ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, November 14, 1996 TAG: 9611140022
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: Ray L. Garland
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
POLLSTERS who ought to go into another line of work proclaimed "soccer moms" the crucial swing vote in this election, replacing the legendary "Reagan Democrats" who apparently returned to President Clinton. Before them, we had the disgruntled Southern Democrats Richard Nixon so ardently courted, who either died or stuck with the GOP.
A soccer mom is a reasonably well-off matron trying to juggle a job and household chores while carting insistent offspring to soccer practice and other attractions that comprise their busy little schedules. The moms note the manifold impracticalities of large families and want no moral or practical impediments to abortion, even unto the ninth month, and wish someone would feel their pain and ease their burden.
They see the cost of college rising twice as fast as their incomes and do not ask if academic greed is to blame, only that government must pay - Lord knows they can't. They see aging parents and grandparents and want them anywhere but on their doorstep. Of course, they should have the best of care, but their estates shouldn't be depleted by bills for nursing homes, etc. After all, Mom and Dad worked so hard for what they have and want us to have it.
It was for them that Hillary Clinton proclaimed the family-leave act should be expanded to include parent-teacher meetings and trips to the veterinarian. Democrats will hold paid leave in reserve for when they really need it, just as they always do increases in the minimum wage. In sum, our politics will be increasingly feminized and we may expect the new GOP Congress to try falling into line.
Polls taken as voters leave the voting booth are suspect. But exit polls taken Nov. 5 show Bob Dole running about even among men but losing by 17 points with women! He did better among married women, far worse with singles.
There is, of course, some exaggeration here. Clinton got less than half the popular vote and Republicans held Congress, actually increasing their majority in the Senate from six to 10. If you grant that Ross Perot was making a fundamentally conservative appeal, this is the fifth presidential election in a row where the more liberal candidate failed to rise above 50 percent.
Concerning future elections, the good news for Republicans is they are likely to win - or be competitive - in enough states to carry the Electoral College. The bad news is the increasing number of states where their base vote has been reduced to a parlous condition. In the Northeast, the GOP made one of its worst showings ever. In New York, Dole took just 31 percent, and only 28 percent in Massachusetts. Even in traditional heartland states like Illinois and Michigan that have popular Republican governors, Dole fell substantially below 40 percent.
Perot, that repository of many forms of soul-destroying egotism, still sees a day when a desperate nation turns to him for salvation. This has become a billionaire's hobby - or fantasy. His 9 percent share in this election will again qualify the Reform Party for federal campaign funds. Of greater concern to Republicans must be the increasing number of candidates of the Reform Party and the Libertarian Party running for Congress.
Given the freedom such candidates have to make a very conservative appeal, you have to think they take more votes from Republicans. They may have cost the GOP a couple of close House races this year. Democrats face no comparable third-party threat.
The presidential vote in Virginia offers some hope to Republicans looking to hold the governorship behind Attorney General James Gilmore. While Clinton increased his share of the state vote by an impressive 5 percentage points - from 40 to 45 - Dole and Perot claimed almost 55 percent. For what it's worth, not since 1973 has the party holding the White House won the Virginia governor's race.
Scant attention was paid a proposed amendment to the state Constitution requiring that funds of the Virginia Retirement System be "invested and administered solely in the interests of the members and beneficiaries of the system." It passed with 83 percent of the vote. The General Assembly must now say what it means in statute law.
While legislators are likely to be wary of putting themselves too much at the mercy of VRS trustees in the matter of future funding obligations, this is no small question. Since Gov. Charles Robb, taxpayers have been on the hook for all contributions on behalf of state employees, and many local school boards have followed suit.
The VRS has been riding the crest of its decision in the early '80s to switch most of its assets into stocks. In the fiscal year ending June 30, assets rose from nearly $19 billion to $22 billion. Of course, some of that comes from sizable contributions by the state and localities.
If stocks continue to rise more than 10 percent a year, a day will come when taxpayer contributions can and should be eased. That is, the VRS will be adequately funded to face the time when benefits paid exceed income. The rub will come if legislators have one idea of proper funding levels while VRS trustees and beneficiaries have another. The assembly should safeguard its options now. Otherwise, it seems a good idea to give trustees standing to resist political direction in making investments.
Like the calm eye of a hurricane, this election seemed to catch America in midpassage from a long era of politics ruled by crises foreign and domestic toward one that will be ruled by heated debate over how to pay for all the promises that have been made to those getting on in years. But a serious day of reckoning is 10 years away.
Meanwhile, with so many trends in America's favor, we may enter one of those rare periods of national "good feeling." Enjoy it while you can.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times columnist.
LENGTH: Medium: 99 linesby CNB