Matching Federal Aid Dollars.
—The main argument that brought the Federal Aid law into being was the need of farm to market roads and the fact that in the past the expense for building and maintaining roads fell most heavily upon the farmer. In an excellent report made by Senator Bankhead (Senate Report 250, 64th Congress, 1st Session) for the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, the statement is made that “it is probably conservative to say that at least 75 per cent of the money raised for road purposes” at that time, 1916, “is paid by the owners of country property.” He gives statistics to show that the owners of less than one-third of the real property of the United States were paying more than three-fourths of the cost of the public roads. This did not seem to be equitable, since the country people did not have a monopoly on their use. The burden of building and caring for the roads should be distributed among all who were benefited by them. There is no very adequate method of doing this, but inasmuch as all citizens, both city and country, share in the raising of national revenues, the result of federal appropriations would be to tend in some measure to equalize the cost of roads as between city and country.
It was not thought wise to make a direct gift of money from the federal treasury, as that would favor too much of paternalism, would result in “pork barrel” scandals, and would stifle local initiative, energy, and self-help. If the federal government were to enter upon the building outright of a system of roads, there would be a temptation for the states and counties to cease building in the hope the government would eventually get around to them. Likewise the demand for “pork” would be enormous. The plan was therefore devised of requiring the state to pay half the expenses of road building, that is, of matching dollars, fifty-fifty, with the federal treasury. It was further decided that federal money should go into road extensions, leaving repairs and renewals to the states. If states refuse to perform the necessary maintenance the only recourse the government has is to withdraw future Federal aid. The object of the government was to add to the stock of good roads, and eventually secure the necessary 20 per cent upon which engineers state, 80 to 90 per cent of the entire traffic can be adequately accommodated.
Many of the states were devoid of the necessary machinery to take care of this money and expend it efficiently in the construction of roads or to maintain them in good condition afterward; so the Government asked that highway departments be created, if they did not already exist, in order that there might be skilled supervision and efficient organization on the parts of the states as that was the best insurance that these duties would be thoroughly performed. Furthermore there would be some centralized authority at Washington and some at each state capital; the initiative and the choice of location, types, and materials for road building would not be left wholly to local administrations which were more likely to be swerved to meet the selfish interests of prominent local personages than is possible in larger political units. The judgment of Congress is less likely to be biased by local conditions or by selfish individuals than would that of a township or county board, or even the State Legislature. On the other hand from the very beginning of the national federation states have jealously guarded their rights, giving up very reluctantly to the Federal Government in any attempts toward centralization. So “no policy,” states the committee report, “should be adopted which does not permit the retention by the States of the fullest measure of control consistent with the necessary inspection and safeguarding which is customary with all federal appropriations.” Hence the states were left the power or not as they saw fit of availing themselves of the Government Aid money. Nearly if not all the states in the Union have availed themselves of Federal Aid. It is claimed by opponents of the system that this is because if a state does not take its quota the money will be appropriated to other states while this state will still have to pay its proportional part to the fund from which the money comes. This they claim is pernicious and has caused states to ask aid when voting the taxes to match the same was extremely burdensome to the people. In other words the people “are forced into a position where their only justification is a presumption that they are grabbing while the grabbing is good.”[199]
It was the intention of the framers of the law that the contribution from the government would be so substantial that results of magnitude might be accomplished and still at the same time not raise taxes higher than the people could stand. The plan adopted seemed just. First the road is primarily for the use of the people hence population should be a factor. A secondary consideration was to make accessible the best products of the farm and to develop the land which on account of its remoteness to markets and the conditions of the highways was not in the highest or best state of culture. Area then was a second factor. The third factor was the post roads—rural delivery and star routes. This last as has been pointed out in a previous chapter was possibly the peg upon which the garment could be hung in the closet of constitutionality. However, it was thought that “the interests of the East are protected by the factor of population, the interests of the West should receive consideration through including area as a factor of apportionment. Finally, the direct interest of the federal government,” according to the Committee, “as represented by the great mileage of rural delivery and star routes for the transportation of mail and parcel post should have some weight in the granting of federal funds.”
Federal Aid has now been in operation for five years. Most people think it has demonstrated its worth. But it must be remembered that five years is a short time for the stupendous task of transforming an almost impassable conglomeration of roads into a usable system of comfortable highways. The soldiers who went to France during the World War came back enthusiastic converts of good roads. Foreigners traveling in this country have frequently marveled at the paucity of good roads. The natives having grown up here knew no better. The Federal Aid experiment has been the means of bringing the people to a partial knowledge of the benefits of better highways. They will not be content to go backward. In the words of a committee report to the Legislature of the State of Nebraska[200]: “The (Federal Aid) System seems to be well grounded and is nourished and sustained by nation-wide organizations, that are banded together for the purpose of maintaining and extending the system, and inasmuch as they seem to be powerful enough to influence the maintenance of the system, it will no doubt be maintained until some organization equally influential makes of the matter an issue and overturns the system.” The Committee, while evidently prejudiced against matching dollars with the Federal Government, admitted the value to the state of the work done and that “there is no more important internal improvement in which the state can engage.”
Under a Federal highway act signed November 9, 1921, $75,000,000 becomes available by Federal Aid for road construction in the several states for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1922, and in addition $15,000,000 for roads in national forests. This new Federal Aid Act is very similar to the act of 1916. The method of allotment is as before; the ratio of allotment nearly the same, but a new feature is that the minimum allotment to any state shall not be less than one-half of 1 per cent of the total to all states, which in this case amounts to $365,000. This increases the apportionment to the four states of Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The new Act changes the manner in which a state may use its allotment. Each state must select a connected road system not exceeding 7 per cent of its road mileage for improvement with Federal Aid. This system will be divided into two classes, one to be known as “interstate highways” the other as “intercounty highways.” The interstate highways must not exceed three-sevenths of the system selected; on them not more than 60 per cent of the Federal Aid Allotment can be spent without the joint approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and the State Highway Department. The intercounty highways will receive the remainder of the allotment.
Some of the Western states where there are large areas of unappropriated public land due to the desert or mountainous nature of the country, found it to be impossible to continue the matching of Government funds. The new act provides that in states where the unappropriated public land amounts to more than 5 per cent of the area of the state, the 50 per cent allotment is increased by an amount equal to one-half the percentage of unappropriated public land in the state.
Before any funds can be paid to any state, the state must appropriate money under the direct control of the Highway Department to match the Federal apportionment or so much as it desires to avail itself of. Likewise it must provide suitable means for the maintenance of Federal Aid highways.
The allotment to each state of Federal Aid funds available June 30, 1922, under the act signed November 9, 1921, authorizing an appropriation of $75,000,000, follows:
| State | Allotment |
|---|---|
| Alabama | $1,553,420 |
| Arizona | 1,053,281 |
| Arkansas | 1,264,142 |
| California | 2,462,098 |
| Colorado | 1,341,175 |
| Connecticut | 480,897 |
| Delaware | 365,625 |
| Florida | 886,825 |
| Georgia | 1,997,957 |
| Idaho | 938,536 |
| Illinois | 3,246,281 |
| Indiana | 1,958,855 |
| Iowa | 2,102,872 |
| Kansas | 2,102,281 |
| Kentucky | 1,417,178 |
| Louisiana | 996,989 |
| Maine | 695,160 |
| Maryland | 640,629 |
| Massachusetts | 1,096,176 |
| Michigan | 2,249,532 |
| Minnesota | 2,123,597 |
| Mississippi | 1,294,906 |
| Missouri | 2,448,128 |
| Montana | 1,546,885 |
| Nebraska | 1,581,189 |
| Nevada | 953,436 |
| New Hampshire | 365,625 |
| New Jersey | 942,870 |
| New Mexico | 1,189,823 |
| New York | 3,696,447 |
| North Carolina | 1,709,333 |
| North Dakota | 1,164,714 |
| Ohio | 2,823,004 |
| Oklahoma | 1,752,339 |
| Oregon | 1,182,663 |
| Pennsylvania | 3,398,925 |
| Rhode Island | 365,625 |
| South Carolina | 1,061,237 |
| South Dakota | 1,204,060 |
| Tennessee | 1,647,692 |
| Texas | 4,425,172 |
| Utah | 849,417 |
| Vermont | 365,625 |
| Virginia | 1,456,828 |
| Washington | 1,103,709 |
| West Virginia | 802,359 |
| Wisconsin | 1,894,815 |
| Wyoming | 934,617 |
The question of whether or not it is wise for a state to match the Federal Aid appropriation for the purpose of building roads is a debatable one. When people see the amount of their taxes going up by leaps and bounds they naturally look for some place for retrenchment. The road tax being, now, one of the largest in the state is naturally subject to attack.
In the consideration of the problem two questions stand out prominently: Do the results so far obtained justify the expenditure? and can the United States and the States afford to continue the expenditures?
Reports from the Bureau of Public Highways indicate that with the aid of the $350,000,000 previously appropriated by the Government, 17,000 miles of road had been completed up to May 31, 1922, and in addition nearly 14,500 miles were under construction involving more than $287,500,000 of Federal Aid. To match this fund the states have appropriated approximately $380,000,000, making a total of $667,500,000. The Bureau states the average cost of roads per mile of all types of construction with Federal Aid has been $17,120, of which 43 per cent has been the cost to the government. About one-fifth of the Federal system, that it is thought will be sufficient to accommodate 80 per cent of the traffic, has been completed. This seems to be reasonable progress considering the stupendousness of the task.
The expenses so far are a little more than $6 per person in six years or approximately $1 per person per year, counting the population of the United States as 110,000,000. If any one is anxious to save this expense it can easily be done by a little economy. Refraining from smoking one cigar a month, from drinking one ice-cream soda a month, from going to three picture shows in a year, or by allowing the automobile to stand in the garage one or two Sundays per year.
Practically each state in the Union could easily collect its share of the match money by a one-cent tax per gallon on gasoline. A score of states have adopted this method and more will, as by this means the land which is highly burdened with general and school taxes will be considerably relieved, and the road tax shifted to the road users. The man who owns an automobile will not thus have the ultimate amount which he pays for roads decreased, but the man who does not own an automobile will be relieved in so far as the gasoline tax is not passed on in the way of increased charges. But the gasoline tax will not appear on the annual tax receipts and therefore is less noticeable.
The answer to the question, “should the states continue to match the Federal Aid dollar?” in the opinion of the writer is, “yes, until the Federal system of 180,000 miles of road is completed.” This ought to be accomplished in about ten years.
Most of the Mid-west and Western states pay into the national Federal Aid fund, as duties, revenue taxes, etc., less than they receive in the way of Federal Aid. These states, therefore, are the gainers in the matching process. Even where there is no financial advantage as in some of the more populous states, there is a psychological advantage in the stimulus which this money gives toward the building of good roads. Good, dependable, 365-days-a-year roads must come. They are demanded by the 10,000,000 pleasure automobile owners and their 30,000,000 additional passengers; they are demanded by the more than 2,000,000 commercial vehicle owners and their 50,000,000 patrons; they are demanded by the man who lounges along in a smooth-riding silent $10,000 car; and they are demanded by the driver of the sputtering, rough-riding, ear-splitting $400 car. Yes, good roads must come, and the Federal Aid movement begun at the behest and in behalf of the farm element will continue even if the burdens of building and maintenance be shifted through the gasoline tax and the automobile license, from the farm and city real estate to the owners and users of motor-driven vehicles. With all these influences working it is not likely legislatures will refuse to match dollars with the Government.