OCR Text |
Show j ' . flo Comment !! J By James A. Duothat Washington All of the evidence made available thus far in Washington indicates that there is no basis for foie-casts foie-casts emnnatlng from a variety of sources that government spending will soar to spectacular heights and that heavier taxes will be required from the public. These predictions are so at variance with official statements by Administration spokesmen who certainly certain-ly should know the facts that many In Washington are wondering if they are not resulting from propaganda disseminated dis-seminated bv New Dealers In the lower echelons . of government service whose solution for any problem Invariably is bigger and better spending. What are the facts with respect re-spect to government spending? Thus far (obviously, the future could bring changes) official in. formation adds up about like this: There is expected to be modcr-ate modcr-ate Increases in some categories of defense spending, particularly for the missile and satellite programs. pro-grams. But, at the sa.rte time, every effort is to be made to reduce other defense or non-defense spending that Is found to be unessential un-essential or can be postponed. Savings made elsewhere would, of course, be deducted In arriving arriv-ing at the total government spending figure. And economy advocates are convinced that multi-billion savings could be made in the present huge spend, lng budget. To place the government's fls-cal fls-cal situation in proper perspective, perspec-tive, here are the facts: Spending this fiscal year (ending (end-ing June 30) is officially forecast fore-cast at $72 billion. Expected c-venue c-venue is $73.5 billion. This would leave a $1.5 billion surplus. For the following year the Ad-1 ministration's announced goal fs to hold spending to $70 billion S2 billion under this year. However, even if defense spending spend-ing were Increased by $2 billion (and disregarding any sayings elsewhere), the spending tutal still would be no larger than this year's figure. If revenue were the same as expected for this year, there would be another surplus of $1.5 billion. But there is another Important factor. The nation's normal fco. nomlc growth, if continued, should produce an additional S3 billion (or more) in tax revenue annually. Thus, on the basis of this computation, com-putation, defense spending could V. exceed the present - goal by $2 billion and still leave approximately approxim-ately $15 billion available for tax reduction and for payment on the national debt. It should be kept In mind that the bipartisan tax-reduction bill introduced by Representatives Sadlak (R. Conn.) and Herlong (D. Fla.) would cost in revenue only $1 billion for the first year, $3 billion for each of the naxt i four years. The measure provides for a ' series of annual redactions in the i personal and corporation income tax rates so that at the end of five years the maximum would be 42 per cent. And remember that the normal growth of the economy should increase tax revenue by at least $3 billion each year. (In the event that the economy should not expand normally, the Sad-lak-Herlong bill provides for one year postponements of the scheduled sche-duled tax reduction.) In this connection, don't overlook over-look the fact that recent official statements discussing the government's gov-ernment's outlook do not preclude pre-clude the possibility of tax reduction. re-duction. Nor was the door closed to tax reduction during the National Defense Executive Reserve Con- |