Worse Than Chain Letters - E. W. Dykes

WORSE THAN CHAIN LETTERS tg G. W. 2)g:te6 ~ REMEMBER the H chain letter" idea? You send a dollar to the first of 12 names on a list, add your name at the end of the list of eleven remaining, mail copies to five other persons, and sit back to await your rewardl While waiting, you might check the arithmetic: $5 to the first name on your five lists, $25 to the second, $125 to the third, $625 to the fourth . . . $390,625 to the eighth . . . and $244,140,625 to you, assuming an un broken chain. The twelve persons ahead of you, includ ing the one to whom you sent a dollar, would have re ceived a total of $61,035,156. And you would be only the thirteenth person to have received any money at all out of that $305,175,781 chain. It might then occur to you that the cumulative amount (which is also the num ber of people involved) or even your own reward, would be a figure well in excess of the number of men, women, and children in the United States-and that only 13 of them would have received anything in return for their dollars and trouble. At this point, it is easy to see why the Post Office Department has prohibited the use of the mails for this ridiculous and fraudulent chain letter scheme.

Mr. Dykes is an architect in Canton, Ohio. 352 WORSE THAN CHAIN LETTERS 353 Now, change the picture a bit. Suppose you really need the money. Perhaps your house needs extensive re pairs at a staggering cost. Or, you've built on land sub ject to occasional flooding and you'd like a protective levee. Or, you've built in a desert and now want to irri gate the lawn and garden areas. Or, you lack an off street parking area for your car. Or, you need an expen sive surgical operation. Or, you have two children in college at the same time-or is it just one? Whatever the nature of your financial difficulty, its solution probably appears to be well beyond your means. Surely the Post Office Department would permit a chain letter for any such worthy purposel (Attempt it at your own risk.) The federal government is not always so uncompro mising, however. Under slightly different circumstances, not only will you be able to avail yourself of the methods of the chain letter but you will be encouraged to find projects to be so financed. Go to your fellow citizens in your city, county, or state, find an immense project which it would be nice to have-or several of them-and apply for federal "aid." And justify the whole procedure on grounds that you could not afford these "necessary"

improvements. Urban Renewal One form of slopping at the public trough that is now coming into vogue is urban renewal. Many of our larger cities have applied, or are considering applying for funds available from the federal government for this purpose.

354 E. W. DYKES Writers on the subject are nearly all agreed that the magnitude of the renewal necessary in most of our larger cities is well beyond the means of these respective cities. By their specious reasoning, these writers show why the downtown problems of Philadelphia, for example, con stitute a "national problem" and are thus deserving of federal support. Such reasoning will be strained to the utmost to justify the request of Jonesville, Ohio. Not to be outdone, these smaller cities are now eyeing the grants -and why not? When someone says, "Let's get our share," the rush begins and the line forms to the left. "Urban rot" is only one of the problems that cities are reputed to be unable to solve within their own means. If city officials go to the right agencies, they can get help for airports, expressways, hospitals, flood con trol, sanitary sewers, housing-or they can request money for planning in order to return later with more effective appeals for the big money.

Outside the cities there is aid for the farmer if he doesn't plant. Or, if he raises crops, he can borrow on them from the government which maintains unlimited and indefinite storage. The government offers flood con trol on the one hand, irrigation on the other. Minimum wage legislation and depressed area relief are other con flicting objects of government intervention. And, there is government spending for highways, power projects, rural electrification, aid to education, foreign aid, and so on. Please note that the projects listed, and others too numerous to mention, in one way and another embrace WORSE THAN CHAIN LETTERS 355 our entire population. The basis for any federal "aid" has always included the reason that the governmental unit aided could not afford the particular expenditure. The clear implication is that the federal government can. Were it not for the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we might let it go without saying that virtually everyone knows that the source of federal funds is from the same people who presumably are to be benefited.

Only an absolute illiterate could be unaware of the large-and growing-federal debt. In the chain letter scheme, the money flows from all the participants to a few who get in early. In this giant federal "chain letter" scheme the same thing is true. The earliest on the various lists will, of course, get theirs. But if it is true that the projects cannot be afforded locally ~ the money is bound to run out. The odds can not be whipped. Most people understand the chain letter for what it is. Yet, many of our leading citizens seem unable to see through "federal aid." In my town, the people who should have known better were the ones who pushed through a new expressway costing over $20 million, with only $1.7 million being our "contribution" to the chain! In my town, one of the smartest and wealthiest men said we had to have new hospitals-even if it took fed eral aid. The president of a large eastern railroad wrote me that commuters must have help. Foremost educators are urging aid to education. Editors of architectural magazines, along with talented architects and city plan ners, aided and abetted by prominent real estate owners 356 E. W. DYKES and businessmen, say "urban rot" must be stopped with federal dollars.

Some of these same people talk about the "dollar rot" as though it were a scourge from outer space. When we urge federal money for local projects, we appear oblivi ous to the fact that we are being bribed with our own money. The chain letter fraud, in contrast with federal aid, has at least one thing to be said in its favor. A person may participate or not, as he chooses; not so with fed eral "aid." The citizens of Seattle or Tulsa, whether or not they can afford their own urban renewal, must nevertheless support the scheme in Cleveland or Boston or wherever. The problems we try to solve with federal "aid" are nowhere near as difficult and complex as the problem we will face in trying to untangle ourselves from the web of federal directives, red tape, massive taxation, and deteriorating values-the ingredients of the strong, cen tralized government we worship in our final dash away from the American revolutionary concept that man de rives his rights from his Creator.

Where to Begin And how are we to change our course? Perhaps this is the most difficult task of all, for it requires great self restraint on the part of individuals, with no assurance that others will follow their lead. Actually, doing what is right should never require company. The cleverness WORSE THAN CHAIN LETTERS 357 of federal "aid" is disclosed when we face up to the ques tion, "Will some other area use the money my neighbors and I provided if we don't get our share?" The greater the temptation, the more difficult it is to apply one's principles. But principles, you can be sure, are not really your principles if dropped at the point where applica tion is required. There seems to be only one thing that will stop this cruel deception short of its ultimate failure. In view of the fact that "aid" programs always require applicants, the scheme will die only when applicants fail to appear.

Though none of us has any control over the next fellow, we do-or should-have control over our own actions. We cannot guarantee that the "dollar rot" will end; we can guarantee that we will not aggravate that rot and that we will have no part in our country's demise.