New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1921-10-12


tio a, appreciably below four billion dollars.
|sAt' Where, then is it possible to make
the savings which will be, large enough to
reflect themselves in the lessened need for
revenue? In the public mind the mount.
log costs. Of government are too FREE
quently ascribed to the opportunities Of
the chiefs Of the bureaus which perform
the normal or civic, functions Of govern
meat. It is true that the cost of CON
Quoting our civil government has in
creased substantially in the past few
years; and it is also true that here and
there are departmental estimates that can
stand further cuts, without any serious
impairment Of service. aBnt ia the main
the rise in costs has abeens due to. the
normal expansion in government activi--
ties, to, needed increases IN the salaries
of government employees, and to the as Is.
sumption Of new and expansive duties qli by by
the Treasury, statess Commerce and other
Depart Reductions sof appropria-,
Etions, in such places would not lead to an
enormous saving and would cripple de- de-
partments in theaperfornna OF services
that have become essential. For other
reasons the estimates mates for interest on the
public debt and for King funds cannot
be safely reduced. These probably amount 7!
to more than onembilli on1and+aahaf doll
lars. There remains therefore, one other
substantial item which cannot be estimat-
ed precisely, but which, IN view OF the '1s
current rate of expenditures, adds up TO
considerably more than one billion dol
lars. This item is the estimated expen-
ditures for the military establishment,
including the cost Of war risk insurance
but excluding many collateral items which,
if the detailed material were available,
would be properly included in this gen
eral category. Assuming, then, revenue
requirements Of roughly four billions s,
certainly more than three ourths OF tins
amount is neededseto meet gWars obllga7
& tio o5 Of one kind or another. And OF
1.-THE { three billions or more required Joe
this purpose, it would be 40 exaggeratl q
TO state that substantially more than
orle4third may be allocated to. the cost
Of military i1i safeguards fin the present and
in the future. Where Al wise and and sub
stantial cut ought to be made should De
reasonably clear from these figures.
This story is by no means a new one ne
When Secretary Houston Analysed the n
ordinary disbursements Of the United
States government in the fiscal year 1870
he found that so per cent Of tn en- re-
presented payment for war, and he then
wrote: Substantially all the expendl1
lures entering into this total, and a large
share Of the expenditures on various
minor accounts, represent burdens d.
.11frectly traceable to war, to past wars or
to prepared for future wars These y g
figures indicate the al dlrf y eI1
which sincere geforts ito reduce the stc9qSstt
I Of Government must take What was
true of The ditures Of 192oiiss lilsA
4 wise true 81 he iinlates for 1922 ns4e
problem before the Treasury and Congress
is not one Of iinventing new taxes and Of
] reviving discarded ones; but Of cutting
& 1.-THE expenditures where the cuts will count
most and hurt least. The impending
disarmament conference should play a
q more important part in the discussion
I. Iof the present fiscal proposals than it has
4 thus far done.