In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

69 4 Senate Passes Full Employment The U.S. Senate took the lead on full employment legislation during the 79th Congress. The full employment bill that was introduced as Senate Bill 380 had its genesis not in the Special Committee on PostWar Economic Policy and Planning, but rather in a subcommittee of the Military Affairs Committee. Senate Bill 380 embodied for the first time the four elements of full employment identified in the introduction: 1) national planning, 2) employment stimulation tools (e.g., compensatory spending), 3) guarantee of employment, and 4) a federal structure to implement it. The executive branch contributed significantly to the arguments in support of S. 380, despite some internal disagreements within the administration. Liberal and labor groups embarked on a national campaign advocating for the legislation. While many in the print media continued to criticize the bill, the political and business interests opposed to the legislation were unprepared to stem the tide of support for full employment in the Senate. THE EMERGENCE OF A FULL EMPLOYMENT BILL The most logical center of legislative activity on full employment should have been the Senate Special Committee on Post-War Economic Policy and Planning. This committee, however, had as its chair Senator Walter F. George (D-GA), who clearly had different ideas about postwar economic planning.As Chapter 1 discussed, the George Committee did not embrace Keynesian economics. Suffice it to say that legislation for full employment did not emerge from Senator George’s committee. The antecedents to the full employment bill in the Senate can be traced to bills that originated in the House of Representatives. In 1943, Rep. John Dingell Sr. (D-MI) sponsored a comprehensive bill that would have established a United States Employment Service, compulIn order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option. Job Name: -- /347091t 70 Wasem sory national health insurance, extensive national unemployment insurance , expansion of old-age and survivors insurance, and a new program of temporary and permanent disability benefits. This sweeping legislation , which Senators James E. Murray (D-MT) and Robert Wagner (D-NY) introduced in the Senate, expanded upon New Deal ideas and offered an American version of Britain’s Beveridge Plan (Hamby 1973, p. 8).1 It carried a largely symbolic value, as it did not capture many supporters in Congress. During the summer of 1944, the Senate considered several legislative proposals regarding postwar economic planning. One originated with Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-WV)and had Senator Truman (D-MO) as the chief cosponsor in the Senate.2 The Kilgore-Truman bill was broad in scope and innovative in approach. The other proposal, sponsored by Senator George, was rather modest in scope and traditional in approach. Murray was quite active in the legislative maneuvering on both the George and the Kilgore-Truman bills. In the Kilgore-Truman bill, full employment was explicitly stated as a goal, though it was nestled in the preamble. The bill contained a section that would have entitled returning veterans “to placement in suitable employment,” a limited but patriotic precursor to the right-toemployment idea. It also included a provision for a National ProductionEmployment Board with a Bureau of Programs that would have been responsible for permanent economic planning.3 National Farmers Union (NFU) president James Patton and NFU legislative secretary Russell Smith advocated the concept of a Bureau of Programs when they proposed a plan for full employment during testimony before the War Contracts Subcommittee of the Senate Military Affairs Committee in April 1944.4 Patton also argued before this subcommittee (which included both Murray and Truman) that the government should guarantee a $40 billion level of capital investment every year. The assumptions were that this level of capital investment would provide for a full employment economy and that the federal government should intervene when investment by private enterprise fell short of that level (Bailey 1964, pp. 22–23). The George bill reflected the recommendations of the Senate Special Committee on Post-War Economic Policy and Planning. Foremost, the bill would have created an Office of Demobilization to coordinate postwar economic activities. It emphasized postwar contract settlement In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option. Job Name: -- /347091t [3.15.190.144] Project...

Share