Evening star., 1948-02-05
Home Rule and Fiscal Relations

Testimony on the Auchincloss home-rule
bill by two Federal officials is significant
as to one point that should be thoroughly
understood 1t involves the Federal pay
ment This is the money appropriated
each year from Federal funds for the
District budget. The money is not
contribution" 1t is not gift or hand
out. 1t is supposed to represent payment
by the Federal Government for the serv-
ices it receives from the local government.
Mr.. Auchincloss' subcommittee has been
very fair in stating the principle on which
the payment is to be measured. There is
argument over detail. But the principle is
fair enough. The principle Is to measure
the amount the Federal Government
should pay by applying "tax rate" to an
agreed-upon assessment of Federal real
estate. The proposed rate is 8712 per cent
of whatever the District tax rate would be.
From this gross amount is deducted the
value of services performed by the Federal
Government to the local government. To
this net is added the value of special serv-
ices performed by the municipality for
the Federal Government. The final
result, thus estimated, is said to be
approximately million dollars more than
$12000,000.
Now, what is the reaction from the two
Federal officials to this scheme? repre-
sentative of the Federal Bureau of the
Budget suggests that it sets a precedent
which might be embarrassing. For every
other political jurisdiction would want
Federal holdings similarly taxed. The
General Accounting Office representa-
tive amplifies that thought. Evidently not
having read the bill itself. he wants to
know whether the Government is going to
be taxed for its Statue of Liberty in New
York or the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier
in Arlington.
Such views are uniformed They
reflect no broad understanding of the
nature of the problem here, where over
half the Districts limited area is tax
exempt. They express the same hack
neyed arguments used before to kill of
any sensible effort to produce workable
formula for measuring the national Gov
ernment's financial obligation. But they
are important, for they represent point
of view that can very easily change the
whole aspect of the Auchincloss plan If
it prevailed-as in the past-it would kill
the plan, in so far as local acceptance is
concerned.
Now why is that? Do we not value the
right to vote more than we value twelve
or thirteen million dollars year in a
budget that now exceeds hundred mil
lion? Is ten or twelve per cent of this
budget worth as much to us as the right
to vote? r1s ..
The answers are written pretty clearly
in the history of Washington. From 1900
to 1874-78, the national and the local pay
ments for Washington maintenance and
development were indefinite and unre-
lated. The Nation measured its own obli-
CATION in dollars as next to nothing The
local community raised and diSbursed its
own taxes at it's pleasure. Washington was
laughing stock as Capital Twice the
local community became practically bank
rupt in undertaking more than 1t could
carry The heart of the Organic Act OF
1878 was the National Governments guar
antee to meet fixed part OF the cost OF
running and developing this city. And
under that guarantee, kept inviolate for
almost half a century, washington de-
veloped as the Capital we know today.
Unless the Auchincloss fiscal relations
formula is retained, in its present or some
comparable form, the home-rule provisions
would indeed become a snare and de-
lusion. For this formula is something
more than promise of financial support.
It is a reaffirmation of the financial re-
sponsibility which the Nation owes to its
seat of Government; reStatement OF
the partnership principle, that for every
local tax dollar spent the National Gov
ernment will pay its fixed share. Without
such guarantee, any local government can
become so heavily involved that the
| National Government will again have to
| come to its rescue. And the rescue, as in
1878, would most likely take the form of
| repudiating home rule.
| The formula devised by the Auchincloss
| committee is not drawn out of thin air.
| Back in 1880, President Hoover's Bureau OF
Efficiency devoted long study to the same
problem and came up with comparable
plan At that time, only 33 per cent OF
the District area was tax exempt. Now it
is over so per cent The Auchincloss bill
formula is logical method of measuring
what the Government should pay in city
on which it depends for so many essential
services. But if it is to be damned as
scheme for taxing the Federal Government
and dropped from the bill. then home rule
would become merely device to shift to
local taxpayers a financial burden they
cannot carry.
That is not the intent of Mr.. AuchincloSs
and his colleagues. But if Congress shares
the skeptical attitude of two of the Gov
ernments representatives who, so far, have
spoken on the bill, we want to stop, look
and listen.
Too Much Is Too Much