Evening star., 1932-05-09
Balancing the D. c. Budget.

balancing tne u. Y. ouuSet'
The Senate, in its consideration of
the District of Columbia appropriation
bill for the next fiscal year, should re-
store the s3 900 900 eliminated from the
Federal lump sum contribution by the
House.
Requirements for such action are dc
tated. first, by the equities involved;
second, by the practical need Of nor
NAL annual Improvements in this mu-
nicipality.
The Federal lump sum should be re-
tained at the present figure Of s9,500,-
00o--a compromise arrived at between
House and Senate pending congress
sional decision regarding permanent
fiscal policy toward the District of Co
lumbia-or, if any change is made in
that figure, the revision should be up
ward, in keeping with the increased OBJ
legations and responsibilities Of the
United States, fixed by unrepealed Or
ganic law. No Justification on earth
exists for deliberately transferring a
formally assumed obligation Of the
United States to the people of the Dis
trict of Columbia, thus repudiating a
debt and penalizing the unrepresented
and helpless District for such 'repudia-
ton. There is no Justification under
the sun for infiicting all Of the burdens
of retrenchment on the District. and
to these burdens adding the threat Of
higher taxation.
The problem to be solved in the
District bill is primarily one Of mu-
nicipal mot NationaD taxation and
the fact that Congress acts as the
National Legislature does not alter its
status as the Districts only municipal
Legislature. In considering the Dis
trict bill, Congress should be guided
by the principles which govern the
State and municipal Legislatures, and
not those which control in this budget
balancing emergency the National
Legislature. If there are to be cuts
ton bill, they should be designed to
relieve the municipal taxpayer in some
degree Of municipal taxation during a
time when higher Federal taxes are to
balance the Federal budget As planned
by the House, the sole effect on the
local taxpayer of the cut in the lump
sum will be. first, to postpone neces-
sary municipal improvements to the
next year or the next; second, to bring
about increased local taxes to meet
the eventual expense Of these post
poned improvements; third. to place
on top Of these the higher Federal
taxes demanded by the vicissitudes of
Federal financing
The only justification for cutting
down the Federal contribution to the
increased through the years as the
expenses Of the District increased and
in the retrenchment year to diminish
the burden both Of the District and of
the United States. That Justification
does not exist. The Federal lump sum
has been diminishing in its proper
ton to the total, while District Of Co
lumbia expenses have been constantly
increasing. Why should the only bene-
fits Of a drastic cut in the local ap-
preparation bill be conferred upon the
partner whose contributions have been
steadily diminishing in proportion to
the whole, while the partner whose
burden has been steadily increasing
must face even greater increases in
order that these benefits may be con-
ferred?
It is not economy to call sudden
halt in public improvements and to
handicap the functioning of necessary
municipal institutions by eliminating
items of expenditure necessary for
such functioning Economy lies in the
elimination Of waste. There has been a
minimum of waste in municipal ex-
penditures here. The Commissioners,
the Federal Budget Bureau, the COM
mittees of Congress have seen to that.
Crossing of items for expenditure on
public improvements as the House did
in passing the District bill. does not
save money. It sets up a fictitious
showing on paper, Of course, and 1t in
geniously furnishes an answer OF a sort
to the question of how budget estimates
can be reduced by s4,0o0,00O. But it
the District. 1t brushes them aside for
the time being, but they cannot be ig-
nored. And it is not economy to ignore
them. The District appropriation bill
is not designed for 1888 alone. 1t takes
into consideration 1884 and 1885 and
1910. In public Improvements it pro-
vides for those things that should be
taken care Of now as against those that
can be postponed for another year. If
the House bill shuts its eyes to the fu-
ture, the taxpayers of the District are
not likewise blinded into the delusion
that money has been saved. The needs
that go unmet this year will demand
attention next. And their accumulation
will demand much higher expenditures
in years to come.
The estimates sent to the House from
the Budget Bureau had carefully elm
mated unnecessary items OF expendi-
ture. They represented an economy
budget, but q balanced budget. The
House sent to the Senate budget bal
anced on paper, but an unbalanced
budget as regards equitable division of
costs and as regards pressing needs for
the coming fiscal year
The District. which has come to ex-
pect fair treatment at the hands Of the
esnate. anticipates action In that body