Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-10-05
Budget Bureau and D. C. Funds.

dTSL OF WHICH appears To-Day, discusses
the control over District affairs that
nine years of budget practice have
vested in the FeoeSzl Bureau of the
Budget. The practical results involve
questions of extra ordinary importance
to the taxpayers of this city, especially
in their connection with congressional
disregard of substantive law in appro-
priating for the District. While the
substantive law, never repealed, was
followed by Congress when the budget
act was framed and passed, it has been
regularly evaded since 1924, three years
after the Budget Bureau came into
existence.
When the lump sum practice was
begun it was promised that as a result
Of this method Of appropriation the
District taxpayers would have greater
control over their own taxes and over
the expenditure Of these taxes. The
Intervention of the Budget Bureau in
connection with the lump sum appro-
priation has caused directly opposite
result. The District taxpayers are still
further removed from control on Amer
lean principles Of their taxes. Since
the adoption tentatively of the lump
sum appropriation practice Congress
has shown no tendency whatever to
give greater consideration to this desire
Of the local taxpayers concerning the
amount and the methods Of expenditure
Of their taxes. The Budget Bureau
merely becomes an additional dictator
in the Districts fiscal affairs.
When the definite proportionate con-
tribution system prevailed in actual
practice the local taxpaying community,
though it did not participate in dis
cussions concerning its fiscal affairs,
was measureably protected by the fact
that its national partner. who did all
the deciding in respect to local affairs,
could not tax the local community
without also proportionately taxing
itself. Under the proportionate contri-
button system, If the Nation through
Congress compelled the local community
to pay more for Capital maintenance it
was itself compelled to pay more. Under
the lump sum practice. the more that
the Nation through Congress exacted
from the local taxpayers, the less it
was itself compelled to pay.
When the lump sum practice was
begun. it was estimated that as an
Offset to the protection under the pro-
portionate contribution system which
the local taxpayers had lost, the latter
would be permitted greater participation
IN their local fiscal decisions. Indeed,
it was intimated that in respect to the
local taxpsying community's contribu-
ton to the Capital maintenance fund
as distinguished from the National
lump sum contribution-the Districts
views and wishes would be paramount.
OF course, no such result has been
noted. Congress in appropriation prac-
tice repudiated its own obligation Of
proportionate contribution self-imposed
by law, but did not increase by
particle the Districts control or con-
sideration Of its wishes in respect to its
own exclusive contribution in taxes,
licenses, water rents, etc. Indeed, with
the Intervention of the Budget Bureau
its control was by one stage further
removed.
: With Congress in exclusive, undivided
control Of District fiscal affairs, and
with power in the Commissioners to
initiate estimates. the local taxpaying
community-which on American prin-
ciples would have exclusive control Of
its own purely local taxes-had first TO
petition the misunderstanding Commits
sioners for consideration Of its views
and wishes in respect to its exclusively
local taxes; and finally had to petition
Congress for consideration Of its views
In making appropriations. With the
intervention of the Budget Bureau a
third dictator is added, to whom the
District taxpayers must petition.
Congress is not bound to appropriate
as the Commissioners and Budget
Bureau recommend, but it can and
when 1t pleases does refuse even TO con-
slider any appropriation which does not
meet the approval Of the Budget Bureau
and Commissioner. Even the civilian
Commissioners become less and less
recognized as representatives of the
local community, and their Federal
character is constantly more strongly
emphasized.
When Congress, under the law Of 1878
appropriated In advance one-hah Of
what it decided to be adequate Capt.
tai municipal expenditures, and Their
collected the other half from Distric'
taxpayers, the spirit of the American
principle that taxation and representa-
ton are inseparable, and that thos'
who put up the money should contro
It, was practically observed. On tn
theory that the civilian Commissioner
represent primarily the local com
nunity, and that broadly the estimate
which they submit represent, to Ger
tain degree, the local community
needs and wishes, the exercise by Con
gress, representing the Nation. OF tn
power Of fiscal enactment concernin
the collection and disbursement OF tn
Joint municipal fund is not inconsisten
with the American doctrine that thos
who pay should control, since with tn
Nation contributing one-half Of tn
Joint fund, the assent by single locs
taxpayer to the Nations decisions cor
corning the disposition Of the joint fun
would give to those decisions the ma
q