Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, January 21, 1993 TAG: 9301210260
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: The Washington Post
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
CITIZENS JURY DEMANDS ACTION ON DEFICIT, TAXES
A "Citizens Jury" of voters from across the country spent a week wrestling with the federal budget and sent President Clinton an unambiguous message: cut spending by $26 billion, increase taxes by $70 billion and damn the politicians and special-interest groups even if it means being a one-term president."We'll stand behind you if you make the tough choices. A one-term president may be better for the country if that's what it takes," said Philip Grant, a truck-weighing station inspector from Klamath Falls, Ore., one of 24 jurors who met here last week to consider the new administration's budget priorities.
The gathering of a microcosm of America to draft a citizens' budget after talking with fiscal experts was based on the principle that while public-opinion polls may be representative, the people surveyed are not always informed, and while lobbying is usually informed, it is not often representative, said Ned Crosby, founder and president of the sponsoring Jefferson Center, a Minneapolis-based policy-study group.
The jurors voted 18 to 6 for a relatively radical federal budget that would slash $26 billion out of the Congressional Budget Office's projected 1997 expenditures of $1.745 trillion, as compared to a $19 billion budget increase proposed last summer by Clinton in his "Putting People First" economic plan.
At the same time, jurors recommended raising $70 billion more in taxes than the $1.455 trillion projected in 1997 by the CBO, compared to $44 billion more proposed by Clinton.
The jurors' somewhat draconian budget would leave a $194 billion deficit in 1997, $96 billion less than the CBO's projected deficit and $70 billion less than that envisioned by Clinton.
Jurors said they would trim $5 billion more out of defense spending than the $20 billion that Clinton proposed cutting; that they would cut $15 billion out of infrastructure spending instead of increasing it by $24 billion, and would reduce Social Security expenditures by $9 billion, or half again as much as the $6 billion reduction planned by Clinton.
Although jurors said they would increase spending in "social infrastructure" by only $7 billion, compared to a $24 billion increase proposed by Clinton, they proposed increasing expenditures for health care by $20 billion, instead of the $4 billion reduction proposed by Clinton.
Jurors said the reason for the disparity is that they opted for a radically reformed health-care system in which the taxpayer would pick up the tab for a managed-care system whose users would pay minimal costs for treatment.
The $70 billion tax increases proposed by jurors included $20 billion in "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol; $30 billion in tax increases on Americans who earn over $200,000, and $20 billion in new energy taxes, which would lead to a 10-cent increase in the cost of a gallon of gasoline.
"Coming into this thing, I never thought I'd make a choice to raise taxes. But I decided to bite the bullet. Our kids have to live with what we've done in this country," Grant said.
Clair Parsh, a community-college teacher from Sacramento, Calif., said, "We're just mortaging our kids' future the way we're going. Once I made that decision, it was just a question of range. If these decisions go through, in 1997 we might have a better country."
When asked whether special-interest groups would not battle some of the budget proposals, Parsh replied, "One of the largest special-interest groups is gathered right around this table - the voter."
Gary Blake, a cable-television technician from Tupelo, Miss., said, "Our senators and representatives work for us. They don't work for these special-interest groups."
Another panel is scheduled for the week of Feb. 22 to review Clinton's domestic-policy proposals, and a third for the week of May 3 to examine his first 100 days in office.
The Citizens Jury attracted national attention during two panel discussions in Pennsylvania during last year's Senate race between Sen. Arlen Specter, R, and his Democratic challenger, Lynn Yeakel.