with the reasons for any significant departure from such goals and objectives" [section 212(b)].

There would be numerous means of reviewing the plan and its implementation. The board would have to report to the President on the success or failure of past plans [section 204(b)(3)], the council would periodically assess programs made in implementation of the plan [section 206(b)], the advisory committee would help the board analyze plans [section 207(a)], the President would be required to tell Congress why past plans have succeeded or failed [section 208(b)(3)], and the Council of Economic Advisors would examine the relationship between the plan and the annual Economic Report [section 2].

THE MAIN ARGUMENTS

Proponents

The sponsors and supporters of the bill employ two general approaches. First, they stress the success of central planning generally; second, they praise the unique safeguards and efficiency of the proposal.

General Arguments. The proponents respond to the critics who fear that the central planning is a sharp break with tradition, by pointing to American precedents. Hamilton and Gallatin both prepared lengthy, detailed, and comprehensive economic plans. In fact. America's rapid economic growth in the early nineteenth century may be ascribed largely to Hamilton's foresight and genius for planning Later, Clay's American Plan represented central planning at its best. None of these long-range planning ventures seems to have diminished human freedom.

More recent examples of central planning also prove the value of such undertakings. In World War II we mobilized the economy, united public and private sectors in pursuit of common goals, and discussed and implemented long-range policies. Leon Keyserling, testifying before the Joint Economic Committee, described another example of successful planning.

We planned during the years of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Truman when we got unemployment down to 2.9 per cent and envisaged in our reports a degree of planning which the great economist Alvin Hanson said was the finest example of economic planning ever put out by American economists."

In the early 1960s President Kennedy supplied another example when he established the goal of landing a man on the moon within ten years. The government aided businesses (without stifling free enterprise) in developing new technology, a carefully formulated plan was developed (Mercury, Gemini, and then Apollo), and the cost estimated in advance. The National Aeronautics and Space Administra tion became a central planning agency. As Senator Humphrey described the space program,

...[s]o what we did was to set goals, to establish a schedule, to
set up a planning organization, to establish a budget, and to bring
about the cooperation of government and private business. We
know how to plan. The question is, are we willing to do it for our
domestic economy?5

As the moon landing proved. America is fully capable of planning. In fact, most federal agencies now have planning arms. For example, the State Department has had one since the 1940s and the Departments of Defense and Transportation are also engaged in planning. Other planning entities include the President's Council of Economic Advisers and his Domestic Council. Most states direct industrial growth toward areas which need it most. The bill. proponents assert, would simply systematize these currently diffuse activities.

Proponents also question why many people fear planning in government when they accept it elsewhere. General Motors has central planning units to forecast future needs. set goals. monitor consumer attitudes, and implement long-range policies. Many families employ central planning to set budgets, develop elaborate aims, and act according to largely prearranged schemes. Why should government be any different? Planning is not an activity to be feared per se, they argue. Planning can be misused, but so can all governmental power. On the other hand, it can be an efficient means of deciding on national goals and how we want to achieve them.

Supporters of S. 1795 also point to the current recession and inflation as evidence of the deficiencies in the present economic system. Senator Humphrey has stated:

Who can deny in the face of 9.2% unemployment that the govern-
ment and the private sector are really failing to carry out their
responsibilities to the working families of our country? Who can
deny the problems this economy has experienced over the past six
years, the inflation, the lost jobs, the freezes. the controls, the
recessions? I think that statement alone indicates that we have not
had a consistent policy. It has been an ad hoc. hit and miss
arrangement designed to alleviate certain problems and certain
pains only to bring on increased difficulties.

Senator Javits shares this opinion:

Our economy is in its worst state since the Depression. Large scale
unemployment a cumulative loss of real potential output esti-
mated at almost $350 billion over the next five years. Meanwhile,
basic human needs are inadequately fulfilled: large numbers of
Americans lack basic medical care, housing costs are soaring be-
yond the reach of even middle class families, an enormous unem-
ployment rate among teenagers. Is it possible to believe that we
have reached this state because this is what the American people
want?9

The bill's sponsors blame these troubles on short-term thinking. Townsend Hoopes discussed the situation in the following general terms:

Our difficulty is that, as a nation of short-term pragmatists accustomed to dealing with the future only when it has become the present, we find it hard to regard future trends as serious realities. We have not achieved the capacity to treat as real and urgent-as demanding action today problems which appear in critical dimension only at some future date. Yet failure to achieve this new habit of mind is likely to prove fatal.10

Leon Keyserling has given a more specific analysis.

If one looks back to the criticism I have made of why we have failed so abysmally to maintain or achieve or sustain full employment, and full production. it is just because economists have done nothing but short-range. You cannot have a full employment policy without a gradual transition of our tax policy and our money policy and our housing policy, and our social security policy and our income distribution policy...the bricks you lay today have got to be built into the concept of a house that is culminated within five or ten years, and then you keep it in repair and add some additional wings. 11

And George Meany has offered one example of short-term thinking.

We need long-range economic planning and priorities to minimize unforeseen major developments and reduce the degree to which American society has stumbled and fumbled along in the past few years. . . .As an example, the United States was not prepared for the urban crisis of the 1960s--which could have been foreseen by sensible. long-range economic planning in the 1950's, 12

Senator Humphrey also pointed to the sale of wheat to the Soviet Union as an example of failure to plan.

Did anyone think through the economic implications of selling off to the Russians a half-billion bushels of wheat from our reserves? No. We treated that sale as if it were a separate business transaction, totally unrelated to the supermarket, totally unrelated to the consumer price index, totally unrelated to our national security, totally unrelated to anything else except the cash sale.13

A recent step toward the planning process is the "environmental impact statement," which forces careful consideration of future effects of current activities. In fact, some experts have proposed an “impact statement" for all government activities, including economic. S. 1795, by facilitating long-term coordination of the federal government's activities, would help to ensure economic prosperity, according to supporters.

Although many opponents of central planning fear that government planning will reduce human liberty, proponents argue that planning does not necessarily undermine freedom and can enhance it if used properly.

The fear that planning will interfere with the development of free industrial society is groundless. The very purpose of planning is to release human abilities, to broaden the field of opportunity, and to enlarge human liberty. We plan primarily for freedom; the ways and means and instruments are secondary to the main purpose. The right kind of planning democratic planning- is a guaranty of liberty and the only real assurance in our times [the author, a member of the National Planning Board, was writing in 1944] that men can be free to make a wide range of choices. 14

Government uncertainty often limits our actions, and shortages caused by government inaction or short-sighted policies may diminish our range of choices. On the other hand, planning can infuse certainty and predictability into the economy. With fewer shortages. more citizens can share America's benefits. Advocates of planning say that the ultimate goal of planning is the true test of whether planning erodes freedom. If the goal is democratic, planning will enhance liberty.

It is argued that nearly all foreign nations utilize some degree of planning, and that aside from whether they have been successful, these policies certainly have not diminished freedom. Robert Nathan expanded this point before the Joint Economic Committee:

I think it is strange for people to be fearful about planning because of the damage it might do. When we look at some of these countries it is hard to see the effects on total planning, because they do not do total planning, therefore, people say, they are not doing any planning, or they are ignoring planning, and planning is a failure. I think we get mixed up between ideology on the one hand and planning on the other.

I know of no country that has pursued planning, detailed. superficial, philosophical, conceptual, goals or what have you, that has become a totalitarian country because of planning. I think the ideology is there, and you plan within that ideology rather than the ideology being determined by the planning process.

15

We have nothing to fear from the example of Communist planning. Dictators plan in a dictatorial fashion, proponents argue: democracies plan democratically.

Free enterprise, proponents of the bill claim. will benefit from central planning. Business will be able to rely on governmental consistency, instead of being forced to predict what the federal government might do.