 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Edward P. Morgan and Don Hollenbeck, both of the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Noah Mason, Republican Congressman from Illinois and member of the Ways and Means Committee. Representative Mason, I don't suppose there's a person in the country who wouldn't like to see his taxes cut, but the average citizen is nervous against the rise of Soviet power, particularly air power, and the administration itself seems to be quite riven on this subject. As a ranking Republican member of the House Ways and Means Committee, what are your views on it, sir? Well, as far as we can determine, there is very little immediate need for active forces in Europe at the present time. We must keep prepared. We're the president who is an expert in the military field. We feel that we now can depend upon him for, at least, full preparedness for anything that might come. And we do not need to worry too much about this discussion of cutting the air force and other things because we feel satisfied that it will be kept at its full capacity. Well, Mr. Congressman, we've been told by the Secretary of the Treasury that we are going to have a reduction in income taxes the first of the year, also that the excess profits tax will not be extended. How are we going to get the revenue that will be lost? Some five billion. Is that not true that represented by that? That's practically true that there will be lost five billion dollars in the reduction in income taxes of practically ten percent in January, and also the excess profits tax ending in January. That means a five billion dollar loss. The administration feels, however, so far as I can learn, that they're going to cut the expenditures again next year anywhere from six to eight billion dollars, and so that will take up for the loss of those automatic reductions in taxes. Where will those cuts come in your understanding, Mr. Congressman? The cuts are definitely scheduled to come in our foreign giveaway policy. More than half the cuts will come in that one field. The others will be cuts here and there in the various departments as they produce better and more efficiency at less cost. There will not be, as I understand it, much of a cut from now on in our defense program. Well now, Mr. Congressman, you refer to a foreign giveaway program. Would you suggest that we cut this even deeper than it's planned to be cut? Well, to be very frank with you, sir, I have felt that we could have cut it more than in half for the last five years. Where would you make the cuts, sir? I would make the cuts in our allocations to the various governments, Italy for one, France for another, and by all means, Great Britain, where we've been handing out the most of our money. We've been handing out at the rate of seven and eight billion dollars a year for the last five or six years. Do you consider this wasted money? I consider a large part of it wasted money. I was a native Welchman, Mr. Mason, and immigrating to this country at the age of six, I suppose you have no constituents in Wales, but you have a, at the same time, a personal feeling about it, you still think that this is the situation. I do. I was one who voted against the last British loan, and I was quizzed by my colleagues, and they said, well, I know you ought to at least support that loan. Well, now, can we take the tax picture a little bit farther than the first of the year, sir? What will be the situation in April when I understand some other taxes come up for review? Well, on April the 1st, there is scheduled under our tax bill of 1951 that the 52% on corporation tax is to go back to 47%, and the increases in our excise taxes and whatever new excise taxes that were placed in the 1951 tax bill, there to be end, there to end. That will be in another loss of about five billion dollars. Now, this might be a good place to ask what you think should be instituted to take, to compensate for these losses, because even if you cut the foreign programs, and of course we remember that members of your own party are not all in agreement with you on that, what are you going to use to substitute? There's been a lot of talk of a national sales tax. You yourself have been quoted on that. Perhaps you've clarified for us. I was informed about a week or so ago that the Treasury had practically decided upon recommending a flat 5% retail sales tax. I wasn't sure whether that was to be in lieu of all these excise taxes that we're now collecting, but I understood it was. Now, the states have preempted, you might say, the retail sales tax field. Some 33 of them, is that right? Yes indeed, and a good many of the large cities have already gotten into that field. I felt that the national government should stay out of the retail sales tax field, and therefore I instructed our experts to draft a bill for me for a flat national manufacturer sales tax, collected at its source. That is the cheapest tax to collect. It is the easiest tax to administer. And it has a great many advantages besides keeping the federal government out of the tax field that the states have already preempted. Well, the consumer still pays the bill, of course. Oh yes, the consumer pays the bill for all taxes, regardless the ultimate incident of all taxes is the consumer. But the complaint about the national sales tax is that the consumer has to pay it. Well, the consumer has to pay for all of these excise taxes which have been put on haphazard in a capricious manner, inequitable, running from anywhere from 5% up to 30%. I think a flat national manufacturer sales tax in lieu of that would be much simpler and easier. Well, could you give a specific example now of where a manufacturer's sales tax would be more equitable and easier to collect than a retail sales tax? It would be easier to collect in the fact that you would be dealing with some 300,000 manufacturers instead of 3 million retailers. That's easier to collect. Now then, under our present system, if I buy a refrigerator for the kitchen, I pay a 15% tax. If I buy a stove for the kitchen, I pay no tax. If I buy a $500 per coat for my wife, I pay $100 tax on it. If I buy a $500 suit for myself, I pay no tax if it isn't a fur suit. That's quite a suit, though. Mr. Mason, haven't you got an anomaly just the same? With Mr. Humphrey, the Secretary of the Treasury, on the one hand indicating that we're going to get some preconditioned cuts in taxes, as it were, and on the other, you and other members of the Congress having to busy yourselves with new sources of revenue. Doesn't one cancel out the other? No. These automatic cuts could and should be taken up with reductions in expenditures. The national manufacturer's sales tax that I am going to propose will have in it automatically repeals of every excise tax now on the books with the exception of liquor and tobacco. That means they're just substituting a flat tax for all of these inequitable unjust taxes. When I used to say reductions in expenditures, you've said you would like to see the foreign aid program cut. Where else would you suggest reductions in expenditures? Domestically, for instance. Domestically? Yes. When I first came to Congress 16 years ago, there were about 600,000 people on the federal payroll, the civilian payroll. Today there are over two and a half million on the civilian payroll. Then the payroll amounted to a billion and a half a year. Now it's running at the rate of ten billion dollars a year. Senator Byrd has said for the last ten years, and the Hoover Commission said practically the same, that you could cut the federal payroll practically in half and get more work done and better work done after you got rid of the dead timber on it. And I agree. Where else could you, how about social legislation and things like that, would you suggest any reductions in that? No, because we don't know exactly just where we're going on social legislation today and there are commissions now working on the Social Security program and the other program to see where they can be operated more efficiently and at less expense, but to do as much of the work as is being done. In two words or maybe just a little more, Mr. Mason, an answer to a last question. Where do you think the tax picture is going to be actually in 54? Up or down? Just very quickly. Automatically, of course, these go off in January. We've been promised that. Automatically they're supposed to go off in April. There will be a battle on that, I'm quite sure. And there will be another battle on whether we are having a retail sales tax or a national sales tax with it being an election year and I predict there will be very little changes in that score next year. Thank you, Mr. Mason, very much indeed. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the non-gene chronoscope was Edward P. Morgan and Don Hollenbeck, both from the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Noah Mason, congressman from Illinois and member of the Ways and Means Committee. As with so many championship sports events in all fields, the official watch for timing the world's heavyweight title at the polar grounds between Rocky Marciano and Roland Lestaza is Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch in the world of sport. Now, if you're one of the millions who follow this championship boxing bout and if you need a watch either for a timing an international sports event or for your own personal use, Laun Jean is logically your watch of first choice among the fine watches of the world. Now, the facts are that among the world's fine watches, Laun Jean watches alone have won 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals, highest honors for accuracy from the leading government observatories. So, when next you buy a very fine watch, either for yourself or as an important gift, remember these facts and remember too that although it is one of the very finest watches made anywhere in the world, you can buy a Laun Jean watch for as little as 7150. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Laun Jean Witner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch and Witner Distinguished Companion to the World Honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Witner watches are sold and service from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jurors who proudly display this emblem, agency for Laun Jean Witner watches. History repeated and you are there, Sundays on the CBS television network.