Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-02-02

which will limit appropriations of
District money by Congress (the Dis
trict's legislature. In which 1t Is not
represented in the same way that Cap
ital expenditures of National tax money
are limited under the lump-sum pay
ment plan. When the appropriations
of local and National tax money for the
CAPITAL were by law and in practice In
definite percentage relation this limita-
ton automatically resulted, and this
check upon the appropriation OF District
tax money, unless ACCOMPANIED by a
related expenditure of National tax
money, was the main benefit derived by
the District from the definite proper
tionate contribution plan.
When for the latter plan. at the in
stance Of the House appropriations COM
mittee. the lump-sum payment plan was
tentatively substituted 1t was suggested
that loss of this limitation upon Dis
trict expenditures and taxation would
be cured by permitting the District to
participate so effectively in the raising
and expenditure of its tax money that
1t could be eXtravagant or economical,
AS 1t pleased. But, in fact. the District
has no more to say about its taxation
and the expenditure of its taxes I'M
der the lump-sum payment plan than
under that of definite proportionate
contribution. And under the infiexi-
BILE lump-sum payment plan Congress
limits itself concerning expenditures
on the Nations CITY of tax money con-
trihuted by the Nation. which 1t repre-
sents. but removes the limit upon the
raising and expenditure of the tax
money by the District which 1t does not
represent and to which it Is not at all
responsible. And as result we have
appropriations from the District tax
money abnormallv swelling to meet
whole-cost expenditures on National
and semi-National projects.
To prevent obvious injustice Congress
should either "a increase equitably the
basic lump-sum payment. or (2l ex-
cIude great National or semi National
projects from the District bill and
finance them on some other supply bill.
so. wording the items thus excluded as
to set forth the exact method of finance
ing In relation to the amounts of con-
tributiOn by Nation and Capital that is
thought to be just. or (3) provide for a
local IS well as National maximum of
contribution. or al by referendum or
otherwise permit the local taxpayers to
have some effective say I'm regard to the
amount OF local taxes and the pur-
poses for which the tax money is to be
exnended.
In appropriating and In legislating
our legislators are urged to recognize
bv the wording of the law. and In con-
STRUNG and applying it. that since the
Nation Is In exclusive control of the
raising and spending Of all Capital rev.
enue. including the District tax money,
tne united States Is the primary and
the District only the incidental con-
tributor, and not vice versa. as the
present lump-sum payment plan seems
to assume.
District Only Incidental Contributor.
Protection was afforded the local tax
payer under the 1878 law not only by
the provision that the Nation would con-
tribute SO per cent of the total appro-
priation, but also by the assurance that
the local taxpayers would not be COM
PEELED to contribute more than so per
cent Of the total. So in the law of 1922
the effect of the statute was to pledge
the local taxpayers that not more than
gu per cent Of the total tax would be
exacted from them. When the lump
sum payment plan was substituted ten
tativeiy for the 60-40 ratio this pledge
was suspended, but 1t was suggested that
an effective substitute for this pledge
was found in the declared determination
OF Congress under the lump-Sum paw
ment plan to give the local taxpayers a
certain control over their own tax rails
ing and tax spending. involving the
power to be extravagant or economical
and to spend as much or little of their
own tax money as they pleased. But
Congress in fact limited its power to
expend National tax money, and left
undetermined the amount of local tax
money that 1t could expend. And it has
exercised this power without regard to
the wishes OF the taxpayers to raise and
spend local taxes not only for strictly
municipal purposes, but for semi
National and primarily National
projects.
1t is to correct this condition that
washington now urges the appropria-
lions committees and Congress, either
to abandon the lump-sum unjustly one
SIDED experiment, or to make the
Nations lunp-Sum contribution flexible
and to increase It, or to permit the local
taxpayers to have an effective voice in
deciding how much they will raise in
taxes and how they will spend the taxes
when raised, or to restrict the kind and
amount OF appropriations on the Dis
trict appropriations bill, with the result
OF limiting arbitrarily the amount of the
local contribution toward Capital up-
building on the same lines as under the
lump-sum payment plan the National
contribution is limited