OCR Text |
Show YOUR STAKE IN THE COST OF WAR "Renegotiation of war contracts" is a heavy-sounding term, and newspaper news-paper readers In the sections of America where public interests are localized and largely agricultural may wonder how such a subject can concern them. But since every taxpayer has a personal stake in any measure that increases government expense and adds to the public payroll, especially at a time when every dollar is needed need-ed for the war effort, then this question ques-tion of contracts for equipment and supplies becomes vital to all. "Renegotiation" In the early days of lend-lease and of the hue task of mustering an armed force of millions of men, a few contractors receiving fat orders saw in these government contracts only a new gold mine. To meet the relatively small number of abuses which were brought to light, the last Congress passed a law requiring that all new and old Army, Navy and Maritime Commission contracts be written with a "renegotiation" clause, so that they could be refig-ured refig-ured in the search for cases where contractors were making too large a profit. This law requires that the Army, Navy and Maritime commission each employ a separate force of men to re-estimate all contracts for buildings, machinery, tanks, airplanes, air-planes, guns, clothing, and the thousand thou-sand items industry must turn out for war use. Thi law seemed wise and harmless harm-less at first, but evidently it was not realized how large an "army" of employees would be needed to enforce en-force it. It is estimated that there are some True, the original bill has been amended; but the amendments still authorize each department concerned con-cerned to reflgure contract prices. This means the employment of a vast number of special auditors and accountants. Congressman Disney points out that there should be an automatic method of screening out contractors from those whose profits are not excessive, "so that we will not have to use, in renegotiation, all of the accountants in the country." A proposed amendment whittles at the original law and limits renegotiation rene-gotiation to contracts which show more than 2 per cent profit. But thfs Is no time for half-way measures. That sort of plan would still require a lot of unnecessary employees on both government and contractors' payrolls. The Solution The Internal Revenue department has a yearly check on all profits. It figures the taxes i aid in all industries, indus-tries, including those with Army, Navy and Maritime commission contracts. con-tracts. If the Internal Revenue authorities au-thorities discover an abnormal profit from any war work in any business, after payment of taxes, it could so certify to the department concerned so that renegotiation could be started. start-ed. The ones that are within the fair and reasonable limit of 2 per cent profit after taxes would require no attention, and in that way millions mil-lions of man-hours would be saved and duplication of effort, and delays caused by extra forces of employees reftguring contracts, would be avoided. avoid-ed. The Disney amendment, which seems simiJle and effective, has not three million such contracts, over 20,000 contractors, and an unknown number of sub-contractors. If the original law were carried out, it might easily require 200,000 new public pub-lic payrollers, and 300,000 new employees em-ployees hired by contractors to prepare the data for the federal authorities, au-thorities, and this at a time when manpower is scarce and every able-bodied person is needed for service in uniform or production work at home. The job would take years even after the war. Amendments Not Sufficient Agriculture and industry are short of machinery and manpower, and these men are too badly needed in producing crops and equipment for ourselves and our allies to be wasted in checking up on contracts, espe- daily when there is already an effi. cient means of doing that work. yet been adopted. Yet it amply guards against excess profits, with a minimum of interference with wartime war-time production and at the same time providing escape from the new load of non-essential payrollers which the original law threatened. The ordinary man therefore concludes: con-cludes: Why not let the Internal Revenue Rev-enue tax man do the whole job at one sitting? Why not save the time of industrial management and employees em-ployees for vital work? Why not use the established check on costs, and at the same time save the expense of extra payrollers? Most of those payrollers could well be used in the armed service, or on farms, or in factories, or in some other productive kind of work, instead in-stead of occupying desks in Washington. Washing-ton. They would then be doing something some-thing to help win the war. |