Putting Off theTax Bill till '68

"The script," allowed House Republican Leader Gerald Ford, "is a good one from our standpoint." Indeed, the plot that he laid out was compelling, if not exactly original. It called for G.O.P. Representatives and their Southern Democratic allies to deny Lyndon Johnson his request for an unpopular tax increase, beat every tom-tom and kettledrum for economy, and force the President to take responsibility for specific spending cuts. The House last week voted 238 to 164 to do just that.

Amending a routine financing measure, the House lopped between $5 billion and $8 billion off projected federal spending in the current fiscal year. The exact amount was impossible to reckon because of massive loopholes embodied in overlapping amendments approved by the House and because the actual amount of war expenditures is uncertain. The first amendment, proposed by Mississippi Democrat Jamie Whitten, would limit spending for many activities to last year's level. But the Viet Nam war and a number of domestic programs such as highway construction and Medicare were specifically exempted from the ceiling. The second amendment, put forward by Ohio Republican Frank Bow, put an arbitrary limit of $131.5 billion on all spending with the proviso that Johnson could add to that figure only to meet new war costs. The effect of the bill would be to compel Johnson to gut such programs as educational aid, urban development, antipoverty operations and foreign aid.

Do-It-Yourself Kit. It was a blatant bit of buckpassing. Moreover, only a week earlier the House had passed a pay increase for civilian employees that was more generous than the Administration had requested. That bill singled out the postal workers, who have the most powerful civil service lobby, for a larger raise than other groups and denied employees of the Office of Economic Opportunity any raise at all. Many of the most economy-minded Congressmen protested when the Administration recently imposed temporary freezes on certain construction projects. In the course of a six-hour debate last week, members loyal to the faltering Democratic leadership tried in vain to remind the House that 1) Congress has the power and responsibility to set appropriations on its own, and 2) economy could well begin in the House itself.

New Jersey's Charles Joelson was brushed aside when he proposed a "do-it-yourself economy kit" with which each Congressman would trim 5% from federal projects in his own district. Michigan's Martha Griffiths captured the mood perfectly when she volunteered: "If the rest of you want to cut something out of your districts, I'll be glad to help." No one took up the offer. Silvio Conte of Massachusetts pointed to the "Capitol police falling all over themselves, elevator operators running automatic elevators." Even Arizona's John Rhodes, who as chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee had every reason to feel victorious, lamented: "There's got to be a better way to run a Congress than this."

Murky Tableau. Until that way is found, Capitol Hill will have to make do with the present system, which at least provides a check when one house gets too mischievous. The Senate is expected to block or greatly modify the Whitten and Bow amendments, following the lead of its Appropriations Committee. Last week the committee stripped the amendments from the resolution to which they had been added and approved for floor action a simple measure that allows financing of agencies whose appropriations have not yet been passed. There will doubtless be continued wrangling over federal spending and Johnson's request for a 10% income-tax surcharge, but the prospects for resolution could be discerned even in last week's murky tableau.

A number of budget reductions, totaling more than $3 billion, will likely be agreed upon by the time all the appropriations bills are passed. This would amount to a partial victory for House leaders, such as Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills, who have been insisting that there is no hope of a tax increase without rigorous cutbacks by the Administration. Even so, there is still too much opposition to permit passage of a tax bill during the balance of 1967. However, Mills now believes that the economy is accelerating the way the Administration predicted it would. Therefore some tax increase--although not necessarily the full 10%--may well be enacted early in 1968.

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