THE RECORD

SEPTEMBER 21, 1976

NO. 27

LYNDON B. JOHNSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

EDITOR Hoyt H. Purvis

SOCIAL PROGRAM ANALYZED AT 'HUMAN RIGHTS' SYMPOSIUM

The impact of governmental social programs and the future of such programs were discussed and analyzed by participants from across the nation in the five-day symposium, Toward New Human Rights, in the LBJ Library last week.

The symposium was co-sponsored by the LBJ School, the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, the John F. Kennedy Library, and The University of Texas.

Five separate panels considered major social questions following opening-night speeches by Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., executive director of the National Urban League, and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., historian and writer.

Jordan said the Kennedy-Johnson period is now "widely regarded as a time or unwise social experiments, unfair advantages to minorities, and undue governmental interference in the economy and in private decisions."

"Such a view is mean-spirited and wrong," he declared. "It is the natural response of many forced to share their monopoly on rights and privileges. It elevates the right to oppress and to discriminate above the right to equality."

Schlesinger, who holds the Albert Schweitzer Chair in the Humanities at the City University of New York Graduate School and University Center, said "the extraordinary rush of legislative achievement under Johnson's leadership in the mid‑sixties marked the high point of belief in the national government."

"That was only a decade ago," he continued. "In the years since, we have seen a singular revulsion, even among liberals, if not against the social rights affirmed by the second Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, then certainly against the idea that government—above all, the national government—was the appropriate instrument through which to seek them."

Mr. Jordan called for a halt to "the rear-guard warfare against affirmative action programs that compensate for an unequal past." He suggested the necessity for a "New Bill of Rights" for America's third century that would include:

. "The right to education, preparing all children for fuller, freer lives."

. "The right to economic security, which includes the right to a decent job at a decent wage for all and an income maintenance program that replaces the welfare system."

. "The right to health, and the need for a national health policy that ensures decent health care for all."

. "The right to family stability, enabling families to survive the relentless pressures of poverty and discrimination."

. "The right to safe communities, so that no neighborhood need live in fear of crime and violence."

"And implicit in these rights is the right of our cities to survive, to prosper, and to flourish as the centers of our economy and of our civilization, thus fulfilling their historic role in human history."

Schlesinger asserted that "few people, least of all the voters, want to dismantle the national structure of service and control that has grown up in the last 40 years."

"Polls regularly show that Americans favor less government spending only when it is not seen to deny them personally public help they seek," he said. "By large margins they want more government money spent on health care, on social security, on education, on assistance to the poor, on consumer protection, on housing assistance, on mass transit."

Even those who think they are opposed to government regulation in the abstract would not wish to abolish the federal standards "that keep our competitive system from reverting to the jungle world of King Kong trusts stamping out the smaller animals, of fetid sweatshops, verminous products, and stinking slums," the historian said.

Schlesinger assailed "the cant about over‑selling, over‑promising, raising people's expectations and so on."

"This point is perennially raised against every movement of social advance from the New Deal to the Great Society," he recalled. "It assumes that, had it not been for political leaders stirring them up, the poor would have been happy in their misery and the blacks in their subjugation. What an absurd conception of the social process! I would guess that television had far more than Lyndon Johnson to do with raising expectations in the 1960's."

Jordan said the view of federal responsibilities that he calls "the new minimalism" sees as exorbitant spending programs "that are really basic investments in America's third century."

POLITICAL ECONOMY

The stage for the discussions was further set by an address on The Political Economy of the 1960s by James Tobin, chairman of the Yale University economics department and former member of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Tobin said the macro‑economic strategy of 1961‑1965 was "the indispensable foundation for the important advances in domestic social policy."

"The theme was steady economic growth at full employment, avoiding cycles of recession and inflation," said Dr. Tobin, who served on President Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisors in 1961‑62 and was associated with the council for some years thereafter.

"The Administration regarded growth in national production and income not only as an end in itself but as the fount of economic and fiscal resources for meeting national needs," he explained. "With new resources unendingly provided by growth, public services could be expanded and upgraded, social insurance and income assistance extended, a war on poverty launched—all without divisive conflicts over taxes, the size of the public sector, defense spending, and the distribution of income and wealth.

"Stable, rapid, noncyclical, non-inflationary growth was to be the underpinning of the Great Society." he said.

"The recovery strategy of 1961‑65 was quite successful," Dr. Tobin said. "Five years of uninterrupted advance brought the unemployment rate down to 3.9 percent in January 1966 . . . production measured in constant prices grew more than 5 percent per year over the same period, employment by 2.5 percent per year. Corporate profits after taxes rose by 80 percent. Other economic indicators performed just as spectacularly."

Noting that economists knew that growth at the 1961‑65 pace could not continue, Tobin explained that the aim of macro‑economic policy was to slow demand in 1966 to the sustainable rate of capacity growth, keep unemployment close to four percent, and avoid both recession and inflationary overheating of the economy.

"We will never know whether this was a feasible senario," Dr. Tobin said. "The sudden escalation of the Vietnam war spending in 1965‑66, without compensating tax increases or spending cuts, destroyed the prospects of stable growth not only for the remaining years of the Johnson Administration but for the 1970's as well."

Tobin said "the standard mythology today, erroneous in my opinion, forgets the war and its financing and blames inflation and instability on the economic design itself, on Great Society programs, on government spending and deficits per se. "

Saying that people today "yearn for leadership to restore the spirit of community to American life," Tobin recalled:

"The political economy of the 1960s did not expect citizens to be altruistic. But it did assume a widespread popular faith that government and the economy would give all individuals and groups a fair deal, and a fair share of the fruits of a growing economy. The willingness of the taxpaying majority to help less fortunate citizens depended on such attitudes."

LBJ PARTICIPATION

A number of LBJ School faculty members took part in the program. Acting Dean Jurgen Schmandt introduced Tobin, and Henry David introduced David Hamburg, M.D., president of the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, who chaired the session on The Right to Health and Medical Care.

Two faculty members presented papers at the symposium. David Warner spoke on the Impact on Delivery Systems in the session on health and medical care and Victor Bach spoke on Concept and Programs in the area of housing and community development.

Beryl Radin served as rapporteur for the panel on The Right to Equal Educational Opportunity and Dagmar Hamilton was the rapporteur for The Right to Equality Under the Law.

The LBJ School will publish a book under the title Toward New Human Rights, which will include all the papers prepared for the conference as well as summaries of the discussion. The book is scheduled to be available by February, 1977. It will be published by the Office of Publications under the editorship of David Warner. Nancy Horrell has joined the staff of the Office of Publications to work on this project and also coordinated graphic design and stage setting for the symposium.

(See related items on the symposium in this and future issues of The Record.)

[news item]

Professor Kenneth Boulding, Distinguished Visiting Tom Slick Professor of World Peace at the LBJ School, will speak at a schoolwide seminar at 4 p.m. Wednesday September 29 in the Thompson Center. Boulding's topic will be "Energy and All That: The Hundred Years Crisis."

JOHNSON SPEAKS ON FOREIGN POLICY

Domestic and foreign policy are increasingly interrelated, Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson said at the LBJ School on September 8.

Johnson, speaking at a schoolwide seminar on "Foreign Policy: Theory and Reality," drew on his extensive diplomatic experience in commenting on a variety of foreign policy questions.

"National policy is increasingly a blend of domestic and foreign policy," Johnson said. "Sometimes there will be a conflict between the two which will be hard to work out."

He noted, for example, that questions of commodity imports in addition to being an international trade question, also affect consumers, workers, farmers, and businesses.

"In matters of trade the Department of State sometimes is the only department whose interests coincide with those of the American consumer. The other departments all have specialized domestic interests." Johnson said.

Johnson commented that most important foreign policy questions are multilaterial in nature and cannot be resolved "except in a multilateral context." He said, for example that most of our problems with the Soviet Union involve third parties.

He said that the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT), in which he is the chief United States negotiator, are bilateral "but all other countries, particularly our allies are vitally interested."

Johnson said that his approach to policy matters is "to do all you can to decide where you want to end up on an issue and then work back from where you want to end up, and build your case in that direction."

ARMS LIMITATIONS

Ambassador Johnson answered a number of questions relating to the SALT II negotiations with the Soviet Union.

Johnson commented that in respect to negotiations such as SALT II "there is great value in the dialogue itself—it is a step‑by‑step process."

He said as far as the U.S. is concerned, it is incorrect to speak of an arms race. "We have not been racing," he said, noting that it had been 10 years since the last strategic weapons systems were deployed, although the Trident submarine system is now underway.

Ambassador Johnson was introduced by Sidney Weintraub, Dean Rusk Professor at the LBJ School. Johnson, in turn, commended Weintraub as "one of the top people in the world" on international economic and financial matters. Johnson said, "We need more wedding together of the academic and practical world."

"On the Record"

. Acting Dean Jurgen Schmandt has announced that Keith Arnold has agreed to continue in the administration of the LBJ School as Associate Dean. Arnold also serves as Assistant Vice President for Research of The University of Texas.

. Professor Jared Hazleton is the new chairman of the Dean Search Committee, replacing Professor Jurgen Schmandt, who is now Acting Dean. Schmandt will, however, remain as a member of the Search Committee. The Committee retains the same membership as previously, except for new representatives from the incoming students.

. For the second year the LBJ School has been awarded funds under Title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Title IX provides for support of public service education and the $41,500 grant has two elements: fellowship support and institutional support. Under the fellowship provision, public service education fellowships have been awarded for the second year to Terry Grogan, Susan Engelking, and Roy McCandless and for the first year to Harley Duncan, Howard Solsbery, and Susan Finnegan. Institutional funds were granted for support of the placement office and related placement activites and funds to support faculty attendance at professional meetings. Professor Richard Schott is project director and co‑principal investigator.

. Dr. Marlan Blissett was a panelist in a discussion of energy policy matters on "Austin Issues Focus" on Austin Community Television (ACTV).

. Professor David Eaton spent part of the months of June and July in South America working with the Columbian Ministry of Public Health and the U.S. Agency for International Development on problems of rural health care delivery. The work involved site visits to observe rural health outposts and discussions in Bogota with Ministry officials on procedures to site rural health outposts.

. The Record has been authorized to print this announcement by the editors and publishers of Off the Record:

"The LBJ School regretfully announces that its irregularly scheduled publication, Off the Record, will again be appearing this year. The semi-unique publication deals with important School matters, emphasizing who is doing what to whom, and why. Written contributions are welcome and should be submitted to Castor or Pollux."

. The total enrollment figure for the LBJ School at the beginning of 1976‑77 classes was 130. There are 73 first‑year students and 57 in the second‑year class. There were 114 students at the end of the 1975‑76 academic year.

. The Arts: Years of Development, Time of Decision, a volume based on the 1975 symposium on the subject, has been published by the LBJ School's Office of Publications. The book was edited by Albert A. Blum, who also directed a Policy Research Project on Public Policy Toward the Arts. The publication sells for $3.50 and is available in the Office of Publications.

. The LBJ School intramural football team opened its season on a winning note by defeating the "T.D.'s" 12‑0.

SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NAMED

Class representatives and student members of School Committees for 1976‑77 have been elected.

Representatives from the first‑year class are Reed Greene and Juan Aguilera, while Scott Fleming and Bob Farley are the second‑year representatives.

First‑year students elected to the Advisory Dean Selection Committee are Joellen Snow, J. R. Prestridge, Bonnie Fisher, and Leon Barish.

The 1976‑77 Committees and their members with chairpersons listed first, are:

Student Admissions and Financial Assistance: (faculty) David Warner, Lynn Anderson, Vic Bach, Beryl Radin, Stephen Spurr; (students) Ellen Juran and Cloteal Davis.

Internship: (faculty) John Gronouski, Marlan Blissett, David Eaton, Richard Schott; (ex officio) Elizabeth Hall, Barry Lovelace; (students) Don Preston, Jeff Thomas, Steven Clyburn, Norm Linsky.

Placement: (faculty) G. M. Williams, Jr., Vic Arnold, Lodis Rhodes; (ex officio) Wilda Campbell; (students) Lilas Kinch, Bonnie Young, Terry Grogan.

Faculty Recuitment: (faculty) Sidney Weintraub, Albert Blum, Henry David, Beryl Radin, G. M. Williams, Jr. Student members to be named.

Library and Publications: (faculty) Vic Bach, Stephen Spurr, David Warner; (ex officio) Hoyt Purvis, Kent Talbot; (students) Larry Levitz, John Kamensky.

Speakers: (faculty) Jurgen Schmandt, Dagmar Hamilton, Sidney Weintraub; (students) Bryan Hamon, Marc Dominus, Lynn Cooksey, Greg Roberson.

Education Policy: (faculty) Jared Hazleton, Henry David, John Gronouski, Richard Scott; (students) Stan Kaplan, Lee Solsbery.

Conferences and Training: (faculty) Marlan Blissett, Keith Arnold, Emmette Redford; (ex officio) Lynn Anderson.

Joint Degrees Program: (faculty) Dagmar Hamilton, Albert Blum, Gerard Rohlich; (students) Jim Dodds, John Riddle.

There are also two ad hoc faculty committees. The Computer Utilization Committee will be chaired by David Eaton, with Jared Hazleton and G. M. Williams, Jr., as members. Keith Arnold will chair the Library Technology Committee, which has Vic Arnold, Lodis Rhodes, and Kent Talbot as members.

WEINTRAUB ATTENDS VIENNA MEETING

Dr. Sidney Weintraub attended a meeting of a "group of eminent persons" in Vienna, from September 1‑3, held under the auspices of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. (UNIDO). He was invited to attend as the expert from the United States.

The meeting was held pursuant to a resolution passed in 1975 by the United Nations General Assembly calling for a study on the international cooperation needed to promote industrial development in the developing countries. UNIDO was directed in the General Assembly resolution to make a progress report to the 31st session of the General Assembly, which meets this fall.

The experts from 22 countries who were at the Vienna meeting were asked to give their guidance on the content of the study and what should be included in the progress report. The study itself is expected to take several years and involve the cooperation of many countries and other organs of the United Nations system in addition to UNIDO.

HAYNES DIRECTING MIDDLE EAST RESOURCES‑ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM

Kingsley E. Haynes, associate professor at the LBJ School is on a leave of absence this year to direct the Resources and Environment Program of the Ford Foundation in the Middle East.

Dr. Haynes is the second LBJ School faculty member to serve in the Middle East in recent years. Dr. Jared E. Hazleton spent nearly two years in the area working on various projects, primarily on economic research projects in Jordan.

Haynes said, "The purpose of my appointment is to manage ongoing projects and identify new programs and talent that show exceptional promise either in terms of their possible contribution to economic development or their possible impact on the state of knowledge in the resources and environment field."

Most of the Ford Foundation's current support in the environmental field is devoted to research on public policy implications of such issues as energy supply and demand, management of natural resources, and pollution control, Haynes said. Recently the Foundation has made the first steps to assist developing countries in strengthening their capability to manage their environmental problems.

Haynes noted that although many developing nations assign low priority to environmental consequences of rapid economic development, such as industrial and urban pollution, others have become more conscious of the fact that neglect of environmental damage can hamper economic growth.

PROJECTS UNDERWAY

Examples of the projects being assisted by the Ford Foundation include two projects Haynes is working with in Egypt. The first is what is termed the Western Desert Biome Modelling Project. This is a grant to Egypt to support the training of graduate students and scientists in Egypt and in foreign universities. It also supports a group of Egyptian, U.S., and Australian scientists in developing a computer model of the desert ecosystem in an area that during Roman times was an important agricultural region but has now reverted to desert. This model building exercise is seen as the first step toward reclamation. The second project is the Lake Nasser‑Nile River Project which is a first step at dealing with the harmful effects of the Aswan Dam in Egypt (e.g., increased Nile River erosion, increased soil salinity, decline of the fertility of the delta due to a lack of siltation in the lower river, and a decline in the Mediterranean fisheries). In this project a group of Egyptian and American scientists are constructing an elaborate computer model that will mimic the Nile's ecosystem including water quality, and plant and animal life. The purpose of this model will be to assess the impact of alternative development policies and dam release strategies in order to maximize the benefits of the Aswan Dam and minimize its harmful effects. Haynes is managing the overall development of both projects and participating as a resource person where needed.

These projects parallel some of the work just completed at The University of Texas in the Coastal Zone Management Project. In 1974‑75 Haynes directed a Policy Research Project at the LBJ School on Texas Coastal Zone Management Policy.

Other projects underway in the Middle East area include an environmental training program in the Sudan at the University of Khartoum. This is closely related to the country's development strategy which is highly dependent on large‑scale corporate or estate agriculture that will modify vast portions of the present ecosystem as well as large‑scale drainage and river modification projects associated with both the Blue and While Niles. A similar training program is under discussion in Syria where the impact of the dam on the upper Euphrates in northern Syria is being investigated.

Two regional projects the Foundation is aiding include (1) the Mediterranean Monitoring Project of the UN Environmental Program, which monitors the level of pollution of heavy metals and pesticide derivatives within the Mediterranean basin (2) the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Maritime Project, which links the bordering countries together in a scientific pursuit to develop a biological baseline within the Red Sea and develop strategies to minimize pollution on a sea that is likely to develop rapidly now that the Suez is open and new harbors are being constructed.

Haynes said some interest in coastal zone management also has been shown by interested countries on the Persian/Arabian Gulf, but no action taken yet.

Haynes said, "All in all it is a very exciting area, with the Middle East going through an unprecedented period of growth in a very fragile environment. This kind of program—Resources and Environment—is of vital importance to the longterm well‑being of the region."

BROWN BAGS BEGIN

Student‑sponsored brown‑bag luncheons are scheduled for noon on Tuesdays in the Student Lounge.

This year's series of programs is beginning with presentations by second‑year students on their recently completed summer internships.

The first program on September 7, featured Legislative Interns Marc Jacobson, Carol McDonald, and Steve Stubbs discussing "Current Issues and Methods of Operation of the State Legislature."

The series will continue on September 21, with a report from Washington. Those on the program will include Congressional Interns Steve Clyburn, Cassie Goyne, and Sarah Smith; Stan Kaplan and Terry Grogan from the Congressional Budget Office; and John Kamensky, Cindy Martin, and Norm Linsky from the General Accounting Office.

On September 28 the program will feature the Governor's Interns.

HOUSE PUBLISHES PROJECT REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION

The Committee on Transportation of the Texas House of Representatives has published Legislative Needs for Texas Transportation, the report of the 1975‑76 Transportation Policy Research Project at the LBJ School.

The report features legislative recommendations in anticipation of the 1977 biennial session of the Legislature.

According to the report, three problem areas emerged as most critical to the State's future transportation services: the need to improve governmental organization for transportation policy‑making at both state and regional levels; the need to increase and rationalize transportation financing; the need to improve regulation of and planning for commercial transportation services.

The report documents the existence of these problems in Texas and offers proposals for legislative consideration.

In his foreword to the report, Representative James E. (Jim) Nugent, Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said the document was "both informative and thorough."

Nugent said, "I would hope that the Transportation Committee and the Texas House of Representatives are not the only parties to benefit from the policy research project. For many of the students, this was their first 'real world' experience in government. For others, it was an entry into the specific legislative area they hope to work in. It has been, for all of us, an invaluable learning experience."

G. M. Williams, Jr., was project director. Other faculty members were John Gronouski, Kent D. Talbot, and James F. Record.

Student participants in the project were Roberta K. Bartow, Sheila W. Beckett, Bruce Byron, Sarah C. Cox, Nancy Davis, Christopher Delker, James Dodds, Albert Donelan, Donna Nilsen, Barry Robinson, Herbert Rubenstein, and Peter Weingarten.

In the current academic year a Policy Research Project on Transportation Financing Policies in Texas is being conducted at the LBJ School under the direction of Dr. Williams. Other faculty members are Jared Hazleton, Michael Walton, and Kent Talbot.

EATON EDITS VOLUME ON GRAIN RESERVES

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. National Science Foundation have recently published a volume entitled Analyses of Grain Reserves, edited by Professor David Eaton of the LBJ School and W. Scott Field, acting deputy director, Foreign Demand Competition Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The book is a compendium of the papers presented at a symposium on the systems analysis of grain reserves held under the auspices of the Operations Research Society of America and the Institute of Management Sciences in April, 1976. Invited papers were presented by Dale Hathaway, D. Gale Johnson, Willard Cochrane, G. E. Brandow, Shlomo Reutlinger, Eaton, Field, and others.

The volume is available from either the National Science Foundation or the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

DECK ANALYZES REVENUE SHARING

The impact of federal general revenue sharing on Texas government finance is the subject of the August edition of Public Affairs Comment, published quarterly by the LBJ School.

Glenn E. Deck, a 1976 graduate of the School and winner of the Emmette S. Redford Award for Outstanding Research, is the author of the article. Deck is currently a research analyst in the Division of Planning and Research, Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts, State of Texas.

Deck writes that although the federal revenue sharing formula does tend to distribute a somewhat greater share of funds to governments with the highest needs and the highest tax efforts ' there are serious allocations in the general revenue sharing allocations, and that these inequities are unlikely to be eliminated by Congress.

Deck says, however, that the State of Texas, due to its excellent financial position, has an opportunity to assist its cities and counties and equalize some of the fiscal disparities by turning over its share of general revenue sharing to them.

"Some of the most acute governmental problems are at the local level, and the State of Texas could greatly assist its cities and counties in ameliorating these problems by distributing its share of Federal general revenue sharing to them," Deck concludes.

Copies of Public Affairs Comment are available in the Office of Publications.

COMPUTER HOURS

Diane Blackburn has announced the schedule of hours for the LBJ School Computer Center:

Monday

8‑12 a.m., 1‑8 p.m.

Tuesday

8‑10 a.m., 1‑5 p.m., 7‑10 p.m.

Wednesday

11‑12 a.m., 1‑8 p.m.

Thursday

8‑12 a.m., 1‑8 p.m.

Friday

8‑10 a.m., 1‑5 p.m.

Sunday

4‑10 p.m.

FULBRIGHT GRANT APPLICATIONS DUE

The Institute of International Education has announced that approximately 550 Fulbright grants for graduate study in 50 foreign countries will be available for the 1977‑78 academic year.

Deadline for receipt of applications is October 8, 1976.

Eligibility requirements include U.S. citizenship, a bachelor's degree or its equivalent before the beginning date of the grant, and proficiency in the language of the host country.

For application forms and further information, contact Mrs. Patricia Roberts in The University of Texas International Office, 100 West 26th, or call 471‑1211.

[news item]

This issue of The Record appears one week later than regularly scheduled due to printing problems. The next issue of The Record will be dated October 5. The deadline for items to be included in that issue is Wednesday morning September 29.

"TOWARD NEW HUMAN RIGHTS" SYMPOSIUM

MESSAGE FROM JIMMY CARTER

I never knew either Lyndon Johnson or John Kennedy, but I can never forget the impact that their Administrations had on my home state of Georgia.

Just think back to what life was like in 1961. Throughout much of the South, a black man couldn't go into a restaurant and order a fried chicken dinner. There was no Medicare and many elderly people had to pay their hospital bills—if they could pay them at all—out of their tiny Social Security checks.

In 1961, there was no federal aid to education, there were no food stamps, there was no Headstart and there were no legal services for the poor. When John Kennedy entered the White House, less than 30 percent of the black adults in Georgia were registered to vote. When Lyndon Johnson left office, the figure was close to 60 percent.

It was during these Kennedy‑Johnson years that this nation made an unalterable commitment to heal the racial divisions that had estranged South from North and black from white for more than a century. True, progress has sometimes been slow and the course far from smooth, but the commitment has endured. And we, as a nation, have prospered.

Despite their dramatically different styles, both John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson knew how to harness the moral authority of the Presidency.

Now, more than a decade after his tragic assassination, the beacon of John Kennedy's New Frontier continues to inspire new generations of America's young.

Lyndon Johnson saw the White House as, in Teddy Roosevelt's unforgettable phrase, "a bully pulpit." One memory lingers with me. It is the image of Lyndon Johnson, invoking Martin Luther King, as he told the nation with his Texas drawl, "We shall overcome." But Lyndon Johnson did not limit his moral fervor to the cause of civil rights. More than any President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson reminded the American people that poverty has no place in a land that is as rich as this nation.

Lyndon Johnson recognized that the legislative achievements, which were the cornerstone of the Great Society, were not etched in stone. In detailing his vision of America in 1964, he proclaimed, "The Great Society is not a safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finished work."

But no one could have foreseen how unsettling the last eight years would have been for the legacy of the Great Society.

Some of the problems were political. Richard Nixon, aided by such minor league hatchetmen as Howie Phillips, first gutted and then abolished the Office of Economic Opportunity. The Medicaid program was allowed to fester, until it took a Democratic Congress to explain the dimensions of the scandal to the American people. Ambitious programs like Model Cities were diluted beyond recognition as part of Richard Nixon's experiments with revenue‑sharing.

But what was surprising was that many of the objections were philosophical. Some academic analysts claimed that middle‑class "poverty professionals" siphoned off a disproportionate share of Great Society programs designed to aid the poor. Others claimed that the Great Society "promised too much" and raised unrealistic expectations that could not be satisfied by government action.

Obviously, not all the Great Society programs were well conceived or carefully administered. It is easy to understand why. The mid‑1960s were not a time for sober reflection. With our nation's cities burning, it was clear that this was not a time for timid or halfway measures. Blessed with a Congress committed to domestic change, President Johnson realized that his legislative program had to be adopted quickly or not at all.

I know that the pessimists are wrong when they say that the Great Society "promised too much." Is it promising too much to tell a resident of the South Bronx that he doesn't have to spend his life living in fear amid fetid conditions? Is it promising too much to tell the parents of college students that there will be jobs for their children when they graduate? Is it promising too much to tell a welfare mother that there will be enough money for her to bring up her children in dignity?

I don't think these are excessive promises. I don't believe that an American President—with compassion for the American people—could aspire to do anything less.

If I am elected President, I will try to build on the enduring framework of the Great Society and the New Frontier. I will not abandon the vision of an America where poverty has vanished and injustice is no more.

But we must face the harsh realities of the mid‑1970s. We have all become somewhat chastened since the optimism of the Kennedy‑Johnson years. We have been forced to recognize that federal resources are not infinite. Every budget projection I have read leads to the same dismal conclusion—the money just isn't there for many new programs.

There are several important programs that I am determined to begin if I am elected President. One is national health insurance, which has been a dream of all Democratic Presidents since Harry Truman. Another is simplifying the current welfare system to provide a uniform national program, instead of the continuing hodgepodge of conflicting—and often demeaning—rules and regulations that constitute the current system.

I see an equally important task confronting the next President, as well. And that is one of reorganization and reassessment of existing domestic programs. These are not empty slogans. Rather, they represent a determination not to waste scarce federal dollars on programs that just aren't doing the job.

We can no longer afford to support inefficient and ill‑conceived domestic programs just because they have laudable goals. Every dollar that is wasted on a badly administered program is a dollar that is taken out of the pockets of disadvantaged Americans. I admit that this is a hard lesson to absorb. But these are hard times that we face for the rest of this decade.

I intend to be sympathetic in my assessment of existing domestic programs. I realize that all too often the problems are many and the resources too few. I also recognize that the measurement of the success or failure of anti‑poverty legislation is a very inexact science. I will not let statistics obliterate human realities if I am elected President.

It is difficult to talk about patience in politics. It is difficult to talk about limits when the problems seem so limitless. But I would be deceiving you if I tried to gloss over the constraints which the next President will face.

I leave you with my pledge that I continue to be committed to the goals of the Great Society. And, if elected President, I intend to provide competent administration as a way of furthering these goals, not thwarting them.

DAVID MATHEWS

The U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, David Mathews, spoke to the symposium at the conclusion of Wednesday's discussion on The Right to a Decent Home in a Decent Community.

The former president of the University of Alabama began by questioning the day's topic: "Why are we discussing, in this program, housing on Wednesday and social programs on all the other days?" He said it reflected a "compartmentalization of affairs that needs exploration."

"I think our present approach puts blinders on us so that when we come to an obvious disaster in social planning, we have to account for it by saying that, 'Well, the people who planned this were economic planners, or transportation planners, and they really weren't responsible for the housing patterns," he explained, continuing:

"It seems to me that the people of the country just don't come organized the way the government is organized. One of two things is going to have to happen. Somebody's got to make an adjustment. Either the people are going to have to conform to the organizational patterns of the government, or the organizational patterns of the government are going to have to conform to the way the people and their problems come, which, as the back of the Whole Earth Catalogue used to say, is 'all together.'

"I tend to favor the latter approach as being the soundest one, and I come to this platform to make the best case I can for comprehensive social planning."

Next, Secretary Mathews asked: "How do you make communities out of houses?"

Noting the intangibility of a community, he said: "It seems to me that communities or neighborhoods are defined by the quality of relationships between people. It's hard to have a good neighborhood without decent housing ... good social services, but the fact of the matter is ... that communities and neighborhoods are more than the sum of those parts."

One of the problems that grows out of the "special nature of communities" is the difficulty of planning for something "that can neither be seen nor counted," he said.

Second is the fact that "the essence of a community is in its particularness," Secretary Mathews said. That poses a problem for social planning because "planning is essentially the science of making a common model that is replicable in any number of situations ... We know how to plan for commonness. How do we plan for difference?", he asked.

The third problem, according to Dr. Mathews, concerns community participation: "What is good in a community is what we in that community are willing to feel good about, and being human, there is an unavoidably high correlation between what we have participated in and fashioned and what we like.

"Could it be then, I wonder, if the ultimate question in public policy planning for social affairs is not just what is planned but who plans?" He continued:

"There is, I think, an obvious sense on the part of the American people that they want a greater ability to control their lives and destinies, to see their own hand in the decisions that affect their lives." He said a fundamental debate is going on about the relationship of people to their government.

In answer to a question about whether a social activist can "really make a difference?", Dr. Mathews said he hoped so because "America was essentially a do‑it‑yourself project, and some have suggested that that was our genius. I'd like to keep it that way."

He described a ghetto program in Seattle started by community leaders to help "warehoused" youngsters with learning disabilities learn job skills. He said the program taught him "something about what people could do on their own motion," and that it had vitality because it was "theirs."

THE RIGHT TO A DECENT STANDARD OF LIVING

The New Frontier and Great Society programs of the 1960s had many far-reaching effects on America and, in some cases, came much closer to realizing their goals than is commonly portrayed.

Those were ideas expressed by four men closely involved with the antipoverty programs of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations who presented papers on The Right to a Decent Standard of Living.

Robert Levine, deputy director of the Congressional Budget Office, said community action and its surrounding institutions and activities provided the greatest achievement in the War on Poverty.

Dr. Levine, who was an official of the Office of Economic Opportunity, said there were really two objectives of the anti‑poverty programs. One was to decrease or end poverty as defined as a level of income, which except for its political drawbacks could have been done at any time by simple distributing money enough to bring everyone above the poverty income level.

Ray Marshall, professor of economics and director of the Center for Human Resources at The University of Texas, examined selective employment programs in the 1960s in his paper.

He explained that what were once known as manpower policies are now more accurately described as selective employment policies. Selective employment programs, he said, have much to offer in the struggle to achieve relatively full employment and maintain stable prices, while insuring a free society.

Reflecting on his association with youth programs of the 1960s was Kenneth B. Clark, former president of the American Psychological Association and president of the New York firm Clark, Phipps, Clark and Harris, which provides consultation on personnel matters in the areas of human relations, race relations and affirmative action programs.

Dr. Clark described himself and other designers of programs to help the entrenched poor as "naive." He said he and fellow workers felt that traditional delinquency programs contributed to the problems rather than solving them and that the biggest problem of the poor was a pervasive sense of powerlessness.

"Through the programs we had newly stimulated entrenched poor who sought to use newly discovered power, and found they did not have it," he said.

Planners sought to take control of social programs from the middle class and turn it over to the poor, he said. "We thought the poor would display virtue being in the middle class precluded," he said. "What we did not plan for was that the poor had all the same problems as their middle‑class exploiters had and couldn't wait to become exploiters themselves."

Not all the results were negative, Dr. Clark said, pointing to the dramatic increase of black elected officials, about 400 at the beginning of the New Frontier, to a total of about 4,000 today.

Robert J. Lampman, an economist and fellow of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, presented an analysis of changing patterns of income from 1960 to 1974. He said it was his belief that the goal of eliminating income poverty as stated by President Johnson in 1964 had been virtually achieved before the onset of the 1974‑75 recession.

Dr. Lampman was a staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers, 1962‑63; consultant to the President's Task Force on Poverty, 1964, and member of the President's Task Force on Income Maintenance, 1964.

In 1964 President Johnson said he wanted to see poverty ended and offered a definition of poverty as income below $3,000 in 1962 dollars, Dr. Lampman noted. He said that if benefits other than cash transfer such as food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid and housing services can be counted toward the reduction of poverty, the poeple below the poverty line might be as small as five percent.

"To be clear, if we think of the goal of the anti‑poverty program as simply spending more money in providing more services aimed at the low‑income part of the population, the hopes of President Johnson have been very much fulfilled," he said.

THE RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE

Three specialists on health policy matters introduced discussion on The Right to Health and Medical Care. Presenting papers were Theodore Marmor of the School of Social Services Administration at the University of Chicago; Karen Davis, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution and David Warner, associate professor at the LBJ School.

The concept of a right to medical care remains philosophically vexing and only loosely related to public policy debate and practice, according to Dr. Marmor. His paper cited the continuing question of whether access to medical care should be provided solely on the basis of need, as a right of citizenship, or on the basis of determiners such as merit and contribution.

He drew a distinction between random health crises, in which the patient bears no blame for his condition, and those in which the patient contributes to his illness by carelessness, overeating, or smoking.

"As long as the principal health scourges were the dread diseases‑smallpox, diphtheria, polio, pneumoniafaultfulness had almost no role in the

American debate over the right to care, though it did have a role in whether the government should provide insurance against the costs of these non‑blameworthy conditions," he said.

KAREN DAVIS

Dr. Davis, in a paper on Health and the Great Society, reviewed the successes and failures of health programs during the past decade and pointed to remaining gaps in medical care in the U.S.

"The quality of life for the poor and the aged was to be improved through access to decent, humane health care," Dr. Davis said of the goals for Great Society health programs. "Fulfillment of this dream has not occurred ... But failure to achieve all that was hoped should not be a signal for despair. Extension of an equal opportunity for a healthy life to all is not an easily obtainable goal, nor is it one that can realistically be expected to take place in a decade or perhaps even in a generation—as past neglect takes its toll for long periods ahead."

Noting that criticism of the health programs has obscured their genuine accomplishments, Davis said available evidence indicates that the poor and aged have made dramatic gains in their access to medical care services over the past 10 years.

"The health gap has been narrowed, but not eliminated," Dr. Davis emphasized. "Those most left behind in the current patchwork of private insurance and public programs are the working poor, the unemployed, rural residents, minorities and poor children. The elderly, even with Medicare, face many gaps in financial protection against the high cost of illness and disability."

She reported that an estimated eight to ten million people below the poverty level do not receive Medicaid benefits and many just above the poverty level have great difficulty obtaining even basic health care. "In the coming years, federal health policy faces great challenges," Davis continued. "It must try to ensure access to health care for all its citizens, guarantee that minimum standards of quality are met, combat ever‑rising health care costs, and protect all citizens from the financial burdens of high health care costs."

Davis recommended two major actions in shaping health care policy for the poor:

. A better balance between health service delivery and financing.

. Immediate reform of our current financing programs to eliminate gaps in coverage and protection from the burden of heavy medical costs.

DAVID WARNER

Assessing the impact of Medicare and Medicaid on delivery systems, Dr. Warner said that over the 12‑year period from 1963 to 1975, total health expenditures increased from about $30 billion to $118.5 billion. He noted that the increase in numbers and sophistication of medical professionals has paralleled the growing availability of health facilities and equipment.

"In 1974 there were 269,552 active physicians in the U.S.," he said. "By 1974 this number had increased by 35 percent to 362,973 or 171 physicians per 100,000 population.

"The massive infusion of resources into the medical sector has changed the crisis in medical care from a crisis in supply and demand to a crisis of accountability," Warner pointed out. "The resolution of this crisis will be determined in large part by the initiatives and decisions of the next few years at the national, state, and local levels."

Warner said that although the federal government has had to guarantee the right to medical care, it is at the local level where medical care providers must be governed by citizen‑consumers. Noting that the new federal programs such as the Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSROs) and Health Service Agencies (HSAs) are directed toward that goal, he thinks those programs lack the full participation of citizens necessary for their success.

The medical programs established by the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, according to Dr. Warner, have wiped out much inequality and misery, by affirming the basic right of all to inclusion in the medical care system.

"(These programs) have left us who come later with problems of governance and choice, not problems of a permanent caste system," he concluded. "The part of the medical system for which we should feel shame has thus been largely removed. Now we must move to make these services more appropriate and responsive to individual and community needs."