Evening star., 1930-06-13
Defense Of the Lump Sum.


report TO the House on the District bill
deadlock. and his statements therefore
become partisan brief in support OF
the existing lump sum instead Of q judi
cial opinion that concerns itself with q
careful Weighing Of the pros and the
cons.
He argues against the fixed ratio
system, when the issue now Is an in
crease In the lump sum- He conceives
Of increased local taxation as the re-
suit of increased property value. blithe-
ly disnissing the equally important
factor Of increased demands for rev.
enue. He minimizes expansion Of the
Federal holdings when seeking to prove
one thing, but emphasizes 1t in seeking
Co prove another. He compares the
Federal City, established for and main
tanned as the American Capital. gov
erned exclusively by the Nation, to the
self-governing. self-sustaining and in
dependent cities, and he regards the
Federal share of expense in maintain
ing the Federal Capital as a "gratuity''
that is not enjoyed by other cities. His
premises are so strange that his con-
clusions run wild and one Is left
wholly in the dark as to why the lump
sum should be 100000 instead Of
S3.32, as his argument, with the revi-
sion Of few figures, would be as ef-
fective in support Of the one as Of the
other.
His discussion Of fiscal relations may
be divided into two parts, the first
dealing with an explanation Of the
adoption of the lump sum, and the sec
ond attacking the position assumed by
the Senate conferees in their efforts to
increase it.
AS interesting as Mr.. Simmons clin-
ical report on the birth of the lump
sum may be, the question now Ii the
increase proposed by the Senate.
The Senate conferees said that If
e0oo,o 900 was fair and just in 1925
Wnen the total Of the bill was $31, ,0O0,-
900. 1t cannot be fair and just when
the total of the bill is S43,00o,000 in
1891. Mr.. Simmons attacks this on the
ground that the relationship between
the Federal property value and activ-
tiles and the Districts property value
and activities does not remain constant;
In other words. that the Districts prop
erty values and activities have increased
enormously, citing assessments and tax
rates to prove ii, but the Federal hold
Ings and activities have not increased
Ia proportion to the District increases.
Mr.. Simmons logic here is that A
(the Federal Governmen0 and B (the
District government) started out as equal
property holders and as equal taxpayers,
but while A has increased his holdings
by so per cent, B has increased his by
100 or more per cent. Therefore the
ratio between the value Of their prop
erty does not remain constant. There
fore AS taxes should not be increased
as BIS taxes reflect such tremendous
growth. That conclusion does not follow.
It is misleading to cite tax rates and as
sessment figures as proof of increased
property value and expansion without
taking into account the demand for
revenue upon which both are based. 1t
Is equally misleading to construe the
amount of the lump sum as being based
upon Federal property holdings alone.
Mr.. Simmons states that figures and
atudies are ample to show that the tax
rate In Washington Is low when all
elements are balanced OF and con-
sidered," but analysis Of the Bureau OF
Efficiency findings showed that with the
United States participating as a theo-
retical taxpayer upon certain Of his real
and personal property, Washington
per capita tax burden exceeded that OF
every one Of the fourteen cities COM
pared, with the exception of Boston
without the United States participation
washington's per capita was greatel
than that of Baltimore, New Orleans
st. Louis, Indianapolis and Minneapolis
and closely approximated those o.
Jersey City, Rochester and Cleveland
But here again Mr. Simmons avoids the
issue, which is not the extent of loca
taxes, but the increased liability Of thI
United States.
The Senate conferees cited a number
Of proposed municipal improvement
and correctly asked where the none!
vas to come from to pay for them. Mr.
Simmons answers the question b.
doubling the ultimate realization o
some Of the projects in the first place
suggesting that it would be nice If tn
United States would be their 9TH
District taxpayersO Santa Claus" in tn
second place, and by forecasting, in tn
third place, that the projects can b
paid for from current revenues with
out unduly burdening the people o
Washington with taxes" For municips
development the people Of Washington
should look to their own resources, h
says, rather than ask the United State
70 carry their burden" thus ignorin
the fact that such developments ar
laid out on a scale commensurate wit
the needs of the Federal Capital an
not the needs of the municipality; tina
they are planned and carried out by tn
Federal Government or its agents an
not by the taxpayers Of this munich
pality; that the resources Of the peopl
Of washington are strictly limited an
that they do not ask the United State
to carry their burden, but merely Il
own.
The Senate conferees cited the with
drawal of taxable property in Govern
want acnTisition aS a factor to be col