Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-14
Increase the, Lump Sum!
argument Accompanying Petition to Congress
Urging Substantial Enlargement of Federal
Contribution to the District Bill.

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 lump-sum practice, of rec
ognized obligations.
Exclude National Projects.
4. II the lump sum payment can
not be equitably increased to provide
for suitable National participation in
financing these National or semi-Na-
tiOnal projects, then the Congress is
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
ital 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
definite percentage relation. this lirnita-
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 proper
tomato contribution plan
When for the latter plan, at the in
stance of the House appropriations COM
linn IL {
tentatively substituted, 1t was suggested
that loss of this limitation upon Dis
trict expenditures and taxation would
b. cured by permitting the District to
participate so effectively In the raising
and expenditure of its tax money that
1t could be extravagant or economical,
as it pleased. But, in fact, the District
has no more to say about its taxation
and the expenditure OF Its taxes I'M
under that of definite proportionate
contribution. And under the inf1exi-
BILE lump-sum payment plan Congress
limits itself concerning expenditures
on the Nations city Of tax money con-
tributed by the Nation, which 1t repre-
sents, but removes the limit upon the
raising and expenditure OF the tax
money by the District, which 1t does not
represent and to which it Is not at all
DO ACoblb VIC AAoNS
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 ~ ex-
clude great National or semi-NatiOnal
projects from the District bill and
finance them on some other supply bill,
so wording the items thus excluded as
to set forth the exact method OF financ-
ing in relation to the amounts Of con-
tribution by Nation and Capital that Is
thought to be just, or 81 provide for a
local as well as National maximum Of
contribution, or az by referendum or
otherwise permit the local taxpayers 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 1t, 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.