Evening star., 1947-06-22

BY Nearly Three Billions
Inconsruous Methods of Figuring
Budget Lead to Conflicting Claims
By Gerard d. Reilly
The question raised by Representative Gore
OF Tennessee on the House floor as to whether
Republican savings on the appropriation bills
for the next fiscal year amount to 81, ,525 ,000,-
600, as claimed, or only 81, ,876, 900 ,000 throws
an interesting light not only upon the political
difdculty of reducing Federal expenditures, but
upon the intricacies of our Government ac-
counting system 1t will be recalled that early
in the session, pursuant to a provision in the
La Follette-Monroney Act, the new Congress
had to fix legislative budget. While it was
argued that it was impossible to do this in any
sensible fashion until the appropriation COM
mittees had heard the agencies defend the
budget estimates which the President had
made for them the date set in the reorganiza-
ton statute made this procedure inpracticable.
The House then went on record for reducing
the Presidents budget by $4,000 100000 and
the Senate by $4500, 100000.
Since only one or two hearings on appropria-
tion bills had begun at that time, both branches
of the Congress were operating in vacuum
In view of their disagreement the matter was
sent to conference where deadlock ensued
on purely academic issues 1t is now apparent
that whether one accepts Mr.. Cores figures
or those of Representative Taber of New York
the chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee, the House will fall consid-
erably short of its goal, even in the unlikely
event that the Senate refuses to make any
substantial restorations of the cuts recon-
mended by the House. Obviously the matter
of reducing the total executive estimate in the
abstract Is an easier task than it is to carry
through the implications of such a reduction
when conscientious committeeman, after ex-
amining the specific problems of the agencies,
discover that 1t means abandoning worthwhile
projects and forcing certain departments to
operate below minimum levels of efficiency.
The technical differences between Mr.. Gore
and Mr.. Taber, however, indicate the unsatis-
factory character of presidential budget as
an instrument for gauging Government ex-
penditures. It was Mr.. Cores contention that
of the total amount for which Mr. Taher
claimed credit as an economiZer, $780,
900 did not represent any real reduction of
Government expenditures He illustrated this
by citing number of items, including contract
authorizations for hospitals, deferrals of ap-
propriations for veterans pensions and tax re-
bates and the recapture of certain unexpended
appropriations for the current fiscal year.
His opponents conceded that this might
be so, but argued that they were nevertheless
literally correct. Their point was that the
proper measure for comparison with the con-
gressional budget was the original budget sub
mitted by the President. Therefore to the
extent that Congress eliminated certain items
from that budget in its appropriation bills,
they asserted that they were justified in say
ing that the total congressional budget was
some four and one-half billion dollars less than
the Presidents.
This seeming quibble focused attention on
one perennial source of irritation between Con-
gress and the Bureau of the Budget. 1t is the
practice of the bureau to include in the column
for which appropriations must be made GER
Frequently i turns out that such claims do not
mature to the extent expected or that agencies
may operate for year at less than their esti-
mated budgetary cost. In that event, of course,
the unexpended balance of appropriations
money remains in the Treasury, and under the
Reversion Act is no longer available for ex-
penditure The congressional committees, how
ever have always disliked this practice as under
these circumstances the executive branch
rather than Congress gets credit" for the say
ing.
At this session, the vigilant subcommittees
on appropriations attempted to beat the Treas
ury to the draw on several items of this char
acter. Instead of accepting the bureaus pre-
diction as to the amount of veterans claims
and tax claims which would have to be paid,
the committees substituted their own predic-
tions. But since there is no intent on the
part of Congress to default on such claims,
deficiency appropriation bills will have to be
passed should the bureaus guess prove to be
correct
1t was also discovered that certain UNRRA
funds set aside for reimbursement Of the Mari
time Commission for shipment of relief sup
plies would not be fully used The committee
therefore struck this item out of the Presidents
budget, although, because of its earmarked
character. it could not have been spent for any,
thing else and hence would have reverted to
the Treasury.
Last year Congress had authorized O
broad program for the construction Of vet
erans' hospitals. Upon ascertaining that
certain hospitals could not be built this year
for lack of manpower and materials, the
committee authorized the Veterans Admins
tration to proceed with the project but refused
to make any appropriation for them. Mr..
Cores criticism of this procedure was that
since Congress would eventually have to
appropriate the funds, the House had
failed to effect any real saving but it simply
deferred the evil day The rejoinder was that
since the actual expenditure could not be
until the fiscal year following,
this was proper bookkeeping
One of the most difficult matters for the
to explain, however, was an item
of $505 ,075, 900 for ship sales. According to
Mr.. Gore this represented neither a reduction
In the budget nor any curtailment of expendi
lures. Instead he contended that this was
really additional revenue.
It developed that the committees account
ants had learned that the Maritime Commis-
sion had some ships for sale and that the