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

New Deal and to suggest that his
from tables printed in the Congress
ter c. Bolton. Mr.. Bolton has defel
Since Mr.. Bottoms figures have
been adopted officially by the Re
publican party for the COMPRESSION
al campaign they are important. I
should like first to place on the
record what Mr. Fletcher actual
" said about these figures:
Nor must we forget the stag
gering cost. The New Deal has
cost to date seven billions. Con-
gress has authorized the eXpendi-
ture of at least $4,000, 100000
more every dollar on both
these budgets must be paid by the
people of the United States or
repudiated by the government"
I take this TO mean and as be-
ing intended to mean that the
Seventy third congress has cost
the taxpayers S27,OO00OO,O0O.
Since it is demonstrated easily
that the taxpayer is not called
upon to pay S27OOO,OOOOOO I called
these figures false and misleading.
MIR. BOLTON and l are at odds
WI on two points.
First. he charges up as the cost
of the New Deal in 1884 all out
lays by the government, wherein
I maintain ca that expenditures
which would have occurred under
any administration are not prop
erly costs of the New Deal, and
lb) that OUTLAWS which are Being
and Will be recovered by the gov
eminent and are no burden upon
the taxpayer should not be held
up TO the taxpayer as sums he will
have TO make good.
Second, Mr. Bolton, with some
qualifications. but Mr.. Fletcher,
without any qualifications at all.
treats as costs of the New Deal, to
be met by the taxpayer, some
SS,000,0 100000 Of contingent obliga-
tons, whereas I maintain that it
is very misleading to treat this
whole sum as a cost to the tax
payer.
IN the year ending June 30 last
Il the OUTLAWS of the government
were about S7,000,0OO.OOO. Now
whether or not this is to be called
the cost of the New Deal is, in
part. a matter Of definition. But
10 my mind it does not seem fair
to charge up to the new policies of
this administration the service OF
the debt incurred during the war
and the Hoover admins ration: 1t
does not seem fair to charge I'D
the cost of the veterans under leg
islation passed before Mr.. Roose-
welt took Office; it does not seem
fair to charge up the cost of ma
tional defense; it does not seem
fair to charge up salaries of the
President and the cabinet, OF the
judges. of congress, OF poStmasters
and federal employees who were
there when Mr.. Hoover left Wash
ington.
Expenditures of this sort have
nothing to do with the New Deal
or with the Roosevelt program.
Yet these items, representing rou-
tine costs Of the American govern
ment and its past obligations,
alone account for about s2,500,000,'
900 Of the cost.
WE come next 10 those out
w lays which represent loans
and investments by the Recon-
Struction Finance Corporation.
Mr.. Bolton treats them al as "eX-
penditureS." and Mr.. Fletcher
gave the public to understand
that the taxpayer would have TO
meet them.
IF. says Mr. Bolton. Mr.. Lipp-
mann would not call taking such
money out OF the treasury of the
United States an expenditure, just
how would he classify it?" I
should not classify it as an ex-
pendIture which the taxpayer had
10 cover il the taxpayer does not
have to cover it. l should eX-
plain 10 the people that there S