University of Virginia Library

The New Nixon Budget

There are several attention-getters in the
fiscal 1974 budget just unveiled by the Nixon
administration, such as the paring down of
social welfare spending, another $4.2 billion
increase in defense spending, and the halving
of the deficit. But it is the philosophy, indeed
the spirit, of the new Nixon fiscal policy that
deserves attention even more than do the
figures.

It did not take long for the second Nixon
Administration to begin taking on a
personality considerably different from the
first one. What the President may refer to as a
"new American Revolution," is something
more of a reconstruction than a revolution, it
seems to us. For he is attempting to
reconstruct an economy that was beginning to
crumble under its own weight due to
proliferating federal involvement which has
long been suffering from incredibly inefficient
organization. It is no small task, it is not even
a politically safe endeavor (something Spiro
Agnew has probably taken note of), and it
will raise howls of indignation from every
group whose program or interest is cut back.
In short, the President's new course for
America is not making everybody happy.

But the whole package–cutting higher
education programs, eliminating housing
subsidies, axing manpower programs,
curtailing many research programs, while
increasing defense spending– is very much
what Mr. Nixon has long held to be the core
of sound economic policy. The New York
Times claims that he "is trying to reverse the
course of public policy that this country has
pursued for forty years and turn back toward
the traditional Republican philosophy of
Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover,"
and, in a way, that is true. But to leave it at
that is to conjure up visions of Teapot Domes,
Wall Street manipulators, and bread lines, not
at all the direction Mr. Nixon is actually
headed.

In fact he is attempting to restructure–at
least so far as is possible in four years– an
economy that has allowed for great domestic
social progress at the expense of overlapping
agencies, duplicated procedures, burgeoning
government payrolls, and unbelievably
proliferating paperwork–all of which are a
burden not only to Americans as taxpayers,
but also to our independent spirit.

The criticism (not unjustified) that he is
abandoning the great programs and policies
dating back to the New Deal overlooks the
fact that not everything which has been done
during that period of involvement has turned
out as it was intended. The tendency for us to
despair at what appears to be the ditching of
liberal concern for social welfare is an
overreaction which ignores the long-range
benefits of the reorganization of the federal
bureaucracy. We are just waking up from the
idle dream that we can have everything we
want in the area of social legislation at no
cost. We get what we pay for, and in recent
years, we have been paying more and getting
less from our increasingly ill-conceived and
mismanaged social programs.

There are areas where we must not renege
on our responsibilities: The Civil Rights battle
is not yet won, and the nation must shoulder,
both spiritually and financially much of the
burden of winning it. "Quality" education
must remain a goal toward which the entire
nation is committed; worthwhile program
must not be thrown out with the worthless
ones. The environment must remain a
national priority; not just cleaning it up, but
keeping it clean. Of course, there are others...

But the emphasis of the Nixon budget is
on efficiency, and we think rightly so.
"Efficiency" is a hard, uncompromising term
which has a callous sound, but it has been
ignored too long. We do not suggest that an
abrupt and hard-nosed reversal of priorities be
the order of the day. Rather, we suggest that
it is time to bring efficiency back into the
federal economic picture along with
compassion and concern in order that we do
not let the bureaucracy outrun the society.
This is what President Nixon has said he
intended to do all along; and this is what it
appears that this budget is aiming for.

We do have a quarrel with the defense
expenditures, which seem to be rising
unimpeded year-to-year at the request of the
Pentagon and with the approval of the
President and Congress. The end of the draft,
and the initiation of the volunteer army
(which we laud) will unquestionably require
greater military pay. Nevertheless, the so
called "peace dividend" seems to have been a
myth, and defense expenditures keep rising
somewhat more than a military pay-raise
would seem to require.

But expanded research and development
programs for new bombers, missiles, and
submarines go on as always, and this should
certainly be cut back soon. We hope that the
Congress will be as demanding in its scrutiny
of defense allocations as necessary in order to
get this apparently interminable spiraling of
costs under control.

It is, on the whole, a mixed bag, this 1974
budget. But the need for streamlining and
belt-tightening (especially if we are to make
the required war reparations in Vietnam) has
been around for a good while. Mr. Nixon,
secure for four more years, is simply
beginning to face that need.