Evening star., 1924-05-11
No Fiscal Revolution By Rider.

SeStlOn of the lumpSum paVment
plan in the despairing hope of secur-
ing thereby for the District power of
-self-taXation and tax spending, free
from budget bureau and congressional
committee drastic supervision, pro-
test vigorously against the adoption
of the Cramton plan in the shape in
which the proposal is now pending in
the Senate as legislative rider on the
District appropriation bill.
The Cramton bill is now before the
District committees, and if after hear
lngs it secures committee approval it
can be so equipped with necessary
safeguards and equitable offsets and
compromises as to give to the District
maximum OF fiscal freedom. and to
reduce the evils of the plan to a mini
mum. But the Cramton plan now be-
fore the Senate appropriations com
mittee has not had and cannot now
have this deliberate and thoughtful
molding, and as a naked rider on the
appropriation bill. born and kept alive
only under protection of the Holman
rule, should be infleXibly rejected by
the Senate.
t~ 1t is suggested that there will be
immunity from budget bureau cutting
down of Uncle Sans Capital-upbuild-
ing outlay if the expenditures are
made in lump sum instead of as
proportlonate part of the Districts :
total municipal appropriation. But if
T-nc1a Say1, * IaI ~,
fiscal conditions to cut down all of
his expenditures including his outlay
on National Capital upbuiding. he
will obviously make this retrenchment
whether in order to do it he reduces
a lump-sUm contribution or holds
down the total District outlay. of
which he pays a proportionate part
Indeed. it is easier to make this direct
specific reduction than indirectly by
cutting and mutilating the District
appropriations. There is greater ffxity
to the definite proportionate contribu-
ton than to that of a lump sum. 1t
is far easier for those who think that
the nation should pay nothing today
toward Capital maintenance and de-
velopment to reduce or deny entirely
the annual lump sum than to change
the ratio of proportionate contribu-
tion.
The contribution of a lump sum an
nually by the nation toward Capital
upbuilding in lieu of proportionate
contribution would be justified if the
primary responsibility and power in
respect to District finances were trans
ferred simultaneously to the District
with the nation as only an incidental
non-controlling contributor. But if the
Cramton rider We're adopted full and
exclusive control of District finances
and taxation would still be retained
and exercised by Congress represent
ing the nation, the District would have
no greater power of self-taxation than
ii now possesses, the wrangling in
Congress would be just as bitter and
hurtful and irritating over the amount
of the lump-Sum contribution as in
the past over the equitable ratio, and
the only effect of the change would
be to forbid Congress to appropriate
for the Capital from the Treasury
more than a fixed maximum amount,
and to separate this contribution from
all relation to that of the Capital.
of its safeguard against excessive and
unjust taxation by a taxing body in
which it is not represented, without
any compensating benefits whatever.
To summarize: Adoption of the
-Cramton rider will not cause the Dis
trict to escape supervision and ma
tiOnal contribution cutting by the bud
get bureau. 1t does not increase the
certainty of a national contribution or
fixity in the amount of such contribu-
tiOn. 1t does not avoid frictiOn-breed-
ing ratio discussion, but on the con-
trary aggravates it. 1t does not in
crease particle the Districts power
to participate in its municipal IegisIa-
ture. Congress still has exclusive
power to determine how much it shall
be taxed, and by whom and for what
purposes its tax money shall lie ex-
pended.
The Cramton proposition threatens
loss of millions i'm Connection with the
surplus, repudiates the agreement
upon the 60-40 ratio, substitutes sys-
tenn of indefinite unrelated cOntribu-
tion by Capital and nation and pre-
cipitates Washington taxpayers into
the fiscal chaos from which they have
recently emerged.
The act of June 30, 1922, was i'm
posed upon us as compromise peace
measure. 1t increased our taxes, re-
duced our exclusive revenues and bur-
dened taxpayers of the present with
the obligations of taxpayers of the fu-
ture. Offsetting these drastic exac-
tons it affirmed the principle of def
mite proportionate contribution and
promised us the blessings of fiscal
peace and period of cessation of fric-
tion-breeding controversy.
= Now that the definite 60-40 ratio is
fixed in the new law by compromise
agreement will not the District in fair
ness be permitted to adjust itself to
it's new fiscal organic act and to begin
TO enjoy the promised bliss of fiscal
peace?