ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, January 21, 1996 TAG: 9601190037
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: L.F. PAYNE
WHEN FORMER President Reagan addressed the American people about our nation's toughest challenges, he was fond of asking two rhetorical questions: ``If not us, who? And if not now, when?''
With the negotiations over a seven-year balanced budget in grave danger of becoming the first casualty of this presidential election year, the American public ought to be demanding answers to these questions from the president and the bipartisan leadership of Congress.
The simple fact is that now is the time for a balanced budget, and President Clinton and the members of the 104th Congress are the people to get it done. Americans have waited long enough for Washington to get its fiscal house in order. They have watched our national debt soar to almost $5 trillion while leaders in both parties tried in vain over three successive administrations to reach bipartisan agreement on balancing the budget. They understand better than ever that sustained deficit spending stands as our biggest impediment to lower interest rates and a more productive economy.
President Clinton was therefore wrong to assert, as he did last week, that the tough issues that have brought negotiators to the current impasse should be put off and decided by voters in the next election. There will be nothing in the election returns next fall that will remove the ambiguity, complexity and political risks that are inherent in issues like Medicare and Medicaid reform, tax policy and economic forecasting.
But President Clinton is just as correct when he criticizes the Republican leadership of Congress for its all-or-nothing approach to the current negotiations. The people I talk to from Southside Virginia are more interested in seeing us reach the general goal of a balanced budget than in seeing tax cuts enacted. My Republican colleagues should heed President Clinton's advice: ``We must not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.''
In working toward a balanced budget, the administration and Republican leaders have virtually ignored a balanced-budget plan that was developed by me and other so-called Blue Dog Democrats, a band of conservative Democrats drawn primarily from the South and West. The Republicans' failure even to consider our budget after their own was vetoed by the president suggests that rigid ideology - and not a balanced budget - may be driving the Republican negotiating position. They should put our budget to a vote immediately. Similarly, President Clinton must shed the notion that a balanced budget and the tough decisions that are needed to achieve it can await a new Congress and, possibly, a new president.
What is in our budget, and why is it such an attractive alternative to the gridlock that now stymies budget negotiators?
At the heart of the Blue Dog balanced budget is the simple idea that we cannot - and should not - cut taxes by $245 billion or even $177 billion while the deficit is so high. The tax cuts contained in the Republican balanced budget aren't free: They must be paid for by corresponding cuts in programs like Medicare, Medicaid and a host of other domestic initiatives.
Because our budget contains no tax cuts, it moderates spending reductions in these important programs and provides a softer landing to a balanced budget. Our budget provides more resources for Medicare and it preserves the current structure of the Medicaid program. It also adds less to the national debt over the next seven years than the Republican plan.
Lest anyone believes that the Blue Dogs have shied away from tough choices, our budget contains one vitally needed reform in domestic spending: It provides that the Consumer Price Index, which is the basis of annual increases in many entitlement programs, will more closely approximate the true rate of inflation. Economists are nearly unanimous in the view that the CPI significantly overstates the rate of inflation, and this helps to explain why entitlement spending has grown so sharply.
Like any plan to balance the budget in seven years, there are parts of our proposal that will draw sharp criticism from some quarters. But compared to the alternatives, our middle-of-the-road approach spreads the pain of deficit reduction most evenly - and most fairly - throughout our economy and society. More importantly, it is a plan that can gain popular acceptance right now.
The public has spoken clearly in support of a balanced budget. We don't need any more elections to determine that. We just need leaders on both sides with the determination to get the job done.
L.F. Payne, a Democrat, represents Virginia's 5th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
LENGTH: Medium: 83 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: RICHARD MILLHOLLAND/Los Angeles Timesby CNB