New Britain herald., 1928-12-13
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COSTS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COSTS
 What we read about in the cost of government runs something like this: The cost of the national gov ernment has steadily decreased dur ing the past few years, but the cost of local government has increased.
 Therefore the propaganda has II that the national government IS vastly more efficient than the local governments.
 Sounds easy, doesn't it? Federal government costs go down, local government costs go up. Therefore the former is good and the latter bad.
 What is overlooked in citing the figures is that during the war the cost of the national government went up amazingly-vastly faster than the exigencies of carrying on 
 the war demanded. in the opinion Of many people. The costs of local gov- ernment at that time stood still. It ,yas the local governments which at that time were economical. holding up needed improvements until the war and it's aftermath was a thing of the past.
 There was no criticism of the fed eral government at the time, though there was considerable of it after wards. Now, when the local govern- ments have been forced to catch up with their needs. the critics hold up their hands in dismay.
 Will someone tell any municipali- ty how it is going to build schools, for instance, without spending money? Will some experts tell us how to purify city water without spending money? Will they be so kind as to inform us how to meet the requirements of sewage dis posal without expending money? Will they be so kind as to inform us how roads are to be built with out getting rid of money in the process?
 Facts are, all the potent big bus mess magnates are fond of educa- ton, good water, proper sewage disposal. well paved streets. and good highways.
 Here are figures propagandized by the U, s! Chamber of Commerce: In 1913 taxes for local governments amounted to s12 per capita: in 1926 they amounted to $35 per capita, an increase of 191 per cent. In 1913 the bonded indebtedness of local governments was less than sS.o00.- 100000, or $50 per capita: in 1925 it was s75.10 per capita, Or total of more than sS,5oo, 100000.
 We'll, what of it? Begin to analyze the situation a bit.
 How about the difference in the cost of things in 1913 and 1926. That in itself accounts for q great deal of the difference. The remain der is accounted for by the increased demands of the nation and it's in- creased prosperity. The c. of C. naturally will admit it's increased prosperity. so we guess there will be no argument about this point.
 The main point to consider is whether the local governments in- vest their money in productive enterprises and not municipal lllxuries. Jt can be said truthfully that most of the money has been in- vested in this manner.
 ITe see no howl from the [. S C. Of C. about the money loaned abroad The combined government and private investment abroad is ,O0U9y0, ,G10. Of this amount sl2 .o0o,0 u0G is owing to private American investors, This makes the figures for local taxation look rather small. h 1g27 private loans abroad inCr, a-el 72 per cent over the year before; in the first quarter of 1928 in" total O. foreign investments by Americans went to such dizzy figures that there has been wide spread comment.
 The critics Of local enterprise had Letter worry how the foreigners ars eyer going to pay back these i'm. r.ense sums-and remember they've got to pay them back in American money. not in marks. francs. shill. iags, lire or what they've go' handy.
 THE COST OF DELAY