Lamb Chop
MEMBERS OF Congress, who set their own pay, are caught between weaknesses. They want-and, we think, are entitled to-higher pay than they have the courage to vote for. Their way of choosing between the unpleasant alternatives over the years has been not to choose but to resort to subterfuge. The slipperiness of the system has become worse than the reality it is meant to hide.</br></br>The latest example has to do with a vote that Congress took in 1954 to forgive itself some taxes. It adopted a provision, still in effect, allowing each member to deduct as business expenses up to $3,000 a year of living expenses here in Washington. Inflation, of course, has greatly eroded the value of the deduction. In the House Ways and Means Committee, which is considering a bill to make "technical corrections" to the code, proposals have been made to lift and even remove the ceiling on the deductible amount.</br></br>The rationale for the 1954 provision is that it merely puts members of Congress on the same footing as all other taxpayers, who are allowed to deduct uncompensated travel, lodging and other such expenses when away from home on business. The congressmen are also said to be away from "home," by which is meant their districts.</br></br>The trouble is that Washington is in fact where most members principally live. Business trips for them are the trips they regularly take back to their districts. The reason they don't want to make these deductible is that they've already given themselves allowances to cover most of the cost. The allowances are legitimate, but would make a deduction less valuable; it would be redundant.</br></br>A deduction for living costs in Washington has no such disadvantage. It is pure lamb chop; it puts congressmen on a very different footing from all other taxpayers. They can deduct things-the cost of everyday housing, food, the car-that the average citizen cannot.