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

DATE: THURSDAY, May 13, 1993                   TAG: 9305130500
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Short

CUT FEDERAL GRANTS TO LOCALITIES

FOR A NUMBER of years, I have favored a temporary value-added tax, not for national health insurance and not to balance the budget but to eliminate the national debt.

Pie charts showing federal income and federal expenditures, published recently in this and other publications, showed the budget deficit and interest on the national debt to be almost equal. Obviously, the budget could be balanced if interest on the debt could be eliminated.

Spending cuts should accompany, not follow, any new taxes, and there are many places cuts could be made. Almost all federal departments, bureaus and agencies could operate more efficiently with fewer employees and less paper work. Congressional perks and junkets, which waste the congressman's time and our money, should be done away with except for those absolutely necessary to pass wise legislation.

A good place to cut spending would be to wipe out completely federal grants to localities. This would be hard on some that have financed sewer systems, etc., with their taxes and would now have to forgo federal aid. But the line must be drawn somewhere. Nothing comes free from the federal government.

A bill to eliminate federal grants to localities would be a very difficult one for Congress to pass. It would cut deeply into their pork-barrel buying of votes. Voting for such a measure would come naturally to a statesman, but would be an anathema to a politician. SALLY H. WERTH RURAL RETREAT

by CNB