Evening star., 1920-03-27
A Frank Declaration.

prIatlOn bill provisions Tor the aDroga-
tion of the half fand half system of
financing the District and for an in
crease in the tax rate by two-thirds,
the House appropriations committee
has at least the virtue of frankness.
It distinctly avows that the effect of
repeating the fiscal provisions of the
organic act will be to compel the Dis
trict to raise more money by taxation
while the United States pays a smaller
portion of the total for capital upkeep.
1t thus verifes the prediction that has
been made by those favorable to con-
tinuing the half and half method that
its repeal would put desperately
heavy burden of taxation upon the Dis
trict in order to relieve the federal
Treasury of its equitable share of the
cost.
So far as any explanation of the pro-
posed changes was vouehsafed in the
House yesterday the burden of it was
that more money is necessary to pro-
vide adequately for the Districts needs.
Nobody has ever disputed that. No
body can doubt it who examines into
local conditions and sees the over
crowded school buildings, the over
worked and underpaid school teachers,
the attenuated police force. the gen
eral lack of municipal equipment suit
able for a city of nearly half a mil
lion people.
But with a surplus of 100000 of
District tax money lying idle in the
Treasury awaiting appropriation to
local needs. denied in the past because
of unwillingness to meet the existing
law fully in letter and in spirit, tax
increase is in no sense justifable.
Even if there were a bar to the use
of this fund. to be matched dollar for
dollar by federal money, and more
local funds were required to keep up
the revenues to the high. point of local
need, there is no justification in coup
ling the tax increase with abrogation
of the organic act.
In a total lack of logic and equity
the House committee, in framing the
bill as it stands, falls back upon the
fixed idea that the half and-half prin-
ciple must be discarded The House
has so voted. Therefore, the commit
tee must so frame the bill, it would
seem. Granted that the committee felt
obligated to follow the lead of the
House. despite the fact that the Sen
ate has not acted on the measure, why
should the ta1-raise proposition be in
eluded, unless it is the purpose def
nitely and frankly to relieve the gov
ernment of all but a negligible share
OF the Districts cost of maintenance!
1t has been shown already that on
the basis of this bill and the present
District tax revenues the proposed
changes, of payment ratio and tax rate
would put fve-sixths of the cost OF
capital maintenance on the District
and one-sixth ON the federal Treasury
This is a wider disparity than has evel
before been suggested. Some have
talked of the possibility of two fol
one, and some even of three for one
but never has it been proposed that
the ratio should be five for one.
It must be recalled that the mat
ter Of the tax rate was not made the
subject of specific inquiry by the ap
propriations committee. The only
hearing that has been held was that
before the District committee, on the
Mapes bill. At that hearing it wa:
shown, definitely and conclusively, tha,
the District is not undertaxed; that, in
truth, it is taxed equally with Other
cities of comparable size and resources
The appropriations committee could
not have taken the facts and figure.
presented at that hearing into careful
consideration in framing this bill
else it would not have written a pro
vision that, if adopted, will make the
District veritably the highest-taxed
community in the United States, and
as a necessary and inevitable conse
auence, the most expensive city il
which to live.