Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, February 20, 1993 TAG: 9302220264
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
LET'S SEE THE CRITICS' PLAN
NOT SURPRISINGLY, President Clinton this week barely had time to unveil his economic-reform plan before the naysayers pounced.For example, much confusion and commotion have arisen - and with some cause - over the figures in Clinton's plan, or at least with the way they initially were reported.
The part of Clinton's package combining spending cuts and tax increases would save close to $500 billion over the next four years, as the administration said it would. But another part of the package announced Wednesday night - new spending initiatives - would, in combination with proposed tax breaks, cut those estimated savings to about $325 billion. There are grounds here for questions and dispute.
So, too, with the administration's assertion that the deficit-reduction piece of its plan is composed of equal shares of spending cuts and higher revenues. It has been noted, for instance, that Clinton categorizes as spending cuts - rather than as tax increases - his proposals to extend taxability of Social Security and to raise user fees on timber sales and grazing rights.
Even so, one has to wonder whether critics are seizing upon such disputes in order to argue that the plan includes not enough spending cuts. If that is their argument, fine. We agree. More spending cuts would be better.
All we ask, as Clinton did in his impressive speech, is that the congressional carpers specify where they'd like to see the cuts.
Take Social Security. It's 20 percent of the federal budget. Clinton wants to cut Social Security's net cost by more than $20 billion over the next four years by exposing more of its benefits to income taxes. Are Republicans saying they'd cut more than this from Social Security?
Or Medicare. Combined with Medicaid, it amounts to 15 percent of the budget. Clinton's plan would cut some $35 billion from it. Are Republicans saying they'd like to cut more?
The military is more than 20 percent of the budget. Clinton proposes to cut $90 billion over four years - more savings than George Bush wanted. Are Republicans saying they'd cut more from defense, too?
Just these programs, combined with interest payments on a national debt that grew from $1 trillion to $3.4 trillion in the past 12 years, account for two-thirds of the federal budget. If they would spare the above-mentioned items and still have an impact on the deficit, Republicans would have to ravage remaining programs.
Indeed, the GOP could wipe out veterans benefits, highway spending, farm programs, student aid, welfare or a lot of other programs entirely, and still not approach the savings Clinton has proposed.
And this is not taking into account the GOP's sneering opposition to Clinton's tax plan. Take away the modest energy tax and the higher income-tax rate on wealthy Americans, and it would be most interesting to see how Republicans would come up with deficit reduction to match Clinton's.
Instead, they offer old slogans, vague slurs and party lines - such as the one Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, faithfully parroted in describing the sentiment of constituent calls to his office: "Bill Clinton says he's a new kind of Democrat, but this is just more tax-and-spend."
Is it? Or is it just a start toward paying off the bills from a decade of borrow-and-spend, overseen by Republican presidents who never once proposed a balanced budget?
It is certainly appropriate that details of Clinton's plan come under close scrutiny, that as much smoke and mirrors as possible be purged from the thing, and that his feet be held to the fire for more spending cuts than those he's outlined thus far.
But dispute the numbers all you want - the fact remains that Clinton's is a real plan which would reduce the deficit. That's a show of more fiscal responsibility than the nation has seen in a decade, and a sharp contrast with empty rhetoric issuing this week from the glib, the partisan and the cynical.