OCR Text |
Show Grass Roots America ( j Revenue Sharing is Really V-v- Dividing Up the Deficit By JERRY MARTIN So now it appears we're going to have Fderal revenue reve-nue sharing, about $33 billion worth over the next five years. For mayors of large cities such as New York, where the budget has more than doubled dou-bled in the past decade, the news that Washington will pick up the tab for more local lo-cal spending is almost too good to be true. Harrassed county officials see revenue sharing as a way to pay for higher local costs without incurring the wrath of property pro-perty taxpayers. Even some governors find the idea appealing, ap-pealing, a way to balance state budgets without being forced to economize. After all, budget cuts are politically politi-cally unpopular with those who benefit by government spending on such things as social services and welfare. But the average taxpayer, young and old, rich and poor, is likely to be very disappointed disap-pointed because revenue sharing sha-ring is not the answer to the demand for tax relief. Despite De-spite claims to the contrary, the immutable laws of economics eco-nomics cannot be ignored forever. for-ever. When reality rears its ugly head, we'll see a massive mas-sive disenchantment with this new method of "painless government gov-ernment spending." The term itself is misleading. mislead-ing. These United States currently cur-rently have a national debt approaching $450 billion. Just paying the interest this year will take $21.2 billion in federal fed-eral taxes, or about $320 for every American household. house-hold. This year's Federal deficit will be anywhere between $25 to $30 billion more than it receives in revenue. So reve-. reve-. nue sharing is really sharing i a deficit. , Despite this, disillusioned skeptics are having difficulty 1 being heard above the Hal-I Hal-I leluhah sounds being voiced by those who see revenue sharing as the greatest gim-I gim-I mick since "pay-as-you-go" I financing introduced Federal income tax withholding and paved the way for the massive mas-sive government spending we have today. I To many people, the idea of getting back some of the money they send to Washing-I Washing-I ton, is irresistable, no mat-I mat-I ter what they call it. Still, , nagging questions persist. How can you add a deficit to a deficit and wind up with a plus for the taxpayer? Does anyone seriously believe that these Federal funds will come with no strings attached, that along with the money the states, the counties and cities will not be given "directives," "guidelines" how to spend it? Isn't it more likely that revenue re-venue sharing funds will be dispensed the same way all the other Federal grants have been handed out, complete with such things as mandatory manda-tory ethnic hiring quotas, reams of paperwork to complete com-plete and every bundle of shared sha-red revenue wrapped securely secure-ly in the inevitable red tape? In the euphoric prospect of getting something for nothing, noth-ing, those common sense questions remain largely unanswered. un-answered. But the morning-after morning-after impact will come. The taxpayers will learn something some-thing that, deep down they know now: There is no free lunch. The dollars Washington Washing-ton uses to finance "revenue sharing" are dollars that were taken first from people in the states, the counties, ' the cities--the very places which are supposed to be helped by revenue sharing. Wouldn't it make more sense to find a way to leave those dollars in the states, the counties, cou-nties, and cities instead of shipping them to Washington and then allowing some of those dollars to trickle back via revenue sharing--minus Federal costs for "administrative "adminis-trative expenses?" Or better yet, shouldn't government gov-ernment concentrate on the only realistic way to provide pro-vide realistic tax relief: By reducing government spending spend-ing at all levels, eliminating the non-essential and often nonsensical things the Federal Fed-eral Government currently finances? |