OCR Text |
Show POLITICS The last session of congress was an extremely extravagant one and yet it appropriated $113,000,- 1000 less than the executive departments urged it to appropriate. Let this fact sink into tho minds of those who advocate a national budget system for the United States. That a budget system is desirable, few will question, but those who believe be-lieve in economical administration will also agree that the control of the budget board or commission commis-sion should be in congress and not in the departments. depart-ments. The reason for this is plain. The head of each department, upon the insistent recommendations recommen-dations of his subordinates and because of desire to expand the activities of his office, asks congress for larger appropriations for work already al-ready in hand and for new appropriations for new governmental activities. He is naturally impressed im-pressed with the importance of his department and is more or less actuated by vanity and ambi-! ambi-! tion. Congress, the only branch of government chosen directly by the people and including men I from every walk of life, is not influenced by per sonal ambition, so far as departmental expenditures expendi-tures are concerned, and upon that body wo must rely for the check upon extravagance. A budget system we certainly need, but not one in tho control of men who ask for $113,000,000 more than a liberal congress will grant. In his last annual report, Postmaster. General Burleson presented statistics showing the steady growth in postal savings deposits and then said: "These facts afford conclusive proof that the practical prac-tical operations of postal savings in this country have amply fulfilled the predictions of its advo- cates." That is certainly some admission, coming com-ing as it does from a man who, as a member of the house of representatives, voted against the Postal Savings Bank bill. It is one more acknowledgment acknowl-edgment of tho superiority of Republican ideas. But Burleson had plenty of bad company, for every Democrat in the house who voted at all, recorded his vote against tho measure. With tho pages of the newspapers teeming with reports of new and larger contracts awarded to American factories for war supplies, and with frequent news of hasty construction of new factories fac-tories to turn out similar material, how would it do for Secretary of Commerce Redfield to repeat that assertion of his that the Democratic party "brought the country through the most terrible commercial shock in its history and landed her safe and strong upon tho peaceful shores of prosperity?" pros-perity?" That was certainly a sonorous and well rounded sentence, but even the Democratic press cannot avoid telling tho truth as to the real agency in bringing back whatever degree of prosperity pros-perity we are now enjoying after that "most terrible ter-rible commercial shock." Every time you buy a package or bottle of food or drugs with a label on it guaranteeing it under the pure food act, remember that a Republican Repub-lican congress enacted that law and that every vote against it was cast by a Democrat. Ever since its organization, the Republican party has been a party of progress and construction and the Democratic party has been a party of opposition and .destruction. There is a great deal in habit. Even the most resourceful mathematician finds it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to use any comparative statistics in such a way as to bring credit to the present administration. Some, however, how-ever, make desperate efforts to put the figures together to-gether in such a way as to relieve Democracy of its burden of discredit. In an attempt of this kind, one Democratic newspaper refers to the fact that railway earnings for April, 1915, were $33,821,308 as compared with $32,222,791 for the same month in 1914, an increase of a million and a half. Even though that is comparing one Democratic month with another and, therefore, proves nothing, the apparent good showing is entirely reversed when the Democratic editor finds himself forced to admit that the gain in net earnings "is not due to an increase in gross, but to a decrease in operating op-erating expenses." That decrease in operating expenses ex-penses must mean either reduced wages, reduced purchases or reduced employment. In any event, it means less money for the workers on railroads or in railroad shops. Nor is that all, for the same editor goes on to admit that although gross earnings earn-ings "were down only $2,000,000 for the month (April) they were down $79,000,000 during the preceding nine months, or an average of nearly $9,000,000 a month. While most people will be glad to know that the railroads, aided by increased rates and by renewed industrial activity due to tho war, are not as badly off as they were, it is difficult to comprehend what satisfaction a Democrat can get out of presentation of statics showing the depths to which railroad business had sunk within recent months. |