ustxtxb_obs_1960_06_03_50_00001-00000_000.pdf

We will serve no group or party but will hew hard to the truth as TV C find it and the right as we see it. The one great rule of composition is to speak the truth. THOREAU The Te PP c c . c g .k. ,\\,—i ,,,,,,,,,,., . ,0 ,,,-,..A,,. \\ b ,_,,,,.0,,,.., y .,.. ciq ,I,Ge’ , e . al Weekly Newspaper .0`,..’ .AAS, JUNE 3, 1960 Vol. 52 server lOc per copy No. 9 Johnson’s .Record I LOYALTY HURDLES INCREASED AGAIN BUSINESS Taxation: Not Liberal Johnson evidently started out as a liberal on taxation: in 1944, for instance, he favored limiting large salaries for the duration of the war, a losing cause. In the Senate, however, he has followed a policy of supporting a few liberal reforms and opposing most of them. In 1951 there AUSTIN, WASHINGTON Apart from all the falderol, what has Lyndon Johnson really done in his 23 years in the Congress? Pieced together from voting evaluations, Congressional Record and Congressional Quarterly, files in the Democratic National Cornmittee and U.S. AFL-CIO, and the day-to-day votes themselves, the Johnson performance is different in important ways from the Johnson image in pursuit of the presidency. This week, for example, in reports on the senator’s records on business, labor, and government, it is clear that he has voted more conservatively on taxes, interest rates, and issues of concern to unions than is generally believed. His liberalism in public welfare spending and public power , and other public works projects is strongly sustained. But his record on cutting the Republican budget indicates he is turning against high government spending, at least for argument’s sake. Next week the Observer will sum-up the solid facts about Johnson’s performance on social issues, agriculture, civil rights and civil liberties, and foreign policy. was a campaign to levy an excess corporation profits tax. Johnson voted against applying the tax to profits over 75 percent of income, favoring 85 percent; he supported special relief from the law for some businesses, including notably oil; but he sided with liberals favoring an early effective date for the profits tax. This year also, Johnson opposed liberals’ attempts to add a withholding tax on dividends and interest on corporate bonds; raise the capital gains tax three percent \(Truman had proposed a 12.5 on couples earning $10,000 or less while raising them on those earning more than that. Johnson’s weaving record on personal income tax exemptions started with his statement in a March, 1954, newsletter advocating “increasing the personal income tax exemption. A $200 per year increase would mean an annual saving of aboltit $160 for a married man with two children,” he wrote. That year, he voted for a $100 increase in exemptions. He also voted for a flat $20 reduction in individual income taxes. Both ideas lost. There then appeared, in the final tax a deduction of four percent of dividend income from total personal income taxes, While many liberals voted nothis was the tax bill Democrats said gave ’73 percent of the tax relief to corporations and the wealthyJohnson voted aye. The next year Johnson ‘supported the $20 tax cut again, but again it lost. In November, 1955, he was still proposing, in his AUSTIN In an attempt to head off a. possible “deal” between Johnson forces and conservatives desiring to control the state Democratic machinery in the September state convention, loyalist Democrats of Texas Club leaders this week are adding. one new party loyalty hurdle for delegates to the June 14 state convention. Already Texas AFL-CIO and D.O.T.C. leaders have agreed that June delegates be required to pledge party loyalty to Democratic nominees before being admitted to the June convention and that county and precinct chairmen be required to pledge loyalty or be removed from their positions. Austin reports indicated in some counties, notably Travis, Democrats who have supported Eisenhower for president might agree to stay away from the June convention in return for Johnson people staying away from the September convention. Creekmore Fath, D.O.T.C. secretary treasurer, announced in Austin that accordingly, the June convention credentials committee will be asked to require that all elected delegates to the June convention who are not in attendance be circularized by mail within two weeks after the state convention, be asked to send back a loyalty oath, and, if they do not, be denied credentials to the September convention. Under the “Johnson law” passed by the 1959 legislature, delegates to the June convention also serve as delegates to the September convention. A dispute broke out over hotel rooms for the Austin convention. Mrs. R. Max Brooks, vice chairman of the state Democratic executive committee, confirmed that only regular county delegates will get rooms through S.D.E.C. “No rump convention delegates will be recognized,” she said. S.D.E.C. has also rented, not only the new city auditorium, but also the nearby city coliseum it might be needed, for “the overflow”for committee meetings or possibly even for accommodations. Woodrow Seals, Harris County Democratic chairman , and leader of the loyalist rumpers from Houston, called the hotel rooms decision “high handed, childish, and arbitrary.” In a prepared statement, Jack Matthews, secretary of the Harris County party committee, was quoted saying Clyde Johnson of S.D.E.C. had told him there would be no rooms for any bolters of county conventions. Seals said Mrs. Brooks told Matthews all rooms assigned to Harris County went to the delegation headed by Walter Sterling that is, the conservative delegation. “When I present our contest, must I go to sleep in my car while awaiting the committee’s deciSion?” Seals asked. “Apparently Mrs. Brooks and \(state nally think they have the authority to decide for themselves who should be recognized at the convention. Such people have stolen conventions before, but it is childish vindictiveness to withhold hotel rooms from Democrats who declined to endorse a, particular candidate for the presidency.” In Austin, naturally, plans were being made to house the rumpers. Mildred Hathcock, a secretary at the State AFL-CIO and secretary of the Travis County rump convention, was co-ordinating the location of rooms in private homes, which were being volunteered by loyalist Democrats here, and in motels. If a rump convention develops in Austinas it seems almost certain toit may be held on the banks of the Colorado, across a street from the coliseum; in a nearby ball park; or on the Capitol grounds, after a march down Congress Avenue. Clyde Johnson, who has succeeded Jake Pickle as S.D.E.C.’s director, told the Observer in customary for the state committee to provide hotel accommodations only for regular delegations to the state convention, and not remarked to Matthews that Matthews should ask Sen. Johnson who decided to accommodate the Sterling delegation from Houston, he was being facetious: Johnson had nothing to do with it; and ing the “cowbarn” as well as the auditorium were made before the county conventions on the expectation that there would be a reception for Johnson, probably now superceded by the $50-a-plate dinner June 13. “program with a heart,” “a tax revision to benefit the low income groups.” The Democrats’ 1956 platform supported a $200 increase in the $600 personal income tax deduction. In 1957, Johnson cast a tax vote for the major corporations. Senator Fulbright, in a test on progressive business taxation, proposed reducing the tax on companies earning less than $225,000, a year and making up the lost income by increasing it on bigger companies. Johnson voted no, and the motion lost, 52-33. \(In 1958 the Majority Leader was not present for the vote on a similar propoIn his legislative program for the Democrats for 1958, Johnson dropped out promises of tax cuts. As early as April, Marquis Childs reported Johnson and GOP Secretary of the Teasury Robert Anderson had reached an “informal agreement” against any tax cuts. In May, The New York Times reported that Johnson, Rayburn, and Anderson had so agreed, quoting Johnson: “It’s pretty obvious you can’t not for . . . I think that’s it.” When his Texas colleague, Senator Yarborough, proposed a $200 increase in personal exemptions, to which he had himself alluded in his 1954 newsletter, the Majority Leader voted noa telling development. Johnson also opposed, in this year of recession, various pump-priming tax plans of liberals: a flat $50 personal tax decrease, coupled with small business tax relief, proposed ‘by Sen. Douglas, and liberals’ attempts to lower or repeal federal sales, .freight, and transportation taxes. In 1959, while opposing the President’s requested 1.5-cents increase in the federal gasoline tax in favor of a 1-cent increase, Johnson opPosed a motion to deny tax deductions for certain entertainment, gift, and travel expenses. Johnson voted, in 1959, for three changes liberals supported: stop letting taxpayers deduct four percent of their dividend income abolish the ten percent travel tax; and increase federal relief payments. The three changes he supported passed. But, as Johnson expected, even these were dropped in the House-Senate tax conference, and a simple extension of the old rates proposed. Time 1Vingazine attributed the conferees’ action to “the long arms” of Johnson and Rayburn. In protest, 35 Democrats in the Senate voted no on the extension of the rates, while Johnson was joining the 57-to-35 majority. Sens. Proxmire and Douglas charge that the Texas defense of the oil depletion allowance is preventing the closing of many other federal tax loopholes beneficial to buiness taxpayers. Johnson has sided with oil on every Senate tax test since he has been there: in 1951, 1958, and 1959, he voted against a sliding scale reduction of the depletion allowance. Interest: Varied Votes Johnson has joined in Democratic oratory ‘against tight monty and high interest. However, on occasion he has voted for higher interest rates. During debates on the 1957 housing act, Johnson opposed a motion by Sen. Gore to enlarge the government’s secondary mortgage market for home loans and to prohibit the discounting of home loans backed by the U.S. government. On a party-line vote, however, Johnson stayed with his party against 3.5 percent on college housing loans. Twice in 1958, Johnson was numbered among the enemies of tight money. When the Senate voted to permit the Veterans’ Administration to raise the interest rate on GI loans from 4.5 to 4.75 percent, Johnson voted no; in fact, only six Democrats agreed to the higher rate. Again, the Democrats attempted to lower the interest rate on funds loaned by the federal government to state and local governments from three to 3.5 percent in the depressed areas bill. Only two Democratsboth from Virginia voted for 3.5 percent. However, in 1959 Johnson voted for high interest, opposing a los .ing motion to prevent an increase in the GI loan interest rate from 4.75 percent to 5.25 percent. Only Texas “nays.” He was recorded as simply present. Not withstanding the 1957 experience, this year’s complete opposition frOm the Texas delegation came as a mild surprise. A handful of the state’s congressmen, possibly five or six, had been expected to go along with this year’s bill, a measure which liberals considered moderate. There were strong indications that the controversial anti-segregation Powell amendment returned this small band back to the camp of the conservatives. The Powell amendment provides that all classrooms built with federal money will be available for the use of all students, regardless of race, creed, or color. All Texans recorded voted against the in Bolt Certain, Connally Says ABILENE State Democratic executive committee chairman J. Ed Connallya Johnson leader heresaid in an Abilene Reporter-News interview this week that the state convention June 14 will not adopt the individual loyalty pledge for delegates which loyalistliberals and the Texas AFLCIO are insisting upon. He said the convention will be a stormy affair. “Mrs. Randolph will hold her own convention regardless of what we do,” he said. He believed the convention would adopt a general, convention-wide loyalty pledge to the nominees and bind presidential electors to vote for the party nomineesbut that was all. “This will establish the loyalty of the convention,” he said. Connally said Mrs. Randolph definitely will not be renamed to the national committee. “I think Mrs. R. .Max . will be elected, and she will be a great national com