Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, September 15, 1993 TAG: 9401140008
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Cal Thomas
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
In announcing the plan to ``reinvent'' government by reducing waste, fraud and government girth, Vice President Al Gore estimates a $108 billion savings to taxpayers if all recommendations are approved. It will be a savings to taxpayers, though, only if Congress goes along and the money saved is used to fulfill President Clinton's campaign promise for a middle-class tax cut instead of shifting the spending to other programs.
The administration actually hopes to reinvent itself with the sure-fire crowd-pleaser of attacking inefficient and bloated government programs and by styling itself as the defender of the overtaxed citizen (who ironically has been so recently gouged by higher taxes). Polls show 95 percent of Americans think government wastes too much money. But, like ``tough-on-crime'' rhetoric, promises to reduce spending and shrink the size of government haven't lived up to expectations.
During the Reagan administration, the Grace Commission produced a volume of cost-cutting and government-downsizing recommendations. Sixty-five percent of those recommendations were implemented, but not 65 percent of the savings. Congress preserved many big-ticket items, cutting instead those whose supporters had little political clout.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Grace Commission proposals that were adopted saved $152.4 billion between 1986 and 1989, and by this year the estimated savings have grown to $250 billion.
But if fully implemented, those recommendations would have saved $424.4 billion over three years. Vice President Gore's far less ambitious proposal to save $108 billion is stretched over five years. While these savings are obviously achievable, they represent only 1.3 percent of total federal spending over those five years, making them more symbolic than substantive.
Among the Grace Commission recommendations that should have been adopted but weren't (estimated five-year savings in parentheses):
Expediting disposal of Commodity Credit Corporation inventory by eliminating the de facto veto power that the State and Agriculture departments and Agency for International Development exercise over the humanitarian-assistance program ($521 million).
Making greater use of direct deposit/electronic-funds transfer to pay federal benefits and salaries ($344 million).
Charging user fees for Federal Home Loan Bank Board borrowings to offset the implicit interest subsidy it receives from the treasury ($297 million).
Removing certain tax exemptions from the farm credit system ($648 million).
Monitoring federal construction-project mitigation outlays to ensure they are not excessive and are used solely to offset environmental damage, not to improve pre-existing environmental quality ($993 million).
There's plenty more, but the reason these failed to get congressional approval and that at least some of the Gore recommendations won't either is because virtually every dollar spent has a constituency or a congressman or both who want to maintain it. Let the cuts take place in someone else's district.
If the administration says government costs too much, is inefficient and wastes money, why did the president push through retroactive tax increases and a higher gasoline tax f+ibeforeo he cut wasteful spending? Politically, wouldn't it have made more sense to cut the waste before asking the overburdened taxpayers to ante up more for less?
The ``Gore Commission'' is likely to get some of its recommendations approved and some will be achievable by executive order. But most people will be forgiven for remaining cautiously cynical.
\ Los Angeles Times Syndicate
by CNB