Archive
_________________________________________________________________________________
Document Name: Chapter 4-- Cutting Back to Basics Part I
Date: 09/07/94
Owner: National Performance Review
_________________________________________________________________________________
Title:Chapter 4-- Cutting Back to Basics Part I
Author: Vice President Albert Gore's National Performance Review
Date:7 September 1993 10:00:00 EST
Content-Type: text/ascii charset=US ASCII
Content-Length: 97826
Chapter 4
Cutting Back to Basics
***********************************
I feel like that person in the old movie who
writes in lipstick on bathroom mirrors, "Stop me before I kill
again." However, in my case, the legend should be, "Stop me
before I steal some more."
Letter from Bruce Bair of Schoenchen, Kansas, to Vice
President Al Gore, May 24, 1993
***********************************
Bruce Bair admitted to "stealing" from the federal
government--at a rate of about $11 an hour. His job was checking
the weather in Russell, Kansas, every hour, and reporting to the
Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA used his information to
warn planes in the area about bad weather. But Russell isn't a
busy flight station any more. Bair saw just two landings in more
than a year during his night shift. Days were only slightly
busier. Before the advent of automated weather gathering devices,
human weather watchers at Russell and at other small stations
throughout the Midwest were vital for aircraft safety. Today,
they could be replaced with machines. "From my experience with
the machine," wrote Bair, "it is very adequate to protect the air
space over Russell." In fact, Russell has had a machine for some
time, but the FAA had not yet eliminated the human staff.
Bair concluded his letter to Vice President Gore with these
words: "I feel there is very little doubt among professionals
that we are basically useless here." A few months later, he quit.
Now he says, "I'm no longer stealing from the government."1
Bruce Bair's story tells us much about our federal
government: its entrenchment in old ways, its reluctance to
question
procedures, and its resistance to change. Its inflexibility has
preserved scores of obsolete programs. This is not news to most
of us--obsolescence is part of our stereotype of government.
Why is it so difficult to close unneeded programs? Because
those who benefit from them fight to keep them alive. While the
savings from killing a program may be large, they are spread over
many taxpayers. In contrast, the benefits of keeping the program
are concentrated in a few hands. So special interests often
prevail over the general interest.
That's why we can't eliminate unnecessary programs simply by
making lists. Politicians, task forces, commissions, and
newspaper articles have been ridiculing wasteful programs for as
long as we have enjoyed democratic government. But most programs
survive attack. After a decade of tight budget talk, for example,
federal budget expert Allen Schick says he can identify just
three major nondefense programs eliminated since 1980: general
revenue sharing, urban development action grants, and the fast
breeder reactor program.2
To shut down programs, therefore, we must change the
underlying culture of government. As we described in the
preceding chapters, we will do this by introducing market
dynamics, sharing savings from cuts with agencies, exposing
unnecessary programs to the spotlight of annual performance
measures, and giving customers the power to reject what they do
not need. As government begins operating under these new rules,
we are confident that agencies will request the consolidation and
elimination of programs. Billions of dollars will be returned to
taxpayers or passed on to customers.
We will begin this process today:
First, we will eliminate programs we do not need--the
obsolete, the duplicative, and those that serve special, not
national interests.
Second, we will collect more--through imposing or increasing
user fees where pricing makes economic sense, and by collecting
what the government is owed in delinquent debt or fraudulent
overpayment of benefits.
Third, we will reengineer government activities, making full
use of computer systems and telecommunications to revolutionize
how we deliver services.
The actions and recommendations described in this Chapter
are the first dividend on what we can earn from streamlining
government. They won't be the last--or even the largest. The
strategy of the National Performance Review differs from that of
previous budget cutting efforts. Our recommendations have been
discussed thoroughly with agency heads to determine which cuts
are warranted, feasible, and can be done quickly. We are ready to
act with the full force of the cabinet.
Step 1: Eliminate What We Don't Need
After World War II, a British commission on modernizing
government discovered that the civil service was paying a
full-time worker to light bonfires along the Dover cliffs if a
Spanish Armada was sighted. The last Spanish Armada had been
defeated some years before--in 1588, to be precise.
This story may be apocryphal. But not all such stories are.
In Brooklyn, New York, there is a Federal Tea Room where a
federal employee sips imported tea to test its quality.3 For one
hundred years, taxpayers paid for the position. It was not until
press coverage angered enough members of Congress that things
were changed: now, tea importers pay to have their tea
tested--although the taster remains a government employee.
These stories capture an essential truth about governments;
they rarely abandon anything. Like the FAA that employed Bruce
Bair to check the weather, federal agencies do many things not
because they make sense, but because they have always been done
that way. They become like the furniture: They are simply there.
Other programs are not so much obsolete as duplicative. When
confronted with new problems, we instinctively create new
programs. But we seldom eliminate the old programs that have
failed us in the first place. Still other programs were never
needed in the first place. They were created to benefit
influential industries or interest groups. The National
Performance Review has targeted several programs in each of these
categories for immediate elimination.
Although we make specific recommendations in the pages that
follow, we believe the government must tackle the problem
systematically. The single best method would be to give the
President greater power to eliminate pork that creeps into
federal budgets.
Action: Give the President greater power to cut items from
spending bills.4
Today, the President's powers to cut spending are
limited--more limited than most of the nation's fifty governors.
He can either sign or veto appropriations bills; he can't veto
individual items--a power most governors have. For the President
to cut wasteful spending, he needs the power of what is called,
in Washington, "expedited rescission." Under current law, the
President can submit proposed rescissions to Congress, which then
has 45 legislative days to act. If Congress does not act,
proposals are rejected. The President should have greater
authority to reject individual items.
Broader rescission powers were envisioned in HR 1578, which
the House passed in late April 1993. This bill would force
Congress to vote on the President's proposals to cancel funding,
rather than let it kill those requests by ignoring them, as under
current procedures. If enacted, the new procedure would, as
President Clinton wrote in a letter to House Speaker Thomas S.
Foley, "provide an effective means for curbing unnecessary or
inappropriate expenditures without blocking enactment of critical
appropriations bills."
Eliminate the Obsolete
Not all employees of useless programs act with Bruce Bair's
forthrightness. But that doesn't mean their offices or programs
are any more useful. The vast nationwide network of 30,000
federal government offices, for example, reflects an era when
America was a rural country and the word "telecommunications" was
not yet in the dictionary. While circumstances have changed, the
government hasn't. As a result, workloads are unevenly
distributed--some field offices are underworked, others are
overworked, some are located too far from their customers to
serve them well, and few are connected to customers through
modern communications systems.
Action: Within 18 months, the President's Management Council will
review and submit to Congress a report on closing and
consolidating federal civilian facilities.5
All agencies will develop strategies to cut back or
consolidate their field office systems in ways that are
compatible with our principle of better services to customers.
The President's Management Council will submit the report to
Congress within 18 months showing which offices may be closed,
which can be
consolidated and which can be slimmed. We urge Congress to act
quickly on this package.
*******************************
This is a precious opportunity to make fundamental change in
government. I look forward to working together on areas of mutual
agreement.
U.S. Rep. William F. Clinger (R. Penn.)
*******************************
We are confident that the savings will be large because
several agencies are already committed to far-reaching reforms in
their field office systems. Their efforts will be models for
those that haven't moved as quickly as they prepare their plans
for the President's Management Council.
Action: The Department of Agriculture will close or consolidate
1,200 field offices.6
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) operates the most
elaborate and extensive set of field offices--more than 12,000
across the country. Under Secretary Mike Espy's leadership, the
department is planning dramatic reforms. USDA runs 250 programs
in such vital but diverse areas as farm productivity, nutrition,
food safety, and conservation. Its focus has shifted dramatically
since the 1930s, when its present structure evolved: 60 percent
of its budget now deals with nutrition; less than 30 percent with
agriculture.
As the basis for reorganization, USDA will concentrate its
activities on six key functions: commodity programs, rural
development, nutrition, conservation, food quality, and research.
This focus will allow it to consolidate from 42 to 30 agencies
and from 14 to six support staffs, cutting administrative costs
by more than $200 million over five years.
As part of this process, USDA will consolidate or close
about 1,200 field offices within the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service, the Soil Conservation Service, the
Farmers Home Administration, the Cooperative Extension System,
and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Some of these offices
now serve suburban counties, others have few rural customers
left. In 1991, the General Accounting Office reported that in
Gregg County, Texas, the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service office served only 15 farmers; in Douglass
County, Georgia, two USDA programs served a total of 17 farmers.7
Field office closings will be determined by a six-part
scoring system developed to evaluate each office. Once in place,
this restructuring will save more than $1.6 billion over five
years and eliminate the equivalent of 7,500 full time employees.
Customers will be better served because operations will be
combined in multi-purpose USDA field service offices.
Action: The Department of Housing and Urban Development will
streamline its regional office system.8
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
also developed a strategy to close offices without cutting
customer services. Roughly 10,000 of HUD's 13,500 employees work
in field offices, but their workloads vary: the New York regional
office monitors 238,000 federal public housing units, the Seattle
office only 30,000 units. Management restructuring, described in
the previous chapter, will streamline HUD's field operations.9
Under a five-year plan, HUD will eliminate all regional offices,
pare down its 80-field office system, and cut its field staff by
1,500 people.
Action: The Department of Energy will consolidate and redirect
the mission of its laboratories, production, and testing
facilities to meet post-Cold War national priorities.10
For the first time in 50 years, the United States is not
engaged in producing or testing nuclear weapons. Significant
reductions in funding for these programs are already
underway--$1.25 billion in fiscal year 1994 alone. Yet, the
Department of Energy's weapons laboratories and production plants
represent an irreplaceable investment in world-class research and
development, intellectual, and computing capabilities, carefully
cultivated over five decades. As the department redirects its
facilities, the challenge is to eliminate unnecessary activities,
while shifting appropriate resources to meet non-defense
objectives.
Under Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary's leadership, DOE
will review its labs, weapons production facilities, and testing
sites in the context of its mission--and will recommend the
phased consolidation or closure of obsolete or redundant
facilities. The secretary will also identify facilities that
other government agencies may find useful, encourage laboratory
managers to bid on contracts with other agencies, and increase
cooperation with the private sector.
Action: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will reduce the number
of regional offices.11
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, too, has a plan: it will
cut its divisional offices from 11 to 6. It cannot, however,
close district offices because Congress prevented such actions by
law--an example of costly congressional micro-managing. The Corps
has carried out the nation's largest civil works projects. But
its role is changing: Fewer large projects, more complex
environmental projects.
Action: The Small Business Administration will reduce the number
of field offices and consolidate services.12
The Small Business Administration is developing criteria for
consolidating field offices based on the customer load. It has
already demonstrated in pilot programs how to cut local office
staff by providing routine loan servicing for several local SBA
offices and by adopting automated procedures for processing
applications for the agency's many different loan programs.
Action: The U.S. Agency for International Development will reduce
the number of its overseas missions.13
With the dramatic changes in U.S. foreign policy, agencies
with overseas operations are rethinking their responsibilities.
J. Brian Atwood, administrator for the U.S. Agency for
International Development (AID), believes the number of countries
in which his agency operates missions can be cut from 105 to
perhaps 50. Cuts will be made in the number of missions in
developed countries so that the agency's efforts can focus on
those nations that can't absorb or manage assistance or on truly
underdeveloped countries.
Action: The United States Information Agency will cut the number
of libraries and reference centers it pays for overseas.14
Savings are also possible in overseas facilities maintained
by the United States Information Agency. USIA maintains libraries
and other facilities in many developed countries, as well as in
emerging countries. While facilities in the latter are often
crowded, those in developed countries attract few customers: In
Canada, for example, a USIA library attracted only 568 walk-in
visitors in a year. Eliminating some of these facilities or
turning them over to their host countries could save an estimated
$51.5 million through 1999.15
**********************************
We'll challenge the basic assumptions of every program,
asking does it work, does it provide quality service, does it
encourage innovation and reward hard work. If the answer is no,
or it there's a better way to do it or if there's something that
the federal government is doing, it should simply stop doing,
we'll try to make the changes needed."
President Bill Clinton
Announcement of initiative to streamline government March 3, 1993
********************************
Action: The Department of State will reduce by 11 the number of
Marine Guard detachments it employs.16
By consolidating the storage of top secret documents in
overseas missions, the Department of State can reduce the need
for Marine Guard detachments. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security
has identified 11 posts where the Marine Security Guard program
could be eliminated simply by moving documents to other places.
Action: Pass legislation to allow the sale of the Alaska Power
Administration.17
The federal government once played a crucial role in
financing, developing and operating the Alaska Power
Administration (APA). No longer. APA was created to encourage
economic development in Alaska by making low-cost hydro-power
available to industry and to residential customers. The project
has succeeded and can now be turned over to local ownership.
The federal government retains four other Power Marketing
Administrations (PMAs) which own hydropower facilities and sell
the power they generate to public, private, and cooperative
utilities at cost. These PMAs serve customers spread throughout
many states, so the facilities cannot easily be sold to a local
entity. APA, on the other hand, is unique: Its facilities and
customers are located in a single state. Various public agencies
have already urged the federal government to sell the APA
facilities. APA signed purchase agreements to do so before 1993.
The sale is supported by state and local officials, Alaska's
congressional delegation, the Energy Department, the Office of
Management and Budget and the House Appropriations Committee. But
Congress has yet to pass the necessary authorizing legislation.
We urge it to do so. The sale would bring $52.5 million into the
U.S. Treasury and save millions more in yearly operating costs.
Action: Terminate federal grant funding for Federal Aviation
Administration higher education programs.18
Success has rendered two FAA federal subsidies obsolete.
They have met the objectives for which they were established and
can now be terminated. For example, in 1982, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) launched a program to improve the
development and teaching of aviation curricula at universities
and other post-secondary schools. The goal was to produce
graduates better prepared for jobs in the industry.
So far, the FAA has spent about $4 million on consultants to
upgrade schools' programs and another $100 million was
appropriated--most at Congress' insistence not at FAA's
request--to be given out in grants so that the schools could buy
better facilities and equipment. Many schools now offer high
quality aviation training programs without support from the FAA.
Since $45 million of the appropriation remains unspent, stopping
the program now can save this money.
Another program we no longer need is the Collegiate Training
Initiative for Air Traffic Controllers. It was set up to
determine whether other institutions could offer the same quality
training for controllers as the FAA Academy does. If they could,
it would save the government the $20,000 it costs to train each
new controller at the academy. The answer is clearly yes. Five
schools participating in the program are producing well-qualified
controllers, although only two are receiving government
subsidies. It is now time to phase out these remaining subsidies.
Action: Close the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences.19
The Department of Defense once faced shortages of medical
personnel, particularly of physicians. So, in 1972, Congress
created the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
(USUHS). Today, USUHS provides less than 10 percent of the
services' physicians at a cost much higher than other programs:
USUHS physicians cost the federal government $562,000 each, while
subsidies under the Health Professionals Scholarship Program cost
only $111,000 per physician. Closing the facility and relying on
the scholarship program and volunteers would save DOD $300
million over five years.
Action: Suspend the acquisition of new federal office space.20
Over the next 5 years, the federal government is slated to spend
more than $800 million a year acquiring new federal office space
and courthouses. Under current conditions, however, those
acquisitions don't make sense.
The federal workforce is being reduced, the Resolution Trust
Corporation is disposing of real estate once held by failed
savings and loans at 10 to 50 cents on the dollar, commercial
office vacancy rates are running in the 10 to 25 percent range,
and U.S. military bases are being closed. All of these factors
suggest that the government has many potential sources for office
space without buying any more buildings.
The GSA administrator will place an immediate hold on GSA's
acquisition--through construction, purchase, or lease--of net new
office space. The administrator will begin aggressive
negotiations for existing and new leases to further reduce costs.
And GSA will reevaluate and reduce the costs of new courthouse
construction. These actions should save at least $2 billion over
the next 5 years.
Eliminate Duplication
Government programs accumulate like coral reefs--the slow
and unplanned accretion of tens of thousands of ideas,
legislative actions, and administrative initiatives. But, as a
participant at the Vice President's HUD meeting told us, "There
isn't always a rational basis for the way we are set up in this
organization. Over the years, branches have developed; they have
been taken over by divisions; and we don't look at the
organization as a whole." Now we must clear our way through these
reefs.
The National Performance Review has looked at government as
a whole. We have identified many areas of duplication. What
follow are recommendations for the first round of cuts and
consolidations.
Action: Eliminate the President's Intelligence Oversight Board.21
No branch of government--including the Executive Office of
the President--is free of duplication. We will begin the
streamlining process in the EOP, where there are two groups
intended to oversee intelligence--tripping over each other and
allowing some issues to fall through jurisdictional cracks. The
President, by directive, should terminate the President's
Intelligence Oversight Board and assign its functions to a
standing committee of the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board.
Action: Consolidate training programs for unemployed people.22
Government's response to changing circumstance often creates
duplication. As the economy has evolved, for example, we have
created at least four major programs to help laid-off workers:
the Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act
(EDWAA), which spends $517 million annually for those who lose
their jobs through plant closings or major layoffs; the Trade
Adjustment Assistance program (TAA), which distributes $170
million through State Employment Security Agencies for those who
lose jobs due to increased imports; the Defense Conversion
Adjustment program, which dispenses $150 million for those
unemployed because of defense cuts; and a program that allocates
$50 million for those unemployed due to the enforcement of new
clean air standards. Even more programs are in the pipeline.
But multiple programs aimed at common goals don't work well.
Administrative overhead is doubled and services suffer. Because
each training program is intended to help people rendered jobless
for different reasons, people seeking work must wait for help
until the government determines which program they are eligible
for. The process is slow. The General Accounting Office estimates
that less than one-tenth of TAA-eligible workers receive any
benefits within 15 weeks of losing their jobs, for example.23
The unemployed care less about why they lost their jobs than
about enrolling in training programs or finding other jobs. Labor
Secretary Robert Reich is proposing legislative changes to
consolidate programs for workers who lose their jobs, regardless
of the cause. His bill would also allow more funds to be used
before workers lose their jobs. In Chapter 1, we recommend the
consolidation of 20 education, employment, and training programs.
We urge Congress to support both initiatives.
Action: Consolidate the Veterans' Employment and Training Service
and the Food Stamp Training Program into the Employment and
Training Administration.24
Several training programs offer similar services through the same
offices--sometimes even using the same employees--but requiring
separate management and reporting systems. We can cut bureaucracy
and paperwork while improving services to the customer by merging
these programs.
Consider the case of the Veterans' Employment and Training
Service (VETS) in the Department of Labor (DOL). Another
operation in DOL, the Employment and Training Administration
(ETA), funds local Employment Services, which, in turn, house
staff dedicated to providing veterans with advice on training
programs. But these staff are legally prohibited from serving
non-veterans. So, if a local office is crowded with non-veterans,
these specialists cannot help out--even if they have no veterans
to serve. Moving VETS into the ETA will generate much greater
efficiency in the use of staff, leading to shorter lines and
better service.
We also recommend moving the Food Stamp Training Program
into the ETA. Most training under the program is already
performed under contract by ETA staff, by the Employment Service,
or by local education institutions. Overall, ETA can offer poor
people a much more comprehensive range of job-search and training
services than can the Food Stamp Training Program.
Action: Reduce the number of Department of Education programs
from 230 to 189.25
The nation's concern with education has led to an explosion
of programs at all levels of government. The Education Department
now funds 230 programs, many of which overlap. Since many are
grants to state and local governments, we face duplication in
triplicate--multiple administrative systems at all levels of
government.
Of these 230 programs, 160 will award money through 245
different national competitions this year. The cumbersome
administrative systems divert money from activities more central
to the department's mission. These programs should be reduced in
number and their procedures streamlined.
The department has begun reforming and streamlining
programs, particularly those under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. This will make it easier for schools to get the
money without jumping through so many bureaucratic hoops. We
propose to eliminate and consolidate more programs that have
served their original purpose or would be more appropriately
funded through non-federal sources. The savings, as much as $515
million over 6 years, can be better used for other departmental
priorities. For example:
-- The department administers two programs--the National
Academy of Space, Science, and Technology program and the
National Science Scholars program--that give scholarships to
post-secondary math, science, and engineering students. These two
should be combined.
-- State Student Incentives Grants were created to encourage
states to develop needs-based student aid programs. Since all
states now have their own programs, the federal program is no
longer needed.
-- The Research Libraries' program funds research libraries
to build their collections. University endowments could and
should support these efforts, without federal subsidy.
Action: Eliminate the Food Safety and Inspection Service as a
separate agency by consolidating all food safety responsibilities
under the Food and Drug Administration.26
Sometimes duplication among federal programs can make us
ill--even kill us. Take the way we inspect food for
contamination. Several agencies are involved, each operating
under separate legislation, with different standards, and with
staff trained in different procedures. In 1992, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)--part of the Department of Health and Human
Services--devoted about 255 staff years to inspecting 53,000 food
stores, while the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)--part
of the Department of Agriculture--devoted 9,000 staff years to
inspecting 6,100 food processing plants.
But this duplication doesn't mean that we cover all sources
of contamination thoroughly. Meat and poultry products must be
inspected daily, while shellfish, which have the same risk of
causing food borne illness, are not required by law to be
federally inspected. Too many items fall through the bureaucratic
cracks. Not only that, enforcement powers vary among the
different agencies. If the FDA finds unsanitary plant conditions
or contaminated products, compliance is usually voluntary because
the agency lacks FSIS's powers to close plants or seize or detain
suspect or known contaminated products. And if one agency refers
a problem to another, follow up is at best slow and at worst
ignored.27
With no fewer than 21 agencies engaged in research on food
safety, often duplicating each other's efforts, we aren't
progressing fast enough in understanding and overcoming
life-threatening illness. As recent and fatal outbreaks of
food-borne illness attest, multiple agencies aren't adequately
protecting Americans.
Under our recommended streamlining, the FDA would handle all
food safety regulations and inspection, spanning the work of the
many different agencies now involved. The new FDA would have the
power to require all food processing plants to identify the
danger points in their processes on which safety inspections
would focus. Where and how inspections are carried out, not the
number or frequency of inspections, determines the efficiency of
the system.
The FDA would also develop rigorous, scientifically based
systems for conducting inspections. Today, we rely, primarily, on
inspection by touch, sight, and smell. Modern technology allows
more reliable methods. We should employ the full power of modern
technology to detect the presence of microbes, giving Americans
the best possible protection. Wherever possible, reporting should
be automated so that high-risk foods and high-risk food
processors can be found quickly. Enforcement powers should be
uniform for all types of foods, with incentives built in to
reward businesses with strong safety records.
Action: Consolidate non-military international broadcasting.28
The U.S. government funds several overseas broadcasting
services--including those operated by the United States
Information Agency's Bureau of Broadcasting, which accounts for
one-third of the agency's $1.2 billion budget, and services such
as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which have budgets
totalling $220 million a year. All non-military international
broadcasting services should be consolidated under the USIA. Part
of this was propsed in the President's budget request for fiscal
year 1994.
Action: Create a single civilian polar satellite system.29
Collecting temperature, moisture, and other weather and
environmental information from polar satellites is a vital task,
both for weather forecasting and for global climate studies. But
we have two different systems, one run by the Department of
Defense and the other by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. On top of this, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration is planning a third. Over the next ten years
these three systems will cost taxpayers about $6 billion.
Congress should enact legislation requiring these agencies to
consolidate their efforts into a single system, saving as much as
$1.3 billion over the same period.
Action: Transfer the functions of the Railroad Retirement
Benefits Board to other agencies.30
The government can operate with fewer pension management
systems. In 1934, Congress set up the Railroad Retirement Board
to protect railroad workers in the face of financial problems, to
allow workers to transfer among railroads, and to encourage early
retirement to create jobs for the millions of younger workers. In
those days, the huge national public pension system, Social
Security, was not yet in place; neither were the state-federal
unemployment insurance systems nor Medicare.
Today, it makes no sense for a separate agency to administer
benefits for a single industry. Social Security Administration
can administer social security benefits for railroad workers as
it administers them for everyone else; unemployment insurance
systems can serve unemployed railroad workers as well as it
serves other unemployed people; and the Health Care Financing
Administration can incorporate railroad workers' health care
benefits into the Medicare system.31
Action: Transfer law enforcement functions of the Drug
Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.32
More than 140 federal agencies are responsible for enforcing
4,100 federal criminal laws. Most federal crimes involve
violations of several laws and fall under the jurisdiction of
several agencies; a drug case may involve violations of
financial, firearms, immigration and customs laws, as well as
drug statutes. Unfortunately, too many cooks spoil the broth.
Agencies squabble over turf, fail to cooperate, or delay matters
while attempting to agree on common policies.
The first step in consolidating law enforcement efforts will
be major structural changes to integrate drug enforcement efforts
of the DEA and FBI. This will create savings in administrative
and support functions such as laboratories, legal services,
training facilities, and administration. Most important, the
federal government will get a much more powerful weapon in its
fight against crime.
When this has been successfully accomplished, we will move
toward combining the enforcement functions of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) into the FBI and merge
BATF's regulatory and revenue functions into the IRS. BATF was
originally created as a revenue collection agency but, as the war
on drugs escalated, it was drafted into the law enforcement
business. We believe that war would be waged most successfully
under the auspices of a single federal agency.
Eliminate Special Interest Privileges
Some programs were never needed. They exist only because
powerful special interest groups succeeded in pushing them
through Congress. Claiming to pursue national objectives,
Congress, at times, funds programs that guarantee profits to
specific industries by restricting imports, raising prices, or
paying direct and unnecessary subsidies.
Special interest groups come in all shapes and sizes and
their privileges are as diverse. Producers of crops, residents of
certain areas, and holders of some occupations have all succeeded
in persuading Congress that their needs are special and their
claim on special treatment is deserving.
Action: Eliminate federal support payments for wool and mohair.33
During World War II and the Korean conflict, the U.S. was
forced to import about half the wool needed for military
uniforms. To cut dependence on foreign suppliers, Congress in
1954 passed the National Wool Act, providing direct payments to
American wool producers. The more wool a producer sold, the
greater the
government subsidy. In 1960, the Pentagon removed wool from its
list of strategic materials. But the Wool Act remained in
effect--a tribute to adept lobbying.
Between 1994 and 1999, wool subsidies will cost an estimated
$923 million. About half the payments will go to ranchers who
raise Angora goats for mohair--a product that is 80 percent
exported. So American taxpayers will subsidize the price of
mohair sweaters overseas! In some years, subsidies provide more
income than sales. The 1990 mohair checks, for example, totalled
$3.87 for every dollar's worth of mohair sold.
Today, about half the beneficiaries receive only $44 a year
each. But the top one percent of sheep raisers capture a quarter
of the money--nearly $100,000 each. The national interest does
not require this program. It provides an unnecessary subsidy for
the wealthy.
Action: Eliminate federal price supports for honey.34
World War II also brought us federal subsidies for honey
production. During the war, honey was declared essential because
the military used bees' wax to wrap ammunition, and citizens
replaced rationed sugar with honey. When honey prices dropped
after the war, the federal government began subsidizing honey
production.
The program was intended to be temporary--to last until
there were enough honeybees available for pollination. But more
than 40 years later, every bee keeper in the U.S. is eligible for
federal loans. In 1992, the federal government paid 7 cents a
pound more to borrow money than it charged bee keepers. Taxpayers
paid the difference. If it were to scrap the program, Congress
would save taxpayers $15 million over the next six years.
Action: Rescind all unobligated contract authority and
appropriations for existing highway demonstration projects.35
The practice of directing federal highway funds toward
spending on specific demonstration projects--and away from
regular state-level allocations--is increasing. This is not, for
several reasons, a good trend.
In 1991, the General Accounting Office (GAO) examined the
contributions of demonstration projects--which range from paving
a gravel road to building a multi-lane highway--to the nation's
overall highway needs. Looking specifically at the $1.3 billion
authorized to fund 152 projects under the 1987 Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act, GAO
found that "most of the projects...did not respond to states' and
regions' most critical federal-aid needs." Indeed, in more than
half the cases, the projects weren't even included in regional
and state plan--typically because officials believed the projects
would provide only limited benefits. GAO also discovered that 10
projects--worth $31 million in demonstration funds--were for
local roads not even entitled to receive federal highway funding.
In other words, many highway demonstration projects are little
more than federal pork.