• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
The 106th Congress is well on its way tobecoming the largest-spending Congress ondomestic social programs since the late 1970swhen Jimmy Carter sat in the Oval Office andThomas “Tip” O’Neill was Speaker of the House.Total federal nondefense spending is estimated togrow in real terms by $33 billion, or 11 percent,from 1999 to 2001 under the budget resolutionapproved by Congress in April 2000. And this isundoubtedly a “best-case” scenario: as the electiongets closer, Congress and the White House arealmost certain to add billions more to a budgetcrammed with special-interest spending for justabout every constituency in Washington—fromfarmers, to environmentalists, to road builders, tothe teachers’ unions and universities.A major reason for all the new spending is theinability or unwillingness of Republicans toeliminate virtually any government program.Many of the more than 200 programs that theRepublicans pledged to eliminate in 1995 intheir “Contract with America” fiscal blueprintnow have fatter budgets than they had before thechanging of the guard.Overall federal expenditures for 95 of thelargest “living-dead” programs have risen a totalof 13 percent since 1994. Many of PresidentClinton’s favorite programs have received sub-stantial budget increases, often in excess of whatthe president has proposed.Congress has violated its own “spendingcaps” virtually every year as well. Comparisonof actual spending from 1996 to 2000 with theoriginal expenditure targets set in 1995 revealsthat excess spending over the baseline totals$187 billion. Even after the budget caps wererenegotiated upward in 1997, Congress stillmanaged to exceed the revised budget cap forthe following years by a total of more than $40billion.The growth in living-dead programs is part of an overall budget expansion. From fiscal year1998 to FY 2000, nondefense domestic spendinghas grown by more than 14 percent, after adjust-ing for inflation.In Washington, D.C., today there is a consen-sus in the White House and Congress that theera of big government is here to stay.
The Return of the Living Dead 
Federal Programs That Survived the Republican Revolution
by Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Stephen Moore, currently on leave, is director of fiscal policy studies and Stephen Slivinski is a fiscal policy ana-lyst at the Cato Institute.
Executive Summary
No. 375July 24, 2000
 
Introduction
When Republicans took control of Congress after the elections of 1994, theypromised to make government in Washingtonsmaller and smarter. Their first budget, adopt-ed in the spring of 1995, reflected that commit-ment. The Republicans in the House of Representatives approved a budget, craftedlargely by House Budget Committee chairmanJohn Kasich of Ohio, that substantially cut gov-ernment spending in domestic areas. That bud-get called for the elimination of more than 200government programs, including three entirecabinet agencies: the Departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce.
1
Most of the programs on the GOP “hitlist” were small and fiscally inconsequential,but there were also scores of programs withbudgets of more than $10 million targetedfor termination. Virtually every program onthat list had long ago been proven wasteful,ineffective, obsolete, counterproductive,unconstitutional, or all of the above. Many of those programs had been targeted for reduc-tion in the first Reagan budgets in the early1980s. Some of them had been singled outfor elimination by Leon Panetta (D-Calif.)when he was chairman of the House BudgetCommittee in 1992. The list included pro-grams ranging from the Low Income HomeEnergy Assistance Program—a relic of the1970s energy crisis—to transit subsidies, tothe National Endowment for the Arts, to theCorporation for Public Broadcasting, tobilingual education. This study assesses theextent to which those commitments toreduce spending were actually met.We find that in their first year in control of Congress the Republicans made impressiveprogress in downsizing the federal government
2
From 1996through 2000 thedomestic budgethas risen by 14percent overinflation.
$225$240$247$255$259$250$255$258$267$284$180$200$220$240$260$280$300$320$3401991199219931994199519961997199819992000Republican MajorityDemocratic Majority
Figure 1The Trend of Total Nondefense Domestic Spending
Fiscal Year
Source: Office of Management and Budget,
 Historical Tables,Budget of the United States Government, FiscalYear 2001
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 2000), Table 8.1, p. 117.
 
by reducing or eliminating domestic agencies.Almost 200 programs were eliminated betweenfiscal year 1995 and FY97.
2
Domestic discre-tionary spending actually declined in real termsfrom $259 billion to $250 billion after the firstyear of the Republican Congress. But, sincethen, the domestic budget has risen at anincreasingly rapid pace. From 1996 through2000 the domestic budget has risen by 14 per-cent over inflation (Figure 1).The trend has clearly been toward moreexpansive budgets each year the Republicanshave controlled Congress. In FY99 federaldomestic programs grew by 3.5 percent afteradjusting for inflation. Real total domesticdiscretionary spending will rise by 6.4 per-cent under the Republican-approved FY2000 budget passed in November 1999. Infact, that is the largest real single-yearincrease in domestic discretionary spendingin more than 20 years.
3
Comparison of actual spending from1996 to 2000 with the original expendituretargets set in 1994 reveals that excess spend-ing over the baseline totals $187 billion. Evenafter the budget caps were renegotiatedupward in 1997, Congress still managed toexceed the revised budget cap for the follow-ing years by a total of more than $40 billion.
4
(See Figure 2.)We examined the budget trends from 1995to 2000 for 95 of the largest domestic pro-grams that the Republicans originally slatedfor elimination. Although some of those pro-grams have actually been zeroed out of thebudget and some programs’ budgets havebeen reduced, a majority of those programsare not starved for funding. Total expendi-tures for those programs grew by 13 percentover the past five years (Table 1).Farm programs are once again prosperingunder the Republican Congress, notwith-standing the well-intentioned Freedom toFarm Act of 1995. The goal of that act was towean farmers from federal price supports, dis-aster relief, and loan programs. But when
3
Although someprograms haveactually beenzeroed out of thebudget and someprograms’ bud-gets have beenreduced, a major-ity of programsare not starvedfor funding.
$240$250$260$270$280$290$300$310$320$330$34019961997199819992000
Contract with America BudgetBaselineActual OutlaysExcess spending over Contract with Americabaseline, 1996-2000$187 billion1997 Budget DealBaselineExcess spending over 1997 budget deal, 1997-2000$41 billion
Figure 2Nondefense Discretionary Spending Compared with the Contract with Americaand the 1997 Budget Deal
Source: Authors’ calculations based on House Report 104-120 (May 15, 1995); House Report 105-116 (June 4,1997), p. 20; and Office of Management and Budget,
 Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government,Fiscal Year 2001,
Table 8.1, p. 117.
Fiscal Year
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...