Representative PATMAN. That makes it doubly bad, because it is so seldom we have all Members present in either House. Under that proposal, it has to be a constitutional three-fourths of the Members elected to that body, which wouldn't require many to obstruct absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. And also unless the amendment established a new cloture rule for the Senate, you would never get it through. Mr. HELLER. Mr. Patman, may I make one comment about the illusions under which I think some States are operating that have supported this amendment. I understand, by the way, the actual number whose memorials to Congress are firm and solid is only about 15 instead of the 26 claimed by the groups pushing for this amendment. Representative PATMAN. But even those 15-I wonder if they realize this would be driving the Federal Government into the very areas of taxation that they now occupy. It really would not open up the income tax to them because they can't impose high rates of income taxation. As I understand, some additional ones may rescind. At one time there were more States approving. I took it upon myself, just as a poor humble Member of the House, to make a few speeches and send those speeches to the 7,500 members of the legislatures of the 48 States, and some of these States that had passed this amendment actually passed an amendment stating they were opposed to it; in other words, to cancel it or wipe it off the books. They didn't want to be certified as being in favor of that type of amendment. I think it was seven States that did that. Investigation will disclose that not a single one of those amendments has passed the legislature of a State after full, free, and fair discussion. Every one of them has passed right at the end of a session, when the opportunity for public consideration was limited. In one legislature they were ready to pass it; maybe they were foolish in inviting me, but I went over to that legislature and answered questions. One plea I made was, like you did just now, about the taxing power. That legislature, although they were ready to pass it, decided not to pass it. If a Member as ineffective as I am can persuade them against it, I know that when the legislatures and people get the truth and logic and reason against it, very few_States will pass or insist upon it. But unanswered, it has an awful appeal. It wouldn't surprise me, if the Congress submitted that amendment to the States, they would probably adopt it right off without sufficient consideration and debate on the theory that the big bureaucracy in Washington ought to be stopped, and if we stop them from taxing, we can tax in our State. It has a tremendous appeal, but when you analyze it like you have, I think the good arguments are all against it, but it is an issue that has to be met in a forthright manner right away, right now. This committee, realizing that, has been making a study, which I hope will be available very soon, and that we can begin to circulate this information and place it where it is needed. The CHAIRMAN. Now let me say for the record that that pamphlet is wholly objective in its purpose. It does not attempt to take sides on this issue, but does attempt to gather together in one compendium, so to speak, all of the facts which seem to have been developed so far. Representative PATMAN. Since Senator Flanders is interested in this as well as other Members, I would like to ask if any of the other members of the panel would like to express an opinion on this proposal. Mr. BUEHLER. Could I say a word? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buehler. Mr. BUEHLER. Pennsylvania is one of the States that passed the resolution, and Senator Martin, who was then Governor, vetoed the resolution. Representative PATMAN. That is right. Mr. BUEHLER. I think our Attorney General has given out the opinion unofficially that the veto would have no legal effect. But I Representative PATMAN. That would be up to Congress to decide. Mr. BUEHLER. I presume so. I thought that was a curious twist. think that underneath the agitation for a constitutional tax limit is not only a resistance to the higher taxes on incomes, but also a resistance to the growing Federal budget. I have had the proposed amendment explained to me as a way by which Congress would be forced into reducing the budget, keeping expenditures down. You would have available only the revenues that could be raised under the 25 percent limitation, and therefore you would have to cut the budget. Actually, the total taxes which would be available might support a much larger budget than we now have. The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt to say I think from what I have seen that there is a very widespread misapprehension among at least some of those who are supporting this movement, that when the requisite number of States have passed a resolution, it will be mandatory that Congress submit such an amendment for ratification; whereas, that isn't the fact at all. Congress would be required only to call a Constitutional Convention, and that Convention could at the same time consider and perhaps report and recommend the amendment which was suggested here this morning, that the Federal Government be given the power to tax real property within the boundaries of the several States. Representative PATMAN. That is under article V of the Constitution, and you are exactly right about it. Senator FLANDERS. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Flanders. Senator FLANDERS. I think this thing might be resolved by a show of hands on the part of the economists. All those in favor of this constitutional amendment, you might ask them to raise their right hands, and those opposed afterwards. can guess very clearly just how the vote would come out. Representative PATMAN. Suppose you do that. The CHAIRMAN. At the suggestion of the distinguished and able Senator from Vermont, the chairman invites those who are in favor of the constitutional amendment to limit to 25 percent for every individual the tax burden which may be levied in a single year upon an individual to raise their hands. There are no hands showing. Those who are opposed please raise their hands. The voting is unanimously against. APPENDIX F SELECTED Bibliography! A. GENERAL Buehler, Alfred G. Public Finance. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1948, 3d ed. 740 p. A general textbook on public finance. Clark, Colin. The Danger Point in Taxes. Harpers Magazine, December 1950, pp. 67-69. Article by famous economist giving recent examples of high taxation and concluding that a rate of 25 percent would appear to be about the limit. Groves, Harold M. Viewpoints on Public Finance. New York, Henry Hold and Co., 1947, pp. 2-23. Selections from various writers on canons of taxation, the benefit principle, sacrifice theories, ability to pay, progressive taxation, proportional taxation, plus a brief bibliography. Kimmel, Lewis H. Taxes and Economic Incentives. Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1950. 217 p. Background discussion of taxable capacity, followed by analysis of economic effects of various types of taxes. Lindholm, Richard W. Public Finance and Fiscal Policy, New York, Pitman Publishing Corp., 1950. 732 p. Textbook review of general tax policy and an analysis of the various types of taxes, their development, purpose, and economic effects. 1 Prepared by Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress. Lutz, Harley L. Guideposts to a Free Economy. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1945. 206 p. States the case against progressive income taxes. Seligman, Edwin R. A. Progressive Taxation in Theory and Practice. Princeton, American Economic Association, 1908, 2d ed. States the case for progressive taxation. Wyden, Peter. Tax Relief for Millionaires Only," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 6, 1952, Part 3. B. AMENDMENT BY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Orfield, Lester B. The Amending of the Federal Constitution. Chicago, Callaghan and Co., 1942. 242p. Extensive review of the amending process. Tydings, Millard E. Federal Constitutional Convention. Washington, Govern ment Printing Office, 1930. 32p. (71st Cong., 2d. sess., Sen. Doc. 78). Compilation showing the applications made to the Senate by State legislatures for calling a constitutional convention. Wheeler, Wayne B. Is a Constitutional Convention Impending? Illinois Law Review, April 1927, pp. 782-803. Extensive review of constitutional amendment by convention. C. ARTICLES ADVOCATING tax limitaTION American Taxpayers Association. Tax Information Series. Various issues of this currently issued series give brief notes on the proposed constitutional amendment. Why the 25 Percent Limit on Federal Taxes. 1944. 28 p. pamphlet. Dangers in the 16th amendment, effect of unsound heavy taxation, the issues involved, etc. Casey, D. E. Our Postwar Welfare Demands a_Limitation of Taxing Power. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on Taxation under the auspices of the National Tax Association, 1945. pp. 307–313. Why a limitation is needed; answers to objections to a limitation. (Reprinted by American Taxpayers Association under title "Federal Taxing Power must be Limited.") Citizens National Committee. A Proposed Amendment to the Constitution: 25 percent Tax Rate Limitation Its Pros and Cons . . . (Research Report No. 2-403). 1945. 23 p. pamphlet. Summary of the proposal, and the pro and con views of various people. Dresser, Robert B. Brief in support of Proposed Constitutional Amendment Limiting the Power of Congress to Impose Taxes on Incomes, Inheritances and Gifts to a Maximum Rate of 25 percent. 1943. 39 p. Committee for Constitutional Government pamphlet. Evil consequences of excessive taxation; quotations from various persons as to such consequences. The Case for a Constitutional Limitation on Federal Taxes. Bulletin of the National Tax Association. March 1944, pp. 170-177. Another statement of the argument in support of the proposal. Robert B. Dresser's reply to objections of Tax Research Division of U. S. Treasury 8 p. Committee for Constituitonal Government pamphlet. A point by point rebuttal of Treasury arguments against the 25 percent limitation. National Research Institute. 17 States Say-Repeal the Income Tax Amendment; Limit U. S. Taxes to 25 percent. 1944. 58 p. pamphlet. Historical development of the tax limitation movement and tax rates; beneficial effect of prior tax reductions. Seidman, M. L. Should a Constitutional Limit be Placed on Federal Income Tax Rates? Modern Industry, March 15, 1944, p. 109. A debate with Professor Groves. Should the Federal Taxing Power Be Limited? Congressional Digest, November 1944, pp. 259-288. A pro and con discussion. D. ARTICLES OPPOSED TO TAX LIMITATION Citizens National Committee. A proposed Amendment to the Constitution: 25 percent Tax Rate Limitation Its Pros and Cons . . . (Research Report No. 2-403). 1945. 23 p. pamphlet. Summary of the proposal, and the pro and con views of various people. Groves, Harold M. Federal Constitutional Tax Limitation. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on Taxation under the auspices of the National Tax Association. 1945. pp. 314-320. Experience of States with tax limitations, fallacies in the arguments of proponents of the limitation, undesirable consequences of the proposed limitation. Should a Constitutional Limit be Placed on Federal Income Tax Rates? Modern Industry, March 15, 1944, p. 109. A debate with Mr. Seidman. Olmstead, H. M. The Tax Limitation Delusion. National Municipal Review, February 1945, pp. 64–68. Discusses and opposes the 25 percent limitation. Patman, Wright. Attack on Sixteenth Amendment to United States Constitution. Congressional Record, May 31, 1951, pp. 6164-6169. Reproduction of Legislative Reference report on the Method of Amending the Constitution being followed by the proponents of the Amendment, together with a reproduction by Mr. Patman of his June 8, 1944, speech on the proponents of the Amendment. Should the Federal Taxing Power Be Limited? Congressional Digest, November 1944. pp. 259–288. pro and con discussion. U. S. Treasury Department, Division of Tax Research, Proposed, Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Federal Tax Rates Exceeding 25 Percent. 1944. 20 p. mimeographed study. Dangerous consequences of the proposed constitutional amendment. FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY NINETIETH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 2307 A BILL TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR CALLING CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS FOR PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ON APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATURES OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE STATES, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION 88-138 OCTOBER 30 AND 31, 1967 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.8. Government Printing Office |