INTRODUCTION

In mid-September of 1973, every Member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate was sent a letter and a questionnaire concerning certain aspects of the general revenue sharing program (Public Law 92-512) and the Federal grant-in-aid system. By January of 1974, almost 40 percent of the membership of Congress had responded.

The total of 208 replies includes 13 Members who communicated with respect to the questionnaire but did not actually answer the questions posed in it. These respondents include four who avoided indicating any position on the issues, three who stated they were opposed to revenue sharing, and six who addressed one or more issues related to the subject. The 13 were counted as "no response" on all questions, except in those few instances where a respondent's position could be clearly related to a particular issue.

The responses to each of the questions are shown in the tables in part 2. Part 1 contains an analysis of the questionnaire replies.

Blanks and unclassifiable answers have been recorded as "no response." The tables report not only the total number of responses for each question, but separate totals for Members of the House and Senate, for Democrats and Republicans, and for four regions of the country. The four regions are:

Northeast.-Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania.

South.-Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas.

North Central.-Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas.

West.-Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii.

The 208 replies include completed questionnaires from two respondents who did not identify themselves. These two replies are included in the total but excluded from the count of respondents by particular categories because they could not be classified.

That the respondents were reasonably representative of the makeup of the Congress can be seen from the tables in appendix I, where they are classified by their congressional body, party affiliation, and geographical region. It should be noted, however, that the Members from the Northeast did not participate in this survey to the same extent as the Members from other sections of the country. Also, the Senate is less represented (36 percent) than the House (39 percent), and the Democrats as a whole participated to a lesser extent (36 percent) than the Republicans (41 percent). It should be noted, further, that while 55 percent of the House respondents were Democrats, 58 percent of the Senate respondents were Republicans.

PART 1.—ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

Question 1.-Tax Reduction

Soon after the first payments were distributed, the press reported the frequent use of revenue sharing funds for tax reduction and other purposes which, although legal, appeared to some observers at variance with the intent of Congress in enacting this legislation. It was suggested in some quarters that if these practices were widespread, Congress might hesitate to renew the law when it expires at the end of the first 5 years (December 1976). Question 1 sought to ascertain how Members viewed the use of revenue sharing funds for tax reduction (or the avoidance of tax increases).

The Members who expressed an opinion indicated by a large margin that tax reduction is a desirable use of revenue sharing funds. Noticeable differences of opinion were apparent, however, among the categories of respondents. For example, Republicans held by a 3 to 1 margin that tax reduction is a desirable use, while Democrats indicated by a fairly narrow margin that such use is undesirable. The responses also revealed differing views by region. The Northeast supported tax reductions by a wide margin, the North Central did so by a lesser margin, and the South and the West were almost evenly split. This pattern closely parallels the level of taxes in relation to personal income in the respective regions and the intensity with which the local property tax is used. There was a marked difference in the overall positions of the House and Senate on this question. Representatives viewed tax reduction as desirable by a very large margin, while the Senators were about evenly divided. Occasionally, Members would draw distinctions between undesirable and desirable tax reduction, between reduction of progressive versus regressive taxes, and between reducing taxes or avoiding tax increases.

Question 2.-Reactions to Five Specified Uses of Revenue Sharing Funds

Questions 2 and 3 were designed to determine whether Members would react adversely to particular identified uses of revenue sharing and to obtain indications of the types of expenditures they found especially undesirable.

In question 2, five actual (but by no means typical) uses of revenue sharing funds were listed, and Members were asked to indicate by checkmark whether they regarded each such use as "frivolous" or undesirable.

A majority of respondents (123 or 59 percent) checked one or more items. The item most frequently checked was constructing a public golf course, and this use was checked most frequently by all categories of respondents. The sharing with private enterprise of the cost of free off-street parking in the central business district drew the least criticism from almost all categories of respondents.

PART 1.-ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

Question 1.-Tax Reduction

Soon after the first payments were distributed, the press reported the frequent use of revenue sharing funds for tax reduction and other purposes which, although legal, appeared to some observers at variance with the intent of Congress in enacting this legislation. It was suggested in some quarters that if these practices were widespread, Congress might hesitate to renew the law when it expires at the end of the first 5 years (December 1976). Question 1 sought to ascertain how Members viewed the use of revenue sharing funds for tax reduction (or the avoidance of tax increases).

The Members who expressed an opinion indicated by a large margin that tax reduction is a desirable use of revenue sharing funds. Noticeable differences of opinion were apparent, however, among the categories of respondents. For example, Republicans held by a 3 to 1 margin that tax reduction is a desirable use, while Democrats indicated by a fairly narrow margin that such use is undesirable. The responses also revealed differing views by region. The Northeast supported tax reductions by a wide margin, the North Central did so by a lesser margin, and the South and the West were almost evenly split. This pattern closely parallels the level of taxes in relation to personal income in the respective regions and the intensity with which the local property tax is used. There was a marked difference in the overall positions of the House and Senate on this question. Representatives viewed tax reduction as desirable by a very large margin, while the Senators were about evenly divided. Occasionally, Members would draw distinctions between undesirable and desirable tax reduction, between reduction of progressive versus regressive taxes, and between reducing taxes or avoiding tax increases.

Question 2.-Reactions to Five Specified Uses of Revenue Sharing Funds

Questions 2 and 3 were designed to determine whether Members would react adversely to particular identified uses of revenue sharing and to obtain indications of the types of expenditures they found especially undesirable.

In question 2, five actual (but by no means typical) uses of revenue sharing funds were listed, and Members were asked to indicate by checkmark whether they regarded each such use as "frivolous" or undesirable.

A majority of respondents (123 or 59 percent) checked one or more items. The item most frequently checked was constructing a public golf course, and this use was checked most frequently by all categories of respondents. The sharing with private enterprise of the cost of free off-street parking in the central business district drew the least criticism from almost all categories of respondents.