The Farmville herald. (Farmville, Va.) 1957-current, 1959-03-27

that there Is a deep and probably
irreconcilable difference of opinion
on the issue of initiation and proper
government policies. The difference
is not only between various mem
bers Of Congress, but also exists
between one large segment Of the
Congress and the Administration.
Most recent evidence Of this split
is contained in the report Of the
Joint Economic Committee on the
Presidents 1859 Economic Report
For the first time in years, mem
bers Of the Joint Committee We're
unable to adjust their opinions suf-
flciently to make an unanimous re
port. In today's column we shall
outline the views Of the majority
of the Joint Committee. Next week
we shall review the conclusion of
the minority.
Two preliminary points need to
be made. First, BY law the Joint
Committee is required to make an
appraisal of the Presidents report,
and il is standard procedure for
the Committee, shortly after th
report becomes available. to have
a series Of hearings from which it
presumably gets aid in preparing
its own analysis The practice was
followed this year The first witness
was DR.. Raymond J. Saulnier.
chairman Of the Council of Econo
mic Advisers which has response
billty for preparing the first draft
Of the Presidents report. The sec
ond witness was Budget Director
Maurice H. STAINS. and he was fol
lowed by a long list Of other author
itative spokesman.
Disagreement within the Joint
Committee came on the second day
Of hearings. The chairman. Sena
tor Paul Douglas CD-Ill), opened
with a statement which brought an
immediate response from Thomas
Curtis fR-Mo.D to the effect that
it was improper to draw conclu
sions before the evidence was in
This was the sharpest flair-up dur
ing the hearings. but the difference
Of opinion persisted
The second preliminary point is
that there are many sound opinions
expressed in the majority report
The difficulty is that practically all
Of these were given secondary
place. with the main emphasis go
ing in a different direction. For
example it was said. Until evil
dence Of an imminent inflahonary
threat can be clearly seen a
reasonable and sane public policy
aimed at promoting maximum en-
ployment and production and vlgor
Gus expansion Of the economy
should not be unduly deferred by
the possibility Of future initiation
There are two basic errors in that
statement.
L. While it is true that currently
prices at both retail and wholesale
are reasonable stable, and there
is general agreement that such
stability will continue for several
months. the lack of either an up
ward or downward movement in
the indeXe is the result Of
declines offsetting increases. some
thing which is not indicative of
long range stability. 2. History
proves that the time to prevent in
flation is before ii gets started.
Most Of the loss in the value of the
dollar has resulted from policies,
both governmental and private
which had delayed effect This
is the time. therefore, when it is
Of utmost Importance not to adopt
policies OF programs which will
have an inflationary impact.
The majority report completely
rejects this point of view and
recommends:
Extension Of unemployment COM
pensation with an increase Of both
coveragc and payments.
An easing of the restraints on
money and credit by the Federal
Reserve System:
Setting up capital budget for
federal expenditures;
Increase spending for military
purposes,
Cut back on business and farm
subsidies and use the savings for
slum clearance, depressed areas,
schools, hospitals. medical research
and a more equitable farm pro
gram.
Provide substantial federal as
siStance to the states and localities
for expanding school construction
programs and for improving stand
ards of instruction:
mo curtailment of our foreign
economic assistance programs or
Of our participation i'll international
programs or of our participation IN
International programs to promote
economic development abroad,
Nd