Evening star., 1929-06-25
Fiscal Year 1880.

1OCal s..sssssssssss...$4 $44 700 ,6O0
The Star said that it calculated the
percentage Of relation of the nine mill
lions lump sum payment to the total
revenue. This relation was 20 plus per
cent. and the total revenue was s44.-
5000, on the basis Of Auditor Dono-
vans estimate appearing above.
The Star said that when statisticians
differ In their conclusions there is a
difference of opinion among them con-
corning the premises upon which the
conclusions are based; and that Mr..
Simmons % per cent conclusion was
doubtless reached by adding disputed
item to the nine millions lump-sum
payment and subtracting certain dis
puted items from the total budget.
Auditor Donovan in q letter requested
by Mr.. Simmons and published in full
in last Sundays Star shows exactly by
what additions to the lump sum and by
what subtractions from the total budget
ne reached for Mr.. Simmons the %
showed how a conclusion of 25 per cent,
or one Of ~ per cent, might also be
reached.
Mr.. Simmons. it seems, adds to the
lump sum 40 per cent Of the estimates
for 1880 of certain miscellaneous
revenues, and he suhtracts the proceeds
Of the gasoline tax and the water tax
and another item of 100000 from the
total appropriation for 1880 as con-
tanned in the bin passed in the last
regular session of Congress.
Auditor Donovan In building I'D q
% per cent figure for Mr.. Sinmens ex-
cludes all appropriations except those
made in the regular District bill, and
picks out Of that bill only those which
he calls "divisible appropriations.
But Mr.. Simmons goes far beyond
Auditor Donovans cautious words OF
limitation and declares broadly in the
Record that: I'VE are paying this yeal
approximately % per cent of the cost
Of running the municipal government ir
the District Of Columbia out Of Fedora
funds" Is not this statement mis-
leading?
Is not the money exacted by taxing
gasoline users and appropriated in ad-
vance for road and street improvement;
and repair part Of "the cost of run.
ming the municipal government In thu
District of Columbia? Is it any less {
local tax because it taxes gasoline in.
stead Of real estate or tangible ane
Intangible personally? Is not the watel
tax, or rental, exacted from water user
and spent in maintenance and develop
ment Of the water system part of tn,
cost of running the municipal gov.
ernment In the District Of Columbia" :"
Is 1t any less tax because it is ex
acted from the water-using and tax
paying community, which already Il
equity owns nore than half Of th
water plant? Is it any less a com
munity tax because Uncle Sam. frac
tional water-plant owner. is the onl
water user who gets his water TO
nothing?
Is it not undeniably misleading t
state as % per cent of the cost Q
running the municipal government" 2
per cent of the "divisible appropria
tions" of the 1890 appropriation bill
emitting all appropriations made out
side the District bill and all supple
mental appropriations which figured
Auditor Donoyan's 1880 estimates?
One Of the items which Audite
Donovan believed at the time he con
piled his fiye-year budget would be
supplemental appropriation, and 81
it down as such, but which is entire
omitted in the 20 per cent calculation
was the sum of $2.5lo,00O, subsequent
raised to s3,0Oo,o 900 for the purchase
sites for the municipal center. The
three millions have been appropriate
solsly from the Districts accurpplatl