University of South Carolina Libraries
DONT DUMP DOGS This area has a problem with stray dogs, particularly in the rural areas. A lady who resides near Clinton re ported last week that in one week she counted four new stray dogs around her house. And there already was quite a pack hanging around. She said, “I can’t feed these dogs. If I do, they just keep hanging around. If I don’t, they sometimes turn wild and kill other animals, such as chick ens, ducks or rabbits. Our only al ternative is to kill them and we hate to do that. People who dump dogs in the country do the farmers a real in justice. They’re just dumping extra problems on us.” Some people lose interest in dogs after they get past the puppy stage. They don’t want to have the dog killed but they don’t want it. So they take it to the country and turn it loose. That’s when the farmers’ problems start There is no dog pound in Clinton or Laurens County but there should be. The nearest dog pounds are in Green wood and Greenville. Both are spon sored 'by the Society for the Preven tion of Cruelty to Animals. There once was a movement afoot to establish a dog pound in Newberry County but it never materialized. Maybe Laurens and Newberry Coun ties could combine their efforts and share the costs of a dog pound. We think this is something deserving of our legislators’ attention. They could perform a real service to our rural citizens, helping to protect them from some of their thoughtless municipal neighbors. NIXONS WELFARE PLANS We have listened with interest to President Nixon’s proposals for wel fare reform and must admit that we have mixed feelings about them. There ar some points in the program which we believe should have been tried long ago. But there are other points that left us cold. This is to be expected. No program that embraces such wide areas as the massive wel fare system could please everyone on all points. We agree with the President on the overall failure of welfare pro grams of the past. They have proven their own ineffectiveness. The wel fare rolls grow, with no end in sight. We agree, too, with the concept of try ing to keep a father in the house. Chil dren need the guidance and the influ ence of a father. We agree with the job training provisions of the President's proposal. We prefer seeing our taxes used to provide career training that would eventually place welfare recipients on private company payrolls. This would make taxpayers of them, and possibly eliminate the dole and other forms of handouts that degrade human beings. We will be quick to complain if the President should default on his pro posal “that all employable persons who choose to accept these payments be required to register for work or job training, provided suitable jobs are available either locally or if transpor tation is provided. Though this is a compromise proposal, it is at least a beginning on the right road. We are skeptical of some of the other proposals. Such points as the basic income for all families is quite similar to the guaranteed annual in come to which we are opposed. But for the moment, we take the positive view and emphasize the parts of the plan we can support. We will be watching, along with millions of other Americans in the coming months as the plan is brought before the Con gress. If the welfare program works, we will be the beneficiaries. If it fails, we will have to seek other solu tions. But at least we will have tried. That in itself is progress. REMEMBER PARTICIPATION? A recent UP1 dispatch described a clean-up campaign conducted recent ly in Sterling Heights, Michigan. The citizens of that Detroit suburb wanted a action of the Clinton River as a rec reation area, but the waterway was a favorite dumping area for people too lazy to dispose of their trash and cast off possessions in the prescribed way. Government agencies dealing with river clean-up projects had no plans tor the Clinton for at least five years. So the people of Sterling Heights de cided to take matters into their own hands. Community work day was the result. The session was attended by about 1,500 volunteers of all ages, male and female. The volunteers worked in flat-bot tomed boats or waded into the water. They went on despite a rainstorm, and the result was a cleaner river for the good of all. It seems unlikely that those who took part in the actual work will ever be seen littering the Clinton River. It is now their river and they’ll protect it for that reason. Actually, the Clinton River project is news only in the context of modern society. A few generations back this type of undertaking was commonplace. They called it by different names— quilting bees, barn raisings, etc. These were community occasions. They were social gatherings designed to benefit the community. Men and women were brought closer by the cooperative at mosphere, which made the work eas ier, even fun. Think back to some of the group- work sessions of your own past and re call some of the fun you had. Did you ever decorate a gym for a school dance? Or decorate cars for a wed ding motorcade? Did you ever take part in a group painting session at some YMCA or orphanage or church? Try expanding on these themes. You’ll be a better person and you’ll live in a better community. And it will truly be your community. "Say, why don't I get up a foursome... Billy Graham, me, and Jackie Gleason..." "Man, that's it! Well call our group 'The Moon Rocks."' Farm Income Gains BY BABSON’S REPORTS INC. WELLESLEY HILLS, MASS.- At this moment in the crop sea son it looks as though net income going to farmers for the current year will reflect a substantial advance over the levels of 1968. This may well be true in spite of continuing increases in the cost of operations and up-trending taxes at minicipal and state le vels. SHAPE OF RISE Assessing figures for the first half of 1969, the Agriculture De partment reported net farm income at an annual rate of $15.6 billion, up 7% from the first six months of 1968. This worked out to the highest level since 1966 and the fourth-best such period ever recorded. The rather sharp jump was traceable to a number of key developments: Well sus tained consumer demand for al most all agricultural and meat products, higher prices for cer tain major items including live stock, heightened efficiency in many farm pursuits, and a gen erally more liberal volume of marketing. If the annual rate of $15.6 bil lion should persist through the remainder of 1969, the take for farmers for the year as a whole would be one of the highest in our history. The all-time pinnacle was touched in 1947 when farm income soared to $17.1 billion. There is, of course, no assurance that this will be achieved, if only because of erratic weather con- ditions in many parts of the coun try that will have some effect on crops yet to be harvested and sold. But on the hopeful side is the fact that livestock is a huge segment of farm production, and prices have been exceedingly fav orable. PROSPECTS FOR FALL Fed cattle marketings should continue above year-ago levels as we move into the fall months; in fact, they may be extremely heavy. After the brisk price ad vances for meat animals in the spring came a midsummer down- drift, and over the period ahead there may be some moderate further decline. But the average is likely to hold well above that for the year before. Pork pro duction could lag a year ago dur ing the autumn because of a ap parent drop in far rowings last spring. Hence, prices may well continue above 1968 levels, with a healthy impact on cash receipts for all kinds of livestock farmers at least through the end of this year. Poultry and eggpricesare also likely to rise slightly above the same period for 1968 despite the well-sustained output anticipated for the remainder of the year. Most dairymen have done well thus far in 1969 in terms of dol- CONSUMER PROTECTION There’s a lot of talk nowadays about protecting consumers and the need to provide them with more information about the vast array of products they buy and enjoy. We believe that the great majority of manu facturers go to untold lengths to turn out trouble- free products, and provide adequate information about their care and operation. Undoubtedly, there are some firms that might do a better job both in quality control and in issuing easy-to-understand instructions. However, the customer has a responsibility, too. No matter how good a job a manufacturer does in consumer education, he can’t do the whole job alone. The customer must be willing to read the instructions that come with a product or appliance. Recently a housewife complained to a manu facturer that her washing machine wasn’t getting her clothes clean. An investigation showed that she wasn’t using any detergent or washing powder. She said she thought the machine supplied the cleaning agent automatically. Yet the use-and-care booklet for the appliance stated the exact amount of deter gent to use. Still another woman complained about her “washer.” It developed that she had purchased a dryer and had it installed. No wonder her wash didn’t come clean. These are two extreme examples but they serve to point up the importance of reading what the manufacturers have to say about product operation. A recent analysis by the National Association of Manufacturers shows that the greatest source of consumer complaints could be eliminated—if the consumer would take the time to read the directions FIRST. Some service organizations point out that 40 per cent of appliance service calls could be eliminated if use-and-care instructions were taken more seriously. The improvement of one product may aflfect the efficient operation of another—so always make sure that you are on the right track by reading directions 2-B—THE CHRONICLE, Clinton, S. C., September 4, 1969 Family Assistance Plan Is Studied lar intake, but it must be ad mitted that in many instances their over-1968 margins will be sliced or even entirely eliminat ed by the unending climb in pro duction costs. WHEAT-PRICE DELEMMA Perhaps the wheat farmer has the least clear idea of what to expect over the period ahead. World wheat production has ex panded way beyond commercial needs. Latest figures place U.S. stocks at 811 million bushels, some 50% above the volume held at the same time 12 months be fore. Both overt and hidden price cuts (Canada has made at least six cuts) by the other exporting countries -- Australia, Canada, and the European Common Mar ket -- have made U.S. wheat virtually non-competitive at sup port prices. The international grains arrangement aimed to fix minimum world prices has col lapsed. So what lies ahead for our wheat farmers? Hope is that the big producing nations will once more boost their price levels enough to make U.S. wheat again competitive. That would permit this country to get its fair share of the export mar ket. If this is not accomplished, we may be tempted to reduce our wheat price -- which would be a cumbersome process at best. And this could be followed by further cuts on the part of the rival nations, putting this coun try right back where we now are. Excessively low prices can lead to the use of what as feed, with a consequent unfavorable reper cussion on our export markets for feed corn. Admittedly, there is a bitter wheat-price war on. Let us hope it will be ended with all the export countries re-es tablishing a sane pricing pro gram. perhaps when the legislative lan guage is written in September. Must a welfare recipient accept any job offered, anywhere? Will there be any recourse for the wel fare recipient who is told to rake leaves or to become Mrs. Jones’ house servant?” “It’s not too hard to figure out what will happen. The liberals in Congress will “gut” the legis lative proposal of the require ment for accepting suitable work. From the liberal standpoint, no erne should be compelled to ac cept work unless it is in a clean, air-conditioned office, at good wages. If the liberals are suc cessful in removing the work requirement, the country will be stuck with a welfare program double the size of the present one -- and with no means at all of getting the shiftless to work. The liberal attitude is fan tastic, of course. Why in the world should it be a crime to insist that a welfare recipient rake leaves, pick up trash or work as a domestic? Someone in this country has to do the more menial tasks. In other lands men and women work as street cleaners or as cooks and regard honest work as dignified. The typical American welfare drone, who lives on the taxpayers, thinks he is too good to do any work. The smart-aleck youngster, brought up on OEO uplift pro grams, often says to an employ er: “Man, no one tells me to do anything.” He expects the tax payers to keep providing weekly payments. Such practices could bring on a taxpayers revolt. Millions of responsible citi zens work hard every day of their lives. Husbands and fathers rise early to drive trucks, un load cargo, and work at heavy construction jobs. Wives and mo thers devote long hours to main taining their homes, doing the laundry and other chores. Many millions of citizens “moonlight” -- have two jobs, that is. If this is the case, how can the nation tolerate a welfare system that al lows able-bodied people to get relief payments while avoiding work. Whether or not the “suitable work” requirement stays in the Nixon adminW*ation FamilyAs- dize poor families is the prft-^distance plan^je program is a vision that a recipient of aid must mistake. It assumes that society BY THURMAN SENSING Executive Vice President Southern States Industrial Council President Nixon’s Family As sistance plan, designed as a ma jor overhaul of the nation’s wel fare system, is coming in for close scrutiny from both conser vatives and liberals. In general, conservatives are unhappy about it. They point out that Richard Nixon, when seeking the presi dency, said of the problem of the poor: “The first need is to re place dependence with independ ence.” The Family Assistance plan, however, actually increases dependence. The number of re cipients of federal aid would be doubled. Therefore, conserva tives are dismayed at the admin istration’s program, finding in it change but not reform. Liberals, on the other hand, are surprised at the content of the plan. And while they don’t like Mr. Nixon’s emphasis on finding suitable work for the poor, they find some features of the program very attractive. Daniel Schorr, the CBS com mentator, gave a liberal’s view of the Family Assistance plan in the August 18 issue of 'The New Leader Magazine,” a publication sponsored by the American La bor Conference on International Affairs. Mr. Schorr said that de spite objections and questions “one must not lose sight of some essential advances (in the Nixon plan). This is an effort to fed eralize the patchwork welfare system. It would expand coverage from 10 million to 22 million A- mericans. . .It does contain the implied commitment to income maintenance for Americans in need. And all this from a Pre sident elected by the welfare- hating ‘forgotten’ middle-class American.” Mr. Schorr, an active liberal, has a point all right. The pro posal is a strange one from an administration that is supposed to speak for the forgotten blue collar and while collar Ameri can who pays his taxes and fam ily bills. The one redeeming feature in the administration plan to sufesi- accept suitable work, if offered. But that’s the one feature unlike ly to win approval in a Congress where liberals are powerful. Mr. Schorr, in commenting on this section of the Family As sistance plan, said: “There are questions still to be answered -- must bear the burdens of 22 mil lion people, whereas every able- bodied adult should be responsi ble for his own maintenance and progress in life. The adminis tration gdyllitzgonizes working people Twith the Family As sistance/ plan. It would do well to shelve the program. Wish I’d Said That It always pays to make friends at every opportunity —your enemies like mine will make themselves.—James A. Williams, Jr., The Southwest Virginia Enterprise. “A man changes a job at least as often as a job changes a man.”—Norman G. Shidle, Society of Automotive Engi neers Journal. Schools perhaps were not as efficient when I was a boy, but they were a lot safer.— Charlie Crawford, Democrat Union, Lawrenceburg, Tenn. Whether our society is too materialistic is not to be meas ured by the amount of wealth that is produced, but by how it is applied.—IPA Facts Our Growing Cities