Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1925-11-18
Districts Budget and Contribution.

A District budget of $50 100000 is
indicated as likely to be submitted to
Congress, with the approval OF the
Bureau OF the Budget, for the fiscal
year beginning July l next. This is a
large sum of money for District main
tenance, but not large in consideration
of the needs of the Capital, needs
which have accumulated during a
period of neglect enforced by the war-
time emergencies. 1t does not include,
however, according 10 present fore.
casts, a number of items of impor-
lance which eventually must be pro-
vided for in the District appropria
tons. 1t does not bring the District
mp TO date in point of equipment and
maintenance provisions. But If ap,
proved by Congress it will materially
advance the Capital municipality to-
ward the point of efficient government
and ample provision for public require
ments.
If this budget should range to the
figure indicated, $50. zoo, 900, the ques-
provided from District taxation be.
comes of vital importance. Should the
substantive law governing Federal
District contributions to Capital up
keep be followed, as it should be fol-
lowed, the Federal contribution will
he approximately $14,4S0,0 900 and the
District $21 ,720, 900. If, however, the
lump-sum plan prevails, and a further
annual departure from the substantive
law by Congress, and the figure of the
last two appropriations is maintained.
the Federal contribution will be
S9000,000 and the Districts 81 200
600 the Districts being therefore
seventy-five per cent and the Govern
ments only twenty-five.
1t is the hope of the District tax
payers that the budget will go TO Con.
Cress on the basis of the substantive
law, on the assumption that that law
will prevail in the division of funds
between the Federal and District
treasures. The difference between
the District contribution under the
SiXty-forty plan and the lump
plan Of 100000 would, in such a
budget if fully appropriated, be
$3.50. 900, certain to add heavily and
burdensomely TO the tax levy upon the
District property owners.
Liberality of budget making by the
Government is not true liberality if it
is based upon departure from the
law governing the Federal and Dis
trict fiscal partnership in the main
tenance of the Capital. A further re-
nunciation of the fixed ratio principle
for the fiscal year 1s26-27 would be,
as just stated on the basis of the
budget now proposed, a mulcting of
the District in nearly five and half
million. There is no liberality in that.
There is no justice in that.
The substantive law, establishing a
fixed ratio, changed from fifty-fifty to
sixty-forty, is founded upon the prin.
ciple of equity. The departures from
that law year by year are based upon
a misConception of the Districts true
position ana MISUNDERSTANDING or
the tax burden resting upon the Dis
trict people. 1t is the present hope of
the District people, who are bearing
this increasingly heavy burden, that
Congress will realize the equity of a
return to the substantive Jaw and
however large the budget, will adhere
TO the principle of a, definite proper
ton of contribution rather than to
throw a lump-sum sop to the District
taxpayers without relation to the
total amount required for the proper
maintenance Of the municipality
which is the seat of the Federal Gov.
eminent.