
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, May 18, 1990                   TAG: 9005180721
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-12   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

POLITICAL PROMISES VS. POLITICAL REALITIES

ONE REASON I voted for Richard Nixon in 1972 was because his Democratic opponent, George McGovern, said he would have our boys out of Vietnam within 90 days. I knew that was impossible.

Over the past 18 years, I have thought of every candidate as a salesperson with campaign promises as the sales pitch. During a pitch, we hear endorsements and claims about the product. When we accept the claims, the deal is wrapped up by signing a paper which holds all parties responsible, not for what was promised, but for what is actually on the paper.

The paper, not the promise, is reality. The candidate's goal is to get elected and, as we have witnessed, honesty and integrity are not necessarily prerequisites.

Now George Bush's "read-my-lips" campaign pledge has the president in hot water. However, before we put his head in the lunette, we should consider several points.

First, we bought his pitch. Yes, Bush should be held accountable for his promise of no new taxes. He offered a promise most believe he should keep, even though with a tad of analysis few would believe his prospect of no new taxes to be immutable.

No "new" taxes would not preclude the increase in current taxes. That thought has been around since the fall of 1988. A "revenue enhancement" may be synonymous with "tax" to most, but in Washington a definition depends on who is using the word.

Second, Bush's pledge of "no new taxes" is out of his hands. If any one body has dominion over the nation's budget, it is Congress. The president points the way he believes legislation (and the budget) should go, but Congress does the driving.

There are but two ways to control the governmental budget: limit spending or increase revenue. Today's concern is that we may need the latter to retrieve stability. It's beyond my comprehension how any of the electorate could believe our deficit could be checked without doing one or the other.

Now, the president can keep his promise by vetoing any tax-increase bill, which, in turn, returns the responsibility to Capitol Hill. Congress then has the final say. It can let the bill die or, if it believes the legislation should be mandated, override the veto.

Bush vowed no new taxes. A majority of the public bought it. We expect him to oppose the idea yet do what is necessary to keep the budget in balance. We want him to keep his pledge but cannot expect him to stop Congress if its mind is set.

The public should never accept campaign vows that are tenuous or not fully within the candidate's power to accomplish. Have we learned somthing, or will I have to write this again after 1992?

Remember the saying: "If it sounds too good to be true . . . " D.K. SULLIVAN ROANOKE

by CNB