| Show r. r National Topics Interpreted J ti by William Bruckart t L National Press Washington D D. D C. C t In Washington lu days not so fa farIn far t. t In lu the distant past nn an argument rt could be mcl 1 States States' oiled in any c com COUl- o n h J f. f Rights w where her c cl l there were more than a n handful of ot Democrats If It on one r. r took the position that the rights oi of the federal e eral government go we were c predominant predominant pre pre- 1 dominant over o states states' States rights constituted nn an Issue that ncr nev er cr died politically until the New Deal arrived on the scene at ot WashIngton Wash Wash- Ington Through h some two years or r more now we had heard very cry ty f little UttIe about states states' rights Yet et I etin within withIn with with- in the time last few da days day's s 's we have found that the states' states rights issue was not dead It was only sleeping and It Las has come to life Ufe in n a really big way New Nety Deal policies have been consistently con con- policies of ot centralization of ot power In the thc hands of or the federal fed eral oral government New Dealers have enacted much legislation and have bave carried out many programs that appear ap ap- appear pear to be contrary to the views which used to be held by advocates of states states' rights These things have e been accomplished with almost no complaint from the time Democratic side and with only a n minimum of oC squawking from Crom New Deal opposition opposition tion from whence came complaints about regimentation and extension of t government functions into the field of ot private enterprise In competItion competition compe compe- with the governments government's cHI citi tens zens Lately however some thirty or thirty five e cities have awakened with n a shock and have rendered one New Deal program a n severe jolt by that awakening I refer to the plans for government go construction construction construction tion of ot the called so-called low cost housing hous hoeg ing projects These were and are Intended to provide apartments or small email homes for families In the very low Income brackets and to provide pro work work for labor fn their construction Eventually E It was hoped the program program pro pro- gram would use up a good many hundred bundred million dollars of or work re lief Ilef funds Some Som has hns already been spent some projects have been completed and these se results coincided ed with the arrival of or tax paying Jn time In certain localities That was the crux 0 1 t tTo v To show what has lias happened In those titles clUes and areas wherein the thelow low cost housing y Atlanta projects h have n a v e r Project been planned or completed let us take a n particular case namely the Lousing housing project in Atlanta Georgia It Is of or no use to cite the facts In n nall all of or them because because- the Atlanta case Is t typical Secretary Ickes and his Public Works administration had spent approximately ap zip- l proximately three million dollars In the construction of the Atlanta housing la layout out No 1 sooner had this Li-en Li accomplished however howe than the cIt city of Atlanta awakened to the fact that It would get no taxes nor will the state stute of Geor Georgia ln get taxes from rom this great Investment The TIle project was ruled by Comptroller ler General J. J It II McCarl to be federally fed owned As such It was not subject to state or municipal taxa taxa- tion Uon The city of Atlanta and t the e c state elate of Georgia had been deriving taxes from the real estate now owned by Uncle Sam It was Atlanta's turn to move It announced through Its Its' properly proper proper- ly y constituted city authorities that 1 If there were no taxes then Atlanta Atlan Allan ta to could not furnish fire Ore and police protection for the property nor could It supply water for tor the tenants ten ten- ants nor would it permit children children- of those tenants to attend the Atlanta Atlanta At At- lanta schools as ns free ree students Atlanta At At- lanta anta contended t l that It bears beurs the time burden of these expenses and it was not going to add to that burden burden burden bur bur- den without reimbursement Secretary s Ickes sought then to offset the Atlanta ultimatum by tendering ten ten- I dering funds taxpayers taxpayer's money to I t the e city of Atlanta equal to the the amount he be thought the city would receive In taxes Again Mr Me Me- Carl stepped In lIe He said that since since the property was owned by the fed federal federal fed fed- eral government Jo It was not subject to taxes and therefore a payment to the city of or Atlanta nta out of ot federal funds constituted a n gratuity In other ther words It was an Illegal The be comptroller generals general's ruling r was so definite and positive that those who have been boosting and boasting about low cost housing projects have keen been stunned l Frankly Frank Frank- U.- U. ly y they do not know which way to tn turn Thus far ar they hive have not discovered dJs dIg covered a rn ray of or light to lend them The housing projects are held beld In n abeyance t The housing project situation n brings to the fore a n condition which apparently had Enter infer not been general general- Taxation ly recognized It relates of course cours to the general subject of taxation but it has lids a bearing upon many put pol Ides now operative and which It ItIs Is fair to sn say r have been described 1 by 1 lt as i mental Since Ince they are experimental tal It seems to me are they ought to be examined l from tills this taxation phase One can understand readily the base of or the objection There Is hardly hardly hardly hard hard- ly a city or town or even any other kind hind of taxing district in the time Unit United United ed States where the tax rates rats are not at nt the very ery peak which the time people pea pea- pi Ille can carr carry That was shown vividly vI a year ago o when Congress thou thought ht It necessary to enact legislation legislation legis legis- lation laUon permitting municipalities the privilege of or declaring themselves virtually bankrupts and according them the rI right ht of or compromising with the bondholders under a n decree decree de de- cree of a n United States court So when we think of ot taking away taxable taxable tax tax- able property In n any city and m making making mak mak- li 1 ing It non taxable non taxable by conversion from private to federal government Jo we see how It adds a n further burden burden burden bur bur- den of ot taxes axes to the remaining privately privately owned property That Is tho the thorenson reason renson why many municipalities are fearful of government ownership of ot railroads for example since the railroads are arc heavy taxpayers rs in every community they serve In LayIng Lay Lay- Ing aside the time question of merit or lack Inck of ot merit In the proposition of or government go ownership of ot railroads no no municipality can afford to overlook overlook overlook over over- look the time loss Joss of tax receipts that would follow government acquisition tion of or those carrier properties They pay real estate taxes In the United States annually of more than three threw hundred million dollars Of or course It Is 15 distributed In thousands thousands ands of places but whatever er the amount may be in your our community or any other it represents a n tax tux source which the local government can enn Jl HI afford to lose It Is the time same although to a n lesser less less- er degree deret with respect to the housIng housIng housing hous hous- ing project In this statement I mean only as ns to the the local local tax phase It has hos however another very ery Important Important important Im Im- im- im tax angle Property or r the Income from property everywhere Is subjected to three e tax assess assess- ments First the county or cIt city In which the property Is located takes a tax toll second the time state pets Jets petsa a n share and thirdly the time federal government go either by Income or orsome orsome some sODie other tax gets ets Its hand Into the pocket of or a property owner In the case of ot the low cost housing housIng hous hous- In ing project It was ne necessary to calculate calculate cal cal- time tile rental rate on n a base so low that It would be Impossible for forthe forthe or orthe the total receipts to pl pay off ocr the time government Investment In This had to he be done If the low cost housing was to be supplied led at nt a n rate the poorer classes could pay It Is seen therefore that there was a staring the project in the Ole face And so it Is with a n great t many other of the experIments where such programs place owned government agencies or Industries In competition tion with citizens Take the Tennessee Tennessee Ten Ten- Valley Palley hydroelectric hydro project for another example The federal government o has lias placed more than in that venture The present Tennessee alle Valley corporation corpora corpora- corporation tion has taken over o these properties at about third one of this amount a net loss to the government But Hut that Is not all The fhe vast project that has hns been en developed In the Tennessee Tennessee Ten Ten- valley mey and through h the time adjoinIng adjoining adjoining ad ad- joining counties and cities is not subject to state taxation nor do lIo the cities that are being served by Tennessee Tennessee Ten len river rl electricity get any taxes tuxes from this source It may be sound In the theory but I am nm fearful fearful fear fear- ful that the Inbred opposition to federal government encroachment on local sooner or later will cause a new explosion Earlier In this discussion I mentioned mentioned men men- tho the ruling mUng by Comptroller General McCarl Always W wj who lh o act acted e d of I Ithe the Goat course as ns the time I head hem of or time tilt general gen gen- general gen I eral accounting alike Tills This u agency eucy was created with a n very definite I purpose In mind Congress wanted want- want wanted i I 1 c ed some ome Independent group or nUt au- J to all aU federal expendItures expenditures expend expend- expenditures to make c certain that they were made malte In accor accordance ance with law A good many years c rs ago lIO when this job was done lIone by the comptroller of or ortho tho the treasury usury It was not Infrequent I that an nn adverse erse ruling by the comptroller comp cutup put the comptroller In a tough spot Mr McCarl Is not popular Pr- Pr Privately and publicly he has hns been criticized sometimes In language I hardly printable These complaints always have e come orne from frolD rota someone whose Idea of ot spending money way was found by Mr lr McCarl l not to be ID accordance with the law Ahva Always s 's he wa watt wari the time Jon gnat gont t. t He Ile Ie ha has been h n the goat much more under the tho Now New Deal than ever er be be- fore Every t vr time he kirks over a aNew aNew aNew New I Deal al plan the sponsors of that plan brand him burn a as a 0 Tory or ora ora orn a n Reactionary t or ns as Just plain dumb umu lie Hp his has engaged In controversy controversy contro contro- versy ersy with none of or them lIl He lIe has baa contended that his decisions d were rendered In accordance wit with the law la which he was directed by congress I to construe But it Is 13 true of ot nil all humans man When a n pot pet plan pl Ja is de lie- destroyed one trips trios to find on whom wham to pin the time bIn blame me C O W Newspaper |
