Subject: Dukakis's $187 Billion Platform
Date: Published: 8/8/88 101 lines
Source:  WALL STREET JOURNAL. Copyright Dow Jones & Co. Inc. 

   Dukakis's $187 Billion Platform
    ----  
   By Harris W. Fawell

   "It's time to ask why it is that we have run up more debt
in this country."  That's the question Michael Dukakis put to
the Democratic convention in his acceptance speech last
month.
   We don't have to look very far to find the answer.  In the
same speech, Mr. Dukakis promised more money for students,
farmers, teachers, blue-collar workers, workers on minimum
wage, infants, the elderly, parents, families, the homeless,
welfare recipients, universities, laboratories, urban
America, rural America, small towns, big towns, factories,
neighborhoods, communities, the war on drugs, the war on
AIDS, the war on hunger, and the war on pollution -- all the
while promising to maintain a strong military.
In total, Mr. Dukakis and the Democratic Party platform
made at least 16 promises requiring new spending.  I'm not
saying these promises are necessarily bad.  I'm saying a
responsible leader would tell Americans just what the price
tag is.
   And so I dusted off my budget books to see how much we're
already spending on these 16 programs and how much spending
has increased during the Reagan years.  Then, I tried to
figure out the cost of implementing Mr. Dukakis's
initiatives.
   According to my calculations the 16 programs will cost at
least $37 billion more per year in federal spending, at least
$185 billion more over the next five years.  I say "at least"
because I used the most conservative cost estimates from the
Congressional Budget Office.  If you add new spending by
businesses that Democrats would mandate, the total reaches
$64 billion a year and $320 billion over five years.
   The Democrats disguise the cost of their promises by being
vague.  But the costs aren't hard to discern; most of these
proposals have been kicking around Congress for years.  Some
examples:  
 -- The Democrats' platform promises "that all Americans
should enjoy access to affordable, comprehensive health
services ...  from pre-natal care ...  to Medicare."
Translation:  Rep. Claude Pepper's $28 billion long-term
health-care legislation.
   It also suggests support for legislation by Sen. Edward
Kennedy and Rep. Henry Waxman that would require employers to
provide health insurance for all workers, including
part-timers, a mandate that would cost businesses between $27
billion and $100 billion a year.
 -- Mr. Dukakis says he'll give "those on welfare the
chance to lift themselves out of poverty."  Translation:  
Welfare "reform" legislation wending its way through
Congress.  The bill in conference would cost $4.4 billion
between 1989 and 1993.
 -- The Democrats promise "a war we intend to win" against
illegal drugs.  Translation:  Democrats in Congress are now
pushing a one-year, $2.6 billion increase in spending on drug
programs.  Never mind that during the Reagan administration
spending on drug enforcement, prevention and treatment has
increased to $3.8 billion a year from $1.1 billion.
   Other big-ticket spending items on the Democrats' list:  
child care, $2.5 billion; Headstart expansion, $6.3 billion;
and a significant increase in education spending, at least
$2.5 billion.  This is new annual spending in addition to
 automatic increases that will take place under current law.
   Other promises are difficult to cost out.  For instance,
Democrats call for "increased" spending on AIDS research and
education.  Yet, funding has grown to about $1 billion this
year and already is slated to increase $350 million next
year.  Are the Democrats concurring with the Reagan increase,
or are they proposing an even larger one?  
   Mr. Dukakis vows to make a college education "a right."
Student loans and grants have increased to $13.6 billion a
year from $7.2 billion during the Reagan administration.  How
much more are the Democrats proposing?  
   Through vagueness, Mr. Dukakis and the Democrats have
disguised the true costs of their budget-busting proposals.
Voters should challenge them to explain how they will pay for
their costly promises.  Will they raise taxes, cut other
programs, or just let the deficit and debt soar even higher?  
   It's easy to promise voters all these laudable programs.
It's easy to say yes.  The hard part is saying no.  The most
difficult job elected officials deal with every day is
setting priorities:  deciding not which programs are good, but
which good programs are absolutely essential.
   In his acceptance speech, Mr. Dukakis promised
"old-fashioned values like accountability and responsibility
and respect for the truth."  A good place to start would be
with some old-fashioned accountability about how a President
Dukakis would find the $185 billion to pay for his promises.
    ---
   Rep. Fawell is an Illinois Republican.

[This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the 
personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the 
hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering 
from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]