Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-08-30
The Fiscal Inquiry Begins.

The Bureau of Efficiency is wise in
anticipating the demand for its pei
capita tax statistics on Washington and
other cities and revising them in ad.
vance of the House fiscal inquiry thi:
Fall or this Winter. New population
counts have made the former tables pre-
pared by the bureau of little current
value, for the counts have been either
below or above the estimated popula-
tons used by the bureaus statisticians
Likewise, the District has been pro-
ducing an annually increasing revenue
since the year 1928, used by the bureau
in its computations, and it is necessary
to show whether these increased revenue
demands have been proportionate, in re-
spect to the increased revenue demands
of other cities, or whether they have
been relatively larger.
While the bureau did not reach con-
illusions or make recommendations in
Its former report it did present the
facts. Taken in part, these facts were
susceptible of varying Interpretation.
Considered as whole, they could be
interpreted in only one way, and that
Interpretation amply justified the petit
ton OF Washington taxpayers for
equitable fiscal treatment at the hands
of Congress. BY considering only q
part of the bureaus findings some of
the members of the House referred to
them as ample proof that their own
statements regarding the extreme gen.
crosby of the Federal Government
toward the District and the favored
position of Washington among all tax
paying cities we're true.
1t is doubtful il the bureau can make
a report that will not be twisted to suit
the ends of whoever makes use of the
figures, unless the bureau chooses to
state its opinion of the findings and
this is improbable. The bureaus COM
ment on its tables, for instance, pointed
out that the Governments liability to
the city should be computed first, on
its tax liability as a municipal tax
payer, and secondly, on its liability on
account of loss Of revenue and on &C.
count Of extraordinary expenditures oc-
casioned by the fact that Washington
Is the National Capital. Some of WASH
ington's critics in the House took cog
nizance only of the suggestion that the
Governments liability as a taxpayer
be computed, and discarded entirely the
accompanying and equally important
suggestion regarding the Federal Gov
ernment's additional liability on account
of the size and nature of expenditures
in the Federal city.
Likewise, the bureaus finding of an
adjusted tax rate by a formula that
endeavored to reduce all cities to a
common starting point was fair enough
as. far as it went, but it did not 60 far
enough. It did not make the deduc-
tions from tax levies of other cities that
should be made to cover such items
as State taxes, sinking fund and in
terest payments on bonded indebted
ness. AS the people of the other cities
receive benefits from such tax payments
that are denied the people of Washing
ton, it is erroneous to seek an adjusted
tax rate comparison or per capita tax
comparison without making the deduc-
tons for State taxes, sinking fund and
interest payments. While the bureau
was careful TO tabulate the State taxes
and sinking fund and interest payments
Of all cities, it did not deduct them in
making its final adjusted tables of COM
parison. The bureau should include
among its new tables an additional one
showing the results of such deductions
on an adjusted tax rate. It could easily
do. this without committing itself to the
principle involved in making these
proper deductions.
An air race often disappoints the