THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 2, 1995 TAG: 9507010002
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: PERRY MORGAN
LENGTH: Medium: 68 lines
Republicans tend to develop little fetishes about the right way to say things. In their wilderness years they became obsessed with the name of the opposition, always referring to the ``Democrat Party,'' severing the ``ic'' as if they owned it. Nowadays they cry foul when it's said they favor cutting spending. ``No! No! No!'' the howl goes up. ``We favor reducing the rate of growth of spending.''
The distinction, often correct, may not make a difference. If spending growth of a program is projected accurately to reflect inflation and increased numbers of eligible recipients, a reduction in the growth of spending will take money out of people's pockets - or prevent it from getting there in the first place. This result really is the point of the budget-balancing exercise, so why quibble about it? Republicans, after all, have traditionally scorned Democrats for not cutting spending: Why shouldn't they take credit for doing it?
The sad answer, of course, is the well-grounded fear that there will be no credit - only blame. Consider Medicare, for example, which has spending growth of 10 percent per year. Reducing that growth to 5 percent to 7 percent sounds modest, considering that: (1) the cost of the program over 20 years has jumped from 4 percent to more than 11 percent of all federal spending, and (2) this year's tab of $176 billion is projected to climb to $286 billion within five years. But it is dollars - not percents - that the Republicans are proposing not to spend on Medicare - $250 billion over seven years if the Republican plan goes through.
The armies of the elderly - which include 36 million Medicare beneficiaries plus relatives who might have to make up for some of the cuts - will not be pleased and might be angry. Very angry. Some think Medicare was included when the politicians took Social Security ``off the (budget-cutting) table.'' Many others, polls indicate, think their taxes already have paid for Medicare benefits. Another flashpoint is that Medicare and the health-care system generally are on the verge of change - which is very clear - while the nature of the change is a mystery. Who must pay more or get less is not yet clear. The Republicans have come at their version of health-care reform by specifying the cost reductions (which also include $180 billion less for Medicaid) while leaving the reformed system to be invented or unveiled over the next two months.
Taken together, all this poses considerable risk to Republicans. Newt Gingrich to the contrary, they are not shielded by President Clinton's guarded agreement that Medicare must be pared. Seniors are not looking to the government for cues.
Once upon a time (1988) an almost unanimous Congress passed, and President Reagan approved, addition of coverage for catastrophic illness and injury to Medicare. The American Association of Retired Persons gave its blessing but, as Norman Ornstein relates in The New Republic, a rival group assaulted the enhanced coverage as a ripoff even though added premiums were to be limited to the more-affluent recipients. Within a year, the government fled the field - repealing a well-intentioned achievement of bipartisanship.
The difficulties of reform speak of failed leadership obligations in both parties. Reduction of Medicare and Medicaid benefits is being undertaken in the name of controlling deficit spending which for so many years was made to seem of small importance. And citizens are told (correctly) the reductions are necessary by the same politicians who say there's so much money coming in they can afford to give tax cuts to other groups. This logic is hard to follow. The reforms may be hard to implement. MEMO: Mr. Morgan is a former publisher of The Virginian-Pilot and The
Ledger-Star. by CNB