106 



tax because, in the opinion of agencies that receive funding from it. it has appeared to 

 work for the past fifty years. This is actually an argument for tr> ing something different. 



Americans for Ta.x Reform generally opposes earmarked tax revenues for any reason. 

 Any valid public purpose that is genuineK worthwhile should compete with other 

 spending possibilities for money fixtm the general fund. And, when the purpose of the 

 program is achie\ ed, or when other priorities become more important, any spending 

 program should automatically terminate. The last thing we need is slush fund that once 

 established, \sill stay around another fifty years regardless of whether better possibilities 

 for using the mone\ become available. 



It does no good to pretend this money is merely a block grant that will be spent at the 

 states' discretion in order to reach goals set at the federal le\ el. By distributing money, 

 we create an organized interest group with every incentive to continue lobbying for 

 increased funding and increased bureaucracy in the fiiture. A tax such as this, similar in 

 its complexity and stealth to the European value-added tax, offers every possibility for 

 becoming a runaway money machine. \Miat's worse, funding is certain to go not only to 

 state agencies but also to tax-funded advocacy groups, which \sili lobby aggressi\eiy for 

 more and more funding of grant programs to groups such as themselves. 



Congress should not abdicate its responsibility to set priorities and use the taxpayers' 

 money wisely. This proposal does not deserve serious consideration. 



