Evening star., 1951-09-11

dollars in the budget Tor services
and benefits to veterans. I hope
that is non controversial, too. ;.
The budget includes more than
billion dollars for grants-in-aid
to the States for assistance to the
aged and the blind and other
needy persons. Some people don't
approve of this. I will say frankly
that welcome their criticism. l
never saw any money spent for a
better purpose. -.
! Then the budget has close to
$500 million for grants to the
States to help them build high
ways. I'm in favor Of that. too.
Highways cost money. But let me
tell you something else: They also
help to make money. -.
The things I have mentioned
add up to more than $50 billion
out of the total estimated expen-
ditures of 500 billion. And yet
some people are saying you can
cut $6 billion from the budget. .
All for Necessary Purposes.
I don't mean to claim that there
is not a single dollar wasted. In
an operation as big as the Federal
Government, there are bound to
be some cases of waste or ex-
travagance. One of the reasons
we have the General Accounting
Office is to help us find those
cases and put stop to them.
But the main point I want to
make is that, although Federal
expenditures are very large, they
are all for purposes that are nee
Iessary to our national welfare:
and our budget is as tight and
solid as we can make it. There
is a great deal of misinformation
circulated on this subject. Some
of it is done in ignorance and
some with malice aforethought.
But it won't stand up under hon.
est analysis.
Let me give you an example.
In a recent issue of a magazine
which is circulated widely in this
country and abroad, there ap-
peared an article purporting to
show that waste" and "eXtrava-
gance" were running wild in the
Federal Government. Accompany
ing the article was table of fig
ures supposedly showing that non
defense expenditures Of the Gov
eminent had increased anywhere
from 100 to 1000 per cent be-
tween 1910 and 1850. This table
was a typical example Of what ]
once heard described as butterfly
statistics s"-Statistics SO meaning
less that they seem to have been
Iplucked out of the air with but
terf1y net.
Bigger Job for Government.
The fact is that the expendi-
lures of the Government, other
than those arising out of past
wars, or out of our efforts to
prevent another world war, in
creased SO per cent in dollar terms
from 1910 to 1850. Adjusting for
changes in the price level, they
actually declined. During the same
time the country was growing, OF
course, and the Government had
a bigger job to do. The total ma
tional output of goods and services
rose about so per cent in real
terms. In 1910 the cost of these
civilian Government services not
connected with our national Sc
curity took about 6 per cent of
our total national output: in 1850.
this had been reduced to about 4
per cent. And this year it is
going to be an even smaller per-
centage than it was in 1850. If
people want to be fair about this,
it seems to me that is the way to
look at it.
! Now I would like to say word
to comfort and console those who
fear that we are spending our
way into national bankruptcy.
! 1 want to say to the gentlemen
who are spreading this story.
Don't be afraid" This is some
thing that has been worrying you
for number of years now. It's
something you've been saying over
and over again. 1t wasn't true
when you began to say it, it has
not been true as you have re-
peated it over and over since then,
and now it's further from the
truth than ever.
The country is stronger eco