The Washington times., 1934-12-01


tion) which will u
be given at least ~
$4,000, 100000 of D. ~
overnm ent Lewis Han.y
debt to play
with.
The reasoning is that Cd direct
"doleS" are bad. But (2) large re-
lief expenditures are necessary.
Therefore, 80 since private enter
prise can't take up the slack" the
Government will enter upon a pro-
gram of giving relief in connection
with work.
In addition to such public
works" as dams and roads, we are
to have Subsistence homesteadS"
and an enormous "low cost" hous-
ing program.
The eight billion dollars now
talked of is alleged to be in lieu of
relief. But men can't eat
"houSes." In fact. houses can't
be built in a month or two. So
the direct relief will have to go
on just about the same. Further
more, when the homes are done,
who is going to own them, and
who is going to pay for them?
Suppose the workers" move
in, what do they do next? The
comrades will either have to
pay rent, or the homes will be
given to them. In the former
case, the tenants will have to
be given more work, say max
ing houses for the birds or the
Indians. In the latter case, we
will have given them direct
relief (doles), exercise, and sew
eraI billions of dollars worth of
housing.
I predict that if any such
scheme goes through, it will col
lapse, just as the orgy of buying
on credit collapsed in 1929. Then
the workers" will still be without
work.
OF course, you may say, this
scheme is just a trial balloon
sent up by the Administration to
see if the public wants it. But
even the farmers voted for their
bonuses. This country still has
to learn that even Americans
can't have everything they want.
Wishes are not horses-nor
houses.
So, as I have remarked be-
fore, the New Dealers are now
preparing to say, 1--WE told
business men to go ahead and
give employment, but they
could not, so we must" They
are going to say to Mr.. Moffett,
1--WE told you to go ahead and
build, but you could not do it
fast enough, so we will"
While they have been telling
business to be confident and ex.
pand, they have been developing
q big program" of RECOMMENDATION
and government business.
You see, people who cannot
afford "home modernization"
either have it, or they do not want
it because of the excessive cost.
(Or they may prefer to save, or
buy other things) So it is the
people who can't afford it who are
to be given houses.
For these people, private enter
prise can do nothing, because
they cannot pay the cost.
But houses cost great labor and
saving. How, then, can the Gov
ernment do it? It must take
things away from other people by
taxes and forced loans. That is
what we are coming too.
We all want decent homes. But
most of us want to be able to az
ford them. To do this, we must
either earn enough wages, or we
must save by going without auto
mobiles, electric refrigerators,
trips to Florida, booze, etc.
How can an unemployed man
live by building a house for him.
self. Where is he going to live
while he is building? What is to
become Of the old place when he
goes into his new house?
We don't want slums, any
more than we want the crime
and poverty we associate with
them. What is to be done about
it? We can enforce safety and
sanitation regulations. We can
gradually educate the people.
We can restore sound business
conditions so that labor can
earn. But If we allow the Gov
ernment to go in for providing
low-cOst housing, must we not
count the cost, the disruption
Of business, and the increased
dependence of the people?
When the citizens are their
own landlords, who is going to
collect the rent?