The Washington times., 1934-11-17

obligation of all Lewis Hnney
the people. This is true in a
moral sense. In a practical
sense, it is the obligation of those
people who have any means to
pay-the taxpayers. But it is
the moral obligation of all others
to keep the deficit down to levels
which can be borne, and to help
those who must pay.
3. Even though "the govern.
ment" bOrrOws entirely from its
own citizens, the deficit is real
one. The government is sup
posed to represent the whole
people. # it borrows from part
of the people, and promises to
pay them, should that promise
be any less binding than when it
bOrrows from foreigners? Should
it not be honest with its own
citizens?
Or does my correspondent be-
lieve that if so per cent of the
people favor taking money from
the other 40 per cent by compul-
sion, they are justified in doing
so? I would say that if such grab
bing is to be done. it should be
done honestly, and not by first
promising to pay and then WEIGH
ing.
If government debt were to be
repudiated just because the debt is
own citizens (Whom it could CO.
own citizens (whom it could CO.
erce), it would not cease to be
debt in the moral sense. And
practically the governments
credit would be ruined. No one
would lend to it voluntarily.
We can't get rid of debt by
more borrowing. and we can't Dor.
row if we repudiate.
4. No; there is no surplus. If
there were one, it would in ab-
stract theory belong to all the
people. In actual practice, how
ever. it would be at the disposal
Of the politicians in power. (They
are ''the government.
Thus my correspondent himself
suggests that the administrators
who a few years ago encouraged
loans to foreign nations, were re-
Sponsible for the losses. Well,
we're they not the government?
Did they not represent "the peo-
pie" as much as the New Dealers
now do?
5. I do consider our present
business and social condition to
be the result of a major cyclical
depression, such as followed the
Napoleonic and Civil Wars-made
worse by our failure to recognize
the fact.
6. But, to answer another ques-
ton, I do not regard our present
order the best that can be devised.
regard democracy as having
great dangers, some of which
have long been apparent.
First, W. as democracy, put
business into politics, and al
lowed private monopoly and fl
nancial abuses to develop, while
we marched to the tune of "the
full dinner pail" We would not
enforce antitrust laws, nor
sound banking laws; we tried
to get rich quick by crazy specu-
lation.
Now, as a democracy, we have
"swung left" We put politics into
business, and allow government
monopoly and financial abuses,
while we march to the tune of "a
more abundant life"
We must learn to regulate our
lives. We must know ourselves,
including our limitations. Profit
ing bv experience, we must adjust
ourselves to the fundamental con-
ditions of human nature" and
external nature. Wise regulation
should be our slogan. eve should
neither leave business unham-
pered. nor should we kill it by
"control.")
These things, many Of us can
not fully understand. So the
problem of democracy is to select
leaders who can understand. The
weakness of democracy is its tend
ency to select leaders who fol-
low-demagogues.
We greatly need to improve
our selection of political lead
ers, SO that we may have rea-
sonable confidence that they
will not only represent 1.-The
people,, but the best interests
of the people.
Just for example, why not
start with a requirement that
~ every candidate for respOn'
sible Federal official or ad-
wiser be required to pass a fair
examination in history and eco
MOmicS; and that ~ all regu.
lar government employees be sub
ject to an improved Civil Serv-
ice? Maybe it would be well to
restrict responsible offices to
men between the ages of As and
80.
Times change-but not as fast
rs very young men think.