If just 13 independent agencies identified as obsolete, redundant, of limited value or having only regional focus were permanently shut down, taxpayers would save $3.6 billion over the next five years. But due to presidential vetoes, only $27.7 million in savings have so far been made by cutting seven of the agencies.
In all, the current Congress has actually voted to eliminate 270 agencies, divisions, offices and programs throughout the federal government; but most of the cuts are in bills vetoed by the president.
Source: Ronald D. Utt, "A Progress Report on Closing Unneeded and Obsolete Independent Federal Agencies," Backgrounder No. 1072, March 13, 1996, Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 546-4400.
President Clinton's proposed budget for fiscal year 1997 --with projections through 2002 - would increase taxes by $1,927 per household over the next seven years and increase spending per household by $3,155.
Source: Scott A. Hodge, "Clinton's FY 1997 Budget: the Era of Big Government Lives On," Backgrounder No. 1071, March 11, 1996, Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 546-4400.
Lawmakers should not have to exhaust themselves searching for a way to make up the revenue loss from repealing President Clinton's 4.3 cent a gallon 1993 tax hike on gasoline. They would only have to find budget cuts amounting to 0.3 percent of annual federal spending -- or $4.8 billion a year.
To put the 0.3 percent cut in perspective, a family of four, making $40,000 a year would only have to trim its spending $10 a month to make up such a difference in income.
Here are the suggestions of some experts as to where cuts could be made to offset repeal of the 4.3 cent a gallon tax.
While Democrats are wailing and rending their garments over the loss in funds, others say there is no end to opportunities to cut the federal budget by 0.3 percent.
Source: Editorial, "The 0.3 Percent Solution," Investor's Business Daily, May 8, 1996.
Advocates of public television in the United States envy the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), both for the quality of its programming and the dedicated tax that funds it. However, the evidence suggests that tax financing isn't necessary for quality television and doesn't provide the choices consumers want.
Americans who watch the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) see only the best of BBC programming; but most of them, like most viewers in the United Kingdom, also watch commercial television.
However, the existence of an organization financed by taxes is a powerful deterrent to new competitors. In the U.S., for example, a study found that competition from the free services of PBS has hampered the development of commercial services providing cultural programming.
Out of four U.S. cable networks established in the early 1980s to provide cultural programming, only one has survived, the Arts and Entertainment channel. That's because the potential audience is small, the cost of production is high, and PBS already provides free cultural programming in 40 percent of its broadcasting time.
In the United States, public television is facing the prospect of losing federal subsidies -- about 15 percent of total revenues. In the U.K., the BBC is funded by a license fee (tax) of about $150 a year on every television set., and people who don't pay the fee are frequently fined or jailed.
Source: David Sawers, "The Future of Public Service Broadcasting," Markets and the Media: Competition, Regulation and the Interests of Consumers, M.E. Beesley, ed., IEA Readings 43, March 1996, Institute for Economic Affairs, 2 Lord North Street, London, SW1P 3LB, U.K., (0171) 799-3745.
When Republicans swept into Congress in 1994, hopes abounded that voracious public spending would finally be tamed, the federal budget would be balanced, taxes could be cut and public debt reined in. But in 1996 it is evident that while some progress has been made, the GOP has more often than not had to compromise its vision in dealing with a Democratic administration, according to some political analysts.
Some examples:
All previous balanced budget proposals offered by the GOP have been vetoed by President Clinton, which caused three government shut-downs.
While the Republican leadership has been willing to compromise often and give the president much of the spending he wanted, Clinton has barely budged.
Then there are the tax and balanced budget compromises.
Source: Perspective, "Balanced-Budget Realities," Investor's Business Daily, May 15, 1996.
As the House and Senate prepare to act on the fiscal 1997 budget, Republicans will once again try to deny the President his wish to spend more and further delay their long-sought goal of bringing about budget-balance.
Clinton's latest budget calls for roughly $166 billion more in spending and $100 billion more in revenue from 1997 to 2002 than the House GOP's plan.
Here are some of the points of contention:
In the areas of education and the environment:
On the tax front:
Source: John Merline, "Clearing Away the Budget Fog," Investor's Business Daily, May 16, 1996.
Public housing proponents seem torn between two goals, professional observers note. Some see public housing as the shelter of last resort for the poor. The goal of others is to turn them into decent places which might attract a mixed-income variety of tenants -- but that would make them more like regular private housing and raise the question of whether the government should be in the housing business at all.
Republicans want to repeal the so-called Brooke Amendment, a 1969 law that limits public housing tenants' rents to 30 percent of their incomes. Proponents say repeal is necessary so that rents can be increased to meet operating and maintenance expenses at the projects.
Alternatively, Democratic Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros is pushing for more capital investment in public housing through federal "modernization funds" -- budgeted at $2.8 billion in fiscal 1965. He wants to attract more families who are not on public assistance to public housing; but this could also mean that fewer of the nation's 1.3 million public housing units would be available to the very poor.
It has been almost 60 years since the birth of public housing and 30 years since it became a social problem, as higher-income working families left the projects and the poorest families were concentrated there.
Some researchers suggest a less regulated private market could make use of new technologies to provide inexpensive shelter even for the very poor, and public housing could be privately managed, sold off or simply demolished.
Source: Howard Hussock (Reason Foundation), "The Vain Search for Public Housing Fix," Wall Street Journal, May 14, 1996.
Now that the House of Representatives has approved a bill aimed at reforming the 60 year-old public housing program, critics and supporters alike will be watching to see if and how it will achieve results, if it becomes law.
The bill would permit the nation's 3,400 local public housing authorities (PHAs) to make more decisions, as well as induce them to compete for better tenants. The original aim of public housing was to construct low-cost rental units for working poor households. But critics say that over the years PHAs -- only 4 percent of the nation's rental stock -- have evolved into a catch-basin for people at life's social and economic bottom.
Here are some of the provisions of the House bill:
Originally, local governments were to set up housing authorities which would build, own and manage projects. Construction would be financed through bonds and federal payments, and rents were to cover all operating costs.
But when rents fell short of operating costs, the federal government had to step in and shell out funds to cover the deficits.
Although the original concept was to provide housing for the working poor, all that changed in 1949, when Congress decreed that welfare families could not be barred from public housing.
Thus, higher-income workers were forced out, leaving public hosing largely to those with little or no work-related income. Legislation in 1969, called the Brooke amendment, capped the amount a tenant was required to pay in rent at 25 percent of income -- later raised to 30 percent. This was, in effect, federally mandated rent control and it led to what rent control always leads to: the fall in rental income caused landlords to cut maintenance and upkeep; the replacement of the working poor with the nonworking poor brought a sharp rise in rent-skipping, vandalism, drug-dealing and violent crime.
It would seem that government took all the wrong moves which have led to the present disgraceful state of public housing.
The reform bill, proposed by Rep. Rick Lazio (R-NY), has been softened somewhat to earn Democratic support. It still keeps a 30 percent ceiling on rents -- that covers 76 percent of all tenants.
Source: Carl Horowitz, "A New Era For Public Housing?" Investor's Business Daily, May 22, 1996.
The economic drag of excessive federal government spending over more than 20 years has cost the average worker the equivalent of $106,800, according to a recent study for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.
Researchers examined the relationship between federal spending and the rate of growth in productivity and labor compensation since 1947. They conclude that:
And, if federal spending had held constant at its 1965 level of 17.6 percent of GDP, and taxes were adjusted accordingly, the present value of the gains to the typical worker over the period 1973 to 1994 would amount to $106,800 -- enough to purchase a median priced new home.
Source: Lowell Gallaway and Richard Vedder, "The Impact of the Welfare State on Workers," March 1996, Joint Economic Committee of Congress, Washington, D.C.