Evening star., 1939-06-12
Hear Both Sides

/
the appeal of Senator Overton OF
Louisiana, and judge the Senator's
pending solution of the fiscal rela-
tionS problem on its merits, despite
the terse message from the Budget
Bureau that the plan is mot in ac-
cord with the program Of the Presi-
dent"
No one can question the admins
tration's right, as the Budget law
now stands, to advise Congress of it's
attitude toward expenditures for the
District, but there is ample reason
to question the wisdom of continuing
to subject this city of 100000 to
Federal budget control as though it
were just another executive depart
ment.
If Congress will take this oppor-
tunity to review the history of Fed
eral Budget supervision over District
affairs for the past fifteen years,
there can be no doubt that fair
minded members Of the House and
Senate will see how incongruous a
situation the present system presents.
When the Budget law was passed
in 1921 the Federal Government was
sharing in the upkeep of it's Capital
City on fixed percentage of each
dollar paid by the local taxpayer.
And If that wise system had con-
= Atinued, the Federal Bureau would be
justified in scrutinizing the local
budget as whole to protect the ma
tional partner.
But when Congress in 1925 aban-
doned the fixed ratio principle and
began appropriating an arbitrary
lump sum Federal payment, the bu-
reau adopted the strange policy of
continuing to delve into the merits
of all local expenditures except the
one factor that actually concerned
it, namely, the Federal payment.
With one notable exception, it
went on year after year basing the
new District budget on whatever
Federal lump sum the previous ses-
sion had approved. This, in effect,
was tacit admission that the prob
lem of determining the Federal obli-
cation was in the hands of Congress.
The one occasion when the bureau
departed from this policy, during the
economy wave of 1888, has served
only to place it in an inconsistent
position and to strengthen the local
feeling that the District should not
have to deal with Congress through
this Federal agency.
What the Overton bill does is to
take the fiscal relations question out
of the realm of uncertainty and con-
troversy by establishing a formula,
under which the Federal payment
would be based each year on the
percentage of the land area of the
city required for national purposes.
In 1888 the Budget Bureau itself
proposed formula for that year. In
the general drive for economy, in
Guiding pay cut for personnel, it
cut the local budget by more than 26
per cent, and then applied that same
percentage of reduction to the Fed
eral payment of the previous year,
bringing it down from $7,775,00O to
$5,7OO,OOO.
The following year, however, the
local budget began to go up again.
But, unfortunately for the District
taxpayer, the bureau must have for
gotten all about its 1888 yardstick,
for it suddenly returned to the old
policy of recommending no change
in the Federal payment.
incidentally, if the bureaus own
rule of 1888 had been followed for
the current year, the Federal pay
ment would have been $7,200,000, in
stead of the $5,000,000 figure that has
remained unchanged for several
years.
1t is significant that the Federal
report on the Overton bill, like the
Budget yardstick of 1888, was aimed
at holding down the national obli-
cation, even though the total cost
of maintaining the Nations Capital
is steadily increasing and the area
of tax-exempt property growing
larger.
In contrast to the brief Budget
statement of administration disap-
proval, without supporting reasons,
the Commissioners, in their report,
have made strong and convincing
case in support of the bill.
All Washington asks is that Con-
gress, it's local legislature, approach
the subject with an open mind and
weigh the arguments on both sides.
If that is done it feels sure a fairer
solution than the present inadequate
lump sum will be found.
Justice Robb