OCR Text |
Show Revenue Sharing Is "Big Issue" Since establishment of the federal revenue-sharing program prog-ram in 1972, local units in Davis County have received $17,634,648 in revenue-sharing revenue-sharing funds. AN ADDITIONAL $2,534,555 was allocated to these units for the 1982-83 fiscal fis-cal year, which amount is equal to $20.03 per capita, or a countywide property tax levy of 6.70 mills, ($6.70 per $ 1 ,000 assessed valuation). There were some of the facts reported by Utah Foundation, the private research organization, organiza-tion, in a detailed analysis of the federal revenue-sharing program and its impact in Utah. The report notes that uncertainty un-certainty about renewal of the program is making it difficult for some local units to budget and plan ahead. THE ORIGINAL federal revenue-sharing law enacted in 1972 was renewed in 1976 and again in 1980. The 1980 renewal renew-al of the program was for three years and is scheduled to expire ex-pire on Sept. 30, 1983. Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives approved renewal re-newal of the program for another three years, but the action ac-tion is threatened with a pres-idential pres-idential veto unless the appropriation contained in the bill is scaled down. The legislation legisla-tion faces further action in the U.S. Senate. ORIGINALLY, federal revenue-sharing provided quarterly quar-terly grants to state and local governments with relatively few restrictions as to how this money was to be spent. When the program was renewed in 1980, allocations to state governments gov-ernments were eliminated. As a result, the state of Utah had to scramble in order to replace re-place the $14 million that it had been receiving and using to help finance Utah's school program. SINCE enactment of federal revenue-sharing in 1972 through the 1982 fiscal year, a total of $393.6 million has been distributed to 262 governmental governmen-tal units in Utah. An additional $35.1 million has been allocated to local units un-its in Utah for the 1982-83 fiscal fis-cal year, and this amount is equal to apptoximately $24 per capita. If this sum had to be replaced by a property tax, il would require a statewide levy of 5.30 mills ($5.30 per $1,000 assessed valuation). FOUNDATION analysts point out that while federal revenue-sharing funds represent a sizable sum, they are not an overwhelming part of the budget of most local units. Furthermore, some local units have cautiously avoided using these funds for on-going programs. prog-rams. Advocates of federal revenue-sharing maintain that the program has allowed more of the functions of government to be provided by units closer to the people than would be the case if administration of governmental gov-ernmental programs is centralized central-ized in Washington. OPPONENTS, on the other hand, contend that the federal government has no revenue to share since it has been unable to balance its own budget in 22 of the past 23 years. Over the life of the program, federal revenue-sharing has contributed $69.5 billion to the $700 billion in total federal deficits de-ficits recorded for this period. Many economists attribute the high interest rates and poor performance in the economy over the past few years to these persistently high federal budget deficits. |