“THE PAIN PART”
BY PETER G. SPARBER
In the five minutes it might take you to read this column, the federal government will spend $15 million. It`s not surprising that American voters wanted change. What is surprising is that they`re getting it.
Virtually thousands of liberal and moderate Democratic and Republican congressional staff members are gone, and with them much of Congress` capacity to write and amend laws. Committees have new hand-picked Republican chairmen, new rules, and new marching orders. Even if the Democrats return to power in 1996, it could take decades to reverse the changes implemented in the first weeks of this regime.
But, the true carnage has yet to begin. Republicans and Democrats are competing to see who can cut the most programs and regulations. As the details become known, we will enter what Baltimore Sun political columnist Jack Germond is calling “the pain part.”
To put it all in perspective, the federal debt is $5 trillion, or $20,000 of debt for each living American. At current spending levels, it will climb to $7 trillion by the turn of the century. Nearly half of all federal spending is from the so-called “entitlements” programs: Social Security, veterans` benefits, and the like. Another 16 percent is eaten up by the interest payments on the debt. The remaining third of the budget is what we call “discretionary” spending–meaning that we spend it by choice.
According to White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, the federal government will have to impose a 30 percent across-the-board cut in all discretionary spending if the full conservative agenda–a balanced budget and tax cuts–is adopted.
Don`t be fooled by Congress` inability to pass the “Balanced Budget Amendment.” A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds majorities–and, don`t forget, the House did pass the measure and the Senate failed by one vote. Appropriations bills will be written largely by Republicans and re-quire only simple majorities to pass.
WHAT DO FEDERAL BUDGET CUTS MEAN TO THE FIRE SERVICE?
In early January, the U.S. Fire Administration assured the fire service that its budget–which includes the National Fire Academy–was safe. It was an interesting pronouncement, given the fact that the chairmen of the Appropriations subcommittees–the folks who decide what is cut as well as what gets funded–had not yet been appointed.
But, technically speaking, the USFA budget was safe–in that the President`s proposed budget request showed no reductions.
Again, we were assured by fire service leaders that no harm would come to the fire programs. They argued the following:
The program is too small for Congress to care. Well fellas, don`t bet on it. Of the 130 programs eliminated by President Clinton, many were far smaller than the fire programs. For example, cutting the strategic helium reserves will save $4 million (one minute and 20 seconds of spending) between now and the year 2000. Most federal programs are small.
The program is too important for Congress to cut. Huh? Environmental and consumer protection, law enforcement, defense projects, Head Start, the arts, farm subsidies, air traffic control, medical research, some national parks, foreign aid, and a bunch of other stuff are on the chopping block. Some will be eliminated altogether. Some will be cut. Some will be “privatized” (the new “P” word). Unavoidably, even Social Security will be affected.
The fire service is too powerful to let it happen. Right now–and I am writing this in February–the fire service has been told there`s nothing to worry about. So, nobody`s screaming. But, if all 1.2 million American firefighters, their families, and best friends were fighting to save the fire programs–which is not even a remote possibility–what would they be demanding?
Which of the fire programs would they want to save? If they had to choose which one USFA project might have to be cut, what would it be? Even if the fire service could agree on what to save and what to cut, I doubt that its members would be heard above the racket already here. Far larger, better organized, better funded special interests–farmers, environmentalists, teachers, cops, senior citizens, nurses, and welfare mothers, to name a few–know that they have no assurances; and they are worried, determined, and loud.
It is just possible that, for now, the fire programs are safe. But, that`s like looking at a rickety old wood-frame house and assuming that the electrical wiring is fine just because the house hasn`t yet gone up in flames.
The USFA and its collection of programs are too fragile to assume they will survive what`s going on in Washington. Its parent agency–the Federal Emergency Management Agency–will certainly endure cuts; and there is no reason to believe that the USFA will be spared “the pain part.” n
PETER G. SPARBER has been in public and government relations for more than 20 years and owns and operates the public affairs consulting firm Sparber and Associates, Inc., in Washington, D.C. He works closely with the National Volunteer Fire Council, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, and many state fire groups. He regularly addresses fire service groups on political and marketing subjects.
