The Washington times., 1937-04-28
CUT IN BUDGET
BLASTED BY
STEWARD
By ]. EARLE MOSER

OlEaQ1ZeQ NJONGI IlIIlGL4G "O4 hSA
have no intention of submitting ir
docile fashion to the drastic pro
posal of a 10 per cent slice in all
departmental appropriations tol
the next fiscal year, a move which
their leaders view as little less
than a revision of the torturesome
1882 Economy Act"
The first blast at the proposal
has come from Luther Steward
who as prexy of the National Fed
Grafton of Federal Employees
worked in glove with Senator Pat
McCarran wher the latter. bit by
bit regained the IS per cent in
salary taken from Federal per
sonnel and thereby gained him
self the title of The Great
Restorationist."
Steward, in a statement sped tC
thousands of employees and every
large newspaper in the country
declared:
"The danger and folly of
sweeping, broadSide slaShes in
appropriations was so amply
and unfortunately demonstrated
during the era of the misnamed
ECONOMY" legislation that 1t is
surprising that similar tactics
once more should be put ,tor-
ward.
with the desire that the
Federal Government be admin
istered as economically as pos
sibIe the n. F. F. E. has the
fullest sympathy. But a gen
eraI cut of 10 per cent now will
prove as disastrous as the econ
Omy' act which achieved not
economy but near chaos. Unless
the Government-like the indi-
vidual-econOmiZ wisely, With
Judgment and discretion, it is
false economy, which is ex-
pensive both in money and SER
vice.
when the economy drive of
1892 was at its height, the n.
F, F. E. emphasized these
points on numerous occasions
and predicted that the econ
omy legislation, as passed,
would deprive the American
people of many vital services,
and would undermine morale
in the Federal service, and
would prove more costly in the
long run when the need for
upbuilding and rebuilding be-
came apparent.
1--WE face a similar situation
today, and the result will be
PRECISELY THE SAME if an
indiscriminatc 10 per cent cut
is put into effect. In 1882 the
N.F.F. E. declared:
ITO cut without consideration of
the many essential factors when
must be considered in question OF
this kind is the simplest of tasks. 1t
REQUIRES little thought to root out
projects and services: but such action
generally is far more hurtful in actual
dollars and cents than the savings Ell
''What thinking citizen would want
to weaken the safeguards in shipping,
for example, by lessening the already
inadequtee force of lighthouse keep
ers? Or to expose the nation 70 the o3.
vious hazards which would result
from diminution in the tremendous
ly essential work done by the Public
Health Service p"
Does American business wish to
lose many of the remarks bly, practical
aids given by the Bureau of Foreign
and Domestic Commerce? Can the peo-
Pile of the nation as a whole deprive
the farmer Of the scientific aid given
by the Department OF Agriculture ana
not be the losers?
Have we so lost our moral sense
that we would withdraw from our
solemn obligation to aid our Indian
population. whose ands and firesides
were wrested from them? Can we
Justify in any way reduction in the
great services performed in the in
terest of safety and progress by the
Bureau of Mines"
These are questions which the
American taxpayer should ask himself.
Careful consideration will make It
plain that these services and many
others are being rendered by the Gov
ernment in direct response to strong
and apparent public necessity. They
cannot be emasculated without severe
loss to the country as whole
"All the agencies above men,
toned, and scores more would,
of course, be affected adversely
by the cut now proposed. Take,
as a single example, the Bureau
of Internal Revenue. AS result
Of a modest allowance for per-
SOnal service, permitting the en-
pIoyment of a relatively few ad-
ditiOnal employees, this Bureau
has been enabled to collect many
millions in revenue which other
wise would have been lost be-
cause of physical limitations. Is
1t now seriously suggested that a
10per cent cut in appropriations,
regardless of any consideration,
be permitted once more to cur
tail the efficiency and effective
ness of this Bureau?"
I'm 1882, the sO-called econ
omy' drive was successful, but
successful only in the sense that
it was written into law. In all
other respects it was failure be-
cause it was unSOundly promised.
And the N. F. F. E. holds that IL
is inescapably true that the same
kind of legislation today would
fail just as badly in achieving
the goal sought; namely, true
economy. A general 10 per cent
slash is unsound, unfair, uneco-
nOmical. If it is determined that