The New Opposition to the Administration

IIKE & THE BUSINESSMAN.

WHEN the 1952 election was over," said U.S. Chamber of Commerce President John S. Coleman, "many of us told ourselves that we now had a business-minded Administration and a business-minded Congress in Washington. It seemed like a good time to take a rest. But what happened?" Last week in Detroit a "legislative clinic" under Coleman's direction wound up a twelve-city tour designed to convince U.S. businessmen that what happened decidedly does not call for a rest. Disappointed by the Eisenhower Administration's big budget and its failure to cut corporate taxes, federal spending and Government services, the chamber has been slugging away at Eisenhower economic policies, urging large audiences to bring pressure on their Congressmen. In each city the clinic turned up surprisingly vigorous support and evidence of the new and increasing opposition to the path of the "businessman's administration."

The Chamber of Commerce audiences came out strongly against the big budget, the federal school-construction program, Government floors under wages and ceilings on hours, the extension of the minimum-wage law to 2,500,000 more workers as recommended last week by Secretary of Labor Mitchell. Many favored a cut in foreign aid, a reduction in domestic welfare programs.

"This new G.O.P.," complains H. Frederick Hagemann Jr., president of the Rockland-Atlas National Bank of Boston, "has lost sight of its 1952 goals. It has soft-pedaled on cutting Government expenditures. It has slowed down on its job of getting the Government out of business. It has adopted the socio-economic policies of the New and Fair Deals."

Though many of the Administration's most vocal critics are confirmed right-wingers who never approved of Eisenhower's brand of Republicanism except as a way to win elections, some of Ike's heretofore staunch backers have also taken issue with the Administration. Earlier this month Frazar B. Wilde, President of Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. and a member of the Committee for Economic Development (which has usually been in Ike's corner), warned a congressional committee that the rising level of federal spending would lead to more inflation, questioned the need for increased federal funds for agriculture and for buying home mortgages--both policies backed by the Administration.

While crying for Government economy, businessmen are generally careful not to single out federal programs that might affect themselves. When the Chamber of Commerce met in Dallas, for example, the assembled businessmen went on record against high federal spending on the same day the newspapers carried a statement by the president of the Dallas chamber criticizing the General Services Administration for canceling its lease-purchase program to build a $24 million federal office building in Dallas.

Actually, criticism of the Administration's policies is more than balanced by a solid core of businessmen who realize the inevitability--and the cost--of the changing political climate responsible for the expansion of social programs. They point out that many businessmen who complain about Government welfare plans have taken on in their own businesses such new burdens as health insurance and pensions. Clarence Randall, former president of Inland Steel, recently told 1,000 members of Chicago's Executive Club: "Occasionally I drop in at the club and hear the boys discuss the 'blankety-blank giveaway program.' Oh, how I wish I could have that clarity of vision in dealing with these complex questions that comes to the gentlemen at the third highball. All I ask is that before you take a blast next time at the 'blankety-blank giveaway program' you make sure you know what you're talking about." Says Rexall's Justin Dart: "Businessmen are frequently shortsighted. If American businessmen are going to be selfish and want everything for themselves, they are not going to help project a Republican Party that will do a job for everybody."

The current criticism is already serving one good purpose: it is forcing businessmen to think about the altered concepts of an expanding economy. The "favorable political climate" that business looked for under the Eisenhower Administration, for instance, is no longer simply a matter of tax-cutting and slashbacks. Enlightened businessmen realize that many of the very social programs that are being attacked -- unemployment insurance, minimum wages, etc.--have helped business by stabilizing buying power and raising consumer confidence. Says Robert Stauffer, vice president of Cambridge's National Research Corp.: "We need highways and schools and other Administration programs for the general health of the economy. The good derived from public-welfare consciousness eventually will pay rich dividends to business."

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