OCR Text |
Show 'pHE attitude of Business gen- erally as spearheaded by the United States Chamber of Commerce Com-merce and Business Trade organizations organ-izations Is that the Federal government gov-ernment has no business In business busi-ness . . . that when Uncle Sam goes Into any kind of business operation, op-eration, he is competing with private pri-vate enterprise and losing revenue reve-nue from taxes that would be collected col-lected if the business in question was run by an Individual, a Company Com-pany or corporation. - But there is another side of this coin. It seems that down through the years, starting with the postal service, when Uncle Sam has entered en-tered into a business enterprise like manufacture of paint for the Navy, or uniforms for the armed forces, or shoes, or any of scores of business enterprises . In which the government Is engaged, it has been because the procurement officers offi-cers have proved to Congress that the Government can get more for the taxpayers dollar by doing It himself than by paying private business to do It for him. It may not be true ot all business, but it certainly has been the rule with most, that when they are dealing with Uncle Sam and public money there is little compunction about piling on what have come to be known as "unconscionable" profits. prof-its. In debate over extension of the so-called Renegotiation Act, wherein where-in the Renegotiation Board has the power to renegotiate contracts with firms doing business with the Government, Gov-ernment, these "unconscionable profits" were glaring examples of how private business "rooked" the government. Here are some exam ples taken from the public records: rec-ords: A company making tractor saws in 1952 had renegotiable sales to the Government of $1,163,225. He charged the Government $261,000 profits. The Board said $200,000 of these was excessive and allowed the company only $61,000; on a contract for screw machine products, prod-ucts, sales to the Government were $426,795; the company charged profits of $72,357. The Board took away $40,000, leaving the company $32,357. A contract for hobblng machines totaled $1,183,-469. $1,183,-469. The company charged $091.-469 $091.-469 profits. The Board took away $400,000. leaving $291,469. A contract con-tract for aircraft parts totaled $674,728, with claimed profits of $132,425. The Board allowed only $72,425. On an aircraft contract on renegotiable sales of $2,410,655. the company claimed $408,615. The Board said $75,000 of that was excessive. ex-cessive. On aircraft fuel tanks, the contract was $4,064,801 with a prof-It prof-It of $366,712. The Board said of this amount $63,300 was excessive. These are but a few examples of the hundreds of cases which have come before the Renegotiation board. In 1955, for instance, the Renegotiation Board reviewed 5.0G1 contracts and called for refunds from these companies totaling $167,256,288 at an expense to the Government of $4,408,725. These companies have the right of appeal from the Renegotiation Board's review to the United States Tax Courts, Several cases have been appealed, but for some reason rea-son or another none have ever come to trial, the cases being withdrawn with-drawn before the trial date. |