The Waterbury Democrat., 1932-05-12
NEA Service Writer

NEA SeFv1CC WF1tcr
 Washington-Loud outcrics for
 sweeping program of reorgani-
 zation in the government depart ments and bureaus have been heard periodically for decades, but echo
 always seems to answer something
 like "Oh, yeah?"
 The idea of reshuffing the bu- reaus for the sake of efficiency or economy Is an attractive one, but
 no general plan has ever made
 any progress for a variety Of rea- sons. There simply isn't any broad ! program, apparently, whose details 1 opposition the combined pressure of which wrecks the whole thing. ATTACK DEVELOPS.
 Attack by organized groups which demand maintenance Of ex- isting government services and operating stafs develops rapidly. Veterans, business, farmer, labor, religious and many other elements
 have their federal pets andchanges
 in some quarters stir up fights in- volving public policy.
 Bureaucrats and their friends in | congress get busy. Politicians are | heard from everywhere.
 But on top of all that 1t may be
 said that the alleged hodgepodge of bureaus here is certainly out
 hodgepodged by the hodgepodge of opinion about how the system should be rejiggered.
 Impartial experts make exhaus- | tive research and study, disagree ing with everyone else about what
 should be done and even disagree
 ing among themselves.
 POLITICAL "CLAPTRAP'? Reorganization" makes a fine political shibboleth. but 1t often
 becomes mere political claptrap from the mouths of those who
 don't know much about it and don't care as long as it sounds god. Only recently has 1t become
 widely accepted as synonymous
 with economy. r. It's past enthusiasts, including Mir Hoover when he was secretary
 of commerce, stressed efficiency as | the aim and considered economy
 as minor but likely by-product.
 Many of them seemed simply in- spired by an eye for neatness. Generally speaking. 1t seems | just as easy to effect econ0mies with the bureaus, commissions and de partments as they, stand as 1t
 would be, after a series of mergers. Charges of duplication and over-
 tapping have been greatly exag- gerated. Cutting out certain fed- eraf activities of reducing person mel. of course. is not reorganiza- tion. M f y.2.t {
 WOULDN'T SAVE MONEY? i No one ever seems to have any definite idea how much, If any, money can be saved by specific are usually wild. Advocates are
 often sincere, but 1t is not proved
 that any past reorga nizationg have
 saved any money and 1t is certain
 that some of them have been fol-
 lowed by Increases of personnel
 and expenditure.
 Also, no one can tell how badly
 any sweeping program would dls-
 rupt efficiency and morale of the
 whole government machine.
 There have been some single rec jiggering proposals which have
 seemed meritorious and quite q few have ben made in "step by
 step" proceess.s The last import
 ant one was the transfer of the
 prohibition Bureau from the treas-
 ury to the justice department, made
 without any thought fecononiy.
 Nearly every congress makes some
 transfer or merger.
 THE ARMY.NAvY ANGLE.
 The proposal to merge the army and navy into a department of Na-
 tionai Defense was beaten in the
 House the other day despite the official democratic sponsorship be-
 cause no one could prove that 1t would increase efficiency or save from $50. .000. 900 to s100, 600 900,
 as it's proponents claimed. The opposition contended. ap- parently with equal plausibility. that the plan would diminish effl- ciency, might lead to great na- tionai disaster and would cost much more than the present sys- tenn because 1t would require q large administrative superstructure
 on ton of the two existing orga1i- zatiOn1 ait tt tW