July 10, 1975
Page 22108
THE POLITICS OF APATHY
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in Tuesday's Washington Post, columnist Joseph Kraft has provided us with an excellent, if disheartening, analysis of the controversy now going on over additional aid to the Nation's cities.
Noting that State and local governments have gone from a combined surplus of $4 billion in 1972 to a combined deficit of $7.9 billion last year, Mr. Kraft adds:
The reason for this sudden turnabout is not bad management or the greediness of the municipal unions. For better or worse, management performance and union demands have been relatively constant. The sudden plunge comes chiefly from the impact of national economic performance on a small number of major cities. The recession has increased dramatically the services ... these cities are obliged to provide.
In spite of the fiscal weakness of many American cities, Kraft points out, emergency aid for local governments faces strong opposition:
For one thing there is basic national sentiment against more government spending ...
Furthermore, there is a strong prejudice against the cities — particularly those with large minority populations and big welfare problems and strong unions ... Finally a large segment of the country is doing fine.
All this adds up, in Mr. Kraft's words, to "the politics of apathy."
"The United States is prepared to live with very high unemployment because the majority in the country is against special help to the areas of concentrated need. The haves do not want to help the have-nots."
Legislation I have introduced — along with Senator HUMPHREY and Senator BROCK — would provide the kind of assistance that is so badly needed by local governments hard hit by recession. The bill, S. 1359, was endorsed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors today. I am hopeful that the Government Operations Committee will report it out next week.
Mr. Kraft's conclusion is a depressing one. I sincerely hope that he is wrong this time, and that the politics of apathy do not prevail.
I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Kraft's column be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, July 8, 1975]
THE POLITICS OF APATHY
(By Joseph Kraft)
In fairness and in logic, the cities have an almost perfect case for screwing more money out of the federal government. But the funds are almost surely not going to be forthcoming.
The reasons go a long way to explain a central national mystery. That is the mysteryof how the country seems to tolerate with so little protest such a high rate of concentrated unemployment.
The case for the cities begins with the enactment of revenue-sharing in 1972. That year state and city governments in the country had a combined budgetary surplus of $4 billion.
In 1973 the budgets of the cities and states were in balance. Last year they yielded a $7.9 billion deficit. This year they will be in deficit again, even though the states and cities are combining reduced services and increased taxes at a rate of about $8 billion.
The reason for this sudden turnabout is not bad management or the greediness of the municipal unions. For better or worse, management performance and union demands have been relatively constant.
The sudden plunge comes chiefly from the impact of national economic performance on a small number of major cities — New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, San Diego. The recession has increased dramatically the services — notably in welfare — these cities are obliged to provide.
The inflation has kept high the cost of goods (especially fuel) and services they buy. Because they depend on sales and property levies, the cities do not get the bigger sums which go to the federal government in taxes on inflated personal incomes.
But it is not as though the big cities and the states they dominate are the only victims. In the past few years, cities and states have become the prime source of new jobs. Since 1967 employment in state and local governments have grown at twice the rate of all other sectors of the economy.
As a result the recent fiscal weakness of the cities damages the whole national economy. Thus, even as the federal government is pumping out $24 billion to stimulate the economy, the cities and states are raising taxes and cutting services which loses jobs and reduces purchasing. In effect, the cities up against a budgetary wall are forced to take fiscal action that delays the national recovery.
An almost ideal legislative solution to the problem has emerged in the Senate government operations committee. It is called counter-cyclical revenue-sharing. The basic idea is to remit taxes to localities in dire trouble because of the recession. The proposal now coming up to the committee would cost relatively little, would be targeted sharply on the needy, and would phase out as soon as employment began to improve.
The Democratic mayors have made it a priority item. Such Senate heavyweights as Edmund Muskie (D-Maine), and Bill Brock (R-Tenn.), support it. Until even these supporters acknowledge the going is very tough, probably the only way the bill can get through is by some bit of trickery such as the House-Senate conference report, or as part of a public works measure.
For the opposition is very strong. For one thing there is basic national sentiment against more government spending. In that spirit the Ford administration opposes special aid to the cities.
Furthermore, there is a strong prejudice against the cities — particularly those with large minority populations and big welfare problems and strong unions. Thus even Democratic governors of the biggest states — Hugh Carey of New York and Jerry Brown of California — have been loath to identify themselves with special help for the big cities. In Pennsylvania Gov. Milton Shapp won a political victory by holding the line for a 3.5 per cent wage increase despite a strike of state employees.
Finally a large segment of the country is doing fine. Eight primarily agricultural states and a dozen heavy in oil or coal have not suffered so much. They actively oppose any special aid for the cities.
What emerges from all this is the politics of apathy. The United States is prepared to live with very high unemployment because the majority in the country is against special help to the areas of concentrated need. The haves don't want to help the have-nots.