I have written before about these programs and, unfortunately, will probably do so again. They are the dregs of government. In an ideal world, liberals and conservatives would junk them and then argue about how to use the savings (for tax cuts or better programs). But in the real word, liberals and conservatives create coalitions of convenience based on a common desire to dispense favors or preserve personal fiefdoms.
Beyond the immediate budget brawl, then, lies much unfinished business. Government’s dregs need to be purged. They waste money and starve worthier programs. Consider. To balance the budget by 2002, this year’s budget resolution requires that annual nondefense discretionary spending, when adjusted for inflation, drop by 80 percent. (This spending covers everything from the FBI to national parks; excluded are entitlements, such as social security, for which people automatically qualify.) But most of the specific cuts haven’t yet occurred; they’ll have to be made in annual appropriations between now and 2002.
Well, there are two ways to meet the 80 percent target. One is to slice all programs by roughly 80 percent; the other is to ax the worst programs. The first approach guarantees mediocre government. It penalizes worthy programs–health research, the border patrol, the census–to support the unworthy. But the second approach requires a consensus, so far lacking, to weed out the unneeded. Ponder these programs and their likely costs:
Farm subsidies. They don’t ensure food production and haven’t prevented a steady drop in family farms. Between 1945 and 1998 the number of farms slid from 5.9 million to 2.1 million, as mechanization spurred consolidation. Efforts this year to make sharp subsidy cuts failed. The cost: $11.8 billion in 1996 and $70.7 billion between 1996 and 2002.
Maritime subsidies. The idea was to save a merchant fleet to move cargo in wartime. Well, the fleet has shriveled anyway. In 1992, the world had nearly 24,000 merchant ships; only 384 were U.S.-flag vessels. The military uses its own specialized ships to carry hardware; in the Persian GulfWar, the Pentagon had to contract with many foreign-flag ships. Still, the merchant marine receives subsidies and cargo preferences. The cost: about $600 million in 1996 and $4.2 billion over seven years. (With programs such as this that lack projections, I assume constant spending.)
The Small Business Administration. Gosh, countless Americans regularly start companies without government help. We don’t need an agency to aid a few. The cost: $590 million in 1996 and $4.1 billion over seven years.
Culture subsidies. The assumption that only government can promote “quality” culture–through public-broadcasting subsidies and grants for the arts and humanities–is arrogant and ignores the inevitable disputes, in a society as diverse as ours, over what constitutes “quality.” The cost: about $475 million in 1996 and $3.3 billion over seven years.
Gasohol. The government exempts ethanol–an alcohol commonly made from corn–from 5.4 cents of the gasoline tax. This is a sop to corn farmers. It boosts ethanol as a blend with gasoline to reduce air pollution, when unsubsidized antipollution additives are available. The cost: about $500 million in 1996 and $3.5 billion.
Amtrak. It provides a trivial amount of intercity transportation, concentrated in the Northeast. The cost: $750 million in 1996 and $5.25 billion.
Subsidized power. Located mainly in the South, Southwest and West, government-owned power plants generate about 7 percent to 8 percent of U.S. electricity, which is priced at below-market rates. Selling these plants would save between $500 million and $1 billion annually. Seven-year cost: $3.5 billion to $7 billion.
Some of these programs qualify as corporate welfare; all are unneeded, and there are many others. Cold-war propaganda agencies survive, although–in a world of satellites and faxes–they aren’t needed. Other programs should revert to the states. For example, there are federal construction subsidies for local mass-transit systems. Let localities decide whether to build. But add up the cost of the programs just on the above list. They total nearly $100 billion over seven years.
Even I wouldn’t instantly scrap all these unneeded programs. Some (say, farm subsidies) should be phased out to allow people to adjust. But if we are serious about government, we must use it well. The proponents of these programs, by contrast, assume that anyone with a handout should keep it and that any program that does some good should be immortal. What we get are special-interest programs of two types. The first benefit tiny constituencies and survive through legislative logrolling, personal connections and campaign contributions. Maritime subsidies pay the high wages-two to five times world levels–of about 10,000 U.S. seamen.
The second sort enjoy widespread popularity (and respectability) but mainly eater to private tastes and preferences. “Public” broadcasting is a prime example. “Car Talk” on public radio is the funniest program, radio or TV, in America; I love it, but it shouldn’t be subsidized. Ditto for Louis Bukeyser’s “Wall Street Week.” Just because people like these and other programs doesn’t mean government should support them. If it didn’t, they–and public broad-casting–would survive. Federal subsidies provide only 15 percent of public-broadcasting spending.
So the present budget drama is only Act I. Government exists to advance national interests–not private interests or tastes puffed up into synthetic “public interests.” Defining the national interest is hard; but saying what it isn’t is a lot easier. Iowa farmers, railroad buffs and public-broadcasting enthusiasts don’t qualify.
