|
 |
Making Statism
Unpopular |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The December Giveaway
By Ralph Smeed
Caldwell News Tribune
January 3. 1976
"Gov. Cecil Andrus gave the state of Idaho employees a day off," according to the news media, that is. certainly the radios gave it a big play repeating the message over and over again last week that the popular state chief executive issued an edict declaring Friday, Dec. 26, a legal holiday, thus enabling the state government employees to take the day off.
Now then, this is not to declare whether or not it is the legal right of Andrus to arbitrarily order a statewide holiday on Dec. 26, nor to say whether or not the state's employees are indeed deserving.
It is rather to wonder out loud just why certain members of the news media choose the phrase "Andrus gave the state employees a day off" as being so very newsworthy and the problems such an edict gave so many of the others in Idaho seemed to be so lacking in newsworthiness.
Of course another good question arises in the minds of many thoughtful citizens. Just exactly how the good and kind and benevolent governor could "give away" something which doesn't belong to him is not clear. Rather it seems to be that what is being given away is more taxpayers funds. Inasmuch as Andrus may be assumed to pay taxes in this state, he of course, gave away something of his. Any further "giving" must be someone else's, thus at least opening up the whole affair to reasonable question.
There are a number of ways to quantify the results of such a giveaway, as the news media called it. only one of which is to multiply the approximate number of state employee, say 12,000 times a daily wage cost of , say $25 for a total of $3000,000 for the good governor's Christmas gift to his fellow employees. Certainly the salaries of the higher paid persons would tend to raise the daily sum.
That's about a third of a million dollars, not to mention the costs to other businesses who must, if they choose to open for business on a "legal" holiday, pay the state employee whether he works or not. Such was the case of a meat processor who told me that in order to be open, he must pay "his" inspector even though he would not need him that day at all.
If memory serves, the pay was at one and one-half, if not double, times the regular rate of pay. In order to be open at all, some businesses are compelled to keep an inspector on duty even though they process nothing. It's the law? No, it's the regulation(s). And who do you think eventually pays?
But most of us these days are pretty dull to dollar costs and statistics, particularly when they seem to affect only others and, likewise, when the federal politicians keep doing the same or at least similar things to buy votes.
The costs of their "giveaways" are merely passed on to deficit financing or, if you prefer, "printing press" money. This kind of precedent once set and so apparently successful at the federal level, is hard to resist - even at home.
Whether Andrus' rather sudden move to proclaim Dec. 26 a legal holiday was wise, whether the banks properly defied his edict in staying with their decision to open that day or not, is open to speculation. It is not open to speculation that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
To my friend, Gov. Andrus, (and he is my friend) I respectfully suggest that giveaways are heady wine and you are driving a big vehicle on a mighty slick road, not to mention your personal risk of having the $300,000 charged against your next campaign's legal spending limit.
Monopolizing JA
By Ralph Smeed
Caldwell News Tribune
January 10, 1976
I'm having a harder time saying "nothing's being done" to teach young people about the good side of business after having been in attendance at the Western Achievers Regional Management Conference held in Boise last weekend.
As you may know Junior Achievement is a non-profit international organization financed by business and individuals whose purpose is to provide high school students with practical business experience and insights into the complexities of economics.
More than 50,000 people in the U.S. alone contribute their time to JA and more than 90,000 firms and businesses provide funds. Their objectives are accomplished by offering members of JA the opportunity to actually organize and operate their own business. Local business and professional people furnish a real and enthusiastic consulting and advisory service much of which comes from top level executives of the corporate giants.
However, one non-giant advisor, avid supporter and workshop leader at the Boise conference has donated $27,000 in scholarships to JA members to his own private school's courses, so not all their boosters are from big business.
One of the highlights of the conference was an enthusiastic speech by former resident of Weiser, Berkley "Mr. Bumbleberry" Compton, on the free enterprise system of opportunity in America and what it had meant to him. Now I've heard a lot of free enterprise speeches, but this fellow had that something else which puts an idea boldly out front without sounding the least bit shrill. No mean task, either, amidst today's anti-capitalistic mentality.
Compton had about as much to say about the times his toy-making ventures had flopped as he did about his successes. He explained that the term "freedom to succeed" meant nothing without the companion term "freedom to fail" and, further, that his businesses never failed, anyway, they just went broke. The unusually dynamic toymaker recently sold his company for something like $9 million, adding some additional credibility to his story.
But while this whole affair was, and still is, exceedingly heartening to this observer and I wish the Junior Achievers and their dedicated sponsors the very best success, I must make a couple of observations.
The first difficulty, for example arises as to just how the enthusiastic businessman supporters of JA can include red hot supporters of BOTH pro-business type politician Congressman Steve Symms AND at the same time red hot supporters of the generally considered anti-business politician Sen. Frank Church.
Let me hasten to add I'm not impugning the motives of these men, many of whom put their money where their mouth is in support of what they believe, I merely want to say that I just don't understand their "thinking."
A second difficulty arises from a quote in the official guide publication of this fine, non-political, young people's business education effort, the "Junior Achievement Company Manual." Said quote comes from one of the biggest businessmen in the world, John Debutts, chairman of the giant American Telephone and Telegraph Company: "Let the regulators regulate and the managers manage.
Government should set goals, - but it should stop short of detailed definition of how these goals are to be attained ... balanced (between government and business) lies in allowing government to set certain goals while allowing business to attain them through its skill in management."
Now then, that's very interesting because I thought that THAT'S what the free market was supposed to do. but then, of course, DeButts' company doesn't operate in a free market. It has a state protected monoply.
Let's hope that the JA sponsors, a fine group of gentlemen trying their best to do something decent, will explain to the kids the rather obvious contradiction in having the head of a monopoly to explain free enterprise.
QUIRKS
Dean Kinney, an unemployed musician, went to a bar in South Los Angeles looking for a job as the bass player in the bar's combo.
After his audition Kinney stepped outside, and a robber came up and demanded his money.
When the robber found his would-be victim penniless, he shot him in the back. Kinney died a short time later at a nearby hospital.
Education -- "A" or "F"
By Ralph Smeed
Caldwell News Tribune
January 17, 1976
A super abundance of problems exists in the state of Idaho each of which seems to call for a new law or a revision of an old one. All these new schemes toward the good life under the watchful eye of a politician and after that, usually, another bureaucrat.
At least if one judges from the number of lobbyists buzzing around the legislature much as bees buzz around the honey comb one could assume that all problem solving MUST start there.
For example, Dr. J.P. Munson. State Board of Education member, told a joint legislative finance committee last week that education faces a continuous inflationary spiral for the indefinite future.
But Munson, who is much brighter than the average board member, neglected to mention how the very inflationary policies he's deploring have received much enthusiastic support over the past many years at the same institutions which his board now heads. With a few notable exceptions the basic educational thrust of Idaho is still "spend yourself rich" and "drink yourself sober." The latter is at least in the case of the state government's whiskey business.
Munson's educators are divided on whether the definition of the word inflation is (1) an increase in the supply of money and credit, or (2) merely the phenomenon of high price. Given such a dilemma one wonders if educators are not getting too MUCH money rather than too little.
A law to allow the State board of Education to withhold state funds from school districts that willfully ignore or violate the law was solicited at the joint finance committee, whereupon Rep. Maurice Clements, R-Nampa, asked Munson if more authority for his board was needed or rather a basic change in the system. "I don't have any good answers," said Munson.
Presumably every kind of solution is being pursued by the educators and legislators these days except how to expand freedom of choice. Indeed, with each passing season one wonders if out colleges and the supporters of that blind faith called formal academic education are not bent on cradle-to-grave schooling at who-gives-a-damn-what-cost-benefit ratio.
While Munson is by no means the bad guy on the board and may be as frustrated as the rest of us, he neglected to state his opinion on the state of student and faculty attitude toward free market capitalism, i.e., free enterprise.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Lewis Powell, in his famous "Powell Memorandum" described the current contempt for business and also cited a recent poll of students on 12 campuses: approximately half favored government ownership of the basic industries in the U.S.A. (Presumably none of our politicians saw fit to ask Munson about his "product.")
Education is clearly the problem, but it's not necessarily just educators. Let me illustrate. With all due respect to the fine purpose of the "Powell Memorandum," it contained a fundamental error which was generally not noted by businessmen themselves and which must be corrected if we are to combat the anti-business, inflationary psychology effectively.
This error is the assumption that the most influential segments of the American business community actually believe in capitalism - in a free enterprise system - and that there currently exists a free market to be defended and preserved. Neither of these "facts" is correct, and a defense of the free market will not succeed if we proceed on the assumption that they are.
New Kind of Politician?
By Ralph Smeed
Caldwell News Tribune
January 24, 1976
Last week Idahoans were exposed to an unusual candidate for President of the United States, namely Roger Lea MacBride who heads up the ticket for the Libertarian party. (Idaho office: 2615 Wymer, Boise, 83705.)
MacBride, author, attorney and television producer of the current, "Little House on the Prairie" series, hails from Charlottesville, Va. Once a resident of Boise and employed with that city's newspaper, MacBride went on to become active in Republican politics on the East coast, and finally becoming a presidential elector.
As you know these members of the electoral college are the only ones who actually get to vote for president and vice president. It is taken for granted that electors from each political party will vote for his party's candidates, but MacBride refused to endorse the Nixon-Agnew ticket and voted instead for John Hospers and Toni Nathan, then standard-bearers for the newly formed Libertarian party.
Quite a lot of publicity, at least on the East Coast, followed MacBride's "revolt" resulting in his leaving the GOP, eventually to head up the fledgling new political party.
But MacBride's appearance in Boise turned up some odd-ball positions from an otherwise most welcome, intellectually honest and well-reasoned idea portfolio for Idaho political observers.
In a television interview MacBride applauded Sen. Frank Church's investigation of the CIA. Since the libertarians tend to distrust most all government investigative bureaus, this was consistent, but he neglected to mention church's double standard in refusing to confirm the new head of the CIA, George Bush, until he (Bush) would promise not later run for high political office.
Presumably Bush would have had too much free publicity if he ran for high office and well might have been a major competitor of Church's in the latter's own campaign, under way now for many months, for president.
MacBride, usually articulate and mostly too sharp for the oldest ploy of newsmen there is, got sucked into a corner by a query a to whether First District Congressman Steve Symms "voted as a politician." MacBride and his LP officials see ALL officeholders as "voting like a politician," hence answered in the affirmative. This was to the chagrin of many Symms supporters, a large part of whom see Symms as just about the best in Idaho's political history even though not a purist.
The Libertarian Party News, official organ of the LP and circulated nationally, recently quoted a column of mine critical of Symms' being influenced by "bit corporation lobbyists." While this is a typical half-truth and I AM somewhat critical of Symms it is also a political fact of life with which Macbride and the LP need not grapple.
Sort of like bragging about honesty in the absence of anything to steal.
One almost basic tenant of the LP'ers is to criticize politicians and on this I applaud their usually intelligent efforts. But for them to come into the state and condemn one of out most intellectually honest and most nearly forthright politicians ever, Steve Symms, is to evidence a kind of death wish all too often associated with most all right-of-center, I.E., toward less government, political efforts. Even to the extent of cannibalizing perhaps the most friendly politician (to their ideas of liberty) in the entire Congress, Symms, these freedom zealots sometimes tend to be quite short-sighted if not spoilers at times.
As to Church's efforts to "spoil" the CIA, which MacBride seems to enjoy-well, all I'd ask is at least equal time for Symms' monumentally more consistent efforts for less government. But I won't hold my breath.
Still, since the Democrats and Republicans are all too consistently socialist and fascist leaning, respectively, we may sort of need MacBride. Even with his Idaho foibles he also made a good case for less government.
So, although I'll probably not be joining the anarchist-leaning, non-politician, political group, I wish them well.
Stacked Deck by Women?
By Ralph Smeed
Caldwell News Tribune
January 1, 1976
The League of Women Voters, sometimes referred to by their detractors as "League of Women Vipers" or "Plague of Women Voters," are at it again. This particular example stems from the Pocatello chapter but its effect is at least statewide, its implications revealing a nation-wide if not a world-wide "Tower of Babel."
I say Babel instead of "...revealing a communist conspiracy" because most League of Women Voters known to me are nice women who are genuinely interested in social problem solving, albeit usually by means of more government. Perhaps their worst fault could be said to be a certain intellectual arrogance, but then they hold no monopoly there and many of them treat even a critic like me with complete respect. So let's agree they're not all bad -some are even sweet AND intelligent, too.
But here the road narrows and they drive a high speed vehicle transporting ideas. Almost always said ideas are left liberal to left wing, i.e., toward socialism.
They are now preparing a television series on "Current Issues in Land Use," the purpose of which they say is "to increase public knowledge about land use planning and management and the Local Planning Act of 1975 and the role individuals can take in land use decisions." They neglected to say which individuals and WHOSE land.
Space prohibits a proper analysis of their mid-January letter outlining their scheme for "informing" the public, but consider one of the four questions their panel will be using : "In considering 'general public interest' versus 'private property rights' which should be given primary consideration?"
Notice that the premises upon which their question is based is precisely that private proberty rights (one of the most basic of all human rights) ARE indeed adverse to the general public interest.
It wouldn't be so bad if such a premise was not almost always in the forefront of the league's tremendous "non-partisan" efforts. They're non-partisan all right; they're often to the left of BOTH political parties. But, they tend to be more intellectually honest, too. Interestingly enough, Republicans, while tending to hold some sort of candy-fanny belief in private ownership on the right, cannot easily claim to be so "honest" as these girls.
Being something of a girl watcher myself, I've been observing league women for many years and I've never once seen them raise the issue publicly as to the obvious plight of the idea of private ownership. Particularly are most of their members oblivious to the idea as it relates to freedom and that it is the thing which primarily distinguishes our capitalist system from that of the socialist Russian system.
In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary, given private ownership, a free market and limited government. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments dictate. They can deal with one another in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit.
The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is vital. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree - and thus keeps the road open to man's most valuable characteristic (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.
This is the overwhelming difference between capitalism and collectivism; therefore the league might well consider which of the two their very considerable and sincere ifforts usually favor.
They cannot have it BOTH ways.
Too Great To Litter . . . . .
By Ralph Smeed
Caldwell News Tribune
February 7, 1976
Last year the 43rd session of the Idaho Legislature considered (believe it or not) 679 pieces of printed legislation, resolutions, memorials, etc., a huge portion of which became law.
However 1976 is the fourth year this writer, so far unsuccessfully, has attempted to get introduced one simple bill making it unlawful to put the name of any politician on any public property whatsoever, at least prior to said person's death. Some rather obvious exceptions might be his or her name on the office door and such signatures, identification, etc., as were absolutely necessary.
Some enthusiasm has followed by explanations of such a plan which is offered to reduce interim campaigning by incumbent politicians and their zealous followers all at public expense. But when we get down to the actual drafting of a bill the bureaucratic nightmare gets to be frightening, so taken for granted have the political "courtesies" become.
All the way from the governor's name being the largest size type on the notary public certificates to the huge and expensive state buildings bearing yet another politician's name. Each popular at the particular time and each "monument" at somebody else's expense - never the politician's.
The present crusade against highway signs, for example, reached a sort of peak with former President Johnson's wife Lady Bird's billion dollar highway beautification program, and sow in Idaho, Boise's ACOG (Ada Council of Governments) plan has brought the issue of building and road sign regulation to new heights of asinine suggestions for "beautification."
Most of this involves politicians trying to "sell" something, namely themselves one supposes, but worse than that it tends to sell a kind of blind faith in government itself, glorifying almost everything the politicians do. Gov. Andrus' highway signs, for example, saying "Idaho's Too Great to Litter," are pure advertising for him.
Private enterpeneurs, too, use highway signs and advertising, but it's with their OWN money, and it works without the politicians. Consider the little story, only slightly parallel, but which might suggest a scheme to reduce politics an little.
Once upon a time there was a man who lived by the side of the road and sold hot dogs. He was hard of hearing and his eyesight was poor, so he did not listen to radio, watch television or read newspapers. But he sold good hot dogs. He put up a sign on the highway telling people how good they were. He stood by the side of the road and called out, "Buy a hot dog, Mister." And people bought. The man increased his meat and bun orders. He bought a bigger stove to take care of all of his customers. He brought his son home from college to help out.
But then something happened. His son said, "father, haven't you been listening to the radio, watching television or reading the newspapers? If money stays tight, we are bound to have bad business. We may have a big depression. You had better prepare for poor trade."
The father thought, "well, my son has gone to college. He reads the papers, and he listens to the radio and he watches the television, and he ought to know." So the father cut down on his meat and bun orders. He took down his advertising signs, and no longer bothered to stand by the highway to sell his hot dogs. And his sales fell off almost overnight. "You're right my son," said the father. "We are certainly headed for a depression."
Well, Idaho's popular Gov. Andrus didn't invent the idea of highway signs nor political exploitation of something other politicians started long ago, but he did go to college - so, one wonders if we could start a kind of "depression" in politics if we'd stop ADVERTISING it at public expense?
Church and CIA Expose
By Ralph Smeed
Caldwell News Tribune
February 14, 1976
Idaho's U.S. Senator Frank Church has been treating the news media with some choice tidbits about the Central Intelligence Agency and its various undercover activities around the world.
As a mater of fact, if one judges from the Church committee's major thrust of commentary, one supposes that the CIA has indeed been on the side of the 'bad guys," instead of helping the "good guys." Especially in the case of the Communist former president of Chile, Salvador Allende, who was kicked out by his own military coup.
Now then, notwithstanding the fact that Church is running for president of the United States with all flags flying and never mind the fact that even though he heads the Senate committee investigating the CIA and that this affords him hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free publicity for his coming presidential candidacy - it is most certainly his right to criticize these CIA activities regardless of whose side they favor.
But let's go back a bit. As an interesting aside, isn't it curious that the CIA bungled the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba resulting in a win for the Communists, but when their help in Chile resulted in a loss for the Communists the sky falls in - at least if one listens to much of the news media and the committee investigating the CIA. One is certainly confused at the seeming double standard.
Also of interest was Church's refusal to consider Senate confirmation of ambassador George Bush as new head of the CIA, until and unless Bush promised not to run for high public office. I guess this means for president or vice president and, of course, possibly against Church who is very much a potential competitor but who seems to think it is okay to get all this free publicity HIS committee has generated.
It is also curious that Church is so dead set against out government interfering with the Communist governments in foreign affairs, a position I tend to agree with. But contrary - wise he is so gung - ho in favor of this government interfering more and more with out own domestic affairs.
I don't question his patriotism: I just think it is masochistic.
Comes now a new pronouncement from Church's latest observation, i.e., that Lockheed Aircraft has been paying huge sums of money to foreign individuals to help that company sell its airplanes. Not unlike Boise State University giving politicians free tickets to BSU ball games.
Just what these payments could have to do with an investigation of the CIA isn't clear unless it's to suggest government controls. But one guesses that the mere claim of payola or even use of the word "bribe" especially after Watergate, is next to sin itself. Never mind whether or not the alleged bribe is, (1) true, of (2) any of the government's danged business.
Which brings me back to my underlying point. Which, as usual, out news media seem to miss. It is so very apparent to most everyone that what Lockheed does with its own money is its own business whether they bribe a Dutch prince or a Japanese version of a Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker in order to sell airplanes.
But this is precisely what nobody cares to discuss, i.e., just WHOSE money is Lockheed using? This question, of course, never would have arisen had the federal government not seen fit to meddle. It was said that the aircraft company had thousands of employees who may have been thrown out of work had the government not bailed out the company.
Surely Church, who always seems to be in favor of government hand outs, would be on more solid ground if only he'd say: "It's hardly lack of due process for the government to control that which it subsidizes."
So far he has been unwilling to say it out loud.
Bland, Again
By Ralph Smeed
Lewiston Tribune
February 23, 1976
The Republicans have done it again. they scored another tremendous blow for freedom. At least if one judges from the size of the attendance of the party faithful and or curiosity seekers at the annual Lincoln Day Banquet held at the Rodeway Inn in Boise. It was a packed house that turned out to hear U.S. Senator Peter Domenici, R-N.M.
In the opinion of many, however, the evening's bill of fare delivered not so much a blow for freedom as an attempt to suck and blow in the same breath, i.e., no breath at all.
It was not so bad for what was said, but for what was NOT said. More like the old and all too typical of Republicans story of "the bland leading the bland." One moderate conservative was led to remark in a tone of sadness upon leaving the banquet afterward, "Gosh, Domenici's speech was almost as dull as last year's Lincoln Day speech by Republican Congressman from Arizona John Rhodes. No wonder we lose so many elections, and have such difficulty in enlisting young people into the GOP."
Although there has been started some fine yeoman efforts on the part of a few new leaders of Idaho State Republican organization to define just what the party does stand for, the fact remains that one hears mostly about "broadening the umbrella," especially at the national level, so that just about any belief or set of principles at all will be welcome. Just label it Republican and "anything goes." Or nearly anything, and the Democrats are almost the same; not quite, but almost.
"Well, what would you suggest?" a friend said to me after the above mentioned banquet speech. What follows is substantially the suggestion I mailed to him the next day.
In 1974 the Nobel Prize Winning Russian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn published a little 59 - page book called, "Letter to the Soviet Leaders." In it this giant of a man who was exiled from his country for "telling it like it is," a phrase used by Domenici in his Boise speech, but discerned by almost nobody else, said something which the Republican speech makers seem almost to avoid like the plague. My suggestion is that both Rhodes and Domenici should commit it to memory Solzhenitsyn said. "A primitive, superficial economic theory, It (Marxism) declared that only the worker creates value and failed to take into account the contribution of either organizers, engineers, transportation or marketing systems. It was mistaken when it forecast that the proletariat would be endlessly oppressed and would never achieve anything in a bourgeois democracy - if only we could shower people with as much food, clothing and leisure as they have gained under capitalism!"
There it is folks that word which seems almost to strike terror in the hearts of GOP speechmakers - capitalism. We have to hear significantly about out economic system from an exiled Russian. I agree: "No wonder we lose."
This writer believes that in all probability Rhodes and Domenice are reasonably sincere, but something's sadly missing. Perhaps it is explained in the words of the late and great free market economist Ludwig Von Mises.
Mises said, "People may disagree on the question of whether everybody ought to study economics seriously. But one thing is certain. A man who publicaly talks about the opposition between capitalism and socialism without a depth of study about these issues is an irresponsible babbler."
At least the GOP leaders Rhodes and Domenici are not "irresponsible babblers." They're safe.
In the words of Von Mises, they didn't say anything publicly.
Educator's Ox Gored
By Ralph Smeed
Caldwell News Tribune
February 28, 1997
A bill to require the public schools in Idaho to reach the free enterprise system passed the House of Representatives recently by almost a two-to-one margin.
Section 1 of House Bill 425 says its "purpose is to insure the development of a comprehensive economic education program for all children in kindergarten through grades on through 12 in the public schools of this state."
Having passed the House almost two weeks ago, the bill now awaits action by the Senate. Since the bill states further "that this program shall teach a positive understanding of the American economy, how it functions and how the individual can function effectively .....," one guesses it will be very hard to oppose a proverbial "God, motherhood and free enterprise" issue, especially in Idaho.
However, judging from the odd-ball debate on the floor of the House and from statements of some of the state's top education officials, a rather great amount of confusion exists as to whether the ivory towers of education should even be questioned, not to mention be told, by the people what to teach i.e., by the legislature.
If we admit that we have a socialistic school system, i.e., owned and controlled by the state, and if we grant a friendly sense of that word, then why do you suppose almost the whole government education establishment tends to be so dead set against the legislature's insisting on their teaching free enterprise "positively"? After all, don't you think it's proper for the legislature to supervise that which they subsidize?
Let's look at a couple examples to these statements opposing HB 425. In response to the bill's requirement to teach a "positive understanding" of the free enterprise system, Representative Dorothy Reynolds, D - Canyon, said, "Better be sure they teach the REALISTIC side, too."
I say what realistic side? It is either free or it is not free and the school children seldom hear anything BUT the other side. Ask anyone who has spoked there lately in support of free market economics.
Apparently Rep. Reynolds, herself a school teacher, fears that exposing students to free enterprise would be like sex education. What if they tried it and it proved to be exciting? Leapin' lizards!
Mrs. Janet Hay, president of the State Board of Education also opposes the bill demanding we teach free enterprise. Said Mrs. Hay: "Why, we'd have all sorts of special interests demanding we teach this and that." State Chief of Education Row Truby agreed, as you could guess.
One wonders as to her use of the word, "special interests." Perhaps the socialists or the Communists may ask for "equal time?" Or the Chamber of commerce, maybe?
"These bills requiring this or that curriculum," said Hay, "are simply not effective . . . a simplistic solution to a complex problem."
Well, it's complex all right, especially if you've been required to ride in the "Jim Crow" section of the intellectual bus for years and years. If no one will pay you any heed, pretty soon you'll grab most anything you can. Even to trying to pass a law for a compulsory course in freedom.
What we have here in HB 425 is essentially just that. Those people who have tried for years and years to get free enterprise taught in a friendly and positive way in the public schools have been faced with the same story the blacks got for decades.
Now they're beginning to get hostile, and in a non-free-market school system, about all the dissidents can do is resort to some sort of government counter force.
Force - come to think of it, that's about all the government has to "sell," isn't it?
'Freedom Frustrated'
By Ralph Smeed
The Idaho Free Press & News Tribune
March 6, 1976
Idaho citizens last week were denied a chance to hear the Idaho Senate debate free enterprise.
Sound screwy? Well, it depends on how one looks at House Bill 425 which would have required the schools to teach free enterprise in grades 1-12. Said bill passed the House by about a two to one majority.
But the Senate Education Committee apparently thought that too many of the senators might be embarrassed at having to take sides on such a controversial issue so they voted to bottle it up in committee.
Rep. Doyle Miner from St. Anthony, who drafted the bill, debated ably and forcefully in front of the education committee of the Senate, but to no avail. They decided not to let the bill, nor the public for that matter, see "daylight." The idea of free entry into the market prompts nearly physical revulsion among educators and labor unions both of whom debated vigorously against the idea of teaching free enterprise in general and HB 425 in particular. Both said if we did teach it then other special interest groups would demand equal time.
Sort of like Notre Dame University having to grant equal time to teaching atheism even though Christianity is their basic structure.
Miner says, "We delivered a message anyway and although we lost, the board of education, et al, are apt to listen now."
I have news for him, I'm afraid. Absolutely nothing is apt to happen. There exists not one solitary member of that board who's an advocate of free market capitalism.
The sincere socialist's sloop will set sail again blown ever leftward by the hot air from the Senate. The voters will have to guess, for the most part, what their senators think about free enterprise.
One thing seems certain, namely, that when given anything but lip service the subject of free enterprise around the Idaho Senate and the Idaho public education establishment raises more hysteria than a turned-up toilet seat in a convent.
*****
But take heart, freedom lovers, all is not lost. According to an article in the March 1 issue of Time magazine, attorney Richard Sanders of Seattle has broken the spell of the American Bar Association's ban against advertising.
The ABA's code of ethics has barred advertising since 1908. This is implemented by occupational licensure, a scheme for using the government's coercive power to force compliance with a given private group's wishes. The public's wishes in the market place are not wanted.
The 30-year-old attorney is presently having to fight an ethics complaint brought against him asking for disciplinary action for his affront to the rest of his fellow lawyers. "Confronted with all this activity," said Time magazine, "the ABA's ethics committee last December proposed allowing all ads, except those containing "deceptive or unfair statements."
Advertising was not even on the ABA's agenda last year. Could it be that free enterprise has at last entered the legal services market almost overnight?"
New Kind of Bribe?
By Ralph Smeed
The Idaho Free Press & News Tribune
March 13, 1997
A front page story in an Idaho newspaper featured four Boise tycoons of big business. The headline read "Ethics Concern Executives." This time the popular anti-business issue arises from the alleged bribes of Lockheed Aircraft Corp. to foreign government officials.
For Idahoans, at least, the most recent accusations have emanated from Senator Frank Church, whose committee currently is investigating the CIA. Church, a longtime critic of business, has also been campaigning for president of the United States for some time.
The four tycoons interviewed are heads of their respective corporations: Jim McClary of Morrison-Knudsen, John Fery of Boise Cascade, Bob Pederson of Ore-Ida and Bob Bolinder of Albertson Stores, all headquartered in Boise.
Space, of course, prohibits restatement and much more than cursory treatment of the views of the Boise executives' rather in-depth interviews, but some are worthy of note.
This writer held his breath for fear of some further apology for free enterprise that the corporate giants might make, since that is the usual bill of fare one hears nowadays all across America.
Although the main thrust of their remarks was indeed a mixed bag it was not so bad as I had expected. Bad, but not ALL bad, depending on the reader's viewpoint. A few examples may help.
Fery said, "If the payoff affects the profitability of the company it violates good business conduct and should not be condoned."
Balderdash, I say. If it does not benefit the company the payor should be fired for stupidity. And anyway, except for the substantial part his company played in ramming urban renewal down the throats of Boise citizens a few years ago (without a vote, yet) his company seems to be performing a splendid task of producing a multitude of products and jobs in a free enterprise market.
Pederson: "Business must tell its story, and the public will respond."
That's a laugh, they've BEEN telling their story, paying for it with tax-deductible gifts to educators who, by and large, hate their guts. A kind of corporate masochism, the demise of which is long overdue.
McClary: "M-K has been successful in getting contracts without bribes ... But I want somebody to define for me what a bribe is."
Hooray for McClary. He might well have asked also for someone to define the word "commission," since it is just possible that those at Lockheed who may have paid foreign officials too much to help sell their airplanes were as sincere as the politicians in Washington who voted government funds to avoid the company's bankruptcy. Perhaps both wanted to keep the aircraft workers from being out of work.
Elsewhere in the interviews the press and news media came in for ever so mild criticism. But big government's role and the politician's role were only lightly touched save for a cluck cluck or two about "too much regulation."
Bolinder said, "... they are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. It is just impossible to compete unfairly." He forgot to add - unless you have the government on your side.
Still, businesses are indeed harassed and intimidated by bureaucrats and politicians. Perhaps they felt it'd be too risky to be that candid.
What the corporate chieftains might well have related in complete candor is yet another form of bribery becoming more and more arrogant in America - the political technique of buying votes with other people's money and freedoms.
Political vote buying is one of the oldest ploys in history. Using the first labor-saving device, quite honestly labeled robbery, those seeking political office have reduced Great Britain, for example, to financial shambles - enough to make their Robin Hood a piker by comparison. And moral decline is sure to follow.
"Vote for me," say our own political Robin Hoods, "and I'll increase your old age benefits, I'll slice up the corporate giants, I'll pass a law favoring you the farmer, you the labor union, you the black, Mexican or Jewish minority. My party is the champion of both the people without good houses AND the housing industry. Vote for us and WE will provide housing for you for almost no cost at all," etc. etc.
Provided, of course, you have the political muscle to deliver the undefined bribe, i.e., votes. All, of course, at somebody else's expense.
As Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell pointed out in his famous Powell Memorandum, "Business and the enterprise system are in deep trouble, and the hour is late."
But the system can be restored if business will re-examine itself, do some long, long overdue homework and undertake radical new efforts to overcome the prevalent anti-capitalist mentality.
Strip Mines Are Safer
By Ralph Smeed
Lewiston Tribue
March 19, 1976
Something mighty peculiar is going on right under the noses of Americans in general and Idahoans in particular. It has to do with the proposed Pioneer Power Plant which Idaho Power Co. wants to install in the desert south of Boise.
This coal-fired plant would use coal from Wyoming and water from Idaho to make electricity for both in-state and, one supposes, out-of-state purposes. Much hysteria surrounds the government's permit to build the almost-billion dollar plant, which is necessary before the company can build.
Now then, it is true that a certain degree of hatred of business, any business, is reflected in the arguments of those who oppose building the power plant - a kind of anti-business mentality of the type inspired by most of the media and certainly most of the education establishment. (To those who doubt the latter statement, ask yourself when was the last time you saw publicized an enthusiastic campus demonstration of students FAVORING some job-producing capitalistic undertaking in the free marketplace?)
But those sincere people on both sides of this important issue and, even more importantly, the principles behind their arguments seem to avoid something worthy of examination.
I refer mainly to those persons who claim to be favoring human beings, favoring good health, clean air and low fuel prices for consumers. Likewise these folks are against dangerous working conditions for laborers like underground coal miners, against black lung disease and against so many of the other problems of underground mining made so infamous by the late John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers Union. Not to mention being against the high price for coal made necessary by all these admittedly difficult problems.
My reason for saying "something peculiar" is going on, or perhaps, rather NOT going on, is the public discussion of one major argument which no one seems to dare to mention - or else the media are too dull or too "liberal" to publicize it.
During the year 1974, there were mined in the U.S.A. almost a half billion tons of coal (590,006,617), most of which no doubt came from the old established underground mines of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and points east.
In 1973, there were 132 miners killed in those mines and 11,067 non-fatal injuries. Now, then, doesn't it follow that we should open up the desert in Wyoming where space and sagebrush seem to go on and on forever, miles away from any city, and let the pit mine people open it up to strip mining? This would tend to do away with so many of the problems, underground explosions, black-lung disease, etc.
Still fresh in the newspaper headlines are the deaths of 15 underground miners in Kentucky and another 10 missing after yet another more recent blast. But somehow, THIS argument never seems to see the light of day.
Could it be that the companies are intimidated by other companies, their friends, in the East? Or are they afraid to take on the huge labor unions of the coal "establishment" who fear that their jobs will vanish when the obviously cheaper and safer source of fuel in Wyoming's coal fields is uncovered and excavated by steam shovels? No explosion, no black-lung.
But what of the jobs we might lose, what of the investments in oil refineries, transcontinental pipelines, etc., ad infinitum? These are questions which should get public exposure and debate in the schools, but will they?
These, the capitalist companies, should be equipped to openly and enthusiastically defend and promote. But do they?
Arnold Miller, president of the United Mine Workers, said the recent underground tragedy was "a grim and terrible reminder of the price coal miners pay to help solve the energy crisis." I wonder.
The late Dale Carnegie could have included both the capitalist companies and the labor unions when he said, "for every thing we do, we have two reasons: one that's real and one that sounds good." He might have added: sometimes mighty peculiar, too.
Cecil Andrus' Bitter Attack of the Pioneer Electric Plant
By Ralph Smeed
Lewiston Tribune
March 26, 1976
Idaho Gov. Cecil Andrus' bitter attack of the Pioneer electric plant proposed by Idaho Power Co. raised a tot of eyebrows recently.
His statement given to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, whose new members must look to him for their appointment to said commission, was so vigorous in opposition as to be labeled all the way from outspoken to downright arrogant.
Some observers say that the state's chief administrator should only administer the laws set down by the legislature and not attempt to dictate policy. Those who oppose the power generating plant are, naturally, glad to hear any high official who agrees with them.
While the governor's certainly entitled to his own opinion, the manner in which he delivered it this time is a bit like the preacher who used the church pulpit to express his enthusiasm for public welfare. Several members of the congregation got up and walked out saying that religious zeal was not the same as religion. But Idahoans cannot just get up and walk out on this particular preacher.
Now then, much could be said if we harkened back to Andrus' State of the State message about his concern therein for ldaho's unemployment, and need for energy, and new energy sources, and our life styles, etc., etc. But he also said we must be careful of our environment. Well he has now dramatically opted in favor of the environmentalists and thinks Idaho Power doesn't know what it's talking about.
One Andrus assumption is that Pioneer will directly result in higher costs for power. Half truth, I say. The other half says: "What about the hidden cost of effectively eliminating any new irrigated land, any new jobs, and any new growth at all?"
This is a lousy word-game in which the power company players may have tumbled the semantic ball and cannot recover. But these considerations, though terribly important, are not what's raising the eyebrows.
Andrus' motives are what seems to be getting most of the attention. "He's read the political tea leaves," they say, "and decided there's where he'll get the most votes." All nice and simple, according to the political experts anyway.
Well, I'm not so sure. Andrus is indeed an intensely political politician and does read the tea leaves, well. At least he has, or has had, the support of a number of moderate Republican businessmen whose tea leaves are usually steeped in little else than pragmatism. Nevertheless, he had Ôem, and he had to know he'd lose some of them. He didn't have to come out-screaming."
I think Andrus is wrong, dead wrong, and listens very little to those of us who believe in supply and demand. But I want to get out of this political cult that threatens to engulf us all and take a different tack.
This power problem is being decided by emotions and very little else, but it is just possible that Andrus could be sincere. Wrong maybe, proceeding from the wrong premises maybe, emotionally inspired maybe, but just possibly sincere. Reluctant though I might be to admit it, I think it's to his credit.
The public has seldom been more confused about anything, and when they are they vote no, almost always. (It's pure demagoguery to suggest a public referendum in this kind of a matter especially amidst this kind of emotionalism.)
Public education is where the problem is and nearly every corporation is guilty as sin. Guilty and stingy in support of the marketplace in public education.
But sincere emotionalism and a basic anti-enterprise mentality can fast bring our productive society to a slow (death through too much power - political power.
Perhaps we businessmen have overlooked education because we have been too impatient and thus failed to recognize that the usual business standards for returns on long term investments apply in this area as well.
Ideas Must Be Financed
By Ralph Smeed
The Idaho Free Press & News Tribune
April 3, 1976
A great many sincere and thoughtful people disagree as to what the effect would be of Idaho Power Company's proposed electric generating plant. Too many of them are merely "against everything" in the area of development. and since power is so essential to development - they are agin' it.
Well, thank goodness not ALL those opposing the new power plant are so negative. Comes now a builder in Boise who suggests we note a rational alternative to the huge 800 million dollar generator. Said alternative is in the form of a new house located in Nampa and heated entirely by solar heat.
The suggestion, published on April Fool's Day, may indeed be worthy of note. And fool's day notwithstanding, this example seems to be both timely and pertinent to the power controversy.
But the Boise builder, who seems to have no financial connection with the sun heated house, makes some observations which tend to mislead, al beit unintentionally no doubt.
For example, the builder's statement in describing the virtues of solar heat, may have shed more heat than light on the subject when it said, "it appalls me when Idaho Power says there isn't the technology to develop solar power." He continues "Idaho Power could build over 235,000 solar heating units for the price of Pioneer. Also the price would go down due to the mass production. Think of the jobs that would be created and the energy saved."
Not a bad thought at all, i.e., crate jobs, save energy, etc., but one wonders at just how much exaggerated oratory inspires the suggestion and how much is economic illiteracy.
No matter how sincere the "Mr. Clean" proponents of, in this case, solar power, one is compelled to ask, "If the idea is so good, so economically viable, why doesn't it also attract investors? This is the problem facing Idaho Power Company, and rightly so. But by no means, the only one.
It is, of course, the unstated sub-rosa position of many opponents of industrialization that the government should nationalize the power business. It is indeed unfortunate that the private power people do not see fit to do proper battle on the matter. Instead, they fight on this or that range of the moment political and popularity contest basis.
Lacking either the political muscle to garner the votes OR the popularity of private capitalism to oppose government intervening, one wonders why they cannot see that they fight in the wrong arena with the wrong weapons.
We should, instead, ask the Boise builder and other advocates of the easy solar solutions, whether or not they would be willing to mortgage their homes or take money from their savings and INVEST in solar power. It just might PAY off. After all, Henry Ford tried for a long time before his friends decided to put their money where their mouth is - or was. It paid handsome dividends too, to those who backed the visionary automobile builder and his radical new ideas.
I do not wish to detract from those who suggest new ideas for immaculate standards for clean power. But they'd better not try to irrigate a farm thereby. I do want to suggest some degree of realism in their opposition to the very under pinnings of a free society. Whether they understand it or not, what they face is an almost fanatic opposition to the idea of free entry into the market and private ownership.
Henry Ford had only to face raising enough capital. But wait until solar power, if it really does work, has to face the REAL test, i.e. public power and the Public Utilities Commission.
The Government Educator
By Ralph Smeed
Nampa Tribune
April 10, 1076
The immediate past president of Idaho's Board of Education told a meeting of school superintendents the other day that educators should stop passing the buck.
Mrs. Janet Hay of Nampa told the educators they should admit a problem exists in our public schools. She quoted an interview the state board had with high school student leaders who without exception said, "We aren't worked hard enough, that not enough is demanded of us, the senior year in high school too often is a waste of time and there are too many Mickey Mouse courses."
Well now, isn't that something? How many times have we heard that story before? But hardly from the state's chief of education.
Such a statement might be expected to herald a new era of common sense in the government's education program, but I'm not so sure.
Further examination of the beautiful and charming Mrs. Hay's statement gives rise to doubt.
Two examples should suffice: Hay also said, "We ought to admit that everyone's responsible for the decline in basic skills." Idaho taxpayers might well wonder just who she meant by "WE." Perhaps there could hardly have been unaware that public education is entirely controlled by the state - not "WE."
Second example is yet another quote: "Schools in Idaho are in a real financial bind and the only way out is to convince 'John Q. Public' that it's worth it to invest more."
Hay is not doubt playing the role of a government educator. people tend to play roles in positions like hers, but in her role it seems clearly a case of trying to suck and blow in the same breath.
The education establishment is intellectually bankrupt, and she suggests that John Q. Public invest even MORE money in.
Leapin' lizards! Who is telling who not to pass the buck?
All of which is not to say that Mrs. Hay is not sincere and intelligent. She is. What's more, she is a good person, a concerned citizen and works at it. But there's a typical gap in her frame of reference concerning formal education. It's called blind faith. It may work in religion, but has no place whatsoever in education.
*****
America is presently in the midst of a Bicentennial "binge" celebrating its 200th anniversary. In that very same year of 1776 another devastating event took place. A professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), Adam Smith, published the "Wealth of Nations."
One finds very little talk - let alone study or "blind faith" inside Idaho schools in the theories of free entry into the market, private ownership and limited government as espoused in Smith's book.
Mrs. Hay has unique access to one of the world's foremost students of Adam Smith in the person of Dr. Benjamin Rogge head of the political economy department of Wabash College in that her husband is a friend and admirer of this truly great teacher.
Perhaps together they could convince "John Q. Public" to try free market capitalism - they've tried almost everything ELSE.
Education and Snakes
By Ralph Smeed
Caldwell News Tribune
April 17, 1976
Few Idahoans are familiar with two well-known men whose strong views on education may well be of lively interest. They are Wayne York, secretary of the Idaho Education Association, and Albert Einstein, the world-famous scientist.
York, retiring this September after 40 years in the government's education system, had a story on the wire service last week calling for the defeat of 18 legislators who voted to repeal the state's compulsory education laws. He told the 83rd annual meeting of the IEA in Boise that the teachers should, "resolve that those 18 legislators shall not be re-elected and allowed to spout their venom again in the legislature."
That's the quote folks - "venom," like in snake. One must hand it to York. He makes it very clear where he stands on the matter of freedom of choice in public education.
The statement brings to mind the 19th Century railroad tycoon's remark: "The public be damned." That statement is much more familiar to school children these days than the Boston Tea Party and quotes from Adam Smith, whose famous book, "The Wealth of Nations," incidentally, also celebrates its 200th birthday this year but not in many public schools.
The 18 Idaho legislators who voted for freedom of choice in education were merely trying to expand individual freedom, at least as they saw it. One wonders at a comparison of York's position with those of the big oil companies, who are alleged to hold a monopoly in the oil market which is much LESS obvious than the government's education monopoly that he promotes.
It is genuinely sad commentary that the idea of freedom and the free market bring out such hate words as "venom."
If York were the only one holding the general attitude, however, it wouldn't be so bad. But his idea is not at all unique among many educators. And those few who DO like the idea of free entry into the market are often intimidated by the state's most powerful lobby, the Idaho Education Association, as are many of the legislators of both parties.
Well, what about Albert Einstein? In the forward to his book, "Compulsory Mis-education," the famous social scientist and educator, Dr. Paul Goodman, quotes Einstein on compulsory schooling:
"It is in fact nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake," said the great scientist, "to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty."
There you have it, folks, and Goodman's book goes on to expand the same theme in beautiful style. I urge you to read it.
Too bad neither political party in Idaho can boast of a similar effort. One might wonder if it matters to them - very much.
Work Permits for All?
By Ralph Smeed
Caldwell Free Press and News-Tribune
April 24, 1976
Idaho Gov. Cecil Andrus' campaign slogan was "Governor for All the People," presumably all Idahoans. Of course, one can take these political slogans with a grain of salt, but they are used and for good reason, i.e., they WORK.
The news media carried a story the other day which makes me wonder if our good governor is intending to pull our leg or just forgot the "ALL IDAHO" part. Let's take a look at one example in occupational licensing.
Andrus signed into law Senate Bill 1528, entitled "The Idaho Accountancy Act." Now that sounds innocuous enough, doesn't it? The purpose of this bill has been pursued by the Idaho Society of Certified Public Accountants and the American Society also for several years, but until this year their efforts were unsuccessful. A minority of their own members were opposed to this kind of legislation and they were able to convince the legislature to keep hands off, that is, let the market decide or in other words let each accountant's customer decide whether his accountant is doing a good job or not. They said, in effect, let's not pass yet another law, we have too many laws already.
The new law's intent is to put "public accountants" as opposed to "certified public accountants" out of business on a "dying class basis." The latter term from a letter from the Idaho Society of C P A's dated Dec. 15, 1975, signed by Steve Swanson, chairman, Committee on the Profession.
Well the forces of the majority of the CPA organization kept at it, cheered on and encouraged by their state and national society of accountants and this year they succeeded. Almost the last day before the legislature adjourned the new law passed by a comfortable margin.
I phoned the governor's office to ask if he had read and understood the bill and agreed with its effect to do away with the government's "work permit" for public accountants. An aide informed me that they had indeed read and understood the bill and in the absence of any apparent controversy "endorsed" it by the governor's signing it into law.
This isn't to blame Andrus altogether for a law closing up free entry into the market for yet another class of new small operators, which it does, but like most all regulatory law it tends to put the marginal operator out of business. This is the class who, in almost all categories, keeps the market honest. Certainly large operations are in better shape to cope with more and more new regulations.
It's true, abuses do exist. Accountants, both certified and uncertified, make mistakes and some are incompetent to audit.
Presumably the larger accounting firms are more competent, hence get large; but if so then they, least of all, need more government to decide with whom they should compete.
Section 2, paragraph 54-202 of the new law says that to practice as either a public accountant or a certified one is "a privilege granted by the State of Idaho and not a Natural right of individuals ..." so apparently it's THEIR pleasure and not yours - small fry, and it took them a bill with 5,103 words to make it legal.
Sincere gentlemen disagree on this particular legislation, many are themselves CPA's. Some seek only to upgrade their profession, but it is a well-known tactic to push through controversial laws in the last few hours before the legislature adjourns. This is ethics?
The governor's aide said, "We were not aware of any controversy." Of course not. In one more day they were adjourned. I know several CPA's opposing the bill, who said "they pulled a sneaky on us. It thought they'd given up, but now it's law."
I now ask the governor: Would you have signed the bill if you had known the bill's effect as outlined in the Idaho CPA's profession chairman's cover letter explaining the bill saying: "The State Board of CPA's and the board of the Idaho Society of CPA's both unanimously agree that the interests of the CPA's and the public are best served by our proposing to license CURRENT public accountants so that ultimately only (repeat, only) CPA's will practice public accounting?"
A Victory for Congressman Symms
By Ralph Smeed
Lewiston News-Tribune
May 4, 1976
Congressman Steve Symms, R-Idaho, finally made it to a national television network show last Wednesday. To the delight of his friends and the dismay of his enemies, Symms appeared on the American Broadcasting Co.'s "Good Morning America."
Symms was "cited" by an environmentalist group recently as on their list of congressmen called the "Dirty Dozen." Reasons cited was having the worst voting record, in their opinion of course, against the environment. Thus the rating of "dirty."
ABC-TV's morning show contains a "Face-Off" segment and the question was asked: "Should special interest groups selectively rate the Congress?" Peter Harnick, a member of the environmentalist group, said yes, and Symms said no, whereupon they both went at it.
Harnick's position was clearly stated as Symms' being too influential. Additionally because he serves on two powerful house committees, he is seen as a threat because he sometimes opposes environmentalists.
Symms questioned Harnick as to why they single out certain congressmen even when others have similarly "bad" or worse voting records. To which the main response was quite obvious, i.e., Symms was also influential and a threat to his opposition.
In addition, it was pointed out by Symms and host David Hartman that John Rhodes, Republican majority leader in the House, was also on the list despite the fact that 143 congressmen had lower environmental voting records than he did. Obviously, the list is made up to "get" influential congressmen, not to truly rate them. Rhodes is considered vulnerable in his next election, hence made the "dirty" list, suggested Symms.
In the recent history of the Republican party, seldom has there been a more forthright, open and candid politician than Symms. And too often this proves embarrassing to Idaho party leaders, especially to the so-called moderates who almost hate this type of boat rocker. Symms gives the party leaders the heebie-jeebies.
Against such a background of openness Symms was warned by some friends not to accept the invitation into the "enemy's camp" and especially if he took the "no" side of the TV show's question which, on the surface, seemed only to ask for accountability.
Symms laughed and explained on the live interview show: "The only way a conservative can get on one of these liberal TV shows like this one is to take the 'no' side."
He also defended the environmentalists' right to their "Dirty Dozen" technique, but seriously questioned their ethics and the half-truths that result.
He further suggested that to be consistent with their "Dirty Dozen" heading, they should sign as "Dirty Pool" since that was often what they were playing.
Here's hoping we'll all be seeing more of Symms' non-Republican breath-of-fresh-air get national political TV exposure. I'll wager that it's extremely unlikely, however, on either of the other TV networks (NBC and CBS).
Their anticapitalistic stance is exceeded only by their clever technique of telling "both" sides - which seems to be done by merely finding two knee-jerk liberals who disagree.
Pioneer -- Whose Baby?
By Ralph Smeed
The Idaho Free Press & News Tribune
May 15, 1976
The so-called advisory vote on whether to construct the controversial Pioneer will soon be over - if it isn't all over now, except the rousing cheers of the environmentalist's victory rally.
Most observers I've talked to see the election as already "down the drain." One retired business tycoon, William Chandler of Boise told a Caldwell Chamber of Commerce meeting recently that the almost certain demise of the much needed power plant was due in a large measure to the slanted anti-progress views of the Idaho Statesman, the state's largest newspaper.
But another publication recently distributed by Idaho Power Co. deserves some candid comment also. It's called "Facts About Pioneer" and in one fell swoop sets out to set the record straight about the so-called facts.
Just exactly what makes the power company think the controversy is a FACTUAL problem in the first place isn't clear, and if not clearly naive it's at least 15 years behind any realistic assessment of the public's lousy attitude and understanding toward private enterprise in general and about the news media in particular.
The problem facing the company is clearly NOT a factual one - it's emotional. Oh sure, there are distortions of fact and half-truths aplenty, and this is not to detract from the virtues of factual presentations. Heaven knows we need more interest in facts and less in emotions, but the inexorable law of supply and demand works in ideas and attitudes, too. Perhaps the security of a government sanctioned monopoly has tended to help the power company's perception of ideas to atrophy.
For example, the company's 3,000 word pamphlet has a major premise which is dead wrong, at least as to the likelihood of the public's "buying" it. Let me quote: "Whether or not to build Pioneer is not Idaho Power's problem - It's YOUR problem. We think you're entitled to the facts before you make YOUR decision."
Now, I ask you, gentle reader, just who is likely to buy that idea? Even if it were true, and to some extent it is true, the public in general and the schools in particular have long ago ceased to take much, if any, personal responsibility for anything the government manages, or if you like, supervises for them.
A possible exception might be the attempt to popularize the "getting involved" and "write your congressman" type stuff. Even some of the large corporations are now urging their employees to get involved in politics, even to the extent of offering to subsidize them if they were to be elected. As if multiplying the ignorance of one foolish politician by encouraging 20 more to run in his place were somehow to relieve the asininity of it all.
But such is the typical Chamber of Commerce "mentality" of the electric utility's pamphlet. It goes on to give a huge number of facts, some of which may even change or enlighten a few inquiring minds, but generally speaking the whole brochure is about as exciting as holding somebody's horse.
The basic assumption is what's in error, i.e., it's an emotional problem - not a factual one. And no amount of "factual" breast-beating will excite anybody. If the advisory ballot is favorable at all it will be for quiet different reasons.
Of the several facts listed in the pamphlet, one stands out all by itself: (some admittedly were well done) "Who would pay for the new plant?" "Not the customers," said the fact folder, "Capital costs come from the sale of stocks and bonds." Now ain't that just peachy-keen? Where else, even in this age of economic illiteracy, COULD one expect the money to come from than from customers?
Far better than the company's dull fact sheet would have been some enthusiastic candor - like in the line from Edna St. Vincent Millay's poem:
"My candle burns at both ends;
It will not last the night;
But, ah my foes, and oh, my friends -
It gives a lovely light."
They could even have added a line of their own about the danger of another baby boom - if the lights go out.
"Could Uncle Sam Go Broke?"
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
May 27, 1976
Pamphlets, as we've discussed the past several weeks, are used extensively to deal with both factual and emotional problems. Problems that are not factual, but emotional, are admittedly hard to deal with. Still, sticky problems can be dealt with by the use of pamphlets, as for example, a terrific one I ran across last week.
A Boise valley executive who asked not to be named handed me several copies of a strikingly effective little gem of a tract entitled "Could Uncle Sam Go Broke?"
Let's take a quick look at the little tract's sub-title on the first page about this super-sticky subject. It says: "For years New York City spent more money than it took in. Eventually New York City ran out of money. Why couldn't the same thing happen to the United States Government?"
Pretty clear, brief and to the point, don't you agree? Well, get page two: "New York City got in a jam - because it couldn't stop spending money - because it couldn't raise taxes any higher without forcing people and businesses to leave the city - because it couldn't borrow any more. Lenders were afraid they wouldn't get paid back. If Uncle Sam went broke, it would probably be for the same reasons."
Now bear with me folks. I want to show you how a skilled pamphleteer communicates, i.e., it CAN be done. The tract continues: "How close is the Federal Government to financial trouble? In some respects, it's as badly off as New York City. Congress has lost the ability - or sees no need - to live within its income.
The main difference is that Uncle Sam can and does print money to pay bills and New York City cannot."
Along with clever cartoons, all of which were communicative and pleasant, the little tract laid out its case with monetary inflation and politics in sharp focus: "Maybe this isn't the way you heard it - the politicians don't WANT you to hear it this way. Nevertheless, it's the truth, check the official Government statistics."
This delightful little pamphlet, small enough to fit your shirt pocket closes with four thoughts:
1) So what are we going to do about it?
2) Will we keep sending to Congress the same old politicians who promise more benefits?
3) If we fall for the same old hogwash, if we still think we can enjoy a lot of benefits at someone else's expense, we deserve the consequences.
4) In a democracy, the people responsible for excessive spending are you and I. If we don't put a stop to it, nobody will.
The pamphlet is just chuck full of real gems. Reading time - 10 minutes and its publisher is John L. Beckley of the Economics Press at Fairfield, New Jersey, 07006.
I've never before heard of that gentlemen, but oh how I'd love to introduce him to the outgoing president of Idaho's State Board of Education, Mrs. Janet Hay. If she would hire him to write Idaho textbooks, I'll bet she could stop telling the educators, as she has been, to "stop passing the buck."
New Day for the GOP?
By Ralph Smeed
The Idaho Free Press and Nampa Tribune
May 29, 1976
"I like Ronald Reagan, but he's no business running against Gerald Ford for president of the U.S.A." So said to me recently a long-time Idaho Republican businessman, big-wig politico and former chief of his party.
This fellow is not only a successful businessman and for years a political activist, but he's still popular and still fairly activist; no mean accomplishment either. Furthermore, I like and admire the guy.
My point is simply that honest and intelligent individuals disagree on candidates. True enough, this isn't new. What is new is the REASON that so many of our partisan politicos disagree, i.e., "We can get Ford elected and the people are not ready for Reagan's virtuous, but harder line, hence we might wind up with defeat. Half a loaf is better than no bread at all."
That's the logic folks. Is it honest and sincere you ask? Yes, they think it is. I'm sorry, but that's the way it looks to me, for the most part anyway, even though we've "Half-loafed" our way into second place clear around the world.
Still, for some reason, the political party saddles itself with asinine rules like "nobody should take sides," i.e., work like heck, but don't take sides. Makes people dishonest.
I have some feel for this, having served for some years on the Idaho State Republican Executive Committee during the Goldwater for President days. Believe me that was more revealing than most of the so-called two party elections, which all too often are one party elections under two party labels - "it's always been this way," they say.
Just for fun sometime, try to find out just what your own party principles ARE, in writing if at all possible, and then find out how many of your party's candidates are ready and willing to debate THOSE principles, if they say anything much. You'll get your eyes opened.
President Ford for example, along with his Secretary of State Kissinger, are soft on the so-called Panama Canal "give-away" while Gov. Reagan and his backers are hard, i.e., against it.
In my opinion this kind of honest difference is just and ample reason for a contest for the office now held by Ford, no matter how sincere he might be, and I think he is - as politics usually go anyway.
Another example: usually reliable sources have it that Idaho's Republican National Committeewoman Orriette Sinclair, a moderate of Twin Falls, is secretly "pushing" moderate Glen Wegner of Boise to run against conservative Second District Congressman George Hansen, and judging from the occasional dismay which she expresses "privately" about another conservative, First District Congressman Steve Symms, it's true. So this writer expects to see a lively party hassle for that particular office.
I think this is a healthy and fitting thing to do, but party discipline says that it's a no-no and therefore the party functionaries, with few exceptions, go underground and support primary candidates anyway. Mrs. Sinclair should be able to do so above the table, not below it. Politics is full of phony anti-people ideas. Far better to compete on principle in the open.
The problem is that the contests are seldom fought over principles, but more often for reasons which wouldn't stand the light of day. This is also compounded because principles are irritating to typical politicians since most find them harder to manipulate than issues and personalities.
Try to find out the reasons, based on principle mind you, why Mrs. Sinclair doesn't like Hansen, and if you can, why she shouldn't make those reasons public. But don't hold your breath waiting for a common sense answer.
Small wonder young people turn off at party politics. Some think politics make strange bedfellows - they don't - it's quite the other way around.
I wonder what will happen when the shoe is on the other foot, i.e., if Hansen decides to support the delightfully conservative Leora Day of Boise who will probably contest Mrs. Sinclair for her National Committeewoman's seat this summer.
The New Media Should Go Further
By Ralph Smeed
Lewiston News-Tribune
May 31, 1976
A well-known Idaho political writer quoted U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently on presidential election campaigns tending to slow down major diplomatic moves.
"It is clear," said Kissinger, "that when there are so many candidates in the field there is the temptation to defer dramatic moves until after the election."
The newspaper columnist admitted in the Lewiston Morning Tribune that campaigns may indeed inhibit diplomacy, but if the current diplomatic policy is not to the liking of the majority of Americans it is well that it be inhibited.
So far so good, but another question seems almost never to be asked and that is just exactly how does one go about determining what this so-called majority wants. Oh yes, we can read what the news media and the politicians say the majority thinks, but the credibility of both of these groups is becoming more and more questionable all the time.
So what do we do? Have an election every day? And on every question on public policy? Certainly not. We elect representatives to make these decisions according to those legal limitations made. In Thomas Jefferson's words, to "bind them down by the chains of the Constitution. Let us hear no more about confidence in men."
That of course, is the essential difference between a democracy and a republic. The former term is not even referred to in our Constitution while the media hardly ever uses the term "republic." Indeed so pervasive has the media's use of the terms democracy and majority-rule become that many people seem downright offended if they cannot vote on each and every conceivable controversial question that might arise.
Whether such a question is any of the public's danged business never seems to occur to the establishment media - whose interest in individual freedom seems too often limited only to their own.
All of which is not to say that Kissinger's foreign policy and global hobnobbing should not be questioned. Heaven knows it should get even more questioning. For all we know his world renowned negotiating expertise consists mainly of global giveaway schemes of monumental proportions. Not the least of such schemes is the Panama Canal question.
The canal issue, like so many of the others, is not necessarily the fault of Kissinger. But then neither is that justification for our government's consuming commitment to secret diplomacy, secret this, and secret that.
The saddest secret of all may well be the press' secret, including the major share of the Idaho press, which seems to be their unwillingness to ask the same withering fire of questions of presidential aspirant Senator Frank Church. For example, his unwillingness to pursue the matter of secrecy in the Internal Revenue Service as well as the U.S. Department of State which controls most of our asinine foreign policy.
The newsman's editorial question to Kissinger made an excellent point, for sure. But, unfortunately, it raises many other questions about the typical one-sided tendencies in our own news media.
It's becoming clearer why the press is referred to as a medium. It is so seldom rare or well-done.
Easterners Against Symms
By Ralph Smeed
Lewiston News-Tribune
June 5, 1976
Sen. Barry Goldwater made several remarks during his 1964 campaign for president which really rocked the boat. One of those remarks said that the eastern coast should be sawed off and allowed to sink into the Atlantic Ocean.
Some supporters of First District congressman Steve Symms agree with that statement. Here's why: An organization from that East Coast has moved into Boise and rented an election office there for the sole purpose of defeating the popular Idaho congressman
The Washington, D.C., based group call themselves Environmental Action, Inc., and are responsible for putting Symms on their national hate list called "The Dirty Dozen." That's 12 congressmen they see as the biggest threat to their idea of stopping what most Idahoans refer to as the multiple-use concept of public lands. That's livestock grazing, mining, lumbering, recreation, tourism, etc.
Symms appeared on ABC's TV show, "Good Morning America," recently in a short debate with a leader of this environmental group and thereupon suggested that they should label their list called the Dirty Dozen a game of dirty pool, since that's the way they play with half-truths in order to defeat certain congressmen.
Symms also said that the only way a conservative could generally get on a liberal TV show was to agree to take the "negative" side of an issue. So, in order to be heard, he agreed. Observers say he made his case on TV very well. Also he had a lot more fun on the program than the preservationist did.
All of which is not to say the eastern group should be taken lightly. According to their national magazine issue of March 27, the easterners have a success record of defeating 77 per cent of the congressmen they've put on their Dirty Dozen list and now Idaho's man is on it. "Although others have a worse voting record than Symms," the environmentalist said on the national TV show, "he's so influential in Washington that we want him defeated."
Idahoans usually take a dim view of out-of-state people coming in to tell them how to vote and the environmentalists could have their work cut out for them. But one exception should be noted and heeded instead of, as conservatives too often do, just gripe about it. You guessed it - the news media.
Without the enthusiastic help of Idaho's largest newspaper, which is in the heart of Symms' district and which hates his political guts, the East Coast protectionists would scarcely get to first base.
But the Idaho Statesman of Boise (controlled from Rochester, N.Y.) will be out to help the East Coast establishment to make Symms look like a rotten apple.
The American news media did it to Goldwater in '64 with unfair treatment and the Idaho media may do it to Symms this year with "ecology." They easily have the power, and the GOP, especially nationally, seems forever to wallow in a weakly wake against it.
But not all the press hates the popular congressman. Many, but not all. And they like boat-rockers who fight, but don't hate - so, we'll wait and see.
Albert Einstein, the great scientist wrote something Symms might use. Said he, "Arrows of hate have been shot at me too but they never hit me, because somehow they belong to another world, with which I have no connection whatsoever."
Dirty (Pool) Dozen
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
June 10, 1976
Some Supporters of 1st District Congressman Steve Symms think Senator Barry Goldwater may have had a good point in 1964, when he said the eastern coast ought to be sawed-off and allowed to sink in the Atlantic Ocean.
Symms supporters may agree because an organization from that east coast has moved into Boise and rented an election office for the sole purpose of defeating the popular Idaho congressman
The Washington, D.C., based group call itself Environmental Action, Inc., and had put Symms on its national hate list called "The Dirty Dozen." That's 12 congressmen they see as the biggest threat to their idea of stopping the multiple-use concept of public lands. That's livestock grazing, mining, lumbering, recreation, tourism, etc.
Symms appeared on ABC's TV show, "Good Morning America," recently in a short debate with a leader of this environmental group and thereupon suggested that they should label their list called the Dirty Pool instead of Dirty Dozen, since that's the way they play with half-truths.
Symms also said that the only way a conservative could generally get on a liberal TV show was to take the "negative" side of an issue. So, in order to be heard, he agreed. Observers say he made his case on TV very well. Also he had a lot more fun on the program than the preservationist did.
That is not to say the Eastern group should be taken lightly. According to their national magazine issue of March 27, the easterners have a success record of defeating 77 per cent of the congressmen they've put on the Dirty Dozen list and now Idaho's man is on it. "Although others have a worse voting record than Symms," the environmentalist said on the national TV show, "he's so influential in Washington that we want him defeated."
Idahoans usually take a dim view of out-of-staters telling them how to vote, so the environmentalists could have their work cut out for them. But one exception should be noted and heeded instead of, as conservatives too often do, just gripe about it. You guessed it - the news media.
Without the enthusiastic help of Idaho's largest newspaper, The Idaho Statesman, which is in the heart of Symms' district, and who hates his political guts, the east coast protectionists would scarcely get to first base.
But the Statesman (controlled from Rochester, N.Y.) will be out to help the east coast establishment to make Symms look like a rotten apple.
The American news media did it to Goldwater in '64 with unfair treatment and the Idaho media may do it to Symms this year with "ecology." They easily have the power, and the GOP, seemingly forever to wallow in a weakly wake against it.
But not all the press hates the popular congressman. Many, but not all. And they like boat-rockers who fight, but don't hate - so, we'll wait and see.
Albert Einstein, the great scientist wrote something Symms might use. Said he, "Arrows of hate have been shot at me too but they never hit me, because somehow they belong to another world, with which I have no connection whatsoever."
A Flood of Water -- and Money
By Ralph Smeed
Lewiston News-Tribune
June 12, 1976
This week I am going to try something a little risky and which may very well be misunderstood.
It has been said that people learn very little except during periods of trauma and disaster. Well, the current flood in eastern Idaho caused by the collapse of the earth-filled Teton Dam is easily the biggest disaster in Idaho history and cause for traumatic experiences for thousands of Idahoans.
This flood is bad, all bad, and what follows is not to detract one iota from the seriousness of the lives lost nor the property damage and hardship suffered by those in the flood's angry path.
Someone said to me, "Well, there's a small silver lining in that huge black cloud and that is reconstruction will put a lot of people to work and probably cause a lot of federal funds to be spent in Idaho."
Which is a little bit like saying that World War Ii brought the country out of the depression and the government's space program has had some beneficial spin-offs for the old economy, though each at a terrific cost.
The flood damage is now being estimated at a billion dollars, not to mention the heartaches and sorrow. But for purely analytical purposes let's look for a moment at just how big is a billion dollars and what that might mean in terms of the government's GNP or Gross National Product, the great American numbers game.
If a company started out with a billion dollars in the year one and lost a thousand dollars per day, 365 days per year, it would not today have exhausted its one billion dollars capital. Furthermore, it would last at the same one thousand dollars a day loss for another 800 years.
So much for how big is one billion dollars. But let us at least try to look for the bright side, one might say, and think how much will be added to the nation's GNP. After all, these disasters do happen sometimes, don't they?
Yes, that much is true, although the term GNP, which seems to figure so big in the minds of government planners, just might in and of itself be somewhat of a disaster, at least in the minds of a larger and larger number of thoughtful observers seeking a meaningful term with which to measure growth or progress.
The GNP idea deserves some healthy skepticism, however, for example: If I divorce my wife and hire her as a cook at $250 per month the GNP will increase by $3,000 annually. But is this growth or progress?
If the Defense Department spends $50 billion on war instead of $1 billion the GNP will be larger by $49 billion. We may or may not have increased security, but most assuredly, it represents no economic progress for you or me. We have a lower, not higher, freedom of choice by reasons of such outlays.
If we spend $40 billion to tear down New York City, the GNP would rise by that amount, the same as if we were to spend $40 billion to build a new city.
In federal urban renewal, for instance, expenditures for razing the old buildings are as much included in the GNP as are expenditures for constructing the new.
The GNP - expressed in the monetary unit - enlarges wherever the money supply is diluted, i.e., it gets bigger in an inflationary period.
Just think how big Germany's GNP would have been in 1923 when 30 million marks wouldn't buy a loaf of bread. That's human tragedy, too.
The tragic flood on eastern Idaho's Upper Snake River Valley came with a precious few hours warning. Yet when the Teton Dam broke, all but a few escaped. Almost a miracle.
The other "flood," every bit as much an economic disaster, but called inflation and promoted by vote-buying politicians in Washington, D.C., is ever so much more gradual. A few are crying a warning, but when this "flood" crests only a few will escape.
Marketplace Up to Batt
By Ralph Smeed
The Idaho Free Press and Nampa Tribune
June 19, 1976
State Sen. Phil Batt, R-Canyon, is a man who takes his politics seriously. If we had a few more like him in the Idaho Legislature we'd certainly improve state government. Writing in this newspaper recently, he made some interesting observations. "The public's unbearable frustrations caused by continuing encroachments of government," said Batt, "tends to cause them to reach out for catch phrases and to promote them as cure-alls.
"Government Reorganization hardly reduced Idaho's government at all; the Sunshine Act, intended to limit and make lobbying more responsible, wasn't really all that fine," explained the bright young senator. "And then there's the 'sunset' concept where you let an agency automatically expire if it doesn't show enough merit to be renewed by the legislature.
"It sounds great and proponents expect painless reduction in bureaucracy," Batt said, "but I don't expect substantial results from it."
His several years in the Idaho Legislature have put Batt in a position of considerable leadership and respect from many moderates and quite a few conservatives in that body, hence his opinions are often worthy of note. He has some extra meritorious leanings also, especially toward a real attempt to be an intellectually honest politician.
Which is no doubt exactly what he's attempting to suggest here, but I'm afraid he could fall into an intellectual trap so often overlooked these days by most of our politicos. The trap I refer to is the suggestion that we use the power of government to reduce the power of government. In short politics to cure politics.
Not a bad thing, but one which we've tried, oh so many times, without much success and even without much study.
Batt sums up his observations with, "You can pass all the slogans in the world, but there's only one thing that will close any government office (as he and his colleagues did in cutting off the Idaho Atomic Energy Agency's funds). That's sending representatives to government who are resistant to tears." That is, resistant to complaints and political pressures.
One of the slogans the popular state senator might be referring to is that "freedom is the issue." Well, no doubt the truth in that slogan appeals to him same as it does the rest of us. The problem is that it is just that - a slogan.
Unfortunately, in order to get elected, Batt's "representatives" must appeal to voters - voters who listen to the opinion-makers who in turn tell us what the voters want so the politician will know what to promise in order to get elected. Sort of like a blind man in a dark room chasing a black cat - that isn't there.
Senator Batt also is a good farmer. Farmers know about a better scheme for problem solving - that's the marketplace. When kept free to operate, it is the most incredible anti-poverty and freedom promoting program ever devised by man.
For my part at least, Batt's fine experience and leadership as an enthusiastic market enterprise person is also what we need to hear. Especially if he could convince the Boise Chamber of Commerce on a radical idea: That the average man is both better informed and less corruptible when buying in the marketplace than when voting in political elections.
In either event, let's hope Batt bats a thousand.
An Emotional Reaction
By Ralph Smeed
The Idaho Free Press and Nampa Tribune
June 26, 1976
My efforts have usually been aimed at analysis, at understanding, at reaching a rational solution to problems we face. But this time I want to express my feelings. I am no poet and my efforts here have no precedent. But I think that emotions should sometimes be expressed in public even by those of us who haven't mastered the ways of doing it beautifully.
Those are the words of a friend of mine, Dr. Tibor Machan, a philosophy professor from Hungary, and they are my sentiments exactly. Now then, this fellow is unique in many ways, but in general he's unusual as a college professor because the philosophy to which he's absolutely devoted is the free market - a rare subject these days for any professor, especially a philosopher.
Why, mere mention of the word seems to send shudders of pain, if not terror, up the spines of most of our political witch-doctors as well as shudders of a sort of "I couldn't care-less" nature up the spines of ever so much of today's business and professional community.
Oh yes, some have a philosophy of sorts but somehow most seem terribly reluctant to talk much about it, preferring to substitute instead something they call pragmatism ... That's Chamber of Commerce language for a cop-out. Or what H.L. Mencken, I think it was, described as, "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Writing in the May issue of Reason magazine, a popular journal of sharp, incisive and sometimes radical libertarian commentary, Machan says, "I feel pain and sometimes indignation when I perceive all the hostility unleashed at the things that make up this great industrial, capitalist, hustling, intense country I have chosen to live in and would not trade, even now, for anything ... movies, songs, cars, gadgetry, science, art and all the rest."
This keen Hungarian intellectual, who came to America in 1956 to escape excessive government, went on to say that he found it: "incredible that the Galbraiths and Ralph Naders of our land hate the things I love so much, or like at least, so often without even noticing them. Don't you sometimes feel this emotion? I do. I swell up with tears."
Well, so much for a smattering of thoughts from a brilliant and gutsy, if sometimes proudly emotional professor, and one of the few distinguished scholars who find themselves way to the right, i.e., the free market right, of Barry Goldwater. Too bad Machan couldn't have a Ford Foundation grant to take some of his university colleagues back to Hungary for a refresher course in comparative government.
*****
Speaking of philosophy, the Chinese philosopher Confucious was asked what was the first thing he'd do if he were emperor, and he said, "I'd set about clearing up the meaning of words." I thought of the quote when I read that the Oxford dictionary employs about 11,000 words to explain the meaning and tones of the word "Love."
If you sometimes tend to "swell up with tears," like Professor Machan, at what the politicians of both parties are too often doing with words - write your representative, but try a different message.
Tell him, "do more than talk - say something; do more than look - observe; do more than listen - understand; do more than think - ponder; do more than vote - repeal some laws.
And if this doesn't make him swell up with tears, too - tell him to LOVE an enemy. Who knows - it might even scare him to death.
State GOP Convention
By Ralph Smeed
The Idaho Free Press and Nampa Tribune
July 3, 1976
One of the little characters in the cartoon strip called, "The Small Society," said to his pal, "Hoo Boy, they sure have our society mixed up. They're teaching algebra in the third grade and remedial reading in college."
Do you think this state of affairs has anything to do with the government's system of compulsory education? An increasing number of people seem to think so.
It is true that government calls the shots in education, but how does government get the message of what shots to call? Well, indirectly and generally, they come from one or the other of the two major political parties, and last week one of them, the Idaho Republicans; had their annual state convention at the University of Idaho in Moscow.
The assembly pretty well reflected what the presidential primary election told us, i.e., Idahoans prefer Gov. Ronald Reagan by 75 per cent over President Ford to head the GOP ticket in November. Reagan was there. He "took sides" and gave an enthusiastic and cheering audience a rousing speech of obvious and deeply felt gratitude for giving him the largest percentage primary vote of any state in the union.
Ex-governor John Connally, also attended and gave another rousing speech, although of a more stereotyped kind -
Republican-good-guy and Democrat-bad-guy stuff. It too, drew applause like most speeches by the political witch doctors to the party faithful "spear-carriers."
The only contest which held forth any expectations of excitement was for the office of national committeewoman. Said race was between Mrs. Oriette Sinclair of Twin Falls, the incumbent and leader of the moderate faction and Mrs. Leora Day of Boise. Mrs. Day, a relative newcomer to Idaho politics, makes no attempt to hide her ideas of a more conservative if indeed more enthusiastic persuasion. But she lost a spirited race. However, she urged Republicans to drop the time worn pretense of neutrality in favor of taking sides in a friendly and open way out on top of the table so everyone knows where everyone stands. (It is also a time worn custom to take sides, but not openly.)
But such is not the way the establishment retains most of its power, hence a political no-no. Oh yes, it's long been this way and Mrs. Sinclair by no means started it, but all over the country there is a trend away from traditional pretense in favor of candor and openness and frank discussion of principles.
Although he sends jet-streams of gasps, and sometimes dismay through many GOP leaders, First District Congressman Steve Symms has made it his political trademark to take sides in controversial matters. He took sides for Mrs. Day and Reagan while the establishment GOPers cluck-clucked.
Where he thinks the principles of free enterprise and enthusiastic conservatism are concerned, Symms believes like Ayn Rand that: "Dictatorship feeds on the ideological chaos of bewildered, demoralized, cynically flexible, unresisting men. But capitalism requires an uncompromising stand. (Destruction can be done blindly, at random; but construction requires strict adherence to specific principles.)
"The welfare-state people hope to eliminate capitalism by smear and silence - and to avoid dictatorship by 'voluntary' compliance, by a policy of bargaining and compromise with government's growing power."
Free enterprise as an idea and Republicanism as its vehicle spotlighted both fear and favor at the Moscow meeting. Both are in big trouble - for want or articulate and courageous spokesmen.
But one thing tends to become a little clearer now, even to the drum-beating political tribesmen. Namely, that truth may be violated by falsehood, but it is OUTRAGED by silence.
Of this - Reagan, Symms and Day won't be guilty.
The Word 'Freedom'
By Ralph Smeed
The Idaho Free Press and Nampa Tribune
July 10, 1976
During the 4th of July week Idaho Gov. Cecil Andrus made an observation which may be worthy of examination. He said, "We hear a lot these days about the word freedom, but it is not freedom from too much government that we seek. Rather it is freedom WITHIN government."
Without wishing to detract one bit from the governor's good intentions, I'd like to suggest that america's founding fathers had exactly one thing foremost in their minds, first with the Declaration of Independence and second with the Constitution. That one thing was freedom from too much government. And furthermore it worked, for almost 200 years anyway.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the champions of Andrus' political party and a champion of the then radical new concept of freedom from too much government, said, "Let us hear no more about confidence in man," (meaning politicians, of course). "Let us bind him down with the chains of the Constitution."
Now then, I've discussed this concept with the good governor and he shares, at least privately, a little bit of my concern for too much government. But for some reason he tends always to counter with, "Now, Ralph, we do need SOME government, don't you agree?"
Well, jumpin' catfish! That's something like telling the farmers below the broken Teton Dam, "After all, you DID say you needed more water, didn't you?"
Of course, we need some (repeat, some) government. We're not anarchists. And neither was Jefferson an anarchist, but he feared too much government, and so set about to limit it. Did a pretty good job, too.
My guess is that Gov. Andrus wants a good life for all Americans just as you and I do. Just as do those who fear the "dam" of limited government might break. But from whom do we hear warnings that this "dam" might break?
Such folks are often called extremists, extra conservatives and libertarians, just as Andrus is called a politician. There is one important distinction, however. Most politicians are professionals. That is to say, they are in a sort of business - the business of "buying" votes with promises about whatever is popular at the time.
The business of our sincere and popular governor is politics. Nothing wrong with that. He didn't make the system. He's just very skilled trying to survive within it.
One could say, I suppose, that "... We (do) seek freedom within government," but we must remember that while the governor's business is government, the system of politics usually requires his competitors to say pretty much the same thing that he says, or, whatever is popular. That is, if they are to get elected.
Now, let me ask you, gentle reader, which way are we headed, and - could the "dam" of limited government conceivably break? Then ask which of these two definitions of freedom gives the proper emphasis for this 4th of July: (1) freedom within government, or (2) freedom from too much government?
Sport Page Success
By Ralph Smeed
The Idaho Free Press and Nampa Tribune
July 17, 1976
It's a lot of fun to write and talk about ideas, at least most people will agree that it is. Still, most of the popular paperback books one sees at the downtown stores seem to be entitled, "Blood on the Moon" or "Dagger at Midnight" or "Ranch Romance" or some such other trash or superficial escape from something or other. Not much on ideas.
Newspapers, too, seem to be full of what a lot of people would call superficial, if not downright trash. Television is perhaps worst of all, but to a somewhat lesser degree radio offers much of the same order.
Most of my friends and peers in the media tell me to write about personalities since people relate to them and find reading about people much more entertaining than writing about ideas. They tend to think, "Well, after all, that's what people want, isn't it?" The old expression, "It sells newspapers," seems to hold water, even today.
Maybe so, but all this stuff to the contrary, let me suggest that there just might be another reason why so many people are turned "off" at ideas and "on" to personalities. One place where personalities tend to be more or less honest and straightforward in the arena of sports.
Ask most any red-blooded American man what section of the paper he most enjoys and seven chances out of 10 he'll answer "the sports page."
Why? Well, maybe he likes competition. And maybe he likes competitors who know what SIDE they're on. If a team of football players has the ball, they put in the offense and head toward a goal which is clearly in their best interest, i.e., to win. Then when they lose the ball they all defend the same goal and pretty much for the same reason!
I'm often told that people are "no darn good." that they are greedy and tend to compete too hard for what they want, but I wonder. If the referees and the rule makers tried to tell the ball players and sports enthusiasts that they each had to have a lawyer and an accountant to help them play "legally" - how long would they sit still for it?
Yet, that's what our government regulators are telling us more and more these days. And even worse - they change the rules in the middle of the game. These referees frequently "take sides" with the competition.
But in most sporting events, most all of the time, most everybody knows what the rules are, knows where and what the goals are and can reasonably expect the referees to refrain from taking sides within 'a fair field and no favors," with principles and concepts that are understood because they're out in the open and proudly held.
Now then, in the arena of ideas it is a bit different. In many ways we've been led to believe that the only place ideas can exist or be changed at all is in the arena of politics. Oh, sure, this isn't necessarily so, but many are led to THINK it's so. Enough at least to make political life in America seem to most people a game of futility, therefore ideas tend to be a game of obscure motives, obscure rules and obscure goals or worse yet, no goals at all. Except perhaps one: "You can't fight City Hall." Small wonder people turn off at ideas.
"Ideas have consequences," said the wise old man and indeed they do. Yet how can we expect anything but confusion and frustration in the big ball game of ideas. We keep hearing from sincere and usually well-meaning political leaders who have pretty well sold the "fans" that the only rules or ideas worth having (i.e., salable) are those flexible ones held by moderate "ball players."
Perhaps if ideas are ever again to compete with the sports page personalities we might take a page from their book and learn to take sides openly. Let's compete with principles and concepts and have some goals worthy of our signature in public - right out in the open arena - in front of God and everybody, with a healthy respect for our opponent's ideas as well.
Then let's go to work on our big referee, the government. Also, since not many of the fans like referees with MODERATE degree of integrity, we might start by having some of the media declare in advance whether they, too, intend to referee or play ball.
Don't Stop Me If You've Heard This One
By Ralph Smeed
Caldwell News Tribune
July 24, 1976
Some people, when about to tell a joke, will say, "If you've heard this story before, stop me." But let me be different. If you've heard the story about Mayor Pasley of Caldwell, "throwing" the Idaho Statesman reporter out of his office last week don't stop me. There's more, as usual, than meets the eye including, even, some humor.
The Statesman reporter's story said the City of Caldwell violated the law by not holding public hearings before the city council on applications to rezone property. Whereupon the mayor and city attorney declared, quite loudly and in public, that they had indeed "goofed" and would proceed with great dispatch to disentangle their dastardly deed.
Well, it seems the tone of the reporter's story and reports of his subsequent investigations into the matter suggested shades of a possible Watergate-type conspiracy by City Hall.
Mayor Robert Pasley took exception to the matter and became righteously indignant when the reporter returned for further questioning. He ordered the newsman out of the building and emphasized said order by fingering "a baseball bat which was brought to the office just for that (person)."
The following day a group of people appeared to be picketing City Hall by carrying signs and baseball bats, but it turned out the citizens were parading and cheering. instead of protesting they offered their baseball bats to the mayor in friendly support, if in jest, against the newspaper's treatment of the allegedly unintentional blunder.
But the REAL humor is some editorial comment by the Statesman newspaper and an Idaho Press Club censure of Pasley for his baseball bat "score," which many say is the single most popular thing he's done since taking office.
Said the editorial, "The relationship between the press and officialdom, as illustrated by Watergate, is inherently adversary."
That's a laugh. Where were the Watergate adversaries during President Lyndon Johnson's cover-up of the Bobby Baker affair? But then the press has always hated Nixon anyhow, and the hatchet-job he gave his man Spiro Agnew to do on the press was bound to be avenged sooner or later, no matter how timely it was.
The Press Club censure, which was itself righteously indignant, had the best line: "Pasley has insulted a public representative ..." (i.e., the Statesman's reporter) and not allowed a "free flow of information."
Now get that "public representative" bit! And all this time i thought that they thought they were God's representatives.
Well, the poor reporter gets perhaps an extra dose of public abuse because of a rather widespread irritation for his big eastern establishment newspaper boss, but they both should remember the courtroom's first admonition: "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
I inquired of the mayor, and the press club apparently made no attempt to ask him if the "whole truth" had been allowed its "free flow" to the public. Shame on them. They must assume no press behavior whatsoever could justify the baseball bat "threat," however symbolic its intention may have been.
Maybe so, but freedom of the press is only ONE of the freedoms we covet. Fairness and telling the other fellow's side make freedom meaningful and they should have investigated.
One of my friends, an experienced colleague in the press and one who has my respect, said, not altogether in jest, that "the Constitution, Ralph, guarantees a free press - not a fair one."
Let's face it folks, whether or not the world is run by a gigantic conspiracy, let's admit that it surely behaves as though it were.
Reagan" Does He Have Feet of Clay?
By Ralph Smeed
The Idaho Free Press and Nampa Tribune
July 31, 1976
Ronald Reagan, darling of the responsible right and the political conservatives' most articulate spokesman, may have feet of clay. Early this week he selected liberal Republican Sen. Richard Schweiker to be his vice presidential running mate.
Schweiker's liberal GOP record is thought to be a political asset in wooing his state of Pennsylvania's 103-member delegation who lean heavily toward voting for President Ford at the coming Republican National Convention in Kansas City. (Reagan only needs 30 or 40 more delegates to win.)
Like it or not, the ex-governor of California has come a long way in competition with a not unpopular incumbent president. However, his ability to communicate a rather hard line and fairly pure conservative stance contrasts sharply with the Pennsylvania liberal's voting record.
The conservative Americans for Constitutional Action rate Schweiker at 16 per cent while the liberal group called Americans for Democratic Action rate him 85 per cent.
Conservatives in both Idaho and Washington who have not already jumped off the nearest bridge have taken to retching and writhing in agony at the news of Reagan doing exactly like the other successful politicians have done for years. He's balancing the ticket by selecting a member of the opposite political faith to broaden his base of appeal.
It's not altogether unlike one of the Catholic cardinals in Rome running for the office of Pope and in order to broaden his chances for election he'd choose a well-known Mormon from the Council of Twelve to be his right-hand man.
It's been done before, it'll be done again. Why? Because it works, that's why. It may not work for Reagan since his supporters are admittedly somewhat different, but it is not a new idea.
Even Barry Goldwater, for example, picked moderate Congressman Bill Miller as his vice presidential running mate in 1964. True, it didn't work, but neither did he get support from many liberal Republicans for such common sense criticisms as the Social Security mess which today, a decade later, are seen to be all too true - even by many moderates.
What if the conservative's choice were perceived as Reagan and Schweiker or no Reagan at all? As of July 4th Reagan's firecracker wouldn't go off. Or so say the experts. Now it may, i.e., if enough of the Pennsylvania liberal leaning delegates are for sale.
Just what course is safest for Reagan to choose? Why the middle, of course, and he just might pull it off. If he seeks the undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle, he may win. With a moderate amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a moderate amount of government handouts to the poor.
With a moderate respect for rights and a moderate degree of brute force. With a moderate amount of freedom and a moderate amount of slavery - with a moderate degree of justice and a moderate degree of injustice. People relate to it. With a moderate amount of security and a moderate amount of terror - and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.
All of which is not to say Reagan is not still a man of integrity. My guess is that the poor guy is just trying to be pragmatic. Which is exactly what everyone knows Democrat Jimmy Carter has been doing all along.
But it need be no wonder now why Democrats are said to stand for everything - while Republicans stand for nothing.
Strangulation of Logic
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
August 12, 1976
One of the best editorial writers in Idaho, and a good friend of mine to boot, writes recently something which scares me to death. I would merely be outraged by his gross strangulation of logic except that most of the editorial writers seem to think this way. Not all of them, but most.
This fellow is also a close confidant of a very successful Idaho politician - Senator Frank Church. Said success may suggest we examine into how this logic succeeds.
It goes something like this: President Ford has a narrow majority of the GOP National convention delegates locked up for his first ballot success. Unless, the editor writes, they use foul play. He means that if 40 or 50 Ford delegates who are committed to him only on the first ballot, but are free to use their own judgement after that - merely hide out until the first ballot is over - then they'd be free to vote for the an they really want who is Ronald Reagan
"Trojan Horse" delegates and foul play is what this would be according to the editorialist and also foul play. which "... would virtually elect Democrat nominee Jimmy Carter" in November.
Its interesting to note that if it is so unlikely, then why is it even worth an editorial? Sounds like my editorialist friend contests with the John Birch Society, i.e., both see a conspiracy lurking in the shadows waiting to toss a bomb into the "good guys" Sunday School class.
One problem here is a usual one, namely a lack of perspective. This is often the fault of conservatives who communicate poorly and publishers who pay little attention to balance in the media. Indeed they seldom take heed of the few good conservative news sources they could easily obtain.
For example, the most influential conservative newspaper in the United States, Human Events, has been at it for over 25 years. Their front page headline on July 10 said, "Republican National Committee Stacks the Deck for Ford." Where was the outcry against conspiracy and foul play" in the liberal news media? There wasn't any. Why? Because they didn't see any, that's why. They still don't.
But let's look at how Human Events sees the upcoming National convention appointments: (1) Temporary chairman is Senator Dole, already a Ford delegate. (2) Permanent chairman is Representative Rhodes also a Ford delegate. (3) The conventions parliamentarian is H. Allen Smith, an ardent ford supporter. (4) The keynote address will be by Senator Howard Baker, head of Tennessee's Ford campaign and who accused Reagan of being a war monger. (5) The sergeant-at-arms who controls movement onto the convention floor is Jack Ranson another avowed Ford supporter. (6) The chief council and legal wizard for the convention is William Cramer, long-time supporter and friend of Ford.
Reagan strategists are not saying these people are dishonest. They are displeased that theRNC could not locate even one Reagan backer for a top convention post.
Well folks, you can surely say "What else is new? Isn't that politics as usual?" Sure it is, but Reagan was perceived somehow as different. He had some special non-political credibility. After selecting a super-liberal for his vice-president he has given his "Okay" to the RNC's conventional game.
Idaho's first District Congressman and his conservative stalwarts should save some of their national news criticism of liberal Senator Schweiker, as Reagan's choice of vice-president, for the Republican leadership's front office. There's where the phony deck gets stacked.
Oh yes, its still true, one doesn't have to be phony to be a successful GOP leader - but it helps.
No Libertarian Push
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
August 19, 1976
Some friends scolded me recently saying that I was "too hard" in criticizing the Republicans and that some people were saying the reason was probably my intention to start a new political party. The Libertarian party, whose name will appear on the Idaho ballot come next November, is the speculators' guess.
These critics of mine tend to live mostly around Boise. Some are irritated at the rumor and some just smile. In fact, a few even see a bit of humor and virtue in such a move - hoping somehow that it might be true, competition being the spice of life.
They reason, again somehow, that since I've been a political activist for lo' these many years and served for several years on the Republican State Executive committee. I must have a kind of blind faith in some political party. Since I am so "critical" of the GOP and also quite friendly with a good many libertarians across the country, they reason that I'm about to launch an all out crusade for the Libertarian Party.
Well, that's not what I'm up to. Perhaps I should be. Heaven knows both political parties are intellectually constipated. And in the case of the Grand Old Party, their method of "me-tooism" has all but ran its course. The sheer negativism of the GOP establishment toward any clear, consistent and enthusiastic positions on anything is, with a few well known exceptions, a national disgrace.
Since politics in America has degenerated to a clear case of promise-anything-to-get-elected. SOMEBODY had better be an outspoken critic. About all we need is yet another party promising yet other schemes of something for nothing, like in taxes and in the case of politics - nothing for something. I'll not soon propose yet another path.
But let me leave you with a true life example of how the Republican National Committee "thinks." At least they thought this way in 1964 and I've seen little since then, to indicate they've changed very much.
Walter Knott, owner of the well-known Knott's Berry Farm south of Los Angeles has long been one of the real conservative leaders of national stature. A more kind, thoughtful and generous man you'll seldom see or hear about. As a western GOP leader, he told me a story.
During the 1964 Goldwater presidential campaign, a famous non-politician made the most spectacular television speech in favor of a presidential candidate ever made in the history of national TV. It brought more money in five, ten and 20 dollar bills to the Republican party than any single event in that party's history.
One need hardly add that that person was later to become the Governor of California - Ronald Reagan. His impassioned plea for common sense support of Barry Goldwater for president ushered in a new era in American politics giving renewed hope to millions that their country's system was worth getting involved in.
Reagan's speech was first shown only in the west. Knott and his friends showed it to the Eastern GOP establishment with the suggestion it be shown all over the U.S. during what remained of the Goldwater campaign.
But the big Eastern establishment of Republicans said "No, we're not sure it'd be a good idea." And they stuck to that decision.
Sitting behind his big conservative desk in his picturesque office in that homespun and wholesome place of family entertainment made world famous by his own hands, Walter Knott's eyes snapped when he said, "Ralph, we had to threaten to withhold the money we'd already collected for the RNC before they'd agree to a national TV showing of the Reagan forGoldwater Speech."
The rest is history. That speech was shown, made Reagan famous and put the GOP finances in fine shape, but it took SIDES in a way the public understood and liked. Seldom has the national GOP ever communicated as well, I wonder, sometimes, if they even want to.
Reagan may not be a true Republican "elephant", but like the pachyderm, he has a memory. And I'll bet he remembers how the Eastern GOP liberals cut up Goldwater in 1964 - even if Barry seems to have forgotten.
Fighting Crime With Legal Drugs
By Ralph Smeed
Lewiston News-Tribune
August 23, 1976
Evidence is mounting that many if not most government programs are not what they are cracked up to be. Crime statistics are climbing again after dipping for a time. Confidence in the institution has sagged. Some people wonder whether government has bitten off more than it can chew.
Somehow many of us seem to feel that because crime is on the increase we should fight harder, i.e., become more violent against it. At least the crimes concerning drugs stir many of us to suggest that government take "stronger" measures.
Most of us absolutely hate drugs, but some observers suggest that perhaps we should first look to see that we're not part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
While by no means the only person who's not afraid to examine a different point of view, Frank Bubb of Richmond, Virginia, wrote recently to his newspaper something worth our careful consideration. It is also quite unusual.
Remember now, that a radical change in thinking can be good as well as bad and that our fight against drug abuse is a huge part of today's crime problem. Also that government in this category, too, is not having much success.
Here is Mr. Bubb's unusual story:
"Part of the Times-Dispatch's recent series on crime in Richmond claimed that the link between drugs and crime is not clear. The author's conclusion is not surprising since he fails to analyze the issue from an economic standpoint.
"It is not drugs themselves which cause crime, but government prohibition of drugs. When government outlaws a drug, its supply falls, causing its price to rise. Addicts cannot support a $100-a-day heroin habit, for example, without stealing.
"If heron were legalized, a habit would cost only a few dollars per day. The economic need of addicts to steal would disappear. Our society includes several million alcohol addicts, yet there is no constantly publicized link between alcohol and theft. If the government were to cause the price of a bottle of liquor to increase from $5 to $100, such a link might appear."
Bubb goes on to say, "Governmental prohibition of drugs also aids organized crime. When government outlaws a product, suppliers who cannot bear the risk of breaking the law leave the market to those who can - the criminal underground. Governmental prohibition of liquor half a century ago created the criminal underground, and its prohibition of drugs (and gambling and prostitution) sustains the criminal underworld now.
"The American people see the link between drugs and crime. But in attempting to reduce crime by redoubling efforts to stamp out drugs, they are mistaking the accelerator for the brake. The more strenuously government tries to prohibit drugs, the more street crime and organized crime will increase."
Perhaps Bubb's idea is too abrupt, but don't mistake it as too easy. Changing the government's ideas on anything is never easy, especially in view of the old saw: "Crime doesn't pay." But if experience tells us anything and we give the bureaucrats a few more laws - they might MAKE it pay.
M.Y.O.B.
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
September 2, 1976
Thank Heaven we can relax for a while. The political conventions are over. At least the convention oratory is over, and those of us who yearn for a return to the M.Y.O.B. political system can muse for a while at "how nice t'would have been if only ..."
MYOB is of course short for mind your own business, an old and out of date idea which, thanks to some of the higher thinking hippies, just may be returning.
But one doesn't have to be a young long-hair, graduating hippie-cum-laude, to see that the more things change the more they remain the same. The Eastern establishment stopped the Western Reagan challenge, and though President Gerald Ford may well be a nice guy the hottest political property the GOP has had in a generation was, for better or worse, forever retired. Ronald Reagan's age (65) assures that he will never be another threat to the great Atlantic to Pacific Gee Oh Pea "company." Politics as usual.
But the convention was no coronation like the Democrat selection of candidate Jimmy Carter. There was some contest and some excitement. And the Idahoans played their share in the game.
In the last ditch stand to extend national convention's voting beyond a first ballot decision which was almost sure to go for Ford a dramatic ploy was offered.
As far as Symms' friend McClure is concerned, at least one confidant was heard to tell him (Symms) that if McClure had not surprised us with his vote for OSHA and the pay raise for congress (with escalator yet), perhaps Symms would not have been quite so goosey about the liberal switch by Reagan.
Who knows? Some day, maybe, this ticket balancing crap will get to be "bad press." If it ever does, it'll be partly due to politicians who offer principles - not promises. and fewer surprises.
Hats Off to the League
By Ralph Smeed
Lewiston News-Tribune
September 6, 1976
Hats off to the League of Women Voters. At least those women at the national level are to be congratulated for having been chosen to "sponsor" the presidential debates recently suggested by President Gerald Ford at his national convention at Kansas City.
On the matter of political debates a few observations are in order:
(1) Almost without exception debates are requested by the challenger and especially if he or she is the underdog.
(2) The incumbent, almost always, is foolish to agree to debate since he has little to gain and much to lose, especially if he is fairly popular. He merely provides exposure to his competitor. Sort of a gift, so to speak.
(3) The news media generally claims to support the idea of political debate, but is strangely silent when liberal incumbents are threatened by articulate opponents.
(4) The public is thought to favor debates if fairly conducted and done in a lively and interesting manner.
(5) All too often they are a miserable flop if they do come off, since the above questions call for so many safeguards.
(6) Last, but not least, they often degenerate to a mere contest of cleverness and personality.
But a series of debates between presidential candidates is sure to add pressure in this direction so let us watch with interest for some candor, some honesty and some strategy.
If the League of Women Voters deserves congratulations for their part in the big debate it does not automatically follow that their claim to be nonpartisan is very meaningful. Their stands on public issues usually finds them on the liberal, left or socialistic leaning side of about everything. However, thanks to the intellectual bankruptcy of both political parties one cannot place all the blame on the usually conscientious female do-gooders.
But perhaps most interesting of all will be if we watch the news media's position in the upcoming debate monkey-business.
No doubt Ford's willingness to debate his Democrat challenger, Jimmy Carter, who's ahead in the polls, will be used to harass First District Congressman Steve Symms to debate his challenger Ken Pursley, a Boise lawyer who wants to turn politician. Since Pursley is a really quite liberal fellow trying awfully hard to sound conservative, we can expect the media to push hard for Symms, who's ahead now, to agree to debate.
While not ALL the media is after the popular Symm's political hide - some of them actually like him - the big media manglers will be out for blood.
But before Symms decides whether to debate he should ask the media where they were: (1) When Governor Cecil Andrus adamantly refused to debate his challenger then Lt. Governor Jack Murphy, and (2) when Idaho Senator Frank Church refused to debate his challenger Bob Smith. A semblance of a negotiation toward meaningful debates was a sham and a charade.
A series of meaningful and honestly structured debates between political competitors is not so easy to come by as it might sound, but before Symms agrees to debate the liberal press's standard bearer, Pursley, he should consider getting a contract from the media.
Since he did debate Democrat challenger Ray Cox in the last election, Symms established he's no coward, but he's open to the label of sucker if he doesn't get members of the media to "sign in blood" (theirs, not his) that they agree to be as tolerant of him this time as they were of their pals - Andrus and Church last time.
Communists on Ballot
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
September 16, 1976
Guess who wants to get on the ballot in Idaho? Why the Communist Party, of course. Now then, this may come as no surprise to some people, but others just might care a little. Caring is said to be bad these days.
Last month Gus Hall, the Communist Party candidate for president, filed a declaration of candidacy seeking to get on the Idaho general election ballot as an independent.
Secretary of State Pete Cenarrusa met with Attorney General Wayne Kidwell and determined that since Idaho's law was silent about independent candidates, Hall couldn't run.
But that's not all there is to the story. Informed sources tell me there will be a law passed next session of the legislature allowing independent presidential candidates to get on the Idaho ballot. "We must," they say, "In order to comply with the law."
Well, I don't know about that, but there's more yet to the story. Earlier this year the Communist party itself tried to get on the Idaho ballot and came up with only 200 signatures short of 1,500 required. Of course they were turned down by the Secretary of State's office, since they didn't have quite enough names on their petition.
What just amazes this writer is the almost total aplomb and ho-hum with which the Idaho news media seems to look at this kind of near miss.
I say near miss because I am not anxious to see these excellent salesmen on the ballot in Idaho. Not so much because I don't like Communists (the few I've met seemed to be quite intelligent as a matter of fact. WRONG, but intelligent) but because all they have to offer is more government.
Some say this might not be altogether bad since both the Democrat party and the Republican party seem to advocate "more" government. The phrase is often used "me too, but we're more efficient."
Well, here might be where we fall down. It certainly does not follow that since both political parties seem forever to pass more and more laws (i.e., more government, generally speaking) that they are therefore communists. Not at all.
As a matter of fact some of my best friends advocate, openly, more government. I'd be quite willing to trust my interest in this whole argument that these friends of mine are not even Communist sympathisers. But neither do they advocate the overthrow of our government by force and violence. That seems to me to be an important distinction.
Maybe I'm a bit paranoid. I hope not, but I am a flagwaver. I love my country - if not my government - and I want to see the system of private ownership and free entry into the market preserved for the "outs" as well as the "ins". Don't you?
The two party system, as we know it today, however, seems almost blind to the rather obvious similarity between facism, socialism and more government. It seems to me that this is especially true of the Republicans, for they should know better. The big government Democrats have been in charge of congress almost totally for 40 years so we can hardly expect change from them.
But the Republicans seem bent mostly on "getting elected" - the Democrats mostly on staying in office.
The Communists seem bent mostly on getting on the ballot. But guess which of the three parties has done the best job of selling their principles and doing their homework? You guessed it. And not ALL of their salesmanship requires violence.
Work Permits
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
September 23, 1976
Well the bureaucrats are after the little guy, again, or I should say - little gals. This time they're after the baby-sitters. No, not the teenagers next door, but the lady next door who wants to stay home, be a housekeeper, a mother perhaps AND earn a few bucks at the same time by getting into a small business. This time in Caldwell, Idaho.The mistaken concern over big business tends to obscure one of the great forces in American society, the small businessman (or woman). Small firms employ well over half of the privately employed labor force of the United States and produce half of the national dollar volume of sales and revenue.
One of the areas of the economy which is particularly suited for small operators is the service business. It is here that the giants fear to tread because the small competitor has such lower overhead costs.
At least they DID have until the idea of occupational licensing was discovered by the new social planners.
Until fairly recently it was mostly the lawyers, doctors and the labor unions which pushed the idea of limiting their competition. They did this by getting a law passed which required a license to work in a particular trade, business or profession.
In the Soviet Union they're more honest, they call theirs a "work-permit," but our planners are a bit more sophisticated. Indeed they often reason that since those in a given trade often ask for regulation, i.e., licensing, it must be sincere and not simply more government. Merely a license they say, almost like the perennial automobile license plate.
But when one looks at it another way, the term work-permit is a more meaningful term than license.
Quite recently a local housewife, whose husband is successfully employed in a professional capacity by the government, ran an ad in the newspaper. She wanted to do babysitting. Central location, fenced in back yard ... and gave her phone number.
The ad ran less than a week. Then came a letter from the great state of Idaho's Department of Health and Welfare: "... You are operating an unlicensed day care facility in Caldwell." She wasn't yet, you understand, but the social caseworker was fast after this budding - no doubt greedy - capitalist, about to rip off the dull-witted parents.
The letter quoted in part the Idaho Code 39-1220 saying this housewife would be guilty of a misdemeanor if she didn't get a license. They needed child care centers, the letter explained, but only AFTER they'd been licensed.
The letter's final paragraph sort of sums up the whole collectivist-leaning mess: "If I don't hear from you regarding this matter, I will presume you do not wish to be licensed. The names of all day care operators choosing to remain unlicensed are turned over to the Prosecuting Attorney.", signed by the Social Caseworker.
I do not to embarrass the caseworker who is perhaps just doing her job as set up by Idaho's do-gooder politicians in the legislature, but good gawdamighty is there no END to more and more government?
Nurse Suspension
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
September 30, 1976
Quite recently the Idaho Board of Nursing suspended the license of Jolene Tuma of Twin Falls, Idaho to practice the "art" of nursing.
It is of course impossible to treat such a matter in great detail in a commentary like this, but the story has such big implications yet received such superficial media treatment that a few observations are in order.
(1) A license is in reality a work-permit issued by the government. To practice nursing in Idaho such a permit is compulsory. (2) Nurse Tuma was nursing a patient under chemotherapy treatment for terminal cancer. The patient asked her about other possible remedies. (3) Nurse Tuma told the patient about laetrile, a drug made from apricot pits. Said drug is illegal in the U.S.A., but legal in several other countries. (The Food and Drug Administration says there is no proof that the controversial drug is effective. They don't say it's harmful, you understand, just perhaps ineffective, hence illegal.)
Egad! Somebody must have "lost their marbles." One wonders, in a case of such an event, if finding MORE marbles had been the subject of a last ditch search for a remedy, perhaps the FDA would have outlawed the game of marbles.
Seriously, I am particularly interested in this case for at least four reasons: (1) The nurses reasonable freedom; (2) the cancer patient's rights; (3) the effect to restrict no examination at all, and (4) because I have a friend, a large contractor in California, who swears he was cured of cancer by this controversial drug.
Now then, many were interviewed by the news media about the nursing board's suspending Tuma's license. Almost everybody connected with the affair. Everybody, that is, except the patient and or her relatives. SOME coverage.
I do not intend to take this matter lightly, but I do want to suggest that the idea of a free market does not, i.e., should not, be blamed for so many failures as it is all too frequently these days. Why, at least in the case of "establishment medicine", should the government say who should get a "work permit?"
Regardless of many wel-intentioned people who still support the old idea of occupational licensing, the basic idea of restrictions placed thereby on individual jobs needs serious scrutiny. For example, in New York City it costs over $30,000 for the RIGHT to drive a taxi cab.
"As long ago as 1938 a single state, North Carolina, has licensed 60 occupations," says Dr. Milton Friedman, famous economist of the University of Chicago.
Friedman claims licensing is hardly ever suggested by a public who's been cheated, but always by members of the occupations itself, seeking to limit competition in a free market.
Even Idaho's Governor Cecil Andrus this year signed a bill to outlaw public accountants on a "dying class" basis. Any new accountants must be certified - by the government, of course. (I have asked Andrus if he realized what he signed, but so far have received no reply). Everybody seems to be trying to play God.
Now back to the apricot-pit drug, laetrile, nurse Tuma and the terminal patient. Thoughtful people will disagree, of course, but surely the question of freedom of the press is of no more importance to the media then freedom of inquiry was for the cancer patient? If so - how has HER freedom fared in all this?
Some eminent medical doctors see vitamin therapy (laetrile is Vitamin B-17) as a great opportunity for cancer treatment, some doctors do not. But isn't it about time we stop asking the government to prevent experimentation and allow the customers to decide what will serve the customers the best? That's what a free market is all about, you know.
Really Folks, Not All the Media's Bad
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
October 2, 1976
Perhaps critics of the news media, many of whom are becoming much more vocal as well as irate have been overlooking something.
Reed Irvine's "Accuracy in Media" and TV Guide's "Newswatch" have been screaming long and loud, and properly so, about the national media's bias and slanted programs. This writer as well has made some soft spoken and casual criticisms of the journalists.
But SOME good cheer is called for, maybe even a compliment or two for the newsmen.
Three items appeared recently which suggest perhaps their "eyes" for freedom and fairness has not died after all. Indeed there may be an emerging awareness, however tiny, that freedom of the press is not the only freedom they want to defend.
Not long ago on the outskirts of my home town an elderly lady asked permission of the local zoning board to place her mobile home on the lot occupied by her adult children.
The lady is 75 years old, has a heart condition, diabetes, high blood pressure and hardening of the arteries.
But the lady's arteries were not nearly so hard as the hearts of the zoning board who said "nothing doing" to her request - doesn't conform to the government's plan, you know.
But an enterprising reporter god hold of the story, put it on the front page and all of a sudden the lady's "second class" house became a "first class" house. The zoning board gave in, thanks to a freedom-oriented newsman.
In Florida there's a Scotsman, Ian Milloy, who applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) for a work permit to drive his private tour bus across the state line into Tennessee for some grade schoolers.
The RETIRED Milloy was doing so well with his stereo-equipped bus and his charm and talents as a story-teller at roadside picnics that his business thrilled both students and travel agents.
But the ICC said no. It did not conform to their idea of the government's competition plan. Greyhound and Trailways protested - and that was all it took.
But again, another freedom-oriented reporter got hold of the story. It made the prestigious Wall Street Journal. Other papers, TV shows and editorial writers picked up the story and Milloy raised cane himself, even getting the Department of Justice into his act.
The ICC announced that it would "reconsider" his case. That IS some good news. Let's just hope Milloy, the canny Scotsman, lives long enough to survive the bureaucracy.
Comes now "The New Times," a magazine of foreign affairs in the Soviet Union in an altogether different attack on physicist and human rights advocate Andrei Sakharov. They recently took him to task for "slanderous inventions" about Soviet society (i.e., the government plan, of course).
But unlike much of the American news media the Russian magazine pronounced, was suffering from the phenomenon known as "pathological individualism."
Our media is not all bad, folks. SOME of it, even here in the U.S.A. is seen by some people to be "pathological" in its concern for OTHER people's freedom.
Semantic Jungle
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
October 7, 1976
The other day I re-discovered a fabulous book written by the Japanese semanticist, Dr. S. I. Hayakawa of the University of San Francisco. It is an updated version of the most popular book on language ever published, and it is called "Language in Thought and Action." It is, of course, about words, but in an interesting and fun way - it's about almost everything else, too.
If you'd like some entertainment and a little relief from the book-tube get yourself a copy and be prepared to enjoy yourself.
For example, an early passage talks about certain verbal "unmentionables" - words of such strong emotional connotations they cannot be used in polite discourse:
"In English, for example, the first to come to mind are words dealing with body waste and sex. We ask filling station attendants where the "lounge" or "rest room" is, although we usually have no intention of lounging or resting. "Powder room" is another friendly substitute for the same facility, also known as "toilet," ... Indeed it is impossible in polite society to state, without having to resort to baby-talk or a medical vocabulary, what a "rest room" is for. (It is to wash your hands.)
In a later passage Hayakawa quotes the Arizona Lath and Plaster Institute as crying out for speakers to cease and desist in the use of the term "plastered" as a synonym for "drunk as a skunk." It is demeaning to their dignified and respectable industry, they say.
Then, getting down to parallels with the current political season, the word-merchants book quotes again: "CONTROVERSY equalizes fools and wise men in the same way - and the fools know it."
Late in the pages of this fabulously perceptive Japanese professor's book he hits upon a dandy about drifters: "They drift from one church, political party of "new thought" movement to another; they may drift from one psychiatrist to another if they are educated, or from one fortuneteller to another, if they are not ... that hits them just right.
Now THAT caught my eye. Clearly, this Hayakawa saw a connection between politicians and fortune tellers. Hooray for Hayakawa! Every year more people are beginning to see the same connection. No wonder so few people are taking the trouble to go vote at election time. They're not so dumb as some people think.
All this semantic monkey-business reminds me of another popular word, especially when used in a political context. That word is "moderate." The dictionary says it is the "opposite of extreme: to avoid excess."
Now then most folks think moderate is a good word and would like to see our government avoid extremes and excesses. If this is true perhaps we should consider whether or not we have an excess, in congress, of liberals or conservatives; and whether congress itself is mostly liberal or mostly conservative.
Of course, Congress makes the laws. Congressmen do not. Congressmen merely vote to influence the law making body. That's ALL they can do. Heaven knows that's usually enough.
Which brings me to the basic point of all this. Words, words, words. It is indeed a semantic jungle we're in. Conservative, liberal, extreme, moderate, politician, bureaucrat, etc., etc., ad infinitum. For Idahoans at least, it seems to me that if one is a genuine political moderate, and if he wants to use his influence in that direction, he must vote for 1st District congressman Steve Symms the conservative. Because of course, the congress is so overwhelmingly liberal already. Moderation would NOT be yet another liberal.
Interestingly enough Dr. Hayakawa is also running for congress this year. Who knows if both Symms AND the semantics professor are elected they might co-author a real fun book. It could be entitled: "Politics, a diarrhea of words and a constipation of thought."
Both men deserve a medal for their colorful use of words mixed with some candor and some common sense.
Cutting Pals
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
October 14, 1976
At a recent informal meeting of well-known businessmen, a comment was made by a prominent journalist. It referred to this writer's frequent, if friendly, jousts with the press: "Ralph Smeed is living proof that not ALL the news media are in bed together."
He referred, of course, to my many criticisms of the media and their paranoid resistance to make meaningful criticisms of their contemporaries. Some call it a kind of "honor among thieves," however, many doctors and lawyers follow a similar path.
But line in all generalizations, exceptions DO happen. Comes now an editorial in the Valley News-Times of Meridian, Idaho, taking severe exception to Boise's Idaho Statesman condemnation of Idaho Power's rate structure, i.e., giving volume discounts to big users.
Although the editorial does not mention the Boise newspaper by name, it's rather obvious who it meant. Let me quote: "... large users of electricity pay less per kilowatt hour than residential customers who use relatively small amounts of power. Many newspapers have decried the practice, claiming those least able to afford electricity end up paying the most for it." Ergo, Idaho Power rips off the little guy.
What else is new, you ask? Well, I'll tell you. First of all, the editor, Steve Matlock, who wrote the editorial is new - new to Meridian anyway. (He is formerly of Lewiston, Idaho.) Secondly, a newspaper response to the Statesman's criticism is new. Matlock continues, "But what strikes us is the hypocracy of the editorial offensives particularly in the continuing debate on the Pioneer power plant."
The editorial went on to explain that newspapers sell advertising space on the very same principle, i.e., volume discounts: "Those who advertise the least - pay the most per column inch."
The young editor concluded by saying, "Newspapers, including this one, believe this is a fair, equitable and just system. Fair is fair. Constructive criticism is the basis for a free press, but let's not assign guilt before checking our own houses."
Now, gentle reader, THAT may not impress you, but it sure enough impresses me. I just hope when this young editor gets together next time with his colleagues that he clings to what seems to be some gutsy and unusual candor as well as some intellectual honesty.
All of which is not to say that Matlock is the only honest or candid newspaper editor in the state, but he maywell be the youngest. And if he is, he may need to remind his peers of the press, since they're likely to lean on him for criticizing a fellow member of the media of something the late Adlai Stevenson once said, "An editor is a person who separates the wheat from the chaff - then prints the chaff."
Stevenson went on to say, "I am also concerned when I see the extent to which we are developing a one-party press in a two-party country."
Good point, it seems to me, although Stevenson may be wrong about our having a two-political-party country.
Good point, it seems to me, although Stevenson may be wrong about our having a two-political-party country. Anyway, I doubt that today he could substantiate much more than "a dime's worth of difference" between the two.
If that is so, perhaps the young editor from Meridian has put his journalistic finger on one of the reasons.
Symms, Pursley and Inflaction
By Ralph Smeed
Lewiston News-Tribune
October 31, 1976
In a recent column I commented on a suggestion made by the late and great Will Rogers as to how to get rid of what was then a giant surplus of cotton. He said, "People could stuff it in their ears and avoid having to listen to campaign speeches."
Well, Nov. 2 should give us some relief. That's election day and thank Heaven! Whether or not we like the "choices" offered they'll have to stop the accusations and the promises for a while, with or without the cotton.
But let us not despair in all this monkey-business. After all it's costing a lot of money, so we ought to learn all we can - if we can. It's out money they're spending, you know, not theirs.
Having said this, we might begin by trying to state the problem more clearly Now that may sound easy, but words get in the way. Especially when the words come from politicians. All too often they tend to encourage us to permit words to act as barriers between us and reality, instead of as guides TO reality. Many people do this, but politicians are worse. Let me illustrate.
Last week, Ken Pursley, Democratic candidate for First District congressman, speaking at the College of Idaho, said his opponent's questionnaire was an "insult." Now then, my dictionary defines the word insult as: "a remark meant to hurt one's feelings." What the Democrat challenger probably meant was that he disagreed with his opponent's views in said questionnairs. But "disagreed" wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings, nor would it be likely to inspire any potential voters who were seeking ammunition to use against incumbent congressman Steve Symms.
Pursley went onduring his lecture at the college to use the word "inflation" in a rather convenient way, especially for his particular point of view.
Now then, there are two popular definitions of the word inflation, unlike the word "insult," so I went to the newest dictionary that was available: "The Random House dictionary of the English Language unabridged edition ($35 and four inches thick). Most libraries and most good bookstores have it along with various Webster's. The first definition says inflation means "an increase in the supply of money and credit." This is something that only the federal government can do. Ironically the constitution, which Symms and his supporters are so big on these days, right next to the Bible itself gives them this power. No one else has this "power to coin money and regulate the value thereof" as set forth in the constitution.
The second definition which is also popular, but secondarily so in most dictionaries, defines inflation as "an increase in prices." There are variations of these two definitions, but the major thrusts are as I've outlines. The first definition calls logically for blame to fall on the government and the second definition, i.e., "high prices" tends more to let the blame fall upon business and therefore tends to call for more regulation by the government. Of course the first definition would call for a "simple" solution, namely, less government.
Candidate Pursley did not see fit to tell his audience that there WERE two definitions to this key word in his lecture. Perhaps he didn't know - many people don't. Which brings me to my central point of our trying to define our problems, again, "words get in the way."
Let me hasten to say that Pursley is not the only one at fault for the semantic jungle we're in and for double meanings for words. Of COURSE, he'd use the particular meaning that suits his purposes. He wants to get elected. So does Symms, but who wants to beat a politician over the head with a dictionary merely to discover precisely what he means?
Pursley's pamphlet, distributed by the AFL-CIO, says Symms "Tried to kill job safety and health laws," also "opposed mine safety." Now, assuming Pursley wants to get elected and if voters believe THAT - well, I'll take the dictionary. Maybe if he wins, I'll beat Symms over the head with it. I'd like to.
Libertarians
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
November 4, 1976
Having received several phone calls quite recently from several of my Republican friends who are running for the Idaho State legislature, I'd like to make a few observations. There men are concerned about a rather new phenomenon on the American political scene in general and the Idaho scene in particular, namely the Libertarian Party. Candidates for several house and senate seats have filed and are running on competition with my Republican friends, or friends of theirs.
Quite obviously, in a tight race, a minority candidate could draw enough votes from the other candidate whose story was most nearly like his own to throw the election.
Of course this has happened before. When two candidates were about evenly divided for support the third one enters and throws the race to the least desirable of all, that is, two candidates of somewhat similar points of view compete - thus assuring their opponent will win.
A case in point is the race for the Idaho senate seat now held by Lyle cobbs of Boise, a moderately conservative Republican. He is being challenged by Republican turned Democrat Bill Onweiler, a former member of the House of Representatives and a really quite liberal fellow.
Comes now Lee Frenon of Boise. He's running for the Libertarian Party ticket for the above senate seat. If the election is a close one he could well give the race to Onweiler whose views are generally thought to be farther from his than those of Cobbs.
So one can easily see why these Republicans are genuinely concerned about the potential danger to their man Cobbs. They call me because my views are quite libertarian oriented and they hope I could help talk the libertarians out of running for office in the tight races. I respect their concern. As a matter of fact I share it - some of it, at least. But the libertarians have a mind of their own, and after discussing the matter with them, I'm not so sure that they are not more right than one might think.
For years the hassle between those Republicans bent on a position of more attention to principle than pragmatism has divided men of good will. Sometimes it has made bitter enemies of former political pals, but the fact remains that in a power struggle the pragmatists are right. The name of the game is to win, especially in the short run.
In the long run it's something else. As the famous economist Henry Hazlitt has so sharply put it: "What is good in the long run is almost always bad in the short run - and vice versa." He refers to economics, of course, but it's a good point.
In the long run the Republicans have lost the idealism so necessary to sustain the interest of the youth. In the short run, to stay in power or get elected they've said, "me too." Well, the long run has arrived. This is the reason they've found it so difficult to get the young people and those who think young, into party politics. The GOP's afraid of new ideas since it's hard to get elected on them, that is, unless you have idealism. It's hard then, too, but you don't care when you know what you're for - when you can crusade for a cause or an idea you believe in.
Profit Motive
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
November 25, 1976
Ever hear of the town dummy who could not win for losing? Well the prime sap for losing these days seems to be the business community, but all too often they've got it coming, especially when they talk about the word profit. Here's an example.
One of the important newspapers in the valley recently reprinted an editorial from the Miami Herald on the subject of the Teamster's Union giant pension fund.
Said editorial suggested that banks were robbed just because "that's where the big money is." Good point, okay? The Miami writer continued, "and the Teamster's Union became the target for organized crime for that reason. The money piled up by the billions making it available - to build gambling casinos, country clubs, for-profit hospitals and but out operations in general.
A "bust out" operation, I'm told, demands a profit no matter what. Now then, let's get the editor's picture: bank robbery, big money, organized crime, billions, gambling casinos, seekers after profit at any price, and hospitals - yes, ou heard right, hospitals that run for a profit - side by side and all in the same category.
Now how's that for your typical chamber of commerce "profit is not a dirty word" case? Most chamber's are too dull to realize just why profit is too a dirty word, but there is a sample for their horror file which should make even the national chamber awaken from their typical snooze.
The editorial made a good point or two, to be sure, but how in Heaven's name can even the local chamber of commerce afford their annual "profit is not a dirty word" crusades while their own editors and publishers continue to bad-mouth the very crux of those very same ideas.
*****
The citizens of Caldwell, let me hasten to add, are in the process of getting a brand new, up-to-date first class hospital. It will replace the one built by community donations about 1950. I might also add that despite Herculean efforts by many fine public spirited citizens the old hospital was about to go bankrupt.
Well, along came the Hospital Corporation of America and snatched Caldwell's medical facility from the jaws of financial disaster. HCA is one of those hospital companies which operate "for profit."
*****
Just why the word profit is such a trigger word is somewhat evidenced by the ever more prolific use of the term "non-profit" in an almost revered tone of voice. Think about it.
The public thinks manufacturers average making about 28 cents out of every dollar of sales after taxes. They don't. They make about FOUR cents. For all non-financial corporations including manufacturing the after tax profit was 2.3 cents.
A lot of people don't believe that big supermarkets make only a penny and a half of profit on the sales dollar. Just you try telling them and see if they believe you.
Most people in Caldwell are thankful the capitalistic HCA makes a profit, but that, too, may soon become unpopular. On the same day's editorial page, mentioned above, appeared a column about TV and deaf people. Fortunately, it didn't bad-mouth the word profit. It bad-mouthed the word capitalism. No wonder we keep losing.
Hall and Symms
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
December 2, 1976
Hall Bill Hall, editor of Idaho's most influential liberal daily newspaper actually flipped his political lid? Has this super-articulate and liberal spokesman actually JOINED his political enemy - First District Congressman Steve Symms?
A recent editorial of Hall's asked the following question: "Is our own military, in its anxiousness to defend us from foreign threats, leaving us ever more vulnerable to internal destruction by spending a once-robust nation to death?"
Well, I'm not sure just exactly what has happened, except that the likelihood of these two modern mavericks of the Idaho political scene getting together is only slight. In fact they are not likely to agree on anything unless, perhaps, for the wrong reasons.
One exception might be that these two boat rockers are both sincere flag wavers. Each in his own way sees himself as a kind of super patriot - albeit love of country seeming to make as many strange bedfellows as does politics. Perhaps, again, some confusion exists between the terms: love of one's country and love of one's government. To each's credit, neither Hall nor Symms have been shy in lampooning the latter.
In any event, the likelihood that these two public figures have joined hands is, of course, not very great. Still, the suspicion lingers. When Hall uses the terms "vulnerable to internal destruction" and "spending a once-robust nation to death", it sounds strangely familiar to his political adversary, Symms. The latter has been saying long and loud that, "Our government's fiscal insanity is leading us to ruin." But there the similarity between the two schools of thought seems to end.
It is also sad, but true, that in this regard Symms and Hall re both all too typical of their philosophical comrades. That is to say the orthodox liberals would seem willing to risk national bankruptcy by way of spending for the welfare state, while the orthodox conservatives seem just as willing to take a similar risk in favor of almost unlimited spending in a world wide arms race.
How does one go about getting these two super-patriots together - or groups together who are led, or at least influenced, by the likes of Symms and Hall?Well, first of all let's realize that they are indeed together now, but in an obtuse and unintended sort of way. Consider this. Since their comrades in congress cannot agree on which program to spend the money on - they compromise. They spend it on both the welfare and the military.
Of course, if the federal government could not PRINT "their" money the congress would have to make meaningful compromises for spending a limited amount of the people's resources. Limited resources could mean limited government, or so says Symms.
Which, in a way, may have been what editor Hall tried to convey when he said, "What common sense cannot accomplish in containing the international arms race - cost will." Admittedly, this is only an agreement of sorts. A mutual concern maybe. (He was silent on the printed-money matter.) But some agreement obtains, nonetheless.
Well, we might all agree that we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. But in the case of the military and the welfare state - Symms, Hall and their respective political pals seem to have found a way.
One thing, though, our economy and our freedoms seem to be getting a belly-ache.
One Person's Impact
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
December 9, 1976
One hears a rather alarming question raised all too frequently these days. That question is, "Well, what can ONE person do?"
Said query mostly refers to the country's, or world's, state of affairs and usually is not limited to a partisan concern, but is generally shared by members of most all political persuasions. Such concerns can sometimes be looked upon with some enlightenment and even some fun, for example:
With respect to the broad area of dissent it is unfortunate that change is looked upon as only possible through some sort of political maneuver - usually an election or a politician's edict. The late George Bernard Shaw shed some light on the matter of change when he said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable man attempts to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Whether one sees the editor of the Lewiston Morning Tribune (Lewiston, Idaho) as "unreasonable" or not, one has to admit that he is much concerned with the matter of change. The fact that he is only one person matters very little to this talented, if usually liberal, polemicist. Last week his target for change was the U.S. postal service.
This time he challenged the world's largest monopoly that "... it would be a welcome change if the agency focused less for awhile on how to balance the books, i.e., raise the rates, than on how to speed the mails."
While for reasons I don't entirely agree with, Bill Hall went on to make other classic comments, both accurate and humorous about the giant postal service. Suffice it to say that his editorial was very, very critical of the huge postal organization and its poor service of carrying the mail.
Notwithstanding the fact that Hall's editorial did not complain of the government's very own monopoly, he passed up an opportunity with which his contemporaries often scold their adversaries. Namely, why not propose an alternative?
A man from Seattle, Wash., however, did just that. (Perhaps Hall missed seeing the article in the Seattle Times Aug. 6, 1976). Herm Wilderman of that city began delivering Water District billings for two districts on July 6. He guaranteed 48 hour delivery for 8,000 billings, but said it was all done within 36 hours or less.
He charged 7 1/2 cents for a post card the post offices charges 9 cents to deliver and 10 cents for a letter his "competition" charges 13 cents to carry. "Within a year we would have been serving 100,000 homes," he said. He planned to go statewide.
Then along came Postal Inspector Ray Havor. Havor told the water districts they could not have Wilderman deliver their bills. There is a law which gives the government a monopoly on first class mail delivery.
In less than a month, Wilderman was out of business. He said he has an attorney and will fight the postal service in court.
Now then, you may still ask, what CAN one man do? Well, for starters, you might mount a one man campaign yourself to inform the editor (and other news men) in YOUR town that change is actually possible and private alternatives do indeed exist. We need to hear this.
Sometimes newsmen, too, overlook these little gems of news.
Squinting Through Ma Bell
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
December 16, 1976
Good news! The new Boise Valley telephone books are just being delivered by Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, affectionately referred to as "Ma Bell". (But don't throw your old books away just yet. I'll tell you why in a moment.)
The virtues of telephone company service in America are well known and forever praised world wide. Their reputation for courtesy, efficiency and return on stockholder's investment has become almost a national institution. They are deserving of and have received much praise, especially when compared with another gigantic monopoly - the government's U.S. Postal Service.
It is, of course, against the law to compete with either of these "Jolly Green Giants" without the government's permission.
Now, this isn't all bad. For one thing the telephone companies, just a few years ago, paid out in taxes about the same number of dollars that the post office went in the hole. If memory serves - about $17 billion dollars that year.
But, let's take a closer look at one of Ma Bell's departments that, although highly advertised, gets very little public examination. This is the advertising department itself, often referred to as the "Yellow Pages."
They relate in very interesting ways to that service for which the government grants a market monopoly. Here's one way:
The phone company sells, among other things, telephone services and advertising, including display advertising. Just why they need a monopoly for telephone-book advertising isn't exactly clear. In my opinion the monopoly should AT LEAST be limited to phone service, letting advertising tradesmen furnish advertising in open competition.
One might say, "So what?" But before we dismiss our little inquiry let's consider the fact that in any telephone-sensitive business it is almost mandatory that an owner list his or her business in - not just anybody's yellow pages - but Ma Bell's Yellow Pages.
It's an old idea, but usually thought to be a good one, it's called competition. Or, said another way, free entry into the market. If we grant, just for the sake of friendly argument, the government's right to grant a telephone monopoly, then why does it follow for them to grant also an advertising monopoly? Think about it a little bit.
There are many ways to look at the matter. One way is in terms of the physical aspects of the phone books in 1975 and 1976.
The 1975 book weighs approximately 3 pounds, 7 ounces, the 1976 edition, 3 pounds, 9 ounces. Last year's white pages took up exactly one-fourth the number of pages in the book; the new one about the same. However in terms of a percentage of the books thickness (both books are 1 and 3/8 inches thick), the new book's white page's allotment is even less. Advertising's Yellow Pages even more.
Now here's why you may not want to throw away last year's book: the size of the type in the white pages is MUCH smaller, and has gone to four columns instead of three columns. Except, wouldn't you have guessed it, in the yellow colored advertising section, THEIR type size is still the "old fashioned" larger type - for senior citizens one guesses.
Before you dismiss this trend as "much ado about nothing" - try counting the number of Ma and Pa grocery stores in your new phone directory. They're vanishing.
There's a welcome difference between "Ma Bell" and "Ma Barker", but "Ma and Pa small businesses" seem to fare about the same at the hand of both ladies.
The Idaho Establishment
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
December 30, 1976
Many people see Idaho as a state containing great contradictions, especially along political lines. One of the most dramatic examples is that so many of her same citizens vote for liberal Senator Frank Church and conservative Congressman Steve Symms.
Now then, I have my own theory for this apparent phenomenon and, by the way, I think it's a good one. But more about that another day. My point is that there are other less obvious, but perhaps more significant contradictions.
For example, some months ago two economists from Boise State University wrote a letter to the editor critical of this nation's sugar tariff policy of redistributing the money thus collected on our imported sugar back to our own farmers. The idea being farmers cannot compete against "cheap imports", hence deserve tariff protection.
In other words, these strange professors were advocating a free market - a very strange position indeed, especially when one considers the socialist tendencies usual on most college campuses.
Southern Idaho being a sugar beet growing area could be expected to flare up when its government protection is threatened. Such reaction was loud and swift and came from local farmers all the way up to Arthur Benning, president of the huge Amalgamated Sugar Co., who wrote a detailed rebuttal against the professor's position.
This protest against tree trade is as old as it is understandable, but what is NOT quite so understandable is the protests coming from the university economist's colleagues at B.S.U.
A significant number of their fellow teachers protested that the two economists should not have signed their letters to the editor indicating their place of employment as Boise State University. They reasoned that such controversy tended to bring discredit upon the rest of those teaching at B.S.U.
Since protests seldom come from well wishers, one supposes the other teachers ALSO disagree with the idea of free market economics. The antithesis of the latter is a planned economy, the welfare state or a command economy. Such ideas are generally thought by the business community to come from college professors, but here's an apparent "switch" for government protection from some farmers and especially from a sugar processing corporation president.
Comes now another Idaho industry asking for government protection, i.e., The Idaho Motor Transport Association, the trade association of the truckers (mostly big ones) who hold "work-permits" from the government.
Several days ago at a meeting of the Idaho truckers, our Senators Frank Church, James McClure, Congressman Steve Symms and a representative of Congressman George Hansen were "treated" to a professionally produced movie prepared to lobby against ... Guess What? More government? No, against LESs government. Their pitch was definitely against "deregulation. That's it - FOR government regulation.
Even Senator Ted Kennedy and Ralph Nader are advocating abolishing the Interstate Commerce Commission, i.e., more of a free market.
Where are the advocates of free enterprise in Idaho? Two poor "suckers" at B.S.U., that's where. Two professors who not only are catching hell from their "liberal" colleagues, but also from so-called free enterprise. Small wonder big government gets bigger.
Liberals like to think of themselves as champions of freedom, while castigating conservatives as authoritarians. In fact, BOTH generalizations are nonsense. There are liberty-lovers and authoritarians in both camps. What's more, the libertarians of the right are far clearer about, and contemptuous of, the authoritarians in their own orbit.
Liberty-loving liberals are eternal suckers for the authoritarians of the left who wrap their power-lust in the flag of "compassion."
How about a little compassion for some minorities who don't already have it made? Namely, the small "unregulated" truckers and the small number of professors who, for a welcome change, had the guts to challenge another great contradiction - the Idaho establishment.
|
| |
|
|
The Pragmatic Side of Principle in Pursuit of Public Policy
|
|