The World of Computer Software/World_Of_Computer_Software-02-387-Vol-3of3.iso/c/cbts.zip/CBTSPRS.RLS

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 7KB | 140 lines

               NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION FOUNDATION
                   404 EIGHTH STREET NORTHEAST
                       WASHINGTON DC 20002
                     TELEPHONE [phone]
                        FAX [phone]

Embargoed for Release, 10:30 a.m., December 30, 1992

 NTUF BUDGET TRACKING RESULTS: MEMBERS OF CONGRESS RETURNING IN
'93 WERE BIGGER SPENDERS DURING 102nd CONGRESS

(WASHINGTON, D.C.)-Members of Congress who will be returning to
Washington for another term in January of 1993 are those who were
more likely during the just-ended Congress to push for higher
federal spending than members who are not coming back, according to
data released today at a news conference by the National Taxpayers
Union Foundation (NTUF).

The information was contained in NTUF's end-of-session
Congressional Budget Tracking System (CBTS) report for the 102nd
Congress.  CBTS is a computerized database that cross-indexes the
cost of virtually all significant spending legislation introduced
during the 102nd Congress with the sponsorship records of each
member of the House and Senate.

"For taxpayers looking for spending restraints by the federal
government, the news is especially worrisome in the new Senate,"
according to NTUF President David Keating.  "Returning Democrats in
the Senate were about twice as likely to endorse higher spending as
their departing colleagues.  Among Republicans, returning Senators
were 5.6 times more likely to sponsor new spending as their
departing colleagues."

Keating said the situation was mixed in the House of
Representatives, where Democrats who retired, were defeated or died
were eleven percent less likely to sponsor spending increases,
while returning Republicans were more frugal than their departing
colleagues: GOP members who left were eleven percent more likely to
sponsor spending increases than Republicans coming back.

NTUF Vice President for Research Paul Hewitt said that "voters in
14 states who approved term limits for members of Congress may have
been on to something.  Our end-of-session CBTS results show that,
with a few notable exceptions, members who had served longest were
the most likely to sponsor spending increases during the 102nd
Congress."

"Otherwise, first term members were significantly less likely to
endorse new spending than their more senior colleagues," Hewitt
said.  "In the Senate, Republicans elected since 1990 actually
sponsored legislation that would have resulted in a net decrease in
federal expenditures, while their longer-serving GOP Senatorial
colleagues averaged more than $16 billion in proposed spending
hikes.  And in the House, freshman from both parties were least
likely to endorse higher spending."

Overall, the 172 House members with less than 8 years' service
proposed an average of $65.0 billion in higher spending, while
those with more than 8 years' service (a total of 267 members)
supported an average of $84.8 billion in higher spending.

Other findings from the CBTS end-of-Congress report provided
additional insight into the character of the new Congress and the
new administration:

The four non-voting delegates who served full terms in the 102nd
Congress (from Guam, American Soma, the Virgin Islands and the
District of Columbia) sponsored bills to increase spending by an
average of $222.6 billion.  This is significant because        the
House leadership recently announced that these delegates will now
be permitted to vote on floor amendments for the first time ever.

The two members of Congress named to key economic posts in the
Clinton cabinet, Rep. Leon Panetta (OMB Director), and Sen. Lloyd
Bentsen (Treasury Secretary) sponsored bills to reduce spending by
a combined $885 million.

The delegation from Hawaii had the highest totals of proposed new
spending in both the Senate and the House, averaging $287 billion
and $339 billion, respectively.

The lowest totals of proposed spending hikes were from the Colorado
delegation in the House (a net proposed reduction of $.7 billion),
and from the Idaho delegation in the Senate (proposed net cuts of
$13.6 billion).

In fact, the CBTS analysis of legislation introduced in the 102nd
Congress shows that the largest proposed increases in federal
spending were in the field of health care, which is already the
fastest growing category in the federal budget.  Of the 1,594 major
bills examined in the CBTS study, 237 (15 percent) were health
bills.  Of these, 96 percent proposed spending increases, at an
average annualized cost of $15.2 billion.  The 14 bills that would
establish a "single payer," i.e., nationalized health insurance
system, were the most expensive ranging in estimated cost from $65
billion to $508 billion per year.  Fourteen other bills proposing
comprehensive health reform (8 "play or pay" bills and 6 "managed
competition" bills) carried price tags ranging from $1.4 billion to
$60 billion per year.

Eliminating such bills from the CBTS tally substantially reduces
the mean (average) totals of proposed new spending, particularly in
the House, where support for "single payer" plan is most prevalent.
But with a few notable exceptions, members who endorsed "single
payer" health reform also endorsed other expensive legislation:

In fact, 8 of the 15 senators at the top of the list of proposed
new spending are still in the top 15 when health care bills are
removed from the tally.

Similarly, 9 House members made the top 15 in both tallies.

Other import findings from the CBTS study of the 102nd Congress:

Excluding overlapping proposals, enactment of every bill introduced
in either the House or Senate would have raised spending by a net
of $1 trillion.

Overall, members of Congress introduced bills to increase spending
by a gross total of $4.83 trillion, while proposing cuts of only
$448 billion.  The ratio of $11 in proposed increases for every
dollar of proposed cuts reflects overwhelming upward pressure on
federal spending.

NTUF President Keating said that the findings of the CBTS study
revel "alarming evidence of a dysfunctional legislative culture.
Not only is upward pressure on spending overwhelming, but the
'ratchet effect,' where current programs are rarely challenged,
effectively prevents serious efforts at cutting programs, or
balancing their value against other proposed new spending."

CBTS is the most comprehensive study of its kind ever undertaken.
It is based on estimates for 756 Senate bills and 1,305 House bills
introduced in the 102nd Congress.  As with earlier interim reports,
this final tally of 102nd Congress data was provided first to each
individual member of Congress on a confidential basis.  In order to
maximize precision and fairness, they were asked to comment on the
accuracy of their own individual reports.

                              (End)