Evening star., 1951-08-28
A Second Look Needed

There can be little doubt that the Senate,
In its present mood, is going to follow the lead
of the House in slashing 81 billion from the So
billion requested by the administration for for
eign military and economic aid. In fact, there
is a chance that the cut may go even deeper
than that. Quite Observation-Disclosures rightly
the members are determined to save as much
money as possible and a good deal certainly can
be saved. The big question, however, is whether
the pruning knife is being put to work in the
right places or whether it is looping off figures
in a way that may prove to be false economizing
harmful to the overall allied defensive effort
against the threat of Red aggression.
AS presented by the administration the aid
proposal-the Mutual Security Program-calls
for $6.3 billion in military assistance and $22
billion in economic assistance AS passed upon
by the House, these figures would be reduced,
respectively to Sc billion and SIS billion, and
the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services
Committees have approved approximately the
same cuts. And now, as the measure moves to
the floor for debate, lot of weight-including
the influence of Senator Connaly-has been
thrown behind the idea of chopping off additional
hundreds of millions of dollars. with the chop
ping to be confined almost exclusively to the
non-mifitary items.
But the matter Of confining the great bulk
Of reductions to the proposed non military out
lays is not necessarily so simple or wise as 1t
: may seem. Actually the cut already made in
this particular, wholly apart from possible addi-
tional cuts, is open to question on the ground
that considerable part Of 1t may turn out to
be penny wise and pound foolish kind of saw
ings. This is so for the reason that the
projected economic aid (most of which. like
most of the military aid, is earmarked for our
Allies in the Atlantic Pact) is by no means
purely economic in character. Thus, in addition
to being aimed at promoting an increase in the
output of strategic raw materials, much of 1t is
designed to enable our European friends to get
on with their own sharply increased arms out
put and preparedness spending without putting
dangerous extra strains on their currently
strained civilian economies. 1t is designed, too,
to help them gproduce items for our common
defense at less cost than if those items had to be
manufactured and supplied by the United States.
BY way of example on the last point, the
Mutual Security Program, as envisioned by the
administra alton; would operate as follows: With
lest than 81 million of American economic aid
in the form of copper, zinc, etc., France would
be able TO turn out tank destroyers and recon-
naissance vehicles valued at more than $13 mil
lion; with about 100000 of economic aid in the
form of machine tools and metals Denmark
could produce $4530O0 worth of submachine
guns; with economic aid in the form of engines,
Belgium could build mine sweepers for our allied
naval forces in the Atlantic Pact at far less cost
than we could. Quite clearly, therefore, indis
criminate slashing of such aid might easily lose
more than it saves.
Accordingly in cutting down on the Mutual
Security Program. Congress should be particu-
larly careful about the endresult of the cutting.
If 81 billion is to be sliced of. special effort
should be made to insure that the action does
not do away with the kind of economic aid that
promises to save us considerable money and
labor in the rearmament field Both in the
Senate and House. members should take close
second look at this whole business If they do,
they may we'll find it wiser to spread the econo-
MIXING much more evenly than they have thus
far between the military and n-military out
laws