[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Meanwhile, Hansen and Lloydhad developed proposals for the anticorruption campaign.The two men outlined suggestions to clarify ethicalresponsibilities of federal employees and citizens doing business with the government.Hansen advised that acleanup committee was "necessary from a public relations standpoint."38 In an ironic foreshadowing of Morris'squestionnaire fiasco, Hansen suggested that government employees file financial statements.In preparation for a 24January White House meeting on corruption, Murphy reviewed the Hansen-Lloyd suggestions and incorporatedthem into his own recommendations.The 24 January White House meeting signaled a subtle shift in the administration's campaign.Emphasis shifted totwo actionsthe Morris investigation and government reorganization.Murphy had expected the meeting to discussapproaches, but Truman used it to give McGrath the vote of confidence that preceded the appointment of Morris.Regarding other tactics, William Finan, who represented the Bureau of the Budget at the meeting, recalled that thepres- Page 131ident said he planned "a series of actions over a long period of time." 39 The consequence was to place McGrath(and subsequently Morris) at the center.Murphy and menoverburdened in other areasmonitored the McGrath-Morrismelodrama and served as White House liaison.The administration continued to be pleased with public response to the BIR plan.A Gallup poll released on 23January revealed that 84 percent of those who had heard of the proposal to place BIR collectors under the CivilService approved.Murphy informed Truman that the proposal had been "very favorably received by the public."40The plan was bolstered by the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report, a Republican-dominated group often atodds with the administration.Although the director of research of the citizens committee, Robert L.L.McCormick,believed Truman had submitted the plan to get himself "off the hook," he saw it as consistent with HooverCommission proposals and testified forcefully in support.41 The plan passed the House without significantopposition on 30 January 1952.The positive response to the BIR plan generated administration interest in others.Truman suggested placing U.S.attorneys under civil service at the 24 January meeting, and discussions ensued about doing the same for collectorsof customs, postmasters, and U.S.marshals.In the Bureau of the Budget, Finan urged Director Frederick J.Lawtonto get Truman's permission to plan along these lines.42 Weary of being portrayed by Congress as condoningopportunities for corruption, Truman was delighted.His feisty attitude reappeared: "There is going to be a howlfrom the patronage boys all the way down the street.But I will fight for this vital and urgent change."43Opposition developed in the Senate, where Walter George, a Georgia Democrat and a power on the FinanceCommittee, and his Republican colleague, Eugene Millikin of Colorado, bristled at Truman's charge that opponentswere interested in patronage.George attacked the proposal for failing to conform with the Reorganization Act of1949, for failing either to specify the future form of the BIR or to create a statutory structure to replace that whichwould be eliminated by the plan, and for failing to guarantee the right of taxpayers to sue collectors.44 Page 132Ensuing Senate proposals to counter or complement the BIR plan complicated the administration defense.JohnMcClellan, Democrat from Arkansas, threatened legislation to replace the BIR plan.Four Democrats morecharitably disposed toward the administration (Mike Monroney of Oklahoma, Blair Moody of Michigan, JohnSparkman of Alabama, and George Smathers of Florida) introduced a bill that they called the "Clean GovernmentAct of 1952," claiming that their proposal would "go much farther than, but not conflict with, the Internal RevenueBureau reorganization plan." 45 The bill proposed to make the commissioner of internal revenue a civil serviceappointee, to create a position within the Civil Service Commission for constant BIR review, to prohibit outsideinterference in tax cases, to extend the definition of bribery, to require public disclosure of RFC transactions, and toprohibit pensions to government employees convicted of felonies in connection with their jobs.This measure was anirritant to the administration if for no other reason than it diverted attention from the BIR plan and required carefulhandling, particularly because Monroney was one of the leading supporters of the administration's plan.Reportsfrom agencies (Treasury, Bureau of the Budget, Civil Service Commission, RFC) recommended against provisionsof the bill and offered faint praise for others.When Monroney queried the president about the bill, Truman praisedthe positive approach and found the provision regarding noninterference in tax cases laudatory, but he stressed that,as far as the BIR was concerned, "The most important thing to do right now is to gain Senate acceptance of myReorganization Plan.''46The fight became bitter.With forty-nine Senate votes needed to kill the measure, opponents reportedly garneredforty-five by late February and forty-seven as the final vote neared two weeks later.The administration wascommitted and, in the words of Budget Director Lawton, "put muscle" into the fight.47 The BIR assembled researchmaterials.Democratic Sen.Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota carried the fight on the Hill.On 7 March, Truman, in anopen letter to Vice-President Alben Barkley, urged favorable action, labeling the measure a key solution tocorruption: "This eorganization plan is an essential part of a program to assure Page 133honesty, integrity and efficiency in government.Unfortunately, those who find it to their advantage to preserve thepresent system, or to play politics with the integrity of the public service, have raised specious arguments against theplan that obscure the real issue." Added the president, "Disapproval of the plan would be a defeat for civil servicereformand a victory for the proponents of a political patronage system." 48 This theme was echoed by three of theplan's chief supporters in the Senate; Humphrey, Monroney, and Moody, in a Government Operations Committeeminority report, termed the plan the cornerstone of the anticorruption drive.49On 13 March 1952, the Senate voted on a resolution offered by Senators George and Millikin, without which theplan would automatically become law the next day.The resolution was defeated by a surprisingly wide margin, fifty-three to thirty-seven, as ten opponents apparently switched at the last minute.Hansen said, "The only reason thatreorganization went through was because of the issue of corruption in Government and a lot of senators didn't wantto vote.for sin, so we got some Republican votes on that that probably wouldn't have come along otherwise."50The success of the BIR plan gave momentum to the notion of reorganization as an anticorruption device, momentumthat was carried over to similar proposals that had been under consideration for some time.Removing presidentialresponsibility for appointment of postmasters, U.S.marshals, and customs collectors (as well as internal revenuecollectors) had been proposed as early as 1937 by the President's Committee on Administrative Management(Brown-low committee).The Hoover Commission had proposed placing postmasters under civil service.Thepresident had mentioned the same proposal for U.S marshals and attorneys.The Treasury and Post Officedepartments developed plans, although Secretary of the Treasury Snyder resisted new plans before BIRreorganization won approval.The Justice Department, embroiled in the Morris affair and its consequences,complained of legal problems [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • blondiii.htw.pl
  •