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

DATE: FRIDAY, March 10, 1995                   TAG: 9503130030
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Short

PRIORITIES

REPUBLICAN members of Congress for years have made a reasonable argument in suggesting that added appropriations for federal disaster relief - coping with earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and the like - ought to be accompanied by offsetting cuts in other areas of the budget.

Democrats, for their part, have argued that emergency appropriations need not be balanced by reduced spending elsewhere because, after all, these are emergencies. George Bush, among other presidents, has agreed.

Still, President Clinton would have done well to propose spending cuts to go along with the $6.7 billion he's requesting for emergency aid to flood-ravaged California. He failed to. And Republicans, sticking to their guns, have proposed spending cuts to cover the disaster relief and much more - $17 billion to $20 billion, all told, out of the current budget.

That's just fine with us, generally speaking. Emergencies are regular occurrences, and relief funds have to come from somewhere. The problem is with the particular items the Republicans propose to cut, consistent with their priorities. You know the list: Women, Infants and Children nutrition (WIC), home energy assistance for low-income families, Head Start, international peacekeeping, environmental protection. Etc.

Clinton's spending cuts no doubt would have been less mean and myopic - had he proposed them.

by CNB