Evening star., 1933-03-22

tContinued From First Page.)
year ago, according to District officials,
the city had approximately 5000 annual
and per diem employees, representing a
total pay roll of about $24, 500 900. There
fore, when the same steps required to
balance the national budget are applied
to the District bill. particularly the pay
cut, it takes several millions of local
tax revenue that would ordinarily go
fer salaries and makes it available for
other purposes The Federal Govern
ment has benefited from the retrench-
ment policy because it reduced its share
in the upkeep of the District this year
by 81, 900 when Congress cut the
lump sum from $9,500,000 in 1882 to
$775,000 for 1888. But the local tax
payers-and many of them are en-
ployes who suffered the pay cut-have
not had their tax burden reduced.
OF course, whether there will be a
surplus next year, and If so, how large,
Is largely matter Of speculation at the
moment, since it is not yet known what
the Budget Bureau will recommend in
resubmitting the District estimates nor
what changes the House and Senate
may make before they pass the measure.
Budget Bureau Policy.
On the important factor of the Fed
eral share, for example, there is no
definite information as to what figure
will be proposed 1t has been the un-
broken policy of the Budget Bureau in
the past, however, to avoid recommend
ing any changes from year to year in
the Federal contribution since Congress,
in 1924. departed from the substantive
law establishing 6040 ratio of appor-
Of al
District paying the larger percentage.
The bureau, while determining the
detailed recommendations of expendi-
ture for every branch Of the municipal
service, has consistently refrained from
initiating any change in the fiscal re-
lationship between Uncle Sam and the
local community, as represented in the
Federal lump sum. The bureau has
maintained this policy for nine years by
the simple expedient of merely writing
Into each District budget whatever
amount Congress had fixed as the Fed
eral contribution in the preceding year
Thus, during a period of years when
Congress kept the lump sum at $9,000,-
600. even though the total of the annual
expenses was mounting steadily, the
Budget Bureau each December based
the new District budget on continual
tion of the 100000 figure. When the
Senate a few years ago got the House
to recognize to small degree the in
adequacy of that contribution by raising
it to $9,500,000, the Budget Bureau
again adhered to the last word from
Capitol Hill by submitting the next
budget on that basis. And when, in
response to the general demand for
curtailment Of Federal expenses to bal
ance the national budget, Congress last
year slashed the $9,500,000 Federal
share of District maintenance down
to $7,775,000 for the current year, the
Budget Bureau stuck to its precedent.
In December last it sent the 1884 local
budget to the Capitol based on the
Federal contribution as determined by
the previous session.
There is probably nothing to pre-
vent the bureau from sending forward
q new burget for next year at this time,
based on some new calculation OF its
own as to what the Federal share should
be, but if it should do so it would be
shattering its own precedent and ven-
turing into field which it has hitherto
preferred to leave to the Congress.
Not Definitely Known.
It is also not definitely known at
this time what total the Budget Bureau
will recommend to be carried in the
resurrected District bill The District
Commissioners are understood to be OF
the opinion that the most practical
way to proceed in the present situation
would be to take the detailed items for
each department as they were agreed
to by Senate and House conferees on
the night of March 3, leaving only
the Federal contribution to be settled
before passage of the bill. The con-
ferees in the old Congress not only had
agreed on the details Of the bill, but
they also had agreed on compromise
Federal contribution of $7,600,0 for
Democrat of Texas, one Of the House
conferees. led fight against the re-
port which prevented its ratification
by the House and caused the bill to die
on March 4.
If the bill is revived in the same
form in which it emerged from con-
ference in the last session its total
would be S36,291 SAT. This represented
compromise between the two branches,
both as to total and Federal share.
Here, briefly, is what happened to
the District budget before it went on
the rocks and expired in the closing
hours of the old Congress:
The Commissioners last Fall estimated
the 1884 needs of the city to be
SAL 1922, ,730, and, in the light of the new
economies, which will result from the
recently enacted additional pay cut, this
sum could be appropriated now on the
basis of anticipated revenues. If the
Federal contribution is continued at
approximately the present figure of
$7.775,00
In transmitting the estimates to Con-
gress in December the Budget Bureau
pruned the Commissioners total to
$685. 1875, ITO, based on a continuation of
the present Federal contribution of
$7,775,0 600.
When the House passed the bill it cut
the Federal contribution to $6,500,000
and, by leaving out many essential
items throughout the bill, brought the
total down to $34, 1868, ,565.
No Senate Repeal.
The Senate, which has never voted
to repeal the substantive law of 1922
that established the 6040 ratio of fiscal
relationship between the District and
the United States, and which has tried
in the intervening years to provide
more adequate Federal contribution
since the House inaugurated the lump
sum practice, stood by the unrepresent-
ed District taxpayers as far as possible
this year. 1t restored items eliminated
by the House. raising the total to
$36,863,67 and voted to make the Fed
eral contribution next year $9,500,000.
In conference the compromise figures
SPECIAL NOTICES.
TRUCK FOR HIRE. LOCAL AND LONG-DIS-
tance hauling at moderate rates. 1916 Flor.