But serious ly 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 bef ore him for a divorce. she had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's elig ible for 330 dollars 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 were always "against" things we're never for" anything Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that theyre ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isnt 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 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 literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme court and they testif ied it was a wefare program they only use the term insurance to sell it to the people And they said socia l security dues are a tax for the general use of the government and the government has used that tax. there is no fund beca use robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion do llars 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, 21 years of age, working at an average salary - his Social Security contribution would, in the open market buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and 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 perm it a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that heBut 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 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea f rom 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 f riends 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 298 billion 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 f rom the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that. A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and 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