Page 2
University Daily Kansan Monday, Jan. 14, 1952
Daily Kansan Editorials
Please,Mr.Wolf,Let's Raise Less Howl
The final words of President Truman's state of the union address had hardly ceased ringing when the political wolves began to howl.
With a super-charge of drool, brought on by the prospects of an election year, the ancient charges of socialism, reckless government spending and statism were given added vigor.
Ignoring the political stabs, however, the speech is well worth comment. The state of the union during 1952 could have a decisive influence upon the permanent status of the nation. The now obvious trend toward a half-war, half-peace, armed economy can easily become firmly entrenched throughout the nation's structure.
In his address, the President called for further military expansion, an increase in foreign aid, a tightening of inflation controls, higher taxes and more of the so-called fair deal or welfare legislation.
Specific domestic measures requested included increases in social security benefits, civil rights legislation, more conservation, better defense and veteran housing, aid-to-education and health legislation.
Many Congressional leaders casually tossed these requests aside as nonsense. They merely chuckled over the request for higher taxes (in an election year!)
The ridicule of these serious problems by the politicians is not disturbing. We have long been accustomed to not expecting intelligence on their parts (especially during an election year!) The disturbing element is, however, the acceptance of this attitude by many normal persons. It is especially alarming to note this attitude being adopted by some of the supposedly enlightened elements of the population.
The assumption that expenditures for domestic or welfare services by the government must be sacrificed for defense is not only without factual basis, but evokes outright horror when its implications are realized.
The all-for-guns-nothing-for-butter policy, once propounded by the Hitler regime, could conceivably lead the nation to the border of a permanent military state. This grim prospect approaches reality as the sound of the President's warning that large scale production of planes and other equipment will have to continue "for a longer
Daily Kansan
News Room Student Newspaper of the Adv. Room K.U. 251 UNIVERSITY OF KANASIS K.U. 376
Member of the Kansas Press Assn., National Editorial Assn.,
Inland Daily Press Assn., and the Associated College Press.
Represented by the National Advertising Service, 420 Madison
Ave., New York City.
EDITORIAL STAFF
EDITORIAL STAFF
Editor-In-Chief  Alan Marshall
Editorial Associate  Anne Snyder
NEWS STAFF
Managing Editor Charles Price
Assistant Managing Editors Nancy Anderson
Melvin L. McLean, Joe Shenard
Benjamin Holman, Lee Sheppeard, Eilworth Zahm
City Editor
Sports Editor
Telegraph Editor
Social Editor
News Adviser
Charles Burch
Dan Sarten
Katherine Harzts
Victor J. Dotillie
BUSINESS STAFF
period of time than we had originally planned" rings on.
Business Manager ... Bob Sydney
Advertising Manager ... Dorothy Hedrick
Assistant Adv. Manager ... Dick Hale
National Art Manager ... Bill Taggart
Circulation Manager ... Eleanor Baylock
Promotion Manager ... Ted Barnes
Business Adviser ... R, W. Doores
But even if spending for military purposes must continue for an unforeseeable length of time, total neglect of the welfare of the population need not accompany. Certainly such is not the case at present.
In all probabilities, the maintenance of defense needs at the level estimated by the administration will necessitate a hike in taxes in 1952. However, this is possible, along with welfare expenditures, with or without tax increases.
The added revenue which would finance such an economy can be captured by plugging up the present loopholes in the tax bill. It has been estimated that the bill passed in 1951 contained loopholes which allows as much as $4 billion to slip through annually.
Tax loopholes are usually technicalities, seldom recognized by the average taxpayer and almost never publicized as highly as the cost of welfare measures. Nevertheless, they are enjoyed by various business interests, and are actually government subsidies to those who benefit from them. Such subsidies are merely another jack to higher taxes, or what's worse, a contributor to the inflationary spiral.
Tax loopholes are too numerous and some too intricate for all to be considered in a brief space.
One such loophole, under the title of "percentage depletion," cost the government $750 million last year. Under this clause, certain industries dealing in exhaustible resources (e.g. oil) are allowed tax exemption on the first 27.5 per cent of their income. If a company earned $5 million during a year, its exemption would total one and one-eighth million dollars.
In 1947, $400 million dollars was lost by the government in this way. A Treasury department report indicates that 10 persons whose incomes were derived from oil and gas and who earned a total of $62 million paid the same tax rate as a person earning seven thousand dollars.
The percentage depletion clause was enacted in 1926 as a means of aiding prospectors in the oil industry. Since the benefits are available as long as the oil well is in operation, companies which originally needed the subsidation are still deriving benefits from it and at the same time are amassing fortunes.
Tax loopholes are not, however, the lone point at which government revenue is lost. The very same Congressmen who scream loudest at the suggestion of welfare expenditures have done much to throw away hundred millions of dollars of the government's money. In 1951 the Congress enacted new corporation tax rates and made them effective April 1 instead of January 1. The loss of taxes from the record-breaking high during this exempted period amounted to $500 million.
A proposal to reduce the percentage depletion allowance mentioned above was soundly rejected by the Senate by a vote of 71 to 9.
Yet, the Congressmen-politicians have proved their genuine interest in the welfare of the people. In 1951, soon after the new corporation tax rates had been enacted, the Senate halved an appropriation for basic scientific research because the government could not afford the $12 million cost.
Ben Holman.
"By the way Prof. —— What's the name of this course anyway?"
Our Choice Of The Flicks
Everyone from the New York film critics to the local popcorn munchers having submitted a list of the best movies of 1951. We felt it was time to make known our choice.
In order of excellence, the top ten are:
A Streetcar Named Desire
A Place in the Sun An American in Paris Detective Story The Lavender Hill Mob Decision Before Dawn The Red Badge of Courage Strangers on a Train The Frogmen
In other categories:
Worst movie of the year—"The Blue Veil"
Worst movie of the year—"The Blue Veil"
Best actress—Vivien Leigh as Blanche in "Streetcar"
Best actor—Marlon Brando as Stanley in "Streetcar"
Runner-up best actress—Shelley Winters as the factory girl in "Sun."
Runner-up best actor—Robert Walker in "Strangers on a Train."
Best director—Elia Kazan for "A Streetcar Named Desire."
Best single scene—the prison scene in which Elia Kazan's Trial.
Worst actress—Debra Paget in "Bird of Paradise."
Worst actor—Gregory Peck in "David and Bathsheba."
Best director—Elia Kazan for "A Streetcar Named Des
Best single scene—The prison scene in which Elizabeth Taylor says goodbye to Montgomery Clift in "A Place in the Sun."
Best line of dialogue—Vivien Leigh's last words in "Streetcar to the doctor who has come to take her to the insane asylum: "Whoever you are-I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."
Most absurd scene—The song practice in "Take Care of My Little Girl," in which the sorority girls are standing up in hose and heels to warble.
Most promising new actor—Oskar Werner, a Viennese actor, as the German soldier turned U.S. spy in "Decision Before Dawn."
Most promising new actress—Pier Angeli in "Teresa"
Actor who most needs a new role—Clibton Webb.
Most boring picture—"Santa Fe" a Randolph Scott cowbeau show.
Worst screen play—"The Great Caruso."
Most nauseating screen play—"Half Angel."
Biggest disappointment of the year—Ezio Pinza's debut on the screen.
—Anne Snyder.
Where Does College Fit Into The Picture, Or Does It Fit At All?
Most college students feel that college football is over-emphasized. This was indicated last month by results of the Associated Collegiate Press national poll of student opinion.
More than 3,000 students from 65 colleges and universities in all parts of the country were asked: Do you feel that football at most colleges is overemphasized or just about right? The result:
1. Overemphasized ... 53 pet.
4. No opinion 4 pct.
2. Outeremphasized ... 5 pc.
3. Just eyes right ...
2. Underemphasized ... 5 pct.
The farther along a student was in his college career, the more he tended to feel that football was overemphasized. Seventy-three per
Several of the students interviewed blamed overemphasis on sports writers who "put too much stress on the game." Others said it was the fault of the public, which "rates colleges according to sports prestige."
cent of the graduate students interviewed said there was too much stress put on football, while 43 per cent of the freshmen voiced this opinion.
The figures went up according to classes in a steady progression: Sophomores, 53 per cent; juniors, 57 per cent; seniors, 61 per cent.
Students were also asked: Do you
There were no important differences of opinion between men and women.
feel that organized football is (1) as necessary to a college as a history department; (2) less necessary; (3) more necessary? Here are the results:
1. As necessary ... 36 pct.
2. Less necessary ... 53 pct.
3. More necessary ... 6 pct.
4. No opinion ... 5 pct.
A follow-up question asked students to rate football with a zoology department. Results differ only slightly from those of the preceding question:
1. As necessary...30 pct.
2. Less necessary...53 pct.
3. More necessary...8 pct.
4. No opinion...9 pct.
In both questions the attitudes of
graduate students differed markedly from the opinion pattern. Only 12 per cent of the graduate students considered football "as necessary" as a history department; 77 per cent thought it "less necessary." Figures for the zoology question were almost identical.
Several students who voiced "no opinion" declared that football was "the more popular" at their school. A male senior from an eastern college when asked to rate football and a history department declared, "Neither are necessary." His opinion
There were practically no differences of opinion among the other classes; and there were none between men and women.
was shared by six others.
The majority of those who commented seemed to express either one or both of the following attitudes: (1) There is a place at college for a sound athletic program, one which "develops sportsmanship and fair play." (2) College football, in many instances, has "gone commercial."
.
Editor's note: The Student Opinion story next time will deal with the loyalty oath.
Mail subscription: To a semester, $4.50 a year. (In Lawrence add: .00 a semester postage). Published in Lawyers Kans. every afternoon during the University's Saturdays and Sundays. University holds and examination periods. Entered as second matter Sept. 17, 1919, at the Post. Office of Lawrence Kans., under act of March 26, 1919.