Evening star., 1936-05-08
Member of the Associated Press.
The Real Issue.

The Washington taxpaying public is
barred from the conference between
House and Senate on the District bill.
BY special agreement the conferees have
decided not to discuss for publication
what goes on behind the closed doors OF
the conference room.
But it is good guess that the con-
ferees have struck snag-the same old
snag in the form of the amount of the
lump sum and the adequacy OF local tax
alton. That was borne out yesterday,
when the Senate conferees, after the
House confereeS had left, summoned be-
fore them former Assessor Richards,
Assessor Allen and L. H. Parker, author
Of the recent survey on city tax burdens
and a recognized tax authority.
Mr.. Richards pronounced views up
holding adequacy of the local tax bur-
den are well known and he has given
them on more than one occasion, sup
ported by carefully prepared statistics.
Mr.. Parker's study of comparative tax
burdens, based on United States census
statistics, showed Washington high up on
the list of heavily taxed American cities.
If these experts we're questioned about
local taxes, it is not difiicult to guess the
nature of their answers.
But, after all, is the question Of the
amount of the lump sum dependent on
the amount of local taxation? Not un-
less the principle of the fixed ratio is to
be reaf1irmed and followed in practice.
If it were being so followed, there would
be no issue over the lump sum.
Between 1922 and 1888, according to
Mr.. Parker's figures, the local tax bur-
den increased 983 per cent, the greatest
increase among the large cities OF the
United States. In the same interval the
Federal lump sum decreased 81 per
cent. The reduction proposed by the
House this year would bring the decrease
to more than 10 per cent. In 1922 the
Federal Governments contribution to
the District amounted to 40 per cent.
For the current year it is under is per
cent. The House proposal would reduce
1t to about per cent.
Has the Federal obligation, as distinct
from its contribution, decreased during
this time? Not at all. The Federal
obligation in support of Capital City
In which Federal holdings of tax-exempt
property have increased enormously,
which has become more expensive to
maintain, which is now falling behind in
proper development, has increased as the
total of the District bill has increased.
The question now Is not the amount OF
local taxes paid by local citizens, al
though the facts relating to such pay
ments are available. The question now
is whether the exclusively controlling
National Government Is meeting its
share of the cost Of the American Capt.
tai. Retention of the budget figure OF
s5,7Oo,000 does not represent what equi-
table consideration would show as the
fair share. The IS, 100000 sum is stop
gap, compromise figure. But reduction
of the lump sum below that amount
means, in effect, the elimination of the
lump-sum payment, which is Represent
ative Blanton's announced goal, and the
wholly unjust and ruinous proposition
of trying to shove all the cost of National
Capital maintenance and development
to the shoulders of the local, unrepre-
sented taxpayer.
That is the real issue, and 1t is not
believed that fair minded unprejudiced
Senators will yield in the face of it.