THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome, Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P. O. Box 618
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER . Editors
$1.50 PER MONTH S16.00 A YEAR
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the postoffice
at Nome. Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Wednesday, November 12, 1947
Collecting Under False Pretenses
(Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
CONGRESS should take cognizance of inequities in
the social security law which were brought to light by
the experience of a Renton widow and act promptly to
remedy the situation.
In the case in point, money had been regularly de
ducted from a worker’s pay for four years and nine
months for social security “protection.”
But, on his death, his widow learns that she can col
lect nothing because he had been ill toward the end of
his life—as most people are—and he had not made
enough social security “deposits” during his last 39
months.
Yet the government had taken money out of his pay
—enough, according to his widow, for the purchase of
at least $500 worth of commercial insurance. This was
money that he had earned. What moral or legal right
has government to retain it?
Many other unjustifiable vagaries of the law were
disclosed by an inquiry into this case.
For instance, suppose the worker in question had
made sufficient deposits for his widow to receive bene
fits: if she went to work in an industry covered by the
social security act and made more than the munificent
sum of $14.99 a month, she would be entitled to nothing
so long as she remained so employed. Again it seems
pertinent to inquire whose money was it—her hus
band’s or the government’s?
And suppose a man takes a job which is not covered
by the law, as'for example, in some branch of the city,
county or state government: he may find that he has
reduced his benefits or even wiped them out entirely
after having hard-earned dollars taken out of his pay.
No commercial life insurance company is allowed to
operate on any such basis.
With few exceptions, ev'ery life insurance policy has
a cash value which can be collected at any time that the
holder wishes to drop it. Why should not the govern
ment be compelled to adhere to the same principle?
Unless every penny that is deducted from a worker’s
pay for social security goes back to him or his heirs
eventually, the whole system is a fraud.
And the money abstratced from his wages is not a
social security “deposit” but just another tax—which
the government is collecting under flase pretenses!
Protect Both Rights
(Rocky Mountain News)
ONE SECTION of the Taft-Hartley Act makes it un
lawful for any labor organizaton to spend or contribute
money for the purpose of electing or defeating candi
dates for federal office.
The same prohibition, of course, has long applied to
corporations. But its application to labor organizations,
being new, has raised many questions. For instance,
how will this section affect the plans of the AFL, the
CIO and other organizations to spend millions of dollars
in an attempt to defeat all members of Congress who
voted for the Taft-Hartley Act?
We don’t know. Perhaps court decisions will dnswer
this and other questions. But we do have some definite
opinions about what effect of such a section would have.
It should protect the right of individual union mem
bers to give money to be used for political purposes if
they wish to give.
And—of equal importance—it should protect their
right to refuse if they do not wish to give.
This second right is violated if union officers con
tribute or spend for political purposes money collected
from members as dues or assessments.
Under the union shop, which the Taft-Hartley Act
PART PORCUPINE t__
permits, workers must belong to unions in order to keep
their jobs. They must pay dues and assessments in order
to belong to unions. There are union members—more,
we suspect, than the union officers would like to admit
—who favor the Taft-Hartley Act and do not want to
defeat Congressmen who voted for it.
When any part of their dues or assessments is used in
an attempt to achieve that purpose, they are being com
pelled to give to a cause they oppose, under penalty of
losing their jobs if they refuse.
Voluntary political contributions, all right. Involun
tary, forced contributions, all wrong. We believe the
intent of Congress, in writing the Taft-Hartley Act, was
to make that distinction plain.
If the language of this section of the law is not plain
in its meaning, it should be amended and clarified.
More “Freedom” Double Talk
(By Palmer Hoyt)
AS IS COMMON among Soviet diplomats, Vice For
eign Minister Andrei Vishinsky has been talking out of
both sides of his mouth in recent sessions of the United
Nations at Lake Success.
He has charged that there is no freedom of the press
in’ the United States—nor in other states which do not
have government control of newspapers and other pub
lications. He cited American newspaper monopolies, and
expanded this to say that since newspapers in this coun
try represented the editorial opinion of their publish
ers, the press could not be free.
Vishinsky said that editors printed only what suited
their purposes. He refuses to recognize that the purpose
of our newspapers is to inform the American people,
honestly and truthfully, and while they are by no means
perfect, they are generally the most honest and truth
ful newspapers in the world.
While advocating government controls of the press.!
Vishinsky, like other Soviet officials, completely dis
i avows responsibility for the action of the Soviet press.
If Vishinsky is correct in arguing that the only free
press is a government-controlled press, why is not the
Soviet press the most restrained in the world? Why
does it constantly attack and condemn the United States
and other dissenting nations,- and villify their repre
sentatives? Why are there no newspapers in Russia
which disagree with Soviet policy as much as the New
Republic disagrees with American policy?
If on the other hand, there is no freedom of the press
in the United States, why is the Daily Worker allowed
to castigate the American government in its columns?
Why is there such a difference in the opinions presented
on editorial pages of newspapers throughout America?
And why the the statements of Henry Wallace, Senator
Glen Taylor and others given as much space as state
ments attacking Russia?
Vishinsky urges that the American government con
trol its press as do the Soviets. The American answer
is that while the Soviet government practices totalitar
ianism, the United States prefers democracy, and a free
press is the constant guard against dictatorship.
r LOOKING
r ALHJ5AD
> GEORGE 1 BENSON
^ PtaUait—Mirilai Mkft
^ Sttrtj, Arkuum ^
A SPEECH WAS MADE
A letter came to my desk a few
weeks ago containing one para
graph that astonished me. It read:
“At the .. church.confer
ence held in this southern district
a speech was made against the
profit motive.” That any Ameri
can group, particularly a religious
group, should raise' its voice
against the profit motive struck
me, as amazing.
To get rid of the profit motive,
you would have to find some sub
stitute for economics in modern
civilization. You would have to
eliminate all trading and market
ing, buying and selling. You would
have to get rid of money and other
mediums of exchange. You would
have to cease bartering and swap
ping. In fact, you would have to
reduce your modern civilization to
self-sufficiency of the individual.
Only Two Ways
A modern and complicated civ
ilization like our own could not do
without trade, exchange, manu
facturing, raw materials produc
tion. You just have to ask more
than it cost you. That is what pro
fit means. And without the profit
motive, trade and commerce
would die.
There are only two ways that an
e.cnomy may operate. In America
individuals own farms, stores, f tc
tories, and run 1hem for the chief
purpose of making enough profit
to live on. Americans also want to
buy some of the products of ether
people who work. If demand and
opportunity are there, these busi
nesses may be expanded and en
larged. The other way is for gov
ernment to own everything, oper
ating all production merely for the
purpose of feeding the people and
supplying what it thinks are their
needs.
Compare The Two!
The profit motive is the very
foundation of our American way
of life. We have always encour
aged private ownership of farms,
stores, manufacturing plants. This
is the constitutional way in our
country. It has produced more en
thusiasm, finer cooperation, and a
greater abundance of clothing,
food, housing, and transportation
than the masses of the people have
ever known in any other country.
The other kind of economy,
owned and operated by the gov
ernment, attempts to do away with
the profit motive. Actually, it does
away with incentives, individual
initiative, and efficiency. This kind
of economy soon settles down to a
“what’sthe-use” status, offering
only the barest necessities to its
people. Russia is a good example
of this. Russia has attempted to
substitute other enthusiasms for
those of owning property and
making profit, but she has. found
that whenever she wanted increas
ed industrial output she had to im
itate some of the incentives that
are so common in America.
Advance Agents?
The very concepts of freedom of
the individual spring from the
Bible. Therein you will find the
foundations for the freedoms and
liberties that America has built
upon. Wherever Christian con
cepts prevail, there you will find
the truest freedom and prosperity.
I am unable to explain why
church leaders ajre willing to at
tack the profit motive. To do so
indicates tremendous misunder
standing of the American way of
life, of our constitutional govern
ment, and the freedoms of the in