Page 2
University Daily Kansan Thursday, May 16, 1963
Practical Patriotism
At the risk of being associated with the extremes of right wing thought, there is something to be said for patriotism.
Not the kind of patriotism which demands of all. "My country, right or wrong"; that is nothing more than an unthinking, blind allegiance tailor made for demagogues.
THE KIND OF patriotism which is worthwhile does not demand unswerving loyalty on all points: in fact, the most worthwhile kind of patriotism demands the opposite.
It demands that every citizen question the goals of his government, and the means employed to achieve those goals. Fortunately, there are enough people who provide the needed questioning of means and goals. More are needed, but the guns of democracy are not without able marksmen.
THE AVERAGE MALE college student still has a military obligation to fulfill. This in itself explains much of the disdain for patriotism. No one in his right mind is happy over the prospect of basic training.
Unless it is a misinterpretation, there is evidence that college students find patriotism "square" or at the very least, nutty.
But you don't have to smile at the thought of two months at Ft. Leonard Wood to be a good patriot, if you will pardon the corn. All it takes is a willingness to shoulder your share of the dirty work.
It is now popular to judge the guy who beats the "rap" (jargon for ducking responsibility), as a smart cookie who is more to be praised than censored. What the hell; the Army can get by without me. That's the rationale.
AND THE EXTREMES which are employed to duck six months or two years of military service are classic.
Last spring, a young college instructor proudly informed us that he was teaching for one basic reason: to beat the draft. He was going to teach for a few years, and then by that time he would have a couple of kids and the Army wouldn't touch him.
You Know What? A Lot Of People Down Hero Are Just Plain Prejudiced Against Us"
Well, that's great. There's no argument—the Army can get along without him. Most certainly a lot of other things could do without him, also. Like this country, for one thing.
For the information of that chiseler and all others like him, it is the dumb guys who serve who keep the shaky flame of freedom from flickering out.
HE TYPIFIES THE sickness of the smart-cookie attitude toward meeting your military obligation. Not only is he smart for beating the rap, those of you who don't crawl on your belly to beat the rap are stupid—real dummies.
So, however "square" it may be, don't be ashamed of having served or being willing to serve. It's the only thing which gives the chiselers the freedom to laugh at you. — Terry Murphy
@1963 HERBLOCK
THE WASHINGTON POST
JFK Tries to Aid Economy With Tax Reform
By Byron Klapper
The tax program proposed by President Kennedy in his third State of the Union message is one of the most important and controversial issues currently before the 88th Congress. Trimming the prosopal to the bare bones, the president asks this:
- Across the board tax reductions for corporations, businesses, and individuals.
- Reforms in the existing tax structure calling for increased efficiency in tax collections, and removing inequalities among taxpayers.
THE PRESIDENT has requested that taxes be cut $13.5 billion. Eleven billion dollars of this would be a reduction in individual taxes. The percentage of taxation, currently ranging from 20 to 91 per cent, would be reduced to a new percentage range of 14 to 65.
To the average taxpayer filing a joint tax return with his wife, this means that the Federal government would get 14 per cent of the first $2,000 of taxable income. Above that the percentage graduates according to income.
For the businessman, the program would alter corporate tax rates, reducing the levy on the first $25,000 from 30 to 22 per cent as an encouragement to small business.
THERE ARE THREE major aspects of the President's reform program. First, the tax base would be broadened through selected changes in the tax structure. Second, the tax payments of large corporations would be shifted to a more current time schedule, increasing tax receipts by an estimated $1.5 billion at the onset. Third, unfair preferences would be abolished.
The existing tax law is full of inequalities and contradictions. During the depression years taxes were altered to encourage buying. During World War II consumer buying was discouraged by tax structures. As special cases came up taxes were amended to meet the situation. The result is a big, complicated and inequitable tax structure.
The tax cut and reforms face their strongest opposition because of deficit spending. On Jan. 7, 1963, the President submitted a $88.8 billion budget to Congress for the coming year. Anticipated revenue for 1963 has been estimated at $86 billion, leaving an estimated deficit of $11.8 billion.
PROPONENTS OF the tax cut are not so concerned about the immediate deficit. They argue that even though a tax cut would add to the deficit, it would produce only a temporary burden. The economy boost which would be gained by a tax reduction would produce higher tax revenues which eventually would balance the budget.
In his message to Congress President Kennedy explained his program this way:
"BECAUSE THIS chronic slack produced inadequate revenues, the anticipated administrative deficit for 1964—without a tax reduction and leaving the present system intact would be $9.2 billion.
"Our choice today is not between a tax cut and a balanced budget. Our choice is between chronic deficit from the chronic (tax) slack on hand, and transitional deficits temporarily caused by a tax revision.
"The inclusion of the tax program-after the feed back revenues from economic stimulation and acceleration of corporate tax payments-will add an additional $2.7 billion to the deficit, bringing it to a total of $11.9 billion. The question now is whether strengthening the economy, which would result from the tax program, is worth the additional 1964 deficit?
"If the tax brake on our economy is not released, the slack will remain, federal revenues will lag, and budget deficits will
persist. In fact, another recession would produce a record peace-time deficit far exceeding the $11.9 billion, and without the positive effects of tax reduction.
"BUT ONCE THIS tax brake is released, the base of taxable income, wages, and profits will grow, and the temporary increase in the deficit will turn into a permanent increase in Federal revenues."
Some economists (but by no means all) believe in what is called the "multiplier factor." They say each new dollar of purchasing power multiplies itself by about 30 per cent in eventual tax revenue. Thus, a $10 billion tax break—that amount of new purchasing power—would eventually return to the treasury in the form of around $30 billion in revenue.
Theoretically, the nation's income would rise in proportion to the tax cut. If increased demand brings higher wages to you, and higher profits to business—and puts more people to work—then the treasury's tax "take" will be higher even thought the tax rate is lower.
Daily Hansan
IH Flint Hall
University of Kansas student newspaper
Telephone Meting s-2700
Extension 711, news room
Extension 376, business office
Founded 1889, became bweekly 1904,
trieweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Services, Inc., United Press International. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sunday afternoons. Annually amination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
Fred Zimmerman ... Managing Editor
Bent Marshall, Bill Sheldon
Ben Marshall, Art Miller, Margaret
Cathcart, Assistant Managing Editors
Scott Payne ... City Editor
Steve Clark ... Sports Editor
Trudy Meresive and
Jackie Stern ... Co-Society Editors
Murrel Bland ... Photograph Editor
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Fred Zimmerman Managing Editor
Ben Morshill Bill Shaden
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Dennis Branister ... Editorial Editor
Terry Murphy ... Asst. Editorial Editor
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Jack Cannon ... Business Manager;
Jim Stevens, Asst. Business Mgr;
Mary Baird ... Anne Zabornik, Circulation Mgr;
Brooks Harrison, Classified Mgr; Bob Hewayward ... Charles Howard Promotion Mgr; Bill Finley,
Merchandising Mgr.
THE TAX BILL has several major obstacles to hurdled in its course through Congress.
One is whether a tax cut and tax reform would pass in the same bill. Many legislators have said the package is too big a bite to chew in one session of Congress.
Another is the practical problem of enacting major reforms in the face of special interest groups exerting pressure to retain existing tax advantages, and, if possible, gain new ones.
The third, and probably the biggest, is that of justifying to conservatives the advisability of a tax reduction without equivalent spending cuts.
KENNEDY CONTENDS it would be a mistake to require that any tax reduction be offset by a corresponding cut in expenditures. The President argues that gains in demands for goods and services through tax reduction would be countered by loss of demand growing out of a cut in federal spending.
The incentive effects of a tax cut would remain,but the number of jobs and output would shrink as government contracts were cut back,workers were laid off,and projects were ended.
In a nutshell, the reasoning behind the tax program and the issues are these:
- The tax cut is geared to strengthening every segment of the economy with emphasis on individual savings by lower income groups who comprise the majority of our population.
- The nation's economic output and growth will be stepped up several times as great as the temporary deficit increase caused by the tax cut. Investments will be stimulated. More money will be spent. Consumption will increase. More jobs and markets will open up.
- Unemployment will be reduced as firms throughout the country hire additional workers to meet the demands for goods caused by larger paychecks.
- The existing tax system and fiscal policy does not appear to produce a dequate revenue necessary for the security of the nation, the challenge in space, and the well-being of the American people.
On these presumptions the President is seeking Congressional support for his program. The success or failure of the tax proposal rests heavily on two fundamental bases of the program.
(2) Assume that the tax cut does stimulate the economy of the United States. Will the purchasing of consumer goods increase to the extent of showing a large enough economy boost to prove out the President's belief that a chain reaction would result?
(1) Will a $13.5 billion tax cut stimulate the economy?
A NATIONWIDE survey by the Associated Press brought varied replies from taxpayers who told what they would do with a tax break of about $100. Only one-third of those interviewed replied they would buy something with the additional money.
Some said they would pay debts. Others would apply it to local taxes. Still others would put it in the bank. For many households a $100 tax cut spread among 12 monthly installments would be absorbed into the daily expenditures.
A Los Angeles economist said, "I think it would stimulate the economy, but the side effects . . . might not be favorable in all respects." He clarified "side effects" as being a potential loss of confidence in the dollar, inflation, and, "It might bring to the fore more aggressively balance of payments and the outflow of gold.'