—-

9 Wasteful Programs From Massive Spending Bill That Can, and Should, Be Reversed

Matthew Dickerson / December 30, 2020 / 6 Comments

Under the Impoundment Control Act, the president can propose that Congress rescind, or cancel, specific unspent budget authority from programs he has determined are unneeded. Pictured: President Donald Trump presents the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Dan Gable in the Oval Office on Dec. 7, 2020. (Photo: Doug Mill/ Pool/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump is right: There’s a lot of ridiculous gimmicks and wasteful projects in the new massive spending bill.

And the good news is there’s something that Trump can do about it, even though he recently signed the huge COVID-19 stimulus and omnibus spending bill into law.

While signing the bill, the president released a statement announcing that he would use his authority to request that Congress rescind wasteful spending from the bill.

Stand for your principles in 2021—even in the face of Congress, the media, and the radical Left ganging up on conservatives and our values. Learn more now >>

Under the Impoundment Control Act, the president can propose that Congress rescind, or cancel, specific unspent budget authority from programs he has determined are unneeded.

The rescission package would be considered by the House and Senate under expedited procedures, without being subject to a filibuster in the Senate, and with protections for a minority of members to prevent the bill from getting bottled up in committee proceedings.

This makes sense. The 5,593-page behemoth spending package was loaded with overspending, gimmicks, and dozens of unrelated other legislative provisions. It was written behind closed doors and voted on within hours of it being made public, preventing any member of Congress or the American people from understanding what was actually in it.

Here are nine wasteful programs funded by the omnibus, which has $1.4 trillion in spending, that should be rescinded:

1. Washington Metro: $150 Million

The omnibus provides $150 million for grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the D.C. Metro.

This is yet another example of the capital city getting special benefits at the expense of the taxpayers from around the country. No other local transit system gets its own line-item appropriation. The Heritage Foundation has previously recommended this funding be eliminated.

2. DC Tuition Assistance Grants: $40 Million

The omnibus provides $40 million for federal payment for resident tuition support, which funds the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant program to subsidize the out-of-state tuition for D.C. residents attending college in other states.

Simply put, it is wrong for taxpayers across the county to provide a special subsidy for residents of Washington, D.C., who are also eligible for all the other federal college benefit programs. This program has not even been authorized by Congress since 2012. The president’s budgetrecommended the program be eliminated.

3. Kennedy Center: $40.4 Million

The omnibus provides a total of $40.4 million for operations and maintenance and capital repair and restoration for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Using taxpayer funds to subsidize D.C.’s swanky opera house is one of the least defensible items in the entire federal budget. The Kennedy Center already received an additional $25 million as a part of the CARES Act. The Heritage Foundation has previously recommended eliminating this funding.

4. National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities: $335 Million

The omnibus provides $167.5 million each to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

These two programs use federal tax dollars to make grants supporting arts and humanities projects, something that is much better done by private contributions. The two programs also received an additional $75 million from the CARES Act. Both the president’s budget and The Heritage Foundation have recommended these programs be eliminated.

5. Wilson Center: $14 Million

The omnibus provides $14 million for the Wilson Center, a federally subsidized think tank. Federal subsidies make up about half of the center’s budget, and the dedicated appropriation is not needed nor is it appropriate. The president’s budget and The Heritage Foundation have recommended federal funding for this center be ended.

6. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Training: $93.9 Million

The omnibus provides $93.9 million for the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Training program, a $2 million increase from the fiscal year 2020 level.

This program is supposed to provide job training for migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Even if this was appropriate for American taxpayers to subsidize, it is duplicative of other job training programs. The president’s budget and The Heritage Foundation have recommended this program be eliminated.

7. Senior Community Service Employment Program: $405 Million

The omnibus provides $405 million for Community Service Employment for Older Americans, which funds the Senior Community Service Employment Program.

This program provides grants meant to subsidize part-time community service activities by the elderly. The program is duplicative of other existing programs, is not cost effective, and nearly half of participants do not complete the program. The president’s budget and The HeritageFoundation have recommended eliminating the program.

8. McGovern-Dole Food for Education: $230 Million

The omnibus provides $230 million for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, which uses taxpayer dollars to send American food to schools in foreign countries. The president’s budget has recommended this program be ended.

9. Corporation for Public Broadcasting: $495 Million

The omnibus provides $495 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, most of which is an advance appropriation for fiscal year 2023.

Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has already been provided for the upcoming fiscal year in prior appropriations bills. The organization also received an additional $75 million as a part of the CARES Act.

The federal government should not use taxpayer funds to subsidize television and radio service, a task which is not needed nor appropriate. The president’s budget and The Heritage Foundation have recommended eliminating this funding.

These are just a small handful of examples of wasteful spending in the $1.4 trillion spending package. Even if all of the wasteful or unnecessary spending from the omnibus is rescinded, much more needs to be done in order to have a responsible budget.

Trump proposing a robust rescission package and Congress passing it would be an important first step toward making controlling spending a priority.

Walter Williams, RIP

I first got to know Walter when I was a Ph.D. student at George Mason University in the 1980s, where my then-wife was his research assistant, but I was fortunate to become a friend later in life when I got to become a member of the “Politically Incorrect Boys Club”  with Walter, Ed Crane, and Richard Rahn. This meant lots of fun dinners featuring everything from juvenile humor to grousing about the foolishness of ever-expanding government.

I had an opportunity to reminisce about Walter for WMAL this morning, and you can hear my remarks by clicking here.

But there’s so much more to say. When I learned yesterday of Walter’s death, I wondered what sort of tribute I should write, especially since so many thoughtful essays already have been published (Don Boudreaux, Thomas Sowell, Veronique de Rugy, Alex Tabarrok, Mark Perry, and Nick Gillespie, to list just a few).

Then I recalled a left-leaning friend once telling me that Walter must be some sort of “Uncle Tom” because he opposed racial preferences and the welfare state.

This statement struck me as ludicrous because Walter was a take-no-prisoners troublemaker who got in trouble as a young man (everything from arrests to a court martial) because he refused to tolerate racism.

Here are some excerpts from his must-read autobiography, Up from the Projects, staring with this passage about his time at Fort Stewart after getting drafted.

Numerous forms of troublemaking made me unpopular with many of the soldiers, including black ones. Some warned that was going to get into a lot of trouble, to which I’d flippantly reply, “What kind of trouble? Is somebody going to paint me black and send me to Georgia?”

And here’s some of what he wrote about his assignment to South Korea.

We had been told to fill out forms that contained vital personal information such as blood type, race, religion, next of kin, etc. …I had checked off “Caucasian.” A warrant officer told me I had made a mistake. …He wanted to know why I would say Caucasian when I was actually a Negro. “I’m not stupid,” I replied. “If I checked off ‘Negro,’ I’d get the worst job over here.

Here’s a passage from his time as a Ph.D. student at UCLA.

My fellow students were in awe of someone who’d challenge Professors Alchian and Hirschleifer as I did. One notable challenge occurred when Professor Alchian  said to me in class, “Williams, I bet you’re against discrimination.” I replied that no, I favored discrimination. Smiling, he asked whether that included racial discrimination. “Yes,” I said. “I practiced it a lot when I was dating.”

I should point out that while he believed in freedom of association (including the right to discriminate), Walter also noted that capitalism was the best way of punishing bad types of discrimination.

He appreciated that his professors didn’t relax their standards because of his race.

Flunking economic theory the first time around, I later realized, did have a benefit. It convinced me that UCLA professors didn’t care anything about my race. …The university’s economics professors weren’t practicing affirmative action with me. …Sometimes I sarcastically, perhaps cynically, say that I’m glad I received virtually all of my education before it became fashionable for white people like black people. …I encountered back then a more honest assessment of my strengths and weaknesses.

Walter also had the self-confidence to deal with white mistakes, such as this anecdote from when he lived in a rich suburb of D.C.

Being among the very few blacks in Chevy Chase taught me a lesson about racial relationships. Living in a corner house…prompted a Saturday chore of picking up trash that people discarded from passing cars. One Saturday, while doing that, an elderly white neighbor approached me to ask me whether, when I completed my tasks, I would be interested in working that afternoon in his yard. I told him very nicely that I would be spending that afternoon putting the final touches on my Ph.D. dissertation. The man’s face turned red with embarrassment and he apologized profusely. Some blacks might have been insulted and charged the man with racism. But I realized that the man was a Bayesian…, meaning that if a black person was spotted in Chevy Chase, picking up trash, the overwhelming probability was that he was a worker as opposed to a homeowner. Playing racial odds doesn’t make one a racist.

Many years later, he wrote a very insightful column on racial and sexual profiling.

Here’s a final excerpt showing how he enjoyed shocking people.

At the leftist reception, …the questioner asked, “How do you feel about the enslavement of your ancestors?” They were all shocked by my response… I started off by saying that slavery is one of the most despicable abuses of human rights. …But I went further to tell them that I, Walter E. Williams, have benefited enormously from the horrible suffering of my ancestors. …my wealth and personal liberties are greater having been born in the United States than in any African country.

Indeed, Walter relished the opportunity to tease his white friends and colleagues, often granting them a pardon for their skin color.

The bottom line is that Walter was a man, not a victim. He fought and achieved.

Since I’ve cited so many of his columns over the years, it would be impractical to list everything. But I definitely recommend the moral arguments he made in videos on capitalism and profits.

P.S. I also can’t resist suggesting that you watch Walter’s conversation with his Nobel Prize-winning colleague, Jim Buchanan.

Author Biography

Eric Schurenberg is Editor-in-Chief of BNET.com and Editorial Director of CBS MoneyWatch.com. Previously, Eric was managing editor of MONEY. As managing editor, he expanded the editorial focus to new interests including real estate, family finance, health, retirement, and the workplace. Prior to MONEY, Eric was deputy editor of Business 2.0. He was also the managing editor of goldman.com, a Web site for Goldman Sachs Group’s personal wealth management business, and an assistant managing editor at Fortune magazine. Schurenberg has won a Gerald Loeb Award for distinguished business journalism, a National Magazine Award, and a Page One Award.

In his article “5 Social Security Myths That Have to Go, ” Schurenberg notes:

Social Security isn’t the only cause of America’s fiscal problems, but it is Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them. No serious solution to our debt can ignore a program that will tax and spend about 4.8% of GDP this year and account for about 20% of all federal spending-and that within a few decades will count almost a third of the population as beneficiaries. But whenever I write about Social Security here at CBS MoneyWatch, I’m always struck by how much disagreement there is about how the system really works.

A handful of misconceptions tend to crop up repeatedly-often having to do with that fiscal fun-house mirror, the Social Security trust fund. And despite the efforts of writers like Allan Sloan and experts like the Urban Institute’s Eugene Steuerle, the myths won’t die. This column won’t kill them either, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a whack. Here goes:

Myth: Social Security benefits are earned; reducing them amounts to confiscation

It’s not hard to see why this illusion exists, since Social Security’s own website refers to “earned credits” and sometimes refers to payroll taxes as contributions. But despite Social Security’s fetish for language that echoes private pensions, no one ever vests in Social Security. You don’t own your benefits until you cash the check.

It’s more accurate to say your benefits are an entitlement granted by act of Congress and subject to change at any time by another act of Congress. As long as voters consider benefits inviolate, they will be. When voters decide fiscal responsibility is more important, then Social Security benefits- “earned” or not-will be up for review.

__________________________________________

Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security