Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, January 6, 1995 TAG: 9501060081
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
In passing a slew of internal reforms - ranging from a reduction in committee staffs, to a change in the rules by which spending increases are reckoned, to limits on the duration of committee chairmanships - Speaker Newt Gingrich and his GOP troops have demonstrated their grasp of a key point about leadership: Process and perception are as much a part of it as is substantive policy.
One of the new rules could come back to haunt Congress and the nation: Requiring a three-fifths vote to pass a tax increase effectively hands tax policy to a minority of members.
Most of the institutional reforms are reasonable, though, and have been adopted with broad bipartisan support. Some of the Democrats are new converts; others had pushed such reforms in previous years. But the latter could not convince their leadership of the urgency of the task. It required Gingrich and a Republican takeover to get the job done.
The opportunity to clean out procedural arteries is one virtue of periodic changes in party control. Another is the salutary effect on the parties themselves, both winners and losers. Loss of control has given House Democrats compelling reason to shed the trend toward entrenched arrogance that accumulated from 40 years in power. Acquisition of control has given House Republicans compelling reason to shed the trend toward irresponsibility and negativism that accumulates from 40 years out of power. Whether either or both parties can shed their hindrances remains to be seen.
Compared with jubilant celebration in the House, the first day of the GOP's takeover of the Senate was quiet. Perhaps this reflects in part a soberer recognition by Senate Republicans, who controlled that body as recently as 1986, that governing isn't as easy as it may seem from the other side of the aisle. Passing laws is considerably easier than passing good laws that have the intended effect. Taking crowd-pleasing positions on the campaign trail is a lot easier than being held accountable for the consequences of policy-making.
Republicans have won and deserve the opportunity to try out their ideas for making the federal government smaller. Reducing bureaucracy and devolving power to the states make a lot of sense. But genuine budget reform will require hard decisions about entitlement programs, subsidies to powerful interest groups and military spending - not merely the enactment of gimmicks such as a constitutional balanced-budget amendment.
Likewise, it's not clear that the Republican mandate includes tax policies skewed to benefit the wealthy, welfare reform that punishes the poor instead of promoting employment, or a reversion to the Reaganomics of the 1980s that left a burgeoning national debt.
In any event, it's pretty clear the American public wants action, not gridlock. A Democrat is in the White House, in possession of the veto power, which complicates the accountability question. But delivering on deliverable promises, including those that impose constraints on oneself, is a good way to start with a measure of public confidence. On that, Gingrich and his Republicans this week did well.
by CNB