OCR Text |
Show J $elitnJ the JJeacfineA President John F. Kennedy's $92,537,000,000 budget, with its shaky $463,000,000 surplus estimate, esti-mate, contains a lot of "Ifs." It is dependent upon an end to the Berlin "crisis", anticipates no other unexpected, major Cold War spending, counts heavily upon the continuing stimulating effect of heavy defense spending upon the economy, and becomes, as every presidential budget does, an explosive political issue, especially in a congressional election elec-tion year. It contains few surprises. President Pres-ident Kennedy's budget; despite anguished cries from conservatives, conserva-tives, represents "considerably less than the more 'ardent New Frontiersmen in the liberal camp had hoped. The President's tiny, face-saving surplus is a declaration of "fiscal responsibility," and its accent on "pay-as-you-go" financing finan-cing through a proposed increase in postal rates, is an invitation to conservative support. The President is continuing to try to carry water on both shoulders as he seeks to broaden a Ken- "phony crisis." The Khrushchev strategy is subtler, slimier and probably more insidious. His "peaceful coexistence" co-existence" would seek to lull the Westto disarm and go back to sleep slacken its defense spending spend-ing and encourage a U.S. economic eco-nomic collapse wtihout its $60.-000,000,000 $60.-000,000,000 a year defense-foreign aid-cold war spending prop. He seeks a "cheap, easy victory." The Kennedy Administration budget message also relies on the "stimulating effect" of continued heavy defense spending. The final outcome of this struggle within the Kremlin walls, which still is far from over, is much more likely to affect the U.S. than all of our own political fulminations and machinations here at home. And alas! It shows how we are still reacting to the Soviets instead i of forcing them to react to us; I how we are still "dancing to the Russian bear." Our political parties can spend another congressional session haggling over a few billion dollars dol-lars "more or less" in the Ken- nedy budget. But on the defense foreign aid-Cold War spending bulk of the budget, they are essentially bipartisan, non-political, united. And the basic outlines out-lines of the Cold War necessitating necessitat-ing the heavy spending continue so far to be drawn in the Kremlin, Peiping, Havana, the Congo and even in tiny Albania's defiance of "Khrushchevism." The heavy outlays and big budgets the Communist threat continues to force upon the American people are also molding mold-ing our politics as well as our economics. Continued heavy defense spending is now a virtual cornerstone cor-nerstone of U.S. prosperity. Now, however, Republicans warn that not even that may be sufficient to keep the U.S. economy booming boom-ing if the Presidents liberal trade-tariff proposals open the U.S. to cheap Common Market trade competition and cause widespread unemployment. This is emerging as one, of the biggest issues of the congressional congres-sional session and perhaps, of our times. Somehow, the U.S economy must practice the Free Enterprise it preaches and compete com-pete with rising Freeworld trade or pave the way for economic ruin. nedy middle-of-the-road. As the President's budget becomes be-comes a political issue, splitting Congress largely along political lines and becomes the Republicans Republi-cans chief hope for staging a political comeback, a related political argument continues to rage on inside the Communist world. While U.S, Republicans and Democrats argued over the President's Pres-ident's budget, a series of Soviet Communist Party "grass roots" conferences argues Soviet Premier Pre-mier Khrushchev's 22nd Communist Com-munist Party Congress denunciation denunci-ation of Stalinism. These arguments raging on inside in-side World Communism are much more likely to affect the President's Presi-dent's budget hopes than anything any-thing happening at home. It is becoming an open secret anymore that the fight over "Stalinism" inside World Communism Com-munism is something that affects Americans every bit as much or more than it affects Khrushchev. The Molotov, pro-Peiping extremist ex-tremist wing of the Communist Party believes dogmatically in wars and crises as instruments of Sino-Soviet diplomacy. They insist the U.S. proved itself militarily mili-tarily weak in Laos, Berlin and the bungled invasion of Cuba. They are convinced that the Soviet and satellite peoples can be kept in line during an outbreak out-break of new Cold War hostili- ties, through the re-imposition of terrorism and Secret Police controls, but doubt that the Free World can endure repeated war crises. They are certain that repeated war crises and outright conquests con-quests will weaken the worldwide world-wide U.S. position and the U.S. economy. They are determined to deprive the Free World of vital raw materials from such places as the Congo (uranium), Indonesia Indo-nesia (rubber), Middle East (oil) Laos and Vietnam (rice), and seek through Cuba to strike at the heart of the Hemispheric it is no surprise tnereiore, to see that the Republicans the GOP is booming for the '64 presidential pres-idential sweepstakes are all staking stak-ing out firm positions on economic eco-nomic issues. Rockefeller's economic internationalism inter-nationalism is already well known. So is Goldwater's economic eco-nomic nationalism. Now, more attention is going to be given the broad background the GOP's "Dark Horse" presidential contender, con-tender, Automaker George Rom-ney, Rom-ney, also has in tariffs and trade. At the age of 22. Romney served as a special foreign trade advisor and tariff specialist for Protectionist Democratic U.S. Senator David I. Walsh of Massachusetts, Mas-sachusetts, in 1929 and 1930. Romney's David and Goliath victory over the initial influx of European car imports is part of U.S. economic history. His generous wage settlements with labor are also powerful ammunition ammuni-tion for the coming political wars in which economics will play an increasingly vital role. economic complex. The Khrushchev Communists believe that war threats bolster the U.S. economy, as indeed, the President's budget message expects ex-pects that it will. "Khrushchevism" "Khrushchev-ism" believes that war threats unite the U.S. and its NATO SEATO and other Free World allies. The best Kremlinologists believe be-lieve that Khrushchev has been pushed by domestic political pressures into belligerence over Berlin and that it is at heart a |