Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 2 · column 2 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
But a better question is why —if the federal government is really collecting more revenues than it needs, which is the underlying assumption of “sha ing” a “surplus”—then why aren’t federal taxes cut accordingly? Then, if localities or states need extra revenues for badly needed projects—and projects that are needed, not merely desired by some bureaucratic lobby—then extra taxing ability will be available. The important difference between this approach and “Revenue Sharing” would be that local officials would have to stand up and be counted on tax-raising issues.
As things now stand, local officials can practically avoid responsibility altogether. A study of “Revenue Sharing” conducted by the Southern Regional Council, a public interest organization with representation in eleven states, concludes that “revenue sharing tends to insulate local officials from citizen involvement.” Required hearings, as stipulated by the law, have more often than not been ignored in deciding how to spend “Revenue Sharing” funds, and an audit of these funds to the public has, as we noted, been sketchy.
THE Southern Council concluded that unless strong Federal standards for citizen participation are written into the law, “Revenue Sharing” should not, perhaps, be refunded at all. We’d be even more emphatic: End the “Revenue Sharing” sham and return local tax-raising accountability to the local level, where citizens can have a truly meaningful voice.□
94.3%