Evening star., 1932-01-07
Illogical Inconsistencies.

Illogical inconsistencies.
The inconsistency of following one
appropriative practice for the District
while another remains in the form Of
mandatory and unrepealed law is ap-
parent to everybody, including the
members of the House who, by seek
ing the repeal of the law after its
evasion, by that act confess their in
consistency.
Other inconsistencies, hurtful and
unfair to the politically impotent tax
payers Of the District are discussed
in today's chapter of The Stars series
of articles on the history of fiscal rela-
tions. They are evident in connec-
ton with what has happened and
what is happening to surplus revenues,
amassed by exacting more from the
District in taxation than is appro-
pristed.
1t required the persistent efforts OF
Washingtonians, made in the face OF
hostile ridicule, to interest Congress in
the claim that the District was eptitled
to some S5,257528 collected from local
taxpayers under the fifty-fifty system
of fixed proportion, but unappropriated
during the lean years of the war. 1t
required a joint investigation by Con-
gress to uphold this claim in 1922.
And it required a valiant fight by fair
minded men in the House and Senate
to obtain congressional recognition by
statute. tardily enacted in 1925.
But while the claim was recognized
that the District had supplied these
funds in excess of appropriations, and
that such funds were collected under
the statutory agreement that they
would be matched in equal proportion
BY Federal funds, Congress refused to
meet its half of the bargain and the
surplus Of 1922 was merely transferred
to the credit of the District without
being matched by the Federal money
which in equity and consistency should
have been paid. The crowning In
equity was the appropriation, without
Federal money TO match it in any pro-
portion, of $500 900 of the surplus
funds for purchase Of the last link Of
the Rock Creek-Potomac connecting
parkway, a joint undertaking con-
ceived as q semi-National project.
But If the injustices and the incon-
sistencies Of the old surplus Of 1922
are ancient history, the status of an
other surplus accumulated by the Dis
trict is current history.
When Congress enacted the change
to 6O-4O in 1922. it included as part
of the new arrangement q provision
under which the District was to be
placed on a 'pay-as-you-go" basis at
the end of five years, or by the month
of July, 1927. Heretofore, with semi
annual tax payments not required, the
District collected the greater portion
of its tax revenue in May, just before
the close of a fiscal year. This meant
that for about eleven months Of the
year the District was living on money
advanced from the Treasury. The
Treasury was paid back, and the ad-
vances to the District amounted TO
nothing more than a bookkeeping
transaction. But Congress wanted the
District to meet It's bills with its own
money.
It required the District to accumu-
late in five years surplus sufficient to
tide it over between its own tax re-
ceipts. The Commissioners decided
that 5000 900 was necessary. But the
whole necessity was based on the sixty
forty law. Congress in appropriation
practice annually ignored the sixty
forty-lsw, substituting a lump sum
available at the beginning Of each
fiscal year, which made the necessity
of maintaining the surplus open to
question on equitable as well as practi-
cal grounds.
But the surplus was accumulated and
has been maintained, and the tax rate
fixed to assure it. The appropriations
for the current fiscal year are expected
to reduce 1t by about S1,200,000. In
addition, the surplus Of 100000 was
felt necessary for an appropriation bin
Of some s3O,OOoO 900. Now that appro-
priations exceed $45,OOOOOO there is
already talk of having to build up a
larger surplus.
The glaring inconsistency Of requir-
ing this surplus lies in the fact that
the plan was part Of the new system
of appropriations, or the 604O law.
If Congress saw fit to scrap, by tenn
porary annual evasions, one law OF
its making, why does it insist on car
rying out what, in effect, was a con-
tingent part of that law?
Is justice and fair dealing for the
District to be measured only in terms
of the Federal dollars that are in
volved? If Congress is the only power
on earth that can write the terms Of
its bargain with the people of the
District, does that not strengthen itI