Bipartisan Economy

May 20, 1957

A spirit of narrow partisanship exists in both major parties in Washington today which does not promise well for economy. The President began by presenting a record-breaking peacetime budget recommending unjustifiable additions and increases. Then he blandly suggested that his own budget should be cut, but that it was up to Congress to find out where to cut it. When Congress thought it had found a few places, the President suggested that such cuts would threaten not only national welfare but world peace. Nearly every department head has protested against the cuts made.

The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to be evenly divided between those who think Federal spending should be cut and those who think it is still niggardly. Adlai Stevenson, for example, holds that a budget of the magnitude of the President’s “is the least we dare have,” which implies that huge spending is necessary for its own sake. It is foolish, he thinks, for the Democrats to try to “out-Republican the Republicans on the issue of budget-cutting.” In short, government economy should be considered exclusively a Republican goal!

CAMPAIGN ORATORY

Then there is the “advisory council” of the Democratic National Committee, a strange group who seem to think that party policy should be set, not by the Democrats in Congress, but by Democrats out of office. Their statement on economic policy blames inflation on “big business,” instead of on the huge spending and cheap money which they themselves advocate. They declare that “small increases in wages are used as the excuse for large increases in prices.” If those who signed this statement had been interested in the truth rather than in campaign oratory they could have easily found that since 1952 hourly factory wages have gone up 22.7 percent while consumer prices have advanced only 4.6 percent.

Fortunately there are in both parties responsible men sincerely interested in economy rather than in trying to pin the blame for its absence on the other party. They include Secretary Humphrey and Under Secretary Burgess, Senator Knowland and many other Republicans; and, among Democrats, Speaker Rayburn, Senator Johnson, and, outstandingly, Senator Byrd. It is true that it is hard to find detailed agreement concerning just where cuts should be made and exactly how much they should total. Individual proposals for total cuts have ranged from $2 billion to more than $6 billion. Even the larger figure may be too modest. If, for example, like the British, we were planning to spend in fiscal 1958 only 41 percent more than in the average of the four years 1947–1950, our new budget would be $18.5 billion less than it actually is.

THE BUDGET PROCESS

But it should not be hard to find agreement concerning just what reforms in budgetary procedure will do most to curb irresponsible spending. Most of these reforms are recommended in reports of the Hoover commission. A few weeks ago President Eisenhower called upon Congress to enact bills approved by the Administration to implement these Hoover-commission recommendations. He particularly emphasized “the authorization of appropriations on the basis of annual accrued expenditures.” In addition, Congress should pass legislation to insure a more thorough and effective Congressional review and check of executive recommendations. And, finally, Congress should grant the President the power for which he recently asked to veto specific items in appropriation bills.

This last step, to be effective, would have to be put in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment. Such an amendment would, of course, have most chance to succeed if offered under bipartisan sponsorship—by, let us say, Senators Byrd and Knowland and perhaps others from both major parties. Procedural reforms that could be effectively accomplished by simple legislation ought to have similar bipartisan sponsorship.

Only through bipartisan support is real economy likely. Such cooperation will incidentally prove better politics for those who adopt it than transparently partisan efforts to put the other party in a hole.