Evening star., 1936-09-25
BY BLAIR MOODY.

changed.
Some Of the Nations leading au-
thorities, who agree thoroughly with
the Federal social security act In prin-
ciple, are ripping into the cosnpensa-
unnecessarily complicated. inadequate
and in some respects unjust.
They want to know what Is going to
happen to wage earners In States
where no corollary laws are passed.
They term the scheme under which
the Federal Government collects
huge pay roll tax and RENTS 90 per
cent of it to approved" States, foolish
red tape. They criticize this tax as
Progressive" and predict that unless
provision Is made for the Government
to contribute" from other forms Of
taxation the program will not stand
up. And they inquire why so systems
and so laws are needed-one each for
Uncle Sam. the 48 States and the Dis
trict of Columbia-when one could do
the Job more simply.
Split Group Of Experts.
This Is no new argument. It tore
the group Of experts for the Presi-
dents Committee on Economic Secur-
: ity, who laid the foundation Of the
Federal act, into wrangling factions.
It Is an issue that caused battle un-
der the White House roof and through
the halls of Congress and has con-
tinued since.
The critics who have been involved
in various phases of this running argu-
ment include some Of those who have
fought for social security longest and
know most about it-such men Is
Abraham Epstein, executive secretary
Of the American Association for Social
Security; Bryce Stewart of Industrial
Relations Counsellors, New York. who
was No. / consultant on unemploy-
ment compensation for the Presidents
committee, and Prof. Paul Douglas Of
the University Of Chicago, recognized
as one of the Nations leading experts.
This group chifly favors. enactment
Of a Federal system instead of the
present scheme Of % systems con-
trolled only loosely from Washington.
They contend it Is hopeless to- expect
uniformity in program that Is
brought; into being by 40 legislative
bodies, and 1t Is not fair to the wage
Garner to be Disseminated against on
Q basis Of where he happens to live.
Cite Possihls Difficulties.
Then they say. in effect, If we're
koing to have unemployment compen-
sation, let's have It," and point out
that it may be years before all Of the
State Legislatures get around to pro-
tecting the workers in their States.
They inquire what system has been
devised to handle . situation where
. wage Garner moves from one State
to another State having q different
system. or no system4 They point to
the complications a multiplicity Of d.
vergent laws will cause for companies
doing business in several States.
But there's q great deal to be said
On the other side Just as able experts,
Including the members Of the Security
Board and Prof. E. E. Witte of the
University Of Wisconsin, who was
secretary Of the Presidents committee,
stand four-square for the Federal
State program.
In the first place, this group argues.
II is all very we'll to say that Federal
system would be uniform, universal
and lincomplicated. but to put such a
system down on paper is something
else again. ..
When the Federal group" Of ex-
perts demand that the program be
unified, each has in mind his own
idea of what the single law should b..
And most Of their ideas differ in i'm
portant aspects. It would be impos-
sible to satisfy them all, even II Con-
gress would rubber stamp anything
the experts agreed on.
Problem In Congress.
And, Of course, Congress wouldn't.
A criss-cross of Hobbies for special In
terests would descend on Capitol Hill.
The Southern Senators, who always
oppose high payments Of any sort to
colored persons, would fight for q low
weekly compensation level, while the
Northerners would demand q level
adequate in the big cities. Yet the
receive the same figure. And If 1t
didn't, the act certainly would be
Mvalidated as discriminatory.
Should the funds be held in one
pool, for all the eligible unemployed,
as in New York? Should they be
kept in reserve accounts earmarked
under each company, as in Wisconsin?
Or should there be a cross between
those two systems, and, II so, exactly
what? Try to write the bill
Zone reason we favor q Federal
State system over q centralized plan
Is that 1t permits hexibility to meet
local conditions" explains Arthur J.
Altmeyer, member of the Security
Board. "It provides Q Uniform tax
on all employers, 80 that States will
be enabled to- pass laws without dis
eliminating against their industries
In the field of national competition,
yet it leaves the. way open for di-
versity Of detail that Is absolutely
necessary in such large country.
"And this system would be too COM
plicated to handle from Warrington.
It would create great bureaucracy
that would have to delve into the init
mate business Of far-od States. It's
agents would be operating under rules