Washington

SHORTLY after taking his seat in Congress, Rep. Paul Simon (D., Carbondale) introduced a thoroughly sensible proposal that had utterly no chance of passing. He suggested that the government try out a guaranteed jobs program in 20 depressed counties across the country to measure its cost-effectiveness. The government would become the employer of last resort in those test counties. The reason why the logic of such an approach does not impress Congress is that the political processes of that institution are seemingly incapable of picking the 20 most deserving counties.

No matter how urgent the need, the two houses of the national legislature are almost always unable to agree on anything that bestows sizeable benefits upon a portion of the electorate unless there is at least a little something in the bundle for just about every congressional district. Sooner or later the pork barrel mentality infests every good intention in Washington that involves the distribution of federal dollars.

An earlier friend of Southern Illinois, former Sen. Paul Douglas, labored long and hard for special help for chronically depressed areas. Now, however, the regional commissions that were created as conduits for the aid have proliferated so that it is merely another source of grants for roads and the like.

Revenue sharing could never have been enacted without dealing in prospering units of government along with the demonstrably needy cities and states.

The model cities program, which started as a commendable attempt to treat urban decay by concentrating maximum attention on selected neighborhoods, has been broadened until funds now can be spent anywhere the mayors want.

There are different checks and balances in the two houses. Under present conditions, metropolitan areas usually have the votes to prevail in the House, but the smaller states use their leverage effectively in the Senate. Simon's thought of testing government-guaranteed full employment first in a few sparsely populated counties must appeal to the Senate, therefore, but hardly to the House.

Whatever changes are made in the revenue-sharing formula, so as to give more to the neediest big cities, it can safely be assumed that the legislation will include a "hold-harmless" clause insuring all units against any reduction of payments, which helps to explain why the cost of government keeps rising. Invariably, formula "compromises" are arrived at thus: let us assume that the problem to be addressed is gravest in the cities. Even if it isn't, the House can be expected to say, Let's give $10 to the cities and $5 to a comparable rural area. That may be so, says the Senate, but we won't vote for it unless the rural areas get $10 too. Such a conflict can be resolved in the only congressionally logical fashion — by giving rural districts $10 and cities $15.

Variations on a theme
Variations of that principle can be observed almost daily on Capitol Hill. For example, heavily populated industrial centers qualified for a major share of the $9 billion in sewage treatment construction grants that had been withheld by Presidents Nixon and Ford. After the money was ordered released by the courts, and although much of it had already been obligated to the large states, senators from the smaller states succeeded in amending another public works bill and reallocating the funds. A conference committee of the two houses handled the problem characteristically by: (1) leaving the $9 billion alone; and (2) authorizing an additional $1.4 billion to go disproportionately to the smaller states.

All this distributional dickering takes time. The accelerated public works spending bill to which the water pollution amendment was attached meandered down the legislative stream for almost a year, only to be vetoed in the end by Mr. Ford.

Another bright new idea was grafted onto that economic recovery bill along the way: timely "counter-cyclical" bonus aid to states and cities suffering high unemployment, with the understanding that the faucet turns off when the economy returns to normal. Representatives from Texas, where unemployment was not as severe, led the fight against the plan, protesting that over half the benefits would go to Illinois and five other states — an intolerable situation. The Senate failed to override the veto, essentially because the public works and counter-cyclical funds would do more for the big states than the little states.

It was clear that Congress is more comfortable with tax cuts and other traditional responses that can be spread widely if thinly. By early this year about 7,200 federally funded local public service jobs had been created in Illinois. The jobs had to go to unemployed persons, and they had to be for new services. Rockford, with 500 such slots, was by then straining to think of additional public service chores. James Cragan, the fire chief, had a brainstorm. He asked for federal funds to hire a "research assistant" who would become a grantsmanship expert. How fitting to use federal money to train someone who would discover all the mysterious sources of federal aid that the department had been missing out on all these years.