HomeMy WebLinkAbout790902.tiff a
KEN KRAMER DISTRICT OFFICES:
STH DISTRICT.COLORADO 'A 1520 NonniUNION BOULEVARD
1IY� COLOADO R SPRINGS.COLORADO 80909
i�Ii L (303)832-8555
COMMITTEES, - S 275 UNION EXCHANGE
EDUCATION AND LABOR 8939 EAST UNION AVENUE
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ENGLEWOOD.COLORADO 80110
Congress of t�jettttebitate� (303))T9-8900
WASHINGTON OFFICE: *ouge of tepre$etttatibtg
1724 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON.D.C. 20515 y� O.C.202)225-4422 y�JittgtonF C� 20515 ,
CIF' co.." raov, .r�g4,
May 8, 197
gr9
The Honorable Norman Carlson, Chairman
� 111
Board of County Commissioners
Post Office Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Norm:
Thank you for your recent letter. Unfortunately, it was received after
the schedule for my last trip to the district had been set, thus preventing
my meeting with you at that time. I apologize for the delay in responding
to your letter. This delay certainly does not indicate a lack of concern
about your views--quite the contrary.
The issue of cutting the federal budget by reducing the general revenue
sharing program presents a web of conflicting considerations.
The argument that this is the kind of federal money which is most helpful
to local governments because it has the least strings attached is a strong
one, and one which I am sympathetic to. On the other hand, that argument
assumes from the outset that the federal government should be disbursing
those funds in the first place, and that is where I disagree.
While I would like to see federal funds disbursed to deal with problems
with a minimum of administrative costs, and I know that the revenue sharing
program does that, I also believe that until we cut back on the growth of
federal expenditures and the federal deficit, everyone including local
governments, will continue to suffer the effect of inflation. It just
does not make sense to me for the federal government to be transferring
funds to state and local governments which are experiencing surpluses or at
least operating in balance, when the public debt continues to grow.
I understand that revenue sharing reduction or elimination will work a
hardship on local governments and will force a reexamination of priorities
and expenditures. Frankly, while I think that local governments have been
better at doing this than the federal government has been, prioritization
at the local level may provide the necessary stimulus for a similar
reexamination at the federal level .
I will say that I am opposed to cutting revenue sharing funds if the trade-
off is just to increase categorical programs with their attendant federal
restrictions. Between the two, there is no question that revenue sharing
790902
c� _ jIcf .-
The Honorable Norman Carlson, Chairman
Page 2
May 8, 1979
is preferable. While I oppose revenue sharing, as long as we have it,
I will do my best to make sure that it is fairly administered and that
Colorado is equitably represented by the distribution formulas. But if
the end result of reducing revenue sharing is to reduce the federal
deficit, then I will support the reduction. In the long run, I believe
such a move will ultimately help local government, just as it will help
all of us, by reducing the high rate of inflation. , -
Please feel free to contact me at any time about-' '5 or any other issue.
Warm personal regards.
iS�i'ncerely,
Ken Kramer
KK/lw
iloy l� � '4 � ,• c, 4,eut.t.2.1 /
h
Hello