An Agenda for Limited Government; D. Bandow

A majority of those who voted last No vember told pollsters that they wanted the federal government to do less. Which means that our elected leaders, in contrast, have a lot to do. • Cut taxes across the board. People say that they want general rate reductions, not targeted cuts that allow the government to engage in social engineering. Obviously, the usual demagogues would oppose any measure which offered any benefit to anyone who was not poor. But these class warriors must be confronted, and the way to do so is to make the moral case for tax reduction. Yes, lower ing rates would stimulate economic growth, but that is merely a side-benefit. The more fundamental point is that people are paying far too much in taxes. This argument needs to be repeated again and again. It is not right, morally right, to deprive people of over 40 percent of their incomes. They are entitled to keep more of Mr. Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist. He is the author of several books, most recently, Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World.

their earnings. The best and fairest cut would be across the board. How to respond to the charge that the rich would get more back? People would save more onlyif theyarepaying more in the firstplace. Anyway, it is time that public officials laud people who become suc cessful rather than demonize the successful. Washington needs to hold a serious public debate on today's outrageous levels of taxa tion. • Really cut spending. Americans who live outside of Washington may believe that every year Congress and the President seriously debate the budget. Voters read about pro grams being cut, spending being reduced, and safety nets being slashed. Yet, in reality, the politicians are usually arguing about whether government should grow by 3.5 percent or 4.5 percent during the coming year. Outlays in crease even as legislators proclaim that they are making cuts, since reductions are mea sured against a mythical "baseline budget"

that is always rising. And individual programs virtually never disappear. So in this new era of good feelings, let's actually eliminate programs, making it diffi cult for them to grow back. And when poli ticians talk about making cuts, let them really make cuts. Of course, some legislators are skittish about a budget confrontation out of fear of another government shutdown. But federal appropriations are traditionally divided among 13 bills that, when approved on time, allow Congress to make tough decisions with out creating a public relations fiasco. If both 146 parties are genuinely committed to balancing the budget, then surely they can agree to kill such nonessential programs as foreign aid (which, runs the old saw, takes money from poor people in rich countries and gives it to rich people in poor countries), the National Endowment for the Arts (which pays people to slather their bodies in chocolate and stuff vegetables into various body orifices), busi ness subsidy programs (if anyone in America doesn't need welfare, it is big business), and so on.

• Slaughter sacred cows. There has always been an element of truth to left-wing attacks on proposals to "balance the budget on the backs of the poor." Politicians from both parties are more likely to cut traditional welfare than subsidies for groups with greater political clout. Thus, the budget overflows with transfers to the well-to-do. The Coast Guard inspects yachts for free. The National Park System is frequented almost entirely by middle-and upper-class Americans. Whether the National Endowment for the Arts funds opera or pornography, it benefits primarily the rich. A plethora of grant, loan, insurance, and guarantee programs enhance corporate profits. • Unplug the third rail of American poli tics. By the year 2013, at the latest, Social Security will be running in the red. With its faux trust fund filled with Treasury IOUs (the money has been borrowed to fund today's deficit), the system will be ready for Chapter II.

All of the proposals so far advanced by bipartisan panels-changing the cost-of living adjustment, fiddling with benefit for mulas and retirement ages, hiking taxes (of course!), and allowing the government to invest tax revenues in the stock market-are inadequate to "save" Social Security. Leaders committed to really leading would press for full privatization, as quickly as possible. Only when people have control over their own retirement futures will both the federal bud get and individual liberty be safe. • Defund partisan lobbies. If there is any thing that people pledged to bipartisanship should be able to agree on, it is that the government should not underwrite political 147 organizations. Over the years some conserva tive groups have collected grants, many for foreign junkets in the name of promoting democracy abroad. But Uncle Sam has been especially generous to labor unions, pro abortion groups, left-wing organizers, and liberal senior citizen activists. Such groups have a perfect right to be politically involved, but they are not entitled to collect taxpayer dollars. Although such funds are theoretically provided for independent social services, money is fungible and federal grants strengthen such organizations immeasurably.

Congress should also cut cash collected with the de facto assistance of government. The Supreme Court has ruled that labor unions may not use mandatory dues for political purposes, but neither the adminis tration nor Congress has enforced the Beck decision. It is, however, the law of the land. Enforcement is also a matter of basic moral ity. Organized labor has no right to loot members for campaign contributions, espe cially those used on behalf of candidates that many workers oppose. • Move from welfare reform to welfare repeal. Officials are talking about revisiting the changes approved only last year, but the basic problem is government assistance pro grams themselves. Only private charity can meet each recipient's particular needs and speak to the whole person. Unfortunately, however, the always aggressive and imperial istic public sector continues to squeeze out private efforts.

Thus, we need not only to promote charity, but to shrink welfare. Many different kinds of private programs already exist. Their number would explode if government no longer sopped up private funds, assuaged people's natural desire to help those in need, and relieved beneficiaries of responsibility for their own actions. • Educate voters. For years, big govern ment congressional majorities held hearings to make the case for ever new and ever more expensive federal programs. In this new co operative age, Congress should use the pro cess for the opposite purpose. It is time, for instance, to confront attacks on supposed "cuts" in education funding. Congress should 148 THE FREEMAN • MARCH 1997 hold hearings on the limited impact of spend ing on quality; the factors that make schools successful; why private and parochial schools do so much better than public ones; and how centralization of education has reduced pa rental involvement and student achievement.

Similar efforts could be undertaken on the environment, crime, and the like. One hearing is not enough; it should be an ongoing process to publicize arguments, credential scholars, and highlight relevant research. In short, it is an important part of the war of ideas, which continues, despite the widespread belief that classical liberalism has triumphed. Bipartisanship has a nice ring to it, but those of us living outside of the Beltway will benefit only if elected officialswork together to shrink government and protect liberty. It's time that they showed us they really believe the era of big government is over. D 1997 Summer SeminarsAt FEE F or the 35th consecutive summer, FEE will conduct its noted seminars in the freedom philosophy and the economics of a free soci ety. Here, in the company of like-minded individu als, with experienced discussion leaders, and in a setting ideal for the calm exchange of ideas, is an opportunity for those who believe that the proper approach to economic problems is through the study of individual human action. These seminars continue to attract individuals from all walks of life who seek a better under standing of the principles of a free society and are interested in exploring ways of presenting the case more convincingly.

Each seminar will consist of 30 hours of classroom lectures and discussions in economics and government. In addition to the regular FEE staff, there will be a number of distinguished visiting lecturers. The FEE charge for a seminar-tuition, supplies, room and boardis $400. A limited number of fellowships are available. We especially encourage the application of high school and college teachers or administrators, but all are invited. Individuals, companies, and foundations interested in furthering this edu cational enterprise are invited to sponsor students and assist with the financ ing of the fellowship program. The formal announcement giving details of the seminars will be sent immediately on request. First Session: July 13-18, 1997 Second Session: August 10-15, 1997 Write: Seminars, The Foundation for Economic Education, 30 South Broadway, Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533; or Fax: (914) 591-8910.

E-mail: freeman@westnet.com.