The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-10-03

The subject of economy Is not a popular one at home or elsewhere. Men are apt to feel that the women should economize and vice versa The town looks to the state to econ- omi7e, and the state to the nation. It is always somebody else's job; and hence "buck- passing" in econ- omy becomes the universal pastime, We start with the fact that the only way to economlze is to go without. We drift to the conclusion that the other fellow can do this better than we can. The net result Is that the pressure from spenders of other peoples money out-balances the ef- forts of those who would save their own.
 If ever there was a necessity for saving, now is the time. How can we achieve it2
 We all recognize that saving is vital to an individuals protection, physically, morally and financially As with man, SO with a nation. It canont defend itself If 1t has wasted It's physical resources. It canot create resources If 1t lacks the moral integrity of purpose to be self-supporting.
 But why. especially now with money in our pockets, should we economize2 Because there are not enough labor and materials avail able to meet the necessities of de- fense. Because If we compete In the market for these things we rap- idly raise prices, and induce a dan gerous degree of imitation. Because without economy we run the risk of doubling or trebling the cost of this war to be paid by future gen. erations. And finally, We cannot, without saving, compete with Ger many, which has practiced the most rigid economy for six years,
 Where may be economize? MT. Morgenthau, secretary of the treas uIy, has stated that economies in federal expenses in excess Of one billion dollars year might be ob- tained. The National Economy league, which has made a careful study of the federal budget is con- vinced that economies of two bil- lion dollars are possible. A recent action of Congress has called upon the department of the budget to furnish 1t with schedules showing whereby economies of one, one and one half, and two billion successive ly might beobtained. Other economic experts and the studies made by the Brookings Institute would indicate that even larger economies are pos sible.
 It is not difficult to point out the particular appropriations in which economies might be secured. Such are the huge agricultural subsidies program, the program for the CCC, the IVA and Public Works. Secre- tary Morgenthau suggested one bil- lion dollars could be saved in these items. To this category might be added the WPA and many other emergency agencies; and long list of regular and non-emergency &C., tivities, the scopes of which have been materially expanded.
 We should not, however, place the whole emphasis upon non-defense expenditures. The waste in defense expenditures may be even greater. Vast sums could be saved by a more careful allotment of appropriations to these defense items that are abe solutely necessary and by the elim- nation of undue extravaganza in the methods of their production. The wastes in the construction of the encampments are all too well known and have been generally condemned. They are not alone ss examples of extravaganza in defense expendi- lures. No defense expenditure that involves extravaganza and waste can Dc chased as essential.
 It would be helpful to realize quite definitely what are some ot tho obstacles to national savings. N'c Esald classify them hs follows:
 ]. The labelling Of "any old prot. &flH a& a dnfenae uxopant. ThiA iN