Evening star., 1934-02-22
Restoring Federal Salaries.

heStoTlHS reueTdl odldTles.
The difference between the restora-
tion of full pay to Federal employees.
as voted by the Senate yesterday,
and the restoration of only ten per
cent, as proposed by the adminiStra-
tion leaders, is a mere drop in the
bucket of Federal expenditures. The
amount in dollars-about $63,O0O.OOO
is not as much as the Federal Gov
ernment has dished out in single
week to the C. w. A. 1t is a little
more than a tenth of the amount
the Federal Government proposed to
raise by the processing tax in 1885
and hand out to the farmers. 1t is
a negligible sum in relation to the
proposed expenditure of billions in
1895.
But in voting the full restoration
of pay yesterday the Senate was
doubtless more responsive to what
many of its leaders believed would be
the worthwhile effect of such a
move than concerned with budget
figures.
For the real difference between the
terms of the amendment adopted by
the Senate yesterday and the terms
of the amendment proposed by admin
istration leaders is small. Restoration
of full pay means restoring five per
cent of the pay cut~as of February l.,
and the balance at the beginning of
the next fiscal year. The administra-
ton amendment would have restored
five per cent as of February /, and
five per cent at the beginning of the
next fiscal year, leaving restoration of
the balance to the discretion of the
President, who would, in turn, be
guided by trends in cost of living.
But Senator Byrnes explained that
the reason the administration was
willing to agree to this latter plan was
that the experts now believe the cost
of living is to take a jump, and that
this jump would justify ten per cent
restoration of salaries by July l.
If the cost of living is to increase
that much in the next four or five
months, such a rise in prices will as
suredly Justify a return of full basic
pay, with no ifs or butts about it. AS
Senator Shipstead pointed out in SEN
ate debate, recovery depends in large
part upon increasing purchasing
power. Purchasing power will not be
increased if salaries merely remain in
some predetermined ratio to living
costs. The salaries must be increased
beyond living costs if purchasing
power is to be increased materially.
Certainly the Government will set
q far more impressive example to in
dustry and business by restoring full
salaries than by hedging about, leav-
ing five per cent of the restoration to
the discretion of the President. Such
a belief may have contributed to the
unexpected victory yesterday-by the
margin of a single vote-of the full
pay restoration advocates.
The question now is whether the
victory will be consolidated or whether
there will be counter-a attack by ad-
ministration leaders, fearful of a gen.
eral assault on the whole economy
bill, including, of course, the vet
erans' issue. The House is now
smarting under the gag rules which
have so effectively silenced its men,
bers. The bill now under discus
sion in the Senate was passed by the
House under a gag rule on January
IL, and the gag rule was imposed by
five yoteS-a close shave. There is
possibility that the House, anxious
to vote on the salary proposition, will
agree to Senate amendments.
In some cases an investigation has