[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.443 Modern Brewery Age, April 1945, 21.444 John D.Morris, House Unit Spurns Cut in Liquor Tax, New York Times, May 5, 1950, 15.142 Chapter 6.Beer: The Morale Builder, 1942 1952From Frederick Lauer on, the brewers had friends and allies in Congress whoattempted to get the best advantage for the industry in their relationship withthe federal government.In 1951, there were still price and production controlsin place.The brewers once again faced rationing on tin, used primarily for beercans.The sale of beer in cans had been increasing steadily since the production ofthe first can in 1935.When the National Production Authority announced plansto limit the use of tin for beer and other nonessential products, Rep.John D.Dingell Sr.of Detroit, Michigan was concerned about the impact such a policywould have on tax revenues.He planned to introduce legislation that would re-peal the board authority in this matter.445Dingell was from a city that had been a center of brewing in the late nine-teenth century; Detroit had thirty-three breweries in 1890.Stroh s was the mostfamous and long lived; the owners were descendants of Germans who had beenbrewing since 1775.By selling ice cream as well as beer it existed as an indepen-dent brewery until 1999.446The United States government had essentially remained on a war footingsince 1945, and the Korean War continued this approach.In the spring and sum-mer of 1951, Congress considered legislation to finance rearmament.Militaryspending had more than tripled since 1950, and the armed forces had more thandoubled in size.As part of the overall package, legislators planned to increaseexcise taxes on liquor, beer, wine, tobacco, automobiles, gasoline, and sportinggoods.The House wrote legislation that included tax increases for both distilledspirits and beer which would help to generate $7.2 billion in revenue.The Senateheld hearings on the legislation; various representatives of the different branchesof the liquor industry appeared.447The increases in taxes that President Truman presented to Congress wouldhave a multi-level effect on the brewing industry.An increase in the excise taxwould of course directly impact brewers.At the same time, an increase in theincome tax would have a deflationary effect. The taxes were part of the Presi-dent s plan to get the country back on a war footing due to the hostilities inKorea.448Clinton Hester presented the United States Brewers Foundation s concernsover the proposed $1 increase.All the wartime increases which had brought the445 Curb on Tin For Beer Cans Opposed as Bad Strategy, New York Times, March 19, 1951, 18;Brewers Almanac, 1951, 3.446 William H.Mulligan, Stroh Brewing Company, in Blocker et al., Encyclopedia, 598-600;Downard, Dictionary, 56-57, 185-186.447 Tax Bill 7.1 Billion; No Rise on TV Sets, New York Times, May 26, 1951, 8; Bootlegging Seenin Liquor Tax Rise, New York Times, July 31, 1951, 15; Lawrence S.Wittner, Cold War America:From Hiroshima to Watergate (New York: Praeger, 1974) 79.448 Modern Brewery Age, January 1951, 13, 20.143 Brewing Battles : A History of American Beertax to $8 a barrel had resulted in a steady decline in sales.Hester also protestedthe continuing restrictions on tin, claiming that if they continued the FederalGovernment will lose millions more in beer excise taxes. 449Ralph T.Hymsfeld was president of the Distilled Spirits Institute, a tradeassociation and vice-president of Schenley Industries, which owned Blatz Beer.Hymsfeld felt that the tax increase for the liquor industry would actually de-crease tax revenues because of decreased sales.The states and the federal govern-ment stood to lose $67 million a year.450Karl Feller, speaking for unionized brewery workers, felt that any tax in-crease supported prohibitionist forces.He also expressed concern about the ef-fects of a tax increase on the small brewer, and the growing concentration in thebrewing industry.Feller claimed that many small brewers would not survive.451The congressional discussion of the proposed tax increase focused more onthe distilled spirits industry, which continued to have problems with bootleg-ging and illicit distilling [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl przylepto3.keep.pl
.443 Modern Brewery Age, April 1945, 21.444 John D.Morris, House Unit Spurns Cut in Liquor Tax, New York Times, May 5, 1950, 15.142 Chapter 6.Beer: The Morale Builder, 1942 1952From Frederick Lauer on, the brewers had friends and allies in Congress whoattempted to get the best advantage for the industry in their relationship withthe federal government.In 1951, there were still price and production controlsin place.The brewers once again faced rationing on tin, used primarily for beercans.The sale of beer in cans had been increasing steadily since the production ofthe first can in 1935.When the National Production Authority announced plansto limit the use of tin for beer and other nonessential products, Rep.John D.Dingell Sr.of Detroit, Michigan was concerned about the impact such a policywould have on tax revenues.He planned to introduce legislation that would re-peal the board authority in this matter.445Dingell was from a city that had been a center of brewing in the late nine-teenth century; Detroit had thirty-three breweries in 1890.Stroh s was the mostfamous and long lived; the owners were descendants of Germans who had beenbrewing since 1775.By selling ice cream as well as beer it existed as an indepen-dent brewery until 1999.446The United States government had essentially remained on a war footingsince 1945, and the Korean War continued this approach.In the spring and sum-mer of 1951, Congress considered legislation to finance rearmament.Militaryspending had more than tripled since 1950, and the armed forces had more thandoubled in size.As part of the overall package, legislators planned to increaseexcise taxes on liquor, beer, wine, tobacco, automobiles, gasoline, and sportinggoods.The House wrote legislation that included tax increases for both distilledspirits and beer which would help to generate $7.2 billion in revenue.The Senateheld hearings on the legislation; various representatives of the different branchesof the liquor industry appeared.447The increases in taxes that President Truman presented to Congress wouldhave a multi-level effect on the brewing industry.An increase in the excise taxwould of course directly impact brewers.At the same time, an increase in theincome tax would have a deflationary effect. The taxes were part of the Presi-dent s plan to get the country back on a war footing due to the hostilities inKorea.448Clinton Hester presented the United States Brewers Foundation s concernsover the proposed $1 increase.All the wartime increases which had brought the445 Curb on Tin For Beer Cans Opposed as Bad Strategy, New York Times, March 19, 1951, 18;Brewers Almanac, 1951, 3.446 William H.Mulligan, Stroh Brewing Company, in Blocker et al., Encyclopedia, 598-600;Downard, Dictionary, 56-57, 185-186.447 Tax Bill 7.1 Billion; No Rise on TV Sets, New York Times, May 26, 1951, 8; Bootlegging Seenin Liquor Tax Rise, New York Times, July 31, 1951, 15; Lawrence S.Wittner, Cold War America:From Hiroshima to Watergate (New York: Praeger, 1974) 79.448 Modern Brewery Age, January 1951, 13, 20.143 Brewing Battles : A History of American Beertax to $8 a barrel had resulted in a steady decline in sales.Hester also protestedthe continuing restrictions on tin, claiming that if they continued the FederalGovernment will lose millions more in beer excise taxes. 449Ralph T.Hymsfeld was president of the Distilled Spirits Institute, a tradeassociation and vice-president of Schenley Industries, which owned Blatz Beer.Hymsfeld felt that the tax increase for the liquor industry would actually de-crease tax revenues because of decreased sales.The states and the federal govern-ment stood to lose $67 million a year.450Karl Feller, speaking for unionized brewery workers, felt that any tax in-crease supported prohibitionist forces.He also expressed concern about the ef-fects of a tax increase on the small brewer, and the growing concentration in thebrewing industry.Feller claimed that many small brewers would not survive.451The congressional discussion of the proposed tax increase focused more onthe distilled spirits industry, which continued to have problems with bootleg-ging and illicit distilling [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]