The Cut That Fattens

The U.S. Senate, which has been sending up skyrockets about economy, last week got its first chance to cut President Eisenhower's budget, and fell head over heels into its most cherished federal-spending outlet--the pork barrel. Up for consideration was that pork-packed perennial, the rivers and harbors bill, an assortment of 100 public-works projects, including one for every state in the Union except Rhode Island and Nevada. President Eisenhower vetoed the bill last year because it included so many projects that had not been approved by all required U.S. agencies.

As he has for eight long years, Illinois' Paul Douglas rose to take a cut at the bill. He proposed an amendment authorizing the President to postpone the "least essential" one-fourth of the pork-barrel projects. But Douglas knew what would happen. "History is repeating itself," he said in wry tones. "Every time I rise to criticize the rivers and harbors bill, a perfect swarm of hornets descends upon me, and the questions buzz."

Quicker than a hornet could buzz, Douglas' fellow liberal Democrats, including Minnesota's Hubert Humphrey and Oregon's Richard Neuberger, deserted him. "Let me be blunt about the matter, and say that I am not sure which quarter the President would postpone," Humphrey said plaintively. He read off a list of Minnesota projects, then added: "They are a part of a quarter that I do not want the President to touch." With equal candor, Neuberger admitted: "On this bill I happen to be 'stuck,' . . . God Almighty put a great deal of water [in Oregon]."

Ohio Democrat Frank Lausche rose to back Douglas, but before day's end Lausche, too, crumbled. Ohio's senior Senator, Republican John Bricker, urging an extra $15 million for harbor improvements in Cleveland, remarked with a straight face that the state's junior Senator favored the amendment. Put on the spot, Lausche reached for his slice of pork. "I would be unfair to my constituents in Ohio," he declared, "if ... I did not concur with my associate Senator."

When the economy-talking Senate began debating rivers and harbors, the bill had called for expenditure of $1,522,000,000. After nine hours of baloney and banter, the amount was different: $1,541,000,000.

The Senate had demonstrated only one problem in attempts to cut the budget: no member of Congress wants to cut where his constituents are apt to bleed. There is a much more serious problem. To make any major cut in the budget, the Congress would have to slash hard at defense, mutual security, farm programs or welfare. And in the halls of Congress, that is like being against motherhood.

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