"REVENUE SHARING" BRINGS INCREASED FEDERAL CONTROL
Seldom has there been a more concerted propaganda drive by an administration
to sell the American people on proposed legislation than that by the Nixon
Administration to promote the sharing of federal revenues with the
States.
Of all the schemes which have been used to further centralize power in Washington, few have been as effective as the offer of federal funds to State and local governments, accompanied, of course, by a promise of "no strings attached".
In this connection, an article by Reed Benson and Robert Lee in the March 10, 1971, issue of THE REVIEW OF THE NEWS HAD THIS TO SAY:
"It is a familiar story. In the early days of federal farm programs, for instance, farmers were assured that federal subsidies would not necessitate submission to federal controls. Yet such controls were quickly instituted. And, when they were tested in court, unhappy farmers learned that 'it is hardly lack of due process for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes'. (Supreme Court, Wickard vs. Filburn, 1942)."
The U.S. Supreme court was justified in making this ruling because sound fiscal policy requires that the unit of government which provides funds should control and watch over their expenditure. For this reason, government subsidies -- in any form -- always mean government controls.
REVENUE SHARING NOW LAW
On June 22, 1972, the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 272 to 122 passed H.R. 14370, the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, known as revenue sharing. On September 12, 1972, by a vote of 63-20 it passed the U.S. Senate. The House-Senate Conference Report was adopted October 13, 1972, by a vote of 59 to 19 by the Senate.
Following are the amounts appropriated for federal revenue sharing, according to a table inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of October 13, 1972:
1-1-72 through 6-30-72 |
$2,652,390,000 |
Fiscal year beginning 7-1-72 |
$5,642,280,000 |
Fiscal year beginning 7-1-73 |
$6,054,780,000 |
Fiscal year beginning 7-1-74 |
$6,204,780,000 |
Fiscal year beginning 7-1-75 |
$6,354,780,000 |
7-1-76 through 12-30-76 |
$3,327,390,000 |
Discussing the previous record of federal aid, Congressman George H. Mahon, on June 21, 1972, stated:
"With reference to the grants to the States and local communities in 1960, what did we spend? We spent $7 billion.
"For the fiscal year which ends this month -- fiscal 1972 -- how much are we spending in grants to the States and local communities? Not $7 billion -- but $37 billion."
And this does not include revenue sharing.
For 21 States, federal aid in the past has proven no bargain. For example, an editorial in THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR of March 30, 1973, pointed out:
"For each dollar in federal aid received last year, the people of Indiana paid a 54-cent 'premium' in taxes, according to Tax Foundation, Inc. The private research corporation said Indiana was one of 21 States that paid more in taxes to pay for federal aid programs than they received in grants. Residents of Indiana paid $841 million in taxes for aid programs and received $545 million in federal grants during the fiscal year.
"The grant figures don't include the cost of administering the grant programs, such as salaries, expenses, travel, etc., the foundation said."
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING TO SHARE -- BUT DEBT
Even as the U.s. House of Representatives was debating the revenue-sharing bill on June 2, 1972, it had scheduled for the following week a bill which extended the government's debt limit to the highest level in history.
Since neither Congress nor the Nixon Administration made any provisions for raising the money by hiking taxes or cutting out other federal programs, the funds for the first year of the revenue-sharing program had to come out of deficit federal financing -- meaning that the government had to borrow an additional $5.6 billion just to finance this program for one year.
During the debate, Congressman Watkins M. Abbitt pointed out that "any money that is borrowed is actually owed by the people of the United States and must be paid by American taxpayers."
Discussing how the federal government is going further and further into debt, Congressman George H. Mahon stated:
"Here are the federal funds deficit figures for the four fiscal year, 1970 through 1973: $13 billion, 430 billion, 432 billion, $38 billion -- climbing, climbing, climbing."
Congressman H.R. Gross summed up the dangers of revenue sharing as follows:
"The federal government in Washington has nothing to share with the States, counties and municipalities but a huge deficit, in this fiscal year alone estimated at $38 billion, and a staggering federal debt of more than $450 billion.
"Every dollar of the more than $30 billion that Congress has approved for 'sharing' will have to be borrowed and interest paid on the money. It will cause more inflation and further erosion of the dollar."
PRESENT FEDERAL-GRANT PROGRAMS WILL NOT BE ABOLISHED
Opposing the revenue-sharing bill, Congressman John W. Byrnes declared:
"It is alleged that the bill will diminish categorical grants, and the red tape associated with these programs.
"Let us first recognize that we will be providing federal aid through categorical grants to State and local governments totaling $38 billion in fiscal 1973. But this (revenue-sharing) program is not a substitute for any of the categorical grant-in-aid programs. It does not convert any of these programs into general revenue sharing or bloc grants. This program simply piles still another tier on the existing mess. This bill will not alter the structure nor diminish the magnitude of these existing programs."
Further, an editorial in THE RICHMOND (Va.) NEWS LEADER of September 19, 1972, noted that revenue sharing:
"…will not be subject to an annual review by Congressional appropriation committees."
WELFARE COSTS CONTINUE TO RISE
Among the recipients of this new federal windfall are those on welfare, particularly those under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)-- the more children such "welfare mothers" produce the higher the welfare check each month.
In his column of March 7, 1973, Ralph de Toledano quoted from a study, "The Financial Outlook for State-Local government in 1980", by the Tax Foundation. According to that study, the number of welfare recipients rose from 7.8 million in 1965 to 13.8 million in 1970, and by June 1972 had reached 15 million. In 1980, it is estimated that the figure will have grown to 21 million.
In his annual Budget message for Fiscal 1973, President Nixon boasted that the federal government for the first time will spend more in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare than is to be spent in the Defense Department.
An article by Dan Smoot in the April 19, 1972 issue of THE REVIEW OF THE NEWS, contained an even higher total figure of welfarists: According to Smoot:
"Latest available information reveals that 16,133,000 Americans are on relief -- about one in every twelve of the total population… Projected nationally, the 34-State HEW survey indicated that 2,581,280 of the reliefers are getting tax money in violation of existing law -- 1,774,630 (11 percent of all reliefers) are getting more than the law allows; 806,650 (5 percent) who are getting relief are not entitled under the law to get any at all"
Terming the approximately 16 million people on relief "a 77 percent increase in the last four years", Smoot added:
"Assuming that costs have gone up accordingly, this means that every working American labors at least one full month each year to support reliefers -- who are being goaded by radical Leftist politicians (and organized into angry, militant mobs by radical Leftist organizations like the Welfare Rights Organization and the poverty war agencies) into demanding more."
TIE-IN BETWEEN "1313" AND WELFARE
As noted in Chapter VII, one of the groups headquartered at 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, is the American Public Welfare Association (APWA), which also maintains a lobby office in Washington, D.C.
In her column, "Metro News", dated March 29, 1973, Jo Hindman stated:
"One purpose of the 1313 syndicate is to have political pressure on tap at all times as it seeks to force political and social change in the regional dictatorship of Metro governance. APWA is 1313's arm into the public welfare function."
Mrs. Hindman then went on to say that in 1972 the Nixon Administration gave "1313's" APWA the sensitive position of liaison between the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the public welfare agencies in the federal regions. A grant of $601,885 to APWA from HEW provided financial support for a project to assist the States and federal departments "to implement major unidentified changes in social service delivery."
YOUR TAXES TO BE INCREASED
Because the federal government only has those funds it extracts from the taxpayers in taxes, it is the taxpayer who, ultimately, is footing the bill for this federal largess called revenue sharing.
An editorial in THE NEWS of Lynchburg, Virginia of September 14, 1972, referred to a report by the Brookings Institution which pointed out that Congress already has allocated all revenues it can expect, even from a full-employment economy, for the next few years. This leaves no funds for new projects and no funds for emergencies.
Senator Harry Byrd, Jr., has stated that revenue sharing "will not take the place of any other program. It will be piled on top of everything else that the federal government is spending".
For this reason, federal revenue sharing, according to economic and financial experts, can only lead to new federal taxes.
THE REVIEW OF THE NEWS of September 6, 1972, quoted Congressman John Ashbrook as having pointed out earlier in the year:
"Since the money isn't in the government coffers to give, taxes will sooner or later have to be raised to fund this revenue-sharing plan. If taxes are not raised to pay for it, we will only continue the inflationary trend….
"For the Nixon Administration to present revenue sharing as a gift to local and State governments, when actually it will only bring an increase in the individuals' tax burden, is to perpetrate a fraud on the taxpayer."
An editorial in the CHATTANOOGA NEWS-FREE PRESS of December 1, 1972, discussed this aspect as follows:
"But what if States, counties and cities add federal revenue sharing to their spending, establish programs that use up all that money, and then in a few years find the nation disenchanted with revenue sharing and the handouts stop? There would then have to be huge new local taxes to fill the gap caused by discontinued revenue sharing. And the federal government would still have the prospect of an added tax burden to pay for what already has been handed out".
REVENUE SHARING AIDS CENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT
On June 21, 1972, congressman John W. Byrnes in a speech opposing revenue sharing in the House of Representatives, declared;
"The President has called this an historic piece of legislation. I agree thoroughly. This bill would have long-range adverse effects upon our system of government, the relationship of the federal government to the States, the responsibility of local governments, and government responsibility generally…
"The bill, in my judgement, is wrong in principle. Once the federal government assumes the responsibility of raising the money local government spends to provide basic services from garbage collection to police protection, we will have completely altered the governmental relationships underlying the success of our pluralistic system…."
"Revenue sharing is the most insidious type of centralization. It centralizes the burden of taxes and decentralizes the dispensation of benefits. It makes the benefits immediate and the burden remote. This is the road on which we embark as we get into federal government financing of the general operations of State and local government."
In short, revenue sharing is another scheme to turn our Republic into a collectivist state.
INCREASING DEPENDENCE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ON WASHINGTON, D.C.
An editorial in the CHATTANOOGA NEWS-FREE PRESS of November 18, 1972, discussing federal revenue sharing, made this comment:
"Philosophically, local governmental dependence upon federal grants through revenue sharing lessens the independence of action and decision by local government, thus becoming… (a) threat to the degree of freedom we have experienced and should guard carefully."
In the future, State and local governments will look to the federal government to provide them with funds rather than to their own initiative. As a consequence, they will become increasingly more dependent upon the federal government and increasingly more impotent themselves.
Under revenue sharing, the federal government drives itself deeper and deeper into debt in order to finance greater and greater surpluses at the State and local government levels. The point has been overlooked, but according to the American Enterprise Institute, which has projected State finances and local finances, as well as federal finances, the federal budget is subject to continued deficits while State and local budgets face growing surpluses.
The aggregate State and local fiscal surplus amounted to approximately $5 billion in fiscal 1971. In the second quarter of fiscal 1972, the aggregate State and local surplus climbed to $14 billion on an annual basis.
In some States, local officials, not knowing what to do with this windfall from Washington, are investing in U. S. Treasury obligations -- lending the funds back to the federal government with interest!
Concluding his remarks on revenue sharing in the debate in the House of Representatives, on June 21, 1972, Congressman Durward G. Gall declared:
"Having established that we have no source of revenue from which to refund this mythical largess to the various States and localities; my basic question is: Why not leave the money in the communities or States in the first place rather than bringing it here where notoriously the inefficient federal personnel inexorably use too much of it for administrative purposes before sending it back to the needy States and communities?"
Congressman Hall is indeed correct. But then, the raison d'être of federal revenue sharing is not to "aid" the States but, rather, to centralize control of the States and units of local government.
When federal funds are first proffered to States and local governments little mention is made of the federal controls which will accompany this outpouring of federal funds. The reason is that the federal bureaucrats well know that once federal funds are incorporated into the budgets of States or cities, their overall budgets become almost completely dependent on the continuation of such federal funds. When local dependency has been firmly established, the federal government can start cracking the whip, threatening to withdraw these funds unless there is immediate compliance with bureaucratic demands and guidelines.
FEDERAL CONTROL CLEARLY SPELLED OUT IN REVENUE-SHARING LAW
Officials of local, county and State governments who have hailed the passage of the Revenue Sharing Act, as a means of obtaining "no strings attached" funds for Washington, have obviously not read the bill itself.
H.R. 14370, State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, (federal revenue sharing) fairly bristles with controls and limitations as to how States and localities can and must spend these federal funds.
All power rests in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury. In the Act, when the term "Secretary" is used it means this government bureaucrat or his delegate. The term "Secretary" of the Treasury" means the Secretary of the Treasury personally, not including any delegate.
Following are extensive excerpts from H.R. 14370 clearly setting forth these federal controls:
"Sec. 105. General Provisions
"In order to qualify for any payment under this sub-title for any entitlement period beginning on or after July 1, 1972, a local government must establish -- in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary, and after an opportunity for review and comment by the Governor of the State in which such local government is located -- to the satisfaction of the Secretary --
"(1) that the local government will establish a trust fund in which it will deposit all payments it receives under this sub-title;
"(2) that it will use amounts in such trust fund -- including any interest earned thereon while in such trust fund -- only for high-priority expenditures…
"(3) that the local government will --
"(A) use such fiscal, accounting and audit procedures as will conform to guidelines established therefor by the Secretary -- after consultation with the Comptroller General of the United States.
"(B) provide to the Secretary -- and to the Comptroller General of the United States -- on reasonable notice, access to, and the right to examine, such books, documents, papers or records as the Secretary may reasonably require for purposes of reviewing compliance…
"(C)" make such annual and interim reports to the Secretary as he may reasonably require.
"(4) that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or sub-contractors in the performance of work on construction financed in whole or in part out of its trust fund established under paragraph (1) will be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor…
"In order to qualify for any payment under this sub-title for the entitlement period beginning on January 1, 1972, and ending on June 30, 1972, a local government must establish to the satisfaction of the Secretary that it will use such payment only for high-priority expenditures and will comply with such other requirements… as may be established by the Secretary.
"WITHHOLDING OF PAYMENTS
"If the Secretary determines that a local government has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this sub-title… or any regulations prescribed thereunder… he shall notify the local government that if such local government fails to take corrective action within 60 days from the date of receipt of such notification, further payments to such local government shall be withheld for the remainder of the entitlement period and for any subsequent entitlement period until such time as the Secretary is satisfied that the appropriate corrective action has been taken, and that there will no longer be any failure to comply…
"The Secretary shall provide for such accounting and auditing procedures, evaluations, and reviews as may be necessary to insure that the expenditures of funds by the local governments comply fully with the requirements of this sub-title…
"NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISION
"(A) No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, national origin or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this sub-title.
"Whenever the Secretary determines that a local government has failed to comply with sub-section (a) or an applicable regulation, he shall notify the Governor of the State in which the local government is located of the non-compliance and shall request the Governor to secure compliance. If within a reasonable period of time, the State fails or refuses to secure compliance, the Secretary shall have the authority to refer the matter to the Attorney General with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted…"
BETTER COMMUNITIES ACT -- NEWEST VERSION OF REVENUE SHARING
A UPI dispatch of April 19, 1973, reported that President Nixon had on that date proposed to abolish urban renewal and six other federal domestic programs, and to give 'local communities $2.3 billion a year in revenue-sharing funds to help them "solve their problems."
Because of the widespread scandals and mis-use of funds in the urban renewal program, this was doubtless good news to a large segment of the population.
But taxpaying citizens should not jump to grab what can quickly be proven to be merely "bait" on the federal hook.
It should be noted that this federal aid is to go direct to the cities -- bypassing the duly elected State governors, thus eroding the power of the individual State governments.
In a message to Congress on March 8, 1973, the President employed all the phrases calculated to calm the fears of those suspecting a power-grab by the White House or federal bureaucrats. Following are a few of such statements by Nixon in that message:
"The Federal policy that will work best is one that helps people and their leaders in each community meet their own needs in the way they think best…
"People today want to have a real say in the way their communities are run. They want to feel that, once again, they can play a significant role in shaping the kind of world their children will inherit…
"But the Federal government can and should eliminate some of the barriers that have impeded the development of that feeling by returning resources and initiatives to the people and their locally elected leaders."
No Constitutionally-minded American can quarrel with those sentiments. But did Mr. Nixon mean what he said -- or were such statements a mere snare to trap the unwary?
Turning to his proposed Better Communities Act, Nixon stated that it is
"… intended to replace inflexible and fragmented categorical grant-in-aid programs, and to reduce the excessive Federal control that has been so frustrating to local governments."
To those who wee only what they want to see, whether it be from a Liberal or Conservative viewpoint, this statement by the President was interpreted to mean that he intended to cut back on a number of wasteful federal programs. Liberals decried such seeming cutbacks; Conservatives rejoiced. This was the way this particular portion of the President's message to Congress was portrayed in the nation's press.
But was Nixon actually proposing a cutback in federal spending? Of course not! As such newspapers would have known -- if they had carefully read Nixon's statement in which he unequivocally stated that under the proposed Better Communities Act "no city receives less money for community development than it has received under the categorical grant programs."
When introducing the Better Communities Act in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 19, 1973, Congressman William B. Widnall stated:
"President Nixon in his fiscal year 1975 budget will ask that Congress appropriate $2.3 billion for the first year beginning July 1, 1974. This is more than the total of funds currently allocated under the categorical community development programs… Of the major users of the replaced programs none will receive less than what they have received during the recent past…
"I would like to emphasize that activities funded by the replaced categorical grants programs could be continued or expanded." (Emphasis added)
ADDITIONAL FEDERAL CONTROLS IN NEW PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Glossing over the federal controls which will accompany this $2.3 billion under the proposed Better Communities Act, Congressman Widnall casually remarked:
"The Government interest would be protected through reporting procedures, post-audits, and public disclosure."
Nixon's message to Congress on March 8 was more specific. He proposed a Responsive Governments Act to be a companion to his Better Communities Act.
According to the President, this Responsive Governments Act would "assist State and local governments" by:
"Developing reliable information on their problems and opportunities:
"Developing and analyzing alternative polices and programs:
"Managing the programs;
"And evaluating the results, so that appropriate adjustments can be made"
In actual fact, any local government official who is not blinded with greed for federal dollars will quickly realize that far from allowing "each community (to) meet their own needs in the way they think best", as the President stated on March 8, the reverse is the truth.
According to Nixon's proposed Responsive Governments Act, any local official is free to spend these federal dollars provided he is willing to:
-
Allow a bureaucrat of the federal government to decide what is "reliable information" on the problems of their community;
-
Allow a federal bureaucrat to "develop and analyze alternative programs";
-
Allow a federal bureaucrat to make "appropriate adjustments".
-
And finally, the federal government would be given the power, in Nixon's words, of "managing the programs".
One can only conclude that the repeated pronouncements by President Nixon that he intends to take power away from Washington, D.C., and return it to the people -- the taxpayers -- are a deliberate deception of the American people. He, obviously, hopes that the majority of the American people don't have ready access to THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD where the full text of his pronouncements is printed.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOW COLLECT STATE INCOME TAXES
As long as State governments are able to raise revenue via State income taxes, the can maintain a modicum of independence from the increasingly all-powerful federal government.
However, this source of State revenue is now being pre-empted by the federal government according to the federal Revenue Sharing Act.
In addition to providing payments to localities "for high-priority expenditures", as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, H.R. 14370 also authorizes "federal collection of State individual income taxes".
In other words, 100% of State income tax revenue will no longer be spent within the State. It will be sent to the federal "processors" with a portion returned to the individual State. And even that portion of State income taxes which formerly remained in the State, when returned to the State will be wrapped in the chains of federal guidelines and controls, and can only be spent in Washington bureaucrats' dictate.
Here are two examples of federal control in this regard:
The bill states that the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate "shall collect and administer" State income taxes. And, of course, the word "administer" in this context means just what it says.
Under the ominous paragraph heading of "Finality of Administrative Determinations", the federal Revenue Sharing Act states:
"Administrative determinations of the Secretary or his delegate as to tax liabilities of, or refunds owing to, individuals with respect to qualified State individual income taxes shall not be reviewed by or enforced by any officer or employee of any State or political subdivision of a State."
It can certainly be safely assumed that the ultimate purpose of this section of the federal Revenue Sharing Act is a re-distribution of the nation's wealth. From the "haves" to the "have-nots" in accordance with the Communist Manifesto. Wealthy States, composed of industrious, hardworking citizens will have a considerable portion of their federally-collected State income tax dollars channeled to big-city States in order to support federal programs such as welfare payments for non-workers.
So what do such states, which receive back only a portion from the federal government of State income taxes collected, do? That's simple: Such States will simply grab for any revenue they can -- revenue which will not be first "processed" by Washington -- tax revenue which will remain in the State. This can only mean increased State taxes on real estate, sales, services, etc.
* * * * * *
How federal revenue sharing, as now passed by Congress, and Nixon's proposed Better Communities Act and Responsive Governments Act, are a decisive step toward the establishment of federal regional government in the united States will be shown in the next chapter.
TIE-IN BETWEEN "REVENUE SHARING" AND METRO-REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
Gary Allen, in his article in the March 1973 issue of AMERICAN OPINION quotes an editorial in the NEW YORK TIMES , which stated:
"Metropolitan and regional planning are essential, and the financial power of the federal government is the best available lever to compel local, county and state officials to take a broader view of their problems and to cooperate more effectively with one another."
An article in the February 23, 1970 issue of BARRON'S National business and Financial Weekly contained extensive quotations from an article which had appeared in THE NEW REPUBLIC by Professor Richard A. Cloward, a member of the faculty of the Columbia University school of Social work.
Discussing how in many cases when voters are allowed to express their views at the ballot box regarding the subject of consolidations, such as city with suburbs, they vote "no", Professor Cloward said:
"Nevertheless, local autonomy is being overcome. For what cannot be done electorally is being done administratively, as a result of federal intervention.
"The federal government is beginning to force localities to subordinate themselves to new area-wide planning bureaucracies. Localities which do not come together to establish cross-jurisdictional agencies will soon find it difficult to obtain federal grants-in-aid. In this way, a new domain of government is emerging."
How revenue sharing ties into the concept of metropolitan government was contained in an article by Michael Harrington which appeared in the Washington, D.C., WASHINGTON STAR of August 5, 1969. In that article Harrington declared:
"… it is increasingly clear that problems like education, employment, housing and pollution of all kinds spread out over entire metropolitan areas and multi-state regions. And they simply will not be solved if Washington invests billions of shared revenue to make the ancient borders even more rigid."
The "ancient borders" at which Harrington sneers are, of course, the borders of the sovereign States.
And then Harrington continued:
"But now revenue-sharing provides a tremendous opportunity for making more meaningful political units in America. The funds should not simply be earmarked for broad categories of social expenditure, although that is basic. Beyond that, the law should provide that no state or city could qualify for its money unless it had presented plans for regional and metropolitan action in the critical areas which were up for subsidy."
On January 21, 1971, when introducing the Humphrey-Reuss bill entitled "The State and Local Government Modernization Act of 1971, Congressman Henry S. Reuss stated:
"The administration approach to revenue sharing omits any incentive to states to get on with the job of updating and streamlining local government in this country.
"The heart of this bill is a requirement that states qualify for revenue sharing, in the second and subsequent years of the program, by preparing a master plan and timetable for modernizing state-local government."
(It is not surprising that both Congressman Reuss and Senator Hubert Humphrey are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. See Chapters V and VI regarding the role of the CFR in the metro-regional government scheme.)
It will be recalled that Chapter VI dealt with proposals of the CFR-controlled Committee for Economic Development (CED) for "modernizing" State and local government. The specific provisions of the Humphrey-Reuss bill prove that it is based on the CFR-CED proposals which will facilitate metro and regional government.
According to the bill, States should take "constitutional, statutory and administrative" action to bring about the following changes:
"Restricting local popular elections to policy-makers -- the short ballot; (Author's note: This would greatly diminish the voters' voice in their local government.)
"Easing restrictions on the borrowing and taxing powers of local governments; (Author's note: This would pave the way for local tax increases.)
"Liberalizing municipal annexation of unincorporated areas;
"Restricting zoning authority in metropolitan areas… in order to prevent zoning by smaller municipalities which excludes housing for lower income families.
"Authorizing the formation of metropolitan planning agencies to make recommendations to local governments concerning such matters as land use, zoning, building regulations and capital improvements;
"Encouraging the formation of multi-county and regional bodies;"
The bill proposed that such "modernization" of State and local government in order to qualify for revenue sharing be accomplished by:
"… interstate compact or otherwise, for dealing with interstate regional problems, including those of metropolitan areas which overlap state line, and for regional cooperation in such areas as health, education, welfare, conservation, resource development, transportation, recreation, housing."
FUNCTION OF TEN FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCIL DECREED BY NIXON
Although, as of June, 1973, when this chapter was written, the Humphrey-Reuss bill had not been passed by Congress, it becomes increasingly clear that so vast are the powers granted to the Secretary of the Treasury under the Revenue Sharing Act of 1972, and the Better Communities Act of 1973, that passage of the Humphrey-Reuss bill may be deemed unnecessary by the Metrocrats. By bureaucrat determination, or interpretation, of the two aforementioned pieces of legislation, the proposals of the Humphrey-Reuss local-government-destroying bill can now be implemented.
As discussed in chapter I, on February 10, 1972, President Nixon, by signing an Executive Order, decreed the establishment of ten Federal Regional Councils in order to -- as he put it, "streamline the structure and processes of federal agencies in the field."
It is these ten Federal Regional Councils, cutting across State boundaries, thereby inestimably eroding sovereignty of the States, which will be in charge of allocating federal revenue-sharing funds. In the future, it will be the bureaucrat-staffed Federal Regional Councils which will control the ten federal regions, formerly the 50 States. Because the rulings, decrees and guidelines -- after being drafted in Washington -- will be issued by these ten federal regional headquarters, this unconscionable federal power-grab will be sold to the American people as "modernized local government" and "home rule".
Paul Scott, in his column of January 15, 1973, discussing the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), revealed:
"The OMB now monitors and coordinates the approval and administration of grants-in-aid to the States and municipalities, including direct oversight of federal regional office coordination. These programs involve billions of dollars and give OMB officials responsibilities which make them far more than advisors to the President."
WHERE "1313" COMES INTO THE PICTURE ON REVENUE SHARING
As you know, Chapter VII described the founding and activities of the Metrocrat headquarters in Chicago, known as "1313". One of the members of the CFR-CED-Metro conglomerate at "1313" is the National League of Cities.
The National League of Cities in conjunction with the United States Conference of Mayors on January 29, 1973 sent out a memorandum to "member cities".
In that memorandum they stated that their organizations "had been requested by the Department of Housing and Urban Development" to inform their "member cities" of "a new program to help small and medium-sized local governments meet the planning and management challenges implicit in general and special revenue sharing".
The memorandum went on to state that HUD "has initiated the Urban Technical Services (UTS) Program which will help provide full-time, trained urban specialists to 150-200 local governments having a population of 200,000 or less".
It is these imported Metro-trained urban specialists who will first become advisors, and then the controllers of federal revenue-sharing funds in the States and local communities -- operating out of the ten Federal Regional Councils decreed by President Nixon.
* * * * *
Metro and regional government is not just new political theories or philosophies of government. Far from it. The various ramifications of this revolutionary aspect of governance personally affect every individual in this nation, his personal property, his children, and yes, his personal safety. These aspects are covered in the following chapters.