Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 14, 1990 TAG: 9003143197
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A/1 EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE: TOM RAUM ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
Either way, the White House decision to sing praises of the ambitious proposal by the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has congressional Democrats in disarray.
By short-circuiting the budget process and responding to a plan that no committee has yet voted upon, Bush mischievously managed to put Democrats on the defensive and score points for a willingness to negotiate.
In fact, there is nothing on the table to negotiate at this time.
Furthermore, the administration's assertions of disagreement with some elements of the package - its advocacy of a Social Security freeze and tax increases - make it sound like Democrats in general have embraced such proposals.
In fact, Rostenkowski thus far has mustered little Democratic support for his plan. It is not before the House and Senate budget committees, which under law must come up with their own deficit-reduction plans by next month.
The administration's stance enables it to claim credit for a willingness to deal on tough budget-deficit issues, while making it appear that Democrats have proposed what Republicans always accused them of advocating: higher taxes and a desire to tamper with Social Security.
"We're not trying to be cute on this," insists Richard Darman, Bush's wily budget director, architect of this week's White House maneuvering.
Although he called it "the first serious proposal that has been put in the public domain by Democrats," Darman concedes that Rostenkowski's proposal is not a formal Democratic plan. But, he told reporters Tuesday, the congressional budget committees "are not yet close to being able to put together a budget resolution and it's important that there be something there to negotiate with."
Many analysts do suggest that the administration's actions this week - whatever the motive - could serve as the catalyst that might lead to a long-elusive major budget compromise between the White House and Congress.
Such a wide-based bipartisan compromise might be the only way that the administration could eventually sign off on a measure that included tax increases.
Bush seemed to point himself in this direction at a news conference Tuesday when he was asked if he could assure Americans there would be no tax increase this year as part of a deficit-reduction package. "I'm only one player," he said.
He added that he has no plans to change his own views on taxes. But that's still a lot milder than his "Read my lips: no new taxes" of yore.
Darman has a reputation as a spinner of carefully crafted webs. In fact, "Darmanesque" has become a standard description in the nation's capital for complicated and often vexing stratagems.
House Speaker Thomas Foley, D-Wash., has tried to play down Bush's unexpected receptivity to Rostenkowski's plan, suggesting it stems mainly from their personal friendship.
"That doesn't speak of any substantive change on the part of the president to consider new taxes," Foley said.
Rostenkowski's proposal would raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans from 28 percent to 33 percent and increase excise taxes on gasoline, liquor and tobacco. It would impose a one-year freeze on federal spending, including Social Security benefits. And it would channel "peace dividend" defense savings into further reducing the deficit.
His plan envisions a balanced budget by 1994 and would replace the current Gramm-Rudman law, which calls for graduated deficit-reduction steps.
Foley asserted that winning approval for new taxes was "politically and governmentally impossible without the prior approval and support of the president, who has . . . destroyed any opportunity for a long-term deficit reduction by refusing to consider such new revenues."
Earlier this year, the administration was caught off guard when Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., proposed a politically appealing plan to reduce Social Security taxes.
Moynihan forced the administration into the awkward political posture of having to oppose conservative dogma and go on record in opposition to a tax cut.
Now, with its stance on the Rostenkowski proposal, the White House has come full circle - putting Democratic leaders in a similarly embarrassing position.
by CNB