CT) long as the people of the United States ^ demand paternalistic card from the Federal government, .just, so lopg will they pay into the coffers of the Federal govern ment the major portion of their earnings. It is simple mathematic*—arithmetic. The Federal government gets the [funds from taxes placed upon the people. Federal re ceipts for other sources are inconsequent ial. Therefore, the more you demand, the more you pay. Federal income taxes, to say nothing of state income taxes, are becoming confisca tory. Take the example of Charles \ an Doren, the New York $4.500-a-Vear teacher who recently won, by his skill and know ledge, $129,000 on a TV quiz program. Aft er paying his Federal income tax he will have left $28,195. Not many people are fortunate enough to make $1?9,000, or to keep $28,195, but it is impressive to every one who saw the TV show that income tax es are out of proportion. Evejn those who have an income of $3,000 pay 20 percent, and above that figure 30, 40, 50, up to 90 percent. What incentive is there for an ambitious person, who knows that a major portion of his earned income will be taken in taxes? How long can this continue in a free nation? The way to slop it is to cut) the annual federal budget, to reduce expenditures, subsidies, foreign aid and unnecessary de fense expenses. To achieve this condition the people must speak, write their congress men, and demand a paring of unessential expenditures. This is being done and for the first time in some years Congress is becoming a bit more economy iminded. Senator Harry F. Byrd, as in his custom is about to present the Byrd Budget to Con gress. It will show savings of approximately $5.5 billion. If this can be achieved, and the outlook this year is more favoijable, two ef fects can result. First, a portion of the savings can he used to reduce I the national deb: and a portion used in tax reductions. Or, as we would approve, use the entire amount for the reduction of the national

69.7%