Evening star., 1944-02-25
Letters to The Star
Defends Presidents Rejection
OF Inadequate" Tax Bill.

To the Editor Of The Star:
Your editorial OF February %, calling
the Presidents action on the tax bill IAN
unwise veto" Is somewhat inconsistent
The opening sentence agrees that the
tax bill is inadequate; the editorial then
condemns the President for not resting
his case on that fact. However, the
Presidents veto message emphasizes
that he asked for legislation to raise
$40 500 100000 above the existing reve-
nue. system and that the bill passed by
Congress provides only about $2,000,-
100000 in additional revenue. Mr..
Roosevelt also pointed out other objec-
tionable features of the bill.
The editorial stated that most of the
proposed increased taxes will be lost
($2 200 600, ,000-$2 SOC, 900 ,0o0) if the veto
is sustained. You neglect to state that
Mr.. Roosevelt in his message said that
ne would be glad to approve the wholly
unobjectionable tax increases-and this
can be accomplished by the passage Of
a simple joint resolution
The editorial condemned the pro-
posed administration tax bill because
1t would require an $4,000, ,000, 900 in
crease In income taxes. Yet the edi-
torial stated that the congressional bill
fell short of raising the revenue which
the people of this country reasonably
could afford to contribute.
To the administrations suggestion
that the Victory tax be abolished the
editorial stated that 100000 taxpayers
would be relieved of obligations to pay
any taxes-and ignored the fact that
the contribution of these 100000 tax
payers Is quite small This proposed
simplification would eliminate clerical
work and relieve the taxpayers of q
considerable nuisance-and all at
very small cost.
The editorial minimized Mr.. Roose-
velt's objection that special privileges
for certain groups will set up dangerous
precedents for future tax legislation.
However, you were quick to point out
that 1t might be dangerous for the
President to veto a tax bill, even
though you agreed that it was COM
pletely inadequate
The editorial did not see how the
freezing Of social security taxes would
be decrease IN revenue OF 81 100, ,O00.-
600. However, you must agree that this
would represent money the Govern
ment could use and the workers couldn't
spend. And, as Mr.. Roosevelt suggested,
this certainly Is the time when indus
try and labor are best able to adjust
themselves to these increases.
The editorial also stated that the
President is against general sales tax
but Is In favor OF an excise tax (Which
you call selective sales tax. There
is no inconsistency there On the con-
trary, it is quite consistent. A general
sales tax would bear hardest on the
lower-income groups dhe same 5000, 900
who pay only a Victory tax, while
the excise taxes, which are levied on
luxury items, would affect the higher
income groups
The editorial objected, on constitu-
tional grounds, to Mr.. Roosevelt's ve-
toing OF the tax measure However, is
1T not the Presidents duty to veto a
bill that is admittedly Inadequate? At
least the President saw his position
clearly.
You concluded by asking what sort
OF a relationship between the President
and Congress may be expected in the
future. Certainly, with Congress and
the President so far apart in matters
of vital Importance, both the war and
the home front may suffer. However,
1t is well to remember that on election
day, If Congress has been incompetent,
the situation easily may be remedied
by voting for legislators who will not
be solely obstructionist and who will
propose and support constructive legis-
lation.
TDuJTN IyNDNcn-ErN