Evening star., 1925-02-22

II -
base them on the same lump sum
as approved for the fiscal year 1926.
While this apparently takes 1t for
granted that the lump-sum system
VIII be continued in substitution for
the fixed proportion of S0-40 that has
previously existed. and prejudices the
controversy in favor of the lump
sum plan, it really means that the
District will from now on have larger
appropriation bills than ever before.
with virtually all the funds that may
be needed for District development.
without the hamstringing and cheese
pairing practices that previously have
been employed.
The present permanent law pro-
vides for the Federal Government
paying 40 per cent of the costs of
the Nations Capital while District
taxpayers meet the other 60 per cent.
The lump-sum contribution Of $1,000
600 was put into the bill last year,
specifically for one year, and it is
put into the bill this year specific
ally for the year 1926.
There is nothing in the present law
that limits the amount that can be
submitted in estimates. When the
60-40 proportion was established the
act said: Hereafter the Commission
ers of the District of Columbia shall
not be restricted in submitting to the
Bureau of the Budget their estimates
of the needs of the District, but they
shall as nearly as may be possible
bring them within the probable ag-
gregate of the fixed proportion of
appropriations to be paid by the
United States and the District of CO.
lumbia.'
Bureaus Natural Course.
but when the Bureau of the Budget
comes to consider how much the United
States can afford to pay, II the United
States has to estimate on a basis OF it
self paying 40 per cant, it is perfectly
natural that II woulo not be disposed to
submit as much in the grand total
for the District as 1t would IL the
amount to be taken from the Federal
Treasury was a fiat rate. with all the
costs above that figure to come from
District revenues.
Then there is another important
consideration-if the Budget Bureau
submits on the 60-4o basis as the
permanent law requires, and the House
appropriation committee frames the
bill on a lump-sum basis as 1t has
done for the last two years, and
as it seems disposed to continue to
do-the estimates considered for in
'luSlOti III tilc Diil 81 (
not on AS liberal a scale as Congress
is disposed to grant under the lump
sum plan. The best possible indica-
tion of this is found in the present
District appropriation bill. where for
the first time on record the amounts
approved of are greatly in excess of
the amounts proposed by the Budget
Bureau, which figured on the Federal
Government having to pay 40 per
cent of the total.
1t should be emphas sized here that
this does not mean-nor Is II likely
to require for several years-an in
crease in taxes. The public does not
stop to consider that the District is
now piling up funds in the Treasury
at the rate of 100000 a year so
that it can be on cash-as- you go
basis. That will be through with In
another year. Then. too. .-the District
is pretty nearly through with big ap-
preparations for the new water con-
duit. There is $2.500,00o for this in
the present bill and about S1,500,o00
will be required for next year, but
that will soon drop off.
otter Large Payments.
The District has also been setting
aside big sums for the sinking fund
and retirement of the debt and that
is now well provided for.
OF course, there is the five-year
school building program going
through, which totals about $4,000
600, but that is distributed over Ave