Evening star., 1938-01-09

AoA ouulO1u IVY w FCtO 1uOlS1Aud1
items in appropriation bills and
legislative riders attached to such measures.
President Roosevelt's request comes at
time when the condition Of the Ma
tion's finances make it imperative that
the proposal be given most earnest con-
sideration. The experience of the past
IS years has demonstrated that the mem
bers Of Congress. subject as they are to
direct pressure from their constituents,
will never sacrifice votes for economy. That
being the case, many students of the
Nations fiscal problem have come to the
belief that power to veto pork barrel"
items must be given the President if the
country is to have effective economy.
The only substantial objection to the
proposal is that it would greatly increase
the political power of President should
he be disposed to use the item veto for
political purposes. Recognition of this
possibility. emphasized at the present time
perhaps by the apprehension of some
members of Congress that they have been
marked Tor political death because of their
opposition to the Supreme Court reor-
ganization bill. may result in some. re-
luctance to approve the suggestion. But
Q choice must be made between two evils,
and the exigencies Of the situation require
that the fullest consideration be given
all aspects OF the matter at this time.
Economy Moves vs.. Election Year.
1t is particularly difficult to interest
most members of Congress in economy
moves during an election year, and this
has been demonstrated by two recent de-
velopments
In an effort to hold the deficit in the
fiscal year 1889 to an absolute minimum
President Roosevelt asked Congress to
reduce highway-aid appropriations. Un-
fortunately, an appropriation of this sort
Is peculiarly helpful to a Congressman on
election day If portion of the money
has been spent in his district. It NAV
or may not be that such considerations
nave been q motivating factor but the fact
remains that the Presidents request has
been flatly rejected.
When the highway-aid bill was intro
ouced in the House last week by Chairman
Cartwright of the House Roads Committee,
1t authorized no reduction in appropria-
tions.
I am strong advocate of economy"
said Mr.. Cartwright. but favor reduction
in all departments and do not want to see
roads made the goat"
The President met a similar- rebuff in
the case of the farm bill. Although there
was an implied threat from the White
House that the measure might be vetoed If
1t called for appropriations in excess of
s5o0,o0oooo without providing means of
raising revenue to meet the excess appro-
priatlons, this warning was ignored at the
Capitol. When the bill reaches the White
House, Mr.. Roosevelt probably will have
TO choose between vetoing the entire meas
ure and thus wrecking his farm program,
or OF signing it despite the excessive out
lays that will result
Vandenberg Backs Item Veto.
One of the most ardent supporters of the
Item veto proposal is Senator Vandenberg,
Republican, of Michigan Majority Leader
Barkley and Chairman Ashurst of the Sen-
ate Judiciary Committee also favor the
plan. Senator Vandenberg's support is
particularly encouraging to administration
supporters, since that fact will lend nom
partisan color to the effort to secure favor
able congressional action at this session.
The fight for the item veto power has
had long and interesting history.
More than go years ago the "back-pay
grab classic example Of congressional in
difference to the sanctity of the public
purse, first focused public attention on the
question.
That nefarious bit Of legislation was
speedily repealed and nothing of its kind
has since appeared on the statute books,
but the intervening years have witnessed
the development of more subtle means of
raiding the Treasury and have strengthened
the arguments for enlargement of the veto
power.
Outcry Scared congressman.
President Grant was in the White House
In 1873 when the back pay grab" became
law. On the last day of the session Con-
greSs passed a measure to raise salaries
Of Federal officials, including those of its
own members. Had the legislators been
content with that, there might have been
no objection, but the increase was made
retroactive for two years, and the outcry
that followed was appalling. Many Sen
ators and Representatives became so
alarmed that they turned their back pay
into the Treasury, and the new Congress,
which met in December, 1873, promptly
repealed the law except as it applied to
the President and the members of the
Supreme Court. The issue thus raised
was largely responsible for the defeat of
the Republicans in 1874, and succeeding
Congresses have kept the lesson of that
ill-fated grab" in mind.
When the bill reached the White House,
President Grant, who had no sympathy
with such tactics, said he would veto 1t
but for the fact that it was in the form
Of . rider to the general appropriation
act and he could not veto the salary clause
without rejecting the entire bill. In his
annual message to the repeating Congress,
however, he urged submission of a con-
stitutional amendment authorizing the
President Ito approve Of so much of any
measure as his judgment may
dictate" That he had appropriation bills
in mind was evidenced by his assertion
that the amendment would protect the
public against the many abuses and waste
Of public moneys which creep into appro-
priation bills"