Evening star., 1934-11-25

4. II the lump payment can
not be equitably increased 10 provide
for suitable National participation In
financing these National o. semi-Na-
tisnal projects, then the President ID
asked to recommend through the Bu-
Feau Of the Budget that these ap-
prepfistiens b excluded from the
District bilI, where their inclusion re-
suits In ebvious inequity, and TO pro-
pose their financing In some ether
supply bin, where the sharing Of the
expense, which the law or equity de-
! mands. can be specifically provided.
S. And, finally. some recommenda-
ton to the Congress by the President
u asked toward limiting the appro-
priations of District money by Con-
gress (the Districts legislature, in
which 1t Is not represented) in the
same way that Capital expenditures
Of National tax money are limited
under the lump-sum payment plan.
When the appropriations Of local and
National tax money for the Capital
were by law and in practice In definite
percentage relation, this limitation
automatically resulted, and this check
upon the appropriate OF District tax
money, unless accompanied by q re-
lated expenditure of National tax
money, was the main benefit derived
by the District from the definite pro-
portionate contribution plan.
When for the latter plan, at the In
stance OF the House appropriations
committee, the lump-sum payment
plan was tentatively substituted, it
was suggested that loss Of this hmi-
tation upon District expenditures and
taxation would be cured by permitting
the District to participate SO effectively
In the raising and expenditure OF its
tax money that 1t could be extraya-
CANT or economical, as 1t pleased. But,
in fact, the District has no more to
say about its taxation and the ex-
penditure Of Its taxes under the lump
sum payment plan than under that Of
definite proportionate contribution.
And under the infexible lump-sum
payment plan Congress limits itself
concerning expenditures on the Ma
tons city of tax money contributed
by the Nation, which 1t represents,
but removes the limit upon the raising
and expenditure Of the tax money by
the District. which 1t does not repre-
sent and to which 1t Is not at all
responsible. And as a result We have
| appropriations from the District tax
money abnormally swelling to meet
whnle-cost expenditures on National
and seni-National projects.
To prevent injustice, the President
Is asked either % to recommend .
substantial increase in the basic lump
sum payment in the pending 1886 esti-
mates for the District, and (0 to pro-
pose the exclusion of great National
or semi-National projects from the
District bill and their financing on
some other supply bill, 50 wording the
items thus excluded as to set forth
the exact method Of financing IN re-
lation to the amounts Of contribution
by Nation and Capital that is thought
to be just, or (3) propose to Congress
the provision Of q local as well rs q
National maximum Of contribution, or
% recommend to the Congress that
by referendum or otherwise, the local
taxpayers be permitted to have some
effective say in regard to the amount
Of local taxes and the purposes for
which the tax money is to be ex-
pended.
The President is respectfully urged
TO give consideration to the fact that
since the Nation Is in exclusive control
of the raising and spending Of all
Capital revenue, including the District
tax money, the United States is the
primary and the District only the in
cidental contributor. and not vice
versa, as the present lump-sum pay
ment plan seems to assume.
District Only Incidental Contributor.
Protection was afforded the local
taxpayer under the 1878 law not only
by the provision that the Nation would
contribute so per cent of the total
| appropriation, but also by the as
surance that the local taxpayers would
not be compelled to contribute more
than so per cent of the total. So in
the law Of 1922 the effect Of the statute
was to pledge the local taxpayers that
not more than so per cent Of the total
tax would be exacted from them.
VASA bAAC Pdy RASA
was substituted tentatively for the
60-40 ratio this pledge was suspended,
but it was suggested that an effective
substitute for this pledge was found
in the declared determination Of Con-
gress under the lump-sum payment
plan to give the local taxpayers q
certain control over their own tax
raising and tax spending, involving the
power to be extravagant or economical,
and to spend as much or little Of
their own tax money as they pleased.
But Congress in fact limited its power
to expend National tax money, and
left undetermined the amount of local
tax money that it could expend. And
1t has exercised this power without
regard to the wishes Of the taxpayers
to raise and spend local taxes not only
for strictly municipal purposes, but
for semi-National and primarily Ma
tional projects.
It Is to correct this condition that
We representing washington now urge
the President, In considering the Dix-
trict budget, to recommend increase OF
the Nations lump-Sum contribution
taS Aoh6 as SOukTcSS COAltulucc t4ic
lump-sum practice) or to propose to
Congress that the local taxpayers bs
given an effective voice in deciding
how much they win raise in taxes and
how they will spend the taxes when
raised, or to suggest restricting the
kind and amount Of appropriations on
the District appropriations bill, with
the result Of limiting arbitrarily the
amount CT the local contribution to-
ward Capital upbuilding on the same
lines ~ under the lump-sum payment
plan the National contribution Is
limited.
Wise limitation upon the local tax
payers contribution toward the main
tenance and development Of the Ma
tons city could be made effective by
relating 1t % to the total appropria-
ton in each year In the District Ap-
preparation Act as In 1878 in the So
so ratio, and in 1922 in the 6o-40 ratio
or (2) by relating 1t to the Districts
contribution in each year in National
(Internal Revenue) taxes.
Return Districts Internal Revente.