(6 of 11)
The TIME poll also yielded a surprising statistic that reflected the furor over Proposition 13. While 48% of those questioned voiced serious concern about keeping their houses, only 29% expressed comparable apprehension about keeping their jobs. In California, Jerry Brown noted a similar phenomenon: many policemen and firemen, he told Washington Star Columnist Mary McGrory, said to him that they would rather lose their jobs than their homes; thus they voted for Proposition 13 to get their property taxes down and will take their chances on a post-13 cutback. As an emotional political issue, the combined anxiety about inflation and taxes far eclipses such controversial foreign policy matters as the Panama Canal treaties, U.S. jet sales to the Middle East and Soviet-American relations.
The California rebellion is already stirring partisan passions in Washington. Any Republican candidate who does not understand the potential of the tax revolt, said Senate Republican Leader Howard Baker last week, "is a political idiot." Kansas Republican Senator Robert Dole promptly introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would require the Federal Government to operate on a balanced budget each year. Many economists doubt, however, that putting Washington into that sort of straitjacket would be wise—or possible.
Nonetheless, supporters of a similar constitutional amendment that would require a balanced federal budget and a phased elimination of the national debt over 25 years are making impressive headway. Sponsored by the 45,000-member National Taxpayers Union, this move calls for the assembling of a national convention to amend the Constitution (a procedure never yet successfully pursued). Yet 23 state legislatures have already called for a meeting, and approval by only eleven more is needed. The convention would be empowered to propose constitutional amendments, which would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Amending the Constitution is a long-term and difficult task. New York Republican Congressman Jack Kemp and Delaware Republican Senator William Roth propose a quicker fix—a bill that would reduce federal income taxes by 30% over three years, regardless of the impact on the budget. The Kemp-Roth proposal is rooted in the theories of University of Southern California Economist Arthur Laffer, who argues that while a cut in the tax rate may reduce revenues in the short run, the long-range result is to increase them. His reasoning: lower taxes mean greater incentive to work, which in turn means a broader tax base. The economist is the creator of the Laffer Curve, which demonstrates that once tax rates climb above a certain point, incentive is destroyed, output is stifled and a society begins to decline.
Though liberal economists dismiss the curve as a laugher, Laffer's ideas have gained attention on the Hill. Kemp and Roth have picked up more than 150 co-sponsors in Congress, and their legislation has been endorsed by the Republican National Committee. It was also strongly supported by conservative Jeffrey K. Bell in his campaign for the G.O.P. senatorial nomination from New Jersey. Bell maintains that his emphasis on cutting taxes was crucial to his upset victory over veteran Senator Clifford Case.