WHERE CAN WE CUT?

When I'm out on the campaign trail, people often ask me, "Steve, I know government is too big, but how can we make it smaller? Where can we cut?"

While the people I talk to sense that their taxes are too high, they oftentimes are unable to visualize where sizable chunks of the federal government's budget could be eliminated. So, to answer their question, let me offer you a $182 billion solution. That's enough money, by the way, to fund a major part of the tax cut I'm proposing. Let's do the math: There are 54 million families and individuals making less than $25,000 per year, including those under age 25. This $182 billion would amount to $3,370 per family, enough to eliminate the need to tax incomes below $25,000.

Let's start with the Department of Education. That's 45 billion dollars right there. Their budget has doubled in the last five years. Do we have twice as many teachers? Are our schools twice as good? Are our students twice as smart as they were five years ago? No. No. No.

What we do have are twice the number of rules telling teachers what tests to give and what curriculum to teach, all in a bid to help their students do well on those same tests.

What we do have are twice the number of administrators and support staff and federal commissions, all busy studying hundreds of ways to ensure that our kids are all on the same page, learning precisely the same thing at precisely the same moment.

So what can we do about it? Why not give the money back to the parents and let them decide? Certainly each parent, within their own state or community, knows better than the central government what's best for their own children. Even former President Ronald Reagan proposed eliminating the Department of Education, so maybe it's not such a radical idea after all.

Now let's go to the Department of Transportation, specifically AMTRAK. Here's another 10 billion dollars. Durbin is a HUGE Amtrak supporter. Here we are trying to wean the rail system off the government dole, and they won't let go of the udder, because people like our Senator Durbin keep feeding them more money. AMTRAK was supposed to be on its own before 2002. Just this past October, Durbin proposed giving them $4.5 billion over two years to increase security. He also supports the high-speed rail proposal from Chicago to St. Louis with $5 billion to start.

Now don't get me wrong, it would be very cool, of course, to have a high-speed rail-link between these two important metro areas. But how cool would it be for a single mother making $7 an hour waiting tables, netting maybe $4 an hour after payroll and income taxes and having to pay for something she probably can't afford to ride anyway? The purpose of our society is not to tax the poor to subsidize cool toys for the rich.

And what about NASA? Clearly, NASA could be privatized at a savings of $20 billion a year. And what about the Space Station? This is expected to cost $100 billion, plus $4 billion a year in upkeep.

Now, don't misunderstand me here. I am a major league fan of the space program. Just like everyone else in the country my age, I sat on the edge of my seat and watched Neil Armstrong take that first step onto the moon. I think we ought to be there, and I have written my share of science fiction stories to help get us there. But if the risk is worth taking, let private enterprise take it. Let Hilton put a hotel up there and let Pizza Hut cater the food. Leave the taxpayer out of it.

So where does that leave us? Still a few dollars short. How 'bout the Small Business Administration? And how 'bout Corporate Welfare? We are giving billions of dollars to companies like ADM that turn around and get caught fixing prices and are jailed by the U.S. and the E.U. Last year we spent $87 billion in corporate welfare. This year we've promised $20 billion to the airlines and relieved them of the costs of security as part of our new homeland security initiatives. Senator Fitzgerald was the only Republican to vote against this, and I agree with him. Total for this category? — $107 billion.

Now add all these savings up and you come to the $182 billion I promised. But why stop there? The federal government is the largest landowner in America. We could sell off some of the federal lands. We could give more land and parks back to the states to manage. We could lease more land to loggers, thus making it cheaper to build new homes.

Or we could take President Bush's faith-based initiative further. Private charities have always done a better job than government in providing social services to those in need; let's get rid of the government rules and regulations and let private charities run the welfare programs in this country.

And what about programs where control can be given back to the states? Surely the states are capable of dealing with public housing, student loans, unemployment, welfare, food stamps, elderly care — dare I go on? And what about the EPA? Every state already has its own program. And do we really need the Drug Enforcement Administration?

I think by now you have the idea. We don't need to starve government for resources to make it smaller; we need to revert government back to its proper role, a subject I covered in an earlier essay — protecting the natural rights of people, enforcing private contracts, providing for the national defense, and ensuring property rights. Above all, we need to return to what has perhaps become a quaint idea — limited government.

(I want to thank Jeffrey Trigg, Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Illinois, who supplied me with most of the facts and figures used in this essay.)