The Chronicle-star combined with the Moss Point advertiser., 1949-07-01
"Sociaiistic" Legislation?

AHe DeeH some curious thinking, OnSlueT
able distortion of facts, involved in the opposition to the
federal housing bill, which passed in the Senate by an
overwhelming majority and cleared the House Wednes-
day by a margin of 43 votes.
In the first place there is a strong tendency on the part
of individuals and groups opposed to any social legislation
contained in the Truman "fair deal' program to label it
"sociaistic" or "communistic" On the other hand these
same groups and individuals think subsidy legislation,
which accomplshes for one category of Americans what
the housing legislation will for another, perfectly right
and proper. This applies not only to individuals and groups,
but to senator's and representatives as well.
For instance we can't for tho life of US 500 why a fed
ersl housing act to provide adequate housing and slum
clearance for lowincome families Is any more "socialistic"
than the agricultural support program which guarantees
cotton growers that If the price of their product falls be-
low q certain price the federal government will make up
the difference.
Neither can we see where a federal aid to education
bill which would provide adequate educational opportuni-
ties to all our people is any more "socialistic' or comprises
federal "paternalism" any more than the maintenance of
the artificial price of silver for the benefit of a few mid
west mine owners, or for that matter the stiff tariffs which
prevent the import of South American beef and maintains
price levels for midwest beef growers, or the maintenance
of the price of tung oil through federal subsidy. The same
thing applies to peanuts, honey, wool and a hundred other
agricultural products. We all have seen pictures of the
mountains of potatoes and other agricultural products
which are allowed TO rot in the fields after the federal gov
eminent has bought and paid for them in order to main
tain artificial price levels. Is providing adequate medical
- 1RRkR tJ AIO1i III
eialistic" than these practices?
Then how about subsidies which the federal govern
ment maintains for steamship and air lines? Surely the
officers and stockholders of these companies don't con-
slider these subsidies either "socialistic" or "communistic."
How about the food control program. the soil erosion
program. the limiting of cotton acreage to be planted in
order to control supply and thereby MAINTAIN artificial
price level? ls 1t "soeialistie3" Well bet our bottom dol.
lar Senator Jim Eastlsnd, and the rest of his Delta States
Rights group don't think so.
Now back to the Housing bill.
Opposition to the bill maintains that it will cost 20 bill
hon dollars. Actual cost is l0-billion spread over 80 years.
Opposition says that public housing will not be for
poor. Fact is that the law provides only families whose
income is at least 20 percent below the minimum needed
to pay rents in private dwellings can live in public hous-
ing.
Opposition says slums won't be cleared and public
housing will compete with private housing. Fact is that
the measure provides for slum clearance and completes only
with sluns, not decent private housing.
Opposition says federal government would impose
housing on local communities. The truth is that a local
agency has to start a project and ask for federal assist
ance.
Opposition says federal housing would destroy thrift,
encourage Incidence. Fact is that slums, not decent homes,
breed crime, idleness and disease.
Opposition says housing bill is "socialistic." If it is. so
are "a Republican senators, the American Legion, many
Protestant, Catholic and Jewish lay groups, the u. s. Con-
ference of Mayors, and a majority of the House of Repre-
sentatives, who supported the legislation.