(< (Madigan): Mr. Johnston, do you think this is a
soak the rich" program on the part of the
I th' a. ministration?
m thi« "lat t,lere are efforts on the part of certain groups
the t„v coun'ry — not within the administration — to turn
Program into a "soak the rich" program.
(Madigan) : But it's the administration's proposal,
facing 'h'l'k the administration's proposal is one of simply
lion wa t cond't'ons as they stand. I think the administrate futnr cut the tax rate for the coming year and for
rate wn la' aiM' ' think they already recognize that a lowered
hut at <L act,lal|v produce more revenue over a given time;
"line t« j moment they tell us that they feel the expedient
eVt* '° con'imie thc Present rate.
(Madigan): In other words, you are saying that
""s is necessary now, but nevertheless you arc
opposed to it?
administration seems to feel that it's necessary. I do
(Doherty): Treasury Secretary Humphrey has
Wld that lhe budget cannot be balanced this coming
SLASH DEPARTMENTAL SPENDING
,me of &
t the mark'
i that cap|||
tent to a
However ii.Kreat a(,miration for Secretary Humphrey,
in gover here is another factor — a very marked reduction
S0VernmenIer,al exPenditures. I have been in and around
my share" a RO°d many years and have done, I think,
be some '" serving 'n various departments. Now, there may
haye nev. ment departments that couldn't do so, but I
(llc Befen y<r\ seen a department of government, including
for the n f- DePar'ment, that couldn't do an adequate job
are now ~ ,"?n "" 2"> Per cent less expenditure than they
(Doherty): That's an amazingly high propor-
1011 of cut. Every time the administration brings
out a budget, be it a Democratic or a Republican
administration, it always says that the budget has
»,lenijC," to the Dare hones and any
, rather usual. Nevertheless, it has been my
'irmen, [*"** v,ul can De maae wiinoui any essential
,nof our defense posture.
lUOHERTY): Didn't that atlitud
that cai".-, , ,,.-«uia t,e "
are retir'J e^'nk that's ,
uld norm ms nee in quite a number of government agencies, i
ire now yearSj th"*'ense Department where I spent a good
< "npairmen, * cut can be made without any ess
>t securitjj „,„„.._ ", " _. , . .- . .
t be perl
^ecretary of Defense Louis Johnson in the last
^Ministration, who said he was cutting "fat" and
muscle" — yet we found ourselves in a military
'Osture of unreadiness when lhe Korean war broke
1[ "nreadin m any ever|t we would have been in a position
."? "fat" 1? for 'he Korean war. I am simply talking about
""' *u " ' " " there. Last summer
x cut f°r
enact — &
real defense" expentiit"res) without any impairment of our
(Madigan): Secretary of Defense Wilson has
iir"! ii'hat the defense hudget for fiscaI '56 wi"
ohably be five billion dollars more than it is now
ri'"""se of Russia's power. Do you feel that this
f "'7 ,',s needed for weapons and men and not
,"i!""'ig r.01n haa d°ne, I think, a remarkably fine job of
here ' . . . .
efficiency into the Defense Department, but
more can and should be
I am going to get into
a. e is surf, i ncy ,m° 'he
?^ComPlisiW % larce area where
■""hie Zldf- F«i- instance (and
r'eht l "Knt now wiik „ ~r _
lough «>K or*' here "n w Vth some of my Kood friends), you have
ou are t°\ „, 'hem, tk' i ashlnK'on five military commissaries. In one
the Tre»'„ ?,en servin' st ,ime l looked, there were seventy enlisted
outright *l0.'"00a vLaScKrocery clerks. It costs the taxpayers about
making Si a„a'«ned a*ear for each one of these men in uniform who are
a half *$ hna,y,ou ™..u ™ry clerks- That would be $700,000 per year,
the pr '
,i the mt
$5,000 > 'ij
ediC lately „„"". .h're civilians to do thc same job for approx
me i'DiCAN^: Do y°u accuse th9 Defense DcParl
exn j- New Loo14" of being one of its wasteful
pORUM NEWS, February, 19ii
By no means. They are going just as fast and as far as
they can. Those men are putting in long hours. I have the
greatest admiration for what they have been able to achieve,
but they are up against a system — civil service, as we all
know. Supervisors, by and large, are paid according to the
number of people they supervise, not according to the real
efficiency of their departments.
I think the civil service men are as fine people as there
are; I don't mean any discredit to them at all. But most of
the individuals will tell you that in their department they
don't have enough to do — that they are recruited for maximum performance, yet in the average day's work are not
required to put out a maximum performance.
(Huri.eigh) : Would you say, then, that a bureau
head might have a selfish interest in maintaining
a certain number of employees to protect his title
Let's not call it "selfiseh interest." Let us say that if a
supervisor who is supervising fifty people cuts down his staff
to thirty people, he runs a risk of impairing his own
promotion and prospects for the future.
I Doherty) : Even if we were to cut down approximately 25 per cent in each item of the budget,
wouldn't we still have a lot of fixed obligations, such
as debts, management and veterans' benefits, the new
aid for Asia program, plus a military pay raise?
Oh, there are many fixed charges, and we are not going
to accomplish this in any one fiscal year or any ten fiscal
years, but I think we should continue our very strong efforts
For instance, you mentioned the veterans. The men who
are being inducted into service now are getting benefits just
like the Korean veterans, and that is costing us 45 million
dollars a month extra. Now. these men are not going overseas
to Korea to be shot at, and therefore I think we might well
save that particular 45 million dollars a month. That is
HEALTHY ECONOMY—SOUND COUNTRY
(Doherty): In view of President Eisenhower's
decision to press for tax changes favorable to labor,
do you think the administration has turned its back
on big business?
I can't speak for big business. We in the Chamber of
Commerce of the United States represent a large segment
of business, and I can't find an adequate line of demarcation
between big and small business in this country. All business
is subject to the same rules, and in no sense has the administration turned its back on business. I think it recognizes
lhat a healthy economy is an absolute essential to a sound
(Madigan): Mr. Johnston, is business — big or
small — for Mr. Eisenhower for a second term?
I would think that business is for anyone who will follow
a sound economic policy for the country, and I think by and
large Mr. Eisenhower's policies do suit the average businessman.
(Madigan) : Would you be for him for a second
(Madigan): And you think thai most of business
I think most businessmen would, yes.
e Madigan): Do you, as a businessman and head
of the Chamber, favor a lowering of tariffs to permit
more foodstuffs and other commodities to come into
this country—in line with our "trade, not aid"
Our policies favor an increase in our trade with other
countries and, I think, along with that would envision an
eventual gradual lowering of our trade barriers. Actually,
our tariff rates as such are not high. It is the import quotas
and things of that sort that are much more disruptive to
our international trade than the actual tariff rates.
(Madigan) : Mr. Clarence B. Randall, head of
the commission appointed by President Eisenhower
to study tariffs and foreign trade, pointed out
recently that we must lower tariffs and liberalize our
trade program; otherwise, other countries will impose damaging trade conditions on us. Will the U.S.
Chamber back President Eisenhower and Mr. Randall in this liberalization policy?
(Continued on Page 61)