The Clinton chronicle. (Clinton, S.C.) 1901-current, September 04, 1969, Image 10
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