The Drive to Kill Revenue Sharing

(3 of 3)

While politicians argue over comparative tax resources, fundamental questions about the appropriate federal role in local services seem unlikely to be resolved. City experts like the Urban Institute's George Peterson argue that the national Government should help out when it adds to local costs by establishing new standards, as it did in 1972 for water-treatment plants. Other urban advocates argue that welfare payments should be a federal responsibility, since many tightfisted communities export their poverty burden to more generous cities. New York City's Deputy Mayor Alair Townsend points out, for example, that about 14% of the homeless women and 8% of men living in the city's shelters are from out of town. Says Townsend: "These people gravitate to New York when things get really tough, knowing they will get a better deal here." Some analysts also place aid to higher education as a federal responsibility on the theory that students are highly mobile after graduation and their acquired knowledge is a national asset. Environmental problems that do not respect city and state lines, such as acid rain, air pollution and water contamination, clearly require federal help.

But when cities use revenue sharing to pay for local garbage collection, street maintenance, fire and police, rather than for capital improvements, health care, nutrition or housing, the program does not seem to be meeting its original purposes. Stanford Political Scientist Alvin Rabushka contends that city services in general have declined despite federal aid. "If we spent more and got worse--if spending increases didn't translate into better services--it's hard to prove that cutbacks will lead to any deterioration," he argues. That view may seem harsh to local officials struggling to keep their cities from sliding deeply into debt, but it was clear last week that revenue sharing, at least in its present form, was in deep political trouble.