Evening star., 1932-03-29

aroused and cash-poor public opinion
The Federal budget Is a sensational
example-it Is nationally felt, hence il
is the first to bear the brunt of criti.
ciSm. This, notwithstanding the fact
that only $4,000,000 900 out of the
country's $4,000, 900, 900 Of annual ex.
pense for Government are spent by the
central Government and notwithstand-
| ing also that in the decade before 1896
the Federal debt had been reduced
from $26000, 100000 to $4,000, 900 OOC
while the States and cities, coincident-
ally, were increasing their debt by near
ly $4,000, ,000, 900.
What Washington does in a fiscal
sense is, nevertheless, of transcendent
Importance to State and city govern
ments, for national sentiment is more
quickly reflected there than in sep
arate sections or localities.
Who Is to Blame?
Anybody who has studied the Federal
budget is at once impressed with its
multiplicity of activities and lack OF
| classification of items of expenditures
Only in the last year or so has any
progress been made toward a statement
OF expenses that could be understood
By research students, much less the
public at large. 1t is a hodge-podge of
expenditures grouped by departments
and bureaus, but hardly co-ordinated
SAD as to permit Of penetrating analy-
sis on the effectiveness or ineffective
ness of the dollar spent in relation to
the object sought to be accomplished.
Nobody in particular is to blame for
this except the people who permitted
it to grow like Topsy into a government
establishment that felt it had to keep
pace with group demands and group
desires. Powerful lobbies ranging from
welfare workers and soldiers organiza-
tions to construction companies and
local Chambers of Commerce, have all
intimidated and persuaded members OF
Congress to do their bidding.
To unScramble the Federal financial
puzzle, 1t is necessary to have formula
To cut expenses blindly without regard
to the powerful groups that originally
put the items in the budget is to fight
against congressional tides not easily
reversed. Even members of Congress
who admit the unwisdom of multifari-
GUS expenditures insist that the public
assume full responsibility for the Frank
enstein that has been built up. Minority
groups have put expenses in the budget
not now removable without reputation
of what may be called fixed commit
ments
Now the time has come to prune ex-
penseS and Congress is in a quandary
how to do it. The other day Senate
resolution directed that 10 per cent
cut be made in particular appropria-
tion bill by Senate committee. This
involves a knowledge of the details of
appropriations not always possessed by
committees. The idea of a horizontal
slash of appropriations is excellent in
theory, but ultimately the pruning has
to be done by the agencies which
administer the funds. 1t means that
the Budget Bureau and its representa-
tives must tackle the job.
Powerful Group Opposition.
When the executive departments sub
mitted their estimates to the Budget
Bureau in December they were cut down.
Now that the budget is submitted to
Congress, public opinion wants further
cuts. Committees on appropriations
know the pressure, but all through Con-
greSS are powerful representatives of
powerful groups. What excuse will the
agricultural Congressman give his con-
stituents for cutting down money for
the farmer? He might argue that he
thought it wasn't benefiting the farmer,
but he is timid about taking the chance
against the rural constituents.
If it be assumed that the Federal
Government could be run like a private
business, then the method would be
simple. The query would merely be as
to the effectiveness Of the dollar spent.
In Government there is no such check,
except a vague, indefinable reaction
from groups usually so diversified as TO
prevent a collective impression. Also
the question of whether an activity
should or should not be maintained has
hitherto rested on what the sponsors of
the activity thought about it. Once
policies are laid down by Congress, the
Question turns on how faithfully and
efficiently they are executed Usually
executives are appointed and they may
or may not be efficient. The political
system plays its part. But the clerical
and Office personnel carries out the in