Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-03-18
Humphrey Letter
To House Raises Odds
For 6. 0.P. Tax Bill
CONTINUED From First Page.)

CONTINUED From First Page.)
along with the idea Of increas-
ing individual income tax
exemptions and thus adding to
the Federal deficit at this time.
Representative Ayres, Repub-
lican. Of Ohio. announced he
had changed his mind only last
Tuesday night and decided to
vote against the income tax
exemption proposal. Since last
November. he said, he had adj
vocated such an increase.
Debate yesterday pitted the
two most prominent members
Of the Ways and Means Com
mittee against each other.
Chairman Reed of New York
Numbered that the Democratic
plan threatened to utterly de-
stroy the Governments financial
stability" Representative Coo
per Of Tennessee, ranking DEM
ocrat on the committee, charged
that the bill would benefit "only
the fortunate few"
Some people have told me-
Mr.. Reed said. that it is i'm
possible to get q bill like this
through Congress in an election
year. have been told that
pressure groups are going to be
able to ruin the bill. I have been
told that we, the members of
this House. are going to play
politics with this bill. ! have seen
it said that the members on the
Democratic side of the aisle
whose party lowered personal ex-
emptions from $1,000 to $500
have suddenly decided. now that
they are in the minority, that
they can afford to be ire
sponsible and that they are all
going to vote to cripple the bill.
Sees New Jobs.
But I don't believe it. This
bill Is designed to create jobs,
to expand business. to pro-
mote chronological development
needed for defense and to provide
more goods and services for all
our people. It is a blueprint for
a better and a more prosperous
America. AS such 1t demands
and Is going to get the support
Of the members of this House"
Mr.. Cooper agreed that the bill
contains q much-needed revision
Of the tax laws, along with es-
sential administration and tech
meal improvements. But he
questioned it's ''basic approach"
and several substantive changes
he said had no place in a re-
vision bill.
mot only do these substantive
changes open the bill to contro-
verSy." he complained. but I
fear that if there is an insistence
that they be retained in the bill
there is likelihood. when it
reaches the Senate, that all the
good work done on the admins
trative and technical changes
will not become law"
Mr.. Cooper also questioned
Republican claims that the big
bin would result in a revenue loss
Of only $1.4 Billion. He predicted
that the provision relating to in
dustry depreciation deductions
alone would increase the Treas
ury revenue loss each year until
a maximum loss of $2.2 billion
is reached in 1860. This means
that $19.5 billion would be 'ir-
retrievably lost to the Govern
ment" over that period of years,
he insisted.
Disputes Reed.
He denied statements by Mr..
Reed and other Republican mem
bers that more than half Of the
tax savings involved in the bill
would go to the average tax
payer. Even some of the tax pro-
visions designed to ease the bur-
den of medical expenses. child
care and other necessities, he de-
clared, would be of compare
lively little help to low-income
groups.
The provision to take the first
step toward elimination of double
on corporate dividends,
Mr.. Cooper said, sis symptomatic
of the present administrations
tax philosophy" He held that
this is the one area where tax
relief is least needed at this
time"
Defending the proposal to in
crease income tax exemptions,
Mr.. Cooper concluded: Since