Background for Peace

Sirs:

Congratulations on your Background for Peace article [TIME, March 22], the finest thing of its kind I have read. You have covered much territory in a few words, and given your readers a real basis for thought and action. I believe you are doing the type of thinking the Church ought to be doing but sometimes fails to do.

G. AUBREY YOUNG

Minister

The Presbyterian Church

Hagerstown, Md.

Sirs:

I want to express my appreciation. . . . I am glad you understand that this is a "time for greatness."

W. R. CATTON

St. Johns, Mich.

Sirs:

. . . It will give every reader a feeling of faith and courage, and hope for the future.

R. J. NOBLE

White Plains, N.Y.

Sirs:

. . . The best answer I have found to the question "What are we fighting for?" . . . Background for Peace, if pointed with force at the minds of all free-thinking people, will give us more backbone for war.

SERGEANT JOHN P. BLACK,

U.S.A.A.F.

APO 3556

c-o Postmaster

New York City

Sirs:

. . . In the light of what your Background for War did for the effective broadcasting of intelligence concerning the making of World War II, I am sure you will contribute creatively to the making of a worthy world peace.

RICHARD L. OWNBEY

Reidsville, N.C.

God Knows

Sirs:

"Never again will I prostitute my Christian ministry to the idealizing of any war" (TIME, March 15) said Harry Emerson Fosdick in 1939. He may have said it; he did not mean it. A caring moral man cannot be indifferent to the awful needs of a sorely stricken world.

. . . A man reading history without prejudice knows that out of wars which liberty-loving men have fought through all ages have come the freedoms and the blessings we enjoy.

I do not know why we largely learn obedience by what we suffer. I do not know why there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. I do not know why; God knows. . . .

REV. WILLIAM A. BROWN

Cave Junction, Ore.

Hat-Check Bar

Sirs:

The enclosed picture (see cut) was obtained in Omaha. . . .

The picture does not show all of the 147 hats now on the wall. A couple of the hats there are dainty feminine headgear from those who have gone to the WAACs or WAVES.

The place is called The Diamond Bar . . . and the proprietor is Sam Moskovitz, a corporal in the Army Air Force. . . .

The names visible are Greek, Jewish, Russian, Slovak and run the whole gamut of countries. The proprietor's hat is at the right of the word "check."

A. B. EPPERSON

Klamath Falls, Ore.

Poets and a Better Day

Sirs:

I write this fully realizing that a man's worth is not gauged by the length of his obituary, yet I could not help but notice that in its March 22 issue, TIME devoted 292 lines to the passing of John Pierpont Morgan while it squeezed Stephen Vincent Benet into a mere 25.

You will tell me, of course, that Morgan was bigger news than Benet, and that a newsmagazine prints the news. Yet I think that America and American journalism would do itself proud if it would listen now & then to its poets. . . .

I am afraid that an America which honors its Morgans before its Benets will never lead the world to a better day. . . .

1943 finds us Americans in desperate need. We need, I suppose, money and a sound stockmarket. But far, far more we need high ideals and a vigorous spirit of faith. . . .

ROBERT O. SCHULZE

Springfield, Ill.

> TIME agrees that a man's true worth cannot always be gauged by the length of his obituary--even in TIME.--ED.

Ruml Confusion Compounded

Sirs:

As one of your most faithful readers, I have been disturbed and annoyed by your reporting of news about the Ruml plan. . . . Your editorial position is, I think, wholly wrong; and your reporting has served to compound confusion. . . . .

Mr. Ruml and TIME are distressed about the excessive indebtedness of people to the Treasury. Most economists, on the other hand, are alarmed about the excessive indebtedness of the Treasury to the people. One of these views is mistaken! Forgiving accrued, unpaid taxes and raising future taxes are opposite lines of action. If one is right, the other is wrong.

No amount of arithmetic and accounting sophistry . . . should be allowed to conceal the central fact, namely, that the Ruml plan involves an enormous handout to the large taxpayer, especially if he is elderly or soon to be retired. . . .

We desperately need source collection and heavy taxes from 1943 incomes during 1943. Taxes under the 1942 Act are pitifully inadequate. Let us, therefore, simply impose on current 1943 incomes a flat-rate or "normal" tax sufficient, along with payments on 1942 incomes, to afford adequate collections during 1943. This additional levy should be collected at source, at a rate, of say 30%. . . .

If this scheme involves some doubling up, it also involves discharging obligations against two years' taxable incomes at once. . . . Great civilian sacrifices cannot be imposed without some inordinate hardships (nor can military casualties be nicely divided up among soldiers). . .

The Ruml proposals have created a political situation in which we could not get either adequate tax rates or adequate source collection without buying off a powerful lobby with big handout to the large taxpayer. The Treasury and the Ways & Means Committee, in spite of the press, have rendered distinguished public service in blocking this pressure group and refusing its demands. They richly deserve most of the criticism they have received for their sins of omission and procrastination in tax legislation. TIME, however, should give credit to the Treasury and Committee when their position is sound--if only to attack more effectively when their behavior is patently foolish or irresponsible.

HENRY C. SIMONS Associate Professor of Economics The University of Chicago Chicago

> For Professor Simons' trenchant reminder that the Ruml plan is no cure-all for raising large additional taxes this year, TIME'S thanks. In its March 15 issue, TIME did in fact present the Treasury's case.--ED.

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