OCR Text |
Show President Mlxon's Money Shsrfog flm Generous to Stats cf Utah Utah would receive- $1.58 in shared Federal revenue fcr every $1 paid in Federal tax es toward the cost of the program pro-gram under the plan proposed pro-posed by President Nixon, it was reported this week by Utah Foundation, a private, nonprofit government research resear-ch agency. Eight states would fare belter under the proposed propos-ed formula, with Mississippi ceiving $2.76 for every dullar contributed. The Foundation advised caution in assessing Utah's position, however. It poir.is out that before any program is enacted into law it must be approved by both houses of Congress. Heavy pressures from more populous and politically po-litically powerful states may change the Presidents proposed distribution formula form-ula to the disadvantage of smaller states such as Utah. Initial proposals for Federal Feder-al aid to schools would have been favorable to Utah, the Foundation report notes. Bl:; when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was finally passed, Utah found itself actually helping to sudsidize schools in many larger and wealthier states. Support of or opposition to the revenue - sharing proposal propos-al are not based entirely n;i questions of fiscal advantagi or disadvantage, the Foundation Founda-tion report points out. Debate De-bate over the philosophic.il concept of Federal aid, especially es-pecially when provided without with-out Federal controls, has been going on for considi r-able r-able time. Supporters of revenue sharing shar-ing contend that the Fodei.il taxes have grown to su:h proportions that state and local lo-cal government do not have enough leeway to finance their own needed programs wiihout Federal assistance. They further assert that tight Federal controls tend to make for centralized bureaucratic bur-eaucratic government and to destroy traditional American "grass roots," government by the people. Opponents of . shared revenue, on ihe other hand, assert that Federal grar.is without Federal controls con-trols violate a fundamental principle ef sound government govern-ment financing, the close association as-sociation ef authority and responsibility. re-sponsibility. When the authority author-ity to spend tax dollars is widely separated from the rpsponsibility for raising them, critics charge, the most effective check on government gov-ernment spending is removed. re-moved. The President's revenue-sharing revenue-sharing program is proposed to supplement, not to replace present Federal aid programs pro-grams and would add a haif billion dollars in Federal assistance as-sistance in the last half of fiscal 1971, increasing to j) billion in fiscal 1976. Utah's share of the proposed initial amount would be about S3 million, increasing to $30 million mil-lion in 197C. 'The J) m'liion propose! for L'ir.h in 1C71 wculd represent rep-resent less than three-quar-U rs of one percent of to al state and local revenues for )Z, and a smaller proper-ion proper-ion ef the 1971 budget! It would be only a little more than 2 per cent of total Fed-ral Fed-ral aid received in Utah in 1930. Th" $30 million proposed propos-ed for 1976 would probably be about one-half of one percent per-cent (if total revenues and perhaps one-fifth of total Federal Fed-eral aid i.i Utah that year. Nationally, the percentage of total revenues would be lecs than in Utah." the report states. "While it is anticipated anticipat-ed that Federal revenue sharing would be in addition to and nut in lieu of present grant-in-hid program, it is apparent ap-parent that it will not solve all, or even most, of the fiscal fis-cal problems of state and local lo-cal government." Existing Inderal grant-in-aid programs to state and 'o-cal 'o-cal government totalled more than $17 billion in fiscal 19ii:!. more than 2,000 limes the amount devoted to this purpose pur-pose at the turn of the century. cen-tury. U! all's share of Federal aid in lOOt! was $!! ! million, giving giv-ing lier thirty-seventh r.ie.k mum;; the fifty stales and District of Columbia in total amount nri ived. In Federal aid per capita Utah's $1,33.1)7 pave Ihe ,(ai e s. 'ven'.h rank. Utah ranked tenth in (he per-percent per-percent of Federal aid ineliul ed in to.al stale and local revenues with 25.1 per cert. Tli inti isla'e highway-building program is a sir.nilieai.t f.irlur, since l ho heavy proportion pro-portion ef Federal land ou:i-ei-.hip in Utah ucirji's tlie l' di ral matching ratio f'ir building ii.lerrlate lreeways. hi reveal lt),;ri. Uleh contributed con-tributed ' an estimated $735 million in IVdeial taxes, or eliout .till of 1 per cent of the total. In population, Utah accounts lor sti;,iit ly less than .59 of 1 per cent of Ihe national total. California received most' !' deed aid of aic st at e, ""ii lin,i.,n ill 190!!. Sm dlc;t amount was received by De!-awrc, De!-awrc, $13 million, |