OCR Text |
Show National Topics' Interpreted jt i by William Bruckart JjlOffl National Press Building Washington, D. O. !!,:3QH It is made to appear that we cannot can-not avoid such expenditures as those for national defense, those for veterans who have served their country well, those in payment of interest on a debt that ought not to be so great. There is not much chance, therefore, to effect economy econ-omy in that direction. Thus, it seems that if the President is sincere about reducing government expenditures and if the politicians in congress have any courage, they had better start looking at the childron that are growing up. I mean the children of older government agencies as well as the new children whose parents par-ents are politicians. In this connection, let us advert to that budget mentioned at the opening of this discussion. The Department De-partment of Commerce that year was getting something like seven million dollars, as I recall. In this year's budget the appropriation is for $44,710,000. Now, I assume some one will point out that the functions of the Department Depart-ment of Commerce have expanded immeasureably. That is true. The development of aviation has added many millions to the required expenditure ex-penditure of that government agency. In other words, the federal government has to meet new conditions condi-tions just like its citizens must meet new conditions. But the point I am trying to make is this: there are enough of those necessary expenditures, expendi-tures, outgo that cannot be avoided because they represent real governmental govern-mental functions, without adding a lot of trick schemes, visionary ideas, theoretical possibilities to the functions of the federal government There is not space here to list them, but every one of the older agencies has been guilty of biting off new appropriations through the medium of a new child or two or three of its own every few years. I am not suggesting, therefore, that those established es-tablished agencies, those that have proved necessary, are to be cut out. I am only proposing they be restricted. Washington. Some seventeen or eighteen years ago when I was a staff writer for the In Terms of Associated Press, Billions specializing in finance, fi-nance, I was called upon to write the "lead" or general story about the annual estimates of expenditures sent to congress that day. The late L. C. Probert was my chief. He read my story and ordered me to rewrite the first paragraph, para-graph, saying: "You ought to stress that total more; make it read something some-thing to the effect that 'billion dollar dol-lar congress has arrived.' Show where these government expenditures expendi-tures are heading." The circumstance impressed me for some reason. I can recall the incident as vividly as though it were yesterday: "The era of billion dollar dol-lar congresses appears to be upon us" but it was one of those incidents that was just a good story to a writer. Little did I realize then what it would mean when viewed from the perspective, say, of 1938, for only the other day President Roosevelt submitted the annual estimates, es-timates, now called the budget, for the next fiscal year. The call was for $6,869,043,000. That was not all. He said there likely would be additional addi-tional requests for money later and he added a most significant expression or observation that probably prob-ably we can expect the annual federal budget to run around seven billion dollars in the future. In truth, where are these government govern-ment expenses heading? And what do they mean in the lives of present pres-ent and future citizens and taxpayers? taxpay-ers? What does it mean in taxation taxa-tion and especially when one considers con-siders that besides this list of scheduled sched-uled expenditures, there is a little matter of thirty-eight billion dollars dol-lars in national debt? Then, we ought to remember there has been a deficit for nine successive years nine years during which the government gov-ernment has spent more than it received re-ceived in income, and there probably probab-ly will be at least one more. As the figures were approved by the President and sent to the capitol, the government will spend $539,000,- 000 (its deficit) more during the fiscal year that starts next July 1 than taxes will bring into the treasury. That means, of course, more borrowing and more borrowing borrow-ing means an increase in the public debt. Onward and upward! Or should we say it in a revised form: upward and upward! Most of the newspapers made headlines out of several items because be-cause they were huge, immense. Attention was called to the fact that the appropriation for national defense de-fense the army, the navy, the marine ma-rine corps was $991,000,000. That was the greatest peacetime total in history. They also referred at length to a billion dollar appropriation for relief, and to an item of $976,000,-000 $976,000,-000 in interest on the public debt, and to $533,000,000 for pensions to veterans of wars. These are startling in their size. They should occasion comment. Sometimes I think it requires staggering stag-gering totals to cause people to stop and think a bit. Maybe these will do that. Eut in any event, the budget just submitted to me seems to carry some additional significance, matters that deserve more thought than the size of those items mentioned. men-tioned. I refer to the general trend as exemplified by the President's remark that we may expect seven billion dollar budgets in the future. As to that indication, is it not about time to call a halt?. Throughout Through-out the nearly twelve hundred pages of figures in the budget, as printed, everywhere roe can point to new items or expansion of old ones. When I say new items, I refer to expenditures that have come along in the last six or eight years. Scores of them have bobbed up in the last four or five years in the great war on the depression; others oth-ers have just bobbed up. I have authority, too, for terming many of these expenditures waste. The authority is Wanton the comptroller Waste general of the United States. The comptroller general sent his annual an-nual report to congress recently. In it he charged there had been wanton waste of government money by most of the federal agencies. He did not charge dishonesty just something like weak minds in the way they planned and spent and did not keep books to show exactly ex-actly what had happened. The comptroller general, R. N. Elliott, told congress that there was a regular campaign going on among what is usually called the spending agencies of the government to get control of their spending without checkups by the general accounting office. There are continued efforts, he said, "to secure for spending agencies legislation making further surrender by the legislative branch (congress) of its right and authority author-ity to direct by law the use of public funds." Of course, Mr. Elliott made no reference to the President's repeated re-peated demands of congress for what is called "blank check" appropriations. appro-priations. There were few persons, however, who failed to connect the two. The report singled out the Department of Justice, the War and Navy departments and a whole flock of the independent children as agencies that are getting out of line in keeping track of what they do with their appropriations. From these facts, it may bo apparent ap-parent to every one that a real need exists for a tight grip by congress on appropriations and an absolute cessation of the great game of starting start-ing new agencies. And here is a story about one teeny, weeny item of government expenditures. It is Here's a a story that seems Story 1 belie the discussion discus-sion above about waste by the government agencies. The fact Is that the story shows how niggardly the government Is in some instances when ve all know how wanton waste and recklessness characterize larger spending. Brig. Gen. Harold C. Reisinger, of the marine corps, Is being court-martialed court-martialed on a charge that he "padded" "pad-ded" his personal expense account by $77.35. That Is to say the general gen-eral may be dishonorably discharged dis-charged after a useful life and perhaps per-haps even jailed because the claim is made that he did not spend as much money as his voucher showed. The point of this story, however, does not Involve General Reisinger at all. It was by mere coincidence that his trial started ns It did during dur-ing tho closing days of tho extra session of congress that session, you will recall, that met November 15 and adjourned December 22 without with-out having passed a single major piece of legislation. The legislation acted on favorably by that session Included passage of one appropriation appropria-tion bill. It appropriated .?,::!:,, W)0 to bo paid to representatives ond senators as "mileage." tU Wont.orn Nowwa'tuer Union. I prefer, therefore, to call attention atten-tion to these scads of little items that, like so many Where holes in a tank, Danger Lies are allowing public pub-lic money to flow away without trace or benefit. That is why I think there should be a good deal of attention paid to the general heading in the budget "independent "in-dependent units." Because, tucked way in the list Is where the dan-t.rs dan-t.rs lie. The total for the independent units of the federal government is in excess ex-cess of $l, 825,000,000. Each of the 1&riou3 agencies therein has its "necessary" expenditures to keep going, and a good many of thorn, about half a dozen, certainly havo their value to the country as a vhole. But the new children in that family are growing up. They ore funny looking children In some cases. What they vill grow out to b their proud parents surely cannot can-not forecast. Who knows whether they vill develop their owe) clan and become rooted as a permanent drain on the taxpayers. Unless history his-tory Is changed, quite 0 number of them vill have children of their own In Die shape of new bureaus arid fiev duties as the politicians find new ways of upending money. |