This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Footnotes
Air War: The Third Indochina War, Project Air War and the Indochina Resource Center, March, 1972.
Michael T. FlaxBlacks and Whites: An Experiment in Racial Indicators, (The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., n.d.), p. 47–48. All population figures in this papagraph are from this source. Also seeThe Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly: Demographic Aspects of the Black Community, Volume XLVIII, Number 2, April 1970, Part 2.
Walter W. Heller, Richard Ruggles,et al., Revenue Sharing and the City, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968, p. 32–35.
“Actually costs have shifted from maintenance of a ground army to military aid and development of electronic counterinsurgency weaponry.”Air War, op. cit., The Third Indochina War, Project Air War and the Indochina Resource Center, March, 1972. p. 18.
U.S. Congress,Congressional Record, p. 237–64, 91st C., Sess. 1.
“Who’ll Get What From Tax-sharing,”U.S. News and World Report, p. 56 (August 17, 1970).
Congressional Record, op. cit., U.S. Congress, pp. 237–47.
“Tax-sharing: Mills Plan vs. Nixon’s,U.S. News and World Report, (February 21, 1972). p. 51–52.
John Riew, “Metropolitan Fiscal Disparities and Fiscal Federalism” in John P. Crecine (ed.)Financing The Metropolis, Beverley Hills: Sage Publications, 1970. p. 139.
Walter W. Heller,New Dimensions in Political Economy, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. pp. 126–127.
Ibid.,, p. 128.
Ibid.,, p. 127.
Selma T. Mushkin and John F. Cotton,Sharing Federal Funds for State and Local Needs, New York: Praeger, 1969, p. 137.
U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee,Revenue Sharing and Its Alternatives, Vol. III, p. 1234.
Tax Institute of America,Federal-State-Local Fiscal Relationships, Princeton: Tax Institute of America, 1968. pp. 34–41. Also, Mushkin and Cotton,op. cit. Sharing Federal Funds for State and Local Needs, New York: Praeger, 1969, pp. 43–66.
Heller, op. cit., pp. 156–158.
Heller, p. 145.
Mushkin and Cotton,op. cit. p. 140–141.
Mushkin and Cotton, p. 134.
see Leonard Opperman, “Aid for the States: Is Revenue Sharing the Answer?”Review of Politics, January 1968, Vol. 30, pp. 43–50.
Heller,op. cit.,, p. 142.
Mushkin and Cotton,op. cit.,, p. 134.
Heller,op. cit.,, p. 153.
Leonard Opperman, “Aid for the States: Is Revenue Sharing the Answer?” does compelling analysis of Indiana State politics and finds a “h. lack of commitment to positive government.” He attributes it to lack of expertise on the part of officials, failure of the press to perform their watchdog function and antipathy to the cities and their poor. op. cit..
SeeUrban American and the Federal System Advisory Commission on Inter-governmental Relations (A.C.I.R.) andThe Near Side of Federalism Improving State and Local Governments, pp. 31–41. Ford Foundation, Jan. 1972.
Statement to the President of the United States by the Congressional Black Caucus, March 25, 1971. Excerpt quoted from the tReview of Black Political Economy, Vol. 1, No. 3 Winter/Spring 1971. p. 106.
see Duane Lockard,The Perverted Priorities of American Politics (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971).
Leonard Opperman,op. cit., p. 49.
see “It’s Nation Time,”Special Issue of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists Newsletter on the Black Political Convention, May, 1972.
Additional information
This paper was prepared for The Joint Center For Political Studies, Washington, D.C. The authors are indebted to Andy Kappel and Scott Brown for their research assistance.
About this article
Cite this article
Hefner, J., Burnett, M.R. Implications of revenue sharing for black political and economic goals. Rev Black Polit Econ 2, 74–94 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03040523
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03040523