The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-09-23
from the ample supply of a dear

from the ample supply of a dear friend.
 The New Deal is communistic, Roosevelt is associated with Com- munists. Isn't this a splendid way to kill two birds with one stone! First smash Roosevelt by raising the red scare, second discredit com- munism by associating it with the failures of the New Deal.
 Likewise, MT. Ayotte cleverly makes an attack, presto, avoids an answer. @
 A. precious pearl, MT. Ayotte's rubbish pile is the claim that we Communists are foreign refugees. MT. Hearst makes the same claims, but equally unconvincing. We Communists ..- are American (really). Mir. Ayotte6 letter besides being pure rubbish is bare faced evasion of truths which he cannot deny. Truths which we are inter ested in bringing to thousands of honest and sincere people who in their search for social justice have become the followers and victims of Coughlin and his Union Party.
 Fascist demigogues know 8 lot of tricks to befuddle and deceive peo- pie. They promise everything, but not too specifically and concretely.
 Coughlin and Len1ke and storm Troop Smith know that every American craves the assurance of a living annual wage. They promise it is their platform but in not too clear terms. Point four of their platform says:
 Congress shall legislate that there will be an assurance of 8 liv- ing annual wage for all laborerS capable of working and willing to work"
 At first sight it looks quite attrac- tive. But what does it really mean? What specific kind of legislation shall Congress enact in order to assure a living annual wage? <,
 Did Coughlin and Lemke mean that the government shall assume responsibility for such g wage? If so, why didn't they say 1t in so many words? Did they mean that the federal government must pay an annual wage to those workers who cannot earn it through no fault of their own? Did they mean that the government must force all employers of labor to provide an annual living wage to their em- | ployes? Or what did they mean?
 When one speaks of an annual wage, one must of necessity begin with jobs. This is exactly what Americans haven't got. The ques- tion is how to get them. Have Coughlin and Lemke anything to say on that Nothing. Not word on their platform.
 Just by way of contrast, see what the Communist platform says on this point: ]
 "Open the closed factories-we need all that our industries can produce. If the private employers will not or cannot do so, then the GOVERNMENT must open and operate the factories, mills and mines for the benefit of the people" !"
 Clear, isn't 1t? And practical, too.
 This is what Congress should leg islate on the principle that the gov ernment is responsible for everyone getting a job.
 From the question of jobs, we necessarily come to the question of wages.
 What kind of an annual wage?
 Coughlin and Lemke speak in their platform of living wage. That is fine provided you become more specific on what you mean by living wage.
 The monopolies as is well known have their own conception of hv- ing wage. It is somewhere around the subsistence level, sometimes low CT. Is that what Coughlin and Lenke have in mind? Or is it perhaps, Landon's $1.08 Q week? Coughlin and Lemke keep mum on these things and so does, their platform. Yet this is 8 crucial ques- tion.
 The Communist platform answers it plainly:
 Industry and the productive powers of our nation must be used to give every working man and woman a real, American standard of living, with 8 minimum annual wage guaranteed by law" At this state of affairs, tlae work CTS of this country are interested lin legislation that VIII secure era'