Evening star., 1949-02-12
New Expense Funds
For Top Officials
Held |ndefensibIe
Tox-Free AIIotments That
Need Not Be Accounted
For Are AssuiIed
Rv Frank X, Kent

for Are ASSdlIe0
By Frank r. Kent
e Probably the s6,O00,00O which
1t is reported Mr.. Truman now
asks for renovation of the White
House is needed and should be
given just as were the salary in
creases voted before the inaugu-
ration. Probably 1t would be
petty to oppose. However, the re-
quest has considerably stimulated
feeling concerning the new Presi-
dental expense" funds-a feel
ing which has existed ever since
they were provided.
Prior to that, there were great
many sentimental editorials and
columns concerning the poor, dear
President who was unable to get
along on $4,000 a year with a
$4,000 expense account for travel
and entertainment and rent-free
house. Also there was much inky
sympathy showered upon the poor,
dear Vice President, Mr.. Barkley,
and the poor, dear Speaker, Mr..
Rayburn-a bachelor-who had to
live on a measly $4,000 year
with a large Government-supplied
automobile and Government
paid chauffeur thrown in.
Practically No Opposition.
Though not one of these three
gentlemen had earned in private
life anything approaching those
salaries there was practically no
opposition to the proposals to
raise them. Congress voted Mr..
Truman a $25,O0O increase and
the Messrs. Barkley and Rayburn
each $4,000 more. When one was
told how difficult it was for these
officials to make both ends meet,
no one wanted to seem small
enough to say no. Nor is it in
tended to say here that this action
should not have been taken. What
is intended is to point out that II
Congress had stopped with the
salary increases there would not
now be the soreness good many
members feel about the way they
were jockeyed into what seems
now a somewhat indefensible po-
eitlon.
For, on top of that $4,000 an
nual presidential expense fund,
for which the President has to.
render account. Congress piled on
$4,000 more expense" money for
which he does not have to account
at all and which is entirely tax
exempt. At the same time it pro-
vided the Vice President and the
Speaker each with taX-eXempt
,0O0-a-year expense money for
which they do not have to account
either. Now, several rather trench
ant points are being made con-
cerning all this tax-eXempt, not
to-be-accounted-for money.
Four Points Listed.
In respect to the $4,000 for Mr..
Truman the points are:
Cd That it is basically inde-
fensible to appropriate any money
out of the United States Treasury
for Expenses" unless it is to be
accounted for;
ca The President in the last
fiscal year was able to spend only
80 per cent, or $4,000, of his s40,-
900 expense fund. the balance OF
$4,000 reverting to the Treasury.
In no year since he has been in
Office has he spent anywhere near
the full amount;
80 The taX-free feature of the
not to-be accommodation S50,00O,
added to his increased salary.
gives Mr.. Truman, in effect, a
total salary considerably in excess
of 100000.
"a The action of Congress in
voting the tax-free expense funds
to the President. the Vice Presi-
dent and the Speaker makes it
much more difficult for these Off
cials and Congress to take any
step toward reducing the size and
cost Of government.
Effect Not Small.
1t may seem a small thing, but,
it is contended, it is not small in
principle nor in effect. Certainly,
it does not enhance the prospects
of the Hoover Commissions plan
which depends wholly upon the
character of it's administration
support. No one really objects to
the salary increases. But, dis
tinctly, that is not the case with
the tax-free expense" funds.
The only two Democratic Sen
ators who voted against them at
the time were Senators Byrd OF
Virginia and Gillette of Iowa, but
a good many more have been ex-
pressing regret since. Nor does
the fact that some time ago when
Congress members raised their
own salaries to s12,5OO, they ap-
propriated $2,50O tax free and
nonaccountable) for the "eX-
penses' of each member anchor
ate the situation. Soon or late,
other tax-exempt, nonaccountaole
appropriations for expenses" seem
sure to follow. Why not?
s. 433fXy:x f,l