REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, TOO

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, March 2, 1993                   TAG: 9303020340
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Short
REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, TOO
IN REFERENCE to your Feb. 19 editorial "Bold leadership on the economy," why not feature the reduction in size of government along with the other plans?
The American Institute for Economic Research has stated that public-sector employment has increased every single year from 1948 through 1992, with the exception of 1981-1983, by an average of more than 300,000 per year. Some of this has been at the state and local level. However, the fact that many state and local employees work on programs that are mandated, and often paid for, by the federal government, means that the role of federal policy is determining the level of government employment extents well beyond the simple numbers of federal employees.
If they can come up with additional plans for a positive freeze on hiring for these sectors for the next five years, it would save more than an approximate 1 million new employees, bringing the size of government down appreciably. Such action would bring more gain with hardly any pain. Also, any reductions could be made by attrition only.
I agree with your editorial as far as it goes, but cannot understand why you don't promote reducing the size of government. If the above is adopted along with Clinton's present plans, it could produce the $1 tax for every $2 cut that he promised originally, thereby making it easier to sell. WILLIAM E. LEAVERS ROANOKE

by Archana Subramaniam by CNB