Evening star., 1925-11-10
Fiscal Justice to Washington.

Fiscal Justice to washington.
In declaring for a comprehensive
program of public improvements, and
at the same time repeating its de
mand for a fixed ratio of Federal
District appropriations for the sup
port Of the District. the Washington
Board of Trade holds true to the prin
ment which will alone be Just to
Washington. In the course of the
past decade there has been a DISPOSE
ton in Congress to ignore the prin-
ciple Of the substantive law concern
ing the fiscal relations between the
District and the Federal Government.
For many years the cost of District
maintenance was divided equally be-
tween the two treasures, local and
Federal. Then the ratio was changed
to sixty-forty. That radio stands to-
day as the law. 1t IS a just appor-
tionment of costs in the view of Con
sress, yet for two years past it has
been ignored and a lump sum" of
Federal money has been appropriated
in lieu OF a definite proportion Of the
total budget, considerably smaller
than the 40 per cent pledged by the
substantive law. The result has been
to allow or encourage large municipal
expenditures, the chief burden of
taxpayer.
In preparing their budget for the
consideration of Congress at the com
ing session the Commissioners have
regarded the substantive law rather
than the exceptional enactments
They are in duty bound to present
their recommendations in terms of a
siXty-forty division of costs. Should,
however, the prospective budget be
fully approved by House and Senate.
and the lump sum of 100000 which
has obtained in the last two appropria-
ton acts be adhered to in the next
one, the ratio of District-Federal con-
Lributions to Capital maintenance will
he approximately seventy twenty
five. a radical departure from the
substantive law and a heavy addition
TO the tax burden resting upon the
Washingtonian.
Washington needs a large and COM
prehens.<e appropriation program.
There are many works of imperative
necessity calling for liberal appropria-
ton Some of these works have been
started already and must be carried
on to conclusion. Others have been
postponed heretofore for lack of funds.
Their immediate undertaking is re-
ouired in the interest Of economy and
municipal development. 1t is logical
to couple the sixty-forty ratio and
this program of essential works. So
long as demand for these large ap-
propriations is expressed in terms of
fidelity to the substantive law, to the
principle Of a fixed ratio Of Federal
District contribution, there is no dan
ger of overtaXation to an already
heavily taxed community.
Washington is not. as is annually
asserted by critics Of the fixed ratio
principle, undertaxed. It's per capita
tax payments may be compared with
those of the residents of other cities
of comparable size without revealing
any easement favorable to the Wash
ingtonian. This city has few large
properties yielding heavily in taxa
ton. The tax burden falls mainly
upon the householder, the individual
property owner. The lack of indus
trial establishments shifts the burden
that is in most other cities laid upon
corporations and commercial com
panies.
Upon the issue Of the maintenance
of the fixed ratio principle the Dis
trict goes to Congress united. Tempta-
tions to yield and waive on that point,
so vital to the welfare of the com
munity, are resisted. The civic or
ganizations speaking for Washington
present the case strongly and effective
ly 1t ia the prayer of all the District
that justice be done both in the vol
ume Of appropriations and in the
basis of cost division between the Fed
eral Government and the local com
nunity.