The Washington times., 1934-11-24

I believe that if you will think
this point over, you will soon see
how misleading it is. We all
agree that government is obli-
gated to provide subsistence to its
citizens when they are in need.
But government cannot be obi
gated to give people work, any
more than it is to give them
exercise or to do their planning
and saving for them.
When a man is in distress, what
he needs is food, clothes, and shell
ter. These are what government
must furnish.
Few people want work for its
own sake. They want the prod
ucts which result from work. They
can't eat work.
If work were what is needed
by people who require 'relief,"
why in the name of common
sense do we reduce the working
time? Instead of asking for a
3O-hOur week, which means less
work, we should demand 60
hour week, which would make
more work!
No, it is subsistence Good,
clothes, and shelter) that the
State owes to it's needy. And when
1t comes to the question of how
O. government is to provide for
such needs, the matter is one of
expediency. How can it be done
with the least cost?
But, while there is no such
thing as a right to work." some
persons think that the work-house
plan is the best way to give to
the needy the subsistence they
need. The Grange says, every
able-bodied person receiving direct
relief should be required to rem
der to society dollars worth of
service for every dollar of relief re-
ceived.''
In the first place, the Grange
statement is sheer bunk. What is
"a dollars worth of service?" NO
body knows. The only way to
find out is to sell the things the
laborer makes in a competitive
market. But this is not what is
proposed. They mean that ere
lief workers" should put in a few
hours time at high rate of pay.
The dollar of relief is fairly def
mite, but who is going to say what
a dollars worth of service" is?
. Ask the CWA!
Aside from doubling the cost to
taxpayers, the evils of mixing "re-
lief" with work, are as follows:
l. Work relief is highly de-
mOralizing. The "wOrker" knows
that his relief pay is not based
on his work. He comes to con-
slider work to be a sort of riga
mar0le he goes through in order
to get relief. He thinks he has
right to his wages" no mat
ter what or how much he does,
and those who are lazy are en-
cOuraged in their laZineSS.
(2) It drives out economy and
supplants business. Two results
follow: (a) Great waste of human
energy and capital, because there
is no relation between work and
pay. (b) A strong tendency to
State Socialism, with the Gov
ernment taking over business for
the sake of making work" (The
essence of EPIC is back of this
scheme, and FERA is drifting to-
ward production for use," or for
Service
90 It fastens dependence and
relief upon the nation in a Way
that is likely to last much !.ngcr
than direct relief. On the one
hand, the workers" get to like
it, as the relief" is disguised.
On the other, it is argued that
the works" are "self-sustaining,"
and so the Government 5orrows
and issues bonds for the money it
spends. Thus taxpayers don't
feel the burden Immediately and
don't kick so much.
a. It increases the urge for
initiation. Since workhouse relief
costs more than twice as much as
direct relief, Government spend
ing is increased and Government
debt is the surest road TO cur
rency initiation.
GA T~1