security represents a contract with the American people--a pact. We must do everything that we can to ensure that present and future recipients are protected... I don't think Social Security should be subject to a means test.

Education

Richard Gephardt has made education an issue in his campaign and never fails to mention the "60 million illiterate adults" and his goal to have by the year 2000 "the best educated people on the face of the earth! "He freely admits that such an ambitious goal will demand an immense increase in the federal government's budget for education. He told a New York audience that the federal government should be obligated to see that every American child has access to a first-rate education from kindergarten through college. The statement needs clarification. "Access" could mean schools that open their doors to all academically qualified or to everyone with no regard to qualifications of any sort or a myriad of other definitions. "Access" could mean that tuition, books or a portion of one or both be paid for out of general revenue or that loans or grants be available from or through the federal government or through private sources, guaranteed or not. "First-rate" is highly subjective and equally ambiguous. "Through college" however, needs no clarification beyond a detailed exposition of the estimated cost and where Mr. Gephardt intends to get the money for such largess! He wants to see longer school years, smaller class sizes, more advanced technologies (computers) and higher pay for teachers. As Morton Kondracke pointed out in his article for The New Republic which appeared on June 1, 1987, "There is not an item in the program that will displease the National Education Association--no merit pay, deregulation or teacher-certification procedures, voucher plans, or requirements for post-certification testing. ²⁵

Trade

Who in the United States today, if given an association test, would not immediately link Mr. Gephardt with trade? (Premised, of course, upon the supposition that "who" knows who or what a Gephardt is!)

The Gephardt amendment has afforded Mr. Gephardt an immensehardt an immense amount of media coverage. An opportunist? Just because there's a Gephardt amendment for trade, a Kennedy-Gephardt health bill, a Harkin-Gephardt farm bill and there was a Bradley-Gephardt tax bill? The Congressman is obviously no slouch, but if you think his name just happens to "get around" without strategic planning, then you underestimate Richard Gephardt. A man who could say in the summer of 1987 that he had already been campaigning for two and a half years, had been in 46states, and had made 190 trips into the country in a twelve-month period doesn't just let things happen--he's a strategist extraordinaire!

The Gephardt amendment catapulted the 46-year-old Congressman into living rooms across America as he was interviewed on network television day after day and night after night during our trade difficulties with Japan in the summer of 1987. He was featured in newspapers and national magazines. David Shribman, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, went so far as to claim,

Mr. Gephardt, in fact, tailored his legislative tactics to fit his campaign strategy. He fought for his amendment on the house floor, where proceedings are televised, rather than in the Ways and Means Committee, which drafted the trade bill in a closed session and where he was unlikely to prevail. He orchestrated a series of press events in the days leading to the vote and, on Monday, lingered outside his own news conference because an aide had noticed that an NBC camera crew hadn't arrived.  ²⁶

HR3 mirrors HR4800, a bill that passed the House in May 1986 but died when the Republican Senate in the 99th Congress failed to act. It would require punitive measures against Section 301 cases which relate to unfair trading practices by other countries. HR3 has entertained amendments mandating sanctions against the unfair actions of other countries that limit our access to world markets, changes in our laws to ease restraints on high-technology exports and giveaways to entice foreigners to buy farm produce and other American goods, provision for training programs for workers, funds for science education, mandates that the president work for a stabilization of currency exchange

rates, provisions for economic relief to debt-ridden developing nations and provisions that require disclosure of foreign investment in U.S. businesses as well as a plan to create a new private-sector council on competitiveness.

Briefly, the Gephardt Amendment requires:

1. Our government to identify foreign countries who export at least 75 percent more to the U.S. than they import from the U.S.
   
2. Our U.S. Trade Representative, currently Mr. Yeutter, to determine those countries where the surplus can be traced to unfair trading practices (Sec. 301).
   
3. Our president to limit his time for negotiations in order to achieve an end to barriers or a method of retaliation.
   
4. Retaliation may be waived by the president for countries who have severe debt problems or whenever he judges such a waiver would be in the best interests of the United States. Congress, however, could overturn the waiver by a mere majority vote which the president could in turn veto, to be overridden this time by the usual two-thirds vote requirement.

The Gephardt amendment would force nations whose trade surplus with the United States can be traced to unfair trading practices to reduce that surplus by 10 percent a year. The mandatory percentage cuts have drawn the most criticism as they are seen by many as a usurpation of the president's discretionary power. Currently, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes action by our country on a case-by-case, product-by-product basis. The Gephardt Amendment proposes a controversial "results oriented test" for determining how effective a foreign country's efforts at opening up markets to American goodts to American goods really is. Such a test would penalize a government for the customs and habits of its people and encourage it to use coercion over its population. This is in direct contrast to America's traditional role in the world as a nation that enhances the expansion of freedom. Consumers in whatever country, should not be forced by their government to change their buying habits artificially. Competition and an open market should determine the purchases of all peoples. A results oriented test is a decidedly harmful, negative idea.

Another criticism of the amendment centers on its potential as a precedent. As Congressman Sam Gibbons of Florida has said, "We don't want to make surpluses bad, because we'll set ourselves in a trap." After all, American ingenuity, salesmanship, and an open market may make the United States the country with a trading surplus in the not so distant future.

The House passed HR3 by more than a 2 to 1 margin on April 30, 1987. (Vote 190 to 137.) Mr. Gephardt's amendment was adopted the day before, on April 29, with appropriate drama. From a 209-209 tie, the fifteen-minute clock in the House quickly changed to register a final count of 218-214. Dick Gephardt enjoyed the victory, but the narrow margin almost ensures the amendment will not survive compromises which are bound to occur in joint committee with the Senate.

The Senate passed its version of the trade bill on July 21, 1987, by a 71 to 27 vote. The Senate considered 160 amendments including creation of a special inflation index for the elderly, a provision that meat sold in the United States be stamped with the country of origin, linkage of most-favored-nation status to human rights observances, and a requirement that both the budget submissions of Congress and the president include trade impact statements. Not all amendments were adopted. The Senate bill gives the president up to fifteen months to retaliate.

At this point it is not certain whether support for HR3 and the sponsorship of the Gephardt amendment is a political asset or liability, aside from the publicity it has generated. It may garner support from labor while conferring on its sponsor a reputation for pandering to special interests. Other groups have already pinned a great-big-button on Mr. Gephardt that reads PROTECTIONIST.

But Congressman Gephardt equates protectionism with competitiveness-you can't have the latter without the former. He says,

If you aren't aggressive, enthusiastic and effective on trade-rule issues, you're in a poor position to advocate changes in behavior, investment and all the other things you will need to be effective and competitive.  ²⁷

But we need the ability for American working people to be able to sell their products abroad as easily as other countries can sell their products here. Fairness. A two-way street. ²⁸

Mr. Gephardt asked his audience at the Southern Legislative Conference (SLC) in Little Rock, Arkansas, (August 1987) if America could be the best economically and militarily at the same time. He claimed that was the challenge America faces. "We are trading $15-hour jobs for $5-hour jobs," he said, "and losing well-paying jobs to other countries." (Sound familiar?)

It's true that although total employment in the United States has grown by 10 percent since Ronald Reagan took office, we have lost approximately a million high paying manufacturing jobs. It sounds pretty good then when Mr. Gephardt advocates a tough trade policy in the national interest that wtional interest that will guarantee other countries treat us as we treat them. ²⁹ Today everyone knows about the unlevel playing field we are asked to play on.

They put 40%-60% tariffs on our goods in Taiwan and South Korea; we put a 4% to 6% tariff on their goods here. Taiwan doesn't let Korean or Japanese cars in. South Korean cars are not let in Japan. The Gephardt amendment says "open up and we'll compete--if you don't we're going to penalize your goods!" ³⁰

Mr. Gephardt reminded his audience that the world is not the same as it was in the thirties and that under Smoot-Hawley (that disastrous trade bill that many believed was wholly responsible for plunging the entire world into deep depression) there was a 6O percent increase in tariffs across the board. Although free trade is important to all countries, everybody believes in it and nobody practices it. There is no doubt the entire world's standard of living would rise under free trade.

A gentleman from Taiwan was in the SLC audience and asked that we recognize the progress that is being made. "Taiwan is attempting," he said, "to reduce tariffs on American goods to a high of 48 percent and an average of 35 percent." He said that 4,000 American cars were allowed into Taiwan but no one wanted to buy them because they were so big. (He forgot to mention how expensive they were with the addition of those tariffs!)

Most of us feel it's perfectly fine if folks around the world don't want to purchase our large cars, or tobacco or transistors or whatever, but we must get access or they don't get access! And not sham access with the imposition of tariffs or a myriad of safety inspections and prohibitive regulations. One must give Mr. Gephardt credit for the evidence that many countries are now beginning, like Taiwan, to lessen their restrictions. Whether it will be enough and in time remains to be seen.

Agriculture

Dick Gephardt, the strategist, was well aware that his trade offensive might anger the farm belt so he covered his bases with the Harkin-Gephardt farm bill, which to obtain maximum voter appeal should be referred to as much as possible as "Save The Family Farm." Iowa's Senator Tom Harkin teamed up with Congressman Dick Gephardt to advocate mandatory crop reductions in order to raise the price of agricultural produce. Of course Mr. Gephardt is right when he says, "We're asking farmers to produce more when the world is in a glut." He's also right to realize the higher prices that would result from his bill would mean farewell to both domestic and foreign markets unless coupled with a new approach to trade.

It's hard to judge if a candidate is coming up with a reasonable solution to a problem unless one knows something factual about the problem. It is too easy to be led by emotion and totally disregard intellect. It is easier, too, for the candidates to depend on emotional appeal rather than buckle down and research and study the issues. But if we want to maintain a high standard of living in this country we can't let our hearts lead our minds at every turn in the road--hearts and minds must be joined. There is some hard work involved with success and to prove that I'm going to ask you to absorb some facts so that when Dick Gephardt tells you that farmers need price controls and supply management you will be able to intelligently agree or disagree.

I could take you back to 1948 when controls and supply management were used by President Truman, or to 1961 when President Kennedy did the same thing, but in the interest of time and because of the nature of this book I will only go back to 1972. It was in that year that President Nixon provided a price-income-support safety net--a floor below which farm prices would not drop. In 1972 Earl Butz, Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, arranged for the Soviets for the Soviets to buy our farm surplus. Farmers expanded output after 1972. Why? Who encouraged it? Just keep those questions in mind. Wheat production soared from 1.4 billion bushels in 1970 to 2.4 billion in 1980. Corn production jumped from 4.1 billion bushels in 1972 to 6.6 billion bushels in 1982. By 1980 one-third of all farm land was committed to export production. Two out of every five tons of farm products traded in the world were produced in the United States of America. Foreign food consumption grew by 34 million tons a year. U.S. farmers added more acreage--from 293 million acres in 1970 to 352 million acres in 1980. Grain production skyrocketed!

Then fate, as it often does, took the hand away from the central planners. In 1972-73 El Nino, an unusually warm ocean current, ruined the anchovy harvest in Peru and there was an extreme shortage of high protein meal for poultry and livestock. The world turned to the U.S. but the Nixon administration had already committed her surplus feed grain to the Soviet Union. So the world turned to soybeans as a plentiful protein rich grain. In weeks soybeans went from $3 to almost $13 a bushel. President Nixon put a federal embargo on exports of soybeans and other feed grains. Who wasn't allowed to adjust quickly to worldwide change? The American farmer. Why? Who prevented it? You got it! It was an attempt by government to force the price of soybeans down in this country. It really hurt importers such as Japan who saw right away that it could no longer depend on the United States as a reliable source--the United States, as in government. The American farmer, if left alone, could have made a profit and adjusted to world markets. The whole world could adjust if planners would back off--and quickly and satisfactorily. Why don't demagogues understand! Anyway, can you blame the Japanese for turning to other suppliers? The Japanese began to invest heavily in Brazilian soybean farms. The Japanese government now has a joint farming venture with Brazil--a $300 million enterprise whose goal it is to produce 100 million tons annually. Other countries geared up also and stopped looking to the United States except for price supports. In the 1980s American policy has been to restrict production to keep prices up (sound familiar?) and the rest of the world merrily plants and plants and reaps the benefit of our policy. We are underwriting increased production throughout the world! It was one thing to provide a support and reduce risk for our own farmers, but according to agricultural economist Gordon Rauser at the University of California at Berkeley, U.S. agriculture policies determine commodity prices all over the world, injecting one more element of instability.

But the story is not over. As the 1980s progressed, world demand for food imports fell from 34 million tons per year to 19 million tons per year. Everyone was becoming self sufficient--something we as Americans had always thought we wanted. Remember all that talk of yesteryear about giving a man a hoe and he will provide for himself? Well, he did! Foreign grain production was increasing by 29 million tons a year by the mid-eighties. World wheat consumption in 1987 is estimated at a record 507 million tons but consumers will only import 85 million tons or 17 percent of the total. The dream has come true--the world has become pretty near self sufficient, at least in the production of wheat. But that dream has become a nightmare for the government-manipulated American farmer. The U.S. share of world farm exports has fallen from 19.3 percent in 1981 to 14.8 percent in 1986. Feed grain dropped from 72 percent to 38 percent of the world market. Some observers blame the high dollar, and that has surely been part of it, but that is too simple. What we've got is a legendary example of bad social planning.

Politicians can't resist catering to the image of proud farmers working their land in order to feed a hungry America. rica. Although farmers number under 3 percent of the nation's civilian labor force they evoke a great deal of empathy. No politician would dare risk coming across as "uncaring." Jesse Jackson is the best at making nonsense believable by appealing to emotion instead of intellect, but Richard Gephardt has his moments. "It's clear that our farm policies are failing to achieve the basic goal of preserving opportunity for a good life in rural America," he pontificated, even though the other 97 percent of the population is seeing to it that $25 billion a year goes into farm subsidies.

Mr. Gephardt is oh so correct when he tells us, "They're farming this summer, not for corn but for green government checks." Agriculture Department officials estimate that $7-$8 billion worth of farm scrip will be in circulation in 1987. ³¹ The cutesy simplistic idea that all that needs to be done is "to put agriculture back in business so associated businesses can give farmers a fair price (?) for their products so they in turn will have money to spend in small business" has been bantered about mercilessly on the Iowa circuit. The "how" in this neat formula is the Harkin-Gephardt plan--greater supply management. You can see what central management has done to the farmer in the past. Do you want to let "them" have another try at it?

Surely Mr. Gephardt is correct that if those who advocate an activist role for government are to be elected again in this nation, there is a need to restore the faith of the American people in our government and our leaders. It's wrong, he likes to say, when executives get increases and workers get laid off, and for every subjective "wrong" there should be a government response, according to Mr. Gephardt's philosophy and Mr. Babbitt's and...

Rhetoric

More Gephardt favorites: We don't have and we need a national economy today because the heart of America's heartland is being torn out.

We have failed values, not just failed economic policies.

It is wrong to spend on Star Wars...It is wrong to kill children in Nicaragua...It is wrong to leave Iowa farmers out in the cold (Iowans really like that one!)

We have lost our moral compass.

What self-centered men have torn down, other centered men can build up. ("Centered" men?)

Mr. Gephardt often ends his presentations with the following:

Give me your will.
Give me your vision.
Give me your commitment.
Give me your belief.
Give me your heart.
Give me your mind and together we will make America great and good and strong again.

A Hard Worker

When Richard Andrew Gephardt announced his candidacy on February 23, 1987, he declared that he would win the White House by being "the first to work each day and the last to quit each night." That is the Horatio Alger formula that many of us consumed with our mother's milk. There's no doubt that Dick Gephardt is keeping his part of the bargain. Will it work.? To date James Garfield is the only president to have gone directly from the House of Representatives to the White House. What can I say? Assuredly Republicans aren't as sore losers today as they were in 1881. ³²

Al Gore Jr.

Albert Gore Jr.' s roots may be in Carthage, Tennessee, but he was born on March 31, 1948, in Washington, D.C., where his father was serving in Congress (1939-1971). His claim to be " Southern-bred" may be disputed by the fact that he attended St. Albans, the prestigious prep school in Washington, D.C., and even married the lovely and outspoken Mary Elizabeth "Tipper" Aitcheson, a native of Washington, D.C. Al Gore studied government at Harvard, received his B.A. in 1969, and entered the service and spent time in Vietnam as an army journalist. Upon his return in 1971 he worked as a journalist on a Nashville newspaper while attending Vanderbilt University, where he studied theology for two years followed by two years of law. Unlike Joe Biden and Michael Dukakis, who recognized their political ambitions while still undergraduates, Al Gore Jr. claims "that he wasn't interested in a political career until his newspaper work exposing corruption in local government made him realize that politics could be a positive force for change." ³³ He left law school to run for the House of Representatives at age twenty-eight. (No fooling around with local politics for him!) Eight years later, at the age of thirty-six, he ran for the U.S. Senate. Now three years later, he would be happy to leave the Senate for the highest office in the land. To this point Al Gore, Jr. has succeeded in all his ambitions. Since 1977 he has managed to visit his home state every week and still maintains a 97 percent voting record. Tennesseans honored that commitment and in 1984 elected Al Gore, Jr. to the Senate with the largest vote that state had ever accorded any person, including Al Gore, Sr.

"Youthfully mature, committed, experienced, attractive, vigorous and in tune" were the words used to introduce Albert Gore, Jr. to the Southern Legislative Conference (SLC) held in Little Rock, Arkansas, in August 1987.

Al Gore is as proud of his father as Michael Dukakis is of his. Proud that Al Gore Senior was one of only two Southern Senators to refuse to sign the notorious Southern Manifesto after Brown vs. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation in public schools. Proud not only of all the wins that went into thirty-two years of service in the U.S. Congress, but of Al Gore Senior's final defeat in 1970 which was due, at least in some measure, to his vocal and heart-felt opposition to the Vietnam War.

All politicians tell jokes-- it lightens the atmosphere and warms up the audience-- but Senator Gore Jr. is better at it than most, perhaps because he makes his jokes believable and personal. For example:

During one of his father's election campaigns an opponent had posted signs all over town proclaiming that " THE THINKING FELLER VOTES McKELLER." Al's mother, who practiced law in Arkansas, came up with "THINK SOME MORE AND VOTE FOR GORE"!

He tells another story about 140 people trying to get on a ballot and stresses the ingenuity of one hopeful who promised an income tax audit for dentists and divorce lawyers in the belief that he wasn't the only one to have experienced some pain in his lifetime.

Because the Iowa caucuses in February 1988 are the first report cards to be issued to all the candidates, Mr. Gore has done his share of traveling to and addressing the citizens of that state. He's even picked up some new jokes: "It's beginning to look like the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes. Anybody can enter. Anybody can win." He has learned that a good bet is to acknowledge and poke fun at your own weaknesses before someone else beats you to it.

There was some truth to the " Seven Dwarfs" barb which pointed up the fact that many of the Democratic hopefuls were virtually unknown to a national constituency. When Senator Biden dropped out of the race, the label "mercifully" no longer fit, even though most of the six remaining Democratic candidates still had a problem with name recognition. Jesse Jackson is the only one, in fact, who can claim to have no problem in this area. Congressman Gephardt has been helped by associating his name with many of the bills before Congress and is well known to political enthusiasts. His national exposure has centered on his link with the nation's trade difficulties, which continue to receive national media coverage. Governor Dukakis of Massachusetts has received some national attention for his state's welfare program, "ET"-- Employment & Training (Choices). But what can two rather uncontroversial junior senators and one ex-governor do to gain name recognition-- besides staging a 397-mile bicycle ride?

Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's message is shop worn:

America is increasingly divided between those getting wealthier and those getting poorer. Those with an excellent education and those that can't even read or write. Those with hope and those with despair. Those who say wait and those committed to make a difference.

The idea that runs so strongly through all the Democratic candidates' platforms that a new president must unify us-- must heal the differences-- is part of Al Gore Jr.'s presentations also. "We need a new sense of national purpose."

During the August 22, 1987, debate held in Dubuque, Iowa, on "The Economics of America" and involving all seven Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination, Mr. Gore failed to distinguish himself from the pack. He said things like, "The fiscal policy of Ronald Reagan has been misguided." "There has been a long decline in our productivity growth." "We must focus on shaping sharper minds, not lowering wages." "The world is inter-connected. We need an international outlook. We need economic growth on a global basis." He repeated essentially the same message before San Francisco's Commonwealth Club on October 26, 1987.

Mr. Gore stays away from controversy, although he's quick to attack fellow candidates. Seldom can anyone object to anything he says. "Instead of telling people what to do, we should listen and learn how to give them the tools to do what they want." What "they want" is the key-- let every-one do what they want. I'm sure not disagreeing-- are you? Of course his first job is to appeal to the Democrats. It's possible some Republicans could disagree depending on the interpretation of "give" (and the cost) and just what is meant by "tools" is uncertain. Could it mean a free education through college and a guaranteed job and house?

Mr. Gore claims that education is directly connected to our competitiveness-- that we need the world's best education. Is that controversial? He claimed in his speech before the SLC (August 22, 1987) that there should be more federal support (dollars) for education and that the federal role had dropped from 10 percent to 6 percent of total expenditures on education. (According to the Reagan administration the federal government provides 7 percent of education's funds.) Al Gore, Jr. would like to see the system made more attractive in order to keep kids in school. I'll admit there's not universal agreement as to the two ways he suggests to reach the "world's best education," i.e. more federal dollars and making education "more attractive" which may or may not mean "more fun."

His observation that the Atlantic and Pacific coasts are doing well and mid-America is suffering is hardly earth-shaking. Nor is his prescription for a responsible fiscal policy and comment that each year the budget contains too much for arms. Slightly more controversial is his call to make more capital available to small businesses and his position that the Small Business Administration should be reshaped rather than eliminated.

Still speaking before the SLC, the Senator said that federalism has become a shell game where the Administration has said "we're not cutting programs, we're giving block grants to the states, so ask them, not the federal government for aid." But states' funds were cut, according to the Senator, and the states need more money for rural economic development, infrastructure, better health care, clean air and water and so forth. But, he declared, the states won't accept mandates without resources to meet those mandates. He discussed the need for a national energy policy and voiced his opinion that Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma were headiahoma were heading for a crisis. He told his audience that Tennessee had a problem with its rivers in 1985 and linked that fact with FDR's creation of the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) implying that a similar response by the federal government is required now. He said the rivers are not a regional problem but are rather a national probIem. It seemed like he wanted the entire country to come to the aid of the Southwest. Now that might stir some controversy!

On the subject of welfare Mr. Gore agreed with many other candidates that it is time to change the system so that a father has no incentive to leave the home and so that a family can keep health benefits if and when they leave welfare.

Senator Gore claims to be the only farmer in the race for the presidential nomination. His occupation has been listed as "journalist, home builder and politician" but never as" farmer." The fact that his family (the Senator has 4 children) lives on a corn and livestock ranch outside Carthage, Tennessee, which someone else works, doesn't qualify him as a bona fide farmer and he doesn't pretend that it does-- his claim has always been humorous. But it doesn't take a bona fide farmer to see the problems or the solutions. The Senator's suggestion that we need better farm credit policies, however, tells us nothing. Everybody is for "better" everything, but what is "better"? Less costly? Geared to the "little guy" ? More lenient? Here's controversy, but I don't know what Mr. Gore proposes beyond making the credit policies "better."

To the Southern legislators he said: "Agriculture is one of our strong suits in this country but we now have competition. China now exports wheat. Bangladesh is even an exporter. We need to negotiate international exporter agreements. We need commodity programs that are sensitive and that put a floor under the farmer."

A Mississippi catfish farmer stood up and declared, "We need market access, not subsidies!"

Al Gore Jr. is known to some of his colleagues as the Congressman who conducted hearings while in the House which focused on worthless insurance policies which were and are being sold to uninformed or misinformed senior citizens .

When asked by the Associated Press: "Will you keep Social Security benefits and the annual cost-of-living increases exempt from budget cuts?" he answered: "I am adamantly opposed to any attempt to cut benefits to recipients and I strongly support the annual Social Security cost-of-living increases." Such an answer should make millions of people happy-- a specialty of Mr. Gore's. To a second question: "Do you favor any means test for Social Security benefits?" he replied: "I am strongly opposed to means-testing because the system is solvent and (it is) unfair to those who have contributed into the system." The answers of all candidates (Jesse Jackson chose not to respond) were issued by the Associated Press on June 14, 1987.

In the matter of taxes, Al Gore Jr. may offend a few people, but still in a gentlemanly manner. Some may be aware that he, along with Senators Biden and Simon, voted in the fall of 1986 to create a new 35 percent top rate above the 28 percent rate now prescribed by the 1986 tax reform bill. He opposes a value-added tax but believes a tax increase must be looked at as part of a comprehensive solution to reducing our federal deficit. During the Dubuque, Iowa, debate (August 22, 1987) Senator Gore attacked Governor Dukakis' figures. (The Governor had claimed that $110 billion could be saved by collecting delinquent federal taxes) and pledged that a tax hike would be undertaken during his presidency (if elected) only as a last resort.

Although Al Gore Jr. supports "trade restrictions in cases of "overwhelming unfairness" or where high penetration of foreign goods threatens to destroy a U.S. industry," ³⁴ he is nevertheless opposed to the Gepposed to the Gephardt amendment. It is hard to support an opponent in a competitive race where the stakes are the presidential nomination. Senator Simon and the Reverend Jesse Jackson are the only candidates who have said that they would vote for the Gephardt amendment besides Congressman Gephardt himself.

The following statement made by Senator Gore, Jr. is unfair in its beginning and untrue in its ending. "We've watched this administration double, and they'll end up tripling, the national debt in just two presidential terms, at the same time cutting the services that every American wants to see delivered in this country." ³⁵ The budget submitted by the President is a negotiating tool. No one ever expects Congress to accept it, but rather it is anticipated that Congress will dicker. It's nonsense to refer to "the president's deficit." If Congress wanted to chop the President's budget it would be chopped.

In 1982 President Reagan recommended a $695.5 billion budget. In 1982 Congress spent $745.7 billion.

In 1983 President Reagan recommended a $757.6 billion budget. In 1983 Congress spent $808.3 billion.

In 1984 President Reagan recommended an $848.5 billion budget. In 1984 Congress spent $851.8 billion.

In 1985 President Reagan recommended a $925.5 billion budget. In 1985 Congress spent $946 billion.

On March 23, 1987, Senator Gore Jr. announced that he would not be a candidate for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination. On April 10, 1987, he announced he would consider running in response to an urging by Southern Democratic leaders who had each pledged to raise $250,000 for him (approximately $4.5 million). On June 29, 1987, he formally declared his candidacy both in Carthage, Tennessee and in Manchester, New Hampshire.

If Charles Robb of Virginia, Sam Nunn of Georgia or Dale Bumpers of Arkansas had declared their candidacies, it seems safe to say Al Gore would not be running. Someone had to be the standard bearer for the South in 1988, and besides, there could be a repeat of the nation's 1960 craving for the "youngest" after experiencing eight years of the "oldest."

Jesse Jackson

Jesse Jackson was born in Greenville, North Carolina, on October 8, 1941, to Helen Burns, a high school student who two years later married Charles Henry Jackson, the man who was to become Jesse's stepfather. Jesse Jackson;s genetic father, Noah Robinson, lived next door with a family of his own and, contrary to popular opinion, was proud of Jesse and acknowledged that he was his spittin' image! According to biographer Barbara Reynolds, ³⁶ Jesse probably learned that Charles Jackson was not his real father and that Noah Robinson was, sometime between the ages of six and nine and was deeply affected by the information. Charles Jackson officially adopted Jesse when he was fifteen years old, and perhaps that made it possible for Mrs. Robinson to accept Jesse in her home. At any rate, Jesse Jackson ended up with two families.

This information only becomes important when seeking the common thread which binds all the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination for 1988-- excessive ambition and drive. Although in reality Jesse Jackson does not seem to have been rejected by the parties involved, perceived rejection is just as powerful a destroyer or, in Jesse Jackson's case, motivator.

Mr. Jackson graduated from Sterling High in Greenville in 1959 and entered the University of Illinois on an athletic scholarship. However, the racial realities of the time kept him from assuming the leadership position he so craved and so he switched to the predominately black Agriculture and Technical College (A&T) at Greensboro, North Carolina. There in 1962 he met and married Jacqueline Lavinia Davis, the mother of his five ce mother of his five children. The civil rights movement had been in full force in Greensboro before Mr. Jackson's arrival, but by 1963 he had assumed a position of leadership. It was that year, after receiving his B.A. in sociology, that he decided to enter the Chicago Theological Seminary to become a preacher like the grandfather whose name he bears, the Reverend Jesse Robinson.

John Steinbeck once wrote, "Just because a thing never happened, doesn't mean it isn't true." Jesse Jackson would certainly subscribe to that view of things. In an effort to both gain acceptance and to motivate the truly oppressed he often leaves the truth, as most of us would call it, completely out of the conversation. In I985 two biographers said the following:

Jesse Jackson began by identifying himself as one of the dispossessed, a poor, underprivileged black from the rural South who understood all the hurt and deprivation felt by poor blacks everywhere. He identified himself as a "third-world" child, one who had lived in a "shack," who had stolen in order to eat, a ragamuffin grown wise and bold, who proposed to lead his people out of their degradation and into power and prosperity. Never mind that these stories of early poverty were untrue. ³⁷

On a Chicago television station (WBBM-TV) in 1973, Jesse Jackson, the preacher and man of God, said, "I used to run bootleg liquor, bought hot clothes. I had to steal to survive." These words at the time left Charles Jackson mystified. He told Ms. Reynolds, "We were never poor. We never wanted for anything. We've never been on welfare, because I was never without a job. We never begged anybody for a dime. And my family never went hungry a day in their lives."  ³⁹

A 1970 biography ⁴⁰ which was written with the facts supplied by the Reverend Jackson himself, claimed that Jesse Jackson's mother was a maid and his father was a janitor-- both, according to biographers, completely untrue.

Gary Hart was driven out of the race for the 1988 Democratic nomination because of lies-- flaws in his character that we would not tolerate in a national leader-- yet no one has had the courage to confront Mr. Jackson in the same manner.

Shortly after Joe Biden dropped out of the race for the 1988 presidential nomination, David Broder spoke of Doris Kearns Goodwin, Lyndon Baines Johnson's biographer, who, Mr. Broder told his readers, had recently reminded journalists how important it is to focus on the truthfulness of presidential candidates in their reflections of reality.

The reason, she said, is that once behind the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, there is inevitably a strong temptation to reconstruct the world as you wish it to be. The same LBJ who invented a grandfather who died heroically at the Alamo, she pointed out, had no problem converting what was at best an ambiguous naval incident in the Gulf of Tonkin into the excuse for a massive escalation of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The fake grandfather seemed mere hyperbole, perhaps worth only a laugh. But the Gulf of Tonkin incident led to tragedy. ⁴¹

According to biographers Landess and Quinn, Mr. Jackson, on April 21, 1984, claimed urban ties because it served his purpose. Before Southern audiences hethern audiences he had always claimed poor, rural origins. The stories that he made up and used for his own advantage and that alienated him from the old-guard black leaders following Martin Luther King's death reflect on his character. Character, or lack thereof, is something we must pay prime attention to in choosing our leaders. Who does not agree with the Reverend Ralph Abernathy who said, "What is needed today is not charisma so much as character ... (Moses) led his people out of Egypt, not because his words excited them, but because his goodness inspired them." ⁴²

Tell me about the character of a man who would act in the following manner:

Jesse was supposed to introduce Dr. King, but he took the opportunity when the cameras were on him to deliver a lengthy, lengthy speech himself. You couldn't say he got carried away in his preaching because his remarks were all written down. When it was Dr. King's time to speak, he delivered only perfunctory remarks, 'cause he saw it had all been said for him. ⁴³

AN OPPORTUNIST?

Tell me about the character of a man who refers to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) as "Democrats for the Leisure Class" ⁴⁴ and is himself

... treated like a monarch. A snap of the finger brings him a newspaper. A nod of the head brings a glass of lemonade. Oblivious of the hour, he rouses people with phone calls from six in the morning to long after midnight. Often he holds planes until the last minute before he arrives to take his first-class seat. ⁴⁵

A HYPORCITE?

Tell me about the character of a man with a six figure income who continually denounces the wealthy in this country and himself was found to have given less than "one-half percent of his declared income" to charity. Charitable giving is normally one's private business unless one happens to be seeking the highest office in the land, as Jesse Jackson did in 1984 and was found not to be the lowest earner but the lowest contributor of all the candidates. What about a man who

... has grown prosperous and powerful on the business of being poor and has shared very little of his own wealth with those whom he most professes to pity."  ⁴⁶

AN IMPOSTOR?

Tell me about the character of a man who while

In high school ... worked at the Poinsett Hotel, across the street from a plaque enshrining the memory of segregationist John C. Calhoun, former Vice President and Congressman. Jesse relished the chance to show what he thought of Calhounism the only way he could, by spitting in the food he served whites. ⁴⁷

IMPETUOUS?

William Julius Wilson, a black sociologist at the University of Chicago, tells us about the importance of role models and the support of a community in providing values for the young. He claims that the success and mobility of blacks over the past twenty years has taken the props from under those left behind in the ghettos.

Basic community institutions-- schools, churches, stores, recreation centers-- lost the support of the stable families that kept them viable... Crime and vandalism further hastened business flight, reducing employment and leaving little but the culture of failure, unemployment, hustling, drugs, and welfare. ⁴⁸

No one knows this lesson better than Jesse Jackson.

Social mores were such that when Jesse was disruptive in class, he was disciplined at school, "whupped" at home, and the preacher... would publicly rebuke Jesse in church. ly rebuke Jesse in church. ⁴⁹

The Reverend Jackson preaches self-help and personal improvement, knowing full well that values are the key to success. however, it would appear that he often forgets his own. If you want to believe that with dozens of biographers prying into their backgrounds, the other candidates, your own preacher, your neighbor and even yourself would come up just as "lacking," then that is your decision. However, I feel strongly that many of the problems that confront us today were caused by over-tolerance and low expectations of ourselves, our children and our leaders.

Jesse Jackson combines the strengths of the other candidates. He probably matches Senator Biden's oratorical skill yet manages to address specific issues.

"The best measure of the humaneness of a society is the way in which a society treats its elderly."
Joe Biden

"We measure our character by how we treat children in the dawn of life,
We measure our character by how we treat the poor in the pit of life,
We measure our character by how we treat the old in the sunset of life."
Jesse Jackson

Just as Senator Gore likes non-controversial issues, Jesse Jackson embraces controversy. Race, affirmative action, quotas, busing, South Africa, Nicaragua, Cuba-- a1l are favorite topics.

We have seen how both Joe Biden and Mike Dukakis heard the call to greatness and set their sights on high political office while still in college, but Jesse Jackson has them both beat. According to a high school teacher,

Jesse was always the candidate. Whatever office was available, Jesse would be there signing his name. He seemed to be saying, "whether you elect me or not, I'm going to run. I am the candidate!"  ⁵⁰

When asked how he would bring down the federal deficit, ⁵¹, Mr. Jackson echoed Governor Dukakis' plan to concentrate on collecting delinquent taxes. He showed some originality and a willingness to talk about specifics when he explained his plan to get at a portion of the $2 trillion invested in pension funds by labor unions, business and government. He would like to see some of this money used to invest in infrastructure and to build affordable housing. He was enthusiastic about

... using some of our own money to build bridges, make an energy efficient mass transportation system. Let Americans make the steel and lay the rails and drive the cars. It's called "better managing America's assets" for Americans.

He summed up by declaring that if businesses were paying their fair share of taxes, together with the collection of delinquent taxes and by putting America back to work using pension funds to tackle infrastructure projects (every 1 percent drop in unemployment saves $25 to $30 billion), we might have the deficit licked. If not, he would as a last resort (one of the more popular phrases on the circuit) raise taxes.

This particular spiel is very effective and never fails to impress an audience with what they suppose is lucid logic-- a wonderfully simple and perfect solution to the deficit problem and a good many other irritations as well. But what no prudent pension fund manager (who, by the way, has a fiduciary duty) would do because of the risk involved and low return on the investment, our hero Jesse Jackson would not hesitate for a moment to do. But this is the Jackson trademark-- surface solutions that sound good proposed by a demagogue with little grasp of the problem. "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." But, compared to his colleagues, as I

said earlier, the Reverend Jackson has both a spellbinding delivery and offers specifics on every issue.

Education

We must use our mindBLOCKQUOTE>We must use our minds and resources. We must educate our children. It is immoral to cut back on education, to turn our children's sunlight into midnight. It's a mistake to tackle education from high-tech down rather than head-start up. It's a mistake to put more focus on private education than mass education. Democracy does not guarantee success but it does guarantee opportunity. To educate a child's mind is to give that child opportunity.
To the issue of productivity-- education is the key.
To the issue of competitiveness-- education is the key.
To the issue of quality of life-- education is the key.
Education should not be reduced to an afterthought-- it's our first line of defense. A full academic scholarship could cost less than $30,000-- those same four years on a full penitentiary scholarship could cost more than $l20,000. Education at its worst is better than jail at its best. We must educate our children!
Southern Legislative Conference (SLC)
Little Rock, Arkansas, August 1987

Beautiful-- right? Now let's analyze what the great orator has really said.

First of all there is nothing moral or immoral about the issue. Secondly, absolutely no one is talking about cutting back on education. In our government almost inevitably any cutback is at most a cutback on the growth-- on the ever increasing allocations. "Sunlight into midnight" is simply hot air. "From high-tech down rather than headstart up"-- who's advocating such a thing? Nobody or entity that I ever heard of is focusing on private over public education (assuming "mass" means public). However, private education, as it is known now, could belong to the masses under a universal voucher system guaranteeing for every child the education of his or her parents' choice and making all the schools competitive and, therefore, eventually all excellent. How do you suppose Mr. Jackson would define "opportunity"? The three rhythmically perfect lines beginning "To the issue of ..." make a charming litany and are an accurate observation that education makes a person more productive and competitive and enhances standards of living. The bit about providing a full scholarship or else ... is just an example of blackmail, here couched as an appeal to economy rather than altruism. ⁵²

Agriculture

We're the wealthiest nation in the history of the world and yet we've turned our backs on the hands that have fed us. That's a reflection on our character.
Baldwin, Iowa
Summer 1987

The cost of farm programs has increased six fold since Mr. Reagan took office, going from $4 billion in 1981 to $25.8 billion in FYl986. Is that turning our backs, Mr. Jackson?

Subsidies to farmers in various forms took 15 percent of the FY1986 budget. Is that turning our backs, Mr. Jackson?

The increase in farm support costs was between 500-600 percent in five years. Is that turning our backs, Mr. Jackson?

Farmers and ranchers have fed America and the world. Farmers should expect mercy from us. Many farmers are in the cold without heat, without telephone, without medical care.
Before the Texas Legislature April 24, 1987

Deficiency payments in FY1986 were double the payments in FY1985 and, consequently, participation in the program shot up to include 85 percent of all farmers. No wonder real per capita income in the nine grainbelt states has risen nearly 10 percent faster than in the nation as a whole. What about that, Mr. Jackson? In 1986 per capita income in Iowa was on a par with the rest of the nation, and yet that state consumed subsidies averaging nearly $18,000 per farm and worth close to $2 billion. One farmer received $9.9 million "... in the tax financed slaughter of his entire dairy herd in a program paying 12,000 dairy farms an average of nearly $105,000 eacerage of nearly $105,000 each to get out of the business." ⁵³ Under pressure from cattlemen, the federal government agreed to purchase the slaughtered dairy cows to prevent a glut in the meat market. A heartless administration, Mr. Jackson? Not on your life, but perhaps a mindless one. Our agriculture policy is a perfect example of the dangers inherent in leaving your business to the policy makers.

Farmers deserve fair prices for their production. Farm credit has taken acres from bankrupt farmers. We must give that land back. We must have an international congress on agriculture and food.
During debate in Dubuque, Iowa
August 22, 1987

The Farm Credit System lost $2.7 billion through mortgage and loan defaults in 1985-- an historic record for a U.S. financial institution. But guess what, Mr. Jackson-- Congress went back to the drawing boards and came up with the 1985 Farm Credit Corporation of America which it immediately authorized to tap into (steal) the $3.2 billion in surplus reserves held by healthy institutions, calling the theft "capital sharing." Examples are plentiful of farmers who have the federal government write off their loans but are then able to use fat federal payments to plant crops that, when harvested they will get paid to store. Farmers certainly aren't stupid, and although they can hardly help taking advantage of such stupid programs, they don't enjoy taking taxpayer money for being non-productive.

As for an international congress, President Reagan on June 5, 1987, appealed to other nations: "Let's jointly defuse this growing farms race by setting a goal of a subsidy-free world for the year 2000" Our government intends to bring before the 92-country General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) a proposal for a phased reduction of all nations' farm-support programs-- which, according to the World Bank, amount to a minimum of $110 billion a year worldwide-- and suggest new trade rules to promote peaceful settlement of disputes.

What are you suggesting that isn't being done, Mr. Jackson?

I can't trust these multinational non-farmers who have no dirt under their fingernails. Land is real estate to them. I'm not asking for foreign aid-- these are our farmers-- they fed America-- they fed the world.
A mother has five children and two pork chops. She won't run to a computer to prove that she has three excess children. She'll make gravy and cut the chops into five pieces because she's got common sense.
We can bail out the credit system.
We can bail out New York City (and we should have).
We can bail out Chrysler-- and Continental Bank.
We can have an $18 billion cost overrun for the B-1 Bomber-- if we can bail out Europe and Japan we can bail out the family farmer!
Address to the SLC
Little Rock, Arkansas, August 1987

As for "multi-national non-farming farmers," it's true that people who have analyzed the breakdown of the subsidy payments have found large amounts of taxpayer dollars going to foreign investors, executives with part-time farms and to the farmers with net worth's exceeding a million dollars who have the financial clout necessary to make it on their own. But bailouts and subsidies always, always benefit most those with clean fingernails. I discuss rice growers as an example in another book.  ⁵⁴ The "scam" goes something like this: the maximum government subsidy is $50,000 a year so the key is in knowing the exact number of acres to plant in order to qualify for that subsidy. The government presumes by having such a cut-off only smaller growers will benefit. (0, ye who underestimate the ingenuity of your fellowman!) All a large grower has to do is plant the right number of acres and then rent similar parcels to "new growers" (the ones with the clean fingernails), each for agernails), each for a handsome sum. Remember, each parcel is automatically worth $50,000 to each and every purchaser. There's no need for getting "dirt under their fingernails.

The Reverend was no doubt trained to use parables and his seminary should be proud of his mastery. In the SLC speech one can see the mother, children and chops and we feel good about her and her solution to her problem, but that feeling should not transfer to the Reverend's proposals regarding farm policy. Dividing pork chops may be common sense but expanding export credit and subsidy programs and paying farmers to idle up to 50 percent of all land set aside for certain crops is absolute non-sense! Farmers and others have learned how to "play" the federal government and can reap a record crop while receiving subsidies for idling land at the same time. On the other hand, "dividing pork chops" might be the simplest and least expensive answer if done via direct money payments to farmers without all the hoopla. Let them plant or not and introduce the element of a free market with a gradual scaling back of "welfare" payments over time. Many believe such a plan would be cheaper than the present charade we are playing with agriculture. The 1985 Farm Bill spends billions of dollars undoing what other government programs have done and ends up giving the most dollars to those who need them the least. The acreage reduction program served as a signal to competitors to increase their own production. There is absolutely no doubt that subsidies are self-perpetuating as well as self-defeating.

Housing

We must put every American in a house; it's our moral obligation-- it's also cost efficient-- it makes good common sense.
Before the Texas Legislature
August 24, 1987

Again, morality has nothing to do with government's role. Helping your neighbor stems from religious beliefs or a personal code of ethics. Socialism or communism attempt to legislate equality-- morality, if you will-- but a capitalist government rests upon opportunity and freedom, not redistribution (theft). Cost efficiency can only occur if one becomes obligated to do something more expensive as an alternative to putting every American in a house. (More blackmail.)

It does not make good sense nor is it good morality to cut back on affordable housing for those who need them. Under the Reagan administration the HUD budget has gone from $32 billion to $10 billion in seven years. They're trying to privatize remaining public housing-- 3 to 5 million homeless people-- others living double and triple up. PEOPLE DESERVE A HOUSE! We begin to provide homes for the homeless-- we provide jobs for the jobless-- turn welfare recipients, unemployment compensation beneficiaries into workers who generate revenue and pay taxes and reduce the deficit.
Before the SLC
Little Rock, Arkansas, August 1987

Let's discuss the housing budget. In 1981 the federal government's long term housing commitments amounted to almost $240 billion. Because of excessive costs and wasteful management, Congress, in 1982, brought a halt to all new federal construction programs. However, funds appropriated during the Carter years have produced units during the Reagan administration, as many as 76,000 in 1987 alone and 251,000 units in FY1981. The Reagan administration has opted for housing vouchers which cost taxpayers half as much as new construction, which incidentally ended up subsidizing developers far more than tenants. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), tenants in government-subsidized construction projects receive thirty-four cents worth of benefits for every one dollar spent, whereas they receive eighty-four cents for every dollar spent in a voucher program. Dollars allocated to a problem rarely tell a complete and accurate story. Mr. Jackson may have wanted his audience to conclude that the pclude that the present administration doesn't care about the problem. What do you think?

As for privatizing public housing, Mr. Jackson is absolutely correct. The Reagan administration is attempting to substitute loan subsidies for rent subsidies-- home ownership for public housing. Rent for federa1ly-subsidized housing is based on income, which means the more a person makes the more he pays. Not exactly an incentive for more work or a formula for getting ahead, is it? Low interest loans, however, often bring mortgage payments down to the level of rent and offer a family a real chance to get ahead. Home ownership not only enhances net worth but enhances self-worth as well.

Speaking of doubling and tripling up, check this HUD definition: "OVERCROWDING-- more than one person to a room. "Knowing the correct definition is the key to qualifying for most government programs. You can then make things fit. Bet you didn't know that "1ow-income household" means a household which receives less than 50 percent of the region's median income, or at most $21,000! To qualify, the fewer income-earners in the "household" the better, and folks catch on to that quickly enough!

The Reverend's assertion that "people deserve a house" deserves a book in answer, but let me lightly skim the issue from a "right-to-housing" angle. The first "right-to-shelter" suit was filed in New York City in 1979 and many have been filed in various states since. The concept is an absurdity. There can be no right to shelter, only the right to acquire shelter, if not through purchase or rental as a result of one's own labor, then the shelter must be obtained through the charity of others, either willingly elicited or coerced-- i.e., by government edict.

The first time I heard Jesse Jackson's "ABRA" (provide homes for homeless)-- "CADABRA" (provide jobs for jobless) and "SHAZAM" (we've got taxpaying workers to reduce our deficit), I laughed my head off-- but then I wanted to cry when I saw how unwitting audiences rose to their feet cheering. Forget the philosophy behind government providing homes and jobs-just look at the economics ! Who pays for the homes and jobs? I guarantee that most of these new "workers" will be tax-exempt and that the cost will far exceed any taxes generated.

Energy

Organize a Pan-American energy and security alliance. Oil reserves of Canada, coal reserves of Pennsylvania and West Virginia can degasify and turn to methanol; corn reserves of the midwest from which we can make ethanol; oil fields which are not pumping in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas and Southern California combine with oil reserves in Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela. We can have a Pan-American energy and security alliance in this hemisphere-- make our oil more safe and more secure, get the oil wells pumping in Latin America-- it will reduce their debt, reduce our deficit and put people back to work. That's the alternative to welfare and despair.
Before the SLC
Little Rock, Arkansas, August 1987

While we were once the world's leading oil producer, the United States now ranks behind the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia. An alliance among oil producers in the western hemisphere as a protection against OPEC's potential stranglehold on us in the future is not such a bad idea. Even better would be government's backing-off (not subsidizing one over the other) and letting American ingenuity and the profit motive work out alternate energy sources. Increased subsidies for ethanol production is pandering to farmers. So far government subsidies and free corn have encouraged corporations to come up with 80-cent-per-gallon fuel for a mere $1.45 per gallon!

A call for "an oil import tax for revenue and energy independence" and to "get oil fields working again" went over big at a speech by Jesse Jackson to the Texas legislature on April 24, 1987. These men and women were particularly enth particularly enthusiastic when he declared "the Northeast should help the Southwest ... all bear and share burdens ... just one America ... world economy is interdependent."

Drugs

(Jesse Jackson spoke of the) agony of our children. 35 percent know someone dead because of drugs; 50 percent know someone in jail because of drugs; almost l00 percent know someone who takes drugs or know someone contemplating suicide.
Before the Texas Legislature
April 24, 1987

We can defend the borders of our allies in Korea, and we must. We can defend the borders of our allies in Europe, and we must. We must defend our own borders! To stop drugs we need drug sweepers for the Gulf of Mexico-- to defend American borders. We know where drugs are grown, where they're coming from, who is dying from them. We've lost more lives by the dope than by the rope. They used to come at night disguised in sheets. Drug pushers come disguised as friends, as classmates, as teammates. They don't wear hoods-- they are hoods and we must stop them!
Before the SLC
Little Rock, Arkansas, August 1987

The Reverend Jackson has spent more time than any other candidate speaking out against and drawing attention to the nation's nightmare affair with drugs. We should all be grateful for his oratorical skill in this area.

Trade

Many people believe Jesse Jackson makes sense and elicits the most audience response when it comes to the trade issue.

Thirty thousand of the best automakers in the world lost their jobs-- that week thirty thousand new jobs opened in South Korea. The #1 exporter from Taiwan is General Electric ... also the #2 defense contractor ... also owns NBC. (They run) "Buy American" ads while they close down plants here and take our jobs, repress labor and sell prices here at a high level. We need economic justice! There is cheaper, not better labor elsewhere. (They) live in dormitories-- can't organize-- live under semi or marshal law-- can't demonstrate. Labor relations and labor rights must be part of an (international) agreement. If they (foreign workers) get livable wages, it will reduce incentives for them to take our jobs. Livable wages means they can buy what we produce. We cannot hurt somebody without hurting ourselves. We cannot help somebody without helping ourselves. It really does suggest that slave labor anywhere depresses organized labor anywhere. The Taiwanese, the South Koreans are not taking our jobs-- the multinationals are taking our jobs to them-- (the multinationals) export jobs, export capital, export our tax-base, destabilize our families. We must change direction-- we must stop the process of merging corporations, purging workers, submerging our economy. The American worker can compete on an even playing field. Incentives must shift to the four Rs:
1) reinvest in America
2) retrain our workers
3) reindustrialize our nation
4) research for commitment
We're not working on competition, we're working on defense. (The) Japanese spend little on military. Who here owns a VCR? Raise your hands... Americans don't make them. Not because we're not intelligent enough to make them-- they're not our priority.
Now, who here owns an MX missile? Raise your hands. (Laughter.) The point is we're making what the world is not requesting.
Before the SLC
Little Rock, Arkansas, August 1987

Some random comments: (1) "Economic justice" is subjective. (2) We have a hard enough time with "labor relations" and "labor rights" in this country. What country would submit to an outside international regulator? (GATT has little power.) Surely not the USA! (3) Who will provide "livable wages" to foreign workers? Only the market place can do that. If employers don't make a profit, they can't pay. (4) In a capitalist society (the United States is still one) the "4 Rs" can only be une) the "4 Rs" can only be undertaken by private enterprise motivated by profits. The only place for the "4 Rs" in a political speech is as a strong appeal to socialism. If that's what you want, then recognize it for what it is and go ahead and work for it. People can change things. First, however, compare the history of socialism all over the world with the history of capitalism. Ask yourself why so many nations are turning from socialism to capitalism. If you're still willing to buck the trend, then join those who cheer and applaud speeches such as this one by Jesse Jackson.

Jesse Jackson's style is at its best when he uses simple imagery and asks for participation from his audience. Naturally everyone chuckled and felt warmly toward this "wise man" when he asked those who owned MX missiles to raise their hands. His wisdom extended to his observation that "we're making what the world is not requesting." Any fool capitalist knows the first rule for success is to make what people want! But this works only when people set their own priorities via their own pocketbooks and not their neighbor's. The system gets the wrong signals when government decides what people should want-- what is good for them-- and subsidizes one thing over another.

As for providing defense, that is one of the very few obligations of government (taxpayers).

In Baldwin, Iowa, during the summer of 1987, the Reverend Jackson, as usual, referred to foreign labor as "slave labor, undercutting organized labor" and facetiously complained that maybe the "American worker wants too many benefits-- house, medical care, food, their children to go to college. They want too much."

When asked during the Democratic candidates' debate held in Dubuque, Iowa, on August 22, 1987, whether business or workers were the greedy ones when it came to the dispute over settling for a pay-cut or a plant-closing, he launched into a crowd-pleasing (unless the crowd is made up of CEOs) parable about executive greed:

If all the fish in a pond are dead, look for the barracuda that killed all those fish. (He blamed GM for closing plants and suggested regulating corporations.) This government must demand that corporations retrain our workers-- reinvest in America... don't over study the small dead fish, challenge the behavior of the international barracudas.

Another excerpt follows from his speech to the SLC:

The UAW can't win with GM. The union is playing on a national playing field, the multinational is playing on an international playing field ...FDR tackled monopolies in his day. We must tackle multinationals.

In case you are wondering what Jesse Jackson has in mind by "tackling multinationals," the answer is government. (Okay-- so you're not surprised.) He advocates incentives and penalties to force corporations to behave the way he (and labor) would like them to behave-- free enterprise and private property be damned in the process.

Jesse Jackson's tactic has always been to appeal to the discontented in our society. He told the 1984 Democratic Convention in San Francisco that:

My constituency is the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected and the despised.

But he would never count himself among any of them-- except publicly, of course.

He was eloquent when he addressed the Texas Legislature in April 1987. He spoke about

... locked out farmers, sold out workers and bought out middle managers ... not just the loss of jobs, but the loss of pride-- not just the closing of a factory or the auctioning of a farm, but the end of a community-- not just the loss of hope, but the growth of fear ... People without hope have lost faith in the American Dream-- don't see a future for themselves-- no chance of getting an education or a good job ...
TEXAS-- it's time to fight back.
If we must fight-- fightR> If we must fight-- fight at the plant gate.
If we must fight-- fight at the farm auction for mercy.
If we must fight-- fight at the drilling site. (In Texas, remember.)
If we must fight-- fight at the drug exchange.

William Schneider, writing for the Atlantic Monthly, ⁵⁵ reported that Jesse Jackson

... told me with pride that his Rainbow Coalition has been working with white unemployed shipbuilders, dispossessed farmers and several labor unions. Jackson has also been prominently associated with striking communications workers, laid-off oilfield workers and TWA flight attendants ... "His is an effort to take every political grievance that ever existed and make a political movement." ⁵⁶

Meat cutters asked for Jesse Jackson's help because black workers were crossing their picket lines. He said:

Scabs ...take $10 an hour jobs for $8 an hour. There's a $6 an hour person waiting for your job! We must fight for livable wages everywhere. Having a job is not enough.
In slavery we had full employment-- everybody had a job but no security and no benefits and no qualitative future ...
We must fight, but this time let's fight together.
If we must fight,
Fight at the farm auction which forecloses the farmer--
Say "Take one, take all."
If we must fight,
Fight at the plant gate that closed on workers without notice.
If we must fight,
Fight at the shipyards where goods made by slave labor undercuts organized labor.
If we must fight,
Fight at the schoolyard where some child with a good mind could not gain admission because they could not get a scholarship or get a loan or teachers couldn't get paid.
If we must fight,
Fight at the hospitals where somebody died because they didn't have a green or yellow card to go upstairs to an empty bed waiting for the rich to get sick.
Let's fight for the right fight! For jobs and peace and justice!
Before the SLC
Little Rock, Arkansas, August 1987

Jesse Jackson wants to see a reversal of power. He is a revolutionist. "We must look at every aspect of United States foreign and domestic policy that has favored the rich over the poor, the few over the many. As a nation we must change direction." During the debate ⁵⁷ he claimed that "Gramm-Rudman supports the rich and locks the poor in the basement. It (G-R) levels the playing field as it exists." He clamors for a change. He would empower those who have little power now.

This administration has tried to privatize public housing-- tried to make a profit out of a public need. Nothing is sacred, including people's right to a house (?)... Cut housing, cut Medicaid, cut education scholarships for their children, cut prenatal care, cut headstart education, cut job training; nothing is left but raisins that were once grapes. (?) The door of opportunity was closed in their faces. In Baldwin, Iowa, August 1987

No man should be given power over any other. When you have few (no matter that the few were voted into office) making decisions for many-- directing programs, making rules and regulations for others to follow, distributing goodies and deciding how much to take from which "A Group" and how much to give to each "B Group"-- then you are making men slaves to one another and encouraging corruption. Power corrupts no less when wielded by Madame Defarge than when wielded by Marie Antoinette.

"Deregulation is not right. Government has an obligation to regulate justice, fairness, order and peace," Mr. Jackson said at one point during the debate in Dubuque. Whose idea of justice and fairness? Yours? His? Mine? He has proposed taking dollars from Wall Street, patiently exllars from Wall Street, patiently explaining to his audiences that if only 10 percent of the $2 trillion in pension funds could be available to use for low-income housing and meeting human needs, there would be a large change in society. "We are not asking money managers to contribute but to (let us-- meaning all future pensioners) use our own money in our own behalf." ⁵⁸

Although Al Gore studied theology at Vanderbilt, Jesse Jackson is the only ordained preacher among the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988. Some people think he uses his opportunity to speak at church services in an unethical manner. The allegiance a parishioner feels to a man-of-god is a special relationship, one in which the preacher has undue influence over the parishioner. Some mornings the Reverend speaks to two packed churches at once via video. Those who brush aside the fiduciary influence as nonsense nevertheless admit that the Reverend's years as an evangelist are serving him well on the campaign trail. The following is an account related in Insight magazine (July 27, 1987) which is a common occurrence in Iowa:

"If you are eighteen or older, please hear this. You are 18 and older and you are not a registered voter, stand." And a few stand. "Eighteen or older," he continues, ever so softly and pleadingly. "Maybe your name has changed, your address changed, or you didn't think your vote was important. If you're 18 now or you'll be 18 by November of this year, stand!" And some more stand. "If your name changed, your address changed, you didn't vote last time, you're 18 or older and you're not a registered voter. Stand! And come down here right now!" And they do.

In 1984 Jesse Jackson received nearly 20 percent of the Democratic primary vote but only 10 percent of the delegates. Maybe we had better start taking the Reverend Jackson more seriously, because under the revised rules the same vote will earn him many more delegates in 1988 and, if anything, he intends to draw a far larger vote this time around.

Paul Simon

Just as Gary Hart, Joe Biden and others have tried to be identified with JFK in the public's mind, Paul Simon strives to achieve an identification with Harry Truman. He seems to have succeeded to a large degree, witness the Boston Globe (May 1987) headline "Simon Brings Truman-like Integrity to the Campaign" and the July 27, 1987, issue of Insight magazine, whose cover story on Paul Simon cried "A Harry Truman for Today" George Will titled a piece for Newsweek "Bow-Tie Politics" and told us that Truman was the last president to wear bow ties.  ⁵⁹

Paul Simon is the oldest of the Democratic candidates for the 1988 presidential nomination and, if elected president, would be sixty years old when he took office. He was born on November 29, 1928, to Lutheran missionaries who had returned to the United States-- specifically Eugene, Oregon-- from China shortly before his birth. After high school Paul Simon attended the University of Oregon and then a small college in Nebraska, which he left at age nineteen to become owner-editor of a troubled newspaper in Troy, Illinois. He was too young for WWII but in 1951, at age twenty-two, Mr. Simon enlisted in the army and was assigned to the Counter Intelligence Corps, where for almost two years he was a special agent along the Iron Curtain in Europe. He wasted no time figuring out what to do with his civilian life. Immediately upon discharge from the service in 1953, he began a successful campaign for the Illinois House of Representatives and was a member of that body until 1962, when he was elected to the Illinois State Senate. In 1960 he married Jeanne Hurly, his wife of twenty-seven years and mother of his two children. Like Harriet Babbitt, riet Babbitt, Elizabeth Dole and Elise DuPont, Jeanne Simon is an attorney and has also served in the Illinois legislature. In 1968 Paul Simon was elected to the office of Lieutenant Governor in Illinois along with a Republican governor. At the end of that four-year term, Mr. Simon ran for his party's nomination for governor and lost by a narrow margin. He then took his only respite from politics and taught history and government at Sangamon State University in Springfield, Illinois, between 1972-74. In 1974 Paul Simon was elected to the United States House of Representatives from Illinois' 24th District, where he served until 1984 when he was elected to the United States Senate. Over a period of thirty-three years, the junior senator from Illinois has been in twenty-two general elections and primary campaigns; the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination will be his twenty-third. Along the way the indefatigable Mr. Simon bought and sold fourteen newspapers, wrote numerous articles, authored eleven books and taught at a state university for two years.

On February 25, 1987, Paul Simon declared that he would not run for the presidential nomination but would support Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas instead. However, when Senator Bumpers announced his decision not to run, Paul Simon saw a need for his kind of leadership and decided on April 9, 1987, that he would enter the race. Senator Simon formally declared his candidacy on May 18, 1987.

Paul Simon is not known for his spell-binding oratory but he projects a sincerity and honesty that makes him an effective speaker.

Employment

When he announced his candidacy in May, Senator Simon shared his vision of an $8 billion program to generate jobs, which would be funded by the federal government. Reporters asked if his jobs program would be similar to the old WPA (Workers Progress Administration) of the thirties and Senator Simon, without flinching, hedging or ho-hemming, simply answered, "Yes."

Actually, the Senator advocates not government programs per se, but government partnerships. He wants to encourage cooperative efforts between government, business and labor. (As Mr. Dukakis might well ask, "So what else is new?") Regarding the role of government, Mr. Simon has said:

I stand unashamed in saying we have to use the tools of government ... And if you let government be a dormant or semi-dormant partner in that relationship, this country simply is not going to move ahead as we ought to move ahead.

Lord Keynes also advocated a partnership between business and government. But as Ann Rand pointed out, perhaps immoderately, in The Fascist New Frontier:

There can be no partnership between armed bureaucrats and defenseless private citizens who have no choice but to obey. What chance would you have against a "partner" whose arbitrary word is law, who may give you a hearing (if your pressure group is big enough), but who will play favorites and bargain your interest away, who will always have the last word and the legal "right" to enforce it on you?

In 1982 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) found that public works were a relatively high-cost way to create employment. It was estimated that only 12 percent of the jobs financed by the local public works programs went to the unemployed, and on average unskilled workers kept their jobs less than four weeks. Those with motivation and incentive would have found work on their own and the others were mostly workers brought in by out-of-town contractors. They were paid in conformity with the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires compensation to match the area's "prevailing" (read high union) wages. Such projects would simply put a lot of people to work for wages higher than those earned by two-thirds of the American workforce. Make-work programs raise the cost and reduce the supply of efficient production. Anotherroduction. Another case of the inefficient driving out the efficient. Federal public works expenditures merely replace state and local government expenditures, meaning there are no new jobs. In fact, other federal programs may be displaced with loss of government jobs as businesses are forced to economize. Although financing public works via deficit spending may have worked once (the old Keynesian solution), remember there is no longer the cushion we once had. The gargantuan budget deficit has used up the margin of safety we once enjoyed-- we are more vulnerable to domestic as well as global uncertainties.

Mickey Kaus, a journalist for the New Republic, has proposed offering anyone who wanted it a government job, but at less than minimum wage so that there would be an incentive to move into the private sector. GAIN, California's workfare, will only give assistance checks to those either receiving job training, education or are in a workfare job. These government jobs are only provided if even after training a person is unable to find a job on his own. Failure to comply results in a gradual reduction in the relief check. Eventually, the relief package may get low enough so that it makes sense for a person to take a job. The problem is that now no person is required to take a job that pays less than the value of all the welfare recipient's benefits. (Massachusetts' ET "requires" no one to take a job-- ET is voluntary.) When Medicaid, child care, transportation allowances and training is thrown in, the deal may be hard to beat for a person who wants to get off welfare.

The Job Training Partnership Act is a step in the right direction, but it would be even better with no government assistance, unquestionably so from a capitalist ideology and even so from a purely practical (non-ideological) point of view. For example, J.C. Penney, American Express, IBM and MCI all have pregnant dropout training programs. CBS News (May 27, 1987) featured a Norfolk, Virginia, businessman, Herman Valentine from Systems Management of America, who invested $l00,000 in a program to train pregnant dropouts because it made good business sense.

Job training is another example of government rushing to fill a void that the free market would fill more efficiently and-- best of all-- freely, without coercion or incentives. But any pragmatist knows that is not going to happen-- at least not any time soon. Employer incentives may be the best of a bad thing. Presently, employers who give jobs to the disadvantaged and the handicapped receive a tax credit equal to 40 percent of the first $6,000 of first-year wages. Minimum job durations are ninety days or one hundred twenty work hours for permanent workers, fourteen days or twenty work hours for summer youth. Some legislators would like to see this made a permanent program. Regarding growth in the service sector of the economy, Senator Simon has said:

That represents a drop in the standard of living for most of the employees who have shifted away from manufacturing-- is almost always less-- and it represents a questionable policy for our nation ... To maintain a quality standard of living, and to improve it, we have to produce things that people consume. Our tax laws should encourage that.

From the preceding it would seem that Senator Simon should be in favor of taxing services as well as, or perhaps even instead of, goods, as Florida is doing now with it's new controversial tax.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1965-85 union wages outpaced cumulative inflation by 1.4 percent. (Not a heck of a lot.) Those in auto assembly lines were paid more, however, and thanks to union pressures $30,000 was not an unheard of wage for sweeping floors! It wasn't until 1984 that union pay hikes fell below the consumer price index for the first time. Growth in the labor force was a little over 2 percent during those years, and during the seuring the seventies alone approximately 20 million net new jobs were created. The projections of labor force growth from now to 1990 is 1.6 percent annually and is only 1 percent a year between 1990-95, with fewer teenagers included until 1992. Between 1972-78, real after tax income per capita was flat, but since then it has risen about 11.3 percent. However, it's true that many new jobs don't pay as well as the old. In 1983 the average employee in domestic industries made $16,000-in export industries he made $19,000. The new high-tech industries seem to pay either minimum wage for assembly line skills or high salaries for technical knowledge and training-no middle ground. Comparing American wages to other countries the Senator finds:

The average worker in Japan now (summer of 1987) is making more than the average worker in the United States. In 1950 the average Japanese made 5 percent of the average American's wage.

I don't know about Japanese wages in 1950, but from 1982 to 1985 Japanese workers were paid 50 percent less than American workers. However, by January 1987 the Japanese workers were paid only 21 percent less. In 1985 the wages and benefits of West German workers were 25 percent less than those of American workers but by 1987 those wages were 20 percent above the wages of Americans. The USA had become more competitive on labor costs than the Europeans, or to put it in the light it will be given by the Democratic candidates, wages of American workers are 20 percent lower than the wages of their European counterparts. All together between 1980-85, labor costs in this country rose 11.2 percent, about 5 percent under most other industrialized nations. In other words, wages rose 5 percent less here-- but then look where they started.

Many European businesses have shied away from hiring in good times for fear of being stuck with too many workers when things slow down. (One reason for Europe's high unemployment rate.) German employers had to go through an expensive and complicated procedure in order to fire any employee who had been on the payroll for at least six months. Luckily a new law has put a stop to that nonsense and employers are allowed to hire workers on contracts of up to eighteen months and lay them off at the end of that period without a giant hassle. Activists in this country point to other industrialized nations as "way ahead of the USA in providing this and that," and yet those exemplary countries are beginning to copy us just as we are being urged to copy them. There seems to be no end to our self-destructive stupidity! Senator Simon says:

Let's move America forward. Forward into full employment.

Full employment has been defined as the level of unemployment that would exist when demand was adequate to keep the inflation rate stable. All unemployment at full employment would be voluntary in the sense that anyone who wanted a job would be able to find one by reducing his nominal wage enough to make employing him profitable to someone.

Partly to get away from the implication that full employment meant zero unemployment, economists adopted the term "natural rate of unemployment." The natural rate changes over time with changes in the age-sex composition of the labor force as well as for other reasons. In the forties and fifties employment was "full" if no more than 3-4 percent of the labor force was out of work. By the 1970s the acceptable level was 6-7 percent because the baby-boom generation was entering the labor market in droves, along with an influx of women.

Senator Simon reminds me of New York's governor, Mario Cuomo, who early in 1986 addressed the newspaper publishers in San Francisco:

(The current prosperity) has been purchased at the expense of the well-being, the hopes and expectations of a large part of our nation, by the acceptance of such things as a level of unemployment that this yment that this nation would have considered a scandal only a decade ago.

George Will pointed out that at the time of Governor Cuomo's speech, unemployment was 7.1 percent and a decade ago it was 7.7 percent. Presently it is under 6.5 percent!

In the 1960s economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman claimed that at some point attempts to obtain further gains on the employment front simply result in an acceleration in wages and prices. In 1986 some economists thought an employment rate of 7.1 percent might just about be the inflationary flash point. The natural rate rises when skills offered by the pool of unemployed and new workers fail to match new openings, causing business to bid up wages. For instance, wage and fringe benefits rose by 7.2 percent in 1982, but the gain was only 4.3 percent in 1985 and was about a point lower in 1986.

Unemployment statistics regarding gains and losses are not reliable at any rate. Approximately four million people reach age eighteen every year in this country and many become statistical "have-nots" even though their minimum-- or low-wage jobs are temporary and for "pin money." Many of the teenage girls who work at the local shopping mall are still living at home while attending local community colleges. They may be poverty statistics, but their low wages go to pay for school clothes and books.

In March 1987 the Senate Labor and Human Resource committee, the committee on which Senator Paul Simon serves, came up with legislation that would give financial bonuses: $3,700 for each former recipient of assistance who finds employment and remains employed for at least three years. The funds would come from the money saved by removing the former recipients from the welfare rolls and would not be paid until the savings were realized. During a former recipient's first year of employment, the state would receive 75 percent of the benefit that would have been paid to the person had he or she still received AFDC. That figure would drop to 50 percent during the second year and 25 percent in the third year of employment. After the three years, the average bonus per recipient would be almost $3,700. (Maybe a good time to quit and start the largess rolling all over again!) Also included in the target groups are the recipients of Social Security disability payments.

The plan may ensure federal budget neutrality, but what about the philosophy? The concern seems to be wholly practical with little thought to the ideals of the nation or whether it makes spiritual as well as economic sense. Does anybody care?

There are parents who pay their children for getting good grades or for cleaning their own rooms. Bonuses or incentives, they call it. What about instilling self-respect instead? Do it to please yourself, not so you can pick up a government check or for parental approval!

Those in authority, whether parent or legislator, tend to get what they expect. Keep the expectations low and you won't be disappointed. On the other hand, I am certain people respond to challenges and are capable of far more than they themselves realize.

That is the purpose of government-- to provide opportunity and inspire citizens to do their best, not, as I read in one of my son's history textbooks recently, to redistribute the wealth of the nation. ⁶⁰

Social Security

Like the other candidates, Paul Simon was asked two questions by the Associated Press about his potential handling of Social Security. First, "Will you keep Social Security benefits and the annual cost-of-living increases exempt from budget cuts?" He answered:

I would keep Social Security exempt from budget cuts and I would take Social Security as quickly as I could away from the rest of the budget ... It is too tempting to use that as a means of balancing the budget.

I was intriQUOTE>

I was intrigued by his answer.

M. Albert Linton, president of Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia and advisor to the Committee on Economic Security in 1934, was concerned that excess funds, if allowed to accumulate, would prove too great a temptation for Congress to resist. To enhance their own popularity, elected officials would have only to liberalize benefits. Ironically, the same fears were expressed fifty years later by Stuart Sweet in an article discussing the effects of the 1983 Social Security Commission.

And one doesn't have to be a cynic to see how tempting it will be for politicians to spend "surplus funds" that won't be needed for nearly sixty years. Who believes they will be able to resist handing out new benefits when a $20 trillion surplus will accumulate in OASDI funds if they forbear? ⁶¹

An enormous surplus in the Social Security trust funds could effectively eliminate all interest expense from the federal budget-- at least on paper. (Interest has cost as much as $200 billion in one year!) How's that for sleight-of-hand? Elementary really-- interest paid and received by government entities shows up as intergovernmental transfers in the unified budget rather than as income or expense.

Even if surpluses were undisturbed, there remains the problem of investing such a huge amount of capital without crossing the traditional boundaries between the private and public markets. With just $3 trillion the government would have the ability to purchase all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange!

Currently the trustees (Secretaries of Labor, the treasury and Health and Human Services) are only permitted to invest in treasury securities, such as T-notes, bills and bonds. 89.4 percent of the Social Security trust fund's total assets are invested in special issues which offer better yields than those available to private investors. Also making it easier for the trustees is the fact that they don't have to worry about capital gains or losses or the marketability of the Social Security investments. Our current trustees only have to work at placing a $27 billion surplus for a very short period. That does not pose much of a problem when the national debt is $2 trillion, but what will the trustees do when there is anywhere from $20-73 trillion to invest over fifty years? You don't suppose they'll think of raising the deficit, do you, in order to provide more treasury debt for those Social Security reserves? ⁶²

To the second question put by the Associated Press, "Do you favor any means test for Social Security benefits?" Senator Simon replied:

I do not favor (a means test). Social Security should not become a welfare thing. Social Security is in a very real sense a retirement system that people pay into and I do not think there ought to be a means test to it. ⁶³

Education

Senator Claiborne Pell suggested to William Bennett, Secretary of Education who was testifying before the Senate Labor and Resources Committee (Senator Paul Simon is(Senator Paul Simon is a member) on January 14, 1987, that having to pay back college loans would limit the choice of jobs open to these college graduates. He pointed out that the lower-paying social service jobs would go begging. When Secretary Bennett recalled that he had owed the equivalent of $30,000 in today's dollars when he graduated from law school and was not deterred from choosing a career in the much lower paid educational field as opposed to law, Senator Pell would not concede but scoffingly complimented the Secretary, also pointing out that "not everyone has your drive and ambition."

In a similar vein, Senator Paul Simon told the Coalition for Higher Education Assistance Organizations about a medical school graduate in his district (Greenfield, Illinois) who was $80,000 in debt and although he would have liked to serve in an inner city area, he couldn't, according to Senator Simon, because he needed money to repay loans.

On January 19, 1987, Bruce Carnes from the Department of Education argued with Senator Simon that the new proposal for income contingent loans (ICLs) offered more access and flexibility than student aid in the past and was also fairer to the taxpayers.

The Reagan administration has pointed to the need-based student aid (Pell Grants, 1972) as being in part responsible for skyrocketing college costs which took off in the mid-1970s. In the past student aid has penalized savers (couldn't qualify) and provided no incentives for colleges to keep their costs down. Mark Tucher of the Carnegie Forum spoke of our backward incentives and offered the "learning disabled" label as one example. Schools receive more money for "learning disabled" kids and, therefore, there is a certain reluctance to improve these kids and lose the additional monies the handicapped bring via the federal government.

Furthermore, Mr. Carnes claimed the dropout rate for kids on loans was slower than for those on grants. Apparently it is easier to walk away from someone else's investment. In 1985 the Department of Education reported that former undergraduate and graduate students defaulted on $3 billion in low-interest loans to students through their schools. Most graduates were earning money and simply making economic decisions not to repay the low-interest loans.

Mr. Carnes, in an effort to show fairness, talked about borrowing from the taxi driver (the new symbolic average man) rather than making him provide as a gift, a college education which would almost assuredly net the recipient student more than the donor-taxi-driver could hope to make in his working career. According to American Demographics magazine, households headed by college graduates had median incomes in 1985 which were 54 percent higher than incomes of those who had only graduated high school. Other studies have shown that the average college graduate makes 640,000 more than the average high school graduate over a lifetime.

Senator Simon and other critics are quick to point out hat the taxi driver should subsidize the college student because his job and his future depend to a large extent on the college educated. The Reagan administration, as far as I can tell, agrees with this analysis, the only question being how much should the taxi driver be expected to pay? Don't forget he's being asked to chip in for child care so those with children can work, for farm subsidies so small farmers can keep their treasured way of life, for mass transit so people will have alternatives to his cab service, for parks, for highway, or schools he may never personally use-- ALL FOR HIS OWN GOOD.

The ultimate show of concern for the taxi driver's wallet s expressed each and every day by the entire string of Democratic presidential candidates as they argue that college educations should be more fully financed because it costs on average $5,000 per year to send a person to college and to keep a person in prison costs closer to $2s closer to $20,000 per year. They nay use a variety of figures, but their point is that the college educated are less likely to end up in prison. Voila-- a $15,000 per year saving by giving someone else's child a gift of a college education. With the number of conscientious officials and bureaucrats looking for ways to save him money "in the long run," our taxi driver won't have to worry about his own priorities-- he won't have any income left for them anyway! .

It's hard to believe members of Congress have any inclination whatsoever to curtail spending. I offer the following comments directed at Secretary of Education William Bennett at the January 14, 1987, committee meeting referred o earlier.

There is no legal obligation put upon you (Mr. Bennett) to cut your budget.
Senator Lowell Weicker of Connecticut

Gramm-Rudman didn't dictate these priorities-- only the bottom line ... Ted Bell (Bennett's predecessor as Secretary of Education) was in there fighting for every dollar from OMB (Office of Management and Budget)-- I just don't hear that fight from the Secretary of Education today.
Senator Paul Simon of Illinois

Senator Simon went on to state that it is the function of the Department of Education to demand more funds.

My own angry notation: "My G-d, these Senators aren't trying to cut spending; they're trying to expand and scurry around, intent on ferreting every possible dollar."

Over the past six years Congress has allocated $18.8 billion more than the Japanese have allocated to education; our system is simply inefficient and must be reformed. We can't go on viewing education as another target for the money s1ingers.

According to Secretary Bennett:

We have increased education spending by 300 percent in real dollars in twenty-seven years and we have not increased the results in that proportion ... The basic problem with American education is not that it is underfunded-- it is underproductive and it is underaccountable. It is overregulated. ⁶⁵

Nevertheless a mind is under an individual's control and society, via government mandates and/ or dollars, can neither dictate nor prevent its use. Many of America's greatest success stories began with a human being in abject poverty, often not knowing the English language (Panos Dukakis) and forced to support a myriad of relations. Man's indomitable spirit and determination can overcome anything and everything if it is only given the freedom to express itself; the freedom and the need. All the hand-holding in the form of grants and subsidies will never make up for the force of will.

The Disappearing Middle Class

The ratio in income between the top 10 percent and the bottom 10 percent is about 14-to-1 in the United States. In West Germany it's about a 5-to-l ratio. In Japan it's about a 4.5-to-1 ratio.
Now what is wrong with having such a huge spread? Let me tell you, you have that huge spread and you have social dynamite. You don't know what's going to happen. And what is happening is we're gradually squeezing middle-income America, a few people moving up, a lot more moving down. And you can't have a lot of people moving below that poverty line, moving down in income, without ultimately having major problems in our society.  ⁶⁶

Wealth is a life cycle matter. The young accumulate debts, the middle-aged accumulate houses and cars and the older people have assets without mortgages and loans while accumulating medical expenses. This translates in numbers to a median net worth of $5,760 for those under age thirty-five, $73,660 for those age fifty-five to sixty-four and $55,180 for those over age seventy-five as they begin to sell off some assets in order to meet expenses and order to meet expenses and maintain their standard of living.

In May 1987 the Harvard Institute for Learning and Retirement had members of an illustrious panel voice their opinion concerning "The Disappearing Middle Class" (topic). Alan Reynolds of Polyconomics in Morristown, New Jersey, told the audience that a Federal Reserve study in March 1987 had found that 54 percent of the family heads earning over $150,000 per year had graduate school educations, compared to 10 percent of the population as a whole. Only 1 percent of the high-income families were headed by someone younger than age 35, compared to 31 percent of the entire population. In fact, 31 percent of all family heads didn't work at all, whereas in the high-income group 56 percent had two spouses working.

Mr. Reynolds concluded that the educated older families with two earners are likely to earn more than the uneducated younger families with one worker or less. "If this is shocking or unfair," he joked, "one might consider passing out a Harvard MBA to everyone in order to equalize things."

There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the Joint Economic Committee's report on the concentration of wealth which was released in the summer of 1986. The study reportedly showed that the share of national family net worth held by the top 0.5 percent of the nation's wealthiest families had gone from 25.4 percent to 35.1 percent over a twenty-year period (1963-1983).

On August 21, 1986, the Joint Economic Committee press office admitted the Federal Reserve Board had made an error in its data. The corrected data showed that over the twenty years mentioned, the wealthiest 0.5 percent had increased their share of the wealth only 1.5 percent, which is an amount considered within normal statistical sampling error and, therefore, was statistically no change at all!

Taxes

It is likely that Paul Simon got his facts, directly or indirectly, from MIT Professor Lestor Thurow's assertion that income distribution is twice as unequal in the United States as it is in Japan.

In West Germany, before taxes and transfers, 28 percent of the population has less than half the median income; in the U.S. the figure is 27 percent. After taxes and transfers, however, West Germany is left with only 6 percent of its population in that predicament, whereas the U.S. is left with 17 percent. ⁶⁷

Those enamored with the idea of using other countries as a role model consider this to be a valid argument for higher, more progressive taxation, whereas the facts show that the best way to "soak the rich" is by cutting their tax rates. In 1981 before the Reagan tax cuts, the wealthiest one percent of all taxpayers paid 18 percent of their incomes in taxes (on average); in 1985, after the tax cut and when they stopped hiding their income, they paid 22.1 percent.

This was not a unique situation. History shows that whenever marginal tax rates have been reduced, the results have been increased productivity, jobs, real disposable income and overall impressive economic growth. This was true of the Kennedy tax cut which took place in 1963 (and which Senator Simon has yet to mention), and going even further back it was true of the Coolidge-Mellon cuts of the 1920s.

In 1987 a book forecasting the "Great Depression of 1990" advocated, as a solution to our deficit problem, slapping a 5 percent surtax on Americans with incomes over $200,000 a year. As Peter Grace (as in "Grace Commission"), co-chairman of Citizens Against Waste, likes to point out to his audiences, putting a surcharge of 10 percent on all incomes over $60,000 will yield only $1.65 billion or 0.8 percent of the deficit. Even if 100 percent surcharge was put on incomes over $75,000, the government could only be run for 7.3 days with the resultant revenue. The truth that is seldom told is that less than 10 percentless than 10 percent of all tax revenue is collected from those citizens with incomes over $35,000. To put it another way, over 90 percent of all tax revenue is collected from citizens with incomes under $35,000. Promises to tame the deficit on the backs of the rich are popular but ineffectual.

Although he is often mistaken, no one can doubt Mr. Simon is well-meaning. He is proud that he is the only candidate to have voted against the 1981 and the 1986 tax cuts, little realizing that this vote, if effective, would have done more harm than good to the economy and, therefore, to poor and middle-income Americans. He likes to quote Harry human who claimed that deficits help rich people. "Who pays the high interest rates?" he asked. "The poorest people." But he must also ask, "Who gets hurt the most when there are fewer jobs, less real disposable income, low productivity and a stagnant economy?" The answer would still be the poorest people.

Senator Paul Simon along with Senators Gore and Biden had wanted to see a 35 percent rate above the 28 percent rate in the 1986 reform. He does not advocate adding the higher rate now but would turn for additional revenue to an energy tax (oil import fee with rebates for the lowest taxpayers) and excise taxes on cigarettes and jewelry. He would also like to decrease the deduction for business meals from 80 percent to 50 percent and expand a telephone tax. Worst of all, in my opinion, he would decrease limits on contributions to retirement plans. ⁶⁸ This is the same Paul Simon who at one time co-sponsored. a measure that would have permitted taxpayers to stipulate that no part of their taxes be used for defense. More good feelings cloaked in bad policies.

In Iowa

There are three things all candidates (Democrats) should agree on: (1) that too much is being spent on weapons; (2) that education should be a greater priority; and (3) a priority should be set on seniors' problems, there should be a vigorous family farm program and a jobs program. We (all seven Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination) should agree that on January 21, 1989, no matter who is elected President, to: (1) stop all nuclear testing (if the Soviets will agree); (2) attack adult illiteracy and provide funding for an intense pre-school education program; and (3) institute self financed long-term (health) care for older Americans.
Debate in Dubuque, Iowa
August22, 1987

Before another Iowa audience Paul Simon said:

You in Iowa have more to say about who is going to be the next President than the people of Illinois, New York and California combined.

Unless you're from Iowa, that probably makes you mad. We'll take this up and discuss other injustices in the way we choose our political leaders in Section IV.

Notes

Notes - Section Two

1.Figures through the courtesy of the American Productivity Center, Houston, Texas.
2. The Coming of the New Deal, by Arthur Schlessinger, Jr.
3. San Francisco Examiner, December 31, 1986.
4. Los Angeles Times, January 19, 1987.
5. The story of Jesse Jackson's stuttering as a child I heard directly from his lips when he spoke at the International Platform Association in Washington, D.C., immediately following the Democratic National Convention which was held in San Francisco in 1984. I have not come across any mention of his stuttering in the biographies I have read and wonder why not.
6. Current Biography, January 1987.
7. Time, June22, 1987, p.29.
8. New Republic, June 1, 1987, "Ronald BidTE>, June 1, 1987, "Ronald Biden" by Fred Barnes, p. 18.
9. Time, July 27, 1987. "The Duke of Economic Uplift" by Walter Shapiro, p.23.
10. Atlantic Monthly, April 1987. "The Democrats In '88" by William Schneider, p. 49.
11. For a fascinating expose of OBEs (off-budget enterprises) see Underground Government: The Off-Budget Public Sector, by economists James T. Bennett and Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Because OBEs are permitted to issue tax-exempt bonds, they borrow at favorable rates, which crowd private borrowers out of the capital markets. Off-budget spending has increased by more than 30,000 percent in less than a decade.
12. Wall Street Journal, July 15, 1986. "Proposition 21/2 Is MA' Dirty Little 5ecret" by Warren Brookes.
13. During the candidates' debate on August 22, 1987, in Dubuque, Iowa, Mr. Dukakis said, "only five percent of new jobs are defense related in Massachusetts."
14. Time, July 27, 1987, p. 22.
15. Insight, July 27, 1987, "5trong Hand at 5tate's Helm" by Don McLeod, p. 15.
16. Letter to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal February 5, 1987, by Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts.
17. Wall Street Journal, January 19, 1987.
18. Wall Street Journal, February 5, 1987, the Dukakis letter.
19. 51265, introduced May 21, 1987, requires employers to offer coverage to employees who work at least 17.5 hours per week (dependents covered too). Employers would be made to pay at least 80 percent of the premium (close to $1,000 a year per employee). Employers would be forced to pay l00 percent of the premium for employees who earn less than 125 percent of the federal poverty line. Estimated (always low) cost equals $25 billion per year.
20. Atlantic Monthly, July 1987, p. 82.
21. Atlantic Monthly, April 1987, p. 51.
22. Ibid, p. 50.
23. Ibid, p. 50.
24. See Social Security: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed, pp. 17-20.
25. New Republic, June 1, 1987. "Gephardt's Inside Moves" by Morton Kondracke, p. 22.
26. Wall Street Journal, April 30, 1987, p. 58.
27. Atlantic Monthly, April 1987, p. 51.
28. Insight, July 27, 1987. "Restoring Future's Old Shine" by Don McLeod, p. 16.
29. See discussion on pp. 54-56.
30. Address to 5outhern Legislative Conference, August 1987, Little Rock, Arkansas.
31. Congressional Quarterly (Weekly), April4, 1987, p.6O2.
32. President Garfield was shot on July 2, 1881, by a "Stalwart Republican" who had been denied an appointment as Consul to Paris and died September 19, 1881--becoming the fourth president to die in office.
33. New Republic, June 1, 1987, p. 4.
34. Wall Street Journal, June 29, 1987, p. 18.
35. Insight, July 27, 1987, p. 17.
36. Jesse Jackson: The Man, The Movement, The Myth (1975) by Barbara A. Reynolds, Nelson-Hall, Chicago.
37. Jesse Jackson and the Politics of Race (1985) by Thomas H. Landess and Richard M. Quinn, Jameson Books, Ottawa, Illinois, p. 242.
38. Jesse Jackson: The Man, The Movement, The Myth, p. 30.ement, The Myth, p. 30.
39. Ibid, p. 31.
40. Up From The Ghetto (New York: Cowles, 1970) by Phillip T. Drotning and Wesley South.
41. David Broder's column, September 27, 1987.
42. Jesse Jackson and the Politics of Race, from Foreword by Reverend Ralph Abernathy.
43. Ibid, pp. 102-103.
44. Atlantic Monthly, April 1987, p. 58.
45. Time, August 17, 1987. "Respect & Respectability" by Robert Ajemian, p. 17.
46. Jesse Jackson and the Politics of Race, p. 244.
47. Jesse Jackson: The Man, The Movement, The Myth, p. 29.
48. Fortune, May 11, 1987, p. 133.
49. Jesse Jackson: The Man, The Movement, The Myth, p. 32.
50. Ibid, p. 33
51. The question occurred before the Southern Legislative Conference in Little Rock, Arkansas, in August 1987.
52. For an expansion of this idea see The American Deficit: Fulfillment of a Prophecy? by Helen P. Rogers.
53. Insight, July 14, 1986, article by Warren Brookes.
54. The American Deficit: Fulfillment of a Prophecy? by Helen P. Rogers.
55. Atlantic Monthly, April1987, p. 57.
56. William Schneider attributed this last line to Time magazine.
57. Debate held among seven Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination which took place August 22, 1987, in Dubuque, Iowa.
58. Before the Texas Legislature, April 24, 1987.
59. Newsweek, May 11, 1987, p. 88
60. The American Political System by Peter Woll and Robert Binstock, p. 372.
61. Wall Street Journal, March 28, 1984.
62. For further discussion see Social Security: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed by Helen P. Rogers.
63. See discussion on pp. 42-45.
64. Senator Paul Simon speaking in Iowa, Summer 1987.
65. Secretary of Education William Bennett before the Senate Labor & Human Resources Committee, January 14, 1987.
66. Senator Paul Simon speaking in Iowa, Summer 1987.
67. Scientific American, May 1987, "A Surge in Inequality" by Lester Thurow.
68. See Social Security: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed by Helen P. Rogers for a discussion of why retirement savings opportunities need to be expanded, not contracted.

Back to Contents or to Section HPR Book