Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-06-13
Federal, HIGHWAY AID FOUGHT
OVER WIDE VARIANCE In RATIOS
Some States Receive Back More Than Paid in Taxes
to United States While Others Are Given Less
Than Per Cent for Road Programs.

before it went to the Senate and is
virtually certain to be signed by the
President. But the argument is likely
to have a bearing on the general
policy Of Federal aid for State
projects.
The fact is that several States
five to be exact-received more money
from Uncle Sam as Federal aid in
it's various forms in the last fiscal
year than they paid the central Gov
eminent in Federal taxes. Two of
them. New Mexico and Nevada. re-
ceived more than SO for every dollar
they paid in. On the other hand, four
States got back in this way less than
2 cents on the dollar of Federal taxes
paid and one of these, New York.
less than l cent.
Figures Rouse Opposition.
With these figures before them. it
is difficult to persuade the members
of Congress from States which pay
much and receive proportionately lit
tie that there is any great virtue In
the $3.50 scheme of Federal aid. Mem
bers from States which receive liberal
returns argue that taxes paid from
States which roll up huge totals do
ductive wealth of these States alone.
but in part are earnings elsewhere
which are rMid from these States be
cause within their borders are the
home offices of the controlling cor
porations A mine in New Mexico
or Nevada produces the wealth but
the Federal tax is paid by the owning
CORPORATION or stockhOlder In New
York, for instance. Also, in some
States, Uncle Sam still has title to
vast areas of the land.
President Coolidge has set his face
against extensions of Federal aid into
new fields, and he has been rather
strongly supported. Yet various pro-
posals still are before committees OF
Congress which would bring new APP
preparations from the national Treas
ury to help along more or less
worthy plans within the individual
States when matched dollar for dollar
by State or local appropriations.
Proponents of FEDERAL aid. as sys-
tenn, urge that it has proved an in
centive to stimulate State and local
action toward better things. which
otherwise might not have ben under
taken by some of the States until
many years had passed. Opponents
Of the system claim that every time a
State joins any such plan it sacrifices
something of it's sovereignty to the
central Government by being forced
to make it's plans to conform to fixed
rules and regulations.
1t is difficult to calculate the per-
centage of Federal aid payments to
taxes paid Uncle Sam as a single
figure over a course of years, for the
two sums differ from year to year.
The Federal appropriation for road
construction within the States has
been 75,000,000 a year for several
years now, and some of this is spent
for administration, yet $95, 749, 900 was
spent in the last fiscal year because
of completion of numerous projects
long under construction Uncle Sam
does not pay until the job is done; he
takes no chances.
Other Sums Paid Out.
In the same fiscal year there was
paid from the National Treasury to
States on the $3.50 basis, Sc, &c., 900 for
cooperative agricultural work; $685.
600 for vocational education, $519, 900
for vocational rehabilitation and 1929.
600 under the maternity and infancy
act. All States participate in the first
three projects, some refuse the two
others.
A grand total of $110.259 ,42O paid
out in the last fiscal year as Federal
aid may not be SO imposing when
compared with taxes of 81, $50, 1925. 900
received by the national Treasury in
the same period, but it is in the dis.
tribution that the cause of argument
arises, as evidenced by the Senate
debate.
In addition IN tho Hvo Ctofas ,,,h,oL
last year received back more than 100
per cent Of the Federal taxes they
paid, three others received more tina n
so per cent: five between 25 and 40
per cent; thirteen between IL and %
per cent; eight between 5 and per
cent, and ten between 2 and per
cent, besides the four which received
back Less than z per cent