Milford chronicle., 1949-03-04
LIE Labor LeglslatlOn


WASHINGTON, ID. c., March A.
A month ago il looked as though
the Democratic party and the labor
unions might be able to repeal the
Taft-Hartley Act and re-enact the
grizzly. old Wagner Act, with lot
Of new amendments to that legis-
latiOn. OF course the only real
force behind the Administrations
plan is 10 please the labor bosses
and hope that they will be able to
keep workers in great industrial
Institutions In line with the DEM
Ocratic party.
President Green of the American
Federation Of Labor makes this ri
diculOus statement: THE Taft
Hartley Act is impractical, un-
workable and destructive of the
common elemental rights of labor"
There is a dominant notion in Con-
gress that, irrespective of the Dem
Ocratic politicians, a new labor
law must be in harmony with the
present Taft-Hartley Act.
Another leader has expressed
sound ideas i'm his statement be-
fore Congress. He is Charles E.
Wilson. president of the General
Electric Corporation. He said sthe
Truman bill threatens our individ-
ual and collective freedoms to the
removal OF safeguards now so wide
" enforced. can't agree that
there are any abuses in the Taft
Hartley Act. / honestly can't find
them"
Already the Congress is stalling
on its own plans, but it will be
weeks and maybe months before
any general legislation regarding
labor laws will be enacted.
So this correspondent will stick
out his neck for once and say:
predict that the new labor legis-
latiOn enacted by the present Con-
gress cannot help but be along the
lines Of the present Taft-HaTtley
Act. The changes might fit this an
cient remarks by old Bill Shakes
peaTe. TO wit:
THE rose by any other name
would smell as sweet"
The Taxpayer Pays The Bills
Last November a plurality, not a
majority. of American voters gave
their approval to the continuance
of pateTnalistic government, a gov
eminent promising higher subsid-
les, more social security, large
scale subsidized housing, gigan-
.-,oHsofun cahoVr1n nfp
II was convenient. during the heat
of the campaign. not to bring up
such an ugly thought as, How
much will all these things cost the
American taXpayers?'
Now Congressman are beginning
To wonder about the cost them
selves. II they grant all the re-
quests. the tax bill must necessar-
ily be increased approximately six
billion dollars per year, and this
would be only a start. If so, then
who pays the bill? Certainly the
bulk OF it must go to either the
individual taxpayers or to bust
ness. or both.
Upon appraisal, the individual
taxpayer does not appear to be toe
lucrative a source. The President
has informally stated that no tax
increase should be levied on per-
sons making less than $4,000 pei
year. This is understandable. AT
ter all. there are far more votes in
this group than in the one of those
making over that figure. Even il
the ceiling were dropped to taxable
incomes of $4,000, Senate Finance
Committee estimates show that this
Limitation covers 94.88@o of all in
come taxpayers.
Other Congressional "spokcs
men" think that the base for in
come tax increases should be high
er-say $4,000 or $4,000. The same
Senate Finance Committee esti
mates show that taxpayers will
taxable incomes of over $1,000
constitute only 1880 Of the tOta
number of taxpayers. but this tin!
group is already paying 4O.62fo o
the total income tax load Obvious
ly then. little relief for the addl
tiOnal TAX burden can be expected
from this group without approach
ing complete cOnhscatlOn.
So il would appear that the ma
iOr portion of such tax load wOult
have To be borne by business cor
poratiOns, big and little. Caugh
between new wage demands an
declining prices. business would b
faced with the perpleXing iinan
cial problem: How can such Ia
increase be met and yet offer suttl
cient profit incentive to attrac
nav investment capital? On th
basis 0f evidence available. il can
Actually. a business does not pa
taxes. Il merely collects take
fram the consumer for the Govern
ment. We. the people. still pay tn
bill.
Congress. in debating the pro
posed social measures versus On
necessary tax increase to carr
Them out. should we'll deliberate a
Ia whether the standard of Twin
Of the American people can best b
served by untried social exper
ments coupled with cOnfscatOT
taxation or a standard of Twin
hased 0n business prosperity,
welI-tested philosophy that has a
ready brought 20 Americans III
highest standard Of living In hi'