35 



have a consistent application of the lowest possible level of tax 

 throughout, you are just doing economic damage. What is worse is 

 that the excise taxes are not cost efficient ways of raising revenue. 

 It has been estimated that most of the smaller special excise taxes 

 we have cost almost as much to administer as the amount of reve- 

 nue they raise. 



The sensible thing to do, if you want to allocate goods and re- 

 sources efficiently in the economy, is to move toward abolishing all 

 excise taxes altogether. Actually, there is a proposal from the 

 Progress in Freedom Foundation literally to abolish all Federal ex- 

 cise taxes and to abolish the agencies within the Treasury that ad- 

 minister them. Because, as I pointed out, the amount of money the 

 excise taxes bring in is fairly close to the amount of money it takes 

 to enforce them, it is not a win-win situation at all. 



Excise taxes such as this will also be invisible to the taxpayer. 

 Perhaps you could have a little logo, a little green dot that you put 

 in every product, but that doesn't necessarily tell the taxpayer 

 what the cost of goods and services are. I think it is much more 

 efficient to have a unified tax every year so that you know what 

 the total bill for government goods and services is. 



Then if we want to allocate Federal funding for wildlife purposes 

 or for national parks or simply to subsidize the West, then those 

 people requesting this funding should have to compete with, you 

 know, all other funding sources as we set our national priorities 

 and where the money is going to go. 



I think this particular tax proposal also poses real enforcement 

 issues. A lot of cheap outdoor equipment may be made in China. 

 Are we going to get it from the Chinese manufacturers? Will they 

 play games with classifications? I just don't see any logical, rational 

 way that you can effectively enforce a tax bill of this type. 



And, finally, you know, follow the money. Look at who is asking 

 for this — mostly State government agencies and nonprofits who get 

 lots of Federal funding. Are we going to create yet another Federal 

 slush fund that will finance State agencies that want to do what 

 State agencies do? 



I suggest that if the only tool you have is a hammer, sooner or 

 later everjrthing looks like a nail. What this country has to do is 

 look on the macro level for major, major, major changes such as the 

 changes you have discussed in the ESA or capital gains tax or 

 land-use policies generally that would have a very large impact and 

 be fundamentally different, nonbureaucratic way of addressing the 

 issue. Just giving self-interested government agencies more money 

 to do government agency stuff is not necessarily the best solutions 

 to the problem. 



[Statement of Mr. Lucier may be found at end of hearing.] 



Mr. Saxton. You hit that right on the nose, didn't you? Thank 

 you. Mr. Dufficy. 



STATEMENT OF THOMAS DUFFICY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESI- 

 DENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC MANU- 

 FACTURERS 



Mr. Dufficy. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 

 invitation to testify. I am Tom Dufficy with the National Associa- 

 tion of Photographic Manufacturers. I represent the companies that 



