The District’s recent announcement of a $240 million surplus for fiscal 2011 has had the city and John A. Wilson Building buzzing with plans for spending that cash. Here’s my simple proposal: Give the money back to the people.
I admit there are a couple of obstacles to implementing that plan. Natalie Wilson, a spokeswoman for Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi, told me last week, “After other requirements were met,” the surplus total was reduced to $194 million. Further, she said, the Sustainable Capital Investment and Fund Balance Restoration Act of 2010 “require[s] the funds be deposited” in those two reserves.
Don’t worry. Any law can be amended.
The D.C. Council also could choose to approve a stimulus bill, authorizing the one-time distribution of surplus funds while establishing specific qualifications to help identify who should be on the receiving end. The legislation could be modeled after the federal measure. (Yes, I know there are lingering questions about the efficacy of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s economic stimulus packages. Did they really stimulate anything?)
In the District, the stimulus isn’t about the economy, which seems to be doing fine despite Gandhi’s Henny Penny routine. It’s all about the residents — and their money.
Surprisingly, this idea hasn’t gone go over well with some — although it’s not as foreign as it sounds. Alaska has sent out surplus checks to its citizens for years.
Still, executive branch sources doubted Mayor Vincent C. Gray would get behind the plan, citing current law. Councilman Jack Evans said he couldn’t support it. “Everyone didn’t contribute to [the surplus]. It comes largely from commercial property taxes.
“So, the universe of potential recipients would be too small,” added Evans, chairman of the council’s Committee on Finance and Revenue.
The not-enough-people-would-get-it argument is a lame reason for trashing the plan. By that standard, the Evans proposal to roll back the recent tax on out-of-state municipal bonds purchased by District residents also should be dismissed. There are only about 19,000 people out of the city’s population of more than 600,000 directly affected by the bond tax implemented in fiscal 2011.
Returning the surplus wouldn’t adversely impact Evans’ effort, which would cost only $2 million. But federal law doesn’t allow for the surplus to be used for any recurring expense.
That means any tax repeal would have to be funded through the regular budget. Guess how many council members are likely to vote for that?
Evans, Gray and Council Chairman Kwame R. Brown recently returned from their annual Wall Street visit. They now want to impress credit rating agencies with how much cash the city can squirrel away, thereby reducing the need for massive borrowing. The better way to affect that equation is to cut spending.
Besides, council members recently have lamented all the fees and taxes residents and businesses have been forced to pay. Suddenly, they feel the public’s pain.
Their empathetic rhetoric is appreciated. But nothing soothes an empty wallet like cash.
Jonetta Rose Barras’ column appears on Monday and Wednesday. She can be reached at [email protected].
