Because Washingtonians cannot vote, they are forced, through no fault of their own, to pay the Federal Government more than $15,000,000 a year in service and tax exemptions. The solution to the District's revenue problems is not a sales tax, which is just as definitely an inflationary measure as a general compulsory price increase. The solution is the Federal Government's assumption of its responsibilities for the Federal city. So long as citizens of the District of Columbia are without a voice in their government, certainly it is clear logic that the Federal Government should assume a great share of the revenue responsibilities. Unfortunately, this seems to work in reverse. Apparently it is because Washingtonians cannot vote that the legislators, elected by people of the various States, give the impression that the District can be treated as a colony, to be exploited and preyed upon, Congress being certain that there can be no reprisals on election day. At any rate, it is time that we took heed of the traditional American concept— "taxation without representation is tyranny." Attached is the newly adopted program of the Washington committee of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare. In the fields covered by this program there is a necessity for increased Federal appropriations for the District in order to put into effect these minimum provisions for maintaining human dignity. A sales tax will not help. A sales tax will injure those in the District of Columbia who most need help. DAVID LACHENBRUCH, (For the Washington Committee). (Whereupon, at 12:01 p. m., an adjournment was taken, subject to the call of the Chair.) (The following was later received for the record.) Hon. C. DOUGLASS BUCK, BROOKLYN 8, N. Y., April 15, 1947. Senator from Delaware, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We would call your attention to the proposed retail sales tax bill for Washington, D. C., district, introduced under S. 843. The objection we raise to this particular bill is that it particularly discriminates against candy, exempting all food products other than candy and confectionery from the tax. We would earnestly ask that when you vote on this bill, you are sure that candy is not discriminated against and should be exempt from such a sales tax. Yours very truly, CYPRESS NOVELTY CORP., THE CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION OF TAKOMA, D. C. Resolved, That the Citizens' Association of Takoma, D. C., opposes any increase in taxes in the District of Columbia until the Federal Government contributes a fair share toward the support of the District of Columbia in proportion to services received and property owned, and until the income-tax laws are amended to provide for the taxation of all incomes earned within the District limits, regardless of residence, with credit being given for income tax paid in the several States; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be spread upon the minutes of this meeting and that copies be forwarded to the District of Columbia Commissioners, the Senate and House District Committees, the President of the United States, the Federation of Citizens' Associations, the District of Columbia Petroleum Industrial Committee, and the local press and radio stations. J. STANTON BROWER, Chairman, Laws and Legislation Committee. WASHINGTON 12, D. C., April 7, 1947. MILWAUKEE, Wis., April 17, 1947. Senator BUCK, Washington, D. C.: One thousand one hundred and fifty delegates representing 405,000 members in attendance at convention in Milwaukee adopted unanimously the following resolution: Whereas our 8,000 members in the District of Columbia have no vote and no voice in municipal affairs; and Whereas the members of the Congress elected by you are the common council and board of aldermen regulating municipal affairs; and Whereas the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia have recommended additional taxation that would be ruinous to our members employed in the hotels and restaurants in the District, would cause unemployment, and no doubt force the closing of some establishments where our people are now employed: Now therefore, be it Resolved, That we, the delegates assembled in Milwaukee, make our voices heard in condemning for our voteless, voiceless brothers and sisters in the District, and that we concur with the Washington Central Labor Union in their action in protesting the enactment of the sales tax of 2 percent, 10 percent amusement tax, the doubling of all excise taxes, and any other taxes disguised, which are really sales taxes; and be it further Resolved, That the general secretary is hereby instructed to communicate by wire at once our protest on behalf of our District members to these taxes to Senator Buck, chairman, Senate Committee on District Affairs, and to Congressman Dirksen, chairman, House District Affairs Committee. ED S. MILLER, General Secretary-Treasurer, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and BUDGET REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1947 JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISCAL AFFAIRS OF THE COMMITTEES ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C. The joint subcommittee met at 10:05 a. m., pursuant to call, in the Senate District Committee room, Capitol, Washington, D. C., Senator Harry P. Cain (chairman of the joint subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Cain (chairman of the joint subcommittee); Representative Bates (cochairman of the joint subcommittee). Present also: Representative John J. Allen, Jr. Senator CAIN. All right, ladies and gentlemen, with your permission we will call this session to order, please. I notice in front of me a list of those desirous of being heard, and it begins with representatives of the Commissioners and the Board of Education, and it includes Dr. Corning, the Superintendent of Schools, and there are others desirous of being heard. Now, obviously, I cannot say how many of those will be heard this morning, and at the conclusion of this session we will determine, between Mr. Bates and myself, where we go from there. Without further ado, we will all hear the discussion of the merits and the weaknesses, as they appear to be, of Senate bill 1088. COMPARATIVE TAXES AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FINANCES IN WASHINGTON, D. C., AND 13 OTHER CITIES In response to the request of the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives, the Census Bureau has prepared, and is transmitting herewith, a series of statistical tables designed to aid in a comparison of the tax burden in Washington, D. C., with that in 13 other cities of similar size. Several considerations which have influenced the scope and nature of these tables deserve particular attention. 1. Scope of governments being compared.-The District of Columbia is unique among American cities, in that it is the only governmental unit-besides the Federal Government itself--which provides all public services within its area or for its population. All other American city areas share in the support of and services provided by a State government, and nearly all of them also have a county government separate from the city corporation. In many other cities, furthermore, essentially local services here rendered by the District government are performed by school districts or other governmental units existing apart from the city corporation. A direct comparison of the finances of the District government with those of any other city corporation would, more than anything else, reflect such differences in governmental responsibility; it would throw little light on issues of relative economy or relative tax burden. Either of two adjustments facilitate more valid intercity comparisons: (1) Reducing the amounts of revenue or cast of the District and of other cities to such a basis that they relate only to the functions of that city in the group which has the least extensive scope of responsibilities; or (2) adding to the amounts for other city corporations that share of the cost of other overlying local governments and of the State which can be reasonably imputed to the city area. The latter choice has been followed in the tables presented herewith. In other words, most of the comparisons relate District of Columbia finances to those of other city areas, although so presented as to make clear also the amounts accounted for by other city corporations as such. Proration of noncity local government amounts is based on assessed valuation (i. e., ratio of city part to the total for the overlying unit); State amounts are prorated on the basis of 1940 population (i. e., city to State total). Both District and other city-area figures are exclusive of direct governmental utilities and other commercial enterprises and of pension and other trust-fund operations. Also excluded are revenue and expenditure in connection with the unemployment-compensation system. State aids to local governments are omitted from revenue and expenditure amounts, to avoid double counting. More refined comparisons might be made, at considerable effort, through special treatment of unique District-Federal relationships, and deduction of State costs common elsewhere such as for agricultural promotion-which are not incurred by the District government. However, an intensive comparative study made in 1936 indicated that adjustments for such matters would be relatively minor. The absence of such refinements may result in some slight overstatement of revenue and expenditure in other city areas, as compared with the District. A contrary effect, however, probably results from the use of 1940 population figures in the allocation of State financial data to particular city areas. Since per capita money income and spending (which affect State sales and income-tax revenue) are usually higher in large cities than in smaller towns or rural areas, this formula probably understates the reported amounts of State revenue really derived from the large city areas in 1941. City contributions to 1945 State revenues may be even more seriously underreported, since most of these cities have probably increased more rapidly in population since 1940 than the remainder of their respective States. The foregoing comments suggest limitations in the precision of the comparative data offered. Nevertheless, as the tables themselves suggest, comparisons on the city-area basis seem far more useful and generally valid than figures which would purport to compare the District government with highly noncomparable city corporations elsewhere. 2. Derivation of per capita amounts.-After examining carefully available figures on city population for various dates since 1940, the Census Bureau has reluctantly concluded that per capita amounts should not be presented, as to city areas, for 1945 financial data. There have been sharp changes in the population of particular cities during recent years, and the composition of the population also went through great shifts. From April 1940 to July 1945, about 12,000,000 persons in the country changed from a civilian to a military status and some 7.5 million of these were sent overseas, the remainder being drastically redistributed within the continental United States. Armed forces stationed within a State or city obviously have a different relation to the revenues and services of its government than have civilians. As among the 14 cities, fairly reliable recent figures on total population are available for only Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the District of Columbia. The figures indicate the following percentage changes since 1940: Los Angeles, Calif., 20 (enumeration, January 1946); San Francisco, Calif., 30.4 (enumeration, August 1945); District of Columbia, 41.5 (estimate, July 1945). Somewhat less reliable figures as to 1946 population are available for 6 of the remaining 11 cities being compared, but the data relate only to numbers of civilians rather than to total population including armed forces personnel. Approximate percentage changes, on this basis, from April 1940 to October or November 1946 are as follows: Baltimore, Md., 5 percent; Cincinnati, Ohio, 5 percent; St. Louis, Mo., 4 percent; Buffalo, N. Y., 3 percent; Pittsburgh, Pa., 5 percent; Boston, Mass., 6 percent. Under such circumstances it has seemed necessary to avoid any attempted derivation of per capita amounts for 1945, except for certain State-wide data in tables 2 and 8. |