Evening star., 1936-11-06
Local Governmental Costs.

The Presidents committee studying
fiscal relations is naturally turning its
attention to one of the very important
elements of such relationship-the cost
Of running the District government.
This cost, in comparison with what
some other cities pay, is sometimes shown
to be high. The logical explanation,
which might be bolStered IN infinite
detail, is that the excessive cost of gov
eminent in the District is due to the
fact that this is the Capital of the United
States. Standards in the Capital City
are relatively high. Standards OF archi-
lecture, standards of salaries for classi-
fed positions, standards of streets, of
police and fire protection, etc, do not
conform to the standards which may be
established in some other city by citi-
zens anxious to keep down their own
cost of municipal government.
And the accomplishment of some pro-
eressive cities in reducing municipal
costs is not, necessarily, the test of
whether the municipal government in
the District is extravagant. Embattled
citizens in other communities may take
the bull by the horns and determine to
reduce their cost of government and
thereby keep money in their pockets.
Here in the District the reduction OF gov
ernmental cost depends upon Congress,
Just as some of the elements which in
crease local governmental costs are de-
terrnined by Congress without specific
regard for local sentiment or wishes. If
there is extravaganza In local govern
ment, 1t exists despite the most rigid
processes of pruning, by the Commis-
sioners, the Bureau of the Budget, crit
ical committees and the membership of
both houses of Congress. If there are
methods by which local governmental
costs may be reduced without sacrificing
necessary services, the people of the
District would naturally applaud their
application.
But the department heads who tes-
tify before the Presidents committee to-
morrow, and the citizens of the District
who can only gauge the justification Of
local government costs by what they
receive in return, want to be shown that
there is any extravaganza at the District
Building before they believe it. If there
has been extravaganza, the blame rests
primarily on Congress Just as the power
OF remedy lies in the hands of Congress-
But has there been extravaganza? If
Congress has spent more for current
maintenance in the District than some
self-governing cities may choose to
spend, every cent of the money so spent
was needed. Analysis of the depart
mental estimates and expenditures
which presumably will be undertaken at
the hearing tomorrow-will demonstrate
that fact beyond question. There is
always list Of real needs in current
District bill and in recent years these
needs have increased as the money avail
able to meet them has decreased. Par
ticularly has there been skimping by
Congress on funds for outlays, so that
there now exists large list of delayed
improvements that will make the even
tual cost higher and more burdensome
than If the improvements had been made
under systematic and orderly financial
program. One primary explanation of
the shortage of funds for outlays is that
reductions in the lump sum have de-
prived the District of revenues which
ordinarily would have gone into such
outlays.
A skilled municipal executive, given
czaristic powers over the District and its
expenditures. and responsible only to
municipal taxpayers, doubtless would be
able to reduse local governmental costs
and perhaps give local taxpayers more
for their money than they now receive.
But the Presidents committee will real
lie their problem concerns a condition
and not a theory; a condition under
which the District is governed exclu-
sively by representatives of every citi-
zen In the United States except those
who live in the District, and not a
theory Of what might be the case If
that fact were changed.