Saga - 1985, Síða 166

164 HAUKUR PÉTUR BENEDIKTSSON
Alþingislíðindi 1926, A — þingskjal 106.
Hallgrímur Guðmundsson: Uppruni Sjálfstœðisjlokksins (Rvík 1979), bls. 63-115.
Heimir Þorleifsson: Frá einveldi til lýðveldis. íslandssaga eftir 1830. (Rvík 1973),
bls. 185-223.
Jón Sigurðsson: „Verðbólga á fslandi 1914 — 1974“. Fjármálatíðindi 1974, 21. ár, 1,
bls. 29-43.
Jón Þorláksson: „fhaldsstefnan". Eimreiðin. 1. hefti, 32. ár (1926), bls. 2-18.
Tíminn 12. maí 1923.
Tölfrœðihandbók. (Hagskýrslur íslands II, 40. Rvk 1967.)
Vörður 1. mars 1924, „Yfirlýsing".
Summary
In March 1924 there was a change of government in Iceland, in which Jón
Magnússon replaced Sigurður Eggerz as prime minister. Before the change
Eggerz’s finance minister, Klemens Jónsson, had presented his budget-bill in
the alþingi. The national trcasury was in a bad state at that time and the alþingi
took harsh measures to improve things, such harsh measures in fact that this
sitting of parliament has long been known as sparnaðarþingið 1924 (the 1924
Parliament of Cuts).
This article examines the budget for the years 1924 and 1925 and looks at the
political and economic situation in Iceland at this time. The ideology of the
newly formed íhaldsflokkur (the conservatives) is examined briefly as this party
played thc leading role in politics in 1924.
On examining the statements ofthe MPs concerning the budget, it becomes
clear that a majority agreed that nothing short of a complete policy of public
spending cuts would suffice in order to improve the financial situation. The
budget should allow for no deficit. As a general policy this was almost un-
animously accepted, but individual items were often the subject of debate,
particularly as regarding the allocation of funds to individual constituencies.
There were some critics of this cuts policy but they had little impact against the
mainstream of supporters.
Whcn Klcmens Jónsson formed his bill in February 1924 some change was
expected in accordance with new information on the economic situation, but
he expected its main trends to be retained. This was in fact the case, a feW
changes were made in the fmal Budget, some as a result of more accurate esti-
mates and others because of parliamentary decisions. Into this second categorý
may bc placed a 36.7% rise in the health sector, a 21.1% rise on public works,
18.6% on transportation and communications and 13.1% on thc dcpartmeiit
ofjustice and Police. The unique position of the department of Transportation
and Communications is intercsting: thcy received 22.3% ofthe total Budget-
(Admittcdly a larger portion ofthe Budget went to servicing the foreign debt,
but this expenditure is of a different nature as it was inherited from thc previous