Plain Talk

Wendell Willkie offered U.S. voters Spartan fare: tightened belts and a monstrous tax burden. At New York Times Hall, he asked $16 billion in taxes this year. That was double what the Administration asked, and nearly eight times as much as Congress had voted. In the name of soldiers in battle he asked: "Why should we be comfortable?

"What shall we say to them if, while they are gone, we have rolled up a debt so vast that they will be saddled all the rest of their lives with interest on money that we at home have refused to pay?

"We have been following a fiscal primrose path. It is time for us to face up. We must actually materially lower the American standard of living during the war. We must tax to the limit every dollar, corporate and individual, that is capable of bearing a tax. . . . That limit is reached only when the war effort itself is threatened. All else must be sacrificed."

Sacrifice. Then Candidate Willkie explained why he thinks enormous sacrifices are necessary. Said he: unless we get tough with ourselves, the U.S. will face the peace with a $300 billion debt. The annual interest alone will be $6 billion--almost as big as the entire 1934 budget. To save our standard of living in the future, our standard of living today must go down. Only by making sure that our economic blood stream is not choked by debt will we be able to preserve--for ourselves, our fighting men and our children--the 1789 American ideal, of a society operated by free men on their own initiative.

"Socalled political experts tell you that the American people will never stand for a tough tax program. I do not agree. . . ."

Horror. Politicians were horrified. President Roosevelt smilingly told the press he wished he had that much nerve. Minnesota's Harold Knutson, Republican member of the influential House Ways & Means Committee, said: "Congress rejected the President's tax program because it would have wiped out the middle class and jeopardized the solvency of all business, yet Mr. Willkie would raise double the amount."

Willkie thus again dramatically underlined his gigantic campaign gamble: to prove that his daring struck a deeper American chord than his Party's timidity. The opposition of the Old Guard he expected and welcomed.

Willkie heard as much controversy over the political wisdom of making the speech as he did over the fiscal wisdom of what he said. Even his friends and advisers thought it was an unpalatable truth that no voter would swallow. But Willkie, off to the West for a look at his outer defenses from Wisconsin to Washington, could take heart. The pros were horrified because this strong medicine might be distasteful to the people. But perhaps the people were pleased because this strong medicine was distasteful to the pros.

Had his speech been unwise? Said the New York Times: "Willkie strengthened the conviction . . . [that he is] head and shoulders above any other man [for] the Republican nomination."

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