Chat with Chic, May 1, 1985

Chat with Chic A Report from Washington May 1, 1985 By U.S. Senator Chic Hecht The President has appealed to the American people to help him trim the horrendous federal budget. Speaking recently from the Oval office, he pleaded with Americans everywhere to "tell your senators and representatives, by phone, wire or mailgram, that our future hangs in the balance, that this is no time for partisanship." Most of the calls I've received are in support of the White House plan which would trim $52 billion from the nation's deficit of more than $200 billion in 1986 and reduce the deficit to just under $100 billion in 1988. I fully agree with these callers. If ever we are to bring this extravagant spending under control, we all must bite the bullet; we all must be prepared to sacrifice. But where do we start? It seems as though every special interest lobby, both public and private, in Washington is working overtime these days presenting their story to any member of Congress who has the time to listen. Their views are the same: "We must hold the line on spending, but let me tell you why you can't touch my program." It seems the only person not represented full time by a lobbyist is the American taxpayer and therein lies the root of this problem, which, as much as you'd like, simply will not go away. Let me give you an example: The other day, David A. Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) testified before my subcommittee on Housing and Urban Development, outlining some of the reasons why at least one federal program ? Urban Development Action Grants, (UDAG) ? should be terminated. Ghat with Chic, Page 2 Keep in mind that the UDAG program basically was established to provide funds to economically distressed areas, to help restore blighted areas, to help poverty stricken depressed regions and people get back on their feet. But like other well-intentioned programs, changes occurred along the way. Mr. Stockman's reasons for terminating UDAG boiled down to the fact that the program has not effectively helped low income households nor has the program served any clearcut national purpose. And, on evidence I've heard, I agree with him one hundred percent. In fact, he argued, UDAG actually has been channeling resources the wrong way. And he cited these random examples: * Wilmington, DE: December 83. $9.3 million goes to assist in the building of a new office tower for the Chase Manhattan Bank (USA). * Battle Creek, MI: July 83. A $10.5 million UDAG assists the Kellogg Company in constructing its new world headquarters by developing parks and parking, demolishing buildings and realigning streets. * Yabucoa, PR: May 84. $1.2 million in federal dollars go into a resort hotel project which includes assisting the Swiss Resorts Corporation in anchoring a Spanish galleon off the beach to create a swimming area. * Scranton, PA: April 83. A non-profit organization, Montage, Inc. benefits from $2.25 million in federal UDAG funds for building and operating a new ski resort. And so it goes. From an economic viewpoint, these examples may be necessary and worthy investments, responsive to marketplace demands, but there is no conceivable national interest justification for their continued inclusion in a federal budget that is overspending current revenues by more than $200 billion per year and generating increasing economic stress and damage as a consequence. There's a lot of federal fat to trim here in Washington and we must if ever we are to return to fiscal sanity.