ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

However, despite the absence of any provision for indicating general approval of the 5 cited uses, 19 Members specifically stated (in answer to questions 2 or 3) that none of the items listed were frivolous er undesirable, or that it was not the role of Congress to make such determinations. On the other hand, the omission of a checkmark beside any use could not be interpreted as approval of that use, since some Members did not attempt to answer every question.

In addition, six respondents indicated the difficulty of their judging the desirability of particular revenue sharing uses without viewing the needs of a community in relation to other considerations. One Member said in this connection:

It is difficult to determine what is "frivolous" unless a picture of the needs of the community is available. Certainly a public golf course would be frivolous in a community with serious housing problems.

As expressed by another Member:

Constructing a public golf course would be regarded as frivolous or undesirable if local problems in more populated parts of the country need fiscal support.

Still another Member stated:

"Frivolous" can only be considered relative to what the Federal Government is spending money on. In times of budgeting "restraint," more things would be categorized as frivolous than in other times.

Question 3.-Frivolous or Undesirable Expenditures

The survey included two questions in which the Member was asked to supply the answers rather than simply check one or more of several alternative positions. The first of these open-ended questions asked for a description of any specific expenditures that have been made or are planned from general revenue sharing funds which the Member would regard as frivolous or undesirable.

Only 13 Members reported specific examples of revenue sharing uses they would classify in this way. Included were such things as spending money for a sports stadium, moving a cemetery, paying the cost of travel to Washington to protest the revenue sharing allocation formula, purchase of vacant land in a city for park use, paying for the construction of decorative water fountains in a park, constructing a municipal skating rink, enacting State income tax rebates amounting to approximately the State's share of general revenue sharing funds, and constructing libraries ("there are too many more vital needs"). An additional 18 Members who did not identify specific examples of frivolous or undesirable expenditures did comment on the general philosophy of what constitutes such expenditures.

A number of Members who appeared strongly committed to the general revenue sharing concept took umbrage at the question itself. One respondent said, for example, "The concept of revenue sharing presupposes that it is none of the cotton-picking business of Congress to second-guess local decisions." Two other Members expressed essentially the same sentiment, while another Member noted more

sedately: "If revenue sharing is to be meaningful, the States and localities must decide upon their individual priorities. It would be presumptuous of us as Members of Congress to decide which of their priorities is frivolous.”

Two respondents took pains to recognize the legitimacy of the acts of locally elected officials. "One community's 'frivolity' may be another community's 'necessity.' Local officials have been elected to make these determinations," wrote one respondent. The other respondent was more explicit: "What difference does it make if a frivolous' project is financed through local property tax or Federal revenue sharing? Local officials are accountable to their constituency."

Some of those Members who indicated their general opposition to revenue sharing in question 3 kept their responses short and pungent. The specific uses of revenue sharing that were frivolous or undesirable were described tersely by one respondent: "All of them." Another respondent wrote: "I consider all expenditures of someone else's money to be undesirable." A Member described the frivolous use of revenue sharing as "reduction of taxes without improvement or expansion of services." In the view of another Member, "Frivolous expenditures would be monuments, stadium, or other expenditures which do not contribute to the welfare of the most needy (lowest 40 percent on the income scale for the community)."

Several respondents utilized the question of specific undesirable uses of revenue sharing to express their misgivings about the program in greater detail:

One Member wrote:

The merits of public expenditures tend to be relative. In the order of things I regard Government expenditures for golf courses as frivolous. Some recipients of general revenuesharing funds are investing the funds in U.S. Government obligations. They are lending the funds back to the Federal Government with interest. While I do not consider such investments "frivolous or undesirable," I do think they help demonstrate that general revenue sharing is "frivolous" and "undesirable."

Another respondent focused on the trade-off Congress must consider: This question points out a major problem with general revenue sharing. If we place further restrictions on the use of revenue sharing funds, we would create another situation in which a Government program becomes bogged down in paperwork and redtape. On the other hand, however, the socalled frivolous use of revenue sharing funds implies that some communities do not need the Federal assistance. At a time when the Congress and the administration are concerned about holding down Government spending, can we afford to send millions of dollars to States and localities for expenditure on services which are not necessary? Concern about redtape caused one Member to express his feelings in this way:

I believe the principle of revenue sharing is good, but as with any program of this scope, when you promulgate enough regulations to prevent abuse, you end up with a lot of confusion.

Taking cognizance of initial reports that capital outlays are the dominant local use of revenue sharing funds, one Member explained his misgivings about the future of revenue sharing as follows:

Another factor leading to large-scale capital investments from revenue sharing is the fact that capital investments are politically the least risky in nature. Whereas socially-oriented projects may involve high risks and low political returns, capital investments are politically neuter and have a known political return. This situation, I believe, will mean that revenue sharing in the long run will tend to draw local governments away from official commitments of any nature, not only because Federal funds are restricted, but also because there is absolutely no reward for local governments to engage in whatever risks may be involved. In other words, I simply do not believe that local governments are going to be willing to engage themselves in projects that would alleviate national concerns without having some reward or initiative from the Federal Government. Almost by definition, revenue sharing thus becomes a means to eliminate not only Federal but also local participation in projects intended to alleviate poverty, disease, and other social ills with which we are all too familiar.

Question 4.-Purposes of General Revenue Sharing

This second open-ended question was structured to obtain from Members the one or more objectives they felt general revenue sharing was intended to accomplish. Fully 172 of the respondents provided written replies to the following question:

Would you indicate below what you believe to be the primary purpose or purposes of the general revenue sharing provisions enacted in 1972?

Despite the large response, it would be erroneous to assume this necessarily implied agreement with the concept of revenue sharing. The question deliberately avoided any implication that a reply meant agreement or disagreement. The intent was to identify major program objectives as perceived by the Members.

Two basic purposes emerged from most of the replies:

1. To shift some decisionmaking from Washington to State and local governments, and

2. To help finance local services and/or relieve the pressure on local property taxes.

By our analysis, 73 Members emphasized State and local decisionmaking, while 48 Members emphasized the financial effects of revenue sharing on State and local services and taxes. In addition, another four respondents stressed both points.

Typical comments from Members who emphasized State and local decisionmaking were:

To enable State and local units of government freedom in determining their own priorities of public needs and services. To return the decisionmaking function of government to the lowest possible echelon of capable government.

Cut out redtape (it hasn't). Increase local control (it has). To reduce redtape and Federal bureaucratic regulation. Illustrative of the responses stressing the financial impact of revenue sharing on State and local services and taxes were the following:

To supplement State and local tax efforts.

To finance basic municipal services.

To help local communities help themselves.
Lessen the ad valorem tax load.

Help local and State government meet unmet needs and to
keep up with increased cost of services.

To assist governments of the central cities, which are caught in the dilemma of having to provide more, and more expensive services, with a tax base that is becoming further depleted.

Ease fiscal burden of local government-alert local citizenry to the need to have an active voice in the spending of local budgets.

An additional 47 respondents referred to purposes of revenue sharing which did not fit readily into the two broad classifications specified above. While some of the identified purposes were related in varying degrees to those categories, others were quite different.

Four of these respondents simply identified capital improvements as the purpose. Another mentioned jails and "construction of other facilities which are not available through matching funds and as a result receive lower priority, but are needed just the same."

Four Members felt the law itself specified the purposes, and their replies referred to the law or to the high priority expenditure categories.

Five Members indicated, in various ways, that the purposes of revenue sharing are related to tax sources and the distribution of tax burdens. They spoke of sharing with State and local governments the generating power of the Federal personal and corporate income taxes. One respondent put the purpose succinctly: "Equalize State shot at the revenue pie with that of the Federal Government." Another respondent wrote: "To shift as much as possible the burden of paying for government services away from the burdensome and unfair local property taxes and towards the more progressive Federal income taxes." Still another respondent expressed the purposes in these few words: "Tax reform, decentralization."

Six respondents indicated a desire to have revenue sharing directed toward the inner-city and social problems. Another Member wrote that "some of it should be used for replacement or expansion of social programs." Another specified "inner-city decay, better pay for firemen and policemen, mass transit" as the purposes to be served by general revenue sharing. Another Member identified the following specific purposes: "Tearing down vacated or deserted property; clearing off all vacant land owned by the city; repairing streets; costs of keeping alleys, streets, and so forth, clean and free of debris. General upkeep of city for benefit of all citizens." The focus on the city and its problems was evident in another reply that listed these purposes: "Relieve the property tax, make homeownership attractive, stem flight from the cities."

Six replies focused on the connection between general revenue sharing and other Federal assistance. One respondent wrote that revenue sharing was intended to provide greater local financial support for those programs that involve increasing dependence on Federal grants. Another stated that revenue sharing was "To supplement *** not to replace existing Federal programs." Another Meniber, however, took the opposite view-that revenue sharing was "not to be in addition to current financial aid from the Federal Government but in place of this aid." Another respondent stated that the purpose was "To retard the tendency to seek Federal funding for every conceivable 'need'." Still another respondent wrote that "Revenue sharing should have been on a tax credit basis. Revenue sharing should be used as a substitute or in lieu of categorical grants. Unfortunately, we have revenue sharing and local governments still want the categorical grants."

One Member wrote that the purposes were, specifically, "(1) For economic development. (2) Improvement of law enforcement."

The replies that stressed such purposes as increased services, reduced pressure on the local property tax, a shift in the locus of decisionmaking from Washington to the States and localities, and the level and distribution of tax burdens were perhaps best summed up by one Member as follows:

(1) To ease the fiscal burden on State and local govern

ments;

(2) To provide funds to State and local governments so
they set and achieve their own priorities;

(3) Begin new programs to meet uniquely local problems;
(4) Simplify revenue collection; and

(5) Relieve States and cities of dependence on regressive
property taxes.

To 15 respondents, the publicly stated purposes of revenue sharing were so much window dressing. These replies ranged from short statements such as "to reelect officeholders," "to buy support for Federal actions," "for political purposes only," through longer statements such as "It provided State and local officials the ecstasy of spending more without the agony of having to ask their constituents for increased revenues."

Revenue sharing's potential appeal to voters was stressed as the purpose by six of these respondents. As one Member expressed it:

To buy votes, sir! We appropriated dollars under the act, which dollars we never had collected in taxes. * * * we inflated the economy with more deficit spending-everybody knows this, so who are we kidding?

Deficit spending concerned other Members, too. One Member wrote: The question in my mind is who is going to assist the Federal Government in meeting its financial affairs.

Another wrote:

Revenue sharing was a political gimmick dreamed up by the present administration and it is an abdication of the Congress' responsibility to oversee the expenditure of public

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »