The proposed increases in benefits are obviously inadequate in relation to any standard reflecting a minimum decent standard of living. It seems doubtful that benefit increases made since the creation of the social-security system and now proposed in H. R. 7199 do more than to compensate for the decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar during the same period. We believe that more than this is needed not only out of consideration for the beneficiaries but to insure the purchasing power of the people and to strengthen the domestic market in our own country at a time of increasing unemployment.

The vast reserves being built up in the social-security fund work in the opposite direction, draining away purchasing power. By adopting a pay-as-you-go fiscal basis, benefits could be increased to a point more nearly approaching a decent minimum living standard.

The slight increase proposed in the amount a beneficiary can earn without sacrifice of benefits also moves in the right direction. The increase is, however, too meager. We hope that the allowable earnings will be increased still further.

We urge the adoption of H. R. 7199 or the amendment of H. R. 9366 by the inclusion of such provisions of H. R. 7199 as we have here supported, and earnestly hope that the provisions will be liberalized in the direction suggested.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Senator GEORGE. Dr. James L. Doenges.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES L. DOENGES, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS

Senator GEORGE. You are representing the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons.

Dr. DOENGES. Yes, sir.

It is not in this testimony but since the point was raised immediately preceding my appearance, regarding a misrepresentation that the AMA did not speak for us, I would like to call the attention to the committee that of the fact that of better than 1,900 county medical societies conducting votes at the county society level, only 6 have voted in favor of inclusion in social security. My own Congressman, the Honorable John V. Beamer just sent me this letter dated July 2 summarizing a survey he conducted in our district. He reports that of the physicians who responded 146 said "No" and 19 said "Yes" to the question as to whether or not they wanted to be included.

I wish to thank the chairman and this committee for the privilege of appearing before you to register opposition to H. R. 9366, formerly H. R. 7199, on behalf of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, of which I am president-elect, and the Madison County Medical Society, of which I am president. This comment also reflects the opinion of a large number of individuals with whom I am acquainted, but for whom I have not been instructed or authorized to speak.

In order to make my position very clear, permit me to state that I am fully cognizant of the fact that the measure against which this testimony is directed is a so-called administration measure. The fact that the bill has passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 355 to 8, is somewhat impressive, although the reason certain individuals

voted for this measure detracts considerably from the importance of the number. The fact that a relatively large number of Senators support the measure is also known.

It is with no little apprehension that this task is approached. However, in this republic the Congress of the Untied States, by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, is the first body to which those of us who are in the minority must turn for the protection of our individual liberties, freedoms and rights. This comment is directed to you, as sworn supporters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to request that you retain the purpose and intent of those greatest of all documents establishing government among men, and permit the American people the protection to which they are entitled, in spite of the fact that the group for which this testimony is made is a definite minority at this time. You are so frequently pressed for doles, appropriations, grants, special favors, and other privileges for certain groups at the expense of others, that it would seem to me somewhat refreshing, and Î certainly hope impressive, that this testimony is directed in the opposite direction. We ask no special favors. We ask no Federal funds. We ask merely that you refuse to take from us certain of our rights as citizens, our rights to plan our own futures, and that you not extend the questionable benefits of a Federal dole to this minority, the members of which do not desire to become wards of the Government.

We request that you stop the usurpation of our personal and individual rights and responsibilities, and that, at this time, you establish once and for all a barrier against the usurpation of individual rights and liberties and responsibilities by an ever-growing, power-grasping, Federal bureaucracy.

Our representative government has never been and can never be anything except an agent of force. Governments cannot deal in charity. Government itself is an abstraction incapable of the high motives of charity and other personal rights, responsibilities, and attributes. Force and compulsion and charity are totally incompatible. This Government cannot dispense 1 benefit, 1 gift, cannot grant 1 appropriation, 1 favor, or spend 1 cent which it has not wrested by force, actual or implied, from the individual citizens of this Nation. Congress cannot grant benefits to the recipients of old-age assistance without first extracting the funds from other citizens.

You have at your disposal the volumes of testimony presented before the subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee on this bill. These hearings did not touch upon the basic philosophy of the so-called social insurance, nor did they deal in any detail with the fallacies and unsound policies of the present system.

It is important to emphasize that the report of the House subcommittee was promised to the people of this Nation and to Congress, by the last of 1953. To date, this report has not been forthcoming. It is my impression that the sum of $100,000 appropriated for and expended upon this investigation included the sum of $10,000 for the preparation of a report of the findings. It is also my impression that the original report, prepared by the individual supposedly paid this sum, has been suppressed and that a new report, written by an entirely different individual, is in preparation but will not be available until after Congress has acted upon these bills. We protest this type of procedure. The citizens of this Nation have a right to know the results

of these investigations, in spite of the fact that it seems certain the report which is in preparation will be of little or no value.

I will not indulge in a review of the hearings, but, with very few exceptions, will approach this matter from a different point of view. Much of the testimony presented before the House subcommittee was given by individuals who believe, or represent themselves to believe, that Government is the source of benefits-handouts for all people. They were asking for gifts, money, and what they regard as their share of the Federal Government's largess.

They follow the pattern which has proven so successful in attaining the authoritarian state in many European nations, actual socialism in many instances. Permit me to illustrate.

In the last 100 years, one of the best examples of the so-called progress of so-called social insurance and social security, carried to the ultimate, is to be found in the history of the German nation under Bismarck. This example is used because the course of this program in the United States has been, and is, quite parallel. Leaving out all detail, we find that the Bismarckian social insurance first encompassed only those who were in very low income groups and the aged poor. It promised them certain benefits in return for a ridiculously small tax. Careful manipulation and very clever propaganda caused other groups of slightly higher incomes to demand that they be included and be given similar government benefits. This process continued, each group of a slightly higher income being brought under the system in gradual steps, usually through well calculated demands.

After all, why should not a worker earning only a few marks more than another, cry out for his share of government gifts? Soon every segment of the economy was included. The funds thus obtained were utilized to meet current expenses, and so-called indebtedness was incurred for future benefits. No longer was there need for the friction of a special tax. Everything came from the tax providing the general funds.

This identical procedure has been followed in many countries. It has been followed here. At this moment, we stand at the final point of resistance with only a very few relatively small groups, including those I represent, requesting that Congress not remove our rights, but permit us to maintain our individual liberties to plan our future, to permit us to do as we see fit with the products of our labors, and that Congress refuse to force us to become a part of an impossible, immoral, and fraudulent scheme.

Basically, the system is wrong, if you believe in the sovereignty of man and the Christian ideals upon which this Nation was founded. The system is wrong because it removes personal responsibilities as well as personal rights. I do not believe it amiss to point out that nowhere in the Scripture, which, in the final analysis, states clearly the principles upon which our Nation was founded, is there any passage which places responsibility for your acts or my acts, or your future or my future, upon the Masonic Lodge, the Presbyterian Church, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, or the Congress of the United States. This same Scripture is filled with statements of personal responsibility for one's actions, and for the care of his own.

Our Government was founded upon the principle of the sovereignty of the individual. In retaining the sovereignty of the individual we cannot, nor can Congress, by any means, remove the corresponding responsibility from the individual. Any system which attempts to remove responsibility from the individual is immoral and dishonest. There can be no denying that rights and responsibilities are inseparable. We Americans want our rights which have been guaranteed us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and we humbly request that you refuse to remove our corresponding responsibilities.

It seems to be generally accepted that the system referred to as social security is not insurance. It is patently not secure, and there is serious doubt if there is anything social about it, except that it has, in every nation, led to and been a most important part in the imposition of socialism upon the people.

So there will be no doubt about my meaning, permit me to quote Webster.

Socialism is defined as:

A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; socialism * * * favors extension of government action.

Of equal importance, compulsion is defined as:

Act of compelling, or state of being compelled; act of driving or urging by force or by moral or physical constraint; subjection to force; coercion-the act, process, or power of coercing, specifically the application to another of such force, either physical, moral, as to constrain him to do against his will something he would not otherwise have done.

I do not believe there is a Member of Congress who would not agree that the so-called social-security system is one which the Government would not permit a private corporation or group of individuals to operate. This statement could be discredited by commenting that it is not relevant, but there are many of us who believe it is very relevant, and that it is a very important point in proving the fallacy of the social-security system.

In the final analysis, Government can have, and has, no rights superior to or exceeding those which are delegated to it by the individual citizens, providing we agree that this Nation is founded upon the sovereignty of man, and that our Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Obviously, individuals cannot give or assign rights they do not possess. Therefore, Government cannot possess or exercise rights in any area exceeding those possessed or justly exercised by those who gave the rights. This Government would immediately brand as a fraud and proceed with legal action to punish any individual or group selling a plan as unsound, as impossible, as the social-security system. This fact alone should be sufficient to cause rejection of this bill and of the entire system.

Another parallel in the present social-security system and that of Europe has to do with the basic philosophy underlying the support of, and development of, such programs. Every program of this nature, whether it is compulsory social security, compulsory health insurance, or what have you, has its origin, basically, in the fact that some people believe that the rest of the citizens, or at least certain segments of the economy, are unable to provide or plan for their own futures, or

are unwilling to do so. With this sense of superiority, those who regard their fellow men as inadequate, having convinced themselves of their own more than sufficient adequacy, determine that they should decide what should be done for their not so erudite fellow men, even to the point of employing the legal agency of force-Government-to shower the dubious blessings of benefits, adequate health care, and many other items upon all citizens or certain groups.

Stripped of its gloss and stated with blunt frankness, we must admit that this is, in the final analysis, the decision of the few, that their fellow men have insufficient intelligence to care for themselves. The only logical conclusion for those who think so poorly of others is that they themselves are among the chosen few to decide what is best for others, and to bring that which they believe to be best to the others by force, if necessary.

This is the most dangerous type of thinking to which any individual can subscribe, since it is the fundamental tenet of authoritarianism, and must, if placed in action and carried to the extreme, result in the authoritarian state. It should have no supporters in this Republic. The individuals in the groups which I represent, reject this type of thinking and brand it as false. We do not believe that we are God's chosen, or that there is any individual or group in this Nation, which is so superior to the rest of us, that we or they should usurp the individual rights of any citizen or group of citizens.

In the last few years, the approach has changed. We now find many extremely capable executives, businessmen, and other individuals forced into the social-security system. The only groups remaining free are some of the professional people, some employed, and certain self-employed. Even the most ardent authoritarians find it impossible to show that these individuals are incompetent, unable to care for themselves or provide for their future.

Those who plan for Federal control of all of us find it difficult to convince anyone that professional groups and others who have been more successful in every way, are inadequate or that the bureaucrat, receiving a Federal salary, knows more about planning another's future than does the individual himself. Their own success fails to warrant any particular confidence in their ability, especially since those they would compel to accept the blessings of their superplanning, have good retirement programs, in fact, much better programs than those accepting the authoritarian idea are able to offer. A new approach has developed. We are told now that the groups presently excluded should be brought into the social-security system, to pay their rightful share of a welfare program for all. We reject this type of thinking. It is false. It is a mask for the acceptance of the Communist idea of the redistribution of wealth, as a number of the proponents have admitted that most of the professionals will never claim one benefit from the program.

This last group is, in essence, regarded as a source of funds to attempt to salvage an impossible, actuarially unsound system of Federal grants. It is no less than another tax, a very poorly disguised and unfair class-discrimination tax at that.

Semantics play an important part in the success of any of these programs. I would call your attention to the use of the word "excluded," since it shows very definitely how the prostitution of the