Voice of action. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1933-1936, 1935-01-25

who oppose all social insurance,
but also from advocates of more
limited measures and to some ex-
tent from workers who are i'm
pressed by the arguments which
undertake to show that it is not
practical to impose taxes high
enough to insure continuity of
income during mass unemploy-
ment.
The whole range of objection
thus brought forward belongs to
the problems which will arise
and must be solved as this move
ment for security gains strength
and impetus. But certain state
ments can now be made which
may point the way toward fur
ther intensive work on these
questions. We may perhaps re-
verse the order of the statement
TO the principles of the Workers
Bill in dealing with objections.
I AS toithe objections to admins
tration by elected representa-
tives of the workers, on the
ground that it is not clear what
is meant by rank and file control
or how it could be developed, it
hardly needs to be pointed out
to this group that the organiza-
ton of workers in the United
States is growing daily more eff
fective and more articulate, de-
spite the huge obstacles against
it in the company union move
ment, in the opposition to strikes
and in the organized opposition
by American industry.
1t is indeed easy to envisage
the organization of local commits
siOns for decentralized admins
tration of funds during periods
of unemployment, these commits
sions being linked together in
geographical regions and by in
dustry, occupation or profession,
with coordination resting in the
national commission for social in
surance, would constitute the
first genuinely democratic ma
chinery for the economic func-
tions of government in the Unit
ed States.
How Much Would It Cost?
A single answer can of course
be given to this: The Workers
Bill would cost exactly what is
now paid by the whole working
class under mass unemployment.
Government has been paying in
the relief program a small and
uncertain portion of this bill for
lost income by industrial work
ers, farmers, professional work
ers and all Others.
But the question needs an an
swer in greater detail. 1t has
been the experience in other
counrties-in Great Britain, for
example-that initial estimates
of the number unemployed be-
fore the enactment of unemploy-
ment insurance bills were too
low. And there is every reason to
believe that only with the social
insurance system would the full
extent of the workers losses
through economic insecurity be-
known.
There should be no tendency
to belittle the number nor to
make the Workers Bill seem
more practical" 1t is import
ant, on the contrary, at the very
outset to recognize that the Am
erican people face here a prob
lem and task of staggering pro-
portions. But American civiliza-
tion depends upon facing the
task and solving the problem.
Suppose we assume, however,
that current estimates of the
number OF unemployed are to be
accepted. Members of the Inter
professional Association for So
cial Insurance have made esti-
mates along these lines, but the
figures await further analysis be-
fore publication.
I may merely illustrate the
point here by saying that II
100000 are wholly unemployed
and If one deducts from this some
100000 workers over IS who
should be retired on old age pen