Milford chronicle., 1951-02-16
&9O&&
BUREAUCRATS ADOPT DEFENSE"
NAME

Economic Intelligence, a publication of
the Chamber of Commerce of the United
States, ran this item in its January issue:
president Truman's statement that he will
cut nOn-defense spending has touched off a
mad scramble among government agencies
to tie defense tag on everything they do.
This is not surprising, since it is simply the
instinct of bureaucratic self-surVival Oper-
ating as usual
AS very minor example, the District
of Columbia Health Department "a Federal
agency was sending a mobile unit around
town to check the health of walters and
mattresses. This was probably very salu-
taIy move, but the Department looked a little
ridiculous when one official stressed that this
survey was of vital defense importance in
case of an atomic bomb attack. Asked why,
he said, We will know the blood type of all
the walters and mattresses.
con far bigger fronts, peace programs
become defense programs. Foreign economic
aid drops off, to be replaced by military aid
Public housing programs are dropped, only
to reappear in new dress as. defense hOuS-
ing. We can expect that many of the in
Vulnerable programs on which the govern
ment manages to spend our billions will go
underground, only to pop up somewhere else
in new dress
This is an old technique in politics. If a
project takes on some degree of unpopular
ity under its past name, it is simply tagged
with a new and more attractive name. And
there can be no question that every effort
will be given to continuing and expanding
tins strategy now that the defense program
is really beginning to roll. 1t is very largely
a question of seTnantics-the meaning of
language. By subtle stretches of the imagi-
nation the word defense" for example can
be made to cover almost anything.
That is a very important problem now,
with the growing emphasis on the need to
reduce nOn-defense spending, and it will be-
come much more important in the future.
We have barely begun to feel the weight of
the war effort. During 1850, defense spend
ing was in the neighbOrhOOd of $14,000,-
100000. From now on it viii soar like a jet
fighter. Estimates for the future were re-
Gently given by Charles b. Wilson, the Cen
eral Electric Company head who is now
Director of the Office of Defense Mobiliza-
ton. In 1851, he said, we will spend $685.
OOO,OOO,OO0 for defense and for 1852 the
estimated figure is 46,000,000,000 And these
forecasts are predicated on the assumption
that the world situation will continue much
as it is at present, without general war
With a general war, the sky would be the
limit. AT the peak of our spending during
the last war, the 1915 fiscal year, over $780,
OOOOOO,00O was poured out. In the light of
current prices and the infinitely more COM
pick weapons of the present equivalent pro-
duction would naturally cost a great deal
more.
Further, money isn't all there is to the
story. We have only so many people, and
50 much in the way of materials. Monde
tense activity drains these too, just as it
drains the treasury. We pay for defense in
our energies and resources no less than in
currency. Here is why the Congressional
bloc which favors the maximum possible
reduction in non-defense spending has gain
ea great many new adherents from Demo
cratic and Republican ranks alike