THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, February 26, 1995 TAG: 9502240006
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: PERRY MORGAN
LENGTH: Medium: 69 lines
The thrill of victory still tingles. Reflecting on the November election, conservative guru Irving Kristol says Newt Gingrich has worked such wonders that any Republican candidate can win the presidency in 1996 if he ``will be willing to ratify the popular mandate the (Republican) Party has been awarded.''
The mandate, if there be such, is embodied in the so-called Contract With America which Kristol, writing in The Washington Post, terms a ``stroke of genius.'' As a way to gig Democrats, that description fits; voters turned them out in droves in favor of Republicans promising to pull together to shrink government and cap the gusher of deficit spending. But Kristol also credits Gingrich with ``true leadership'' and, on that score, the returns are not in.
The test of leadership is whether majority Republicans truly intend to whack the deficits that exploded during the Reagan and Bush administrations. The Contract evades the question, promising huge tax cuts on the one hand and, on the other, a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget seven years hence.
Since achieving balance will cost between $900 billion and $1.2 trillion, one might expect fast action with emphasis on cutting spending or increasing revenues or both. Alas, not so. Priority in the House of Gingrich goes to reducing revenues through tax cuts totaling $704 billion over 10 years.
Veteran Republican deficit fighters in the Senate are not impressed. Alan Simpson of Wyoming asks: ``How do you give tax cuts when you've got an accumulated $5 trillion debt facing you?'' John Chafee of Rhode Island says: ``I'm opposed to tax cuts. I just think it means increased borrowing from our children.'' Bob Packwood of Oregon urged the nation's governors to seek resolutions from state legislatures urging Congress to cut the deficit now and taxes later.
Now that would be true leadership. And there's reason to believe Gingrich could raise the standard without peril since voters in opinion polls and at public hearings want tax cuts delayed. Such a move by the speaker would also highlight the waffling of Bill Clinton who's playing me-too to Gingrich's tax-cutters. Further, it would give credence to the GOP's anti-deficit stance not offered by the balanced-budget amendment. That amendment would invite the appointed Supreme Court to take powers away from the executive and legislative branches. It is radical, not conservative; the consequences of its passage defy prediction and, in any event, lie in the future.
By contrast, the wasting effect of the national debt is current, immediate, continuous. By the time the amendment, if approved, takes affect, interest on the debt may have risen from $235 billion to $344 billion annually.
Being in such a hole, there's good reason to stop digging. Gingrich's cohorts, however, are not impressed by such ordinary prudence; they intend to forge ahead with the tax cuts. Rep. Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania explains condescendingly: ``It's not as clear to the public as it is to us that the way to bring down deficits is to deny the government revenue.''
This has been the party line since Ronald Reagan proposed his tax cuts in 1981. Since then, the national debt has grown from $900 billion to $5 trillion. Is it possible that there is something that Congressman Walker doesn't understand?
As for Gingrich, there's no question that he had the vision to foresee and to hasten the end of congressional dominance by feckless Democrats. This was no small achievement, but the House emphasis on tax cuts is politics as usual. The ``true leadership'' Irving Kristol ascribes to Gingrich involves risk that Gingrich has not run, and courage he has not shown. MEMO: Mr. Morgan is a former publisher of The Virginian-Pilot and The
Ledger-Star. by CNB