"Let's Be Smart"

After two days of savage, name-calling political debate, the Democratic majority of the U.S. House of Representatives last week passed and sent to the Senate a bill to cut income taxes next year by $20 a person. The Democrats, led by Speaker Sam Rayburn, tacked" their tax reduction (estimated cost: $2.1 billion) on to a bill to extend the badly needed revenues (estimated at $2.8 billion) from excises and the 52% corporation-tax rate. Explained New York Timesman Arthur Krock: "Instead of bringing up the $20-per-head handout bill separately on its own merits, the Rayburn plan is to attach it to the revenue maintenance measure so that by a presidential veto the $2.8 billion would be lost to the Treasury. In other words the Democratic fee for preserving $2.8 billion has been fixed at $2.1 billion."

Actually, the plan was hatched by Louisiana's Democratic Representative Hale Boggs, one of some young Democrats who have been chafing under their leadership's policy of getting along with the G.O.P. Administration. Boggs & Co. wanted to open up on the Administration early in January, but were persuaded by Speaker Rayburn to hold off until after the House acted on the bill to liberalize foreign trade (TIME, Feb. 28).

The Go-Ahead. The day after the House passed the trade measure, Boggs presented his case to the Democratic members of the Ways and Means Committee, meeting in private session. Snapped he: "Let's not be stupid about this." If the Democrats do not pass a tax cut this year, said Boggs, the Republicans will surely do so in the election year of 1956. "Anybody who does not think so," cried he, "is just wrong. Let's be smart and beat them to it." Sam Rayburn, sitting with the committee, listened for two hours, then gave the go-ahead. Rayburn was smarting because his party had produced most of the votes for the reciprocal trade bill and the nation's headlines had given Ike the credit. The Ways and Means Committee approved the tax cut.

The battleground shifted to the White House, where the President was asked by newsmen about the $20 cut. Ike said sharply "When we talk about decreasing revenues at a time when the Government, in spite of every saving we have been able to make, is still spending somewhat more than it takes in, we are reaching some kind of heights in fiscal irresponsibility."

The Republican membership of the House was in a fury by the time the bill reached the floor. Indiana's Republican Representative Charles Halleck, his face flushed, his voice pitched high, said: "I suppose blackjacking is a strong word, and if it is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it. But coming from Indiana, it well looks to me like this is a sort of blackjacking operation to put the President and a lot of us over the barrel by saying, 'Well, if you do not take this $20, you are jeopardizing the excise extension and the 52% corporation tax.' "

Mutual Admiration. Democratic Majority Leader John McCormack charged down the aisle. Jabbing a long, thin forefinger at Halleck, he shouted: "The gentleman from Indiana, and I like him just as much as he likes me"--the House shook with laughter--"talked about a blackjacking operation. Why, my dear friend is a past master in the art of a blackjacking operation. Do you think we have forgotten what happened a year ago? Do you remember when the Republicans reported out a bill extending certain excise taxes which were expiring, and they wanted to make them permanent? . . . What did they do? Did they follow their President? They made him take close to a $1 billion reduction in excise taxes, and they tagged it on to the bill extending the expiring excise-tax law . . . So, my friend, you are an able master, and we are only copying a page out of your book."

Republican after Republican threw the book of political invective at the Democrats. New York's Representative Dan Reed said the tax cut move was "dishonest," added that it was "propaganda and trickery." Said Philadelphia's Representative Hugh Scott: "In my city, which is controlled by a Democratic city-hall gang, the top price paid for a vote, according to current report, is never more than $1. I am wondering what you gentlemen plan to do with the other $19."

The Democrats lashed back. Cried Louisiana's Representative George Long:* "Do you remember the days of Herbert Hoover when men walked the highways and byways begging for bread?" California's Jimmy Roosevelt shed some light on the true Democratic position: "I particularly, out in my district, ran on a platform of giving tax cuts for the little people . . . We are shaping up one of the great issues that will be fought in 1956."

Grief-Stricken. Sam Rayburn closed for the Democrats with one of his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger speeches: "I have heard some statements made here which grieve me very much. I've heard the word 'blackjacking.' I've heard the phrase 'shoddy deal.' I've heard people talk of buying votes . . . I am going to vote [for] this bill, and I am not trying to buy votes . . . The people who made those statements will live to regret them."

The key vote came on a motion to send the bill back to committee with orders to take out the $20 tax cut. Sixteen Democrats voted against their leadership. Five Republicans jumped ship. The recommittal motion was defeated, 210 to 205. Then the House proceeded to pass the bill--with the tax reduction.

The measure was then sent to the Senate, where it will probably die. For the Democrats it might be better politics dead than alive; the voters will know that the Democrats fought the good fight for lower taxes. If it should pass, the average taxpayer would take home only $1.55 more a week--a dribble unlikely to start a Democratic flood tide, especially if an increased federal budget deficit causes a rise in the cost of living.

* Huey's brother.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.