THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, December 27, 1994 TAG: 9412230043
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 67 lines
This is the first in a series of editorials examining issues that will face the 104th Congress.
Rep. Newt Gingrich argues that Congress can't fix America until it fixes itself, so a top priority in the Contract With America is a package of institutional reforms.
Passage of the Shays Act would subject Congress to the same laws it imposes on the private sector including EPA and OSHA regulations. Simple fairness argues for the change, but some Republicans have an additional not-so-hidden agenda. They feel that if lawmakers are forced to live with the same burdens they inflict on others they may think twice about the laws they write. It is pleasant to think so.
The Republicans propose an outside audit of the House books to detect waste, fraud and abuse. It is a reasonable step if the aim is real reform and greater efficiency. But Republicans need to guard against the appearance of a partisan fishing expedition.
The proposal to cut committee staff by one-third has gotten a lot of favorable attention, but it affects only 2,200 staffers on House committees and 1,300 in the Senate. The real staff bloat is in the offices of individual congressmen. There are 12,000 House staffers and 7,000 for the Senate. Downsizing there is also in order.
The Contract With America calls for limits on how long a member can chair a committee, would ban voting by proxy in committee so members would have to attend to be counted, and seeks to open all committee meetings to the public.
Opening meetings may simply move the real business offstage, and having to appear for every committee vote may actually make members less efficient, but the pursuit of accountability is welcome.
A proposal to require a 60 percent super majority to pass any tax increase reflects the mood of the moment, but why not 70 percent or 90 percent? The argument against a simple majority is unclear. If members are admitting they are helpless in the face of tax bills (Stop me, before I tax again!), new members are needed, not a procedural straitjacket.
The Contract is on solid ground in demanding budget reforms. It seeks, as did President Carter, so-called zero-based budgeting to require programs to justify themselves in order to receive renewed funding. But more reform is needed. The whole byzantine system of government accounting should be scrapped. No private firm on Earth handles money the way the government does, and it is time to rationalize the bookkeeping.
The line-item veto is a substantial reform that will shift power to the executive, but may also limit the more outrageous pork. It should be passed.
By contrast, a balanced-budget amendment is a non-starter. Even The Wall Street Journal has trouble with it. The Constitution should be amended with great caution, and the workability of this reform is questionable. Instead of forcing Congress to exercise fiscal restraint, it could allow members to shirk their responsibility and wait for mindless, automatic cuts to kick in. Or it could put the budget power in the hands of non-elected judges. No.
Finally, term limits have the effect of limiting the power of voters not of legislators. That hardly seems like progress. The reform of how we elect Congress most urgently needed is in the area of campaign finance, the frank, and so-called soft money. The election that has put Republicans in charge of the nation's agenda is evidence that voters have the power to limit terms when they get tired enough of the ins. by CNB