September 18, 1978
Page 29794
SUNSET LEGISLATION
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, tomorrow, I intend to introduce an amendment to S. 2, the sunset legislation I have proposed, in the nature of a substitute for the bill as reported by the Committee on Rules and Administration earlier this year. The substitute, which has been agreed upon in cooperation with the majority leader, represents our best effort so far in refining the sunset idea to fit the way Congress works.
As many of my colleagues know, we have been working on the sunset legislation for almost3 years. During this time, sunset has been the subject of much editorial commentary, both in the national media and in local newspapers throughout the country.
In almost every case, the comments have been favorable. And in one editorial after another, the reasons given for supporting sunset are the same: the critical need to provide the American taxpayer with a more effective return on the tax dollars he pays.
I find this display of editorial support gratifying, because we have worked so long and hard on this bill. I ask that a selection of these articles be printed in the RECORD at this point.
The material follows:
[From the Miami Herald, Aug. 1, 1978]
WARM GLOW TOR THE SUNSET LAW
For at least a decade, voters have been sending a message that they're exasperated with the unbridled growth of bureaucracy at all levels of government.
First the message reached the capitals of the states. In 28 of them — including Florida — legislators responded by enacting some form of "sunset law" to terminate programs and agencies that have outlived their usefulness.
Now the voters' message has finally reached that Mecca of bureaucracy, Washington, D.C. There, debate is expected to begin soon on sunset legislation that has been languishing around Congress in one form or another for several years.
Sponsored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Edmund Muskie and others, the bill known as S2 would force Congress to conduct periodic reviews of Federal agencies and programs.
At present, half of all Federal programs have no expiration date. And as Senator Muskie points out, "Support for re-examining them simply does not exist. Every agency, committee, and lobby wants its own program to not only continue but grow."
Senator Muskie's bill would place most agencies and programs on a 10-year cycle of review whereby they would be terminated unless Congress were persuaded to extend them. Duplication of federal efforts would also be attacked because programs would be grouped for review according to their function.
Cosponsoring Sen. William Roth points out, for example, that "to handle water pollution research and development, Congress has created 25 bureaus in 14 different departments or independent agencies."
So congressional action setting up machinery to review Federal programs is badly needed to eliminate duplication as well as to terminate programs which no longer serve any purpose.
The public's present mood makes such a bill timely. And the Carter Administration's professed interest in reducing bureaucracy impels its cooperation should the bill pass. Moreover, the brief experience of states with sunset laws proves they can work whether or not the executive branch is cooperative.
Nevertheless, Senator Muskie's proposed bill faces an uncertain fate. As Common Cause points out, the bill is opposed by some powerful committee chairmen who have developed a cozy relationship with the Federal agencies within their jurisdiction and with the special interests associated with them.
The question, then, is no longer whether the voters' message to do something about bureaucracy has reached Washington: it has, loud and clear. Yet to be determined is whether Congress will respond.
[From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 18, 1976]
MUSCLE-BOUND — AND FAT-BOUND
Sen. Edmund S. Muskie (D-Me.) has come up with the refreshing idea that the best way to restore public faith in government is to weed out federal programs that, however well- intentioned, aren't working well enough to earn their keep. More refreshing still, he has gone beyond easy rhetoric to offer a practical means of achieving this result.
Legislation introduced by Muskie early this month would require virtually every federal program to be reviewed by Congress every four years to determine if it should be continued — and, if so, at what level of spending. Those failing to win reauthorization would expire.
The only spending programs exempt from the automatic quadrennial review would be interest payments on the national debt and programs, such as Social Security, under which individuals make payments to the national government in the expectation of later compensation.
Because Muskie's proposal calls for fundamental changes in the psychological atmosphere in Washington, as well as in actual procedures, it is likely to encounter stiff resistance.
But it strikes us as one of the most sensible ideas to come along in years.
The way the political system now operates, members of Congress concentrate on generating new programs to solve real and not-so-real national problems. But once the legislation is enacted, they move on to new frontiers and show scant interest in following up to determine whether the hoped-for results are in fact achieved. In the meantime, the programs gain powerful constituencies of their own in the bureaucracy and in the public. Social and defense programs alike generate pressures for their continuance, and against their reexamination. The question, "Should we be doing it at all?" is too seldom asked.
The cumulative result is a government in which performance increasingly falls short of promise.
Muskie notes that the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance lists, among other things, 228 health programs, 156 income security and social service programs, and 83 housing programs. The federal government manual lists not only 11 Cabinet departments and 44 independent agencies, but also1,240 advisory boards, committees, commissions and councils. And while dozens of new such bodies are created each year, the old ones rarely go out of business.
As an all-too-typical case of overlapping social programs, the Maine senator told of one city where the General Accounting Office found eight clinics operating in one neighborhood under several different programs — each proceeding without regard to what the others were doing. The GAO has found agencies that were unable to say how much they spend on administrative costs as opposed to actual services.
The American people are understandably turned off, Muskie added, by a government that is too muscle-bound to do the things it is trying to do. He cited complaints from citizens who had to wait 18 months for a ruling on claims for disability compensation, and from towns that had to wait many months for federal approval of sewer systems mandated by federal law.
Muskie, who has done a highly creditable job as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, says the point is not that there should be a freeze on new programs to help people, but that the country cannot afford new programs unless Congress is willing to eliminate old ones that are ineffective, unnecessary or redundant.
The same sort of waste and duplication is to be found in military programs; they would be subject to the proposed reauthorization procedure, too.
As part of the quadrennial review process that would be required by Muskie's bill, congressional committees would have to make "zero-base" evaluations. That is, they would consider the comparative effects of eliminating a program, of funding it at existing or greater levels, or of funding it at various levels in between. Their findings would be reported to the full House and Senate.
Congress took a big step toward rational setting of national priorities when it established the House and Senate budget committees last year. The Muskie proposal is a natural follow-up; it deserves the support of everybody in and out of Congress who believes in responsible, effective government.
[From the Honolulu Advertiser, July 31, 1978]
WASHINGTON SUNSETS?
Just as it does in 28 states, including Hawaii, the sun may one day be setting over agencies of the federal empire. Spurred by Proposition 13, a proposed federal sunset law has emerged from a series of Senate committees where it has long been held up.
Sunset laws, pioneered by the citizens' lobby Common Cause, provide for government agencies to be automatically closed down after a fixed period unless close legislative inspection proves the agency ought to continue in operation.
In Hawaii after one year of operation our sunset law has had mixed results. A stronger devil's advocate is needed here to push the view that each agency should be abolished and the Legislature also needs to ignore special interests and be a little more efficiency-minded in its deliberations.
The Senate bill would set up a staggered 10-year schedule for the Congress to review all of the estimated 1,250 federal programs.
They would be reviewed in groups according to function, that is, all the health or defense programs at once. It is hoped this will encourage duplicative agencies to combine to compete more strongly for limited funds in each functional area.
As it is now a program is rarely reviewed once Congress creates it. Close scrutiny is reserved for new programs while old ones generally get refunded at the same or higher level whether they are necessary and productive or not.
Not all programs would have to prove their importance from scratch each ten years. The federal judiciary; civil rights programs; Social Security and Medicare which depend upon taxpayer contributions, and interest on the national debt would be exempted.
A controversial item now exempted is tax loopholes or tax expenditures as they are properly called. Some 76 tax expenditures or preferences now cost the government about $130 billion a year in uncollected taxes. This money is in effect being spent by the government with almost no checks on how it is being used. Neither is there any automatic termination date for most of these tax loop-holes.
Senator Edmund Muskie, the Maine Democrat who is the bill's chief sponsor, believes that Proposition 13 has put the fear of a cut-taxes-limit-government-spending revolt into most members of Congress. This has improved the bill's chances. The House has also seen the light of Proposition 13 but will await the results in the Senate, according to Rep. Norman Mineta, D.-Calif., who is sponsoring it there.
The bill now under consideration has been studied and rewritten with considerable care. The lessons from state sunset laws starting with Colorado in 1975 have helped eliminate some pitfalls like overloading the legislative body with too many decisions in too little time.
The Federal sunset law ought to be passed. And the now-exempt tax loopholes ought to be included in the review process.
Those spending programs and tax expenditures that can justify their existence will remain. But the threat of automatic termination is the best way to meet the people's demand for more efficient government.
[From the Boston Globe, July 28, 1978]
AN ATTRACTIVE SUNSET BILL
One of the more radical pieces of legislation working its way through Congress now has the not-very-revolutionary objective of compelling Congress to review periodically and systematically the effects of its past decisions. The so-called sunset bill would force termination of virtually all federal programs over a 10-year period unless Congress, after a careful assessment, decided they should continue.
Now, bureaucracies are created and perpetuated; members of Congress carve out areas of expertise and influence; constituencies develop; and along the way the original rationale for programs and the need to reexamine their usefulness are forgotten. The proposed sunset law seeks to end this process of automatic perpetuation.
One fear that has been voiced is that social programs, approved in the decidedly different climate of the 1960s, would be allowed to die, not because they aren't working, but because a majority of Congress does not want them to work any longer. But many current social programs already have limited authorizations — education aid and food stamps, for instance — and are subject to periodic review.
And a review of agencies squirreled away in the Commerce or Interior or Agriculture Departments that now receive virtually no congressional scrutiny, might well uncover expenditures that could be more effectively made elsewhere, such as for social programs.
One major flaw in the bill approved by the Senate Government Operations Committee is that it fails to provide for a systematic review of federal taxing policy, of the more than $100 billion in annual tax loopholes approved over the years. If Congress is going to scrutinize the money it spends, it ought also to review the money it decides not even to collect, to make sure the incentives created by those tax preferences are still meeting their stated objectives.
With that important amendment, the sunset bill deserves congressional approval. It would be an effective, responsible reaction to the antibureaucracy mood in the nation signified by Proposition 13. Regrettably, the legislation reported out of the Senate Rules Committee on June 21 has yet to be scheduled for Senate debate. A failure to afford the bill the airing it deserves will only confirm and harden current public attitudes.
[From the Tulsa (Okla.) World, July 16, 1978]
INTO THE SUNSET
The U.S. Senate soon will debate a controversial measure that would require periodic review of Government programs with an aim to discontinuing those that no longer are serving a valid purpose.
The legislation is a modified version of the so-called "Sunset" laws that have been enacted by 28 States.
The intent of the legislation is to deal with what perhaps is one of the biggest problems in the Federal Government. It is a good program, as demonstrated by the fact that powerful committee chairmen have fought to keep it from being considered, because they want to be able to control questionable programs which special interest groups want continued.
The Sunset legislation is backed by Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine, who contends, "If we want to spend more money on a good program, we're going to have to throw a bad one out."
That of course is exactly what most taxpayers want. Not more spending and more Government programs, but a selective spending on Government programs that are vital with an end to those that have outlived theirtime, if indeed there ever were a time for some of them.
The Federal legislation corrects some of the problems that have cropped up in States which have been overzealous in passing Sunset bills. The Federal version would result ina review of all Federal programs every 10 years, the sponsors correctly realizing that it would be impossible for Congress to review every program annually. If after review Congress did not reauthorize a program it would be allowed to die.
The Sunset proposal, spearheaded by Common Cause, is a move in the right direction. Hopefully, the Senate and later the House will pass the bill. A forced review of wasteful Federal programs is vital if spending ever is to be brought under control.
[From the San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 8, 1978]
DELAYING THE "SUNSET BILL"
It's good to see the citizens lobby, Common Cause, express concern about the "government's size, complexity and poor performance," as that organization pushes for a "sunset law" at the federal level.
Some observers may consider this a peculiar tack for a group considered quite liberal, but a good many liberals nowadays are just as aggravated as anybody at the monolithic immovability of some of the federal agencies set up to do good works. This impression often comes from first hand involvement with a particular agency and the stunning discovery that it's a self-serving blob, for the most part, rather than the cutting edge of reform, as the deflated idealist first supposed.
In any case, Common Cause has a good cause in the sunset law, which has the admirable purpose of weeding out or renovating deadwood bureaucracies. Actually, the organization has been active in this movement for some time and such laws now are in effect in 28 states. Now it's time for Washington to heed the example of that majority of states, and Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine has put forward the mechanism in his Senate Bill 2.
What the bill would do, if the process worked, would be to automatically terminate almost every federal program over a 10-year cycle. Only those which passed a rigorous test of essentiality and competence would be recreated and get to live on for another decade. This would force Congress into the most comprehensive continuous examination of federal programs seriously envisioned in these times and the development is long overdue.
We say "these times" because unremembered by most people, a similar course was advocated back in the early 1930s when the New Deal agency proliferation was taking place. And strangely enough, it was the liberal academic William O. Douglas (later to serve on the Supreme Court) whose voice sounded in the inner circle of President Franklin D. Roosevelt for an automatic 10-year termination date for the bureaucracies being created. He argued perceptively that they could by their very nature become fat and ineffectual, and come to serve, in too many cases, the interests they were supposed to regulate. He argued that each should have to prove, at regular periods, its right to continued existence, but nobody listened.
Senator Muskie notes that the demand for new spending amounts to more than five times the amount of added revenues in sight over the next five years and says, "If we want to spend more money on a good program, we're going to have to throw a bad one out." Well said, except that bad ones should be thrown out even without creating new ones. so the savings can be applied to anti-inflationary reduction of the Federal deficit.
One question is whether Congress really is capable of this size of a task, of analyzing the agencies all the way to the bottom. Some, due to their complex specialization, almost defy analysis. But Congress somehow has to shape up, and the bill spreads the workload and the time around so that the job is not impossible if the legislators are ready to work, rather than merely talk about containing the bloat and duplication of government.
Despite Muskie's exhortations, a general commitment to this still is not apparent: His measure has won approval of the relevant Senate committees but it may die for this session because of his inability to get it to the floor for a vote. We must hope that the Senate leadership will prove more responsive to what the public demands (as in passage of Proposition 13) and give the bill a chance before the session ends.
There's a longstanding notion in Washington that whatever is already established cannot be stopped, no matter how unnecessary it may have become, but the public is fed up with this idea and the sooner the senators learn it the better.
[From the Nevada (Mo.) Mail, July 18, 1978]
WE NEED SUNSET
Most surveys among Americans show a growing anger at government's size, complexity and poor performance.
The U.S. Senate will soon debate legislation designed to answer to the growing discontent.
The Sunset concept, which 28 states already have adopted for themselves, would force Congress into systematic and comprehensive oversight of federal programs.
Sunset's chief congressional sponsor, Sen. Edmund Muskie (D-Maine) has said, "If we want to spend more money on a good program, we're going to have to throw a bad one out."
The bill requires committees to select priority programs for in-depth evaluation and to reauthorize only those which careful review shows are needed and can work.
John Glenn (D-Ohio) , with the backing of Muskie, Common Cause and others, will offer an amendment to include 76 permanently authorized tax expenditures which cost the government $120 billion last year.
Common Cause president David Cohen says, "Common Cause believes that Sunset legislation is a significant and positive response to the public's concern about the failings of government performance and the role that government has played in fueling inflation. A recent Harris survey indicated that the American public favors passage of a strong Sunset bill this year by a clear 54 percent to 34 percent majority."
The Sunset concept is aimed at the maxim that "government agencies never die; they don't even fade away." In Colorado, for example, it was learned that some regulatory agencies had existed for 50 or more years without undergoing searching review. This discovery helped convince the Colorado legislature to pass the first Sunset law in 1976.
A president can do little, without the assent of Congress, to weed out unproductive programs and agencies. Once enacted, programs acquire special interest clients who have a stake in their continuation.
Congressional committees, though charged with continual oversight of the programs and agencies under their jurisdiction, do a poor job of fulfilling this unglamorous task.
Another principal objective of Sunset is to weed out or merge numerous programs that duplicate one another.
Among the examples that have been cited as part of the "maze" of overlapping government programs are these:
— 29 health programs are related to cancer prevention, yet a comprehensive cancer prevention plan proposed by the state of New Jersey last year has yet to be funded because individual federal agencies couldn't get together in a joint effort to help the state.
— While the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has consolidated its student aid programs into one office, there are probably six or seven or eight more in other departments of government.
— To handle water-pollution research and development, Congress has created 25 bureaus in 14 different departments or independent agencies — for example, a Water Resources Council (interagency), an Office of Water Research and Technology (Interior), an Office of Water Planning and Standards (Environmental Protection Agency) and the Agricultural Research Service (Agriculture Department).
Passage of the Sunset law will show that the Senate has heeded the public's cry that government should work for its citizens, not the special interests.
[From the Freeport (Ill.) Journal-Standard, June 15, 1978]
SUNSET LEGISLATION
One of the most effective ways of trimming the ever-growing federal bureaucracy is through "sunset" legislation.
Sunset legislation would put all federal spending programs on a certain time cycle. The program would automatically terminate if Congress decided not to renew its cycle after evaluation.
Senate Bill 2 (S. 2) would put federal programs on a six-year review cycle. The legislation was introduced by Sen. Edmund Muskie (D-Me.) and Sen. William Roth (R-Del.). More than half the Senate cosponsors the measure.
In fact, the support for S. 2 is so widespread that it has brought together the consumer advocates of Common Cause and a triumvirate of its usual adversaries: the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers.
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously approved S. 2 in June 1977 after hearing from 30 witnesses during six days of testimony.
It would be assumed then that such a universally popular piece of legislation would sail through Congress, particularly in an election year when such an accomplishment would impress the folks back home. Not so.
In the year since that committee action was taken, the sunset legislation has languished In the Senate Rules Committee, which has threatened to shred it by limiting the bill to covering the Senate only and not the House. The counterproposal offered by the committee staff would have no termination date. It would require Senate committees to submit evaluation plans with their funding proposals each year.
Ironically, the Carter Administration, which has done a lot of talking about whittling the federal bureaucracy while it continues to grow, endorsed S. 2 but has not tried to pry it from committee.
The rules committee is expected to vote on the measure this month, however. If the members of that committee have had a recent chance to take the pulse of the national mood (particularly in light of the taxpayer revolt in California) S. 2 should pass unscathed.
Congressmen must start acting in the national Interest, not their own self-interest. Passage of S. 2 would be one indication of that intent.
[From the Anderson (Ind.) Bulletin, July 21, 1978]
S. 2 — THE FEDERAL SUNSET BILL
Legislation will soon come before the U.S. Senate that its sponsors, including two Senate committees, believe is an answer to nationwide anger about uncontrolled government programs. The legislation is a Sunset bill, a name given to the concept by the Colorado branch of Common Cause in 1975. The bill (S. 2) sets automatic termination dates for almost all federal programs so that each will expire unless Congress, after careful review, decides it warrants continuation.
The Sunset concept is aimed at a maxim that "government agencies never die; they don't even fade away." In Colorado it was found that some regulatory agencies had existed for 50 or more years without undergoing searching review. This discovery helped convince the Colorado legislature to pass the first Sunset law, covering certain regulatory agencies, in 1976. Since then 27 more states, including Indiana, have passed their own Sunset laws.
The Sunset proposal has teeth. It calls for automatic termination of programs and agencies after a period of years unless the legislature, after careful evaluation, decides to modify, merge, or give a vote of approval to a program or agency through reauthorization. It is designed to force legislatures to do what they generally fail to do — carry out systematic oversight of government programs.
It is estimated that 50% of federal programs have no termination date. Under present appropriations procedures these programs are funded routinely year after year while Congress tends to pay attention to only the newest programs.
These permanent authorizations are a main target of the Sunset bill's chief Congressional sponsor, Sen. Edmund Muskie (D-Maine). "They never come up on a regular basis for thorough, top-to-bottom review," Muskie said in an April speech. "Support for reexamining them simply does not exist. Every agency, committee and lobby wants its own program to not only continue but grow," he added.
Not only direct spending programs but also most of the $136 billion a year in tax expenditures have no termination dates and rarely undergo review. A study by Common Cause of tax expenditure programs — tax incentives or preferences which are equivalent to direct spending programs — found that "nearly 90 percent of the tax expenditure items, representing 97 percent of the dollars spent through the tax system, are permanent and do not have to be reauthorized periodically."
Another principal objective of Sunset is to weed out or merge numerous programs that duplicate one another. The chief Republican sponsor of Sunset, Sen. William Roth (Del.), has said, "The Sunset legislation is innovative because it groups programs for review by function. This means that similar programs would compete for limited tax dollars on the basis of which ones are working most effectively."
Sunset legislation makes good sense. It is the most capable plan yet for reducing mind-boggling government wastefulness, and that in turn should help reduce taxes. We hope S. 2 passes with all speed.
[From the Los Angeles Times, July 26, 19781
SUNSET FOR WASTEFUL PROGRAMS
A member of Congress — or of any legislative body — accumulates influence or power by specializing. Over time, other members seek the specialist's views, often relying more on his word than on formal reports. He can attract funds for his state or district by making sure funds from the programs he influences go to other states and districts. Over time, a member is inclined to stop digging too deeply into the budget for agencies that administer the programs he knows best because he is in the same boat as the executive agency, rising and falling with the tide of money. Also over time, these relationships spin out a web of give and take with strands as strong as steel cables.
As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Edmund S. Muskie of Maine is just such a specialist, but his perspective is different. He is there to challenge, not to advocate, programs.
Two years ago, Muskie concluded that, standing alone, the budget act of 1974 under which his committee functions did not allow the rigorous review of spending programs he thought it would. Examining, analyzing and challenging requests for money for programs already in existence took more hours in a day than most people would find reasonable. As long as old programs continued to expand, they ate up all the funds that might be used for new social programs. Yet there was neither time nor energy in the year-by-year budget process to take the last step of challenging not just spending levels but the programs themselves.
Muskie then introduced what has since come to be called the Sunset Bill. The bill calls for an automatic end to virtually all federal programs after 10 years, unless Congress deliberately extends their lives. Some compromises were required to get the bill through committees and some programs are exempted, but the bill that has now cleared all committees is essentially the same Sunset Bill he introduced.
The Sunset concept is not only sound but overdue. Some members object to the bill in its present form on the ground that, under some circumstances, a minority of Congress could kill programs that meet pressing social needs but have little popular appeal. Those objections, it seems to us, could be met with technical safeguards that would always leave the fate of programs in the hands of a majority of the Senate and House.
The Sunset Bill has never been warmly endorsed in Congress, particularly among senior members who have specialized and accumulated. Muskie himself believes that the bill has gotten as far as it has because of the way Congress is reacting to Proposition 13 and to other expressions of taxpayer dissatisfaction around the nation. He is probably correct, and there may never be a better time to bring the bill to the floor for debate.
Unfortunately, Congress is getting close to adjournment with its calendar still crowded with important issues. As a result, the Senate leadership is trying to keep as much legislation off the floor as possible so the Senate can finish on or near schedule.
There is too much at stake for the Sunset Bill to be delayed. Muskie noted recently that over the next five years Congress will be under pressure to create or expand a series of programs at a cost of nearly $500 billion but that revenue will increase during that time by only about $90 billion. Included on his list of programs were national health insurance, increased student aid and higher defense spending that might be necessary if the SALT talks break down. There are only three ways to make up a difference of that scale: keep running massive deficits, increase taxes, or — using the Sunset approach — start cutting out programs that no longer are needed.
The leadership should make an exception for the Sunset Bill and schedule it for debate at the earliest opportunity. The decade-long cycle on which Sen. Muskie proposes that Congress will review federal programs is not exactly a quick-fix and the process should begin as soon as possible. The bill is important to the taxpayers, but it is no less important to the federal government itself.
[From the Seattle Times, Aug. 10, 1978]
"There are 29 federal government health programs related to cancer prevention, 7 or 8 federal student aid programs, and 25 separate bureaus dealing with water pollution research and development.
"These are just three examples, cited by Common Cause, the citizens' reform movement, of the maze of overlapping government programs developed over the years.
"Dozens of such examples could be cited in support of 'sunset' legislation that has cleared two Senate committees and is sponsored by Edmund Muskie, the Maine Democrat who has acquired considerable expertise on government waste while ...
"Muskie's bill would set automatic termination dates for almost all federal programs so that each would expire unless Congress, after a review, decided it warranted continuation.
"'Sunset laws are no curealls for excessive government. That much has been established in a number of states, including our own, where an experiment with the 'sunset' concept is undergoing a slow and uncertain start.
"Still, we agree with Muskie that the keys to a "sunset"bill — a regular review of like programs on a fixed schedule and the threat of automatic termination — are the keys to bringing efficiency back to the federal government.' "
(From the Beaver (Pa.) Times, Aug. 1, 1978]
SUNSET LAW MAY BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
Under the taxpayer pressure generated by California's Proposition 13, uneasy state and federal legislators are on a very hot spot. On the one hand, they are facing demands that taxes be cut; on the other hand, they are expected to provide all the programs and services to which certain segments of the population have become accustomed.
Walking this tightrope, lawmakers at both levels of government are beginning to take a hard look at ways and means of cutting spending and thereby holding down taxes. This has focused new attention on "Sunset" legislation in various forms.
The name given such legislation is derived from the concept initiated by the Colorado branch of Common Cause in 1975. It provides for automatic termination dates for most federal programs unless Congress, after careful review, decides that they should be continued.
Pending before the Senate is just such a bill that its sponsors and two Senate committees believe could save the taxpayers millions of dollars. Common Cause points out that in a recent Harris poll the American people favor passage of a Sunset bill this year by a 54 to 38 percent majority.
Unlike the maxim that "old soldiers never die, they just fade away," a great many government agencies neither die nor fade away. According to Common Cause, some Colorado regulatory agencies had existed for 50 years or more without undergoing searching scrutiny. This prompted the Colorado legislature to pass the nation's first Sunset law in 1976. Since that time, 27 other states have passed similar legislation.
Under these laws, government programs are not automatically funded, as at present. Instead, they have to prove their worth. Periodically, they are subjected to careful evaluation and unless the legislators decide to modify, merge or approve their continuation they are abolished. It is estimated by Common Cause that 50 percent of federal programs have no termination date. Consequently, they are routinely funded year after year.
As a safeguard against creating hardship, certain veterans' benefits and trust funds, such as Social Security, are exempted from the termination provision. Furthermore, agencies and programs would not be wiped out in one fell swoop. The proposed legislation provides a 10-year timetable for review of the agencies and programs.
It might not be the perfect answer to the problem of government spending and waste, but the Sunset legislation, if enacted into law, at least would be a start toward placating the increasingly angry taxpayer.
[From Business Week, Apr. 11, 1977]
SUNSET ON THE POTOMAC
If congressmen mean what they say about "cleaning up the mess in Washington," there is a way to do it. Senator Edmund S. Muskie (D-Me.) is pushing a "sunset"bill that would provide for regular review of all government agencies and programs. Any program not renewed by Congress after review would automatically go out of business.
The Muskie bill itself needs careful study and some changes. In its present form, it would put all the reviews on a five-year cycle; this probably is too short a time for some programs and too long for others. The sunset reviews, moreover, should not be extended to the revenue side of the budget as Muskie proposes. The inclusion of "tax expenditures,"such as accelerated depreciation and the exemption for municipal bond interest, would simply disrupt the markets and create uncertainties for investors. Tax law should be written for the long term so that individuals and business can plan without fearing erratic changes.
The general approach of the Muskie bill, however, is the right one. Periodic, in-depth reviews of federal programs would weed out the under-performers and put the spotlight on ineffective, costly regulations. Congress has learned from its new budget-making process that the government's resources are not unlimited. Tradeoffs have to be made, and if a new program goes into effect, inefficient or outdated programs should be cut back to finance it. Pyramiding new programs on the remains of old ones is the process that has made Washington a mess.
If for no other reason, Congress should periodically review the federal programs to see what it has created in its past spasms of legislating. As Muskie says: "The system today is so complicated that no one really knows exactly how many federal programs there are . . . (or) what we are buying for the billions of federal dollars we pour into them every year."