Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-01-22
CONGRESS- FINANCE
PLAN FOR DISTRICT
ASSA|LED IN HOUSE
Griffin Says Citizens Pay for
Benefits They Do Not
Receive.
FIXED SUM FROM YEAR
TO YEAR "GUESSW0RK"
Part Time Schools and Poorly
Lighted Streets Flayed in
Attack on Surplus.

n ucCidIdt1Ou CndJ OlStFlcC property
owners "oueaIt not to be taxed to raise
monies which are not spent for their
benefit and the benefit of the District"
was made in the House today by Repre-
sentative Griffin, Democrat, of New
York, ranking minority member on the
subcommittee that drafted the District
appropriation bill.
In speaking on the District appro-
priation bill when it was called up for
consideration in the House today, Mr..
Griffin attacked as illogical the mex
orably fixed policy of a hard and fast
unchanging figure in the lump-sum ap-
preparation by the Federal Government
Tor maintenance Of the National Capital.
i have never taken the position that
the $4,000, 900 lump sum in itself was
insufficient" said Mr.. Griffith. MY at
tltude always has been that we were
never in position to know precisely the
exact financial situation, and not know
ing that, have maintained that it was
unscientific to arbitrarily fix a uniform
specific sum each year irrespective OF
the annual expenditures.
Unable to Agree on Amount.
"At first blush it seemed" continued
Mr.. Griffin, that fundamentally the
National Government should grant to
the District at least the amount of the
taxes on Federal property which citi-
zen deriving the same advantages from
the District would have to pay on the
property.
THAT proposition was universally
conceded, but the friends and foes of
the lump sum were not able to agree
on the amount. Some maintained that
the Federal Governments Indebtedness
on tax valuation and assessment was
over $10,00O000.
Figures Varied Greatly.
Last year I tried to work out the
figures which would properly represent
the Federal obligations to the District.
My calculation gave the primary finan-
cial obligation of the Federal Govern
ment to the District as $7,035 900. The
chairman of our subcommittee last year
made an estimate as low as S5,01o,210.
Obviously, where there was such diver
sity of views there could be no common
ground Of agreement.
Accordingly, at the meeting of the
confereeS Of the House and Senate last
year 1t was agreed that the Bureau of
Efficiency should be asked to study the
question and give precise figures. Its
report has recently been submitted to
Congress and shows the primary finan-
cial obligation of the Federal Govern
ment to the District as a taxpayer to
be $7,440, 900.
MY calculation is therefore within
about $385,O00 of the budget estimate.
Our chairman'S estimate was Sl.621.-
729 under the bureaus figures.
Having now the precise amount of
the Federal Governmental obligation TO
the District fixed at $7,440, 600 we ought
70 ask ourselves: Is this all that the
Government ought to contribute? Are
there no other obligations of the Federal
government to the community which
mas grown up around the Capitol of
the country-a community which has
done so much to make the CAPITAL so
comfortable place in which Govern
ment officials might abide?
Unable to Venture Estimate.
Personally I believe that when the
Federal Government pays its taxes on
merely its real estate and personal be-
longings 1t has not fulfilled its fun obli-
cation, but how much more it ought
TO contribute for those vague and in
tangible but nevertheless obvious bene-
hts, am now unable to venture an
estimate.
1T is conceded that such benefits.
vague and indefinite. actually
exist and have material value. While
am not ready to appraise this value.
the upholders of the lump sum are
reaoy on the instant to say that their
value IS the difference between the tax
obligations of the Federal Government
and the magic sum of $4,000, 900.
consequently, when last year they
maintained that the Federal Govern
mentS financial obligation to the Dis
trlct was $5,800,000, they in effect
plainly admitted that the differences
between that and the $4,000. 900, or
S3,20O,O 600, was the value of the vague
and indefinite benefits accruing to the
United States.
Now this year with the tax indebt-
ednesS of the Federal Government axed
by the Bureau of Efficiency at s7.A4O.-
600, they rather nlogically, it seems to
me, maintain that 81 ,555,000 is the
proper Federal contribution to the Dis
taxpayers.
THE inexorable laws of logic have no
influence on their minds and the in
herent absurdity Of asserting last yeal
tnat the contribution should be s.. 200
600, but that this year it should be
only $l,556,O0O does not dawn on them.
No Further Light Needed,
mo further elucidation of the iIlogi-
cal inconsistency of the lump-sina
theory Is needed. The mere statement
Of the situation answers its absurd pre-
tentions.
Before We can answer the question.
therefore, as to the precise financial
obligation OF the Federal Government
10 the District we are forced to the
conclusion that the Bureau of Eficiency
VIII have to be called in again to slIb-
nit report in detail as to the pnecise
nature of what have called the vague
md indefinite benefits which last wear
we're appraised at $3,20O,O00 and this
rear at only $1.556. 600. Surely this
obligation expressed in dollars and cents
mould not have taken such a spasmodic
irop as that in one short year. Its
Iery irregular and spasmodic variation
rom year to year shows its utter un-
eliability.
But, however. that may be. I want
o emphasize the position which I have
constantly maintained from the begin-
ling OF the controversy I hold simply
hat the amount of the Federal Govern
nent's contribution should not be fixed
nexorably as hard and fast, un-
hanging figure. but should be varied
rom year to year upon some sound
ormula that would take the problem
tut OF the realms of gueSswork, and it
matter Of simple calculation each and
very separate year.
Furthermore I want to emphasize
(Continued on Page 2 Column ~