THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 30, 1994 TAG: 9410280026
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J7 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: PERRY MORGAN
LENGTH: Medium: 69 lines
The political parties charge each other with hypocrisy regarding cuts in federal entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Each says it is falsely accused of considering such cuts by the other (and only) party actually considering them. Another sandbox spat? Yes, but one that makes even more difficult rational discussion of the nation's fiscal infirmities.
Act I: Congressional Republicans propose cutting taxes, hiking military spending and balancing the budget. Where's the money coming from to achieve this miracle? Mum's the word.
Act II: The Democrats say the Republicans plan to take the money from en-ti-tle-ments.
Act III: Foul hypocrisy! cry the Republicans: Why, here's a copy of a budget memo that shows the White House itself is calculating entitlement cuts though no specific reduction is recommended.
Act IV: And none will be! the White House splutters in an unbecoming bit of defensiveness. The memo, from Budget Director Alice Rivlin, is nothing more than a list of things to do if a body were of a mind to, well, you know, think seriously . . .
Horsefeathers. The Clinton administration has thought (and acted) seriously about deficit reduction from its outset. Entitlements, combined with interest on the national debt, constitute more than 60 percent of all federal spending. If nothing is changed, this mandatory spending will exceed 70 percent of federal expenditures within a decade. If deficits are to be checked, entitlements obviously must be curbed. There's no secret about this - just a taboo against candor among timorous politicians.
Republicans are well-represented on the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform which President Clinton created last year. One of them is is Peter Peterson, a former Nixon Cabinet member and ardent advocate of cutting benefits for the affluent through means testing. Peterson wants all entitlements reined in, including welfare, farm subsidies, veterans benefits and other programs.
There also are Republicans who write memos about entitlements, one being Deborah Steelman, described by The Washington Post as the Republicans' leading health-care analyst. Steelman, The Post reports, has outlined a range of measures to contain the growth of Medicare. And she has written that if the Republicans are serious about tax-cutting and balanced-budget talk, they must find ``at least $700 billion in deficit reduction over the next seven years.''
Steelman's conclusion lends credence to the Democratic charge that Republicans intend to whack entitlements. The charge, however, and the GOP countercharge, are both injurious and irresponsible. Republicans won't do much about cutting entitlements because they'll do less about balancing the budget. If they didn't love debt, they wouldn't have created so much of it. And wouldn't have fought so bitterly against the Clinton budget and economic plan which has reduced the deficit while the economy has rebounded despite Republican assurances of looming disaster.
Put another way, their record of fiscal irresponsibility provides not a whit of evidence that Republicans would respond forthrightly to runaway spending on entitlements. When the Democrats resorted to scare tactics, and then minimized their own interest in deficit control, they tended to make debate on entitlement spending off-limits. This is a costly irony because the Democrats are pledged to two new entitlements - jobs for single mothers they want to wean off welfare, and health-care reforms guaranteeing increased benefits for millions. MEMO: Mr. Morgan is a former publisher of The Virginian-Pilot and The
Ledger-Star. by CNB