ustxtxb_obs_1972_09_08_50_00017-00000_000.pdf

Page 14

by

How Sissy and The Dirty Thirty took on the Texas political machine. The Dirty Thirty vs. the Mutschermen. It could be a Western set in Oz. But it’s a true story of corruption set in another never-never land: Texas politics. At the 62nd session of the Texas state legislature, a handful of representatives, including the only woman in the House, Sissy Farenthold, dramatically challenged Speaker Gus F. Mutscher, Jr., and the awesome Johnson-Connally Barnes machine. Using the session as background, investigative journalist Harvey Katz follows the trail of bribery, stock manipulation, and easy money which the “Dirty Thirty” helped uncover. It leads from the legislature itself to the banks and business offices of the most prominent Texans. It involves the complicity of lobbyists and the press. If the story were fiction, it would be the political thriller of the year. But it’s true and the SHADOW ON THE ALAMO ex tends far beyond the borders of the state, darkening our entire political system. SHADOW ON THE ALAMO New Heroes Fight Old Corruption in Texas Politics At all booksellers with those of men. The median income of working women in 1970 was only 59 percent of that of working males and accounted for 40 percent of all the families falling below the poverty line. And we must be serious about these promises. In the past it was possible to make promises without it being seriously proposed that they would be kept. Increasingly one senses an expectation on the part of the less advantaged that promises will be kept that something will in fact be done about the very unequal manifestation of what is called the American dream. This feeling seems even to have communicated itself to wealthy idealists. For the first time some are asking whether promises currently being made are real, and are making no secret both of their personal anxiety and their inability to afford continued idealism. Next only to withdrawal from Vietnam and rejection of the garrison state, these are the ideas that Senator McGovern made his own in the campaign. They were, by all odds, his most controversial contribution to the campaign. These also were the issues more than any others that brought him the nomination. To alter the present distribution of taxes and income will not be easy. I cannot think that Senator McGovern underestimates the job he has cut out for himself. Already the rich are pleading extreme poverty; the tax loopholes, administration spokesmen are saying, are really imaginary although if that is the case it is hard to see why closing them should arouse so much anxiety. In the end the Rockefellers will probably survive and be available for public office. But the notion that a better distribution of income is needed will henceforth be part of our politics. It will be one of the things that distinguishes the new politics from the old. THE THIRD break with the old equilibrium involves the ancient and dreary business of economics. It was part of the old faith that economic growth good management of the economy was the essence of domestic policy. Democrats also believed, not without reason, that such management was better in their hands than with the Republicans. The Democrats were the first to embrace the idea of Keynesian intervention of an active role for the government in the maintenance of full employment and a healthy rate of growth. They were thought to be more pragmatic in their actions to rely less on wish, prayer and prediction than their opposition. Mr. Nixon has not done much in these last four years to undermine this part of the Democratic faith. In contriving to combine the worst peace-time inflation with the most serious unemployment in modern times something that the best economists had previously thought impossible he did a great deal to rehabilitate Democratic economic management. It was in the finest spirit of the Republican Party that a year ago last February he proclaimed himself a Keynesian 35 years after Keynes spoke, and at the moment in history when Keynes had become obsolete. But meanwhile the Democrats have passed on to the next new idea one that also upsets the old equilibrium. It is, simply, that economic growth is no longer the solution to our problems. There has been no lessening of the commitment to full employment. But we now agree that full employment does not solve the problem of poverty; thus the new emphasis on income redistribution which I have just mentioned. And, much more important, we now agree that undisciplined economic growth brings a whole new range of problems of its own. It leads to the destruction of landscape, the pollution of air and water and, ultimately, a threat to existence itself. Thus, the new concern for the environment, for ecology, for the earth. And some of this concern challenges the very idea of growth itself. Once again one sees the change in the political rhetoric. There were few speeches in Miami extolling the advantages of an expanding economy. There will be many during the campaign emphasizing the need to make growth consistent with a larger conception of economic well-being. There are other new ideas that are part of the new equilibrium. There is the feeling Sept. 8, 1972 17