Evening star., 1951-06-13
Another Agreement Repudioted

In belaboring the Washington Board of
Trade the other day for It's opposition to his
home rule BILL Senator Kefauver had this to say
"As to the Federal contribution, under the
present commission form of government, it has
dropped from so per cent of the cost OF the
District government in 1920 to less than per
cent in 1851 But under the Kefauver-Taft bill
formula (home rule) the annual Federal pay
ment to the District would be increased from
$12 million to at least SIT million"
At about the time Senator Kefauver was
saying this, the House was occupied In throwing
overheard another formula, also written into
law, and cutting the Federal payment to the
per cent he mentioned above In the District
of Columbia there is not much respect left for
q formula approved by Congress II the formula
has anything to do with meeting just obligations
to the District of Columbia. For we have long
and sorry story of formula regulations, of which
the House action this year on the lump sum is
the latest Why Senator Kefauver or anybody
else thinks that this condition of formula
reputation would improve under home rule is
a mystery. There might be different formula.
But it would be the same Congress, with the
same amount of power it possesses today in the
District of Columbia.
This latest reputation of a formula, rep
resented in the House action last week cutting
the lump sum from $11 million to $9.8 million,
is one of the most dishonest actions of the sort
ever taken. 1t was dishonest because of the
dishonest statements about the local tax burden
made on the floor of the House by those who
tried to justify the cut. It dishonest because
as Representative Furcolo of Massachusetts, put
it. it represented cheat" a refusal to pay a
bill for services rendered. It was dishonest be-
cause of the brief history of the formula" for
the s11 million Federal payment to the District.
In 1947 Congress enacted new tax bill for
the District The bill was preceded by a long
study of local taxes and of the Federal payment
by joint committee of House and Senate. The
bill raised local taxes. And it contained pro-
vision land still does) that the Federal payment
would be $11 million, as part of general revenue,
and 81 million to pay for the water used by the
Federal Government. This made the Federal
payment 1875 per cent of general fund appro-
priations with the District furnishing for that
year $81 ,376,464
The cut by the House will mean that the
Federal payment will be about per cent or
1913 million, with District taxpayers furnishing
about $102 million. The cost of water furnished
the Federal Government has increased 100000
since 1947, but the House refuses to pay the
increase, although the Government will consume
the water.
There was one bright spot in the House
debate this year. although it did end in cutting
the lump sum to the lowest percentage since
the year 1878. And that was the fine presenta-
ton of the District of Columbia's case by such
men as Representative Bates of Kentucky,
Mr.. Furcolo, Representative Stockman Of Oregon.
Representative Yates of Illinois, Representative
Miller of Nebraska, Representative sasscer Of
Maryland, Representative Smith Of Virginia and
few others who knew what they were talking
about and made an honest effort to have the
House live up to its former commitments.
The remarks of these gentlemen and the
data included in the House hearings will be
reviewed by the Senate Subcommittee on District
Appropriations, which has, traditionally, upheld
the District in the matter of the Federal pay
ment. The least the Senate can do this year is
to restore the cut made by the House.