OCR Text |
Show Bruchart's Washington Digest President Irked by Georgia's Refusal to Alter Constitution ! State Will Get No More Money From Federal Government; Govern-ment; Possibilities of Staggering Burdens of Taxation Pointed Out by Hoover and Byrd. By WILLIAM BRUCKART WNU Service, National Press Bldg., Washington, D. C. WASHINGTON. The state of Georgia has a provision in its state constitution that effectively prevents an accumulation of state debt. It is one of the few states having such a constitutional inhibition of that kind. But the fact that such a provision pro-vision exists in Georgia suddenly has become momentous in the eyes and minds of the New Dealers, headed by the President, himself. Because it is in the news, however, Mr. Roosevelt's criticism of the provision pro-vision forces a review of the facts and implications flowing from that charter provision. Mr. Roosevelt said recently while sojourning at Warm Springs, Ga., as he does frequently, that Georgia will get no more federal money. His particular peeve at Georgia resulted re-sulted from the fact that the state has not amended its constitution to permit it to borrow directly from agencies of the federal government as most other states have done with federal money flowing like streams at flood. The President was disgusted with Georgia's attitude; hence, the federal government is all through with giving the state more money. Of course, it is only my opinion the opinion of only one observer but it nevertheless strikes me that in years "to come, the citizens of many states will have cause to regret re-gret the absence of such provisions from their respective state constitutions. constitu-tions. It is only a question of time. Politicians and over-zealous advocates advo-cates of "improvements" and the like have been rushing to the federal fed-eral feed trough in droves, carrying away checks. They have borrowed billions from the national government; govern-ment; they have received grants or gifts of other billions for the country coun-try as a whole on condition that they put up additional funds to match or equal the federal gift, and they, in consequence, now are loaded load-ed down with debt. So, I say there will be cause for regret that so few states have the same provision as Georgia has when the time comes for payment. There must be taxation taxa-tion if the debts are paid, or there must be that awful thing, repudiation. repudia-tion. Must Be Additional Taxation, or Repudiation Former President Hoover has had much to say about the waste that has been going on, and has coupled those observations with the possibilities possibil-ities of staggering burdens of taxation. taxa-tion. So has Sen. Harry Byrd, Democrat, Dem-ocrat, of Virginia. Mr. Hoover's criticisms have been laughed off by the administration here because Mr. Hoover is a Republican. Senator Byrd's jibes have been pooh-poohed because he has insisted on sound government and has been frequently anti-New Deal. But Mr. Hoover and Senator Byrd each have stressed a little noted phase of potentialities inherent in the situation. They have talked about moral codes. Nov, it appears, as I said above, there must be additional taxation to meet these loans (whether from the federal government or from private borrowers) or there must be repudiation. repudi-ation. Repudiation is simply and plainly a refusal to pay a debt. Refusal Re-fusal to pay an honest debt makes deadbeats. In the light of these facts, I want to make a little prediction. I am going to predict that there will be movements in many states within 10 years to have the federal govern-must govern-must relinquish its claims against those states; to have congress pass legislation that will say to the states, in effect, "Just tear up the papers and we will tear up your notes and bonds and forget about the whole thing." Politicians of the unsavory, demagogic type will leap onto such a thought and shout from the housetops house-tops of every community in the state that the federal government that great and rich government ought to forego collection. They will have all kinds of arguments why it ought to be dne, but their real reason for doing so will be to obtain votes for their own election to office. They vill be saying to the people that it will not be repudiation if the federal fed-eral government says it does not desire to collect; yet, it is my contention con-tention that such proceedings vill be thoroughly dishonest. It vill be exactly the same as if the state had s;iid: I won't pay. President on Wrong Track In Lambasting Georgia When Mr. Roosevelt was giving the people of Georgia a tongue-lash-iriK, therefore, I believe he was on the wrong track. He was Jambast-in:; Jambast-in:; Ihern for continuing to run their afl;jirs on a sound ba.'ils, for t:ori-tinuinj; t:ori-tinuinj; to avoid subservience to the ri:ii,ion;il government, and for refu;i-in;; refu;i-in;; to surrender completely the n;:ht ; t,t a novereijm fUatc. For, bo it knovn, there are very few easiei way to force a (.tale or county or city or other nubdivi.!;ion of govern-m'Tit govern-m'Tit to b'-come "bot.r-.ed" by the national government than the way that has been chosen through the use of money. In fact, it seems rather a sour note in our national policies to witness almost complete subjugation of states or lesser areas: by the use of federal money when, with another hand, the government: through the various propaganda: agencies or by legal action constantly constant-ly threatens to send private persons or corporations to jail for seeking selfish control for private gain. The only difference that I can see is that one is purely for monetary gain in the case of private action, while in the governmental situation, the benefits are political from which rascals or crooks . eventually get their graft. Some Washington writers, in con-' sidering the President's Warm Springs outburst, attributed his frame of mind to the fact that Georgia's Geor-gia's citizens (or a majority of them) refused to follow Mr. Roosevelt's Roose-velt's demand for the defeat of Sen. Walter George. You remember, of course, how Mr. Roosevelt went into Georgia and endorsed United States Attorney Lawrence Camp for the Democratic senatorial nomination. It is of fresh recollection, too, how he said that Senator George was old fashioned out dated almost a one-hoss one-hoss shay. President's Statement May Be Clever Political Move I am in no position to know whether wheth-er the failure of Georgia to obey the Roosevelt command entered into the discourse that has since become an issue. Nor am I well enough acquainted ac-quainted with New Deal plans to say whether the President has taken his first step for 1940 convention delegates dele-gates in this way. It is possible, obviously, that the Warm Springs statement may be a clever political politi-cal move. Think of it this way: by starting a row, the President possibly possi-bly could be laying the groundwork for uniting the anti-George forces. If they are united and fighting, it is within the realm of possibilities that they could take the Georgia delegation delega-tion out of Senator George's control con-trol in 1940. That would be a great victory for the radical element of the Democratic party. Then, too, the Warm Springs declaration dec-laration may be designed to have an effect on the forthcoming congress. I think it goes without saying that the new congress is going to be very much different than that which it supplants. For one thing, there will be less very much less money mon-ey voted for the administration to use as it sees fit. There will be a bloody battle before congress again writes out blank checks for Hopkins or Harold Ickes to use. It is likely, indeed, that there, will be some rather rath-er rigorous investigations of things already done under the blank check appropriations of money. If the investigations in-vestigations are thorough, there will be a stench rise from the committee room where the job is done. Thus, if Mr. Roosevelt hopes, by the Warm Springs statement, to awaken a fresh thirst for money among local politicians throughout the country, it may be a piece of clever politics. Whatever the purpose of the criticism criti-cism of the Georgia prohibition against borrowing, it can not alter the fundamentals of the situation. Georgia, as a state, is better off. It vill be far better off 10 years from now when the country has sorted out the good things of the New Deal and put them to proper use. Its citizens will be happier and less burdened with taxation at a time when the people of Pennsylvania, for example, exam-ple, are using profane language about paying for needless and useless use-less "improvements" a state of mind they surely will reach as soon as they have forgotten the mouth-ings mouth-ings of politicians and have begun to pay through the nose. Can Washington Horn in On a State's Policies? There is yet another element involved in-volved in the situation precipitated by Mr. Roosevelt's Warm Springs statement. It involves the question, directly, whether a state shall determine de-termine its own policies or have them dictated from Washington. Only a few days ago, the department depart-ment of labor disclosed that it was trying to persuade all of the states to par legislation exactly like the federal law governing wages and hours of workers. The department's bureaucrats have drafted a "model" law vhich they are trying eagerly to get the states to adopt, so that business busi-ness within a state will be subjected to the same provisions as business operating across state lines. That same course was pursued when NUA was young and bfore it was discovered discov-ered that the blue eagle had more feathers in one wing than it had in the other. These things are dangerous. Oncu such tactics are successful, they ire followed by demand;; ami command.! of broader scope. WcRtrrn NcwRp.'ipcr Union. |