Montana labor news., 1944-08-31

benefits would be determined according
to schedules in the law and would de-
pend on his past earnings. The sene-
fits would be paid without any question
as to other income or resources the fam
ily might have Our bill provides for
the administration Of the program by
the Social Security Board a nonparti-
san body, with the advice of a Council
made up of representatives of workers,
employers and the public. Actual ad-
ministration would be highly decentral-
lied, with similar representative advisory
groups at all levels. This is the demo-
craft, not the totalitarian method.
Mr.. Graham's second criticism of our
bill is that the funds provided for un-
employment benefits are inadequate. To
support this criticism he compares the
amounts collected by the state unem-
ployment compensation agencies in the
fiscal year ending June 30, l94S, with
the amounts which would be paid out
under certain assumed unemployment
conditions The states were collecting
in 1943 not at the statutory rate Of 81
per cent, but-because of experience rat
ing-at an average rate of about 81 per
cent. The contribution rates in our bill
allow for average unemployment COM
pensation costs as high as per cent of
taxable pay rolls, with more, of course,
being paid out in bad years than in
good. Careful cost estimates indicate
that the assessment for unemployment
under our bill will be sufficient to pay
for the benefits provided in the bill un-
der any foreseeable conditions.
At present, the amounts set aside for
unemployment compensation are in 81
separate funds. Some state funds may
become bankrupt while others have huge
surpluses We do not know where the
load of unemployment will fall heaviest
in the postwar period but it is certain
that a single pooled fund provides far
greater assurance of benefit payments
to unemployed workers than 81 sepa-
rate funds.
To support his argument that our bill
is actuarilly unsound Mr.. Graham re
fers to the history of the British unem-
ployment insurance system, which was
compelled to borrow from general reye-
nues during the great depression follow
ing the last war. He fails to state that
the Insurance Fund subsequently repaid
all it had borrowed. This particular bit
of history however, hardly seems rele-
want to our bill, which is not the British
Unemployment Act of 1911.
Mr.. Graham goes on to state that the
l. per cent tax (6 per cent employer
and 6 per cent employee will not be
enough to finance all the benefits pro
vided in our bill. Senator Wagner and
pointed out when we introduced the
bill. that the II per cent would be suf-
ficient to pay for all benefits for the
first 10 or IS years. but after that time
a government conuibuton-au authorized
in the bill-might be necessary. This
contribution would be small at first; it
might rise by the end of 40 or so years
to as much as 6 per cent bringing the
total costs to l8 per cent of taxable pay
rolls. These rising costs are due entirely
to the increasing number of old people
in this country. There is no way We
can avoid-and we do not wish to avoid
taking care of aged workers and their
families. Social insurance permits US
to provide for them in an orderly and
respecting way.
I would point out, morever, that if
we succeed in keeping unemployment to
a minimum and as the health programs
reduce sickness and disability, it should
not be necessary for the total costs Of
our social insurance program to rise to
18 per cent even so years from now.
Mr.. Graham's statement that we in
tend to raise the employer and employe
tax to 9 per cent each, "just as soon
as the people will stand the increase,
is completely false I am at loss to
understand his further statement that
"the full benefits allowed in the bill will
not be able to be paid for forty-five to
fifty years in the future" If he means
that total benefit payments will continue
to rise for forty or fifty years because
the number of aged persons will increase
year after year. he is right, but this