Evening star., 1940-05-05

tax reduction below the normal ~
per cent rate will be In order when
Congress convenes In January. That
Is the time also to give consideration
to adjusting the benefit provisions
In this bill.
THE proposed legislation offers
some. reduction In the present un-
necessarily excessive tax rate, pro-
vides for liberalization Of benefits
to q degree comparable with liberal
State laws throughout the country
and replaces the present cumber-
some administrative provisions for
calculating benefits with a formula
easier to administer.
'The Subcommittee on Judiciary
Of the House Committee on the
District OF Columbia has labored
long and diligently with this highly
complicated subject. We express our
deep appreciation to them"
Called "More Liberal"
In reply to some statements made
by employe groups that the COM
promise plan was LESS liberal" than
the present law. the Board of Trade
issued the following statement:
1T has been pointed out that
under the present law an unem-
ployed worker may draw benefits
for a period Of 26 weeks. We wish
to point out. that such extended
benefits are only available to work
ers who have been steadily employed
for a period Of approximately five
years. CRITICS Of the bill, H. R.
9619, are apparently unfamiliar with
the technique Of calculating benefits
under the plan provided for in that
bill. We believe they will be sur
prised to know that under Mr..
McGehee's bill 1t is possible for an
unemployed worker to draw bene-
fits for a period Of SO consecutive
weeks under conditions less diff
cult to meet than is necessary to
draw benefits for 26 weeks under
the present law.
while the present law requires
almost five years Of employment for
the maximum 26-week duration,
under H. r. 96l9, SO weeks Of bene-
Ats can be drawn with less than
two years of steady employment.
Another place where the proposed
legislation is more liberal than the
present law Is in the shortening Of
the waiting period from three to two
weeks. Studies made by the So
cial Security Board and referred to
in hearings before the Senate FL
nance Committee last year, indicate
that cutting off this one week from
the waiting period liberalizes bene-
fit payments by approximately 7.6
per cent.
Larger Benefits Provided.
THE McGehee bill provides for
larger payments to those who, under
the present law. are in the very low
brackets by setting up a $6 mini
mum weekly benefit amount. Ac-
cording to the District OF Colum-
bia Unemployment Compensation
Board, approximately % per cent
Of all checks drawn during the year
1899 were for amounts less than S.
The establishment Of a $6 minii1um
will. therefore. be a definite liberali-
zation in all of these cases-amount-
ing to more than one-quarter OF
the number Of payments made.
The majority Of beneficiaries un-
der the unemployment compensa-
ton law are workers who are irregu-
larly employed and who receive
benefit checks during each year
There can be no question as to the
certainty Of increased liberalization
for all who are in this class under
the terms OF H. r. 96l9. Under the
present law, one who is unemployed
each year and draws benefits each
year up to the maximum amount
payable, cannot, under any circum-
stances. draw more than 1918 times
his weekly benefit amount. Under
the terms Of the proposed legisla-
ton every worker may draw 10
times his weekly benefit amount
provided his wages during the pre-
vious year were three times the
total amount Of benefits. In the
case Of one entitled to draw the
maximum benefit Of SIG for a week,
only 1854 earnings would be neces-
sary during the entire base period,
and that figure becomes progress
sively smaller as the weekly benefit
amount becomes lower.
$28S Maximum Payment.
I'VE believe that one clear indi-
cation of hberality Of any unemploy-
ment compensation bill is the total
amount of money which an unem-
ployed worker can receive during
any benefit year. Under H. r. 96l9
total Of $288 may be paid during
the benefit year. This amount is
exceeded in only six States in the
entire United States. and in four
of those employees as we'll as en-
ployers are taxed. Eliminating those
States in which employees are taxed
namely, California, Rhode Island,
Louisiana and Alabama, there are
but two States which provide for a
greater total amount of benefits
than does Mr.. McGehee's bill. They
are Idaho. where payments of $306
will be made and Massachusetts,,
where $500 is the top figure,
"All of the other States and Ter
ritories provide for smaller total
benefits than does H. R. 9619. They
range In the following order OF
maximum payments: One State
$270; State, $3.50; 4 States, $256;
State. $252; "a States, $24O; 3
States, $225; S States. $210; 4 States
$l95; State, $780,"
McGehee Offers Analysis.
Mr.. McGehee, while Offering q
comprehensive analysis to show lib