Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, June 3, 1993 TAG: 9308240770
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Ray L. Garland
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Virginia has a reputation no longer particularly deserved as a conservative state. But last November it upheld a well-established tradition of voting Republican in presidential elections, giving candidate Bill Clinton only 40 percent of its vote. But when President Clinton's revenue plan passed the House of Representatives 219 to 213, it received a majority in Virginia's 11-member House delegation.
Among the state's seven Democratic members, only Rep. Owen Pickett joined the four Republicans (Herbert Bateman, Thomas Bliley, Robert Goodlatte and Frank Wolf) in opposition. In so doing, you can certainly argue that Pickett honored the will of voters in the 2nd District, who gave Clinton only 35 percent of their vote in November.
But what about Democrats Norman Sisisky, L.F. Payne and Leslie Byrne? They supported Clinton despite his poor showing in their districts, and their three votes carried the day.
Sisisky actually switched his vote. When the House passed the advisory budget resolution almost three months ago, he was one of only 11 Democrats joining Republicans in opposition.
By way of explanation, for his switch,Sisisky said: had this to say:"Whether we like what he's doing, he's still going to be president for the next 3 1/2 years. We don't want his negatives to go so low that he can't get anything done." Realistically, that's not a bad reason.
While the public has paid attention to the close vote by which Clinton's plan was advanced to an uncertain fate in the Senate, it remains blissfully unaware of the parliamentary skullduggery by which it was done. Under Speaker Thomas Foley, the House is increasingly conducting its floor business along the lines of the old Supreme Soviet.
The Clinton plan was taken up under a closed rule that barred consideration of amendments. The real vote, therefore, was the one taken adopting the closed rule. All seven Virginia Democrats, including Pickett, voted for the closed rule. In fact, 31 of 38 Democrats who voted against the plan on final passage voted for the closed rule. Voting for the rule and against the bill was an act of subterfuge and cowardice deserving the scorn of both liberals and conservatives.
Intelligent readers are generally aware of the provisions of the bill, but it doesn't hurt to recapitulate. If it performs as advertised, it would raise some $265 billion in new taxes over the next five years and decrease spending by $137 billion. It would also offer tax credits or cuts worth $37 billion. It is supposed to reduce the deficit below $200 billion a year.
The most intelligent comment on the bill among Virginia representatives came from the 1st District Republican, Herbert Bateman. "The taxes will be sure, certain and immediate," he said, "but the amount of spending reductions are very, very small, even to the point of being inconsequential."
Not exactly small if carried out, of course. But will they be? While the tax increases are in the here and now, the spending reductions are more in the realm of promissory notes which may or may not be redeemed.
For example, the Clinton plan calls for savings of $50 billion over five years by reducing reimbursements under Medicare; and $8 billion in cuts in Medicaid. But actual reductions will be controversial and difficult to attain. Nor do they represent cuts, but only a slightly slower rate of growth in programs that will continue to grow by twice or more the rate of real growth in the economy.
The troubling part is how often we've heard these promises before. We heard them when President Reagan agreed to substantial tax increases that were supposed to be matched by twice as much in spending cuts. We heard them in 1985 when Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was passed. We heard them in 1990 when President Bush agreed to raise taxes.
The 20 or so "moderate" Democrats who staged a revolt against the Clinton plan demanded rigid spending caps on entitlements as the price of their support. They settled for a face-saving amendment requiring a vote when spending on entitlements exceeds projections. But that's the same flawed device that gutted Gramm-Rudman. But when the crunch arrives, who will vote to stop the checks, or cut them?
In many respects, of course, what the House did was academic. There will be many changes in the Senate., where Republicans are stronger and gag rules don't apply. In the immediate aftermath of the House vote, Clinton himself came close to admitting his energy tax, projected to raise $72 billion over five years, was likely to be replaced by an increase in the gasoline tax. But we see the broad outlines of the program of "hard" tax increases and "soft" spending cuts that will ultimately pass.
Make no mistake, a country borrowing as much as we are should consider seriously the wisdom of funding more of what it wants from taxes. But our politics ordain that Congress spend everything it can raise in new taxes and still borrow just about all the capital markets will tolerate. The problem is, once Congress digests this morsel, what will it do for an encore?
The public understands that this plan is no permanent fix. It may also understand that if things go wrong, the next stop will be a fiscal crisis requiring a broad increase in taxes on the middle class. In wanting policies that are conservative where it costs them, and liberal where it helps them, they have gone a long way toward making that day inevitable. \
Ray L. Garland is a columnist for the Roanoke Times & World-News.
by CNB