The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-10-16
BUDGET FIGURES
FALSE, IS CHARGE
Continued from First Paos

elimination Of s1o0.ooo.ooo from the
budget IN little moro than sleight Of
hand trick. as nothing has been cyr
from the proposed expenditures. Tho
burden has merely been shifted and
the total then omitted In the grand sum-
mary which II to be met from taxa
ton
The case Of the school budget in
evan more fragrant. In spite Of tho
policy explained above. the tentative
budget contains tho school budget with
out q single change, calling for the full
ss2.0o0.o0o for maintenance. It 10 only
the grand budget total and q footnore
on page 174d that indicate the SsS.-
100000 cut. In other words. the de
tailed estimates present one set Of fg-
ures, while the grand total furnishes
ali entirely different set"
Apother Budget Mystery.
The charges Of the Research Bureau
then continue;
Another pudgetary mystery which
the Comptroller was too tired to ex-
plain is the difference between his two
estimates for debt service. interest and
redemption. issued week apart. The
first called Tor 3117.7s4.e44.77. while
the second puts the figure at S107, 49,
$3.50. Just what has happened to this
$10.000,000 nobody seems to know The
conjecture that this Is made up of the
Ss.S77.652 receivable from the State for
1921 school expenditures Is entirely
baseless. as that sum is already ac-
counted for in the school budget. 1t Is.
however. probable that some $1,000. 600
Is represented by special revenue bonds
to be met from State moneys which may
y xya M .xefx al. I~1 t.. ~
first estimate"
The tentative budget. though not re-
CURED under the law to state the funds
available for meeting proposed expen-
ditures, contains an estimate Of S347,-
20S.877.99 as the total available. divided
as follows: General fund. $62 900. 900
education under the 40 mill rate, $685.
162.694.72; State tax, S22. 041,183.27,
and city and county revenues raised I'M
der the per cent. levy. 100000. 900.
Those figures. the Bureau OF Research
alleges. are very confusing. the esti-
mated revenue to be obtained from the
40 mills levy for instance. being too
high by S20.000.0O0.
In failing to exclude. however, certain
debt service items, including the s44,-
100000 short term obligations, from the
debt limit. the bureau contends. the city
available revenue, or q total available
revenue of $4O7. 000,o 900, instead of the
S347. 100000 mentioned in the budget.
The bureau says that what II con-
tends to be the actual figures of the
budget would produce a tax rate Of
s3.20 and that it does not understand
how the rate may be reduced below
$2.95 except by cutting down municipal
service TO the citizens or running the
city on borrowed money and passing the
burden along to the future. The only
other remedy 1t says. is a reorganiza-
ton of the city and county departments
and elimination of the patronage posi-
lions with which the borough govern
ments are honeycombed.
Curran Issues Statement.
Mr.. Curran, whose affidavit with that
of Mr.. Frank was attached to the man
sued this statement
1T is for the great good of the city
that this suit has been brought and 1
hope that the Corporation Counsel will
cooperate with the counsel for the
plaintiff TO the end OF obtaining ruling
by the Supreme Court, OF the State on
the constitutional question which
brought up last Monday. A matter OF
such Importance az this should be set
tied, and settled at once. and author
itatively by the court. so that the public
and the schools may be left in no further
uncertainty. This is a friendly suit and
Is TO be so considered"
Mayor Hylan declined to comment on
the court action.