The Wilmington morning star. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1909-1990, 1943-12-02
Today And Tomorrow
Bv WALTER LIPPMANN

| On Tuesday the House voted about subsi-
dies, and on Wednesday it voted about taxes.
Unless Congress means to &c On record as
determined to weaken the existing wartime
control of the effects of initiation without put
ting any better control in lis place the action
of the House will have to be reconsidered
For the action Of last week is Sc incoherent
and so confusing that it cannot possibly be
| the last word by Congress the subject
| No wonder that Senator Taft, who will hard
| ly be suspected of being New Dealer plan
ming a fourth term, has already felt it neces-
sary to break away from the position taken
by his party in the House ard to seek
more constructive solution
| On Tuesday the House voted to outlaw what
| it called Consume subsidy programs for
agricultural products, arguing that the people
have lots of money and cal. afford to pay
higher prices for rood The next day, on
Wednesday, the House voted against sub
stantial increase of taxes arguing that the
people now have so little money left that they
cannot pay more taxes. On Tuesday, when
the subject was subsidies, the cry went up
that the billion dollars TO- food subsidies must
not be passed on to future generations to pay.
| On Wednesday, when the subject was taxes,
the House voted to pass on to future gener
atoms an extra eight billions of debt rather
than vote that amount Of taxes now.
When the Treasury presented its tax pro-
posals, it was said, and 1 believe correctly
that in relieving the nine million smallest tax
payers of the obligation to pay a direct tax,
| the Treasury was polltlcally-mlnded. But
| a comparison of the excise taxes and postal
rates proposed by the Treasury and those ac-
tually voted by the House will show that when
| it came to levying new taxes which fall upon
| the mass of the voters. to levying what are
in effect calnrfed sales taYaS the House
| about half as brave ana non-political the
Treasury.
| The Treasury called for an additional $500
millions of excise taxes articles of general
consumption. The House willing to vote
| only 1873 millions. The details are interest
| ing. The Treasury wanted to slap an addi-
tonal 1853 millions of "a xes alcoholic
drinks: the House voted only 400 millions
The Treasury wanted another 485 millions on
| tobacco: the House would moi vote any new
tobacco tax. The Treasury wanted an addi-
tional 367 millions soft drinks, candy and
chewing gum: the House would vote none.
The Treasury wanted another le7 millions on
jewelry: the House cut this down to 80 mil
| lions.
Now if we are going to tax consumption
which all who favor sales tax agree is
necessary to discourage infiationary spending,
then the obvious place to oegii, taxing is on
| the consumption OF luxuries like drink, to-
bacco, candy and jewelry. But the House,
which Tuesday did not object to raising
the price of bread, meat. milk, and vegeta-
bes, was on Wednesday opposed to raising
substantially the price of cigarettes cigars,
whisky, gin, beer, Wine soft drinks, candy,
chewing gum, and jewelcy.
The position of the House on subsidies is
so shot through with self-contl ADDICTION that it
is not Ineligible. 1t was supposed to Be out
having ''consumer-subsidy progT ANS on amy
agricultural commodity But it exempted
subsidies on competitive oor1estlc oils and
fats and oil seeds It did not outlaw the
subsidies which keep down tn, price of min
eral oil in the eastern states. or OF coal.
1t did not outlaw any subsidy to producers
or any subsidy used Ito support prices 1t
outlawed only subsidies winch are designed
| to protect the consumer against rising prices.
The idea that the House was voting against
what we have been tod is the immoral, un-
economic, un-American, wastefui: lnflatlonary
use of public funds FOR subsidies is, therefore,
not true. What on earth was it voting against?
It was supposed to be voting against con
| sumer- subsidies.
This means, presumably, subsidies like that
| for butter, bread, and part o. the meat SUD-
sidy, which are designed tc give the con-
| sumner these necesSaries OF life at some
what lower price than the prices paid for
| LIlGlll W ulG plO all; r. $500
is what the House was Directing to, the mat
ter is certainly debatable and it may be
that on careful consideration they ought to
be modified or perhaps even apanoonea'
| But the House legislation did not dlscrlm-
mate against subsidies of this type 1t out
lawed subsidies which, though they are paid
to producers to cover diffsrentials in cost,
are set up so as to stabilize prices for con-
sumers The larger part OF the SUBSIDIES out
lawed by the House are OF this type: these
are the subsidies for potatoes truck crops,
corn, hay, feed wheat fluid milk onions, lard,
sugar beets, canned vegetables and that part
of the meat subsidy paid to non-processlng
slaughterers who would otherwise be closed
down.
Subsidies of this type, designed to induce
greater production, to make ur ol11efentlals
between one section of the country and an
other and between low cost and hlgh cost
producers, certainly inure to tce benefit OF
the consumers But surely that is not an
objection to them unless it is the view OF the
majority of the House that subsidies are de-
sirable if they raise prices anc are VICIOUS
if they stabilize.
The action of the House or suosloles ana
on taxes cries out for reconslcefauon. Inc
whole subject, the most critical Gil our nome
front, needs to be subjected to much more
Informative and searching reporting ana IN
depreciation by the press and Tie raoio u1all'
owino tn the drama OF the news, 1t mas