THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 23, 1994 TAG: 9410210026
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 68 lines
When more than 300 Republican House candidates gathered on Capitol Hill recently and signed a ``Contract with America,'' Democratic political consultants rubbed their hands with glee. After months on the defensive, they unveiled a $2 million ad campaign slamming the GOP for wanting to bring back ``Reaganomics'' and the ``greedy'' 1980s.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, it looks like a case of believing their own propaganda. ``When President Clinton asks the dyspeptic American voters of 1994 to think twice about returning to the policies of the 1980s, he is taking a big risk,'' writes Washington Post political reporter David Broder. ``He invites comparison with a predecessor - Ronald Reagan - who in nostalgic memory is viewed as a more significant and successful chief executive.''
Indeed, the president's own pollster, Stan Greenberg, has numbers that back up that assertion. Greenberg found that 49 percent of those he surveyed had ``warm feelings'' about the 1980s, while only 20 percent did not. Other surveys show Reagan still enjoys high popularity. An ABC News poll and a Times-Mirror poll released since the ``Contract with America'' was announced show more voters saying they plan to vote GOP than Democratic for Congress, a result that hasn't been seen in some time.
The GOP ``contract'' endorses term limits, a balanced-budget amendment, selected tax cuts, deregulation, tort reform, increased defense spending, welfare reform, serious anti-crime legislation and many other measures. Contrary to what has been reported, the contract does not promise enactment of these popular measures, merely that they will be brought to the floor for a vote. Democratic leaders have kept most of these reforms bottled up in committee. Speaker Thomas Foley even sued his own constituents to stop term limits. (And might find his own term involuntarily limited in November as a result.)
Remarkably, in the wake of the House post office and banking scandals, serious Congressional reform has gone nowhere. Republicans pledge they will slash committee staffs by a third; put term limits on committee chairmen as well as members; commission an independent accounting firm to audit the past 40 years of internal House spending; require ``impact statements'' for all unfunded mandates; implement budgeting rules that call for using a zero baseline in projections, so Congress can't claim it ``cut'' the budget while spending still goes up; prohibit retroactive taxes and require a three-fifths majority to raise taxes. None of these House reforms would cost much money and we suspect most would find favor with Americans outside of Washington.
But what about the deficits of the 1980's, the critics cry? The decade, as we recall, did not feature a free-spending Republican president and a Democratic Congress fruitlessly calling for restraint. Indeed, the most frequently heard criticism of Ronald Reagan from Democrats at that time was that Mr. Reagan was not spending enough. Efforts at budgetary restraint by the executive were greeted with cries of ``heartlessness'' and ``unfairness.''
And what was the alternative Democrats were offering in the 1980s? A return to the stagflation at home and retreat abroad that characterized the Carter administration? That was rejected twice by landslide margins.
If Republicans do win a House majority running on their contract, of course, they will have an obligation to deliver on it, or risk seeing cynicism and disgust with government grow even further and perhaps spawn a third party. The major accomplishment of the ``contract,'' whatever one thinks of the details, is that it has sharply delineated the fault lines between the two major parties. The national Democratic Party can talk about the 1980's if it wants to. But the GOP contract is addressing the here and now, which is, we suspect, more on the voters minds. by CNB