Washington

ON THE WORLD TODAY

HARSH words can be heard on the Hill about Mr. Truman’s veto of the labor bill. The fear is that Congress may reciprocate by lack of coöperation in foreign affairs. The Marshall Plan for continental aid in Europe, announced at Harvard on June 5, will call for Congressional financing, and a lot of it. Has the President prejudiced legislative support by his assault on Congress? Even before he delivered his attack, bipartisan coöperation was wearing thin, and Vanden berg statesmanship was being tested to the limit.

Preparation of the ground for the Marshall Plan is going on apace. The President, in adopting the Vandenberg suggestion of a bipartisan study group, has appointed a well-rounded and distinguished group of men. In Washington the feeling is that Americans must keep out of the preliminary discussions in Europe. These discussions will assess the needs of reconstruction and the resources available in Europe to meet them.

Selling the Marshall Plan

There is bound to be some trouble in selling reconstruction in Europe as an undertaking outside the scope of the United Nations. It is said that use should be made of the UN Economic Commission for Europe. But Secretary Marshall’s idea is that a scheme or schemes should emanate from Europeans only. And the European Commission includes an American delegation. It is not intended, however, to by-pass the United Nations. The prevailing thought is that the scheme or schemes coming out of Europe should be referred to the European Commission as well as to Washington.

Reaction against Russian obstructionism in the United Nations accounted for the original Truman message on aid to Greece and Turkey. The President was himself responsible for the bald statement in his Truman Doctrine: “The United Nations and its related organizations are not in a position to extend help of the kind that is required.” His advisers wanted the insertion of “as yet.” But the President insisted on the flat statement. This indicates the disillusion in the Capital about the United Nations.

Where the Administration erred was in thinking that the disillusion extended to the American people. At any rate, the slighting mention of the United Nations in the Truman Doctrine elicited widespread protests from the country. Senator Vandenberg rectified the matter by making the link between aid to Greece and the United Nations. Now the State Department is more circumspect. Anything which may have even a remote connection with the United Nations is referred to the Department’s Office of Special Political Affairs for comment.

This office deals with United Nations affairs. It is a sort of backstop for Warren R. Austin, our United Nations delegate. That the branch rates only the status of an office in the State Department has long been a sore point with pro-UN Americans. They would like to see an Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs. The suggestion, indeed, was made that the new Assistant Secretary, Norman Armour, who will look after all the geographical desks, should be called Assistant Secretary for United Nations Affairs.

The need of tax revision

At the Treasury the experts are hard at work on tax revision. Secretary Snyder thinks this is a unique opportunity for modernizing the Federal tax structure. Like Topsy, this structure has “growed,” and there is increasingly less administrative sense in it. Corporate taxation is due for an overhaul to get rid of such abuses as double taxation and discrimination between corporations on the one hand and proprietorships and partnerships on the other. Change is also needed in personal income taxation. The citizens of thirty-five states are envious of the tax advantage enjoyed in the thirteen community property states by married couples who may split their joint incomes for tax purposes. This inequity, which would have been corrected in the shelved Lucas bill, is very much on Treasury minds.

The cost of generalizing a split would mean the loss of a billion dollars. Whether the Treasury favors ending the discrimination this way or by putting the community property states on a par with the others still has to be decided. The latter method would, of course, raise and not sacrifice revenue. Finally, the Federal excises need to be knit together into a coherent system.

Few reforms are more important than tax revision. It was in part because of the need for wholesale revision that tax reduction was successfully vetoed by the President. The other reason is that we are still in a period of war finance. Next year many war items will not be included in the budget, and Secretary Snyder looks forward to tax reduction in addition to tax readjustment.

But the Administration’s recommendations in this respect will not follow the pattern of Republican schemes. The Republicans failed to recognize that war taxes were placed principally in the low and middle income brackets. Here is where relief will be proposed by the Administration, for Mr. Truman believes that if we are to use the vast production potential we developed during the war, we need to distribute our tax burden in a way that will promote mass consumption.

Wanted: good administrators

The President has again bemoaned his difficulty in obtaining competent men to work for the government. Granted that Americans don’t respond readily to the demand for their services. However, there are reasons for this reluctance apart from personal disinclination to leave private employment, and the President himself cannot escape some responsibility. They are pointed up by several illustrations of the cavalier treatment that, nominees get from both the White House and Congress.

One illustration is the President’s withdrawal of his own nomination of Commissioner Wakefield for reappointment to the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Wakefield has an excellent record. He was backed by both Senators from his own state of California. The nomination was referred to an Interstate and Foreign Service subcommittee, which, according to reports, was prepared to report it favorably. Action, however, was stopped by Presidential withdrawal of the nomination in favor of Representative Jones of Ohio. Mr. Wakefield was not even informed of his fall from grace at the White House. It is charged that jobbery is involved. How can good men risk this sort of humiliation in the public service?

Candidates for government office too often are humiliated by Congress, as in the case of Mr. Lilienthal. There is a more recent, example. Mr. Philip Perlman was nominated for the Solicitor Generalship as far back as January 31. Hearings were not held until mid-May. The last hearing took place on June 17.

Evidence indicates that the subcommittee is stalling. Yet here is a job the occupant of which prepares the government’s cases for presentation to the Supreme Court. By special provision of law, moreover, he exercises all the duties of the Attorney General in case of his absence or disability. Lack of action in the Senate obviously disrupts the organization and operation of the Justice Department. How can men say yes to Presidential proffers when they run the risk of becoming the victims of politiking?

This is a very grave problem that, is being more and more aired — this problem of Congressional procrastination over Presidential appointments. It clearly stems from Republican politics. By the end of June not more than one of Mr. Truman’s appointees to post masterships ( numbering more than 800) since the first of the year had been confirmed. Representative Tinkham used to call this kind of thing sidewalk politics. It is playing hob with government efficiency and is one of the reasons that Mr, Truman finds it hard to persuade competent men to enter the government.

THE MOOD OF THE CAPITAL

The mood of the Capital is one with the domestic dissension produced by the Executive-Legislative row over the labor act. Keeping a watchful eye on the administration of the act is a Congressional preoccupation.

Congress is phobic about Communism — so antiCommunist that never since the Mitchell Palmer witch-hunt after the last war has there been such a strain on our civil liberties. The Rees bill, for instance, would go far beyond the loyalty test of Federal employes set in motion by the President. Our indulgence of the antics of the Committee on UnAmerican Activities sometimes passes understanding.

No man is more zealous than Secretary Marshall in deprecating this anti-Communist approach to our foreign policy. He himself will certainly not dress his proposal up as an anti-Communist crusade. But its acceptance by Congress and by the people will require some highly skillful maneuvering.