Impact of eliminating the States from the general revenue sharing program
Read Online

Impact of eliminating the States from the general revenue sharing program a nine-state assessment : report to the congress by United States. General Accounting Office

  • 139 Want to read
  • ·
  • 5 Currently reading

Published by General Accounting Office in [Washington] .
Written in English


  • Revenue sharing -- United States -- States.

Book details:

Edition Notes

Statementby the Comptroller General General of the United States.
The Physical Object
Paginationiv, 39 p. (2 fold.) ;
Number of Pages39
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL17822025M

Download Impact of eliminating the States from the general revenue sharing program


Ten consecutive years of cuts have left local communities more than $4 billion short on revenue sharing. • The Michigan Legislature needs to recognize the connection between the essential services provided by local communities as it relates to quality of life and the economic vitality of our state. Finally, recipients of general revenue sharing faced the least restrictions on the use of federal grants. From to , when revenue sharing was abolished, upwards of $85 billion of federal money was distributed to states, cities, counties, towns, and villages. Guide to Equitable Sharing. II. Which Non-Federal Agencies Are Eligible to Participate in the Equitable Sharing Program? A. State, Local, or Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies. Any state, local, or tribal law enforcement agency that is a participant in the Program and directly.   Importance of State Payments • – 56% of local government revenue in Michigan raised by the state • 1/3 of local government revenue from the states on average in U.S. • Only New Mexico did more • Reflected state school aid.

Revenue Sharing. form of federal monetary aid under which Congress gave a share of federal tax revenue, with virtually no restrictions, to the states, cities, counties, and townships. blank. card. OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR. F*** Investing (notes ) 16 . Start studying PSC TEST 1 CHAPTER 3 federalism and the nation. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. what type of grant gives money to the states for general purposes such as secondary education with few rules attached? general revenue sharing reflected the conservative belief that. Forms of revenue sharing have been used in several countries including Canada, India, and Switzerland. In the unique revenue-sharing program in the United States during –86, money collected in federal taxes was given to state and local governments. The federal government imposed few restrictions on how revenue-sharing money. State and local government officials administering revenue-sharing were asked to evaluate its impact on governmental programs, processes, and structures, budget planning and allocations, intergovernmental relationships, and decision-making processes at the community level.

The three general types of federal grants to state and local governments are categorical grants, block grants, and general revenue sharing (see Table 1). Categorical grants can be used only for a specifically aided program and usually are limited to narrowly defined activities. Block grants canFile Size: 1MB. Instead of giving money to states to buy textbooks or repair schools, for example, Congress gave states blocks of money to spend on education in any way the states saw fit. Revenue Sharing In , the Nixon Administration initiated a practice called revenue sharing, in which the federal government gave money to the states with no restrictions.   The state cut anticipated revenue sharing to communities from by $ billion. From , Michigan was the only state in the nation where municipal revenue actually fell, and there has been little improvement since then. Bruce A. Wallin now offers the only complete history of the General Revenue Sharing program — why it passed, why state and local governments used it the way they did, and why it died. He examines its unique role in the history of U.S. federalism and explores its relevance to intergovernmental aid policy at the turn of a new century.