Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, June 5, 1995 TAG: 9506060028
SECTION: EDITORIALS PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Republicans in both House and Senate have passed, to their credit, seven-year plans to balance the federal budget. How much more time must pass before the public gets to see even semi-serious counterproposals, not to mention White House leadership, on this issue of great importance to America's future?
Sure, Clinton has talked vaguely about offering a "counterbudget." But nothing definite appears in the works.
Yes, Democrats have stood up to decry proposed Medicare cuts. But such demagoguery is as unhelpful as it is predictable. The fact is that entitlements have to be a major part of deficit-reduction. Frightening seniors does not advance the debate.
In his first two years in office, Clinton did make a good start at deficit-reduction. Recently, though, he has sat back, encouraging Republicans to come up with a budget plan first, so he and fellow Democrats could snipe at it.
Well, Republicans have produced a plan and Democrats have sniped at it. Now it's time for the administration to move on, to break out of its passivity and pandering.
In particular, Clinton ought to embrace the goal of aggressive deficit-reduction while defending - with his veto pen - spending priorities very different from those evident in the GOP proposals. The administration and its allies should come up with a plan that, unlike the Republican budget resolutions, does not:
Focus spending cuts on the young and the poor. House and Senate proposals would hack at the earned income tax credit and funds for prenatal care, child nutrition and Head Start. Aside from their meanness to vulnerable people, such cuts would harm the nation's future (a point Congress unwittingly acknowledges with proposals to increase prison funding).
Spare corporate welfare from substantial cuts. House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich offered a token pledge to cut $25 billion in unspecified corporate subsidies, but even this was blocked by other senior Republicans. Neither the House nor Senate resolutions would eliminate such special-interest boondoggles as the $4.1 billion percentage-depletion allowance for oil, gas and mining companies, or the $5.7 billion tax credit for producers of fuel from "nonconventional sources."
Overspend on defense. America's military spending is close to that of all other nations combined, but GOP bills would give the Pentagon billions of dollars on top of big-growth budgets already planned - in the House resolution, $46 billion more over seven years.
Neglect the value of investment. The congressional plans would radically undercut foundations for future prosperity, including infrastructure, research, education, science and training. The nation would hardly benefit, for example, from disinvesting in basic civilian science, increasing interest on student loans, killing Pell grants, wiping out job training and cutting $30 billion in education aid.
Play loose with the numbers. House Republicans' insistence on offering big tax cuts (disproportionately benefiting the wealthy), while leaving Social Security untouched, undermines their plan's credibility. Their proposed schedule is also all too familiar: tax-cut goodies kicking in early, most of the budget pain to follow. And precious little detail is offered on how Medicare savings would be realized.
President Clinton needs to enter these budget wars with a deficit-reduction plan at least as specific as the Republicans', and more attuned to the impact on average Americans' prospects for a better future. The longer the president dithers, the more he invites GOP accusations that he is AWOL - "absent without leadership."
by CNB