Evening star., 1933-04-06
Why Not Go All the Way?

m correcting some OF the Illogical ana
hurtful features of the District appro-
priation bill, as far as the expenditure
Of local revenues is concerned. Why
should not the Senate, and, later. the
House conferees go all the way?
Boiled down, what the House did was
this: 1t added 81 ,04O,000 to the expendi-
lures authorized from gasoline tax reve-
nues and $685. 900 to the expenditures
from the water revenues over and above
the amounts approved by the Budget
Bureau. But, instead of specifying the
items of expenditure. as is usually the
case, the amendment making these
sums available declares that the money
''is to be allotted for such projects and
purposes and in such amounts as the
President may approve"
Now, If representations should be
made to the President to the effect
that by approving this expenditure Of
surplus local tax revenues local en-
ployment will be benefited and needed
repair and extension work made pos
sible, and the President should agree
and give his permission that all the
additional money authorized should be
spent, the District will still have at
the end of the next fiscal year two sur
plus funds, as follows:
Gasoline Tax surplus. (. {. .$760, 900
Water Fund surplus. ...... 765 900
Total 81, ,525, 900
Why should not all Of this surplus
from these two special funds be made
available, In the discretion of the Presi-
dent, for employment-giving work?
What Is to be gained by restricting the
Presidents right to spend such money,
30 that nearly half OF the available
surplus from these two special funds
will be sent to the Treasury for hoard
ing during q year when every available
penny should be utilized to create en-
ployment? Is it because the proposed
highway and water department ex-
penditures are extravagant and waste
full? II that Is the case, are local tax
payers to be taxed excessively because
programs which In the past were ap-
proved are now found TO be extrava-
CANT and unnecessary? Taxpayers are
excessively taxed when they pay more
In taxes than 1t Is necessary to spend.
II the Presidents discretion Il to be
trusted In the expenditure Of some Of
the surplus money, Is 1t not logical to
assume that he can be likewise en-
trusted with decision relating to all of
1t? What he does or does not do in
this case has no bearing on the Ma
tional economic situation. It has a
very direct effect on the local economic
situation.
The House refused to allow expendi-
ture OF any more money from the gen.
eral revenues than the Budget Bureau
approved. In the report Of the Appro-
priations Committee. and in discussion
on the floor, 1t was said that the Com
missioners might reduce the tax rate
on real and personal property by twenty
cents, lowering the tax rate from the
present $l.7o to $3.50.
That much relief to the real estate
taxpayers would be welcome one. But,
on the basis Of present estimates,
reduction Of twenty cents in the tax
rate would produce a saving to the tax
payers Of $2,600,000, in round numbers.
1t is anticipated now that on the basis
OF the budget recommendations, ap-
proved by the House, there would stin
be a surplus in the general revenues
of 00,0o0-not including revenues
from the beer tax-after 20-cent cut
In the tax rate is made.
If only part Of this surplus from
the general tax funds is authorized for
expenditure, the grave threats to such
essential municipal functions as educa-
tion and public health, to mention only
two, viii be averted. The reasonable
and wise action by the Senate would
be to see that the citys services for
which taxpayers are assessed are not
unnecessarily crippled at this time.
Gripping them as the House bill Grip
piles them is unnecessary, and not once
has there been a logical explanation
of why it is proposed or what pos
sible advantage to anybody can result
from it.