Letter from Washington

Senator William Roth (R., Del.), one of the Senate’s quiet conservatives, is not taking quietly Mr. Ford’s proposal to give an $80 cash payment to every adult earning less than $5,600 a year. He thinks it is something like the Nixon Administration’s Family Assistance Plan, by another name and by the back door, and he says: “Once again, the Federal Government is planning to embark on an untested social program without any thought or preparation whatsoever. . . . While the relative cost of this program is relatively small compared to similar previous proposals, the Congress would still be allowing the camel’s nose to get under the tent. And once a federal spending program gets into the tent, it is impossible to get it out. Does anyone really believe that, once enacted, Congress would not look at the potential votes these 25 million people represented every election year? Past experience with federal transfer payments of this type proves that there are too many potential voters involved, and that the payments would be increased every two years.” Roth says the program does not even have the redeeming merit of providing substantial relief to anyone who might deserve it: $80 a year comes to only $1.54 a week.

Signs of the time: the week when Americans filed a record number of new claims (970,200) for unemployment compensation, the government announced plans to borrow $28 billion to finance growing deficits, and key Democratic senators predicted that there is “no chance” that Congress will approve one of Mr. Ford’s key economy proposals—the 5 per cent limit on the Social Security cost-of-living increase. Oh, yes, one other thing, the so-called “ceiling” on the national debt is going up from $495 billion to $604 billion by June 30, 1976. Treasury Secretary Simon asked for the huge one-step increase a) because it is necessary, given the inevitable deficits and b) to help shock the public into recognizing the scale of public debt. Congress probably will refuse the one-step increase, preferring the subterfuge of raising the “ceiling” in less shocking increments.

Featured Tags

Senator William Roth (R., Del.), one of the Senate’s quiet conservatives, is not taking quietly Mr. Ford’s proposal to give an $80 cash payment to every adult earning less than $5,600 a year. He thinks it is something like the Nixon Administration’s Family Assistance Plan, by another name and by the back door, and he says: “Once again, the Federal Government is planning to embark on an untested social program without any thought or preparation whatsoever. . . . While the relative cost of this program is relatively small compared to similar previous proposals, the Congress would still be allowing the camel’s nose to get under the tent. And once a federal spending program gets into the tent, it is impossible to get it out. Does anyone really believe that, once enacted, Congress would not look at the potential votes these 25 million people represented every election year? Past experience with federal transfer payments of this type proves that there are too many potential voters involved, and that the payments would be increased every two years.” Roth says the program does not even have the redeeming merit of providing substantial relief to anyone who might deserve it: $80 a year comes to only $1.54 a week.

Signs of the time: the week when Americans filed a record number of new claims (970,200) for unemployment compensation, the government announced plans to borrow $28 billion to finance growing deficits, and key Democratic senators predicted that there is “no chance” that Congress will approve one of Mr. Ford’s key economy proposals—the 5 per cent limit on the Social Security cost-of-living increase. Oh, yes, one other thing, the so-called “ceiling” on the national debt is going up from $495 billion to $604 billion by June 30, 1976. Treasury Secretary Simon asked for the huge one-step increase a) because it is necessary, given the inevitable deficits and b) to help shock the public into recognizing the scale of public debt. Congress probably will refuse the one-step increase, preferring the subterfuge of raising the “ceiling” in less shocking increments.