Mr. HENRY. And will the bill in effect tend to bind future Congresses to make good the assurances contained therein?

Mr. MOSHER. It is a long-term program. It presumably could not be anything else but a long-term program. Certainly if we use the words "future planning" which have been used, it envisages going ahead into the future, and I do not question for a moment but what if the President, whoever it may be, brings in a program on January 1 of some future year, that it has got to be one that runs over several years; it has got to be a long-term program.

To come back to your question: It could bind succeeding Congresses, if you are going to accomplish the apparent things that the proponents want in the bill.

Mr. HENRY. Do you think it is reasonable to assume that public expenditures can be turned off and on with that precision of timing that would be essential to the successful control of business cycles?

Mr. MOSHER. Well, I have thought of an answer to that question because I have given it some considerable thought. In trying to determine for the purpose of explanation how it is we run a business with a forward-looking budget, recognizing that budget is as far off as they get off, how do we live? We live by our ability to change our requirements quickly, and that means almost right away. It certainly means daily, and in no case can it be more than 1 month in the case of some far-flung businesses. If a program of this type is going to work, it is for the reason that a budget is going to work in a particular business, I do not see how it could work otherwise than to give somebody complete authority to spend whenever he feels there is a need for it and to some extent as he wants to.

Mr. HENRY. You do not believe, then, that it would be done with sufficient precision and accuracy to be of much value?

Mr. MOSHER. It cannot be done with sufficient accuracy and precision, and it could not be done within the time limit to accomplish. the results desired.

Mr. HENRY. What effect could the adoption of increased minimum wage rates have upon the findings of those responsible for predicting the volume of employment during the forthcoming period?

Mr. MOSHER. Now we get into a different subject and I am not prepared to give you an answer. That question deserves a much more complete answer than I have time to give you at the moment. The question is: Does the raising of your, say minimum wages-I will make it a little broader-does the raising of wages thereby create more purchasing power-to use a phrase which is used by those who advocate raising wages. Does that promote the general economy of the country?

No wage paid or no wage rate that is not the result of increased production will be of any use to this country.

Mr. HENRY. Well, what effect would such an increase have upon the findings of those responsible for prediction?

Mr. MOSHER. Well, if you raise wage rates, for instance-I think what you are driving at is if in the course of a succeeding year wage rates move up 10 percent, based on an economy as high as $200,000,000,000, you would thereby create a $20,000,000,000 error to start out with; and it is impossible if you have a Federal budget that any Federal budget can stand any such error as that, and if it is $25,000,000,00, you have an 80-percent error.

Mr. HENRY. Do you think it is feasible to base legislation on forecasts?

Mr. MOSHER. No, sir; not forecasts of this kind. Legislation has to be based on the best opinion you can get from a number of men. I think you meant: Should legislation be based on a mechanical forecast process; and I would say definitely "No." There is not any such thing now.

Mr. HENRY. Does the bill in its attempt to overcome unemployment distinguish between the various types of unemployment and provide remedies disgned to cure the various types?

Mr. MOSHER. Well, I do not know if I know exactly what you mean. Mr. HENRY. Well, for example, here is the laboring man. We will say he is unemployed. Then we will say a banker is unemployed. Mr. MOSHER. I am capable of drawing unemployment insurance at the moment, as a Washington paper said the other day.

Mr. HENRY. Should the bill distinguish the various types of unemployment and provide various types of remedies in order to be a good bill?

Mr. MOSHER. Well, the bill does in effect, if not in so many words, provide that recommendations shall be made to provide for full employment. If you are trying to provide jobs for a certain number of people who are going to find themselves unemployed, you presumably have to find the type of job that those particular people can fill. They may be in one business on the west coast; they may be in another business on the east coast; or they may be in some other business in the central part of the country. They may be skilled artisans or common labor. Some may be bankers or something else. I think it would follow, if they are going to get positions which they can handle, that you must boil it out in detail as to the items that you are trying to cover here. Mr. HENRY. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mosher, in S. 380 which passed the Senate, section 2, subparagraph (b), provides:

All Americans able to work and seeking work are entitled to an opportunity for useful, remunerative, regular, and full-time employment, including self-employment in agriculture, commerce, industry, or the professions.

Do you know of any law now that will guarantee work to a man? Mr. MOSHER. No; I do not, but I think that perhaps I will have to ask you, and I do not suppose that is within my province. You know, when unemployment came along that we had seasonal positions handled to a large degree, more or less, as a family proposition. We suddenly found an awful lot of new corporations and the people who worked in those positions became employees and subject to unemployment compensation. I am wondering if that is not an attempt to provide those who are normally in self-employment with compensation. I am wondering if the intent is not this, that those who are normally in selfemployment should expect to seek self-employment.

The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't it be necessary, to carry out the provisions of the last part of this section, to repeal State laws requiring certain qualifications or standards-as, for example, for the practice of medicine as regulated by law, without regard to any minimum qualifications of the law for practicing medicine?

Mr. MOSHER. This says:

All Americans able to work and seeking work are entitled to an opportunity for useful, remunerative, regular, and full-time employment, including selfemployment in agriculture, commerce, industry, or the professions.

My guess, and I am only guessing., of course, is that if the Senate had stopped after the word "employment" in line 5, I as a normal self-employer would have the right-I guess that is the word-the right to demand a job; somebody has got to give me a job, the Government or otherwise.

The CHAIRMAN. But you may be a person who has been disqualified by the board of examiners and as, for example, be prohibited from the practice of medicine in your State. Actually it might be dangerous for you to be permitted to practice as a physician in the State as you might kill your patients.

Mr. MOSHER. I do not know what that means. I think anybody who has the qualifications to practice in one of the professions, being up to date, has to try to get his own clients. I presume that somebody will furnish him with clients.

The CHAIRMAN. But we also keep out undesirables, those who are not qualified to practice medicine.

Mr. MOSHER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. For the reason that those undesirables might kill a lot of their patients, and if we were going to assure that fellow of an opportunity to practice when he is incompetent, why we would run into lots of trouble.

Mr. MOSHER. But I would not want the record to show that the bill would kill anybody.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will look at line 11 of page 2 of S. 380, you will find the words:

foster the American home and American education as the foundation of the American way of life.

Do you know of any law that prohibits a man now from leading a peaceful life in his own neighborhood?

Mr. MOSHER. We used to think we could, but some of us have wondered lately even if that was so.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all I care to ask.

Thank you for coming before the committee.

Mr. MOSHER. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The exhibits you have may be inserted in the record at this point.

(The exhibits previously discussed are as follows:)