WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1980
AS THE budget-cutting knives are being sharpened, it is important to try to view those programs most likely to be cut as they areÛÓnot as symbols of waste or symbols of the national effort to help the'poor. The symbolism, in fact, often doesnÛªt reflect the reality. Consider Exhibit A: counter-cyclical public service employment (PSE). It sounded wonderful until it was tried.</br></br>Economists saw PSE as a way to provide employment during economic downturns without increasing inflation; local politicians saw it as a means of rescuing troubled municipal budgets with federal money; and those concerned for the poor believed that such jobs would provide the first step onto the career ladder for disadvantaged minority workers.</br></br>As everyone has learned since the massive increase Û¢in PSE set in place by the Carter 1977 stimulus program, it couldnÛªt be done. First, the increase took nearly a year to put into effect, so that its major impact was felt just as inflation was becoming the principal problem in the economy and when unemployment rates were falling. Next, the aims of the local officials asked to run the program and those who wanted to help the poor were in direct conflict with one another. At first, the localities proceeded to do what made sense to them: fire large segments of their work force and then rehire them with federal funds at the same relatively generous wages they had been receiving. These employees were far from being the people the civil rights leaders had in mind at the inception of the program. They tended to be young, white, well-educated and male. In order to get the numbers up, the Labor Department ignored who was hired.</br></br>TIMEÛªS UP ON a big question in Annapolis: in the House of Delegates, a vote is scheduled that will determine precisely which members are sensitive to the clear denial of basic rights that the D.C. congressional representation amendment would correct. That, pure and simple, is the issueÛÓnot any of those convoluted excuses that are trotted out by opponents to dodge the question. The debate has gone on ad nauseam. With the SenateÛªs approval already in hand, it is the delegatesÛª turn to be recorded.</br></br>WeÛªll be brief: contrary to what amendment opponents would have their constituents believe, this vote is not a referendum on 1) a commuter tax; 2) the political behavior of Walter Fauntroy; 3)- the politics, color, religion or beliefs of anybody else living in the District of Columbia. Similarly, those who try to cast