The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-03-11
Billions in Grants to States

. We cannot rightfully place full blame on the present administration for the tendril-like hold of. the federal govern nlent on the states resulting from the. plethora of federal grants, but we should make some definite attempt now to cur tail any further abnormal growth and perhaps to lop4off certain blood-sucking offshoots of this ever developing mallg- nancy. A'glance at the development of this system reveals that in 1857, Representa- tive Morrill, of Vermont introduced a bill for federal land grants to states - the first of its kind. The bill was fought So . hard particularly by southern Con- gressmen who felt it meant uSurpation of states rights-that not until 1862, after |. secession,' did it become. law.
 From this Seedling has grown gigan- tic, at times monStrous, tree that is the present federal grant system. As an example of it's enorniity just a review of one phase of the whole picture presents a story that is appalling. Federal land- grants alone, for example, cost the U. S., Treasury well over $700 million last year of which $693 million was to stimulate state action, or regulate state conduct, in nearly 30 separate states. Required matching by states runs all the way from almost nothing, in some instances, to 100 per cent of federal grants in others but in all cases the states must meet federal standards.
 The above figures do not include direct federal aid such as, AAA,. and. the now defilnct IVA, ,WPA and others, nor do they include directly financed federal war activities in local communities, Sucn as housing. With these and other fiscal payments the total of federal grants to states; annually, would average well over $3 billion; one hundred million. mus federal grants direct-to-t -the-citizen repre- sent but a traction of this type Of spend ing vet most important fraction be- cause they are here to stay, and probably will be greater after the war is over. .
 Connecticut-an that means we here in Waterbury-is among the 13 wealthlerc states that carry the principal part of this great load, as statiSticS reveal that we here recover only about 63 per. cent. of what we are required to put in. Although the principle of the federal grant iS< Theoretically to.aid all citizens through the redistribution of wealth from the wealthier. to the poorer com munities, the temptation of holding on to money once received is SO strong human factor that these grants. become detr1- fnent to otherwise a3truistic impulses or legislators, who ordinarily should de- nounce this growth. However, from many governor to many a mayor, and so on down the line no initiative has been : taken to forestal the further develop ment of this excessive spending:
 Principal reasons for such lack Of de- nunciation. may be discovered in such phases of the granting procedure where by old-age-penSion federal grants, TOT certain states, equal almost 50 per cent of the states total pension. Few political officials since the days of. Lincoln have had such time-Worn callouSes on thaelr hands that they are capable of handling such a hot potato, as the abofishment or a source of 50 per cent of their revenue of this kind, and thus. create the need for the establishment of new local sources of taxation to supply revenue to keep them high. l.
 However, such an interdependency be- tween federal and state governments which results in a state becoming ever
 more dependent upon the federal gov ernment, is the prime objective of many. advocates of these grants. Only con- stantly more defined and publicized re- view of state rights; and honle-rule can eventually overcome this system which already has reached proportions almost beyond control.