June 21, 1973
San Francisco, California
by Maureen Heaton
Table of Contents
Introduction
On June 21, 1973, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations conducted a public hearing in San Francisco to obtain the views of selected witnesses on the general subject of the intergovernmental problems associated with substate regionalism, and more specifically on a draft report on Substate Regionalism and the Federal System which the Commission considered the following days. This was the third time the Commission held a regional hearing on any subject, the first being in Chicago in connection with its draft on Urban and Rural America: Policies for Future Growth, and the second in San Francisco for the draft report of Medicaid.
It is worth noting that this hearing was held during the Nixon administration, when the implementation of the "third phase" of U.S. regional governance was in full swing. The first two phases of regional governance were largely implemented during the administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, respectively. It is also worth noting that the concept of "Metro 1313" (one of the primary mechanisms through which regional governance was brought forth) can be traced at least as far back as Colonel Edward Mandell House, an advisor to Woodrow Wilson, and his (perhaps notorious) book Philip Dru: Administrator.
One of the witnesses appearing before the Commission was Maureen Heaton, of Placerville, California. Heaton submitted a formal written statement to the Commission, which included a short pamphlet she wrote dealing with the subject of regional governance. What follows herein are both her written statement to the Commission, and the text of her pamphlet: So Desperate a Step.
Written Statement
"The student of the history of this country must be forcibly impressed by the evident intent of our people to preserve their democratic institutions . . . The sturdy pioneers came across the sea to escape tyranny and in search of liberty . . . That spirit has made America great . . . Unfortunately, there are those who would lend themselves, wittingly or unwittingly, sometimes foolishly or corruptly, to the destruction of those high ideals upon which our institutions must rest if they are to be maintained. Of such, the truth must be spoken unflinchingly . . . That is the patriotic duty which every self-respecting citizen owes to his country . . ."
Those words are not mine. They were written in 1941 by John Rush, a man of impeccable "progressive" credentials. (See excerpt from Who's Who, attached). Rush would have been sympathetic to the stated goals of regional substate redistricting, but it is doubtful if even he would have countenanced the totality of the program of which 'consolidation of local governments' seems to be one part. His desires for reform were framed within the Constitutional system which made this nation the greatest ever known
In his book, "The City/County Consolidated," which was written to promote his concept of the solution to the problems which are stated to require this radical measure, Rush quotes liberally from court cases on the matter of inherent rights, which are at the heart of this proposal. One such quote was in the opinion of Judge Thomas Cooley, in the Michigan Hurlbut case: "The State may mold local institutions according to its views of policy expediency; but LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS A MATTER OF ABSOLUTE RIGHT; and the State cannot take it away." Courts have held that municipalities have the same right to select their own officers as the state, without interference by the state or by the United States. Efforts such as this move toward regional redistricting constitute "interference" in a legal sense, both on the State level through the California Council on Intergovernmental Relations and the executive office, and the Federal level through the efforts of this Commission. It has also been held by the courts that before written constitutions, the people possessed full power of local self-government, and STILL POSSESS all such power which they have not delegated. This movement violates that concept, since it does not originate with the people, and the people have not delegated this power. Since diversity is the hallmark of freedom, and this effort is being made on a national scale, a direct attack exists on the liberties of the people, in an attempt to make local government conform to a set pattern throughout the several States.
Members of this Commission, and other advisory groups, may well be convinced that their goal for consolidation of cities and counties is the most "efficient and economical" way for local government to function. They may well have even stronger reasons for desiring redistricting. They may believe that they have a right to do this because, for the most part, they have been elected to office. But they were not elected to this office, nor were they selected by those who will have to live with this consolidation. Under our form of government, they are free to advocate such ideas. So is our Governor, who only recently served on this body, and who presented this concept to the press last fall. But there is no provision for machinery to be quietly started toward implementation before free and open debate by the citizens, whose liberties and future are most involved, and indications are that that such machinery already has a full head of steam. It is essential that full disclosure be made of all the facts relating to this proposed "consolidation," before any further steps are made toward implementation. Such facts must include the relationship of this movement to such other movements as regionalization, local and Federal; the planning, programming and budgeting system; direct citizen participation in government functions, without community selection - all of which are supported by this Commission; and of economic, social and political implications as well.
As "a patriotic duty," this Commission is urgently requested, as a priority measure, to resolve here and now to objectively receive statements of fact and opinion from the sovereign citizens as well as officials, and without prejudice determine the future course of this project. I make a point of saying "without prejudice," for there is strong evidence of intent to develop this concept despite the desires of the people. It will be a tragedy beyond description if the fundamental units of the American system, which relate directly to preservation of individual liberty, are further emasculated in the name of "efficiency and economy." It will be an even greater tragedy if the people are under any delusion as to the merits and involvement of this proposal, and are led to accept it without full knowledge of the consequences.
In closing, I submit to this Commission a study I have made of the history and background of the regional movement, and the place which "consolidation of local governments" holds within that movement. I earnestly ask you, as fellow Americans, to give both my remarks and my study your sincere consideration.
So Desperate a Step
"Before entering on so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its memories, its benefits, its
hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain WHY we do it?
Will you hazard SO DESPERATE A STEP, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly TO are
greater than the ills you fly FROM?
Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?"
-- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
It has been said the revolution WAS. " . . . it went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom . . . "
Patriots have always stood ready to defend their homeland, and it is so today. Witnessing ever-lengthening shadows of tyranny, Americans have been known to say, "When the time comes . . . " clearly meaning that the time of revolution will find them prepared.
These two evaluations cannot both be right. But there is yet another thesis. That this revolution is ongoing. That it is NOW, was THEN, and is yet TO BE.
Foolish, you say? Not possible? It can't happen here? Listen to the voices of some of the supporters of current events:
- An educator refers to it as "The Quite Revolution."
- Radicals in the streets call it "The Open Revolution."
- Intellectuals have termed it "The Triple Revolution."
- The resident of the White House says it is the "New American Revolution."
This "new" revolution - if that is its deeper meaning - is like none the world has ever known. It is taking place by steps which were advocated many years ago. Step by step, the "destruction of our national fabric" takes this nation ever closer to the point of no return. To that point where "night begins." That point where revolution becomes accomplished fact. But in this revolution, not a shot will be fired in resistance.
In this revolution, all levels of American government are being guided, step by step, further and further from the long-cherished goals of limited political power, and maximum individual liberty, toward totally different goals. No longer is it to be a government of balanced powers, answerable to the citizens. That government is to be replaced by one where formerly-sovereign citizens are to be reduced to the condition of "human resources," their lives and actions planned for them by social experimenters; their children molded into "Citizens for the 21st Century" through mind-conditioning by "change agents" in the public schools, using drugs and sensitivity training to achieve the "desired" social ends; social relationships determined by an all-powerful government, under the guise of "racial equality"; business and industry controlled by the "needs of society"; labor under government dictates, with each worker fitted into the slot most beneficial to the "common good" as decided computers and "manpower development" experts; private property and personal initiative only a dim memory; even the remnant figures of representation managed and controlled by administrative bodies they, themselves, had appointed, or approved.
That carefully constructed government of balanced powers, based on consent of the governed, is rapidly being altered into one of radically different concepts - a governance of centralized control, with revolutionary goals, being developed step by step, AGAINST the will of the people. Elected representatives, tricked into compliance, blindly writhe against the invisible chains they have helped to forge. No longer a government of separate States, formed into a "more perfect union," by "We, the people," but an administrative, regional government, grafted, step by unwilling step, onto that prior form, which was the ultimate wonder of the world, and the envy of people, everywhere.
But it is not yet! Not while a president can be mandated by a surge of protest to reject one of his own programs; not while a restive Congress balks at executive usurpation of its Constitutional powers; not while State governments can still hold back the tide by resisting "free" money, taken from their own citizens by the Marxian progressive income tax, and tied with bureaucratic strings, before being offered back as a bribe. Above all, not while citizens can still speak out and take constructive action - not until these freedoms are no more, is it final.
No, it is not yet. But the evidence shows that this IS revolution - NOW. Recognition of that fact by ALL Americans is imperative - and by none more than those who have accepted the public trust. The words of Patrick Henry echo across the years - "We are apt to shut our eyes to a painful truth . . . is this the part of wise men . . . ?" For his part, he was willing, whatever anguish of spirit it might cause, to know the whole truth - to know the worst, and prepare for it. "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" Surely, the American answer to that is still a resounding "NO!" Surely, Americans will still courageously face the truth, and regardless of personal danger, still USE that truth to keep this country free? This is like no other revolution the world has ever known, and if it SHOULD be completed - which God forbid! - there will be no turning back. A new element has outlawed the possibility of the "pendulum syndrome."
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT is the key to this revolution, and the new element is a SYSTEM OF MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL known as the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS), which has the potential to remove even the WILL to be free.
That there is solid base for that statement has been demonstrated by recent events in the Soviet Union, which is the ultimate in a controlled society. With computers supplied by the United States, the Soviets have developed a "computerized information system," as a "weapon of thought control." A "computerized information system" has quietly been developed here in America. Available reports from Russia clearly show how " . . . the power of a computerized information system, coupled with mood-creating or altering biochemical discoveries, provides a new tool for SUPRESSING DISSENT. . . " Our own Department of Defense has funded a study which demonstrates the use of such a system in COUNTERINSURGENCY program planning. The Marxist government in Chile, which "secretly" installed a " . . . computer system designed to control an entire economy . . ." has already used that system to suppress dissent - to bring to a halt a "truck-owners . . . protest against the government's policies."
The names used to describe elements of this revolution are immaterial. They change like a chamleon's colors. REGIONAL GOVERNMENT is also called REGIONAL AUTHORITY. It is also termed METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT, or METRO.
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT could be called technocracy.
It also could be called autocracy, and that, too, would be fitting.
It COULD be called dictatorship, and that would not be far wrong.
It can NOT be called democratic.
It certainly cannot be called republican.
It is not important WHAT it is called. What IS important is that it be recognized for what it is, and for what it will mean if it is fully implemented, for, if that occurs, the name will be of little moment. It will then be too late. Coming events already cast long shadows across the green fields of freedom, and the happy laughter of little children is being submerged in the vapid smiles of rag dolls; the idiotic grin of a symbol 'smile' saying endlessly "Have a nice day."
TECHNOCRACY is government by an elite. METRO is government by experts. These are one and the same. AUTOCRACY is a form of government where the same officials make the laws, administer and enforce them. Metro is this, too. DICTATORSHIP exists when official edicts cannot be reversed by the citizens. This, too, is Metro.
The balance of powers of our American system was carefully designed, to separate the administrative, judicial and legislative departments, so that each might be a check on the other. In a democracy, the people exercise their sovereignty directly, through townhall-type activity. In a republic, through representatives. In a democratic republic, both these procedures are used. NONE of these is possible under regional government, for the officials are appointed, and not answerable to the people, because, they do not represent them. The citizens are no longer sovereign, and the officials cannot be reached through election, referendum or recall. Those who set up such governance can be removed (now, before the revolution is final), but not the thing they create. Only the legislatures, which hold responsibility for creating these cancerous growths on the body politic, have the power to remove them. Only the legislators, hearing from an aroused and informed public, can assure that this revolution will NOT succeed, as they dedicate themselves to retaining and strengthening those critical elements which are essential to liberty under law.
These being facts, who would knowingly accept or promote such changes in the method of our government? What ELECTED official would KNOWINGLY consent to such a usurpation? What citizen would KNOWlNGLY participate in such a drastic change? Surely, there cannot be many such, even today, when the true source of our freedom has become so dim a memory. But a bill was passed by the California legislature; its twin received the nod in Nevada; each was signed by the respective governors; it received the approval of Congress; was signed into law by the President; and the regional umbrella was placed over portions of those two States. This 'law' erased the State boundaries at Tahoe, placed the citizens of that area under the dictates of an appointed body with more authority than any elected body, removed private rights in property, instituted taxation without representation on citizens not residing in the area, and did all this in the face in incontrovertible evidence that the regional governance thus imposed on an unwilling populace was not only unwanted, but UNNEEDED. How could this BE? The answer seems to be that those few in this country who wish this revolution - by peaceful means, if possible, by force and violence, if necessary - have used every deceit to put over this concept. In this case - the Tahoe Regional Area Plan (TRAP!) - they have succeeded by dogged determination, by misdirection, confusion, coercion, and by outright lies.
It must be recognized that, when as many as five or six thousand bills are put in the legislative hopper (as has been the case in California in recent years), it is impossible for those elected to represent us to READ all of them, much less know all the ramifications involved in each of them, Our legislators must rely on others to tell them what the bills do. Unfortunately, citizens who would point out the dangers of such programs as this, have been labelled as "opposed to change," and, let's face it, are sometimes less than tactful presenting opposition, and, as a result, find it difficult to break through the curtain of resistance. It must be remembered that to be FOR our historic system of government, one must, of necessity, be AGAINST encroachments on it, and attempts to undermine it. Those who covertly promote such programs as regional government are a real danger, for they are OPPOSED to our Consitutional republic, and to the LEGAL means of changing it as well. They KNOW that open debate would result in defeat for their revolution. Nor are all who support some part of this program promoters. Many times they are simply not aware of the whole picture.
Part of the problem is directly traceable to the calculated, constant erosion of the teaching of history in our public schools, which denies to future citizens accurate knowledge of how our government was planned to function. In the process, they are also denied the essential ability to cope with the problems of government. The late, great, California Senator Nelson Dilworth, put it thus:
. . . . Americans have been too trusting. Believing that others acted on the same high ideals as their own, teachers, administrators, and board members have been slow to criticize, reluctant to condemn. Those who would corrupt our youth have presumed on the natural tolerance of Americans. . . The result has been that materials derogatory of our American history and achievements, and laudatory of totalitarian government have found their way into our schools . . . " (1957)
Part of the problem as surely lies in the situation whereby political discussions have become "controversial." Friends won't discuss the issues, lest friendships be lost in heated argument. Businessmen are afraid to take part in political activity, lest it "hurt business." Even political parties silence debate, in the name of "unity." It has almost been forgotten that government, by its nature, is political, and blind partisanship is detrimental to the great public issues. If our government becomes solely the concern of politicians and bureaucrats, the form in unimportant. As Daniel Webster, known in his own time as "The Defender of the Consitution," said:
". . .With the people, and the people alone, lies any remedy for the past, or any security for the future. No DELEGATED power is equal to the exigency of the present crisis. No public servants, however able or faithful, have ability to check or stop the fearful tendency of things. IT IS A CASE FOR SOVEREIGN INTERPOSITION. . . The appeal, therefore, is to the people; not to party or partisans, not to professed politicians, not to professed politicians . . .but to the people, and the WHOLE people; to those who . . .have no wish but for a good government, and who HAVE THE POWER TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR OWN WISHES . . ."
With widespread political discussion and involvement, it would not have been possible for this revolution to have continued to the point where it now threatens to remove the necessity - or opportunity - for citizens to involve themselves in their government. An ombudsman will be provided to absorb any lingering resistance. With full implementation of this Plan, debate will be precluded. "Participatory democracy" will have served its purpose, for it is but the route to administrative governance.
Regional government, its meaning, purpose, and the steps which lead to it, are "as Greek" to the general public, and apparently to most elected officials, as well. Had it been otherwise, this movement could never have reached the stage where it now poses an imminent threat to representative government. Most Americans still cherish the original goals and philosophy of this country, as embodied in the Constitution. Most Americans still believe the Constitution to be the law of the land. The average person finds it hard to believe that there are those who call themselves American who would be willing to turn their back on this birthright, and voluntarily give up the boon of self-government. It is even more difficult to believe that there are those among us who are so anxious to see the end of the "American experiment" that they would lie, cheat, and betray the public trust to achieve that end. It is equally incredible that so much has been done in paving the way for this revolution, unless it was planned that way. Part of the problem lies in an evident effort to discount the suggestion that "conspiracy" might be involved. ONLY full disclosure of ALL the facts (let the chips fall where they may), can prepare the ground for valid decisions, and knowledgeable consent - or opposition.
So this is the history of the regional movement, as it relates to our own governmental system; Constitutional revisions, economic development, social control, consensus, and consent. Although this is a sincere effort to give a true overview, it is by no means comprehensive. Whole books have been written, pro and con. It has been necessary to "take out of context" much which is presented here. How could it be otherwise, unless the whole of all the available material on the subject were reprinted? This would then be a tome larger than the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and then, who would read it? (Even granting there were time!) This paper is directed toward conveying the INTENT of the promoters of this scheme, toward showing their strategy and tactics, and toward knowledgeable resistance and eventual reconstruction of a structure of government which will restore the individual freedom American citizens once knew, and guarantee that future generations will have the opportunity to determine their own destiny.
Weigh those matters which are presented here against your own personal knowledge of what is now clearly visible, although not yet sharply outlined. If in doubt, check the source cited, or carry the research further on your own. Use common sense, logic and calm reason, and let your conscience be your guide. Above all, consider that what you, personally, DO - or do NOT do - about these matters is of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE. It is much easier to resist encroaching tyranny than to reverse entrenched power, although both these efforts are needed now, so far has this been taken toward that point approaching where power becomes absolute. With general economic planning by 'experts', administrative regional bureaucracies, behavioral scientists using Orwellian techniques, and the controls of the PPBS to force compliance, citizens and the elected representatives alike will be required only to do so they are told, and to pay the bills, unless --
The planners have made no secret of the fact that ECONOMIC PLANNING is the reason for the regional thrust. Those words are used openly, but the implications are ignored. The true intent and purpose is hidden behind talk about beauty, preservation, conservation, "homerule," simplification, and the like, which are the smokescreen by which the end goal is obscured from private citizen and public official alike. Ignored is the record which shows that individual planning has been the hallmark of the American free enterprise system. Ignored, the evidence of those few remaining areas in this country which have resisted the enticement of "free" money, in favor of a free marketplace, which shows that the arguments in favor of a controlled economy are without merit. Ignored, the sad truth that socialism is a leveller, not an uplifter.
Those who attempt to point out that these programs have been brought to the present state of implementation by a comparative few, and over an extraordinarily long period of time, are accused of having a "conspiratorial view of history." Be that as it may, the facts are the facts. We ignore at our peril the fact that there are now, and have been in the past, those, both in office and out, who leave no stone unturned to implement this revolution. This plan was NOT the outgrowth of an evidenced need. It is NOT the result of an "outmoded Constitution" unsuited for the needs of the 20th century. Mankind's needs in ANY age are basic, and among the most fundamental of those needs are human dignity and freedom. No. This IS revolution, WITHIN THE FORM of a treasured heritage. Deliberately planned, exquisitely orchestrated, and calculatedly executed. The 'needs' have been manufactured, to mandate the predetermined solution. The theory behind it is as old as recorded history.
Always there have been those who dreamed of Utopia, and, from time to time, men have tried to form 'ideal' societies. It is easy to point out inequities in any given human undertaking. They exist in every society. It is simple and dramatic to view with alarm man's cruelty to man. It is child's play to envisage a dream world, where these things do not exist, and where everyone lives happily ever after. But to compare the untried dream, and the solid reality is not only unfair, it is deceitful, for comparison implies that the dream will work, where reality fails. To be honest, the comparison must be between what exists, and the times the dream has been tried before. Whenever this particular dream has been attempted, it has failed - miserably. Whenever economic planning has been tried, it has brought suffering, discouragement, unhappiness, and has failed to achieve its stated goals. Russia, after the Soviet takeover; Germany, in the 30s; England in the 40s and 50s; each have had this experiment, to their sorrow. Now the unmistakeable signs of socialist folly are again visible here, even as they were in Massachusetts colony, when the Pilgrims learned the futility of this unworkable 'dream,' which starts out to control things, and always ends controlling people.
But always there have been those who have felt they were more competent than others, and that, therefore, they should 'run things,' and it will probably always be so, as long as man exists. Only in America has this desire been directed into constructive channels, and only here have the benefits which can accrue from it been realized. When such people go into public service, they NEED the checkrein of being answerable to their fellow citizens, which has been provided only in America, under the "chains of the Constitution." Under other systems, unchecked save by their own desires, their programs have brought pleasure, wealth and power to the few, at the expense of all the rest. Only in America has the power remained in the hands of the general populace (till recently!) through the work of the government has been done, for the most part, by those who like to run things. This has been possible, because our officials could (and would) be replaced, if they overstepped their bounds. This was the only government ever so designed, and thus the most progressive, for it gave OPPORTUNITY for wealth and pleasure and freedom to ALL, not just the privileged few.
Naturally, the privileged few have not liked this arrangement. THEY dream of a world where they will have control over every phase of life, and unlimited wealth and power will be theirs alone to enjoy. So, over the years, they have striven ceaselessly to destroy the one system in the world which held hope for all people, everywhere - the system which, by example, showed the bankruptcy of all other forms of government. Over the years, they have used the trust the people gave them to institute changes in that system. Illegal changes. Unnoticeable changes, at first, which could be compared to putting too much sand in a cement mixture, causing a tendency to crumble under pressure. Some of these changes were not even utilized for years, but they were there, waiting the "need."
To trace the threads which have been woven so deeply into our "national fabric," let's start with a master weaver of tales, the "emminent historian" of the early part of this century, H. G. Wells. Wells was a Fabian Socialist, and a prolific writer of both fiction and nonfiction. In view of the events here chronicled, the former HAD to be the lesser of his talents. A nonfiction book of his was published in 1908. Titled "New Worlds for Old," it told what the program was to be, and exposed the machinery by which it was to be developed:
"It was left chiefly to the little group of English people who founded the Fabian Society to supply . . . the amplifying conception of Socialism, to convert Revolutionary Socialism to Administrative Socialism . . . From saying that unorganized people cannot achieve Socialism, they passed to the implication that organization ALONE, without popular support, might achieve Socialism. . . Socialism ceased to be an open revolution, and became A PLOT. Functions were to be shifted, quietly, unostentatiously, FROM the representative, TO the official he appointed. . . they worked like ferment in municipal politics . . . the reconstruction of our legislative and local government machinery is a necessary preliminary to Socialization in many directions . . . Scientific reconstruction of our methods of government constitutes a necessary part of the Socialist scheme . . . It supplies us with a vision of a great and disciplined organization of officials, A SCIENTIFIC BUREAUCRACY, appointed by representative bodies of diminishing importance, and coming at least to be the WORKING CONTROL of the Socialist state, the replacement of individual action by public organization . . ."
As Wells, who was an "Insider," so boldly stated, functions HAVE been shifted, gradually, FROM the elected officials, TO their appointees. Citizens have become accustomed to "city managers," "county administrators," "county counsels" and appointed officials of uncounted kinds of positions, from citizens advisory committees to administrators of special districts, without stopping to consider what they do, or how these functions were formerly discharged, or why it WAS that way, and NOW is this.
The city manager now fulfills the duties formerly the responsibility of the elected city council, who now only act on the recommendation of their appointed successor. So, too, with the county administrator, who has become the appointed supervisor of the elected supervisors. The appointed county counsel has usurped the position once held by the elected district attorney, who is now reduced to little more than a prosecutor. This situation holds true in the schools, as well, where appointed superintendents whittle away at the functions of the elected boards, and "experts," appointed by the appointed superintendent really make the decisions, which are then "rubberstamped" by the 'representatives of the people.' All this has come about piecemeal, and has conditioned acceptance of the idea of government by appointed officials, so that many who would once have resisted bitterly, now seem indifferent to it all.
Like regional government itself, these changes are always sold to the people under the label of "progress," or because of "proliferating government" - "to heavy a workload" - or an "expert" is needed. In the case of regional government, the people are told that existing government is not "flexible" enough; or that a regional approach is necessary to handle the growing problems; or that there are so many overlapping areas which could be simplified under Metro. This last has some truth. Compared to a totalitarian state, our historic system is quite complicated. But do we want to pay that price for simplicity?
Regional government as we know it today is a direct descendant of the uptopian dream of Robert Owen, first expounded more than a century and a half ago, and described, clairfied and structured by H.G. Wells. Through his efforts, the outline of what is now being developed was thus established more than 60 years ago. The first major breakthrough in this country came in 1913, when three crucial changes were made in the American government system - the graduated income tax, direct election of Senators, and the Federal Reserve System. Without the access to the substance of the great middle sector of citizens provided by the 16th Amendment, and the ability to provide exemption for the wealthy through the Marxian scheme of progressive taxation, this revolution would still be the impossible dream ... unfunded. Without destroying the balance of power between land area and people, administrative government such as this would have been unworkable. Without the machinery for destruction of the monetary value, the crises necessary to obtain public acceptance could not have been constructed.
In 1921, the next most important step was taken, when Congress was persuaded to abdicate its Constitutional responsibility as watchdog of the public purse, and transferred to the executive the keeping of the budget. Without that free access to the budgetary process, the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System could not have become the tool of executive power that it is today. And today's Congress is suffering from the loss inflicted by that other Congress so long ago. Although the members have now mounted a battle against a Presidential display of that power, they are fighting the right battle on the wrong front. For their efforts are directed at the symptom, and not the cause. That cause is the management and control system which is the PPBS, and it is being used to determine national priorities, and when, where, and how the funds will be budgeted - and Congress is impotent, as long as the Office of Management and Budget remains the center of that control.
During the 1920s, too, the first systematic efforts were made to test the techniques of planning. A preliminary survey was made of the Philadelphia metropolitan area in 1924, and the Tri-State District which resulted included parts of New Jersey and Delaware. By 1932, the Regional Planning Federation of the District unveiled the results of their labors, in a document of almost 600 pages which included maps, diagrams, population statistics, and socialist plans for highways, transportation, airways and airports, parks and parkways, water supply and sanitation, and architectural and aesthetic elements of planning. This document stated that 20 areas in the northeast section of the country were being planned, even then, and among these maps are those showing rudimentary regions for the greater Boston area; Connecticut, New York and New Jersey; and the Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin regions.
But the greatest strides into this New American Revolution came in the 1930s, when:
". . . a plague of young lawyers settled on Washington . . . These prattlers were, for the most part, employees of the government, and had taken the oath of allegiance. But they took the position that their high purposes gave them a supermorality that could not be confused with the morality the nation HAD been using. They were quite above such old-fogy, Tory, reactionary stuff as oaths of office or other religious antiquities. They owed allegiance - not to the United States - patriotism was for the nonthinking . . . THEY had allegiance to a higher cause. The end justified the means. . ."
So said George N. Peek, first administrator of the Agriculture Adjustment Administration, who soon realized that strange things were taking place in his department. His own allegiance to this country caused him to resist this group, and he was relieved of his duties. Even then the planners had acquired that much strength - that they could remove someone who posed a threat to the plan.
One of the "braintrusters" who swarmed into Washington at that time was a professor from Columbia University, Rexford Guy Tugwell, who became Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. He also wrote books, and made speeches. He stated:
"We have a century and more of development to undo. It is, in other words, a logical impossibility to have a planned economy, and to have business operating its industries, just as it is also impossible to have one with our present Constitutional and statutory structure. Modifications in both, so serious as to mean destruction and rebeginning, are required . . . "
Tugwell publicly supported the theory that a planned economy required three great changes in the American system: first, a breaking down of existing statutes and constitutions of government; second, destruction of private enterprise; and, third, destroying the sovereignty of the States. He categorically asserted, "All three of these wholesale changes are required by even a LIMITED acceptance of the planning idea." Tugwell's remarks are basic to full understanding of this subject, for actual experience of the planning operation verifies his premises. Today, all three of his postulates are well on the way to accomplishment. The first, through such steps as Constitutional revisions, and massive rewriting of statutes; the second, through the War on Poverty (which was stated in the debates in Congress to really be a war on private enterprise) and environmental "protection" moves; and the third through establishing regionals which cross State lines, and by the Executive Orders which melt States into regions.
Although the information presented here is not secret, in the usual sense, it is certainly not known to most citizens. Its existence is either hidden by inaccessability, deliberate non-reporting, or it is forgotten or ignored because of seeming local or momentary interest. Yet it is vital to our survival as a nation. As each State is brought to face the "need" for Constitution revisions, the citizens are led to believe that it is their State alone which has developed a "bulky, unwieldy, verbose basic law" which must be whittled down. They are NEVER told, officially, that ALL States are being led to these changes, let alone that the record shows far different reasons for the "need" than those given officially. Citizens are not told officially how often the "Blue Ribbon" commissions set up to propose these changes arrive at the same recommendations, whether for New York, California, Maryland, or YOUR State. Those States which have not yet succumbed to the siren song of the revisionists are still under the gun. It seems to be a necessary element of the plan that apparent sanction of the citizenry be given, even though that approval is not based on full knowledge. Lacking that knowledge, no valid decision can be made, but THAT fact is conveniently ignored by the planners.
It has been said that man invented language to facilitate exchange of ideas, but today it is evident that language is being used for an opposite purpose - to hide the true intent. How extensively this is being done can only be surmised, and how many who are serving the cause of revolution KNOWINGLY is another area which cannot be determined. Of far greater importance right now is the question of WHICH activity, WHICH bill, WHICH executive act, serves this cause. And the language used gives some indication, if it is correctly understood. Words which mean one thing, ordinarily, take on a quiet different color, to those 'in the know.' Take the word "consensus." When used in the commonly accepted sense, it has legitimate function. Certain things being so, general agreement, "consensus," can be expected. As a revolutionary tool, however, "consensus" is used to describe what takes place when people's IDEAS about certain things can be directed toward acceptance. There are many such examples.
One of the activities promoted by the "Frontier Thinkers" who lent support to this plan during the 30s, was the device of "do-democracy" or ''participatory" democracy, as it was also termed. This was to be carried on through the use of "citizens advisory committees," working with elected or administrative officials, thus taking "democracy" to its ultimate: direct participation of citizens in government, without community selection. The Hon. Paul Shafer, at the time a Congressman from Michigan, warned of this then-new threat to representative government, by protesting on the floor of the House:
"The question of how responsible public officials could thus delegate authority and the responsibility imposed on them by law, or how those committees could, in turn, accept the authority and responsibility is not clear."
Perhaps the answer to the Congressman's question lay in the passage in 1946 of the Federal Administrative Producers Act, and the similar acts passed later in the States. If so, it had to be in violation of the Constitutional delegation of powers, and guarantee of a republican form of government, and is one more example of the way Congress has emasculated itself.
In any case, the plan for total management of society is now so involved with committees, commissions, boards and intergovernmental bodies, as to be almost overwhelming. Since it goes to the root of the matter, it cannot be ignored. You ask what is wrong with citizens being involved in their government? Isn't that what this paper is all about? The basic issue is that ours WAS a republic, NOT a democracy. The founding fathers specifically rejected democracy, which they recognized as tyranny by majority. The Federalist papers provide great detail about the dangers of democratic government. Since there has been no amendment to permit this change, our Constitution still is the arbiter. Some matters which are wrong about this particular form of "do-democracy" are not so obvious. One is the development of the technique of group control which is called group dynamics, or sensitivity training, or any of a number of other names. This technique is now so perfected, and these "committees" are such fertile ground for its use, that it is hardly likely that the possibilities would be ignored. The evidence suggests that they have not been. Is there a record anywhere of such a group ever rejecting the purpose for which it was formed? Does that purpose ever run counter to the purposes of the planners? The makeup of such groups suggests an ideal setup for a competent "change-agent"!
The so-called "commissions" which are appointed to 'formulate' Constitution revisions are not exceptions. The similarity of the various recommendations which result from their deliberations show a central direction. The [xxx] which ran through the background papers for the California revisions of government organization is consistent with the philosophy expounded in other states, and negates the fundamental concept of sovereignty of the people. It is deeply concerning to find an "expert" chosen by the Californa commission to do that background study, saying: " . . . Perhaps the most obvious omission from the present Constitution is . . . the lack of clear authority . . . for the legislature to abolish existing public entities, and replace them with OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FORMS . . ." The man who wrote that is a law professor, teaching future lawyers. Anothers section had to do with local governments being permitted to "contract with other governmental bodies for transer of powers and performance of functions." This same recommendation was in the proposed Maryland revisions, and received high praise from the Federal Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). Neither of these suggestions reached the voters in California. They were struck out in committee in the legislature.
Interlocking with the efforts already described, starting this nation down the road toward that New Social Order, were those of another group, which came to light as the result of an experience related to a Congressional committee by an obscure educator. Dr. William Wirt, a respected, progressive superintendent of schools in Gary, Indiana, testified under oath that he had been in the home in Washington, D.C., of a government official on a Sunday afternoon, in September, 1933. Present, in addition to Dr. Wirt and the host, were four other officials, and a seventh person. One official was head of the Bureau of Economics in the Agriculture Department; another, an educational expert in the Department of the Interior; the third was editor-in-chief of the publication of the Agriculture Adjustment Administration; the fourth was in a key position in the Public Works Administration; and the fifth was a key official in the National Recovery Administration. Dr. Wirt was the sixth, and the seventh person present was "one of the foremost propaganda agents of the Soviet government in America." From this strange assortment of people, Dr. Wirt heard an astounding set of proposals. Apparently the group took him for one of their own, for they were not at all reticent. Dr. Wirt reported that these people felt that the United States system of political, social, and economic organization was no longer adequate to ensure the well-being of the people. In its stead must be erected a planned economy, wherein the every day activity of the people would be regimented and controlled by the government, functioning through bureaus. They thought, said Dr. Wirt, that remuneration for work, and investment in property, should be under government control, EVEN IF THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY remained in private hands. Dr. Wirt charged that these persons were using their positions in the Administration to further their ideas. He stated that they planned that it should be believed that the measures they took were temporary, to facilitate recovery from the depression, but, in fact, it would further the regimented economy plan.
All six of the people named by Dr. Wirt denied under oath that they had discussed these matters. The majority of the Committee of five members of the House of Representatives upheld the accused, but the minority members reported that not ONLY did they find Dr. Wirt accurate in those matters in his statement which could be checked, but the MAJORITY MEMBERS HAD PARTICIPATED in what "apparently a determined effort to discredit Dr. Wirt, and to SUPPRESS THE TRUTH." Later, one of the majority members publicly admitted his part in this travesty:
"On the sixth anniversary of the 'purging' of Dr. Wirt before a Congressional committee, of which I was an active member, I desire to relieve my conscience of a matter which has long burdened it . . . Dr. Wirt has asserted that there was a deliberately conceived plan among the New Deal leftists to OVERTHROW THE ESTABLISHED ORDER, and substitute a planned economy in our country . . . Some of his informants had boasted that President Roosevelt would be the Kerensky of the coming revolution . . . While he named names, and quoted his informants, I took a leading part as 'prosecutor and inquisitor'. . . little did we know that most of the happenings which Dr. Wirt had said the plotters had predicted would come to pass . . . Many times privately I have apologized for my part in turning the thumbscrews, and I take this occasion to do it publicly. May Dr. Wirt's honest, patriotic soul rest in peace! His was the voice of one crying in the wilderness."
Here was a classic case of lack of understanding, which permitted participation in the plot. What a tragedy for America, as well as for Dr. Wirt, that John J. O'Connor did not see fit to admit these facts about this criminal conspiracy sooner, for his vote would have made the majority the minority, and Dr. Wirt would not have died a broken man, discredited, disgraced, for having tried to warn of the enemy within the citadel of freedom. And the covert, collectivist plan, which could have been checked easily, then, would not have spread its shadows over the length and breadth of America, and every country of the world, as well.
That was 1934. The next exhibit takes us to 1937, and a report from the Urbanism Committee of the National Resources Planning Board, which chose the nation's cities as the appropriate frame on which to build the plan, following the lead of the planners of the 1920s. This report was an early blueprint for the reconstruction of the American system, and it was bolder than the current crop of reports, bills, and resolutions, for it made no bones about the fact that the intent was to redistribute the wealth and population of this country, and to gain control of the lives and fortunes of the citizens. It was notable for other reasons, as well. It was the first official public thrust toward the "impossible dream" of the conspirators described by Dr. Wirt. It stated that it should be the public policy that Constitutional safeguards and guarantees should not impede the plan. It was compiled for the then resident of the White House, at the request of a number of national organizations: the U.S. Conference of Mayors; the American Municipal Association; the American Planning and Civic Association; and the American Society of Planning Officials (All 1313 bodies).
Among the myriad interventions proposed in this report are many which are only too familiar today: a minimum standard of living, with the Federal government guaranteeing family income; regional police; rigid zoning and building codes (almost unknown then); use of planning as a tool, for "better utilization of human and material resources"; federal requirement of local planning bodies (as a condition of grants-in-aid); consolidation of "overlapping authorities; joint service agreements; previous blanket consent of Congress for Interstate Compacts; urban renewal; revenue sharing; uniform tax policy in the states; national housing; decentralization; public and acquisition, for the purpose of placing it under control; early intervention and prevention of juvenile delinquency; redistribution of industrial centers; and it urged increased use of "State and national associations of municipalities, and municipal officers" in creating the Great Planned Society, and specifically mentioned 1313's own Public Administration Clearinghouse.
These are not all of the radical proposals, made in the board's official capacity as advisor to the President, but all of these are in some degree of implementation today, despite the fact that when the Congress learned what the NRPB was doing, that representative body not only indignantly rejected the whole set of proposals, but demanded the dissolution of the board as well, for overstepping in their own bounds, and the authority of Congress.
Please note that these are all proposals "for a social purpose," and the total effect, if they were to be fully implemented, would be a Socialist America. Today, the end purpose is hidden behind such phrases as "homerule," "simplifying proliferating government," "eradication of pollution," and "preserving the beauty of a lake." The purpose as originally proposed remains the same, only the stated reasons have changed. One such reason in 1937 was "the marked slowing down of the population increase." Today, the opposite reason is given for the same solution, though the facts show that, except for the "war boom," the decrease in native born Americans continues.
The record is clear that this bold plan had little support then, and less public notice. This study shows that any increase in support has been carefully engineered. It also shows how right the Fabians were, when they decided that public organization ALONE, without public support, could bring about the desired (by them) changes. That is how it has been possible to move a nation so far from its course, that a quarter of a century later not only elected representatives, but a goodly number of citizens as well were promoting what was then an "impossible dream" to some - an unthinkable nightmare to the majority. But there were SOME who knew it was not impossible, who knew the road to travel, and had the roadmap to chart the course. By studying that roadmap, the way back CAN be found.
The cartographer for this journey was again the Fabian Socialist, H. G. Wells, who had spent his lifetime, in public and private, exploring the territory, and planning the route. He wrote, in 1928, that his much-promoted "Outline of History" was the FIRST step into a threefold plan to ". . .pull people's minds together into a shape that will dispossess them to full participation in the movement . . . ," which he called "The Open Conspiracy." In his book of that name. he wrote:
"The form in which the Open Conspiracy will FIRST appear will certainly not be that of a centralized organization. Its most natural and convenient method of coming into being will be the formation of small groups of friends, family groups, groups of students, employees, or other sorts of (likeminded) groups of people, meeting and conversing (like Dr. Wirtz group?) in the course of their normal occupations, who will exchange views and find themselves in agreement with the general idea. Fundamentally important issues upon which unanimity MUST be achieved from the outset are, firstly, the ENTIRELY PROVISIONAL nature of ALL EXISTING GOVERNMENTS, and the entirely provisional nature, therefore, of ALL LOYALTIES associated therewith, secondly, the supreme importance of POPULATION CONTROL and human biology . . . and, thirdly, the urgent necessity of . . . resistance to war. People who do not grasp the VITAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE TEST ISSUES do not really understand the Open Conspiracy . . ."
Wells designated PHASE TWO of his threefold plan as the propaganda period, setting the stage for PHASE THREE - the CONQUEST OF POWER - which is now looming large on the horizon. But, of course, there is no conspiracy, is there?
The second world war was made to order as a stepping stone into the new social, political and economic order of world hegemony, and it was used fully as the excuse for throwing the machinery into gear to begin grinding out "Post-War" reconstruction plans - not just for America, but for all the world.
The international aspects of this revolution were first publicly announced when a 'secret' meeting was held, somewhere in the Atlantic, between the then-"heads of state" of Great Britain and the United States. The result of this 1941 meeting was the proclamation of something called the "Atlantic Charter." With much fanfare, it was proclaimed that this was an agreement which united the two governments in determination to win the war, and to uphold certain "common principles" of the two nations. This, despite the fact that the President of the United States had NO AUTHORITY to commit this nation to even the latter part of that agreement. The "Charter" did much more than was generally understood, however, for it bound the United States with Great Britain to "provide access, on EQUAL TERMS, for all states, large and small . . . to the raw material of the world needed for their economic prosperity." (The planners have long ago stopped recognizing nations as such. For years, their writings have referred to "nations" as "states," thus paving the way for that supergovernment). The "Charter" also promised improved labor standards, economic adjustment, and social security, for ALL THE WORLD. And regional government provides the channels, and the PPBS provides the controls to make it all possible.
In 1942 the federal Council of Churches got into the act. At a meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, that year, delegates were told that " . . . collectivism is coming, whether we like or not . . . ," and they dutifully responded by calling for "a duly constituted world government of delegated powers, an international legislative body, an international court . . . international administrative bodies . . . international police forces, and provision for enforcing its economic authority."
Speakers at the church conclave in Cleveland, where some 30-odd Protestant denominations were represented, declared that the "natural wealth of the world is not evenly distributed," and called for ". . a NEW ORDER OF ECONOMIC LIFE." They asserted that many duties then being performed by local and national governments would, in the future, HAVE to be carried out by international authority. There is no record showing protest from any of the churchmen there assembled, NOR any evidence that the 40-million or so souls supposedly represented there, had any part in formulating this policy, nor in joining later in implementing it.
The Atlantic Charter was followed on 2 January, 1942, by the Delcaration by the United Nations. This was signed in Washington by the original 26 countries. While primary concern of the time was that of finishing the existing war, a close second was planning for that Post-War world. In July of 1942, the League of Nations Association issued a policy statement, urging an immediate plan for "postwar reconstruction." All during the war, other organizations were also beating the drum for the plan. The Institute of Pacific Relations held two major conferences, dealing with this matter, ably assisted by officials from the United States Department of State, who were paid from the public purse. The UAW-CIO issued a call for postwar planning, which included specifically Metro Regional Planning by name, and reinstitution of the National Resources Planning Board. Note, that in all these instances, it is only a few, at the top, who are involved in these efforts. It is a moot point how many MEMBERS of these various groups even knew what was being done in their name.
During the 1950s, the PUBLIC thrust for the "Conquest of Power" was relatively quiescent; but, almost unnoticed, and certainly unrecognized, another recommendation of the National Resources Board, which was deliberately omitted in the section of ths study on their 1937 report because of its extreme importance, was started toward implementation, but, of course, not credited to them.
Was it by accident that President Truman chose Herbert Clark Hoover to head a Commission to reorganize the Executive branch of the Federal government? It had been hesitent Hoover who first utilized the concept of commissions appointed to make studies and set policy. This was such a radical departure from precedent that Hoover's opposition in the 1932 elections used it as a campaign issue. Franklin Roosevelt scored the practice in these words:
"The doctrine of legislation and regulation by "masterminds" in whose judgement and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington these past two years. Were it possible to find "masterminds" so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost Godlike in their ability to hold the scales of justice with an even hand, such a government might be in the interest of the country. But there are none such on the political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history."
Could it have been by accident that the recommendations of the Hoover Commission on Reorganization (which was first appointed by a Democrat, and later reconfirmed by a Republican President) extended that doctrine into their "housecleaning" operations? Each of these Commissions had a major recommendation for budgeting and accounting procedures, and the need for "modernizing" them. Neither of them suggested that the Congress take back its Constitutional responsibility for fiscal matters, which had been seriously jeopardized by the passage of the Budget Act of 1921. That would not have fitted the plan, although it would have relieved the Executive of a major responsibility, and gone far toward "streamlining" that department, which was one of the major charges to the Commission.
The recommendation by the Hoover Commission for a "performance" budget was not followed. Apparently, to a Congress not yet conditioned to thinking in terms of a New Social Order, it seemed too radical a departure from established practice. It was not too radical, however, to be placed in hgh school textbooks for young minds to receive as accepted procedure, and that is where the seeds of acceptance were planted. That was 20 years ago, and some of those same youngsters who studied the Hoover recommendation may well be Members of Congress now, or serving in State legislature - or on "advisory commissions" - or working in Administrative departments. Several departments of the Federal government were started into accrual accounting at that time however, which was stated by the Commission to be a necessary first step in the direction of performance budget.
When the Second Hoover Commission also recommended performance or program budgeting, a bill was finally introduced (HR 8002) which went through committees for two years, before reaching the floor of the House. Interestingly, there was tremendous "popular" support for this dry-as-dust proposal. Accounting and budgeting are not normally subjects which provoke much interest, but THIS time it was different. When HR 8002 finally reached the floor, in 1958, a wondrous strange thing happened. The day before it was to be considered, it was rewritten as an amendment, in the form of a substitute bill, by another Congressman (not the original author); the new bill was not available to Members until the day it was voted on; the rules were lifted, which prohibited further amendment, and it was passed. This was NOT the bill on which hearings were held, although it carried the same number; it was NOT the bill which had received the "groundswell" of support. But it passed. So the door was finally opened to implementation of what has proved to be the most dangerous program ever to receive the approval of Congress.
Evidence of the potential of this part of the plan - or even that it WAS a part of the plan - was not available, then. As stated by Congressman John G Schmitz, in remarks he placed in the Congressional Record in October, 1972:
"One of the recommendations of the Hoover Commission was to institute a new method of accounting in the Federal departments, which was followed, in due course, by a bill in Congress to approve of such a move. Neither of these steps gave any indication of the potential they carried for extension to such an instrument of control as has developed in the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System."
But there WERE those who knew, and who desperately wanted it that way. In 1937, the planners called it "Urban Reporting and Research," and it was the major recommendation of the National Resources Board. Today it is generally known as Planning, Programming and Budgeting, or PPBS, but it has other names as well, as so many of the planners programs do. Once they become known, and resistance is evidenced, the names change. It cannot be stressed too strongly that the essential elements of these programs must be understood, so that, no matter what they are called, their very nature will expose them for what they are.
This PPBS carries within itself the seeds of total tyranny - the means for ultimate total control of all resources, including "human" resources. It is derived from Pavlovian concepts, and was brought back to this country from the Soviet Union by eagar young scientists, who had rushed to that land of tragedy to see the future "work." The Federal Data Bank, which Congress rejected only a few years ago, was recommended by the NRBB in 1937, is now partially operative, and is an essential for PPB. The extended census of 1970, was also recommended, and the data from it is already being used for planning purposes. So, too, the alarming "Cum" [xxx] files, data from IRS, police records - all are grist for PPB.
The PPBS is an integral part of regional government. Both are dependent on the same philosophy, goals and objectives, long range planning, maximum information, and controls. In fact, it is difficult to see how the goals and objectives of the regional program could be achieved, without PPB, and the PPB without the regional arrangement could never be efficient. 'Voluntary' controls, such as have been utilized until now in Metro situations, have been only partially successful. The 15 year battle to finalize the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), has shown the difficulties involved in giving an option. Until now, this has not been too important, for there was a great deal of work to be done before the world was ready for completion of the plan. As the time draws near for integration on a worldwide basis, the totality of the PPBS is essential, barring a successful resistance, ending the "impossible dream."
It was in the education system that California citizens first became aware of an unusual and disturbing element developing in the area of "management." It was found after some research that what began as concern about this 'element' in the proposed social science textbooks, had to be extended to cover not only the area of "social science," and the children directly, but the whole state system of education, and the State GOVERNMENT as well. Since education - or, more properly, MISeducation - is at the heart of the problems we face, and is the single largest factor in redirecting the mainstream of American political, social, and economic life, it will also be the major factor in finding the way back. So what has been done in education cannot be overlooked, in searching for answers.
Columbia University has long been the fountainhead of education in this country, for it has been at Columbia that the teachers have been trained, who teach the teachers who teach the children. And it was at Columbia that the tide was first turned toward developing the plan. The dominant figure in American education in this century had been the Socialist, John Dewey, who joined the staff of Columbia in 1904, as a professor of philosophy. There is no question of his influence on educational thinking. The Dewey philosophy has permeated not only the academic world, but educational associations, and through their influence, almost every phase of American life has felt the impact.
In 1932, the National Education Association set up an ex-officio group, known as the Educational Policies Commission, which turned its hand toward changing the goals for American education. During the 30s, it printed numbers of position papers on the "function" of education, which, until then, had been fairly well understood and accepted - and successful. In 1944, this self-appointed group of 'experts' prepared a volume of extreme importance relating to the matters here being examined. It was titled "Education for ALL American Youth." (Their emphasis) The Commission assumed full responsibility for this book, while giving full credit to the individuals who participated in its creation. The acknowledgement states that it "went through many careful revisions," so it must be assumed that it says what it was meant to say. The widest possible distribution was obtained for it in educational circles. Told in fictional form, and as though it were already history, it tells how the planners solved all the problems, not just of the youth, but of two imaginary communities, a village and a city, through INVOLVING THE CITIZENS in cooperation for the goals OF THE PLANNERS! In this little book is the outline for Headstart, for unification, for HEW, for teacher participation in curriculum decisions, for "Federal funds without Federal control," for youth services in the schools through the "poverty" program, for removal of local control, without seeming to do so, for replacing elected State superintendents with appointees of appointed boards, and all of the other programs which seem to have "just growed" like Topsy. Giving the usual either-or alternative of one highly undesirable choice, versus one less obnoxious, this was a blueprint for the participation of education in the promotion and development of the totally planned society.
Though pains were taken several times to deny that this NEA-affiliated Educational Policies Plan was intended to be used to promote the ideas expressed, proof that it not only WAS so intended, but was also so used, lies in the detail of method, and in the fact that, through the years, their program has been followed almost to the letter. As the book says:
". . . Our planning reaches down into the neighborhoods, and out into the surrounding region. You will find many neighborhood planning groups . . . if this seems far removed from education, wait until you get into the schools. There you will find that community planning occupies a foremost place in the program of citizenship . . ."
Shades of the Open Conspiracy! No wonder it is difficult to get people to understand that there once was another - a better - way! For it was established that long ago that education had a definite function in the implementation of the Socialist plan. Can it be doubted that half a century of using the educational process to prepare America's children for the New Social Order is now bearing bitter fruit?
The FORMAL signing of the United Nations declaration in 1945, and the consent of the United States Senate, only made official the existing machinery for extending regional government internationally. The evidence suggests that those who would argue that the UN is responsible for this movement have the cart before the horse. This Socialist plan requires the United Nations, or some other similar body, to coordinate the world-wide aspects.
In 1951, The Association for World Peace set up a committee to prepare a report on the 'problem' of world development. Two years later, the chairman of that committee used the material they had compiled to write a book, "The War on World Poverty." In that book, he promoted a "World Development Authority," whose functions would include decisions for, and administration of, grants-in-aid for countries all over the world; preparation and coordination of plans for economic development; improvement of public works, and other, similar activities. All of these are part of regional governance. They also reflect the federal Council of Churches program. They are also part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty here. They are also dependent on ECONOMIC CONTROL. The author of the book was Harold Wilson, then a Member of Britain's Parliament, and later Her Majesty's Prime Minister. In that book, Wilson made clear that the United States was expected to fund the greater part of that War, just as was done, in fact.
In the early SOs, too, the first benchhead for regional governance in the United States was established officially in Florida, and Miami thus had the dubious honor of being the first community in America to lose its identity under the regional umbrella. It was during the 50s, also, that the California Commission on Interstate Cooperation began quietly moving toward an interstate compact for the Tahoe basin. State machinery was being set up to convert constitutional government into the bureaucratic autocracy which is now being "legalized" by legislation. Agencies were brought into being to expedite the change. In 1961, the first bill in California to provide a legal facade for Metro was introduced. AB 267 was titled Metropolitan Area Multipurpose Districts. lt was so radical a departure from accepted procedure, that the bill was defeated, but it became obvious during the hearings on it that there was a powerful, organized effort to "destroy county government." A member of the legislature stated:
"We were told (in the hearings) that county government was old-fashioned. hopelessly inefficient . . . They wanted the Committee to recommend changing the rules, so that nearly all county officers would be APPOINTED. . . "
In 1962, the Department of Defense became the first governmental agency to implement the PPBS, under the direction of Robert Strange McNarnara and Charles Hitch, both of whom later accepted positions of responsibility in the California education system, where the massive thrust into the PPBS finally directed attention to this revolutionary movement.
In 1963, the Department of Agriculture, still, as in 1933, the dependable arm of economic planning, issued its annual Yearbook. Title "A Place to Live," it contained, not the expected report on farming, but full battle plans for what appeared to be the finalization of the regionalization of America, including the propaganda needed to blind those who were to serve as quislings in the approaching effort. In that year, too, the Kennedy Executive Orders were issued, paving the way for total control.
In 1963, in California, the original Plan for Tahoe started its way through committees, but died there, when Nevada defeated the companion bill. Under the Democrats an Intergovernmental Council on Urban Growth was established, and charged to "resolve the problems of the cities." The solution? Surprise! Regionalization. Under the banner of another party, the Council continued to function, and to promote the same solution, until it was replaced with the California Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIR), which carries on the work under Model Cities, with the added element of the PPBS. Under the Democrats, the State government was offered as participant in a pilot project of building a prototype PPB format, for export to other governments. Under a "conservative" leader, the Republican regime has continued the experimental program. That same "conservative" gave the support which was needed for passage of the first omnibus revision of the State Constitution. All of which proves that this is NOT a partisan matter.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, the movement proceeded unabated. In 1965 the Congress passed the Public Works and Economic Development Act (PWEDA), which was the enabling legislation for the 1963 Agriculture report. The President designated the Secretary of Commerce as the regional czar, mandated by the PWEDA. Under the Secretary, there is a Regional Council, composed of the heads of most of the executive departments. Since the President also mandated installation of the PPBS in ALL of those departments, the question is raised whether programs placed under direction of any of them by Congress do not AUTOMATICALLY enter the PPB system. The Republican President has continued the progress. His ordering of the ten regions is in defiance of State sovereignty, and follows a part of the plan designed in 1935. His restructuring of the Federal Executive follows the structure developed in California by CCIR, for PPB purposes, and explains the changing of the Bureau of the Budget (BOB) into the Office of MANAGEMENT and Budget (OMB), which is now the central control for all PPB. Permitted to continue, these activities will mean destruction of local government, emasculation of the States, will make puppets of legislators, concentrate all power in the executive, and make a mockery of the expressed desires of the people, of whatever Party.
In the waning days of 1972, the Congress missed a golden opportunity to take back some of the authority which is theirs by right. With the regional reins in Commerce (Executive) and the counterpart control of the PPBS in OMB (also Executive) our representatives institutionalized that control by the Executive, through the passage of HR 4383, which not only removed the Federal Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR-1313's "intergov") from ANY control, but placed all other federal advisory commission, committees, boards, etc., in total control of the PPBS, in the Office of Management and Budget. These APPOINTED bodies, which carry most of the responsibility for the advance of this two-pronged attack on traditional Constitutional government, are now effectively removed from Congressional overview.
It was also in the fall of 72 that yet another step was taken in California. "I call it a dream," the governor said, "but it is not the 'impossible dream'." But it was. The time had come, he said, to review the entire governmental structure, to "streamline and eliminate duplication." He envisioned "the merging of counties with other counties, cities with other cities, and counties and cities merging together," and appointed another Blue Ribbon Commission to make the dream come true.
Constitutional revisions all over the map. Interstate compacts uncounted. PPBS in over half the States. Regionals being developed piecemeal or wholesale. Bills and more bills - State and Federal - many supportive of either PPB OR the regionals - or both. Committees and commissions quietly structuring PPB programs, and presenting them as "alternatives." HR2519, the State and Local Government Act, not yet passed, but strongly supported, requiring every State to adopt a progressive income tax, among other provisions. Revenue sharing. (WHAT revenue? - why, the 2519 revenue, what else?) National Goals and Priorities (new ones), and the Commission on BALANCED Economic Development. And, the continuing, determined effort to install the PPBS, accompanied by extensive evidence of intent to GET IT DONE, and a pox! on the citizens, AND their representatives. Most of the PPB story is still available (see source page), and thousands of citizens - and SOME elected officials - have done the preliminary study which is essential to any effective opposition, so here we will just fill in on late developments, and trust that those who are receiving this information for the first time will research what they need for their own understanding.
In California, an Ad Hoc Committee, formed to request an investigation of PPB by the elected Attorney General of the State, waited almost a year, before learning:
". . . Whether a particular form of budgeting system is preferable or desirable is primarily a decision for agencies such as the State Board of Education, and Department of Finance, subject to any directive from the State Legislature . . ."
This opinion spoke to the LEGALITY of implementing the PPBS. All other questions raised by the Committee were ignored. In a phone conversation, the career-deputy-attorney general, when specifically asked about the CONSTITUTIONALITY of such implementation, in view of the extensive evidence that the PPBS is changing our FORM of government, without the knowledge and consent of the governed, commented to the effect that, in the absence of denial by the legislature, consent is present. The rationale being that, since the legislature is elected to conduct the public business, silence lends assent. This, despite the fact that most of the legislators were also unaware of the PPB program, and had never been asked to approve it AS A PROGRAM. Since ths same deputy had been informed at the start that the concern was with a TOTAL, INTEGRATED SYSTEM, the Committee wrote in answer:
". . . In view of the fact that, on presenting you with the material supportive of the request . . . an attempt was made to make it 'perfectly clear' that we were not referring to a 'budgeting' system, but to the TOTAL system embraced in the concept of the PPBS, and the additional fact that the source material we included in the file we prepared showed the inseparability of its components, it is incredible that you continue to refer to it as a 'budgeting' system . . ."
In the summer of 1972, a resolution requesting the State Board of Education to defer finalizing the "accounting" portion of the PPBS until a decision was made by the legislature, passed both Houses unanimously. A hearing was held in the fall, and citizens from all over the State appeared to voice their concern. the ONLY supporters were the very ones who were promoting the PPB in their official capacities. Another hearing was held in March, 73, only days before the State Board would be free to make a final decision. This hearing, and the imminent Board decision, brought a letter from some Committee members, stating to the Board their intent to develop legislation to modify the State Code as it applied to the Manual. They were explicit.
Although only a few members signed this letter, due to the shortness of time, it seems to express the sense of the majority in the California legislature, who are showing increased concern, as they learn more about PPB. It states, in part, that their intent was:
". . . to make certain that the school districts using the manual recognize the limitations of any accounting manual in evaluating educational programs. We also desire to make certain that behavioral objectives cannot become a mandated part of our educational program . . . to make certain that educational content is not expressly or by implication mandated or influenced . . . The adoption of this blockcoding system (in the manual). . . involves educational decisions.. . As long as the manual contains material of this nature, it is NOT SEVERED AND DIVORCED FROM PPBS . . . For the several reasons set forth, we sincerely recommend that the . . . manual . . . NOT BE APPROVED. . ."
But the Board approved the manual, albeit providing that it be "reworked." The evidence suggests that this method of accounting has no real virtue over any other, unless used in conjunction with the other elements of the PPBS. Since a number of the developers of the State PPB manual (which included the "accounting portion") are now "consultants" to the Commission which will "rework" this one, little comfort can be taken from this decision.
This history of the plan reveals bipartisan involvement, but not knowledgeable consent. The road back requires KNOWLEDGEABLE bipartisan action. The immediate first step is for citizens to let their elected representatives know of their concern, and the reasons why. Failure to deny this usurpation by administrative action is not sufficient base on which to construct such a radical change. IT MUST BE MADE CLEAR THAT THE PEOPLE DO NOT CONSENT. The loudest voice to a legislator is from his HOME DISTRICT. Each citizen must let those whom they elect to office know when they approve - or disapprove - of the way the public business is being conducted. An issue such as this AFFECTS EVERY CITIZEN. It must be understood thoroughly, and by no one more than those who hold the public trust. They took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution. . . against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.. . " They cannot keep that oath, if they do not recognize the threat. The PPBS, and its counterpart, regionalization CONSTITUTE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. If elected officials are not aware of that, they must be encouraged to examine it in full.
Regional governance DOES deny a representative form of government. PPBS IS, in fact, a management and control system, intended for people, as well as projects. There has been NO MANDATE from the people, nor, indeed, from a majority of their representatives to redirect the historic path laid out by " . . . the greatest document ever struck off by the hand of man. . . "but this is what is being done. Unless the proponents state that the intent is as the record shows it to be.. . A NEW POLITICAL SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC ORDER FOR AMERICA, they are promoting this program under false colors, whatever specious reasons are given to obtain approval. There is no question but that this situation CAN be reversed, but first it must be STOPPED WHERE IT IS, until it is fully understood. Citizens CAN AND MUST work with their elected representatives to stop this usurpation. Once that is done, the ravages which complaisance has permitted can be repaired. It will take dedication equal to that shown by the proponents. It will require constant vigdance. But eternal vigdance is now and always has been the price of liberty. It will take time, and money. And, most of all, it will take courage. But this IS the home of the brave. . . ISN'T IT?
"Let us believe no man infallible or impeccable in government, any more than in religion; TAKE NO MAN'S WORD
AGAINST EVIDENCE, nor implicitly adopt the sentiments of others who may be deceived themselves, or may be
interested in deceiving us."
-- John Adams, in the Boston Gazette, 1763
