Now-so now we declare“war on poverty”，or“You，too，can be a Bobby Baker.”Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1billion dollars to the 45billion we’re spending，one more program to the 30-odd we have-and remember，this new program doesn‘t replace any，it just duplicates existing programs-do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic？Well，in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated.This is the youth feature.We‘re now going to solve the dropout problem，juvenile delinquency，by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps[Civilian Conservation Corps]，and we’re going to put our young people in these camps.But again we do some arithmetic，and we find that we‘re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4，700dollars a year.We can send them to Harvard for 2，700！Don’t get me wrong.I‘m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
But seriously，what are we doing to those we seek to help？Not too long ago，a judge called me here in Los Angeles.He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce.She had six children，was pregnant with her seventh.Under his questioning，she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250dollars a month.She wanted a divorce to get an 80dollar raise.She‘s eligible for 330dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program.She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders，we‘re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals.They say we’re always“against”things-we‘re never“for”anything.
Well，the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant；it‘s just that they know so much that isn’t so.
Now-we‘re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age，and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we‘re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings，when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood.They’ve called it“insurance”to us in a hundred million pieces of literature.But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program.They only use the term“insurance”to sell it to the people.And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government，and the government has used that tax.There is no fund，because Robert Byers，the actuarial head，appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298billion dollars in the hole.But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax，they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble.And they‘re doing just that.
A young man，21years of age，working at an average salary-his Social Security contribution would，in the open market，buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220dollars a month at age 65.The government promises 127.He could live it up until he’s 31and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security.Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can‘t put this program on a sound basis so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due-that the cupboard isn‘t bare？
Barry Goldwater thinks we can.At the same time，can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years？Should we not allow a widow with children to work，and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband？Shouldn‘t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program，which we cannot do？I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.But I think we‘re against forcing all citizens，regardless of need，into a compulsory government program，especially when we have such examples，as was announced last week，when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt.They’ve come to the end of the road.
In addition，was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate，planned inflation，so that when you do get your Social Security pension，a dollar will buy a dollar‘s worth，and not 45cents worth？
I think we’re for an international organization，where the nations of the world can seek peace.But I think we‘re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10percent of the world’s population.I think we‘re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony，while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.