Evening star., 1933-02-16
Iump Sum and Local Tax Burden

Congress alone can stipulate the
amount of the Federal contribution to-
ward support Of the American Capital
Congress alone possesses the RESPONSE
bility, coupled with the necessary
authority to determine the scale OF de-
velopment of this Capital. Congress
alone approves the plans, Congress alone
controls the money outlay necessary for
their realization.
The fundamental cause of the endless
controversy over fiscal relations between
the Federal Government and the un-
represented local community Of tax
payers Is not primarily concerned with
the exact amount In dollars and cents
that the Federal Government chooses
10 make available from Federal funds
10 augment the money raised by local
taxation. The cause Of the controversy
rests in the matter Of equitably dividing
the cost between the local community
and the Federal Congress. When the
effect of a decrease in the Federal con-
tribution is to shift an inequitable por-
ton of the burden Of costs to the local
taxpayer increasing his local tax burden
without in any manner reducing his
contribution as national taxpayer, there
Is reason for protest, and the soundness
of these protests has always convinced
fair minded men in Congress.
For it Is always to be remembered
that taxpayers of the District con-
tribute a part Of the national lump
sum payment as well as all Of the local
tax exactions. In the fiscal year 1880
they paid into the national tax fund
from which the lump sum contribution
Is drawn more than one-half Of the
States and only q trifie less than ten
States combined.
There are two ways Of reducing the
Federal contribution. One method was
represented in the report last year by
the Special House Committee which in
vestigated fiscal relations. It's formula
was to increase the local tax burden
by piling on new taxes and forcing upon
the local community nearly every con-
ceivable tax that would produce money.
Then, subtracting the amount thus to
be raised through local taxation from
the amount set as necessary for Capt.
tai maintenance and some development,
Federal contribution.
The other method Of reducing the
lump sum is to take into consideration
the harsh requirements Of economy and
budget and for every reduc-
ton in the Federal contribution pro-
portionately reduce the local contribu-
ton and thereby bring much-needed
relief to the local taxpayer.
BY applying the formula Of the So
called Mapes Committee the lump sum
would be reduced to $6,500, 900 and the
local community would have been
blistered with an unbearable and wholly
unjustified burden Of taxation There
Is no semblance of equity or logic in
the s6,500,000 figure. 1t Is purely an
arbitrary sum.
But 1t has been carried into the
District bill now under consideration
No better indication of its lack Of
meaning and its lack Of foundation has
ever been given than in the debate in
the House yesterday. The chairman
Of the Special Committee which was
purported to have found last year that
the lump sum should be $6,500 900,
proposed reducing it yesterday to a
million and half. This was defeated,
as was later proposal to reduce it to
$4,0o0,000. The six and a half million
sum stands, for the time being. But
1t has no earthly connection with what
the amount of the contribution would
be II an effort were made to determine
that amount on the basis of equitably
dividing expenses. Unrepealed sTbstan-
tive law places the equitable division of
costs as 60 per cent for the District,
DO per cent for the United States.
But 1t was gratifying to note that
for the first time In many years there
was strong sentiment in the House
yesterday to Offset the proposed re-
duction Of the Federal contribution by
. reduction In the local tax burden
That is the only condition under which
the Federal contribution could equi-
tably be reduced. The adyisability OF
reduction rests, of course, only with
Congress.