Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-17

trict's legislature in which it is not
represented in the same way that
| Capital expenditures of national tax
money are limited under the lump
SUM payment plan. When the appro-
prtatiCns of local and national tax
money on the Capital We're by law
and in practice in definite percentage
relation this limitation automaticaI-
~ resulted, and this check upon the
appropriation of District tax money.
unless accompanied by a related oX-
penditure Of national tax money, was
the main benefit derived by the Dis
trict from the definite propoftionate
contribution plan.
When for the latter plan, at the
instance OF the appropriations com
mittees, the lump-sum payment plan
was tentatively substituted, II was
suggested that loss of this limitation
upon District expenditures and tax
alton would be cured by permitting
the District TO participate SO effec-
lively in the raising and expenditure
of its tax money that it could be
eXtraVagaut or economical, as ii
pleased. But, in fact. the District
has no more TO say about its taxation
and the expenditure of its taxes un'
der the lGmp-sum payment plan than
under that OF definite proportionate
contribution. And under the irlfieNi-
BILE lump-sum payment plan Congress
limits Itself concerning expenditures
on the Nations city Of tax money con
tributed by the Nation which ii rep
resents, but removes the limit upon
the raising and expenditure of the
tax money by the District, which it
does not represent and to which it
is not at all responsible. And as q
result we have appropriations from
the District tax money abnormallv
swelling to meet whole-cost e&pendi
lures on national and semi-national
projects.
To prevent obvious injustice Con-
gress should either ~ increase equi-
tabiy the basic lump-sum payment,
or CD exclude great national or semi
national projects from the District bill
and finance them on some other sup
ply bill, so wording the items thus ex-
cluded as to set forth the exact method
of financing i'm relation to the amounts
of contribution by Nation and Capital
that is thought to be just, or (3) pro-
vide for local as well as a national
maximum OF contribution, or al by
referendum or otherwise permit the
local taxpayers to have some effective
say in regard TO the amount of local
taxes and the purposes for which the
tax money is to be expended.
In appropriating and in legislating
our legislators are urged to recognize
by the wording of the law, and in
and applying it, that since
the Nation is in exclusive control of
the raising and spending Of all Capt.
tai revenue, including the District tax
money, the United States is the pri-
mary and the District only the in
cidental contributor, and not vice
versa, as the present lump-sum pay
ment plan seems TO assume.
District Only Incidental Contributor.
Protection was afforded the local
taxpayer under the 1873 law not only
by the provision that the Nation would
contribute so per cent of the total
but also by the assur
ance that the local taxpayers would
not be compelled to contribute more
than so per cent Of the total So in
the law of 1922 the effect of the stat
ute was to pledge the local taxpayers
that not more than 60 per cent of the
total tax would be eXacted from
them. When the lmnp-sum payment
plan was substituted tentatively for
the 60-40 ratio this pledge was sus-
pended, but it was suggested that an
effective substitute for this pledge was
found in the declared determination of
Congress under the lump-sum pay
ment plan to give the local taxpayers
a certain control over their own tax
raising and tax spending, involving
the power to be extravagant or eco
and to spend as much or lit |
tie of it's own tax money as 1t pleased. |
But Congress in fact limited its power |
to expend national tax money, and |
eft undetermined the amount of local |
AK money that 1t could expend. And |
{ has exercised this power without |
regard to the wishes of the taxpayers |
to raise and spend local taxes not |
)nly for strictly municipal purposes, |
but for semi-national and primarily |
national projects.
1t is to correct this condition that |
now urges the appropria- !
lions committee and Congress, either |
to abandon the ll1mp-Sum unjustly
experiment or to make the
lump-sum contribution fiex-
lble and to increase it, or to permit
the local taxpayers to have an effec-
tive voice in deciding how much they
win raise in taxes and how they will
spend the taxes when raised, or to
restrict the kind and amount of appro.
priations on the District appropria-
tons bill with the result of limiting
the amount of the local con
tributton toward Capital upbuilding
on the same lines as under the lump.
sum payment plan the national CON
tribltiou is limited