mirror of
https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git
synced 2024-10-01 01:15:38 -04:00
275 lines
15 KiB
HTML
275 lines
15 KiB
HTML
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>ourmess</title>
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="../CSSstyle.css"/>
|
|
<!--Fill in your link line for CSS and JS in the XSLT here! -->
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<h1 id="title-index">ourmess</h1>
|
|
<div id="conspiracy">
|
|
<p>
|
|
The following discussion of our country's budget crisis was
|
|
taken from a Reader's Digest Feb. 91 issue. It was written
|
|
by Fred Barnes. It is to be taken very seriously...</p>
|
|
<p> Dirty Secrets Behind the Budget Mess.</p>
|
|
<p>During last year's budget crisis, Rep. Harris Fawell
|
|
(R.,Ill.) had a helpful idea. Why not slash unnecessary
|
|
spending Congress had planned for itself? On the floor of
|
|
the House, Fawell proposed an amendment cutting $375000 for
|
|
renovations to the House beauty parlor and $25000 for a
|
|
study on a proposed gym for House staffers.</p>
|
|
<p>Fawell was shouted down and labeled a sexist for targeting
|
|
the unprofitable, taxpayer-subsidized beauty parlor. House
|
|
Democratic leaders arranged a non-recorded vote so no one
|
|
could be blamed for killing the amendment.</p>
|
|
<p>In a federal budget of nearly $1.4 trillion, the money saved
|
|
by Fawell's modest proposal would have been insignificant.
|
|
But the episode reflects an enduring truth: despite pious
|
|
talk, Congress continues to spend taxpayer's money at a
|
|
furious clip, and the executive branch usually goes along
|
|
willingly. What's more, they go to extraordinary lengths to
|
|
deny it.</p>
|
|
<p>When the five-year "deficit reduction" agreement was reached
|
|
last fall, officials claimed $42 billion in savings. That's
|
|
a sham!!! What they didn't mention-and the press didn't
|
|
report-is that actual spending will INCREASE by $111
|
|
billion, or $480 for every man, woman & child in the nation.
|
|
Worse, the deficit, according to governments own official
|
|
figures, will grow larger.</p>
|
|
<p>On the very day the deal to curb the deficit was forged,
|
|
Congress voted to increase social-welfare spending this year
|
|
by $22.6 billion, The five-year deal includes $136 billion
|
|
in additional funds for non-defense discretionary programs.
|
|
Mandatory outlays for Social Security and Medicare will rise
|
|
more than $200 billion.</p>
|
|
<p>A culture of spending dominates our national capital. An
|
|
"iron triangle" of the unelected-executive branch
|
|
bureaucrats, Congressional committee staffers, special
|
|
interest lobbyists-aggressively protects each program and
|
|
pushes unrelentingly for more. Members of Congress believe
|
|
spending helps them get re-elected. With few exceptions,
|
|
agency heads appointed by the President regard greater
|
|
outlays as a measure of their success.</p>
|
|
<p>In four years as Education Secretary, William Bennett
|
|
learned this the hard way. At first he loyally defended
|
|
President <span class="PERSON" title="PERSON">Reagan</span>'s proposed cuts. He found himself nearly
|
|
alone among Cabinet members. Over the next two years, he was
|
|
attacked by educators, reviled by his own bureaucrats and
|
|
overruled by Congress. In 1987 Bennett rebelled and insisted
|
|
on a boost in spending. "There was no political gain in
|
|
ruthless cutting," a Bennett aide says. "You could be a
|
|
reformer but not a cutter."</p>
|
|
<p>Official Washington has created a myth to justify higher
|
|
spending in the 1990s. As Sen. Robert Byrd (D.,W.Va.) puts
|
|
it, domestic discretionary spending is the "little runt pig"
|
|
on the federal budget that has been on the cutting table for
|
|
years. It hasn't. Domestic spending was trimmed in 1982,
|
|
then grew rapidly during the next eight years. Outlays for
|
|
many programs rose substantially, including education for
|
|
the handicapped (50%), National Institute of Health (47%),
|
|
National Science Foundation (36%), medical care for veterans
|
|
(25%) and Environmental Protection Agency (22%).</p>
|
|
<p>The biggest problem on Capital Hill, says Rep. Dick Armey
|
|
(R.,Texas), is "the committee mystique." Members from
|
|
farming areas angle to get on the Agriculture Committee.
|
|
Those from port cities join the Merchant Marine and
|
|
Fisheries Committee. Those eager to keep military bases in
|
|
their district hope to serve on the Armed Services
|
|
Committee.</p>
|
|
<p>There's a tacit rule: to get what you want, you go along
|
|
with what other committee members want. And it's taboo to
|
|
challenge the programs of another committee. "You don't want
|
|
them challenging yours," says Rep. Tim Penny (D., Minn.), a
|
|
leader for deficit reduction.</p>
|
|
<p>Rep. Vin Weber (R., Minn.) a conservative who believes in
|
|
spending reductions, was happy to leave the Budget
|
|
Committee, which cuts, and join the Appropriations
|
|
Committee, which spends. Weber had discovered Washington's
|
|
dirty little secret: cutting is a political minus.</p>
|
|
<p>Chairmen of the appropriations subcommittees retaliate when
|
|
they're crossed. After Fawell criticized nonessential
|
|
spending in an "emergency" appropriations bill last year,
|
|
extra funding for a project in his district was deleted.
|
|
When Rep. Clay Shaw (R., Fla.) voted against the wishes of
|
|
Rep. William Lehman (D., Fla.), a subcommittee chairman,
|
|
Lehman scratched $1 million in funding for a tunnel in
|
|
Shaw's district.</p>
|
|
<p>Budget watchdogs such as Penny and Rep. Bob Walker (R., Pa.)
|
|
are treated like pariahs. "A large number of colleagues
|
|
wouldn't come to dinner at my home," Penny says. An
|
|
Appropriations Committee member once remarked of Walker:
|
|
"The only cement that will ever be poured in Walker's
|
|
district is that around his feet when we throw him in the
|
|
river."</p>
|
|
<p>"in a corporation, everything is geared toward minimizing
|
|
overhead," says Mark Everson, a Chicago manufacturer who was
|
|
a top official in three Washington agencies from 1982 to
|
|
1988. "In government, almost nothing is." Like many others,
|
|
Everson discovered another of Washington's dirty budget
|
|
secrets. Instead of being rewarded, officials who make
|
|
economy a top priority can count on being criticized by
|
|
Congress, jumped on by lobbyists and undermined by
|
|
bureaucrats in their own agencies.</p>
|
|
<p>When Charles Heatherly became head of the Small Business
|
|
Administration (SBA) in 1986, the agency was facing $345
|
|
million in bad loans. Heatherly was hauled before a
|
|
Congressional committee-but not for the bad loans. His
|
|
transgression was trying to streamline the SBA by
|
|
jettisoning failed programs. A phalanx on interest groups-the National Small Business Association, Small Business
|
|
United and the American Association of Minority Enterprise
|
|
Small Business Investment Companies-weighed in against him.
|
|
To SBA bureaucrats, Heatherly was the enemy. "Not one of
|
|
them came to me at SBA and said, 'We're with you on this.
|
|
What can we do to help?'" Heatherly says.</p>
|
|
<p>Because the big spenders presented a united front and
|
|
taxpayers made little noise, the SBA was kept alive and
|
|
spared further budget cuts. "The iron triangle worked," says
|
|
Heatherly.</p>
|
|
<p>Sometimes the triangle can be very clever. For fiscal year
|
|
1991, the Senate and House would have agreed to a smaller
|
|
appropriation for the SBA. The Senate voted to give the
|
|
agency $440 million; the House voted $438 million. But the
|
|
Senate-House conference did not come up with a compromise
|
|
figure you might expect, $439 million. Instead, it pegged
|
|
SBA spending at $469.5 million.</p>
|
|
<p>This upward compromise is but one trick Washington employs
|
|
to create the illusion of spending reduction. Here are seven
|
|
others:</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<span class="ORG" title="ORG">ARTIFICIAL</span> BASE LINES</p>
|
|
<p>Imagine a company president who hopes for a $100000 pay
|
|
increase. Instead he receives a $75000 hike, and then he
|
|
claims a $25000 pay cut. Crazy? in Washington it's routine.</p>
|
|
<p>Rather than use this year's level of spending as the
|
|
starting point for next year's budget, an artificial "base
|
|
line" is created, the effect of which is automatic spending
|
|
increases every year. Then, if proposed outlays are less
|
|
than the base line, Washington claims a "cut"-even though
|
|
spending actually rises.</p>
|
|
<p>That's what is happening now. The base-line budget for the
|
|
current fiscal year originally called for spending to rise
|
|
$130.8 billion. But because it will go up "only" $111
|
|
billion, Congress and the White House insist spending was
|
|
cut by $19.8 billion. With a projected revenue increase of
|
|
$22.2 billion, they claim a total "savings" of $42 billion.</p>
|
|
<p>OFF-BUDGET SPENDING</p>
|
|
<p>Last year, Congress "reduced the deficit" $2 billion by
|
|
dropping the Postal Service subsidy from the official
|
|
budget. The subsidy was still paid, only it was done off-budget. Off-budget programs include direct loans, loan
|
|
guarantees, federal insurance and government enterprises.</p>
|
|
<p>Of course, real money is involved whether or not a program
|
|
is formally in the budget. In 1989, loan defaults and write-offs were $14.4 billion and insurances losses $67.2 billion,
|
|
all picked up by the taxpayer. The total liability of
|
|
taxpayers for off-budget programs is almost $6 TRILLION, or
|
|
$67000 for every U.S. household.</p>
|
|
<p>FAKE CEILINGS</p>
|
|
<p>With great fanfare and self-congratulation, legislators
|
|
established spending ceilings. Then these limits were
|
|
quietly ignored.</p>
|
|
<p>The original <span class="PERSON" title="PERSON">Gramm</span>-Rudman deficit reduction law of 1985
|
|
called for gradually declining deficits. The first ceiling,
|
|
for 1986, was topped by $49.3 billion. In 1987 the law was
|
|
changed, and the deficit was supposed to have dwindled to
|
|
$100 billion in 1990. It was $220 billion. Now Washington
|
|
projects declining deficits in 1993 and 1994. Good Luck...!</p>
|
|
<p>UNDERESTIMATING</p>
|
|
<p>In 1983, Congress approved $8 billion to build a space
|
|
station. By 1987 the price was $12 billion. Now it's $36
|
|
billion. Agriculture Department economists said the 1985
|
|
farm bill would cost $54 billion. A month later, after the
|
|
bill was passed, the estimate was upped to $85 billion.</p>
|
|
<p>"There's a generic pattern ," says Congressional staffer
|
|
Frank Gregorsky. "Once the legislation is passed, once the
|
|
various clients are mobilized, once the bureaucracy is
|
|
engaged, once the contractors start marking up-expenditures
|
|
overshoot the promised levels." Spenders get their foot in
|
|
the door by underestimating the costs of new programs.</p>
|
|
<p>"EMERGENCY" APPROPRIATIONS</p>
|
|
<p>In recent years, emergency appropriation bills have become
|
|
vehicles for pork-barrel spending.</p>
|
|
<p>Last year President Bush asked for "dire emergency"
|
|
appropriation to pay for flood relief in the South and aid
|
|
to Panama. Congress tacked on another $1.4 billion-including
|
|
$3 million for a convention center in Washington, D.C. $5.8
|
|
million for a Franklin Roosevelt memorial and $750000
|
|
toward a ferryboat for American Samoa.</p>
|
|
<p>TRANSFERS</p>
|
|
<p>A clever way to increase a discretionary program is to
|
|
switch funds into it from an entitlement program, which has
|
|
no ceiling and thus requires no new appropriation.</p>
|
|
<p>"A classic abuse of transfer authority," note budget experts
|
|
John Cogan and Tim Muris, was the shift of food-stamps into
|
|
the Agriculture Department's extension service. The
|
|
Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
|
|
supposedly suffered a cut of $300 million in real spending
|
|
between 1981 and 1989. Actually, funds were transferred from
|
|
the Commodity Credit Corporation, which pays for farm price
|
|
supports. ASCS spending actually ROSE by one third.</p>
|
|
<p>EARMARKING</p>
|
|
<p>Last year alone, Sen. Dale Bumpers (D., Ark.) says an
|
|
appropriations committee got 2800 requests from other
|
|
Senators to designate funds for projects in their home
|
|
states. During the 1990 budget "crisis", Rep. Walker pointed
|
|
out ten research projects that were sneaked into the Energy
|
|
Department's budget and deserved cutting. One allocated $4.8
|
|
million to a technology center at <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Indiana</span> State University
|
|
in the district of Rep. John Myers (R., Ind.). Funds for it
|
|
and the other projects Walker cited were overwhelmingly
|
|
approved.</p>
|
|
<p>In Washington, D.C., where there are no farms, $1 million
|
|
was appropriated for the Agriculture Extension Service. Also
|
|
approved was $500000 to restore the boyhood home of
|
|
bandleader Lawrence Welk in Strasburg, N.D. This expenditure
|
|
was sought by Sen. Quentin Burdick (D., N.D.). It prompted
|
|
Rep. Silvio Conte (R., Mass.) to say: "That is right-and a
|
|
one, and a two, and a three, and a four, and a $500000.
|
|
What will they do for an encore? Earmark funds to renovate
|
|
Guy Lombardo's speedboat? Or restore Artie Shaw's wedding
|
|
tuxedo?" Despite Conte's ridicule and criticism by President
|
|
Bush, the Welk project was not killed.</p>
|
|
<p>Even the defense budget is used for earmarking. Tucked into
|
|
the 1991 Pentagon budget was $5 million to build a new
|
|
parliament building in the Solomon Islands and $10 million
|
|
for a National Drug Intelligence Center that federal
|
|
official wanted in Washington. Not surprisingly, the drug
|
|
intelligence center will be located in the home state of
|
|
Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), chairman of the House
|
|
Appropriations defense subcommittee.</p>
|
|
<p>Political scientist James Payne, an expert on government
|
|
spending, measured the ratio of those witnesses at
|
|
Congressional hearings who testified for spending programs
|
|
to those who testified against. His finding: pro-spenders
|
|
outnumber opponents by 145 to one. Payne also found that
|
|
roughly half the pro-spending witnesses are federal
|
|
administrators and another ten percent are state and local
|
|
officials. It's only human nature that they'd have kind
|
|
words for their own programs and ask for more money.</p>
|
|
<p>When will the spending binge cease? Not until taxpayers rise
|
|
up. THIS MEANS YOU!!! "Congress is going to go on spending
|
|
until the public stops them," laments Walker. "Politicians
|
|
respond to special-interest groups," says Penny. "They've
|
|
been forgetting there's a general interest group-taxpayers."
|
|
It's time for taxpayers to remind them.</p>
|
|
<p>X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X</p>
|
|
<p> Another file downloaded from: NIRVANAnet(tm)</p>
|
|
<p> & the Temple of the Screaming Electron Jeff Hunter 510-935-5845
|
|
The Salted Slug Strange 408-454-9368
|
|
Burn This Flag Zardoz 408-363-9766
|
|
realitycheck Poindexter Fortran 415-567-7043
|
|
Lies Unlimited Mick Freen 415-583-4102
|
|
Tomorrow's 0rder of Magnitude Finger_Man 415-961-9315
|
|
My Dog Bit Jesus Suzanne D'Fault 510-658-8078
|
|
New Dork Sublime Demented Pimiento 415-566-0126</p>
|
|
<p> Specializing in conversations, obscure information, high explosives,
|
|
arcane knowledge, political extremism, diverse sexuality,
|
|
insane speculation, and wild rumours. ALL-TEXT BBS SYSTEMS.</p>
|
|
<p> Full access for first-time callers. We don't want to know who you are,
|
|
where you live, or what your phone number is. We are not Big Brother.</p>
|
|
<p> "Raw Data for Raw Nerves"
|
|
|
|
X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|