Miami Labor Citizen

TALLAHASSEE. - Whether he knew it or not, State Comptroller Clarence M. Gay gave the sales taxers a big boost in this session of the Legislature when he kept mum about an anticipated $10,000,000 increase in state revenue available to finance operation of state departments during the next two years.

The Senate already had put the stamp of approval on record high state spending to be financed with increased sales taxes on the little man while the House Appropriations Committee was struggling manfully to hold expenditures down to anticipated revenue from existing tax sources.

The economy-minded House wanted to spare the citizens of Florida from the painful necessity of having to pay the state for the privilege of buying overalls and aspirin tablets.

Acting on figures supplied by the Comptroller's office, the House Committee finally came in with a bill that contained spending within the $253,000,000 the Comptroller estimated state revenue would amount to during the next two years.

The result of the Committee's Herculean efforts was a spending bill that thoughtful observers agreed was unrealistic. Trying to stay within the $253,000,000 limit, the Committee had not in some instances provided enough money for the efficient and proper operation of necessary governmental functions.

What happened after that turned the Committee's efforts into a sorry spectacle. Members of the House started tearing the bill apart with amendments to increase various appropriations until it soon became apparent it would be impossible to hold the line. The House was headed toward passage of an appropriations measure totaling at least as much as the Senate bill.

An attempt to put the brakes on the spending splurge was made by a group that sought to compromise differences between the economy-at-all-costs thinkers and those who believed state departments must have increased appropriations in some cases.

This group, headed by Rep. Farris Bryant of Ocala with Rep. James S. Moody of Hillsborough prominent in its leadership, came up on Monday morning after a week-end conference with a compromise spending bill calling for expenditures totaling $263,000,000 including about $10,000,000 for necessary state building.

Where was the money coming from? This group had some strange information. From the office of the State Budget Director it had learned anticipated revenues, because of a banner tourist season and an improvement in the Korean war outlook, would total $10,000,000 more than Mr. Gay's first estimate.

Mr. Gay belatedly confirmed the accuracy of this estimate. The compromise proposal was defeated and the House, in a surge of spending psychology, voted out a record high $268,000,000 bill for operating expenses without a dime for state building needs, which, according to most conservative estimates, will total $10,000,000 in the next biennium.

If the conference committee of House and Senate working out differences in the bills passed by the two chambers early this week had not had the information about the extra $10,000,000 in available revenue smoked out of the Comptroller's office, it would be laboring under the impression it needed exactly that amount in extra new taxes. That proposition would have been right down the alley of the sales taxers. And as matters now stand, the state will need at least an extra $5,000,000, which still leaves the threat of a broader sales tax hanging over the voters' heads.

The whole outcome might have been a great deal different if the appropriations committee had been supplied with the correct revenue estimate by Mr. Gay in the first place. With something more nearly equal to the needed amount of money to work with, the House Committee would have been able to come out with a realistic appropriations bill which would have discouraged attempts to amend it for more extravagant spending.

Why didn't Mr. Gay give the committee the information if needed? That is an interesting question. Perhaps the committee didn't ask for it, thinking Mr. Gay's original figures were not subject to change. That is aside from the point. It was Mr. Gay's duty as a public official to supply the committee with the needed information when it became apparent his first estimate would be a liberal revision.

Could it be true that Mr. Gay actually would like to see an across-the-board sales tax because it would be easier for his office to collect and to enforce? If so, that is a poor reason. It has nothing to do with the demerits of this regressive and unfair means of taxing three per cent out of the consumer's dollar that goes to buy the necessities of life.