884 ADDRESSES AND STATE PAPERS

cepted and standardized welfare payments are no less logical. Second,
standardization could serve as a positive force, making it not only
possible but profitable to remain in a rural, underdeveloped area.
Once the uneducated, unemployed population is stabilized — at Fed-
eral expense — states and cities could afford to initiate meaningful
programs at the local level related to local employment opportunities
and manpower needs. How can you solve the job problem, when
the unemployed won't stay put?

Finally, a national welfare program provides a healthy, economical
alternative to present and proposed policies. Tremendous duplica-
tion already exists as a result of the Federal, state and local govern-
ments all being in the welfare business. The current Federal effort
alone is a bewildering kettle of alphabet soup involving HEW, OEO,
HUD and a cast of thousands. There appears little desire for co-
ordination, evaluation or continuity. The pursuit of commendable
objectives has all too often been perverted and obscured by deplorable
abuses. The most recent incident reported just last week involved
the expenditure of $927, 000 in OEO funds to support a Chicago
street gang, the Blackstone Rangers. While this case may be exag-
gerated or extreme, disenchantment, disillusionment and dissension
over poverty programs are widespread. Moreover, the intensive in-
vestment in palliative inner city projects reinforces the myth of ur-
ban opportunity drawing more people to the cities and consequently
compounding the primary problem of impaction. All too often the
well-intentioned but frantic giveaway schemes never help the poor
because the money is intercepted and perverted to build militant
political organizations.

I am a Republican whose career in public service has been con-
fined to local and State government. My private beliefs and public
experiences reinforce my confidence that the government closest to
the people is the unit which can govern best. Yet, I am convinced
that a national welfare program, administered and supported by the
Federal government, is imperative to: (1) stabilize the nation's im-
poverished, uneducated and unemployed population; (2) relieve the
cities and states of an impossible and insurmountable burden; and
(3) free state and local governments to move forward with positive,
constructive solutions within their fiscal and administrative ca-
pabilities.

The second concept requires a complete departure from traditional
vision of what a city should and could be. It goes one step beyond
present urban planning and renewal. It is daring, yet it is not new.