« 이전계속 »
degrees of skill and aptitude, unemployment through management-labor disputes, and similar questions. If we have an unfilled demand for workers in Texas and a surplus of unemployed workers in New England, are these simply to be balanced off on the budget or are we to use Federal money to transport New England workers to Texas or, if the latter decline this Federal transportation subsidy, what then? Are we to start a PW program in New England and let Texas suffer with labor shortage, possible inflation, and like factors? If we have need for textile workers but have an oversupply of unemployed machinists, are we again to balance this off one against the other, or are we to use Federal funds to get machinists to work and let the textile shortage “go hang"—or are we to try with Federal funds to train machinists to operate textile looms? And what about seasonal shifts in employment? Are we to provide such a plethora of job opportunities that all shall be employed at all times and that there will be no slack available to handle seasonal crops, to take care of seasonal bulges in shipping and transportation, to meet the peak demands which arise at times through some of the so-called act-of-God causes—epidemics, flood, fire, and the like? Enactment of the bill would give rise to expectations that cannot possibly be fulfilled even with the most drastic Government controls. It would tend to create the belief on the part of the workingman that he is entitled to a job at Government expense regardless of his productivity or the demand for his product; and the tendency would be to consider himself entitled to a particular job at a particular place and at a particular wage. If the Government is to underwrite jobs, it must inevitably seek control of manpower, job placements, investments, starting of new enterprises, etc. The bill would be inflationary in effect. Notwithstanding the purported safeguards, it would be almost certain to result in frequent embarkation on large-scale Federal spending programs—the familiar “pump priming” under a different guise. It is probably too much to expect that a President would attempt to stop a boom by advocating a deflationary policy, but on the other hand some unemployment could always be found to give apparent justification for a spending program. Political pressures to that end would be well-nigh irresistible. Experience in the 1930's has shown that Federal spending is not the panacea for the ills of the economy in general or for unemployment in particular, but on the contrary is likely to depress business activity and thus depress employment. In operationg the bill would tend to depress rather than promote the functioning of private enterprise and would thus tend to reduce rather than augment the volume of employment opportunities. Notwithstanding its expressions about the fostering of free enterprise, the bill contemplates Federal spending as the panacea for unemploymement and carries the threat of higher taxes, increased Government debt, inflation, and ever-greater Government interference in business. This threat is well calculated to diminish that confidence in the future possibilities of legitimate profit in private enterprise which is so essential to an expanding volume of private enterprises. The bill will necessarily result in increased intervention of Government in business and increased Government control of the economy. It visualizes in essence a “planned economy” under which a corps of “experts” in the executive department will determine the needs of the economy and prescribe therefor. Attempts to plan the economy inevitably result in more and more drastic controls and lead to a vicious spiral of more and more Government intervention and control, moving toward the all-powerful authoritarian state. While the program recommended by the President can take effect only if enacted by Congress, Congress would be largely at the mercy of the statisticians in the executive department. Congressmen are too busy with too many important matters to be able to go behind the estimates presented by the President's experts and satisfy themselves independently as to the validity of the bases on which the program is recommended. The time element would prevent careful scrutiny, because if a program based on estimates for a year in advance is to be effective, obviously action must be taken before that period is largely past. In short, the bill would tend to aggrandize the Federal Government at the expense of the States and municipalities and private enterprise and to aggrandize the executive department at the expense of Congress and the people. For these reasons, the Wisconsin State Chamber of Commerce respectfully urges the committee to withhold its approval of bill H. R. 2262.
The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Dr. Walter E. Spahr, speaking
on behalf of the National Association of State Chambers of ComIslerce.
STATEMENT OF WALTER E. SPAHR, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, N. Y., ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
Mr. SPAHR. Chairman Manasco and members of the committee, the National Association of State Chambers of Commerce has asked me to appear before this committee to present my views as an economist on the full employment bill now under consideration. Mr. CochRAN. Just a moment at that point. Are you a member of this organization? Mr. SPAHR. No; I have no connection with the organization. no CochRAN. They just simply asked you to appear and speak for them : Mr. SPAHR. Well, it was hardly as simple as that. I think my next statement will make that clear. Mr. CochRAN. I understand, but I would take it you will make a statement based largely upon your own opinions. Let me put it this way: Did you attend the meeting where this discussion took place, and did you hear the views of the various members of this organization expressed? Mr. SPAHR. I did not attend the meeting, I did not hear the views expressed, but I did go over the material which was furnished me and determined their views to that extent in that manner. Mr. CochRAN. It seems to me it would be a very unusual procedure for a businessman to go outside of his organization and secure an individual to come and speak for them when he has not attended a meeting at which the conclusion was reached. Mr. SpAHR. My next sentence, if I may be permitted to give it, I think will answer you very definitely as to that matter. Now, of course, it is a matter of procedure. This connects up, and I think it will be clear if we approach it that way. Mr. RESA. May I interrupt to ask this question: How many of the officers are referred to in this sentence? Mr. SPAHR. I was contacted by the officers of the national association, and I do not know how many of those men read this article, or the pamphlet. \s. REsA. Do you know that more than one read it? Mr. SPAHR. Of my own personal knowledge I do not know, and I could not say definitely. Mr. RESA. Or that anyone did. So that the statement that some of their officers read it may or may not be an accurate statement? Mr. SPAHR. That was the statement that was given to me, that their officers had read it, and I accepted that statement at face value. Mr. RESA. Does that refer to officers of the National Association of State Chambers of Commerce, themselves? Mr. SPAHR. Yes, it refers to the officers of that organization. Mr. RESA. It does not refer to the officers of the State chambers of commerce themselves? Mr. SPAHR. Congressman, I understood that they had passed copies of my article out before they asked me to come down to speak for them, and that the conclusions that I had expressed in there were coincidental with the conclusions that they had arrived at, and it was for that reason that they asked me to appear.
The CHAIRMAN. At this time, Dr. Spahr, let me ask you this question: Mr. Charles A. Eaton, Jr., the president of the National Association of State Chambers of Commerce was responsible for your being here? Mr. SPAHR. That is quite true. It came about in a regular orderly WaW. The CHAIRMAN. And did Mr. Eaton advise you, speaking in his official capacity as president of that organization, that Dr. Spahr's pamphlet had been read and recommended by the National Association of State Chambers of Commerce? Mr. SPAHR. He certainly did. He told me that. Mr. EATON. May I say a word there? Maybe I can explain this. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Eaton. Make your statement. Mr. EATON. At the meeting of the State Chambers of Commerce here in Washington on September 26, 1945, this measure was discussed and it was agreed that we would invite Dr. Spahr to speak for us, i he were available to do so, in the light of the fact that we had gone over the statements which had been set forth in one of his pamphlets, a pamphlet that we read and had read with considerable satisfaction and approval, and in fact it represented our views. It just so happened, however, that it was expressed better than we could express it. Mr. CochRAN. Have you read Dr. Spahr's statement, Mr. Eaton? Mr. Eaton. Oh, yes; oh, yes. I have read it, I have gone over it most carefully. The National Association of State Chambers of Commerce would not present anyone here, unless they had made absolutely certain that the views that they would express were, in fact, the views of that association. Mr. CochRAN. Do you know whether the presidents of the various State organizations have read it? : Mr. EAtoN. I am not at liberty to give an absolute statement on that. I would say that at the meeting in Washington, those were present, those members were present, they would be the officers of those associations, and of course they had read it. Mr. CochRAN. I am very anxious to hear Dr. Spahr, but it is a most unusual procedure, for an organization such as yours, where you have a large number of States belonging to it, and you cannot have one of your own members come here and speak for you on this question. You bring in a gentlemen to make a statement to this committee for your organization. Mr. HoFFMAN. The men who o yesterday, the difference is that they simply read off something that was prepared for them, whereas this gentleman is here representing his clients’ views, and that he says is his own statement, which I assume they employed him to make and which they approved. He is subject to examination. Mr. BENDER. I would like to make a comment here, Mr. Chairman. Can we not bring him in on his own behalf? That is perfectly all right with me. The CHAIRMAN. That is satisfactory to me. I think that our committee is entitled to have the benefit of the views of some experts on this bill. We need some experts to express their opinions on this bill. We have had the views of a lot of people who have just come up here and have said what they thought alo it, say that they want to have full employment, and none of them have really paid very much atten: tion to the bill itself, and they do not know whether this bill will give full employment. We want to find out what the virtues of this bill are and we want to find out what the evils, if any, of the bill are, and really get something that will mean something about it. : Mr. RESA. Mr. Chairman, I have not finished the question that I intended to ask the gentleman. o CHAIRMAN. Mr. Resa, will you please proceed with your question Mr. RESA. Let me say that I have this point of view: I do not care who comes here, or what he says, pro or con, but I do insist upon knowing whom he represents. I think we are entitled to know that. The CHAIRMAN. In order to avoid any embarrassment on the part of anybody—if there can |. be any—I will assume the responsibility of inviting Dr. Spahr here at my request. Mr. CochRAN. And let the record show that? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I will take the situation in hand now, and I will have him appear here at my invitation. Mr. CochRAN. I am satisfied. They have gone outside of their own organization to bring somebody here. Mr. EATON. If I could correct the record there, Dr. Spahr is familiar with the views of the National Association of State Chambers of Commerce, and the views he expresses here are the views of the National Association of State Chambers of Commerce. Otherwise we would not have brought him here. There was nothing irregular about it that I can possibly see. The CHAIRMAN. I will take the responsibility of inviting Dr. Spahr to speak. We have invited quite a few people to speak here, who have been invited by the committee itself, and this will |. One more. Mr. CochRAN. I think we should remember that there are other members of this committee, and it looks to me you should let the other members of the committee know who is being invited, and let them have something to say about it. The CHAIRMAN. I have consulted with a good many members of the committee, and they told me that we should have some economists, some of the outstanding economists of the country—and we all know that Dr. Spahr has come here and talked to us on this bill. I think I can speak for the majority of the committee when I say that he is appearing here at the invitation of the committee. Mr. Resa, I believe you had something further you wanted to state? Please do so. Mr. RESA. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the interruption of my |..." I still say that this statement contains an obvious contraiction which ought to be cleared up. If Mr. Spahr is to testify in his own behalf, and not in a representative capacity on behalf of the National Association of State Chambers of Commerce, I have no questions to ask; but, if he is here on behalf of the National Association of State Chambers of Commerce, then I still want to know whom he represents, and I think that we should have some clarification of that because I think there is, on the very front of this document, an obvious inconsistency. On the cover of this document, it is stated that this is a statement by Walter E. Spahr, professor of economics, New York University, to be presented before the House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, and on another page it states that “Dr. Spahr appears before the House committee in behalf of the National Association of State Chambers of Commerce. The association is a national organization made up of 31 State and regional chambers of commerce throughout the United States.” Now, obviously, that is in conflict with itself. Mr. HoFFMAN. Why not read the heading and why do you not read the signature? Mr. RESA. I should be glad to do so. The heading is “National Association of State Chambers of Commerce, 605 Broad Street, Newark, N.J.,” and it is signed by R. B. Skinner, secretary-treasurer. Mr. CochRAN. He is not a member of this organization, but a professor of economics in the New York University. The CHAIRMAN. If Mr. Charles A. Eaton, Jr., president of this organization cannot assume the responsibility of inviting him on behalf of their people, I assume that pleasure and opportunity, and invite him myself on behalf of the committee. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, our association, on the 26th day of September 1945, met here in Washington, D. C., and we unanimously agreed to invite Dr. Spahr to come here as an economist and expert to speak on this bill, because we want to put some orderly, proper economic views in this record—views in which we are in hearty and whole accord—and we feel that it is just like employing an attorney in behalf of our association, that we were justified in inviting him to participate in this proceeding in the form of an expert since he expresses the views of our association. I do not see anything amiss with that procedure. Perhaps I am in error somewhere. Mr. RESA. I think it is all right if we know exactly what the situation is. I think it is important that we should know what the situatlon IS. Mr. HoFFMAN. It is very much like having a representative from the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the CIO, employ a man such as Leo Pressman, a lawyer, to come up and represent them, and I never heard any of these gentlemen object to that; or the A. F. of L. has Mr. Padway come up here and represent it, and Mr. Hines, the gentleman who was here yesterday. Mr. RESA. In this statement, though, Dr. Spahr says: I do not presume to express the opinions of the officers and members of the Various State chambers of commerce; it is my understanding that officials of
some or all of those chambers may make some independent observations if circumstances and time permit.
He further says—
some of their officers had seen my analysis of the full employment bill, S. 380 and H. R. 2202, published in the Commercial and Financial Chronicle of Sep- tember 27, and also reprinted in pamphlet form, and apparently had sufficient confidence in the reliability of my observations to desire the presentation of my views to this committee for such value as they may have. It seems to me that it is obvious that he speaks for himself and not for them. I think it is very clear therefore that this genttleman does not speak for these 31 chambers of commerce, State chambers of commerce, throughout the country. If Mr. Spahr will appear purSuant to the invitation of the chairman, then I |. no objection. Mr. HoFEMAN. He is an employee of this organization in appearing here. I think that is a proper representation. What is the differ: ence? When did we suddenly develop a difference on these things? 79103—45—30