Editing 75-10-B4 (section)

=== Transcript ===
Is the Congress of the United States ready for truth in spending? We'll soon find out. I'll be right back.

Those of us who over the years have been skeptical of government spending have always hoped for a way to convey to the people the cost of a government program, as well as the supposed benefits. Now there appears to be some light at the end of this particular tunnel. This is no small thanks to U.S. Senator Jay Glenn Bell from Maryland. It all started during floor debate on Senate Bill 409 which is to extend the existence of the Council on Wage and Price Stability. Senator Bell reasoned correctly, I believe, that if the council was going to raise you-know-what every time a company raised its prices or a union obtained a wage increase, we might as well devote some attention to the main, some would say the only, cause of inflation, which is government spending.

So Senator Bell offered a 'Truth-in-Spending Amendment' requiring every legislator who introduces a spending bill in the House or Senate to say exactly what his bill would cost the average tax-paying American family. Very simple and very reasonable, so much so that Senator Proxmire of Wisconsin, floor manager of the bill, accepted Senator Bell's idea as a friendly amendment. It passed the Senate by voice vote. Unfortunately the House had already acted on the bill, extending the Council on Wage and Price Stability without having considered such an amendment, so it will be up to a House-Senate conference committee to accept or reject the Senate passed amendment. Let's hope it's accepted.

It should be accepted, for the perfectly straightforward reason offered by the Senator, truth in spending is, quote, "An effort to make spending more understandable to the average tax-paying family. What this means is that in addition to taking the credit and heralding the benefits of proposals, members of Congress must also apprise the electorate in terms they will understand of the program's cost to their family. The taxpayer then will be able to balance the promised benefits of the program against the increased tax burden." Unquote.

What this means is that when, for example, Senator Kennedy reintroduces his compulsory national health insurance bill, it would have to be accompanied by a rider indicating that the cost of his bill to the average American family will be about a thousand dollars a year. With this sort of procedure it wouldn't be too surprising to see a reduction in the number of big spending bills that actually get introduced.

'Truth-in-Spending' is an idea whose time is long overdue and Senator Bell deserves great credit for shepherding it through the Senate. Let's hope Congress as a whole makes this potential victory for the taxpayers complete.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">