Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-03-17
RELATIONS
S|DEL|GHTS GIVEN
Figures in Tables Capable of
Interpretation Two Ways.
Other Data Discussed.
CONTINUED Frog First Page.)

Surveying the first of these, Mr.. Sim
mons remarks, with pardonable pride:
1T is very interesting to study this
table, knowing that when we changed
| from the 60-40 arrangement to the
lump sum the Federal contribution, in
stead OF decreasing, increased. Is that
a fair statement"
| Mr.. Donovan-"That is a correct
statement when related to the time of
change"
Mr.. Simmons-"At the time of change
| yes; and that while the total amount
I of the bill has increased gradually the
Federal contribution has also been in
| creasing to such an extent that now, in
stead of $9,O00,0 900, it is considerably in
excess of $10,000,000, and it was $10,-
| 155 900 in the 1929 bill"
Yet in one column the table under
discussion shows that the United States
contribution since the lump sum adop-
| ton in 1925 has never risen above the
| high mark of $9,237 ,466, and the eSti-
mated contribution of the United States
! for 1881 is set down as $9,000,00O.
While the lump-Sum contribution in 1925
was higher than the 60-40 contribution
of 1924, it was lower than the 60-40
contribution in 1923. And the total
| appropriations for 1925 were $ll.000,OO0
greater than those of 1924.
| "A Matter OF Reasoning.
How does Mr.. Simmons reach his
conclusion, with the help of the audi
tors table, that the United States con-
| tribution now, instead of $9,00O,0 900, ="
is considerably in excess of $4,000, 900,
| and it wa.j $40, 155, 900 in the 1929 bill?
The process Of reasoning that leads to
| this conclusion is interesting and highly
! Informative.
pafa.o A. 1,,ro,, SIR, u-arf into effect
| the District and the United States d.
vided between them in the proportion
that each contributed certain miScella-
neous revenues. After adoption of the
| lump sum all of these revenues prevl-
ouSly so divided we're credited wholly TO
the District, but for the purpose OF
creating an impression Federal con-
tribution has been computed for each
year since 1924 by adding to the lump
sum that proportion of the miscellane-
Gus revenues which under 60-40 would
have reverted to the United States.
This is obviously faulty logic. The
United States no longer contributes 40
per cent to the activity or source from
whence such revenue was derived" and
| the contribution of 40 per cent to the
activity or source of the miscellaneous
revenues was the only justification for
collecting 40 per cent Of the revenues.
When the United States contributed so
per cent to the source of these revenues
it collected so per cent of the revenues.
Now, with contribution that approx
mates 81 per cent, the United States
continues to be credited with fictitious
contribution of 40 per cent OF the mis-
cellaneous revenue receipts.
Sixty-FOrty Ratio Dropped.
1t is true that If Congress were ap-
propriating fol the District on the
60-40 basis the million dollars or so
that represent 40 per cent of the mis-
cellaneouS revenues, and which are
credited to the District, would be
Federal contribution. The point is that
the United States no longer contributes
on the 600 basis, and 40 per cent of
the miscellaneous receipts, credited as
a Federal contribution, is based on moth
ing more tangible than thin air. Why
not credit so per cent, or 100 per cent.
for that matter?
Naturally, as the business of the Dis
trict increases, the miscellaneous reve-
nue. receipts increase, and the 40 per
cent arbitrarily set down as United
States equity in these receipts pro-
| duces a sum that increases steadily.
This explains the happy picture of the
| increasing Federal contribution por-
| trayed by Mr.. Simmons with the help
of the auditors table.
Depends Upon the Basis.
1t will be noticed, however, that while
| the District auditor has complied the
tables, he carefully refrains from COM
ment as to the equity or the reason
ableness of the assumptions of Mr..
Simmons. Mr.. Thatcher remarked that
the miscellaneous receipts are growing
each year. He said:
''TTVI1of will moan n10re than fhe
50 900 900 that comes from Federal
SourceS?"
Mr.. Donovan-"Yes, If considered on
the basis set forth"
The basis set forth is, of course, vital
1t might be fair to regard 81 per cent
of the miscellaneous revenues as Fed
eral contribution AMI add it to the lump
sum. But 40 per cent no longer bears
any relation to the division, on paper,
of these receipts.
Of equal interest to the District is
the table inserted in the record showing
the United States contribution and the
Districts tax rate If the pending appro-
priation we're made on the basis of
6O-40. The former is set down as
SIS, 467 CAT and the latter as $1.40, in
stead of the current $1.70.
Based on the premise that the 1891
budget under 60-40 would be identical
with the current budget under the lump
sum, the above conclusion is correct.
Premise Held Far Fetched.
But the promise is pretty far fetched.
Therefore, the conclusion is worthless.
It appears to have been arrived at for
the purpose of indicating that return
to the 60-40 method OF approprlatng
for the District would merely result in
drastic reduction in local taxation
and an equally drastic revision upward
of the United States contribution.
The current budget-and this will not
be debated-waS framed on revenue
availability with $170 tax rate and
a lump sum of 100000, plus certain
surplus revenues to the credit OF the
District. 1t was not framed on the
basis of appropriations needed TO carry
out pending and necessary projects OF
improvement in the Capital. budget
framed on the anticipation of a 40 per
cent contribution from the united
States, plus local revenue receipts from
the current tax rate. would be much
higher than the 1881 budget under
study. 1t would enable the District 10
go forward with many projects that
now are blacklisted because no money is
available to pay for them. AS lar as
known, there has been no public agita-
ton in the District for reduction IN
the local tax rate, and the fixed ratio
has not been advocated from any quar-
ter with that purpose in mind. II
would have been more enlighten1ng, not
only to the District, but to the members
of Congress, had Mr.. Simmons directed
the auditor to prepare budget for the
purpose of illustrating what could be
accomplished in the District under the
existing tax rate, plus a 40 per cent
contribution from the Government.
The preparation of such a budget
would not only present the other side OF
the picture, which Mr.. Simmons, OF
course, wants to be presented, but the