Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, June 2, 1993 TAG: 9306020275
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: PERRY MORGAN
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The proposal didn't make a dent in pervasive skepticism that any fiscal strategy actually will reduce the deficit. This attitude owes much to the record of the government. Over more than a decade, no effort to balance income and outgo has come close to its target; the misses have been off the mark spectacularly.
As a result, demand that something be done has intensified in tandem with doubt that anything can or will be done. "Credibility," as Clinton remarked, "is difficult to come by in Washington."
It might be harder (then easier) if more were known about the malfunctions of the 1990 budget agreement between George Bush and the Congress.
Their target was an annual deficit of only $29 billion by 1995. But even if all of Clinton's proposed spending cuts and tax increases take effect, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates the deficit in 1995 will be $258 billion.
What went wrong? Lots of things, says a Washington Post analysis.
Inflated estimates of revenue. Understated interest costs on the debt. Miscalculations about the rate of inflation. Recession-induced jumps in spending on benefits. Even a massive ($128 billion) computational error by the Treasury that gave a rosy but false hue to revenue estimates.
A full accounting might have increased public dismay but, over the long term, would have worked to induce discipline and better understanding. Which is to say we might have learned something from the errors.
As it happened, few asked for explanation. Outrage was wasted on denouncing George Bush for breaking his pledge not to raise taxes, a pledge unworthy of belief to begin with.
When Bush apologized to appease his critics, he had nothing to say about the economic forces to which he'd bowed or the goals he sought.
One could speculate that he thought he was just giving an autograph when he signed an agreement designed to reduce the deficit.
It's a sorry fact - with lasting effects - that he and his predecessor wanted to say as little as possible about the nation's most pervasive problem. The result has been a terrific loss of perspective and trust for which Clinton tries to compensate with talk of a trust fund.
Sadly, there's no trust in a trust fund or in any other process a president might propose; there is no way of guaranteeing that Clinton's deficit targets will be met any more than Bush's were reached; the only certainty is that another effort must be made to staunch the red ink before debt - feeding on its own bulk - further enfeebles the country.
Assuming the effort is made, sobering considerations will remain.
One is that the problem still lacks ownership. Rightly commended for confronting the issue, Clinton has not named its source - the general failure of Americans to keep a level head when offered, by both parties, a free lunch.
When citizens agreed to consume far more benefits than they paid for, they betrayed an unspoken covenant that one generation would not take advantage of another.
Above all else, that covenant must be restored. In the interim, it wouldn't hurt to make a list and check it twice in order to avoid repeating the bureaucratic bungles that figured in failed efforts to contain the deficit in the past.
Failed? No. "Inadequate" is the right word. To say "failed" is to deny George Bush and Congress credit for keeping scores of billions from being added to the deficit and to suggest the same about the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act.
Actually, there have been efforts right along to check the deficit, but none equal to the contrary desire that federal benefits flow undiminished. And now - too late - there's a craving for guarantees that a runaway deficit can be corralled and haltered by a given time.
Perry Morgan is a retired publisher of The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star in Norfolk.
by CNB