Sushil Modi takes on Nitish Kumar

Senior BJP leader Sushil Kumar Modi today hailed the recommendations of 14th Finance Commission as "a big gift for states like Bihar" and tore into Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's claims that the state would financially suffer due to it.
"The Finance Commission recommendations are a big gift for states like Bihar. It has raised the share of states in central taxes from 32 per cent to 42 per cent. Our state will altogether get Rs 3,81,591 crore as share in central taxes in the next five financial years in comparison to Rs 1,65,627 crore over the last five financial years from 2010 to 2015," Modi said.

"If we go by year-on-year basis, Bihar will get Rs 55,987 crore in 2015-16 in comparison to 41,841 crore in 2014-15," he added.
The 14th Finance Commission had submitted its report to President Pranab Mukherjee on December 15, 2014 and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government recently accepted its recommendations on devolution of central taxes to the states.
Kumar had criticised it on the grounds that it would hurt finances of Bihar and that it had done away with special category status for states.
The BJP leader, who has served as Deputy Chief Minister and Finance Minister of Bihar, said this had been made possible because the Commission had raised states' share in central taxes to 42 per cent from 32 per cent.

"Earlier, the central government used to raise the share by one or two per cent, but this time it has been raised by 10 per cent. It has been a long pending demand of states that they should get 50 per cent share of the central taxes. Chief Ministers of various states cutting across party lines, including Nitish Kumar, had demanded this," Modi said.
Hitting out at Kumar for claiming that wrapping up of many schemes sponsored by central government will pinch the limited resources of Bihar, Modi pointed out that it had been a long pending demand of all states to decrease such schemes, which were over 100 in number.

"The schemes were designed by the central government, but the states had to provide their share of money in them as well. This hurt their finances and they used to demand funds instead of schemes so that they could spend according to their needs. Moreover, many schemes were irrelevant for many states," he said.