The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-10-15
FASCISM OF COUGHLIN-LEMKE
 ASSAILED IN COMMU- MYSTIC ATTACK
October IA, 1936.

October IA, 1936. Editor, Waterbury Democrat:
 When fifteen million people walk the streets in search of jobs it is more than natural that the question of immediate relief and social secur- ity should assume the proportions o1 a national problem of first magni- tude. And so it is.
 One of the chief issues among the various political parties is relief and security.
 There can be no question as tc where Landon and the republicans stand. They pay lip service. to both but they fool no one. They will starve the unemployed just as they are already doing it in New Jersey Pennsylvania and Kansas. Of all the parties only one, the so-called Coughlin Lemke party has nothing to say on relief to the un- employed-nothing; and promises very vaguely some sort of "aSsur- ance" to the aged and young. Coughlin and Lemke may argue that if their money schemes are put into operation, that if their an- nual living wage is adopted there will be no need for relief to the unemployed.
 We have shown that these schemes are fraud. Granting, however, that these schemes will achieve what is claimed for them, how soon will it take place? Not very soon. What shall the fifteen million un- employed live on until then? These unemployed, with no silver to specu- late on, must have either jobs or re- lief and they must have 1t now and immediately.
 Do Coughlin and Lemke care? Not 8 bit. The platform of their union party completely ignores the demand for immediate relief. What kind of hypocrisy is this! Imagine self styled party of the people ignoring the needs of those who have been 1most hard stricken by the crisis and who are moreover be- ing threatened by Wall streets party with starvation and death What 8 champion of the people! This is indeed unique way to fight the bankers.
 Let us see what he has to say about the old people. Point six o1 the union party platform proposes: Congress shall legislate that there will be an assurance of reasonable and decent security for the aged" What does this mean? It means nothing. Why? Because in any old age pension plan there must be three definite things.
 First it must specify at what age This is important because If you shift the age from 60 to 65 you in- validate practically the whole scheme. If you bring it down tc 11fty-five you make the scheme dou- bly, valuable. In other words; Q promise of security for the aged has no meaning whatever if 1t does moi specify the exact age.
 In true fascist style, Coughlin and Lemke promise security to the aged but conveniently fail to specify the age.
 Second it must specify the sun of money that is to be received This is important. But still more important is to specify the mini. mum below which old age pension; must not be permitted to fall. This is the sort of bill communists ia. vor and therefore they support the Frazier -Lundeen bill.
 But if you don't specify any sun at all, especially the minimum, you fail in the most essential feature oi old age security. Therefore in true fascist style, Coughlin and Lemks promise security for the aged but conveniently fail to specify the sum
 The third definite thing of any security plan is where is the money to be raised? This is important be- cause it is basic. The F,razier-Lun- deen bill states the money must be raised by 8 graduated tax on in comes of five thousand and over. It is clear that a scheme for old age pension which does not indicate where the finances are to come from is Q fraud on the face of 1t. Therefore in true fascist style Coughlin and Lemke, though great eS~4rts in monev schemes. promisl