their own control and who are able, available, and making an effort to secure work. The law is administered as an unemployment insurance program and is not considered as relief or a paid vacation. I feel that Indiana is a good example of how a sound program can be efficiently and effectively operated at the State level. I can understand labor's desires for Federal controls and minimum standards that are far beyond existing State programs, but it is a serious question whether such a degree of wage replacement is in the best interests of the public as a whole. The increased taxload on business and industry is not a minor factor, but all competitors would be in the same boat, and so the added cost would be passed on to the consumer who ultimately pays the bill anyway. At a level of 10 percent of unemployment on the national scale, the remaining 90 percent of the work force who are employed would have to pay higher prices and that would reduce buying and production. The principle of unemployment compensation is economically sound in caring for the jobless on an insurance basis paid by industry. It is one thing to provide for day-to-day living expenses, but we must rely on our legislative representatives to avoid any "pie-in-the-sky" programs or popularity contests to see who can give away the most money. I have worked in the employment office of a manufacturing plant for 18 years and have had experience with both State and Federal administration of the program. I have studied and worked with the law and the changes during the years and would like to make a few observations relative to the problem: 1. The wage earnings qualifications for eligibility should be of sufficient amount and duration to screen out the intermittent short-time employee who really is not in the labor market. 2. Duration of benefits should not be a flat number of weeks for all eligible people, but should vary with length of employment in the base period. 3. A maximum weekly benefit of $60 or two-thirds of the average weekly wage is definitely in excess of the insurance principle of unemployment compensation. The best health and accident insurance plans pay maximum benefits of 50 percent of the average weekly wage, and there is no sound reason to pay more to the healthy person who is out of work. Two-thirds of the average wages before taxes can be as much as 80 percent of "take home" pay, and this is far beyond a short term "tighten-the-belt" level of expense that unemployment insurance is set up to cover. 4. Unscrupulous individuals try to take advantage of every law and there should be penalties to apply to such people. The original qualifications for unemployment insurance are basic and sound, i.e., the person should be out of work because of reasons beyond his control and he must be able and willing to work. The argument for simplification of administration has no value if you have to abandon the basic principles to accomplish the advantage. 5. The reported provisions of Federal grants to finance three-fourths of the cost of benefits in excess of 2 percent of the States taxable payroll just revives the illusion of "free money." Why bring the Federal Government into the act at tihs point? Let each State pay its own share of benefits, and they will have some incentive to do an effective job. Now we are right back where we started from. 1. Why should the Federal Government dictate to the States on the unemployment insurance problem? 2. Why should we make it more attractive to draw unemployment compensation than to work? 3. Is this just another and bigger step toward the welfare state? John Q. Public wants law and programs that are in the balanced best interests of all the people, and we must rely on our elected representatives to provide such judgment and statesmanship. I am enclosing two extra copies of this letter so that it may be made a part of the record of the hearings on the Kennedy-Karsten measure. Very truly yours, WALLACE E. BEER, Fort Wayne, Ind. J. E. WALZ, INC., April 7, 1959. Hon. WILBUR MILLS, DEAR SIR: We are defintely opposed to any increase in unemployment taxation. We consider unemployment compensation a fringe benefit. Here is an example: In an employee earns $5,200 per year, we pay $2.50 per week into social security, which is good. We pay 3 percent unemployment compensation which is $3. We pay his full group insurance which averages $3 per week. This totals $8.50 per employee per week. When the above is multiplied by the 35 people we employ, it is a burden of $297.50 per 5 working days. When you also consider two 15-minute coffee breaks per day for each employee, multiplied by his hourly rate, there is an aditional burden of $217.75 per week. The grand total is $515.25. We believe in unemployment compensation but, if rates are to be increased, feel that they should be deducted from the employees' wages, thereby creating a participating program of employee and employer. We, therefore, wish to go on record as opposing any additional expense to our company. Sincerely, LOUIS E. WALZ, Secretary. P.S.-I would like this letter entered as part of the record of the hearings. Re H.R. bill 3547 and Senate bill 791 Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, BRAMBLETT & SLOAN, Lebanon, Ind., April 6, 1959. SIR: We definitely are opposed to H.R. 3547 sponsored by Representative Karsten and also the companion measure to Senate bill 791, introduced by Senator Kennedy. We, as taxpayers prevail upon you to use your utmost influence to defeat both of these as we feel that our taxload is getting almost unbearable without any additional weight. You, as a representative of the taxpayer can help to bring about the changes that are going to have to be made. Yours very truly, WILLIAM SLOAN. TINGLE BUSINESS FORMS Co., Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MILS: The Kennedy-Karsten measure, which I believe is known as H.R. 3547, has been called to my attention, and I understand hearings are to start in the near future. I would like this letter to be made a part of record of the hearings. I am very definitely and strongly opposed to this bill. I believe that it is a bad thing for the country in general, the people as a whole, and that it should be defeated-and I certainly hope it is defeated. I will not go into the details on why each point is not good for the country, but summarizing the bill as a whole, it is more totalitarian government of a socialistic nature and is even very bad socialism. The bill is not set up to help those unfortunately unemployed people who are unemployed through no fault of their own but is designed more as a general dole to give something for nothing and kill individual initiative by encouraging self-created unemployment whereby people can receive income practically equal to that received by being gainfully and earnestly employed. So, we certainly hope that this bill is defeated in its entirety. Very truly yours, CHARLES C. TINGLE. WAYNE PLASTIC CORP., Fort Wayne, Ind., April 7, 1959. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, DEAR SIR: Our cherished freedoms would certainly be endangered by the Kennedy-Karsten measure, known as H.R. 3547. In my estimation, it is an insult to right-thinking employees and employers alike. A brief perusal of the arithmetical and psychological results that could follow passage of this measure, are truly hair raising. Insurance is a fine thing, including unemployment compensation. This measure, however, cannot be thought of as insurance. The United States of America did not get where it is today, nor will we catch up with our cold-war enemies by placing a premium on idleness, whether it is voluntary or involuntary. My sincere hope is that you do not pass H.R. 3547. Very truly yours, WAYNE PLASTIC CORP., W. W. BURHOP, President. GUTHRIE MAY & CO., INC., Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, DEAR SIR: I would like to give you my views on the unemployment compensation proposals for which hearings are scheduled for the period of April 7 through April 15. Apparently, a number of these proposals provide that Indiana reshape its unemployment compensation program along the lines specified in the proposals. The amount of weekly benefits proposed, the duration of the payments, and the elimination of any disqualification, even for fraud, seem to me to go far beyond the purpose of unemployment compensation. If such proposals became law the idea of providing temporary compensation for persons unemployed through no fault of their own will be changed to a system which encourages people not to work. I am sure that with such a system in effect many people would work just enough to become eligible for unemployment compensation and then purposely quit or arrange to be discharged in order to be able to collect. In addition to the obvious objections such an arrangement would also be so expensive as to be dangerous to our economy. I urge you to oppose such legislation. Yours truly, GUTHRIE MAY. Hon, WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. INDIANAPOLIS, IND., April 6, 1959. DEAR MR. MILLS: I am vitally interested in H.R. 3547 and S. 791 from two standpoints: 1. As an employer now of approximately 50 persons this will make a certain percentage of the people we employ work long enough to qualify for this being paid for loafing. 2. Coming from the South these bills will practically wreck the economy of the South because, with this amount of pay for loafing, you won't be able to get anybody to work down there. Another point, these two bills are pushing us more and more into socialism and, as one southerner to another, I hope you will do everything in your power to try and defeat them when they come up for discussion. This is the same type of thing that in earlier days wrecked the old Roman Empire. I am enclosing this letter in triplicate so that you can make it a part of the record. Most cordially yours, ROSCOE TURNER. CODDINGTON PACKING CO., INC., Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR SIR: We feel it imperative that we voice our objections to the proposed legislation known as the Kennedy-Karsten measure. In the first place we are a small company struggling for existence. Through the years we have kept our periods of unemployment to a minimum and have established a very good experience rate with our State employment security division. We feel that this rating should not be eliminated or made subject to Federal control. Secondly, we feel that unemployment benefits are being placed so high that workers are not even seeking work as long as they can loaf and draw benefits. And along this same line the duration of benefits should be made for shorter rather than for longer periods. Certain disqualifications (fraud, admitted or proven dishonesty, quitting work without good cause, misconduct) must be maintained to provide benefits only for those who are jobless under conditions beyond their control and who are able and willing to work and are seeking employment. Lastly, we feel that employment security legislation should be handled by the separate States as provided by the Constitution of the United States. We respectfully request that this letter be made a part of record of the hearings. Yours very truly, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, A. E. CODDINGTON, Jr. BRAZIL, IND., April 6, 1959. DEAR SIR: I am opposed to the Kennedy-Karsten measure, H.R. 3547: 1. It will take authority away from the States and centralize it in the Federal Government. Then some day the States will have no authority for one such law will lead to another. 2. It will increase employer taxes and that cost will be passed on to the consumer. More inflation. 3. Many habitual absentee workers will find some excuse to draw the benefits most all their life. Will you please make these a part of the record of your hearings? PHIL H. ADAMSON. INDIANAPOLIS, IND., April 14, 1959. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR MR. MILLS: In regard to the Kennedy-Karsten bill, H.R. 3547, concerning unemployment compensation, I would like to go on the record as opposing such a measure. I am forwarding this letter in triplicate and request that it be made a part of the record of the hearings. As I see the bill, it would impose rigid Federal controls on what has been primarily a State function. Thus it would contribute to the trend of everincreasing centralization of government. Must our Federal Government follow the pattern of the welfare state, which leads to bankruptcy? In Indiana this bill would 1. Increase our costs approximately 70 percent. 2. Allow potential maximum benefits of $2,340 in a year's period. 3. Eliminate any disqualification, even for fraud. 4. Change the present formula of $1 of benefits for each $4 of wages to $1 in wages for $1.56 in benefits, or thereabout. I earnestly request that you do whatever is in your power to defeat this and similar bills on unemployment compensation. Yours truly, WENDELL J. DILLINGER. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., April 8, 1959. DEAR WILBUR: Enclosed is a copy of a letter to me from Fred O. Carey, vice president of the Fred O. Carey & Sons Construction Co., Inc., of Warsaw, Ind., in opposition to H.R. 3547. I will appreciate very much your placing a copy of this letter in the record of your committee proceedings. Thank you very much, and best personal regards. Sincerely, HOMER E. CAPEHART. Senator HOMER E. CAPEHART, FRED O. CAREY & SONS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CAPEHART: We wish to voice our opinion and feelings against the proposed Kennedy-Karsten measure, H.R. 3547. Such a high rate of benefits would tend to work against the employee, in that many would only work one-third of the year, then loaf the balance of the year at $60 per week. People of this kind would be dropped from our employment and never rehired. We would also be inclined to blacklist people of that sort so that no other employer would get caught the same way. Let's be reasonable about this thing. We have had men leave our nonunion employ and take up employment in the same trade classification for a construction firm who runs a closed union shop. Soon after, he gets fired, or layed off, then he wants to draw benefits from our reserve account but refuses to return to work for the same wages he got before leaving our employ. So far, rulings are in his favor. It doesn't seem to be a matter of the man earning a living so much as it is a feather in his cap to be able to scheme some way to get something for nothing. In this H.R. 3547 you would be paying people for just laying around in the way and under foot. Seems we have enough rackets in our country today without our Government transforming a charitable organization into a firstrate racket. Please make this letter a part of record of the hearings. FRED O. CAREY, Vice President. INTERSTATE FINANCE CORP., Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. MILLS: AS chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, you have gained nationwide respect for the intelligent manner in which you have discharged the responsibilities of your office. It has often been expressed that you have viewed the various measures brought before your committee with a great deal of objectivity and have attempted to serve the best interest of the Nation rather than a select influential group. It is for this reason that I would like to express my views to you regarding the Kennedy-Karsten unemployment compensation measure scheduled to come before your committee hearing April 7, 1959, and ask that this letter be made a part of the record. America has become the greatest nation in the history of the world for reasons too numerous to mention, but I feel this greatness has come about primarily as a result of the opportunity for the common man to rise above his environment, ingenuity, and hard work. Most successful people, I am sure, will testify that their measure of success came about as a result of inspiration and perspiration, not through a dole. History has also indicated that a sure sign of decadence is a nation becoming effete. What surer way is there to bring this about than through taking away the incentive to work by making it easy to remain unemployed. One of the |