Saga - 1985, Blaðsíða 167

SPARNAÐARÞINGIÐ 1924
165
governmcnt.) This special position is best seen through the fact that thc depart-
nient that comes next, Church and Education, received only 12.9% of the
Budget.
The proposed balanced Budget was passed by the alþingi. There was a 6.3%
increase in the projected income and a 14.2% increase in the projected govern-
ment spending. In view ofthe situation this can hardly be regarded as a signifi-
cant change fronr the proposals. It is debateable how great an impact the
advocacy of those in favour ofcuts and the election victory ofBorgarajlokkurinn
(a forerunner of íhaldsjlokkurinn) in the autumn of 1923 may have had in the
forming of the Budget-bill. A comparison of the budgets for 1924 and 1925
reveals that this impact was indeed considerable, for the state of the national
treasury was bad when the 1924 Budget was passed. It ran a deficit of 2.2% of
the gross projectcd incomc, on the other hand there was a 0.2% surplus on the
1925 Budget. This surplus was by no means great but there had been notwith-
standing a change of policy. A niorc markcd change appears when one com-
Pares the total income, the total expenditure and the individual items of both
thcse budgets. In the 1925 Budgct the main emphasis was on a gcneral rcduction
'n thc public sector. Projected income was decreased by 13.5% and projected
expenditure by 15.5%, which must be regarded as quite substantial. When
individual itcms are examined it becomes clear that though the budget of all
dcpartments was cut, the proportions varied. Approximately 2/3 of the total
cuts were in the departments of Transportation and Communication and
Cliurch and Education. The planned expenditurc for these dcpartments was
cut by over a quarter. Proportionally the greatest cuts were however in the
lunding ofscience, literature and the Arts: 36.4%, and in public works: 30.4%.
There were also large cuts in administrative costs. Cuts seem to have been
niade wherever possible. The Health department was a special case, however,
ihcre we have a 10.8% increase from the previous year. Admittedly there was
a 128.3% increase on the item miscellaneous expenditure, but this was because
°f Wage supplements due to inflation, the payment of which was clearly
Unavoidable. The MPs seem to have been intent on increasing the health
scrvice, a fact that is born out by the Interim Budget of 1925, in which this
hcpartment reccived additional funds, bringing the actual increase from the
Prcvious year to 14.9%. The largest part of this supplementary budget went
though to public works, thus rcducing the actual cuts in that department from
3()1% to 18%. The same is true of funds for science, literature and the Arts.
hc total cuts in thc Budget decreased from 15.5% to 13.6%, which is not a
hccisive diffcrence. It is thus clear that the alþingi of 1924 had gone fartherin
lts economic measures than was in fact possible. This is evident from the
nterim Budget for 1925, which increased the amount of public spending by
“■7 /0 where as the Interim Budget for 1924 had only increased it by 0.4%.
Translated by Ragnheiður Mósesdóttir and Matthew James
Driscoll.