Spending--by the Numbers

"This seems to be the opening of the battle of the budget," said House Republican Leader Charles Halleck as the Democratic 86th Congress took up its first major pieces of legislation. "Already the budget busters are on the move." Charlie Halleck was dead right: the 1959 battle of the budget was flaming on all fronts last week--and there was little doubt that the budget busters were ahead in the preliminary skirmishes.

The balanced-budget forces were led by President Eisenhower, persuading Republicans, buttonholing his friends, conferring in friendly fashion over whisky and soda with Democratic Senate Leader Lyndon Johnson and Democratic House Speaker Sam Rayburn at the White House. At his third weekly press conference in a row, the President read a long, prepared statement urging fiscal responsibility: "I don't believe that we should have higher taxes, and I do not believe that the U.S. wants higher taxes. That means to me living within your income."

Next day Treasury Secretary Robert Anderson campaigned quietly among the big names of Capitol Hill (including New Mexico's Democrat Clint Anderson--no kin), faced the Democrat-dominated Joint Congressional Economic Committee, stoutly resisted charges that "living within our means" is a negative policy. Said Anderson: "The fact of the matter is that there is almost nothing which is more positive than fiscal soundness." Federal Reserve Board Chairman William McChesney Martin Jr.. also appearing before the Joint Congressional Economic Committee, bluntly warned that there was "never a more important time than now" for balancing the budget. Behind Martin's words: the U.S. Treasury Department's discovery that investors' fears of deficit and inflation are making it increasingly difficult to refinance the huge Government debt even at high interest rates (see BUSINESS).

But the U.S. Congress seemed to be in no mood to pay much attention to such talk. With the hup-two-three-four of a drill sergeant, the Democratic Congress shouted approval of first bills calling for spending well beyond Administration budget requests. Items:

P:The Senate, by a vote of 60 (47 Democrats and 13 Republicans) to 28 (18 Republicans and ten Democratic Southern conservatives), passed a catchall housing bill, calling for spending $2,675.000.000--or $1,075,000.000 more than the Administration thought necessary--on urban renewal, public housing, college housing, etc. over the next six years. Despite token cuts accepted by Senate Leader Johnson, maneuvering skillfully against the possibility of a presidential veto, the bill would still authorize spending in fiscal 1960 of up to $185 million over the Eisenhower Administration's balanced budget.

P: The House Banking Committee's subcommittee approved an omnibus $2.1 billion housing bill--$575 million less than the Senate version but still $500 million over the Administration program.

P:The House, by a crunching 310 to 89, passed a bill authorizing direct housing loans of up to $300 million to veterans in fiscal 1960. Since the Administration opposed any such loans, the entire amount would be above the budget estimates--even though it would ultimately be repaid.

P: Less than 24 hours after passing the something-for-everyone housing bill, the Senate, driven hard by Lyndon Johnson, voted 63 to 22 for a something-for-everyone airport-improvement and construction bill, calling for spending of a generous $465 million over the next four years. The Administration, which thus faced the prospect of having its own $200 million plan more than doubled, could find cool comfort in the fact that the Senate voted that none of the money should go toward airport cocktail lounges, recreation rooms, etc.

All last week's bills still face further congressional action and,after that, the threat of presidential veto. To counter the threat and defend the Democrats against the ever-mounting Administration drumfire against spending, Lyndon Johnson resorted to a little political blackmail : he threatened to gut the President's cherished foreign aid program, which he has always professed to support. Having pointed out that the Administration was requesting $825 million more for foreign aid this year than the last Congress appropriated, Johnson told the Senate:

"If we continue trying to brand one party as the party of spenders and the other party as the party of savers; if we continue trying to brand one party as the party of socialism, and the other party as the party of free enterprise; if we continue to deal in labels instead of reason. I think the people may get a balanced budget all right. There is going to be so much propaganda that by the time we get through the last appropriation bill [i.e., foreign aid] Congress may balance it in that last bill."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.