rofits out of war', a far better and more practicable scheme--it was suggested--than buying out munitions plants. This diverted public opinion" ( Hanighen, Am. Spectator, July, 1936). The American Legion for years offered specific proposals to "take the profits out of war".
Consequently Mr. Roosevelt, drafting the Democratic Platform of 1936 (cf Beard, Midpassage"), declared, "We shall continue to observe a true neutrality . . . to work for peace and to take the profits out of war".
For those who are foolishly preaching that statesmen should keep their promises, it may be interesting to observe that Mr. Roosevelt's record does not show that he has lived up to this clear and solemn promise to the American people on which he was elected.
Speaking of the President's emphasis on material armament, ships, light and heavy artillery (he likes to play with gadgets), H. S. Ford, secretary of the American Military Institute, Washington, D. C., in Nation, July 6, points out that it is easier "for a rich man to buy his way into heaven" than "for a rich nation to buy its way to victory".
"Industrial mobilization isn't just madly appropriating billions. Ballyhoo about billions . . . tends to pacify the demand of the people for drive and effectiveness. Appropriations should be no greater for any period than can reasonably be spent in that period", remarks Gen. Johnson, July 4, remembering that Congress was just adding another 4 billions, bringing total appropriated since Jan. 1 to around 15 billions.
There will be some sort of excess profits tax. (cf Kiplinger, June 22), probably on the English 'fool the people' system, 'excess' over average earnings of several preceding years. But "to make war unattractive to business interests" would be unwise.
"No new group of millionaires", President Roosevelt has promised. No more millionaires, he has accented. But under his present policies, there will be plenty more for the old millionaires. July 10, 1940