Evening star., 1930-12-06
The Inviting Plans. "


should consider the four so-celled "in.
viting methods" Of allocating costs be.
tween the District and Federal Govern
1nents in the spirit in which the Com
missioners laid them, without indorsing
any Of them, before the committee
None of them provides practical Oh
acceptable formula for settling the is
sue. Each Of them, however, may ob-
tain some good suggestions that might
Be of value.
Mr.. Cramton's objection to the plans
& generally based on a naive contention
that none is so good as the lump sum-
The unworkability of the lump sunni
workability may be defined in this case
as bringing satisfactory RESULTS what
led to the present inquiry.
The more plans and theories sug-
eested.. the more emphasis is given to
the practicability and mutual fairness
that lie in substantive law, never re-
pealed. That law recognizes definite
responsibility on the part of the Federal
Government that Is definitely linked
with the Federal Governments power Of
exclusive control. The only limit that
tt places on the local contribution is the
limit that Congress deems wise to place
upon the Federal contribution. 1t pro-
tects the unrepresented taxpayers of
tte District against excessive taxation
by placing tangible check upon i'm
pulsive appropriations Of Federal funds,
and assures, at the same time, suifi-
ctent funds for steady Development Of
the Capital.
The four plans placed before the
committee by the Commissioners are
not new. They have been suggested
many times Sefore, in one form or
Another. None has ever been successful
as none exceeded the merits of the law
that was written after years of hap
hazard appropriating for the Capital,
and which still remains on the books
despite persistent efforts to wipe it of,
and despite temporarily successful legis-
lativs evasions.
Mr.. Cramton, criticizing these plans.
states that the tar rate Is low here and
shat If Congress decided to adopt tha
old proposal that the District be fairly
and adequately taxed. the Federal Gov
ernment making up the balance between
the amount derived from local taxation
and the amount needed for adequate
Capital improvement and maintenance,
severy member Of Congress knows that
the rate would be higher than s1.7o."
Mr. Cramton's attitude is symbolic. The
eAx burden, which obviously cannot be
measured by the tax rate a,one, is
relatively high in Washington. Yet,
u the major responsibility for financing
the Capital were placed upon local
taxation, as this plan suggests, the
efforts of Congress would be directed
toward increasing the local tax burden
and diminishing the Federal contribu-
ton. The community would suffer from
excessive taxation or the Capital City
from neglect.
The method proposed Of fixing the
Federal contribution on the basis Of the
Federal obligation as municipal tax
payer Is sound, If construed as the Blu.
reau Of Eficiency construes it. This
does not mean an actual proposal to
tax the Federal Government. It is
merely to measure part Of the Fed
sral obligation by giving practical and
tangible consideration to the tremen-
oous amount of tax-exempt property in
the District. But Mr.. Cramton imme-
o1ately confuses the theory with a plan
actually to impose tax upon the Fed
eral Government. If he so miscon-
strues 1t, the dangers Of even wider
miscoDstruction are apparent, with the
resulting conflict and confusion. In
addition, the Federal Governments OBJ.
tgation exceeds that Of mere munici-
pal taxpayer.
The method Of having the District
Of Columbia pay for support and main
tenance Of the Capital. with the Fed
eral Government furnishing revenue for
Capital expenditures, would have meant
IN the last fiscal year that the District
would have paid about two-thirds Of the
appropriations. That might be con-
sidered fair If the Federal Government
were willing to commit itself definitely
20 appropriating for construction each
year a definite proportion of mainte-
nance costs. thus assuring adequate
building and development. But without
such a commitment the plan would be
worthless.
The fourth method proposed is for the
District and the Federal Governments to
apportion expenses on the basis of serv-
ices rendered. This would not work be-
cause it is impossible TO arrive at such
q division. A division Of financial re-.
sponsihility would of necessity mean q
division OF control. If control over the
municipal functions were released by
Congress to the local community, the
latter should then bear the financial
responsibility for such functions, pay
the bills and collect from the Federal
Government only specific compensation
for services specifically rendered. But If
the Nation win not permit division of
control, It should not, nor can it, permit
division Of financial responsibility.