The Nome nugget., 1949-03-04

(By Clarke Beach)


 Grants of federal money to the States are becoming larger each year And many leaders in the state and fed era governments don't like it. The aid gradu ally subtract from the independence of the States they say weakening the whole federal system.
 Last August the Joint Conference of State Governors and members of Congress at meeting in Chicago re- solved that the grants should be reduced at least 20 cent in the fiscal year 1850 But President Truman has proposed in his 1850 budget substantial raises rather than reductions in the total of The largest in creased he suggested 1000 for federal aid to education and 900 for increased general sistance.
 Even without these new programs, however the 1850 total of grants bound higher rather than lower This pointed out in speech in December by James Webb, director of the budget The federal gov- ernment was already committed to supply increased funds in grants in accordance with past acts of Con- gress The practice of giving the States grantsn-aid is old as the republic, but it has taken major import only in recent years. The big boom in the 1930s, when the states and cities unable to cope with the needs for work projects and other relief for the unemployed The peak in 1889 when $2 908 999,- 900 was spent in federal grants Since 1946 they have been rising again $1 622 O68 338 in 1948 $1 941 784 566 estimated for 1949 and $ 458202 454 in 1850 is the Presidents proposed leg slaton is approved This would not include $100 000 900 in contract authorizations for the housing pro- gram which the President recommended another grant measure. , The general idea behind grants is that the federal government should pay part of the bill to enable the States to conduct certain programs the interest of the nation whole The States themselves administer the grants The programs chiefly health education and social welfare Grants supposed to two things
 1. Stimulate the States to conduct programs they might not undretake if they had to depend entirely on their funds The federal government dangles arge of money in front of them It is theirs if hev match it. usually putting from about 25 to 50 percent of the total sum to be spent. 2 Equaize the burden among rich and poor states.
 But that's where the critics begin to differ with the advocates of grants There is very little equalization of the burden, they claim and experts in the Federal Bureau of the Budget agree with them.
 In fact say the critics grants discriminate against the poor states To get the big hunks of federal money they obligate themselves to put up matching funds which leave holes in their small treasuries To engage in the federal program they have to neglect local pro- grams which might be more important to them The federal government moreover must necessarily establish certain minimum standards for the programs it helps to finance and this of control over local administration Representatives of the Coun c of State Governments feel that the whole program tends to violate the we'll accepted political principle that the unit of government which spend money should be responsible for collecting it. Neither the Council nor the Governors, however, want the grants program abandoned They only want
 inimized And they want the federal government toI