The History of Revenue Sharing: Reform, Renewal for the 70'sU.S. Government Printing Office, 1971 - 27 pages |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
$16 billion 91st Congress alderman or county allocated America Americans are answering answering Wilson's cardinal asking that cardinal Association of Counties Betts of Ohio budget catalogs categorical grants Chemical Forum cities Congress decisions effective enues ernments expenditures Federal funds Federal Government Federal income taxes Federal level Federal systems already Federal tax revenues fiscal policies formula Gallup Poll greater increase leaders leadership level of government levies local governments localities matter beyond party matter that summons ment Murray Weidenbaum Nation's future turned National Association National League needs NIXON ADMINISTRATION'S officials opportunity pass-through Pechman percent President responsibility result Revenue Sharing Act revenue sharing funds revenue sharing idea Revenue Sharing program revenue sharing proposals revenues in stronger sales taxes shared revenues special message SPECIAL REVENUE SHARING task force tax effort taxpayer pressures tion true national consensus U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING Washington White House Wilson properly described Wilson's cardinal question
Popular passages
Page 9 - The time has now come in America to reverse the flow of power and resources from the States and communities to Washington, and start power and resources flowing back from Washington to the States and communities and, more important, to the people all across America.
Page 12 - It cannot, indeed, be settled by the opinion of any one generation, because it is a question of growth, and every successive stage of our political and economic development gives it a new aspect, makes it a new question.
Page 18 - ... had to be published. The guidelines which are attached to these grants are so complicated that the government has had to issue special guidelines on how the guidelines should be interpreted. The result of all this has been described by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations as "managerial apoplexy" on the State and local level. Meanwhile, the individual human being, that single person who ultimately is what government is all about, has gotten lost in the shuffle. State and local...
Page 14 - ... Americans have concluded that government is not performing well. It promises much, but it does not deliver what it promises. The great danger, in my judgment, is that this momentary disillusionment with government will turn into a more profound and lasting loss of faith. We must fight that danger. We must restore the confidence of the people in the capacities of their government.
Page 23 - accountability" really depends, in the end, on accessibility — on how easily a given official can be held responsible for his spending decisions. The crucial question is not where the money comes from but whether the official who spends it can be made to answer to those who are affected by the choices he makes. Can they get their views through to him? Is the prospect of their future support a significant incentive for him? Can they remove him from office if they are unhappy with his performance?...
Page 7 - Our ultimate purposes are many: to restore to the states their proper rights and roles in the Federal system with a new emphasis on and help for local responsiveness; to provide both the encouragement and the necessary resources for local and state officials to exercise leadership in solving their own problems...
Page 7 - Conference, the US Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the International City Managers Association.
Page 15 - The failure of State and local revenues to keep pace with demands is the inherent result of the way in which our tax system has developed. Ever since the 16th Amendment in 1913 made it possible for the Federal government to tax personal income, this source of revenue has been largely pre-empted and monopolized by Washington. Nine out of every ten personal income tax dollars are collected at the Federal level. Income tax revenues are quick to reflect economic growth. Often, in fact, they grow much...
Page 22 - ENHANCING ACCOUNTABILITY Ironically, the central advantage of revenue sharing — the fact that it combines the advantages of Federal taxation with the advantages of State and local decision-making — is the very point at which the plan is frequently criticized. When one level of government spends money that is raised at another level, it has been argued, it will spend that money less responsibly; when those who appropriate tax revenues are no longer the same people who levy the taxes, they will...
Page 22 - ... simply not the case. In fact, giving States and localities the power to spend certain Federal tax monies will increase the influence of each citizen on how those monies are used. It will make government more responsive to taxpayer pressures. It will enhance accountability. In the first place, there is no reason to think that the local taxpayer will be less motivated to exert pressure concerning the way shared revenues are spent. For one thing, the local taxpayer is usually a Federal taxpayer...