Washington

A bigger bang for our buck

"WHERE'S MINE?" A simple sentence often used to describe the seedier side of Chicago politics, where those in power are willing to look the other way as long as they get a piece of the action. Yet, the phrase kept coming to mind during recent legislative action by the Congress. The "where's mine" philosophy knows no geographical boundaries.

The so-called emergency jobs bill was a good example. The legislation that worked its way through Congress in February and March provided few new jobs for the nation's 12 million unemployed. Yet, the momentum for passage of some type of "jobs" bill was there. The voters had demanded action in the November elections. And returning members of Congress jumped on the bandwagon, going all out to make sure their states or districts got a piece of the action. That is their duty, but at times it seems to supersede the national good.

Calling it a "jobs" bill, the House Appropriations Committee that wrote the legislation put a piece of "pork barrel" money in there for nearly every committee member's district. Rep. Silvio Conte (R-Mass.) would say later it was like the "hogs going to the trough," although he did not mind the money set aside to repair a small section of railroad track in Massachusetts. Fortunately, most of the pork was removed on the House floor when an amendment was added to target the money to the areas with the highest unemployment. In the Senate a week later, a move was made by some senators from rural states to get more money from the bill. Sen. Alan Dixon (D-Ill.) said, "While I can understand the views of my colleagues who are interested in representing the interests of their states. . . I think it is also fundamental that there are times when the interests of the country are paramount. This bill in its allocation of funds is extremely fair."

And, just to make sure others did not think Illinois was getting away with too much, he added, "My state of Illinois sends $1 down to Washington and gets only 71 cents back. Every time we increase the defense budget. . . it actually hurts us because we are second to last in the allocation of public funds for defense purposes in our country."

Sen. Charles Percy (R-Ill.) agreed, and said, "We have cities in Illinois which rank at the very top of cities in the nation in terms of sustained unemployment. Rockford, Decatur, Joliet, Kankakee, and I could go on listing city after city in Illinois which properly deserve assistance under this bill. This bill should not become the vehicle for regional confrontation. As Ben Franklin said, we can either hang together or we will hang separately."

Despite the poor-mouthing, the Illinois congressional delegation pulled off quite a coup a few months earlier on the gas tax bill. The new law raised the federal gasoline tax 5 cents a gallon to a total of 9 cents a gallon. Through the work of the delegation, the state of Illinois will receive $1.65 in federal highway improvements for every $1 in federal highway revenue raised in the state. Only a few other states fared better than Illinois in that regard. Illinois will receive $1.75 billion over the next four years from the new law for a total of $4.57 billion in federal highway funds.

Part of the reason for this success, a spokesman for House Republican leader Bob Michel of Peoria said, is that Illinois has "made a big deal of its federal return from the treasury. There is keen interest in the delegation to improve the federal return on the dollar. The delegation has been very aggressive. They want to make their constituents feel they are getting a bigger bang for their buck."

First, the House agreed to change the gas tax program so that 75 percent of the funds are distributed on a formula basis. "This was very, very beneficial to Illinois," a Percy spokesman said, because the state is still entitled to federal funds in the interstate transfer program originally designated for the proposed Crosstown Expressway in Chicago, which has since been discarded. Then Dixon offered an amendment to the bill that kept inflation adjustments in the interstate transfer program and thereby saved the state some $250 million.

The money raised from the gas tax was meant to repair existing roads and bridges. Already included in the bill were the Clark Street bridge in Alton, the Dan Ryan bridge in Chicago and the MacArthur bridge in Gulfport. At around midnight one night, Percy offered an amendment that was accepted: $47 million to construct a new LaSalle-Peru bridge over the Illinois River for the U.S. 51 freeway.

Moreover, each state's return, when calculated, does not take into account the interstate transfer funds. Therefore, Illinois is actually on the books in Washington as getting less than a $1 return on its tax revenue. A provision in the gas tax bill said that each state that receives less than a $1 return should get a minimum of 85 cents in return. So Illinois could actually get more money because its calculated return is less than a dollar.

"Part of it is other states are not on top of it," the Percy aide said. "The Illinois delegation is ready, willing and able to go."

A good example was an amendment by Michel, which was accepted, that authorized $100 million over the next four years for U.S. 51 and the Kansas City-Chicago Expressway. Previously, they were listed as a priority project and got $64 million since 1979. The gas tax bill prohibited priority projects, so it became a demonstration program under the Michel amendment and got more money to boot.

What does a demonstration project demonstrate? "Clout," replied one congressional aide.□

May 1983 | Illinois Issues | 37