Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1924-01-23

QOWU 10 Cu6 IulGu UI6S6uI-
ed in your editorial, that Of tax re-
duction versus adjusted compensa-
ton. Why should it be "tax reduc-
ton or bonus?' If there is no obli
cation to pay, the case should rest
here on it's merits. Why say eve
don't owe you and we can't pay YOU"
if it would suffice to say, eve don't
owe your" The answer seems evil
dent The opposition is unwilling to
deny absolutely the existence of the
obligation, for it fears that its logic
is at fault. If, on the other hand,
there is just monetary debt, what
possible connection can there be be-
tween it's payment and the reduction
Of taxes, any more than there is be-
tween tax reduction and any other
governmental obligation? Is one
particular class of debts to be re-
pudiated simply to relieve the tax
payer of part of the cost of war? Is
one group of citizens who have just
claim against the government to go
unpaid, that other groups may not be
called on to contribute the rest of
their share of the expense of war?
1t is as if we were to repudiate our
Liberty bonds, on the theory that
the taxpayer has already done all
he can.
Let us, as you say, bring it right
down to Ellsworth. How many cit
liens of Ellsworth, outside OF those
in the service, worked during war
time for a dollar a day and subsist-
ence? How many worked for the
government, or sold anything to the
government, and collected one cent
less than the current high prices?
How many would burn their Liberty
bonds to-day, to tighten the tax bur-
/ den of the nation? Instead of self
ishness on the part of the ex-service
man. it looks very much like
selfshness on the part of those who
are arguing, in effect. Il can't pay my
bills because it will cost me some
thing" Fortunately the great mass
of citizens, if the actions of state
legislatures and of the Congress of
United States are any indication OF
their will, are in favor of paying the
debts of the nation, whatever the cost
The opposition comes mostly from
those who would object to anything
that tends to tlatten their purses.
Furthermore, it is doubtful
question whether or not tax re-
duction and adjusted compensation
are inconsistent. The American
states that 1--WE have it on the
authority of Secretary of the Treas
ury Mellon that we cannot have both
tax reduction and the bonus" With
all due respect to the secretary of the
treasury, | question the trustworthi-
ness of this authority. Secretary
Mellon has INDUCED in so much
arithmetical sleight-of-hand in his
statements on the question that one
sometimes wonders whether he is
seeing a fact or an illusion.
Last year Mr.. Mellon opposed the
bill on the ground that at the best
there would be a deficit of $780,
100000 for 1928. The year ended
with a surplus of over $500, 100000,
a net error of a mere billion dollars
in his estimates. When Congress be-
gan to see through the trick, he used
a clever piece of psychology and daz-
ZIed his audience by holding before
them a scheme for tax reduction.
Some one with eyes sharp enough to
watch the two tricks at once calls our
attention to the fact that we can have
both tax reduction and compensation
for service men The figures pre-
scented to Congress on the present
bill, figures worked out by the treas
ury department, show the estimated
cost for the first three years to be
$SO.0OO,000 year, and the total
cost of the plan not to exceed $685.
100000 year Mr. Mellon had for
gotten that most of us can subtract
eighty from three hundred and
70, of
done. but the magician is equal to
the occasion. He puts the estimate
in his bag, shrffles it around in the
most approved fashion, and blandly
draws it out, dazzling us again. 1t
wasn't eighty million at all 1t was
two hundred and fifty million. Neat,
but hardly plausible Before ac-
cepting any more of Mr.. Melons
figures, one must be assured that he
has not made another billion dollar
error in his calculations.
When it is all summed up, the
argument. is this: The men who
served in the army and navy were
paid at a rate lower than that OF any
other line of work; there is no
particular reason why there should
be such discrimination; there is
every precedent for the adjustment
Of this compensation; there is now in
the treasury the funds for such ad-
iustment; and there is no one OBJ
lection to such adjustment, but on
the contrary a deliberate attempt to
befog the question by the introduce
ton of all kinds of side issues, so
that the average voter and citizen
cannot see the forest for the trees
Legionnaire.
The above letter has been endorsed
by the Frank e. Whitmore post, No.
ca A T.