OCR Text |
Show Garn from ( zr ; Washington . . . By Jake Gam The Humphrey-Hawkins Act is making its second appearance before the Senate this session. When the original origin-al version of the bill met with great opposition, it was sent back to the Banking Committee Commit-tee for further revision. The first Humphrey-Hawkins Act would have directed the federal fed-eral government, including the president, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve Board to design and coordinate coordin-ate economic policies and programs pro-grams so that there would be an economic plan of action to insure full employment and balanced growth. I am adamantly adam-antly opposed to any legislation legisla-tion that will further involve the federal government in national economic planning and eventually make the government gov-ernment the ultimate American Ameri-can employer. The second version of the Humphrey Hawkins Act has the same economic goals but it has been returned to the Senate with some major revisions. revi-sions. It does not make the government the employer of last resort and it does not direct the president to take specific action to achieve the goal of reducing and keeping a ceiling on unemployment at 4 percent. Even though the enforcement teeth have been taken out, I still oppose these . attempts at national economic planning. History has proven that national economic plans are disastrous. The five year plans implemented in Russia and China were not successful as proven by their lack of productivity and economic stability. The Humphrey-Hawkins Act II will not improve the economy, and it will worsen our inflation rate. As a member memb-er of the Senate Banking Committee, I have heard numerous num-erous testimonies from proponents propo-nents of the Act. It was stated by Dr. Alice Rivlin, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, that the lowest estimate esti-mate of increased costs for implementing the Act would be in the neighborgood of $ 10 million to $"0 million a year. Economist John Kenneth Gal-braith, Gal-braith, who also favors the legislation, testified that tho Art would be highly inflationary inflation-ary unless there were strict wage and price controls to go along with it. It is easy to sec the pattern of more and more government involvement taking tak-ing shape. The Humphrey-Hawkins Humphrey-Hawkins Act II would be an overwhelming centralization of national economic power which could seriously hurt private enterprise where e-conomic e-conomic stability has proved itself in the past. Certainly the goals of great er employment espoused by Humphrey Hawkins II nre worthy. I doubt that anyone in this country would be opposed to reducing the un employment rate to 4 percent. However, it would involve a fiindament.nl shift in American Ameri-can economic policy and great er inflat ion would result. This is not. the answer. The best solution lies in spurring pri vnte sector development nnd resorting, when judged neces sary, to measures such as youth and handicapped employment em-ployment programs and pub lie service jobs. Our free enterprise economy, which is the finest and most flexible in the world, must be preserved. The Humphrey Hawkins Act. II would ignore the law of supply and demand, nnd the free market nnd I will vole against il. |