The Week

■ A new welfare residency law has been proposed by the Senate Finance Committee to replace the state residency requirements overturned by the Supreme Court last year. It provides that a welfare recipient who moves from one state to another cannot collect welfare benefits from the new state until one year has gone by; however, during that period, he will be entitled to continue collecting benefits from the state he has left. Regardless of whether the welfare normally paid by the state to which he moved was lower or higher than that paid by the state which he left, he would for one year receive the lower of the two benefits. If this becomes law, it will obviously be tested in the courts, but inasmuch as it does not suspend welfare for migrants altogether, who knows, the Supreme Legislators might let it stand.

■ The rhetoric is by now familiar: “The election strategy of Nixon-Agnew to ride a torrent of prejudice and racism to victory in a passion-torn country was defeated ignominiously. . . . [The President] united and strengthened his opponents by conducting one of the nation’s most degraded campaigns. . . . Even more unexpected was the victory in California of Wilson Riles, a black man, over Max Rafferty—the national symbol of irrational reaction. The Nixon-Agnew incitement to prejudice was at its most intense but the electorate rejected the appeal to unreason. … As the smoke of battle lifts it is clear that the men of ruthless reaction suffered a stunning rebuke.” This diatribe emanates from the Rev. Ralph D. Abernathy, on behalf of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. It is accompanied by an envelope for contributions, on one flap of which are several blanks for names and addresses, headed: “I suggest that you send your appeal to the following persons without mentioning my name.” By all means without mentioning your name, lest the night- riders stop at your door the next time they set out.

Featured Tags

■ A new welfare residency law has been proposed by the Senate Finance Committee to replace the state residency requirements overturned by the Supreme Court last year. It provides that a welfare recipient who moves from one state to another cannot collect welfare benefits from the new state until one year has gone by; however, during that period, he will be entitled to continue collecting benefits from the state he has left. Regardless of whether the welfare normally paid by the state to which he moved was lower or higher than that paid by the state which he left, he would for one year receive the lower of the two benefits. If this becomes law, it will obviously be tested in the courts, but inasmuch as it does not suspend welfare for migrants altogether, who knows, the Supreme Legislators might let it stand.

■ The rhetoric is by now familiar: “The election strategy of Nixon-Agnew to ride a torrent of prejudice and racism to victory in a passion-torn country was defeated ignominiously. . . . [The President] united and strengthened his opponents by conducting one of the nation’s most degraded campaigns. . . . Even more unexpected was the victory in California of Wilson Riles, a black man, over Max Rafferty—the national symbol of irrational reaction. The Nixon-Agnew incitement to prejudice was at its most intense but the electorate rejected the appeal to unreason. … As the smoke of battle lifts it is clear that the men of ruthless reaction suffered a stunning rebuke.” This diatribe emanates from the Rev. Ralph D. Abernathy, on behalf of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. It is accompanied by an envelope for contributions, on one flap of which are several blanks for names and addresses, headed: “I suggest that you send your appeal to the following persons without mentioning my name.” By all means without mentioning your name, lest the night- riders stop at your door the next time they set out.