Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1935-07-15
Nuisance" Repeal, Tariffs
and Sales Levy to Be
Sought.
REPUBLICANS REFUSE
LIMITING AGREEMENT
Possibility Looms Revenue May
Be Earmarked for Pub.
lie Debt.
BY the Associated Press.

legislators predicted today that Wig
orous attempts soon will be made to
write into President Roosevelt's new
tax plan several proposals unwanted
by the White House.
Drives for a general sales tax, tariffs
and repeal OF some Of the present
nuisance" levies were mentioned as
some of the things the Presidents
supporters must fight before they can
get the tax program out of the House
Ways and Means Committee.
Republicans fatty refused TO be
bound today by any agreement to
limit the tax bill to the levies Mr..
Roosevelt suggested.
Representative Jenkins. Republican,
of Ohio, was one Of those who refused
TO be bound; in fact, he did not even
know that the committee had voted
to limit its hearings-and tacitly its
tax bill-to the matters outlined in
the Presidents message.
II certainly didn't vote that way,
Jenkins said.
Republicans Present Refuse.
Even the Republicans who were
present at the secret meeting when
that agreement was reached refused 20
vote.
Representative Treadway Of Massa-
chusetts, ranking Republican on thu
committee, long has advocated two
measures and he is likely to offer them
as amendments.
They are the sales tax and the idea
of forbidding the Federal Government
to issue any more tax-exempt secur-
tiles. President Roosevelt has proposed
a ban on future issuance of tax-exempt
bonds, but he wants it done by con-
stitutional amendment. His supporters
say the amendment should apply to
the restriction to Federal and State
bonds simultaneously, giving neither
an advantage over the other.
The Democrats generally feel that
they are bound to vote only for % new
taxes on inheritances. ~ increased
taxes on gifts. 81 sitter levies on large
incomes, probably those above 100000
year; "a new taxes on some kind Of
corporation incomes, go levies on
dividends received by corporations. TO
prevent evasion" Of the corporation
income assessment.
Specific Rate Decision Lays.
There has been no decision by the
Committee on Specific Rates, and there
is no prospect of one for several
days The Democrats are divided on
whether they should decide first what
rates to fix or how much money to
raise. They have drafted, for pur-
poses of the hearings 20 schedules
| which would apply varying rates and
raise from $118, 900, 900 to s9O1 500 900
year.
Today, while tax and bill drafting
experts worked on measure for the
committee to consider. members talked
informally about the proposals. They
also met to give final approval to a
bill setting up Federal alcohol con-
troll administration as a division in
the Treasury. The agency would ad-
minister laws which, in effect, would
continue codes that existed under the
old F. A. c. A.
A possibility developed meanwhile
that money raised by the tax bill might
definitely be earmarked for payments
on the S28, $50 100000 public debt.
Two Reasons Cited.
Some members of the House Ways
and Means Committee disclosed they
had such an idea in mind for two
reasons: First. to show that the
measure really was designed to help
the budget situation, and second, to
make sure that the money was used
for that purpose.
The usual pI ocedure is for tax bills
simply to raise money which go into
the Treasury general fund" 1t can
be taken from that fund and used
for any purpose.
Revenue SELDOM has been earmarked
for particular purposes. One occasion
was inclusion in the national indus
trial recovery act of taxes to finance
the $780, 900 900 public works pro-
gram it authorized.
Morgenthau Statement Recalled.
This time committeeman recalled
that Secretary Morgenthau said when
he opened the hearings on the new
tax bill:
1T would be unwfse not
to call on sources of revenue which
would reduce our borrowings and
later reduce the national debt without
interfering with recovery.
las Secretary of the Treasury. it is
my conviction that 1t would be peril
GUS to regard any part of these new
revenues as available for new types
Of expenditures or as justifying any
increase over our carefully budgeted
plans for Federal OUTLAWS"
That, said the ear-marking advo-
Gates. was fine, but it did not go far
enough. AS result, they argued, OPP
ponents of the tax bill are insisting