In other important programs, railroad retirement, unemployment and other benefits ($648 million), conservation program payments to farmers ($172 million), veterans' benefits, readjustment benefits under Public Laws 364 and 500 ($574 million), New England's share was relatively low compared to her share of income-52, 24, and 77 percent, respectively. 40. I repeat that New England's favorable position in this category is explained primarily by insurance programs where an industrial region profits (?) from higher coverage and more unemployment. The payments are related more directly to what is paid in than is true generally of Federal disbursements. 41. In category 2B (loans to individuals and groups), which amounted to $6,173,000,000 in 1954, New England's share was but 1.26 percent. In every instance New England's record was poor. Thus in the 5 major programs, VA direct loans to veterans ($118 million), Farm Credit Administration, loans closed by agencies under FCA ($2,158,000,000), Rural Electrification loans ($236 million), Department of Agriculture, Farmers' Home Administration direct loans ($280 million), and Commodity Credit Corporation nonrecourse loans ($3,305,000,000), New England's share relative to her ratio of income was 24, 47, 1, 27, and 1 percent, respectively. 42. Under 2C (loans guaranteed and insured), the amounts involved were $4,934,000,000. New England received 90 percent of the amount indicated by her relative income. For the VA guarantee of loans to veterans ($1,855,000,000), New England's share on this criterion was 120 percent; but of the housing loans insured by the Housing Administration ($3,069,000,000), New England received but 60 percent of the amounts suggested. 43. Of $3,663,000,000 paid out in salaries by the Federal Government (category 3A), New England received 88 percent as much as is indicated by her relative income. The percentages vary from 3 percent (agricultural research) to 130 percent (Army National Guard payments). For the largest item, Post Office, mail delivery and collection ($1,619,000,000), New England's realtive percentage was 105. 44. For the $17.8 billion of expenditures in all, New England received 6.36 percent, or 96 percent of the amounts indicated by her income. Without insurance payments, New England's share is, of course, much smaller, and notably in grants to State and local governments and projects within States. 45. Of the $6.2 billion of loans closed, New England's share was especially low-19 percent of the expected level. Of the $4,934 million loans insured, New England received 90 percent of the total expected. Disbursements in relation to taxes borne 46. A table below summarizes the relation of New England to the United States. For 75 substantial programs the ratio of Federal disbursements in New England per $1,000 of taxes exceeds that of the Nation in only 6 programs, is 25 percent or less below the national ratio for 16 programs, 25 to 50 percent less for 16 programs, and more than 50 percent less for 37 programs. Programs costing more than $10 million, Federal disbursements per $1,000 of taxes-New England and United States 47. Since New England's Federal tax burden as a percentage of the national tax burden exceeds her percentage of the national income, it would be expected that a comparison of Federal disbursements in New England relative to New England's tax burdens in the Nation would show an even less favorable position for New England than was revealed in the earlier comparisons of disbursements on the basis of relative incomes. 48. Hence the percentages in column 4 of the master table are invariably lower than those in column 3. The only instances under 1A (grants to States and localities) where a percentage in excess of 100 is revealed for New England is housing, annual contributions to State and local authorities (138 percent) and Bureau of Employment Security, grants to States (103 percent). For all grants to States and localities, New England's percentage, as indicated by the ratio of Federal disbursements in New England to taxes borne by New England, is only 69. 49. The only large program where on this criterion New England shows a percentage in excess of that suggested by the relation of disbursements and taxes borne are benefits paid under OASI (118 percent). 50. On the basis of comparisons of disbursements and taxes, New England also receives more than 100 percent in the category Housing loans (120). But for all loans her total is reduced to 77 percent. In the salary category, her percentage for the total on this criterion is 75, and only in VA construction, etc., of hospital and domiciliary facilities and Army National Guard is a figure in excess of 100 percent reached (109 and 111, respectively). 51. For all expenditures, the percentage is 82 percent of what would be expected on the basis of disbursements in New England relatively to taxes borne: for loans closed, 16 percent; and for loans insured, 77 percent. Allow me to add that the relative disbursements to taxes borne is higher in this year for New England than over a longer span. Taxes and disbursements, comparison of New England, the Nation, and the South 52. Useful comparisons are those between New England, on the one hand, and the South Atlantic and the East South Central States, on the other. Again, the comparison is of Federal disbursements received and taxes borne. In relation to the South Atlantic States, New England's receipts relative to taxes borne are less than the South Atlantic's in 69 out of 75 instances. In 46 programs the figure for New England is more than 50 percent below that of the South Atlantic States. In relation to the East South Central States, New England's percentage is higher in only 3 out of 75 instances and more than 50 percent less in 57 instances.) Programs costing more than $10 million, Federal disbursements per $1,000 of taxes-New England and South Atlantic Programs costing more than $10 million, Federal disbursements per $1,000 of taxes-New England and East South Central 53. It is only necessary to show the relation of disbursements to taxes borne for New England relative to the other two groups of States. (A total of 100 means that New England's receipts from Federal disbursements relative to taxes borne are equal to those of the other section; a score of 50, that New England receives only half as much relatively.) 54. It is clear that New England received much less back for each dollar of taxes paid than the Southern States; and if the insurance payments are eliminated, the differences are striking. See, for example, rows 1 and 2 which give the major expenditures other than salaries and payments to individuals (largely insurance). Rows 1 and 2 are, in fact, the genuine Federal subsidies. New England's relative position is especially unfavorable in the Federal loan categories. In relation to taxes borne, she receives back out one-sixth as much as the Nation and the South Atlantic States and one-sixteenth as much as the East South Central States. In other words, the South and West are being built up with a considerable use of Federal funds. New York 55. Perhaps a word should be said about other Northern States. In the last table, I inserted figures for New York State. It will be noted that Federal disbursements in New York relative to taxes borne are even lower relative to the national ratio than for New England relative to the national. For grants to States and local units, the New York figures is 44 percent as compared with 69 for New England; for grants and payments to individuals, 72 as compared with 95 for New England; and for all expenditures, 63 as against 82. The explanation is partly higher incomes in New York and a heavier tax burden. 56. In some of the important programs, the percentage for New York varies from that for New England to an extent that suggests smaller or larger participation in a particular program-aside from the differences in tax burdens. As might be expected, the relevant figure for removal of surplus commodities was 42 (91 for New England); for highways, 36 (62 for New England); for old-age A17 Old-age assistance_ A18 Department of Health grants for disabled. assistance, only 29 (75 for New England); for dependent children, 71 (64 for New England); for VA pensions. 59 (94 for New England); for Railroad Retirement benefits, 47 (44 for New England); for Employment Security benefits, 91 (New England, 91); for OASI, 78 (New England, 118); for postal collections, etc., 100 (New England, 89). Disbursements in New York per thousand dollars of taxes as a percentage of that in the United States A10 Aid highways.. A12 School districts grants_ A13 School construction_. A16 Hospital construction_ Percent 58.6 16. 7 38.2 42.0 36. 3 17.6 15. 3 25.0 29.3 138. 8 A19 Department of Health grants to blind... A20 Department of Health aid to dependent children. A25 Employment security grants- Total aid to State and local government__ Army Corps of Engineers, civil projects. National park maintenance. 34.5 71.0 N. Y.-nil 95.2 43.9 8.1 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 14. 3 D2 D3 ᎠᏎ D5 D6 Commodity stabilization, sugar_ Total projects within States_ D1 Veterans' Administration readjustment benefits. Railroad Retirement Board, various benefits. 5.9 49.0 45. 3 58.5 46. 8 14. 1 0.0 D7 Agricultural disaster emergency funds. D8 D10 Withdrawals payroll insurance fund.. National institutes of Health, fellowships, etc.. D9 Bureau of Labor, payments to veterans. 0.0 104. 4 30. 1 90.6 D11 Commodity stabilization. 3.5 Disbursements in New York per thousand dollars of taxes as a percentage of that in the United States-Continued [Programs costing more than $25 million] G1 Veterans' Administration life insurance. H1 H2 Total nontax financed insurance payments.. H3 Veterans' Administration administrative expenses and salaries. H4 H7 Agricultural Research Service, expenses and salaries. H10 Forest pest control, etc... H11 Air National Guard.. H12 Army National Guard. H18 Bureau of Old Age Insurance, expenses and salaries Percent 57.5 57.5 0.0 0.0 57. O 28. 0 47. O 0.0 5. 1 0.0 64. 2 46. 7 60. 3 35. 3 126. 8 99.6 0.0 60. 0 70. 0 63. 2 9.8 68. 7 Ten richest and ten poorest States 57. For the year 1954, the 10 richest States profited from Federal disbursements in relation to the 10 poorest States as follows: 240 percent as much from expenditures, 77 percent in loans closed, and 548 percent in loans insured. But since the income of the rich States was more than 4 times that of the poor States, when disbursements are related to incomes, the respective figures become 58, 19, and 132; and when related to taxes borne, 42, 14, and 97 percent are the totals. In other words, the richest States received only two-fifths as much from Federal expenditures and one-seventh in loans closed as might be indicated by relative taxes borne. The rich States, primarily States in the Northeast and the Middle West, receive relatively little compared to what they pay in. 58. That the richest States get back much less than they put in might be expected. Of 75 programs, in only 3 (aside from 1 guarantee program) to the receipts exceed the taxes borne relatively; and these are unimportant programs. 59. Here are some details on important programs and totals which underline these conclusions. |