Evening star., 1950-03-31
Eisenhower Points LIN
Problem Of Dividinu
Unification Budget
Apportionine Of Funds
Among Services Difficult
Under Arbitrary Ceiling
By David Laurence


There is more than meets the
eye in the testimony just given
by Gen. Eisenhower to the Senate
Committee on Appropriations.
It reveals the complex and
rather extraordinary problem OF
trying to make an arms budget
under the so-called unification
system.
Nobody in the executive branch
Of the Government-not even the
President or the Secretary of De-
fense - apparently knows what
ought to be done with lump sum
fixed as a ceiling of expenditure
In relation to the national econ
omy.
When the members of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff do the best they
can to allocate the lump sum given
them as a ceiling by the President
through the Secretary of Defense,
these heads Of services do not dare
publicly to criticize lest they be
called rebels" against unification
This is Result No. / issuing from
the widespread misrepresentation
OF the real meaning of the House
Armed Services Committee hear
tngs last autumn.
So a crusade begins, ostensibly
outside of Congress, to get in
creased appropriations. Presum-
ably the three armed services have
nothing to do with this effort ex-
cept perhaps to supply informa-
tion on the alleged inadequacy of
our defenses.
Cut Protested.
The burden of Gen. Eisenhow-
er's remarks is that the overall
ceiling of SIS billion was all right
until the President ordered it cut
by 81 billion. Who did this-the
Budget Bureau? Certainly nobody
in the armed services did the cut
ting.
Gen. Eisenhower makes it clear
that he wasn't the architect of
the SIS billion budget structure
but merely the carpenter called
In to help set up the parts.
This puts the responsibility
squarely back in the hands of. the
civilian leaders of the Govern
ment. who must draw the line be-
tween reasonable security and
maintenance of a sound national
economy.
Gen. Eisenhower says he wasn't
asked to draw that line. With
sincerity and conscientious pur-
pose, he expresses the concern of
the military folks. There ought to
be more money appropriated, he
says-maybe $500 million more.
Some of this, he thinks, should go
to anti-submarine warfare, which
means more hunter-killer planes
and carriers for the Navy, and
some Of 1t should go for Alaskan
defense. which means little
more for the Army. and still q
third part-perhaps the largest
should go to the Air Force for
more planes. ~ so
One Comforting Point.
There is one comforting thing
about Gen. Eisenhower's testi-
mony-he didn't say the existing
budget is dangerous to security.
He just wished it were bigger
and what professional military
man wouldn't agree?
What sort of expert advice is
really needed in the present situa-
ton? Is war likely within the
next five years? What is the true
military meaning of the atomic
bomb? Congress now will be
tempted to use Gen. Eisenhower's
comments as an excuse to increase
appropriations without delving
into these questions in an over
all sense.
Maybe this task-fixing a CELL
ing-ought to be entrusted to a
national board of civilians and
military men. For if the national
economy is impaired, military
strength will be impaired. too.
Reasonable security should be de-
fined. Maximum or absolute Sc
curity is beyond reach of peace
time appropriations and tax COL
lections. but a state of prepared
ness permitting certain retaliatory
moves instantly and calling for
the immediate mobilization of
adequately trained reserves is
feasible.
Reproduction Rights Reseryed)