THE PORK IN THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN
      By SCOTT A. HODGE
(Wall Street Journal, 23 February 1993)

 Most Americans assume their govern-
ment does at least one thing well: waste
their money. And they are right. Despite
repeated claims of "cutting spending to
the bone." Washington's governing class
has created one deficit after another with
wasteful government programs.
 Last week, however, president Clinton
told the nation that the party is over. Even
his beloved Arkansas, he said, would be
affected by the 150 "specific" deficit-re-
duction measures he was proposing to
Congress.
 The reality, however, is different.
Much of the so-called deficit reduction is
to come from refinancing government
debt, "streamlining" operations, increas-
ing user's fees, and (above all) raising
taxes. For all his talk of austerity, Mr.
Clinton managed to identify just ll pro-
grams out of a $1.5 trillion budget "that
don't work or are no longer needed."
 Mr. Clinton would terminate, among
other programs, the Russia/Eurasia re-
search at the State Department, saving
$29 million; the Tennessee Valley Author-
ity's National Fertilizer Development Cen-
ter, saving $188 million; and nuclear reac-
tor research and development, saving $820
million.
 But he missed the ripest targets. The
useless $100 million Appalachian Regional
Commission, a pet program of Sen.
Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), is merely frozen
at 1993 levels. The $120 million-a-year Na-
tional Helium Reserves-started in 1929 to
provide helium for blimps-is left intact.
So is the $400 million dairy subsidy pro-
gram. (During the early 1980s, this pro-
gram forced dairy farmers to slaughter
1.6 million cows to lower milk production.)
Also untouched are the Agriculture De-
partment's 11,000 field offices, located in
94% of the counties in America even
though only 13% of them are considered
agricultural. And the Interstate Com-
merce Commission lives on, although it is
now virtually obsolete with the deregula-
tion of trucking.
 The administration's aim was better
when it went after a few wasteful agricul-
tural subsidies. Mr. Clinton followed up on
his pledge to eliminate the 40-year-old
honey subsidy program, saving $32 million
over four years. He also proposed eliminat-
ing the Agricultural Research Service's
earmarked grants, saving $54 million. This
program has funded such projects as the
Rice Research Center in Stuttgart. Ark.,
and the Center for Advanced Water Tech-
nology in Savannah. Ga.
 But anyone who watches waste in gov-
ernment will find many programs still
thriving that ought to be cut. At the low
end of the scale, there is the $33 million
Essential Air Service subsidy program
that pays commercial airlines to fly to re-
sorts, such as the Homestead, in Hot
Springs, Va. (a vacation spot for members
of Congress). At the high end, there is the
Conservation Reserve Program that pays
farmers some $2.6 billion a year not to
plant crops.
 Moreover, Mr. Clinton has added pork
of his own, producing $1.34 of new spend-
ing for every dollar "cut." Under the
headings "Stimulus Options" and "In-
vestment Proposals," Mr. Clinton offers
the following:
  $187 million in additional funding for
Amtrak. Though England will soon priva-
tize British Rail, the belief in this country
seems to be that subsidizing Washington
to New York commuters will stimulate the
economy.
  $64 million in funding for "Informa-
tion Highways." Apparently. AT&T and
MCI are not laying fiber-optic cable fast
enough. 
  $148 million to accelerate the Tax
System Modernization program. The effi-
ciency of the Internal Revenue Service is
somehow being correlated with higher
economic growth.
  $165 million in additional funding for
the Small Business Administration. As
long ago as 1963, Life magazine described
the SBA as a "device for soaking up
money and getting rid of it." This is still
true. The Office of Management and Bud-
get estimates that $4 billion of its current
loans will end in default.
 $23 million for environmental pro-
jects. Vice President Gore will have to ex-
plain what these are-the budget package
merely refers to them as unspecified
"green" programs. He will also have to
explain how these environmental "invest-
ments" will boost the economy.
 Mr. Clinton's long-term proposals are
little better:   
  $345 million in spending for "smart
cars/smart highways" research. The
Bush administration foolishly went along
with this one, too, calling it "Intelligent
Vehicle/Highway Systems" research. The
idea is to line highways with computer-
sensitive devices that keep you from wan-
dering off the road, and to monitor traffic
so you can pick a better route. Not exactly
essential "stimulus" or "investment."
  $646 million in additional funding for
high-speed rail and the magnetic levita-
tion train. The floundering airline indus-
try will certainly appreciate the govern-
ment-subsidized competition.
  $246 million for the Tree Planting Ini-
tiative. The Bush administration's goal of
planting a billion trees a year was appar-
ently inadequate.
  $1.15 billion for the Agriculture De-
partment's rural business and community
initiative. The department wrote off some
$8.5 billion in loan losses from the Farmers
Home Administration in the past three
years. What's $1.15 billion more among
friends?
  $69 million for yet more long-term
"green" programs.
 Taxpayers who are inclined to heed
Mr. Clinton's call to "sacrifice" may want
to remember that sacrifice is the last
thing the government in Washington in-
tends to do when it comes to its favorite
projects and programs.
 (Mr. Hodge is a fellow in federal bud-
getary affairs at the Heritage Foundation in
Washington.) 

 