On the Losing End of Federal Spending : Money: Taxpayers give more than they receive, and subsidize projects without local benefits.

Orange County is getting ripped off.

According to statistics just released by the Commerce Department, in 1992 Orange County was a net exporter of tax revenue to the rest of the country. In simpler terms, Orange County pays a lot more in taxes than it receives in federal expenditures.

Here are the facts. Money to Washington from Orange County: $13.4 billion. Money from Washington to Orange County: $9.2 billion. Net loss: $4.2 billion.

And so it is that every man, woman and child in Orange County pays a $1,742 subsidy to the rest of the country.

The Commerce Department numbers show that average federal spending per person nationwide was $4,599 last year. However, in Orange County it was only $3,833, or $766 below the average.

Even if Orange County received the average, it would still be over $2 billion in the hole. No matter how you slice it, Orange County is getting shortchanged.

I am the first to admit that some of what we send to other areas benefits our entire nation, such as defense spending. Other funds go for legitimate projects that the private sector or lower levels of government could not possibly undertake (the space program, dams, the interstate highway system).

However, as the report states, most of the spending is for grants, benefits and subsidies to states, localities, organizations and individuals. With much of this spending, it is hard, if not impossible, to make the case that there are compelling national interests involved.

For example, how is Orange County or our nation strengthened by subsidizing artists whose patrons are overwhelmingly wealthier? How do Amtrak subsidies better our nation? Can anybody really make the case that those who commute on Amtrak are destitute or that the railroad could not make a go of it as a private concern? We should sell it, as we did Conrail. And how many people in Orange County can tell me what the Appalachian Regional Commission does and why we need it?

How did we get into this mess anyway? Simple. The government shifted its emphasis from providing legitimate services to redistributing income, or taking money from those who have it and giving it to politically valuable groups that do not. Given President Clinton’s obsession with raising taxes, this trend will only get worse.

The solution should be obvious. The federal government, as our founders understood, cannot solve all our problems--and should not try to.

Most problems should be addressed closer to the people, at the local or state level. The federal government should only concern itself with those undertakings which are its purview, as defined by the Constitution. Unfortunately, these limits have been routinely ignored over the years, and that is the real source of our deficit problem. It is not that government does not do enough, but that it does too much.

Before Congress spends a dime on anything it should ask: Is the activity we are now being asked to fund a legitimate function of the federal government? Is it constitutionally sound?

I think I know what the answer would be for much of the spending that takes place. Which is why I suggest we begin getting a handle on our deficit by eliminating extra-constitutional programs such as the National Endowment for the Arts, the Legal Services Corp., Amtrak, the Economic Development Administration, the Rural Electrification Administration, the Market Promotion Program, the. . . . The list goes on and on.

As for Bill Clinton, he may talk tough about spending cuts. But in a $1.5-trillion budget the President could identify only 11 programs, amounting to a pathetic 0.1% of the budget, that “do not work or are no longer needed.” Any Orange County citizen could do better than that.

Finally, Orange County, remember that when Bill Clinton talks about raising taxes on the filthy rich, he means you. He wants you to cough up, or “contribute,” even more of your hard-earned money so that artists can insult you, Wall Street commuters can get cut-rate train travel, and Depression-era public works projects can live on and on.

Which vision do we want for our country: Bill Clinton’s or the Founding Father’s? You can put me with Thomas Jefferson and the founders.