Page images
PDF
EPUB

30 in fiscal policy, yet they still have their shortcomings. We are 6 or 7 years into the remedial manpower business. We have accumulated a great deal of valuable experience. Just when we have lessons which could be applied, unfortunately, everyone is too busy frantically searching for a gimmick to solve our problems overnight and "on the cheap" to take stock of the experience.

Mr. BURRELL. I would make one quick observation, Senator, and that is the Government has the faculty in its wisdom or lack of it in seeing what it recognizes as a problem, and then devising a solution that they think was problem-oriented, and then work backward and hope that they bump into the problem somewhere along the line. And I would suggest that Government listen to men like Leon Sullivan, and the Berkeley Burrells of this world-I had to get that in, Leon-I do not want you walking off with all the money-so that we can identify for Government, or anybody who is interested, what the problem is, because I think we can come closer to articulating the need of the militants in the street who recognize the problem, but who cannot quite articulate what the problem is. That does not mean we are all omnipotent. But it does suggest to you, or should, that if part of the problem is the lack of participation in the capital accumulation process in this country-this is a dollar society-then we had better devise a means by which we can change the fact that Negroes have only one-half of 1 percent of the capital in this country, to a point where it is more commensurate with their percentage of population.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Well, thank you. You other gentlemen might reply in the record. (See below.)

I asked unanimous consent to include at the end of the printed record of today's hearing a very fine statement by George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, on Congressman O'Hara's (Democrat of Michigan) bill, H.R. 12280, to guarantee productive employment opportunities for those who are unemployed or underemployed, along with a policy statement of the AFL-CIO Executive Council on the urban erak. adopted in September 1967, together with a background paper on tra issue of the AFL-CIO Policy Committee.

(There being no obections, it was so ordered, and appear on pr 228-244.)

Tomorrow morning we will meet in this room. We have fre exper who will discuss racial discrimination as an economie progen will conclude our hearings.

Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m. the subcommittee was reene, qu vene at 10 a.m. Thursday, June 6, 1968.)

(The following letter was later submitted by Mr. Saltzmann sponse to Chairman Proxmire's request :)

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE,
Congress of the United States.

Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: The following statement a wom

Proxmire's question about the needs of the poor and the sport
I think that most people have some evet d to get
whether they are rich, poor, white or tax for pre pe
in government programs which in their judgment Base - tas
in whole. The problem of “over pemrog IT TE #2
tives initially appear to meet indiviEAT FETE TES

[ocr errors]

Mr. MANGUM. Several comments occur to me in reference to Senator Proxmire's question. The implication of some of the questions this morning appeared to be, "We shouldn't have promised so much." It could as well be argued that we should have delivered more.

I spent my boyhood on a sharecrop farm far from town without electricity, radio, telephone, newspapers, and so forth, and my youth on the WPA in a small community where my friends' families were all in the same boat. I don't think it ever came home to me that we were poor. I doubt that this is true today in a city with television and Cadillacs. This revolution of rising expectations is occurring all over the world and word of the American poverty hasn't penetrated the jungles.

Surveys have shown that few have heard of or been touched by the Federal programs. During the Detroit riot, I made my own survey among program administrators I knew there and discovered that only 7,000 people were enrolled in all the Federal work and training programs in the entire metropolitan area. Total enrollment nationwide in all programs was less than 300,000. Not to have gotten enrolled probably doesn't add to the frustrations but I'm sure that to have enrolled, worked at it and then not obtained a job afterward does. That is when we had better be prepared to deliver.

This leads naturally to comments on the universe of need, a subject upon which you heard testimony recently. I will only comment that, in an economy where 11 million experience unemployment in a year of record employment, 2.5 million of them for 15 weeks or over and over 1 million for more than one-half of the year; where 2 million work part-time while looking for full-time work, where over a million stand in the wings, not looking for work but ready to enter if an attractive job appears, where 11 million work for less than the Federal minimum wage and over 3 million men work full-time and yet do not earn $3,000 per year, an average enrollment of 300,000 at a total annual cost of $1.8 billion hardly matches need with resources.

I don't imply that things are getting worse. Employment and earnings are at record levels. But this is an awful big country. Too many people, though a lower proportion than in the past, are being left behind-and we can afford better.

We all realize the budgetary "crunch" but as good economists we should all look to our priorities. Agricultural subsidies, space exploration, veteran's benefits, highways, and a whole variety of aids to the middle class, to say nothing of military expenditures, could all be delayed with less pain than aid to the disadvantaged.

Within the manpower field, the Federal Government is still spending $4.5 billion a year on higher education and nearly $2 billion on impacted areas middle-class education compared to about $1.5 billion on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and $256 million on vocational education, only 1 percent of the latter aimed at preparing the disadvantaged for jobs. We are spending $1.8 billion on remedial work and training programs in an attempt to clean up past failures while the influx of new disadvantaged exceeds the enrollments, let alone the success of remedial programs.

I don't imply by this that all of the manpower and antipoverty money has been well spent. This is a new field. We have 200 years invested in our educational system, over 100 years in monetary policy and

30 in fiscal policy, yet they still have their shortcomings. We are tog 7 years into the remedial manpower business. We have a calated a great deal of valuable experience. Just when we hate lewe could be applied, unfortunately, everyone is too busy frant, ay searching for a gimmick to solve our problems overn.gif ani non te cheap" to take stock of the experience.

Mr. BURRELL. I would make one quick observation, Senator, and that is the Government has the faculty in its wisdom or law of it in seeing what it recognizes as a problem, and then devising a we that they think was problem-oriented, and then work ba kwant an i hope that they bump into the problem somewhere along the line. And I would suggest that Government listen to men like Leon van an i the Berkeley Burrells of this world-I had to get that . L-I go not want you walking off with all the money-so that we can phentify for Government, or anybody who is interested, what the pr because I think we can come closer to articulating the fend of militants in the street who recognize the proclem, but vno cant quite articulate what the problem is. That does to mean, we are a l omnipotent. But it does suggest to you, or should, that of part of the problem is the lack of participation in the capital a un laton pro cess in this country—this is a dollar society-then we had better des se a means by which we can change the fact that Nemmes Late only one-half of 1 percent of the capital in this country, to a point where it is more commensurate with their percentage of popost on

Chairman PROXMIRE. Well, thank you. You other gentlemen might reply in the record. (See below.),

I asked unanimous consent to include at the end of the printed record of today's hearing a very fine statement by George Meary, pr, jent of the AFL-CIO, on Congressman O'Hara's (Democrat of Michigan. I bill, H.R. 12280, to guarantee productive employment opportunities for those

statement of the AFL-CIO Executive Council on the urban crisis, adopted in September 1967, together with a background paper on this issue of the AFL-CIO Policy Committee.

(There being no obections, it was so ordered, and appears on pp.

228-244.)

Tomorrow morning we will meet in this room. We have five eXJAME who will discuss racial discrimination as an economic problem, which will conclude our hearings.

Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m. the subcommittee was recessed, to recorvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, June 6, 1968)

sponse to Chairman Proxmire's request :)

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE,
Congress of the United States.
Washington, D.C.

by Mr. Saltzman in re

FORD MOTOR CO.. Dearborn, Mich., June 18, 1968.

GENTLEMEN: The following statement is submitted in response to Senator

Proxmire's

question about the needs of "the poor and the minorities”.

whether they I think that most people have some concept of their own personal needs are rich, poor, white or black. Poor people participate willingly in government programs which, in their judgment, meet their needs in part or in whole. The problem of “over promising" arises wher stated program objectives initially

appear to meet individually perceived needs but later do not.

Mr. MANGUM. Several comments occur to me in reference to Senator Proxmire's question. The implication of some of the questions this morning appeared to be, "We shouldn't have promised so much." It could as well be argued that we should have delivered more.

I spent my boyhood on a sharecrop farm far from town without electricity, radio, telephone, newspapers, and so forth, and my youth on the WPA in a small community where my friends' families were all in the same boat. I don't think it ever came home to me that we were poor. I doubt that this is true today in a city with television and Cadillacs. This revolution of rising expectations is occurring all over the world and word of the American poverty hasn't penetrated the jungles.

Surveys have shown that few have heard of or been touched by the Federal programs. During the Detroit riot, I made my own survey among program administrators I knew there and discovered that only 7,000 people were enrolled in all the Federal work and training programs in the entire metropolitan area. Total enrollment nationwide in all programs was less than 300,000. Not to have gotten enrolled probably doesn't add to the frustrations but I'm sure that to have enrolled, worked at it and then not obtained a job afterward does. That is when we had better be prepared to deliver.

This leads naturally to comments on the universe of need, a subject upon which you heard testimony recently. I will only comment that, in an economy where 11 million experience unemployment in a year of record employment, 2.5 million of them for 15 weeks or over and over 1 million for more than one-half of the year; where 2 million work part-time while looking for full-time work, where over a million stand in the wings, not looking for work but ready to enter if an attractive job appears, where 11 million work for less than the Federal minimum wage and over 3 million men work full-time and yet do not earn $3,000 per year, an average enrollment of 300,000 at a total annual cost of $1.8 billion hardly matches need with resources.

I don't imply that things are getting worse. Employment and earnings are at record levels. But this is an awful big country. Too many people, though a lower proportion than in the past, are being left behind-and we can afford better.

We all realize the budgetary "crunch" but as good economists we should all look to our priorities. Agricultural subsidies, space exploration, veteran's benefits, highways, and a whole variety of aids to the middle class, to say nothing of military expenditures, could all be delayed with less pain than aid to the disadvantaged.

Within the manpower field, the Federal Government is still spending $4.5 billion a year on higher education and nearly $2 billion on impacted areas middle-class education compared to about $1.5 billion on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and $256 million on vocational education, only 1 percent of the latter aimed at preparing the disadvantaged for jobs. We are spending $1.8 billion on remedial work and training programs in an attempt to clean up past failures while the influx of new disadvantaged exceeds the enrollments, let alone the success of remedial programs.

I don't imply by this that all of the manpower and antipoverty money has been well spent. This is a new field. We have 200 years invested in our educational system, over 100 years in monetary policy and

30 in fiscal policy, yet they still have their shortcomings. We are 6 or 7 years into the remedial manpower business. We have accumulated a great deal of valuable experience. Just when we have lessons which could be applied, unfortunately, everyone is too busy frantically searching for a gimmick to solve our problems overnight and "on the cheap" to take stock of the experience.

Mr. BURRELL. I would make one quick observation, Senator, and that is the Government has the faculty in its wisdom or lack of it in seeing what it recognizes as a problem, and then devising a solution that they think was problem-oriented, and then work backward and hope that they bump into the problem somewhere along the line. And I would suggest that Government listen to men like Leon Sullivan, and the Berkeley Burrells of this world-I had to get that in, Leon-I do not want you walking off with all the money-so that we can identify for Government, or anybody who is interested, what the problem is, because I think we can come closer to articulating the need of the militants in the street who recognize the problem, but who cannot quite articulate what the problem is. That does not mean we are all omnipotent. But it does suggest to you, or should, that if part of the problem is the lack of participation in the capital accumulation process in this country—this is a dollar society-then we had better devise a means by which we can change the fact that Negroes have only one-half of 1 percent of the capital in this country, to a point where it is more commensurate with their percentage of population.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Well, thank you. You other gentlemen might reply in the record. (See below.)

I asked unanimous consent to include at the end of the printed record of today's hearing a very fine statement by George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, on Congressman O'Hara's (Democrat of Michigan) bill, H.R. 12280, to guarantee productive employment opportunities for those who are unemployed or underemployed, along with a policy statement of the AFL-CIO Executive Council on the urban crisis, adopted in September 1967, together with a background paper on this issue of the AFL-CIO Policy Committee.

(There being no obections, it was so ordered, and appears on pp. 228-244.)

Tomorrow morning we will meet in this room. We have five experts who will discuss racial discrimination as an economic problem, which will conclude our hearings.

Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m. the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, June 6, 1968.)

(The following letter was later submitted by Mr. Saltzman in response to Chairman Proxmire's request :)

FORD MOTOR CO., Dearborn, Mich., June 18, 1968.

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE,
Congress of the United States,
Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: The following statement is submitted in response to Senator Proxmire's question about the needs of "the poor and the minorities".

I think that most people have some concept of their own personal needs whether they are rich, poor, white or black. Poor people participate willingly. in government programs which, in their judgment, meet their needs in part or in whole. The problem of "over promising" arises when stated program objectives initially appear to meet individually perceived needs but later do not.

« PreviousContinue »