Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-12-19
Citizens Petition Congress for Equitable Fiscal Treatment

Federal participation in financing this
| distinctly semi-National project. The
Cramton law emphasizes and does not
weaken the argument above as 1t re-
lateS to the previous park legislation)
There are several other National or
semi-National projects which, as
result Of appropriations on the District
bill to finance them, with an inflexible
lump-Sum National contribution, have
been in effect paid for solely by Dis
trict taxpayers.
An Outstanding example among these
Is the Municipal Center. The proposed
Municipal airport" is pending as an
financed through the annual District
bills, while the appropriation of &C.
cumulated local taxes represented In
the surplus of 1922, without any cor
responding contribution OF any kind
or in any amount from the National
Treasury, is an historic case Of escape,
under the ump-sum practice, Of rec
ogniSed obligations.
Exclude National Projects.
4. Y the lump sum payment cam
not be- eQuitably increased 70 provide
for suitable National participation in
financing these National or semi-Na-
tiOnal projects, then the Congress n
asked TO exclude these appropriations
from the District bill, where their in
clusion results In obvious Inequity, and
to finance them in some other supply
bill, where the sharing Of the expense,
which the law or equity demands, can
be specifically provided.
5. And, finally, some action is asked
| which will limit appropriations Of
District money by Congress (the Dis
trict's legislature, in which It IS not
repreSented) in the same way that Cap
ttal 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
related expenditure Of National tax
money, was the main benefit derived by
| the District from the definite propOrs
tomato 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
tr1ct expenditures and taxation would
be cured by permitting the District to
participate so effectively IN the raising
and expenditure of it's 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 inflexi-
BILE nmp-sum payment plan Congress
limits itself concerning expenditures
on the Nations city of tax money con-
tributed by the Nation, which it repre-
sentS, but removes the limit upon the
raising and expenditure of the tax
money by the District, which it does not
represent and to which it is not at all
responsible. And as q result We have
| appropriations from the District tax
money abnormally swelling to meet
whole-coSt expenditures on National
and semi-National projects.
To prevent obvious injustice Congress
should either ~ increase equitably the
basic lump-Sum payment, or (2) ex-
clude great National or semi National
projects from the District bill and
| finance them on some other supply bill,
50 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 Il
thought to be just, or 90 provide for q
local as well as a National maximum Of
contribution, or ~ by referendum or
otherwise permit the local taxpayer to
have some effective say in regard to the
amount Of local taxes and the pur-
poses for which the tax money is to be
expended.
In appropriating and in legislating
our legislators are urged to recognize
by 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,
the 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.
Protection was afforded the local tax
payer under the 1878 law not only by
;he 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
so per cent of the total tax would be
exacted from them. Whenl the lump
sum payment plan was substituted ten
tatively 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 pay
ment plan to give the local taxpayers q
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 it 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-na-
tional and primarily national projects.
It is to correct this condition that
Washington now urges Congress, either
to abandon the lump-Sum unjustly one
sided experiment, or to make the Ma
items lump-sum contribution flexible
and to increase it, or to permit the local
taxpayers to have an effective voice in
deciding how much they viii 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 appropriation bill with the result
of limiting arbitrarily the amount of
the local contribution toward Capital
upbuilding on the same lines as under |
the lump-sum payment plan the ma
tional contribution Is limited.