Milford chronicle., 1951-07-20
THE OTHER SIDE

A short time ago President Truman
wrote a long letter to a Senator protesting
against certain changes that had been Elade
in the Interior Departments new appropri-
alton bill. He was especially concerned with
an amendment which was designed to pre-
vent Interior, and its sub-agencies, from con-
structing transmission lines to carry cleo
trio power from government plants when ar
rangennents could be made for moving it over
the existing lines of utility companies. He
also opposed cuts that were made in Inter-
lor's budget affecting government power de-
VelOpment. These actions, he wrote, would
seriously restrict the operation of Federal
hydrOelectric power projects for the nation
al defense and in the public interest" The
President is entitled to his views, and it is
his prerOgative to urge Congress to carry
them out. However, there is another side to
this important controversy, and great many
thoughtful people subscribe to it. How, in
the name of common sense and simple JUS
tice, can the public interest be served by
Squandering huge sums of money and vast
quantities of critical materials on the con-
structiOn of transmission lines which would
simply duplicate lines that are already in
existence and are capable of transporting
the juice to the consumer at the lowest pOss-
lble cost? And how in the name of common
sense and simple justice can the public in
terest be served by pouring more money
down the bOttOmleSs rat-hole of sOcialized
power development when the heavily-taxed
publicly-regulated utilities can and will build
whatever new plans and related facilities
are needed and pay taxes on them. The
strongest kind of case can be made for far
heavier cuts In government power apprOpri-
atiOns than have so far been propOsed-and
for irOn-clad Congressional restraints on In
terror and the other departments which are
seeking to sOcialize enterprise, at murder
GUS cost to the people
N10Ne&
BIG BUG
The price control situation is again in a
state of change. In the new bill which ex-
tends the law, for instance, Congress has
draStically limited the power of OPS to roll
back prices. To the uniformed, this NAV
seem blow at the consumer. Actually, it
was an essential step if production is to be
maintained at high levels. AS an example
OPS has been especially anxious to roll back
the price of beef, and has put orders into
effect to that end. The Saturday Evening
Post recently discussed that policy in a clear
and extremely critical editorial. IN part, the
Post said: "Ihe two factors that pushed up
beet prlces-hlgh consumer buying power
and an appetite for beef-remain unaffected
LnG
supply. A reduction of 10 per cent in cattle
prices, which the rOllback would amount to
by October first, is certain to cut beef pro-
ductiOn sharply. Cattle numbers on the
range, the chief source of our beef supply.
have been increasing since the cattle cycle
turned upward three years ago. But range
cattlemen are unanimous in the opinion that
the rollback will reverse this trend. That
would be unfortunate, because the cattle
population is still low in proportion to our
growing human population and the increas-
ing demand for meat. OPS promises. an
eventual 10 per cent decrease in retail beef
prices. But if the rOllback also results in
less beef on the meat counters, who bene-
tits? Up to now, that has been the inevitable
bug in the history of controls"
Regardless of what price control policy
may be-in the future, the Post has pointed
straight to principles which no law can
change. When, as has been the case. con-
trolls tend to reduce production, the result
is to stimulate imitation, not retard it.