The Bureaucratic Procession

If the IRS was the loser, were there any winners? There certainly were among the agencies in the bureaucratic spectrum. Once the Sex Tax Concept was established on the national scene, which took place much more rapidly than might have been expected for such a novel concept, the various departments began to vie for a piece of the action. The constant television exposure of congressional committee hearings, particularly of the House Ways and Means Committee, had ensured frenzied activity among the governmental agencies to gain the spotlight. Other congressional committees were also getting into the act where they could.

For example, the Military Affairs Committee investigated the effect of the Sex Tax concept on the conduct of military operations. With alacrity, prepared testimony was presented to the congressional committees, displacing testimony with less video appeal. Who wanted to hear about military cost overruns when the effect of the new taxation on the fighting qualities of the military man could be investigated? How much more interesting were the problems of taxing overseas military personnel for sexual activities, particularly when their dependents were at home! Should there be loss of consortium compensation? Every World War II veteran was interested in the overseas sex scene!

Health, Education and Welfare had felt that there was a significant issue here. The publicity barrage was enormous, and HEW issued notification to the press that they would hold hearings on the Sex Tax bill.

Although one might be surprised that a revenue bill might attract the attention of HEW, rather logical arguments could be advanced for it, provided one were sympathetic to HEW.

There was solid medical evidence that health was affected by sexual activity, and, since health was involved, HEW was. Not withstanding the effects of certain measures that tended to keep the father away from wife and children under the Aid to Dependent Children Act, the HEW felt that sexual relations in the broad sense were significant and beneficial. They should hold hearings on any measure that concerned the sexual relations of a couple, be they married or living in sin.

And so hearings were scheduled to bring the nation's leading experts on sex and health to testify. The issue was clear: was the marriage bed a suitable tax base? True, other pleasures such as whiskey, drugs, and gambling had been taxed, but now sex! This was striking rather close to home.

True, governments for many years had taxed vital necessities, food, for example, but here was an even more vital issue. Did they dare tax the penis rampant? Here was a true matter for Congress to decide; it would influence the whole country's issue in the future.

The mice got a break. For many years government programs of the NIH and, more lately, the Food and Drug investigations of cancer-causing substances, operating under the aegis of the Delaney Act, had fed monstrous amounts of unpalatable substances to the poor mice, who eventually were sacrificed for scientific reasons.

Now, in order to get into the Sex Tax act, some bright HEW official, realizing that a lot of further sex information would be needed to back up the government's new tax program, began suggesting possible experiments.

The first thought that occurred was to increase the sexual activity of the mice. That wasn't easy, because the mice were rather selective about when and with whom they copulated. True, the poor dears raised prodigious litters, raised them quite well. The mother instructed the little ones in all the things a young mouse should know, even when burdened by having to live in a laboratory environment with a plastic walled house and artificial bedding.

But the program proposed was to find what would induce the mice to copulate more often. The HEW motto was "higher frequency, higher tax." The limiting factor was pregnancy, so, to remove this, the program proposed to put all the mice on the pill.

Then there were mice sociology programs proposed. What would be the effect of the increased frequency on mouse behavior? It was not clear how this could be translated to human behavior, but it was confident1v asserted by the scientists that it would be a start toward the understanding of the human problem.

One could take a mouse experiment through all the stresses found in human society. Of course, this would require large numbers of test mice. So it was proposed that vast numbers of carefully selected genetic strains be ordered. Here the program got into trouble.

Word of the mouse sociology program leaked out, and instantly there were racist charges. HEW scientists were conducting or would conduct elitist experiments. This would never do. So it was decided to include all species of mice, including the multitude of mice who were not white and who did not have pedigreed ancestors in the NIH program.

When one considered all the variables in such a program and the number of mice couples needed to provide statistical significance for the various experiments, the number of mice needed became legion. Indeed, the first true mega mouse experiment was envisioned. Fortunately the project was scrapped before the NIH was knee-deep in mice.

If the author may be permitted an aside here, he would like publicly to record his concurrence with the decision to scrap the mouse sociology program. While a Masters and Johnson approach to mouse behavior might be of scientific interest, the author considers it a little indecent to impose human behavior concepts upon the well-regulated mouse mores. The author would extend his feelings also to his friends the chipmunks, voles, and rats. Some of the author's best business friends are rats.

There was a parade of witnesses before the HEW hearings, as might have been expected. They ranged from Planned Parenthood, opposed, to contraceptive manufacturers, who were very favorable. Industry quickly realized that there was an unparalleled opportunity to increase business.

The most thorny issue that faced the HEW committee was whether the Sex Tax should be imposed upon welfare recipients. Were the unoccupied to be taxed? Naturally, one can immediately see two sides to the question. There can be no doubt that, lacking gainful and fulfilling employment, full advantage of their sex opportunities could be taken. Malthusian evidence could have provided the committee adequate indication of the sexual proclivities of the poor and dispossessed. Nevertheless, a number of scientific research inquiries were initiated to study this question.

Looking at the obverse side of the coin, what social worker cognizant of human desires would deprive the dispossessed and destitute of the simple pleasures nature provides? Probably many of the social workers were themselves dispossessed and doubly sensitive to the issue.

HEW hearings were a bonanza to the press, eager as always for a story that had reader attraction. Anything with the word sex provided headlines, copy beyond compare for the diligent reporters who daily filled the august HEW halls.

Naturally, the committee members were not adverse to the publicity; it beat the free postage (franking) privilege. Imagine the TV exposure when a committee member asked a question later covered on the five o'clock news!

The Pentagon, through the Defense Department, was involved and consequently it also held a public hearing. Though careful not to jeopardize its budget hearings, nevertheless DOD felt on balance there was a benefit to holding special public hearings. Naturally, the issue was loss of consortium. Should military personnel be taxed for marital rights when separated by military orders or an alert?

Were the committee to allow some sort of exemption on the grounds of military necessity, they would immediately become involved in the foreign tax credits issue. The battle for exemption of foreign income had already been fought out in tax court; nevertheless the question of consortium for foreign income earners would complicate and again raise the tax issue.

Everyone knew that, through R&R, the military was preserving the male prerogative. Why should there be a deduction for the married? And what of the dependents who were allowed to reside overseas? No, absolutely not! There would be no military exemption. Well, the power of the Pentagon would have to be recognized, but it went against the grain. Had not criticism of double dipping been enough! And what of military personnel overseas, was there not a lot of double dipping there?

How could such simple issues become so complicated? Here was a basic issue, if there ever was one, and yet the politics was so incredibly complicated that one risked his political life to decide such issues. Could not the matter be delayed so that the Supreme Court, notable for its wisdom, could make a decision? Perhaps a landmark decision would be forthcoming, a  "one-man, one-tax decision." One hoped there would not be another busing debacle.

Had the committees of Congress been the only ones involved, perhaps the debate would not have reached national importance. True, the various news agencies would have made the most of things and after a brief play would have been ready to drop the multiple Sex Tax question, but the debate spread further. Not to disregard the input of the nation's comedians, one would look at the input from the more responsible elements of society, for example, the National Science Establishment.

Much was at stake here. There were immediately many proposals for research projects on areas of interest to the legislators. The researchers knew that these proposals would not face the scurrilous investigation and castigation by certain congressmen that normal research proposals had been subjected to in past years. But now any investigation regarding sex would be welcomed. Kinsey would be fulfilled. Peer review be damned, let science have full reign. No legislator could be criticized for his backing of full investigation of sex by scientific methods. After all, Congress must have the very best of technical sex knowledge at its disposal.

There was even a prurient interest that developed. Some congressmen hoped that their fantasies could be buttressed with at least a shred of scientific evidence. While standing rockbound for home and hearth, could not at least a little adventure be tolerated in the name of scientific progress? Perhaps fantasies were supportive of the ideal American marriage.

To say that "everyone got into the act" would be not only overstatement but a complete contravention of the truth. There were many government agencies that, search though they might, could not find any grounds on which they might enter the picture. For example, the Coast and Geodetic Survey was desolate. Their rivals, the Coast Guard, had only lighthouse opportunities. Who was interested in the guarding of the family hearth these days?

The Bureau of Mines was similarly dispossessed. While one might consider the role of vitamins in a Sex Tax study, there was apparently no need for minerals. Federal Communications might make a case for a budget item, leaving the electromagnetic spectrum for the bedroom audio. They might study the effect of video on tax avoidance.

The IRS had from the first tried to avail itself of this opportunity. Early on the director had assigned one of his most imaginative and creative tax experts to the problem. IRS had been ready with a program that would propose expansion of their staff, delineation of staff responsibilities, and an active legal program to enforce through court action the department's bedroom decisions.

They were even willing to challenge the definition of marriage. Surely they could broaden the current tax concept, which depended only on the legal, registered, properly conducted matrimony definitions. IRS would show that even a de facto relationship should be taxed. A bigamous relationship should be good for double.

Then there were the gray areas. What about the separated couple? Surely until a divorce was legally granted the tax could be collected. And, where there was a little hanky-panky on the side, perhaps the man was good for a surtax.

There was the area of business deductions. The court had ruled that provision of an escort service for good customers was within the realm of business deductions--a really hard pill for IRS to swallow. But here was a chance to recoup. The Sex Tax could be invoked, and even the business deduction could be used for internal revenue gain. Oh, the wonders of modern legislation!

The reader must realize that hundreds of governmental agencies each considered the pending legislation carefully, and, where there was any chance for publicity, each made its pitch. These were dutifully scheduled, and each received its day in the sun, for the political process, if nothing else, must be thorough.

The Post Office considered issuing a stamp in honor of the occasion, but was unable in all its ranks to find one who could suggest a suitable theme. An Adam and Eve stamp idea had been rejected.

How the P.O. longed for the days when it was a political appointive branch and could find among its manpower resources a man of talent, just as Einstein had once worked for a patent office! Was there no one with undiscovered talents? Was everyone so tested and qualified as to be without hidden potentialities? That was the sad fact; the union had seen to it. Everyone was properly assigned, properly paid. The occasional genius, lurking in the dark recesses, was no more; they had all been denied admission or fled to the welfare rolls.

The Civil Aeronautics Board carefully considered its position. It was responsible for the operation of the airlines. In the light of present tax considerations, would the airlines not have tax responsibility? Surely the captains, and, most certainly, the junior officers, were benefiting from the stewardess population.

There were adequate public references to support this theory. How about Rachel and Trudy? Could flight crews be taxed?

The question of frequency was the difficult problem. The captains would, of course, deny everything. They had paid the tax once and felt that once was enough. Their wives would back them up publicly. The stewardess union testified that it was strongly opposed. The accusations of the government would be challenged as most unfair to this wonderful collection of flying virgins.

The CAB, which was primarily concerned and experienced in route decisions, was, in the root matter, completely confused.

In the congressional hearings, the Department of Commerce squared off with the IRS. The IRS wanted to tax the corporate officials who had personal secretaries on the ground that their secretaries were office wives. Commerce, with corporate officials testifying, was livid at the suggestion that there could be even a trace of hanky-panky in high corporate offices.

Even though many privately admitted that their position was a weak one, nevertheless the IRS's bald attempt at double taxation must be repelled. The idea of fairness in taxation had long since been abandoned by IRS. It had become a matter of professional pride with the IRS staff that double taxation should be sought wherever such an interpretation could be made. True, they lost a few in the tax court, actually the majority of cases, but how many times did they collect when the individual chose not to take the matter to court? On balance, double taxation was the next best thing to confiscatory taxation.

The matter was finally resolved on the grounds that, if the corporate secretary actually had sexual relations with her boss, she should be considered as part of his harem, which, under the Arab rule, was only singly taxed. The IRS retired from the debate defeated. This was only one of the defeats which led to the IRS's final downfall, but they fought all the way.

OSHA tried to get into the act, but the ruling that ten employees were necessary to involve OSHA tripped them up. There were very few polygamous marriages or harems with that many involved. Even the sex shop industry was a little disappointed in that safety devices for the bedroom didn't become a lucrative market. The sex shop lobby tried hard, sensing such a wonderful opportunity for sensuous safety, but had to console itself with wonderful hopes of growth in the new era to come.

The National Labor Relations Board in its executive sessions reviewed the probable rash of union demands for night-shift differential for the loss of consortium. The question was not as obvious as it might seem. Even though it might seem clear that a night-shift workman would miss lots of opportunities, was opportunity the limiting factor in coitus frequency. Sex experts were sought to testify on this matter. There appeared to be a critical age at which night work didn't significantly affect frequency; practically nothing did.

The board did decide finally that, if both were employed and on different shifts, there would be a significant loss of consortium and the employer had to pay a shift differential to both. The board also realized in the course of its investigations that the term "cottage industry," that well-known term in labor legislation, would have to be defined more carefully.