The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-07-24

difference between expenditure
and investment.
Mr. Bolton pretends to be CIV
ing the taxpayer a true picture of
the financial position of the gov
eminent. His method of drawing
the picture is to count all OUTLAWS
as expenditures and 70 say moth
ing about assets. This is like say
ing that John Jones spent" a
thousand dollars buying a Liberty
bond.
BY that device I can prove
that any bank or corporation in
the world is profligate and bank
rupt. Apply Mr.. Bottoms meth
DDS to the federal reserve banks.
They have expended" two bill
lions in the purchase of securities.
Mr.. Bolton would say nothing
about the securities and would
thus convey the impression that
the stockholders had to make good
the two billion expenditure.
Now, this is precisely what he
has done with the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation. That COR
poration has invested large sums
of money. Mr.. Bolton draws a
veil over the assets it has &C
quired and inspires Mr.. Fletcher
to tell the public that there are
no assets and that the taxpayer
must pay every dollar"
WET in July. for example,
i more money has come back to
the Reconstruction Finance Cor
poration than it has paid out, and
in the whole year ending June 80
the Reconstruction Finance Cor
poration made loans of S1.171,131,-
106.20 and received in repayment
of loans 1891 ,340,827.93. Some
classes of borrowers notably banks
and railroads, actually repaid
more in 1884 than they borrowed.
Instead of giving the impression
that the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation is spending the tax
payers money like a drunken SAIL
or, Mr.. Fletcher and Mr. Bolton
ought to be taking great satisfac-
ton in it. For, after all, it was the
creation of President Hoover and
its record is indicating his cour-
age in creating it.
The final point at issue between
Mr.. Bolton and myself is over
the eight billions of contingent
obligations. These were treated by
Mr.. Fletcher as authorized expen-
diture and even Mr.. Bolton will
have to admit that that was
rather careless.
Mr. Bottoms argument is. in
substance, that these bonds which
the government has guaranteed
are probably going 10 be default
ed by the farmers and Nome
owners. He admits that the farm
ers and home-owners will repay
if prosperity returns, but he
doubts that it will return and
prophesieS that before 1886 a
ONAAAOAA db4N AOA4SANSS WILL NSIA
through a bill relieving the bor-
rowerS of all obligations.
All I have to say about that
is that Mr.. Bolton and Mr..
Fletcher did not say in their
original statements that they
were basing these figures on a
prophecy of what congress would
do two years hence. They gave
me the impression that they were
stating the facts as TO what had
happened and not indulging in
conIectures about what is going
TO happen They charged this
congress with making these eight
billions a cost which the taxpayer
must cover. Mr.. Bolton now shifts
his ground and says that what he
means is that the next congress
will put this burden on the tax
payer.
In view OF all these things I
am unable to retract my comment
that the figures Mr.. Fletcher
took from Mr.. Bolton are false
and misleading.
copyright, 1890