Recovering 1995 Idealism
by Stephen M. Lilienthal

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Chairman of the Repub¬lican Study Committee (RSC), announced his organization’s recent budget proposal by recalling the promise made to the American people by House Republicans after they ended forty years of House Democratic control. “The Contract with America: Renewed” is a balanced budget based upon that which was passed by the House of Representatives in 1995 as part of the “Contract with America.” “That budget passed the House with all but one Republican vote and this budget deserves the same level of support,” he said. Pence was clear that over 100 members of the House GOP clearly want their party to rediscover the spirit of the 1995 revolution.

Republicans have controlled the House for over a decade and the Senate for much of that time. The White House has been in Republican hands for six years. During the last decade Federal Government spending rose by 49% to nearly $2.5 trillion (FY 2005). The debt is now $8.2 trillion, an increase of two-thirds since 1995, when it stood at $4.9 trillion. Pence and the RSC ranking budget expert, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), contend that the failure to constrain spending cannot be blamed on the War on Terrorism and events such as Katrina but “an unwillingness to make choices and tradeoffs.”

The RSC budget is a 75-page document which seeks a balanced budget by FY 2011. There is only one effective way to achieve that goal without harming the economy by increasing taxation – spending must be cut. The RSC budget would do that by eliminating over 150 programs. The RSC budget recommendations, all told, if enacted, would save $358 billion over the next five fiscal years.

Pence has clarified that not every RSC Member endorses every recommendation in the budget but there is a general feeling that the spirit of 1994 must be recaptured. When those elected in 1994 took control of the House and Senate in 1995 they began to reexamine the role of four Cabinet departments and to consider downsizing or eliminating them. The RSC budget proposal now aims at three departments – Education, Commerce and Energy – which, they contend, lack Constitutional authority to operate.

Few Americans remember that many of the House freshmen in 1995 proclaimed an interest in eliminating departments that would be considered wasteful and were operating outside the traditional purview of the Federal Government. One notable survivor is the Department of Education.

Nowhere does the Constitution specify that education of children is to be a Federal Government responsibility. The Tenth Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Education was once recognized solely as a local and state responsibility. Since World War II the Federal role in education consistently has expanded. Pushed by the national teacher unions, the Department of Education was created by Congress twenty-six years ago.

The RSC budget calls for slicing by FY 2011 a number of federally funded programs covering K-12 and higher education, expecting that the elimination of such programs would permit a reduction by almost one-third in the bureaucracy at the Department of Education. If the RSC were to prevail the education programs for Native Hawaiians, Women’s Educational Equity, Ready to Learn Television and support for the University of Hawaii School of Law Center of Excellence in Education in Native Hawaiian Law would be among the budget items slated for elimination.

The RSC budget, if enacted, would move the Republican Party much closer to the spirit expressed in its 1996 GOP Platform, “The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the marketplace. That is why we will abolish the Department of Education.”[Source: Veronique de Rugy & Marie Gryphon. “Elimination Lost: What Happened to Abolishing the Department of Education?” Cato Institute, February 11, 2004.]

America rose to preeminence as an innovative and dynamic country without a Department of Education. Qualified and committed teachers in classrooms who knew their subjects made the difference, as did children who wanted to learn and parents who wanted them to learn, encouraged by local community leaders. More commitment at the local level, not more money from Washington and top-down regulators, would make a real difference in ensuring our country’s competitiveness in a highly competitive world.

RSC budget also proposes long-overdue and significant reductions at the Commerce Department. When Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) addressed the Heritage Foundation on “Downsizing Government: Eliminate the Department of Education” on July 26, 1995, he quoted former Secretary of Commerce Robert A. Mosbacher, Sr., who derisively called the Department “nothing more than a hall closet where you throw in everything that you don’t know what to do with…” Nothing much has changed.

Dr. Edward L. Hudgins, Director of Regulatory Studies at the CATO Institute, testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on August 1, 1995 about “The Future of the Commerce Department.” He argued that only two functions of the Commerce Department were allowed by the Constitution: 1) the census; 2) patent protection. Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to regulate commerce among the States. However, Hudgins and many other scholars believe that the purpose of that conferral of authority was to eliminate trade barriers between States, not, as has developed, to enable the Department of Commerce expansively to issue grants.

The RSC budget calls for zeroing out the Travel and Tourism Program, “Not a priority of the federal government.” It is not a Constitutional function to invite people of other lands to “see the USA;” many other entities – airlines, hotels, State and local governments with tourist attractions – do exactly that. The same reasoning holds for the call to eliminate funding the International Trade Administration Trade Promotion program. Private industry and trade associations are better able to promote exports rather than bureaucrats huddled at the Department of Commerce.

Other Commerce programs to be slashed are those of Advanced Technology, which operates public-private ventures in new technologies. RSC asserts that despite a title that invites high expectation, “the ATP has a poor record of selecting promising projects that are not duplicative of existing efforts and distorting the allocation of research dollars and displacing private investment. It has also fostered industry dependency” because companies invest money in projects they would otherwise avoid due to their iffy nature. The Baldridge National Quality program is another slated for elimination. Its awards recognize businesses for what they are supposed to do – compete effectively.

Slashing programs at Commerce does not mean our country’s goods-producing, job-creating economic engine would halt. American industry is too strong. Rather, it means that more money would not be dissipated through a wasteful and inefficient bureaucracy which operates superfluous programs contributing little to our economy.

The third department to undergo a thorough scrubbing in the RSC budget is Energy. Many Americans may question how wise it would be to slice these expenditures when our country faces mounting energy prices. The same question was asked in 1995 when energy prices were more stable but the answer is the same. Jerry Taylor, Director of Natural Resource Studies at the CATO Institute, delivered the following comments to the House Subcommittee on Government Reform and Oversight on May 16, 1995:

“No one can seriously argue that, were it not for the DOE, the energy industry would be flying blind in the marketplace. Nor can anyone seriously argue, were it not for government subsidy, private corporations would cease to invest in technological research. … does anybody seriously contend that government bureaucrats know better than businessmen or consumers how to do anything more efficiently? The proper mix of energy sources is best determined by entrepreneurs directed by market prices.”

The RSC proposed budget takes aim at many other programs of these three departments and many others outside their purview – some actually favored in principle by the Free Congress Foundation. Thirty-four House Members, as of March 15, 2006, have signed on as co-sponsors of the RSC budget, evidence that many House members realize that the Federal Government must trim its spending now to prevent major problems later. The RSC budget would not change Social Security, a traditional election-year hobgoblin wielded against conservative candidates.

Future generations of Americans will be presented with a bill run up by our generation. More than that, many of the programs included in the RSC budget neither are merited constitutionally nor do they deliver a strong return on investment. Many Americans have been disheartened in recent years as they have witnessed government spending spiraling upwards and conservatives in Congress unwilling to mount a concerted effort to curtail it. RSC has come forward with a budget that advances goals worth achieving because it takes a long-term view, recognizing the need of Americans to earn more and keep more.

Stephen M. Lilienthal is a policy analyst at the Free Congress Foundation.

Email the Editor