Coulee City dispatch. [volume] (Coulee City, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1937-07-22
E:9S3!#||S[||i|||||A|||||||||
;E a!||i!||9s EffSRSsSs

|
other session of congress will 60 by
:. without the con-
Spending gress and the ad-
Will Go On ministration doing
anything serious
In the way of cutting down govern
ment expenses. There is nothing
that can be done now toward carry
ing out the expressions made by
President Roosevelt in his message
last January when he told congress
that he wanted to cut federal ex-
penses and take important steps to-
ward balancing the federal budget.
The reason that federal spending is
due to 60 on for another year at the
extraordinary rate of the last four
or five years is because a majority
in congress, under the lash of the
White House, refused to require
states and local governments to
bear percentage of the relief costs.
In other words, federal spending
will go on because congress and the
President have lacked the courage
to start taking the federal govern
ment out of the relief work and
gradually restore it to the care Of
those folks in the various commune
ties who know where relief is need
ed.
There had been very determined
movement in congress to compel
the states to share in the gigantic
relief burden. It took on various
forms and had various sponsors. But
the end and aim of all of them was
to divide the cost in equitable fash
ion.
The proposal that had the best
chance of getting through was one
offered by Senator Robinson of
Arkansas, the Democratic leader in
the senate. He offered an amend
ment to the relief bill which would
have required the states to con-
tribute one-fourth of the amount ex-
pended in each state, with the fed
eral Treasury supplying the remain
der. When that amount was offered,
it was something in the nature of a
compromise between proposals that
the states should bear 40 per cent
and that they should bear none of
the cost. With the White House OPP
Grating through the Presidents lob
byist, Charles West, and Senator
Barley of Kentucky, the admins
tration was able to force defeat of
the Robinson amendment
Now, Senator Barley is assist
ant Democratic leader of the SEN
ate and so we had the spectacle of
one of Mr.. Roosevelt's spokesman
being on one side and second one
on the other side. The one who
was spurred on by the President
was victorious.
I am not sure that the Robinson
proposal would have resulted in an
appreciate reduction in the federal
outlay for relief. Of course, it would
have cut the total somewhat but
not by the full one-fourth that ap-
peared on it's face. 1t was valuable
as piece of legislation, however,
because it would have required the
states again to assume some of the
burden which only few years ago
they carried in it's entirety. 1t was
a principle for which Senator Rob-
inson fought and it was a principle
upon which he was defeated be-
cause Harry Hopkins, relief admin
istrator, objected and still objects
to returning any part of the relief
obligation to the local authorities.
I suspect that Senator Robinson's
activities on the relief proposition
will not help his relations with the
White House but I think it ought
to be said that Senator Robinson
demonstrated again his capacity as
a statesman. He demonstrated as
well that he recognizes the dam
gers confronting the United States
Treasury which at the end of the
current fiscal year-June 30-had
an outstanding debt in excess of
$36, 900, 100000.
From among some of the senator's
I gained the impression that there is
considerable worry about the gov
ernment's spending and they wanted
to see the Robinson amendment pre-
vail because they recognized it as
a move that would eventually bring
federal government spending within
control. Also, senators of that
school of thought maintained that if
states were called upon to bear
some of the burden of relief, it would
bring home forcefully the fact that
all of this spending must sometime
be made up out of taxes. People
do not like to pay taxes and they
cannot be blamed for their attitude.
Unless they realize, however, that
borrowed money is being spent and
they and their children and chill
dren's children are to be taxed to
pay off the loans, they will not be
in favor of reducing national, state
or local expenses.
The debate in the senate on the
proposition to send some of the re-
~ lief burden back to
City Mayors the states showed
Are Active rather plainly that
most of the sena-
tors are disguised with talk that
hunger and distress will haunt the
land if states are required again
to take over some of this charity
| work The ironraSci0n T Ooiood fro,,o