Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-10-05

sioners expressed the belief that the SAL
airy items referred to were comparative
~ small in total in comparison with the
betterment items eliminated.
The subcommittee chairman indi-
Gated throughout the discussion that
he thought the Budget Bureau might
have approved a different set of items
II second list OF SupplementalS hao
been submitted.
The surplus question, which formed
the basis of that difference of opinion
between the Budget Bureau and the
Commissioners regarding details OF
local expenditures no longer exists.
Congress, since that time, has enacted
local legislation which has used up vir-
tually all of the accumulated funds.
For example, $6,000,000 has been APP
propriated since that time to buy land
for the Municipal Center Development.
With no surplus, other than the cash
operating fund which Congress has re-
quired the District to set up the de-
cisionS of both the Commissioners and
the Budget Bureau on local expendi-
lures during the next year or two will
be of far-reaching importance to Dis
trict citizens.
Action This Year Watched.
The Commissioners have submitted
year estimates totaling approximately
100000. 1t has been reported that
the city heads predicated this years
estimates on a proposed $4,000. 900
Federal contribution and a tax rate of
S1.80, as compared with the current
Federal share of $9,500,000 and $1.70
tax rate. OF course, it will not be
known what view the Budget Bureau
and the President will take until the
budget goes forward to Congress in De-
cember.
With the House preparing to study
the fiscal relations problem through a
special committee, and with Chairman
Bingham of the Senate subcommittee
on. District appropriations also plan
ming to gather further information on
the subject, whatever arrangement is
proposed in the budget is likely to be
thoroughly studied in both branches of
Congress this Winter.
The first departure from the 60-40
ratio provided for by substantive law
occurred in Congress in June, 1924, in
the appropriation bill for the fiscal year
1925. In transmitting the next set of
estimates to Congress in December,
1924, for the fiscal year 1926, the Bud
get Bureau so worded the enacting
clause as to make it, in effect, recon-
mendation for a return to the 40 per
cent ratio of Federal contribution.
What the Budget Bureau did that
year was to write the enacting clause
with the 100000 provision inclosed
IN brackets, meaning 1t was language
taken from the preceding appropria-
ton act. but with the 40 per cent Fed
eral contribution also inserted in italics
after the brackets, meaning 1t was
recommended change from the preced-
ing act
The House, however. insisted that
year on repeating the 100000 lump
sum provision which had been inaugu-
rated the year before, and for the five
years that have since elapsed the Dis
trict budget has gone forward each De-
cember from the Budget Bufeau with
the SO 100000 provision already incor-
porated in the enacting sectionI In each
Of these five years the House Succeeded
in holding Congress to the i$9, 900 900
figure, until, in the bill for the current
year, the Senate obtained a $500, 900 in
crease. How the next budget will be
phrased will not be known until 1t is
submitted TO Congress.