Washington By TOM LITTLEWOOD

Federal revenue sharing, which has poured $800 million into Illinois, stirs critics

OVER A two-year period, the State and local governments of Illinois ; collected over $800 million in newly Shared federal revenue. More than one-, third of the allotment — $270 million — was turned over to the State government. Chicago received $183 million directly. Other Illinois cities were eligible for $160 million; counties, $124 million; and townships, $70 million. The funds — $30 billion over 5 years —were made available with few restrictions.

That the State and local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 passed in the first place was something of a political miracle. Elected officials who bear the responsibility for levying taxes cherish the privilege of deciding how the money is to be spent. Now, well in advance of the 1976 expiration date of the law, efforts are underway to extend the authorizing legislation in the 1975 session of Congress.

spending priorities criticized Congressional complaints have focused on spending priorities. Instead of expanding services, the extra revenue often was used to reduce local taxes or avoid tax increases. At the municipal level nationwide, almost half the money was devoted to police protection. Building projects were favored over social services. The ideal of involving more citizens in the budget planning processes didn't pan out that way, and there were racial discrimination allegations in some places (including the Chicago police department). Liberals noted that services for the poor, the handicapped, and children and the elderly generally, accounted for very little of the expenditures.

Compounding their displeasure, Democrats who supported revenue sharing with the understanding that it would not be a substitute for categorical social programs accused President Nixon of double-crossing them by shrinking the budget for such special purpose grants. Some scholars are convinced, moreover, that the fiscal sustenance will help to preserve fragmented archaic local units of government that ought to be consolidated or reorganized. And there is a continuing concern as to whether such federal generosity can be afforded while the necessity of a balanced budget is being stressed as an anti-inflation policy.

During the recent election campaign, President Ford warned that the principle of revenue sharing would be jeopardized by the election of more Democrats to Congress. It is unquestionably true that lingering opposition to revenue sharing is concentrated among Democrats, especially those who serve on committees that design and oversee federal grant programs.

States' share under fire The Governor-elect of New York, Hugh Carey, who was a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, made the surprising proposal during his campaign that the state governments' share be split up among the cities. He was joined in that suggestion by the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep.Wilbur Mills (D., Kensett, Arkansas).

Since then, Mills' committee has lost its jurisdiction over revenue sharing, so his opinions don't matter nearly as much any more. Pressure for committee reorganization forced a transfer of revenue sharing to the Government Operations Committee. Chairman Jack Brooks (D., Beaumont, Texas) and most of the other ranking Democrats on that committee are small city representatives who opposed the original bill and remain hostile to revenue sharing. It is axiomatic, nevertheless, that government spending programs are seldom halted once they are started — certainly not one with such a politically potent constituency as governors, state legislators, mayors, county and township supervisors.

Regardless of what Mills or Carey may think (and Carey will probably experience a change of heart as he steps closer to the governor's chair), Congress is not about to cut the states out of the program. Already the state government lobbies are preparing to demonstrate that state budgets are not in clover, contrary to the impression that may have gotten around.

A fundamental issue that will surely be re-argued when the extension comes before Congress is whether the needy central cities are receiving a fair share in relation to their affluent suburbs.

Tighten up on townships' share? There also is a desire to make it more difficult for New England counties and Midwestern townships — many of which are not general-purpose units — to qualify for assistance. Rep. John Erienborn (R., Elmhurst, Illinois), the second ranking Republican on the Government Operations Committee, agreed that a case can be made for eliminating Illinois townships that exist primarily to maintain roads.

Looking ahead, the big battles probably will be over the length of the next commitment; whether the revenue sharing pot should be a Fixed percentage of federal tax collections; or whether the appropriations and budget committees of Congress should have the power, as they do not under the present law, to adjust the annual outlays according to the condition of the federal budget.

Illinois Issues/January 1975/31

|Table of Contents| |Back to 1975 Illinois Issues|

Please note: Advertisements are not included with this issue.
| Previous | | Next |

Pages:|1 ||2 | |3 ||4 | |5 ||6 | |7 ||8 | |9 ||10 | Pages:|11 ||12 | |13 ||14 | |15 ||16 | |17 ||18 | |19 ||20 |

Pages:|21 ||22 | |23 ||24 | |25 ||26 | |27 ||28 | |29 ||30 | Pages:|31 ||32 |