Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, July 18, 1995 TAG: 9507180075
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: R.A. ZALDIVAR KNIGHT-RIDDER/TRIBUNE
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long
Retired factory manager R.W. Degenhart also puts himself on the line: He would accept a reduction in his Social Security cost-of-living allowance.
``I've got eight children and 20 grandchildren, and I can't see leaving them in this fiscal mess,'' said Degenhart, who lives in Columbia, S.C.
But as many Americans show a willingness to at least consider personal sacrifices, lawmakers are finding ways to preserve pet projects - so-called pork-barrel spending - in the early rounds of congressional budget cutting.
``Pork is still being served in Washington,'' said Stephen Moore, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute. ``There is still quite a bit of parochial spending.''
By allowing old spending habits to persist, Republicans may be jeopardizing an historic opportunity to enlist the American people in giving up popular benefits to balance the budget.
Pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press, a nonpartisan public opinion research group, said Republicans probably would win more trust with an open appeal for shared sacrifice than by giving the impression the budget can be balanced through cutting waste, bureaucracy and unpopular programs.
``The simple fact of the matter is that no one has asked the American public to sacrifice,'' said Kohut.
The message does not seem to be getting through to Capitol Hill, where 13 giant spending bills that allocate money to federal agencies are moving through the House.
In terms of the bottom line, those bills do indeed cut spending below this year's levels. But many individual items are being questioned as unnecessary or wasteful. Here are a few examples:
Nearly $500 million to start building 10 to 20 additional B-2 Stealth bombers. Supporters say more B-2s are not pork but a national investment that would save soldiers' lives if America ever has to fight two regional wars simultaneously. The Air Force said it doesn't want the planes and would rather have more smart bombs. Efforts to knock out the spending on the House floor will be complicated because there are B-2 contractors in many lawmakers' districts.
An $8 million allocation for design work on a new scientific facility in Tennessee that would experiment on atomic particles called neutrons. Critics say the project, which could ultimately cost $1 billion, is a jobs program for scientists that should be shelved in a time of tight budgets. Defenders say it's the type of basic research that could lead to breakthrough inventions.
$5 million earmarked to begin construction on a Colorado water project that's still in the planning stages and could ultimately cost $700 million. Critics argue that the Clinton administration has not requested the construction money, and that the project flunked a cost-benefit study. Supporters say it represents a commitment to Indian tribes.
A $2.6 million outdoor firing range for the Army National Guard in Tennessee that the Guard didn't ask for. Supporters said an existing indoor firing range is inadequate because it's old and can't accommodate artillery. An effort to eliminate the spending was rejected 216-214 on the House floor.
``Although there are some individuals who have come to Congress to make a difference, business as usual still reigns in many areas,'' said Jill Lancelot, a lobbyist for the National Taxpayers Union.
The picture isn't totally one-sided. The House did manage last week to strike $20 million for an experimental gas turbine nuclear reactor that had been characterized as a budgetary sinkhole.
Still, the survival of any wasteful project is of particular concern this year. Because of the squeeze on the overall budget, money for pet projects has to be taken from some other area. In the Republican Congress, poverty programs, federal regulatory agencies, mass transit and culture-war targets such as arts funding are taking heavy hits.
``They are not upsetting everybody across the board,'' said Ellen Nissenbaum, a lobbyist for the anti-poverty Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. ``They're creating winners and losers.''
That could undermine the credibility of the final Republican budget package this year. The hardest part of the agenda, squeezing $450 billion over seven years from the growth in the Medicare and Medicaid health programs, won't be tackled until the fall.
``The Republicans have to be careful,'' said Alfred Tuchfarber, a political scientist and pollster at the University of Cincinnati. ``If there is a perception that the pain is not being widely shared, the public will react very negatively.''
For House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Clinton, the big question in this budget debate is how much sacrifice the American people are ready to bear.
Polls show crosscurrents: There's support for the goal of a balanced budget, along with concern about cutting such middle-class benefit programs as Medicare.
California software engineer Parker said she's disappointed the Republicans haven't gone after juicy tax breaks that benefit wealthy and upper-middle-class people like herself. Instead, she said, they've taken on the poor.
Parker supports a limit on the home mortgage interest deduction (1996 value: $41 billion), eliminating the tax-free status of employer-provided health insurance (1996 value: $51 billion) and gradually reducing government benefits such as Medicare and Social Security for people making more than $40,000 (potential savings: $50 billion a year by 2002).
``It's like we're all on the dole,'' said Parker. ``It kind of makes financial sense to cut where the fat is. The Republicans have tackled the lean end.''
Nonetheless, she said it's better to cut the budget than leave things as they are. Parker may be better-informed than most - and more willing to give back her own benefits - but pollster Kohut said he thinks there would be more Marla Parkers out there if politicians laid out all the facts.
Frank Saska, a retired factory electrician from Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, illustrates Kohut's point. Saska has been following the budget debate, and he's not at all happy.
``The Republicans are out there to tighten all of our belts,'' complained Saska. ``The biggies will have their income tax rebates and get fatter and fatter, and we'll just get skinnier.'' As for sacrifice, ``I don't want to do it while Joe Blow over there doesn't get hit,'' Saska said. ``Now, if everybody does it, yes sir, I'm right there."
by CNB