Evening star., 1949-03-13
Economic Advisers Seen
Pushing Trumun to Left
Sterilization Act of 1949 Is Cited A.
Example of Trend Toward Socialism
By Frank X. Kent

StaD1l1ZatlOn Act OF I9f9 Is O1ted AD
Exampls of Trend Toward Socialism
By Frank r. Kent
Every time the charge is made that ths
Truman program is heading us straight
toward the socialistic state. indignant denials
come from administration publicists-all Of
them of the professional liberals variety.
These insist-and may believe-that nation
alization of industry or any other form Of
socialism is alien to the Truman mind and
SOUL
For example, the inspired suggestion in
the Presidents message of Government
entrance into the steel business is soothingly
said to have no firm purpose behind 1t.
Despite Senator Murrays modest bill to
appropriate $4,000 100000 to further such
a project, we are authoritatively told that
nothing will happen" A similar statement
is made about the Presidents health insur-
ance" bill. 1t is, say White House spokes-
men, a shocking Misrepresentation to label
this humane and high-minded" plan an
effort to "socialize medicine" Arguments
along the same lines are used to explain the
militant If sometimes muddled, partiality
of the new Labor Secretary, Maurice Tobin,
for the labor bosses; the plans hugely to
expand the social security system; the re-
fusal to look the Federal fiscal facts in the
face and the utterly indefenSible piling Of
100000 more civilian employees on the Gov
ernment payroll in less than year. None
of this. it is declared, is with the idea OF
altering the American way of life or UNDER
mining the system of private enterprise.
All Mr. Truman is doing is obeying the
mandate of the last election The private
enterprise system has no firmer friend than
he-so they say.
All of which makes more notable the 50.
called Economic Sterilization Act of 1949"
recently introduced in Congress and strongly
backed by the administration. This bill
makes absurd the assurance that no steps
are contemplated toward further Govern
ment control of industry. In describing 1t,
the New York Times declares that "as q
combination of political expediency and
arrogant economic planning the measure
seems calculated to ALLEVIATE the support of
every one who believes the American system
OF free enterprise is not a philosophy that
you doH with change of weather, change
of seasons or even change in the political
complexion of the administration
If enacted, 1t would give the President a
control over private business never before
seriously suggested in a time of peace. Under
1t he could fix prices and wages, regulate
profits, put into effect priorites and alloca-
tions and use Government money to expand
production 1t is, in fact, the most thor
ough-going control over industry proposal
ever advanced. With the power conferred
on the President therein private ownership
OF industry would exist only to the degree
the Government chose TO let it exist. It is
not surprising that businessmen who have
grasped the true purpose of the bill should
be shocked. 1t is not surprising that those
who have read it understandingly should be
baffled and bewildered as to the real char
acter of this administrators economic
advisers
Certainly. no one who voted for Mr.. Tru-
man last November could have believed he
was voting for this sort of thing. Certainly.
no mandate" to change the American eco-
nomic system can be claimed If Mr.. Wall
lace had been elected, it easily might have
been possible to so contend, for actually.
Mr.. Wallace himself. from time to time, had
given utterance to the ideas incorporated in
this measure. But Mr.. Truman gave no in.
dication of being in harmony with Mr.. Wal.
lace's point of view on this or any other line.
Nor did any Truman spokesman suggest
such controls as are here proposed. Nor was
there any desire for such expressed in the
Democratic platform. Actually. Mr.. Truman
In his speeches was very strong. indeed, for
the free enterprise system
&&*A
That a national administration can Sc
riously sponsor and support a control bill
of this unprecedented character, camoufiag-
ing it as an anti-inflation move, is disturbing.
even though the prospects of its enactment
are dim. The question naturally arises as to
I,Sr Mr. TrlIYre ,hn DC p,afA ral tNa1 az
heart and does not really want to wreck the
American economy, could be brought to in
dorse the Economic Sterilization Act Of
1949"? The answer seems to be his "eco-
nomic advisers" So far as this bill is con.
cerned, though, 1t Is anything save an
agricultural bill: 1t was prepared under the
direction of the new Secretary of Agricul.
ture. Charles F. Brannan. Unquestionably.
Mr.. Brannan Is one of the farthest left New
Dealers in Washington. He came out Of the
West to Washington in 1888 and, one way
or another, has been connected with the
Agriculture Department since. Before tho
New Deal he was with the Farmers Union.
regarded as the most radical of all the farm
ers organizations. It Is interesting that he
has become one of the Presidents chief
economic advisers.
Two other advisers are DR.. Leon Keyserling
and DR.. John D. Clark. Testifying recently.
DR.. Keyserling said. mo one industry or
business can afford to act alone in the in
terest of stability" If this has any mean
ing. it would seem to be that the Govern
ment is better judge of how much an
industry should produce than the industry
itself. Then comes along DR.. Keyserling's
colleague, DR.. Clark, who declares that the
President must have the powers requested.
Including the right of the Government
itself to become producer" Also, he adds,
the enlargement of productive capacity is
so essential that neither the concealed
danger in any given plan nor the required
scope of Government intervention should
prevent effective action. In the Economy
Sterilization Act of 1949, this Keyserling-
Clark-Brannan philosophy is developed and
presented. 1t isn't easy to see how much
further in that direction Mr.. Wallace could
have taken us.