"We cannot seem to get it together." - Congressional attitudes - Editorial

Nation's Business, May, 1992

Members of Congress are desperately trying to counter the public outrage caused by recent developments on Capitol Hill.

For reasons ranging from bounced personal checks to inaction on national problems, the lawmakers are being assailed as unresponsive and irresponsible

The incumbents say that their acts of commission and omission are being wildly exaggerated by opportunistic opponents and irresponsible media.

But the most perceptive analyses of what's wrong with Congress today come not from outside critics but from two of its most respected and influential members, Republican Sens.Warren Rudman of New Hampshire and Sen, John C. Danforth of Missouri.

Rudman commented on the workings of the legislative branch in announcing that he would not seek election to a third term. He is leaving, he said, because he has become terribly frustrated by Congress' failure to admit to the root cause of massive budget deficits-financially ruinous but politically popular entitlement programs.

"We are unable, institutionally, to do what has to be done," Rudman said. "We cannot seem to get it together."

His remarks were followed by a statement from Danforth, who cited widespread discontent among senators. Unhappiness with the rampant criticism was one factor, Danforth said, but he suggested that the chief reason is linked to profligate spending:

"I think the major cause is that deep down in our hearts we believe that we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country. Deep down in our hearts we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy."

Danforth told the Senate: "We have defrauded the country to get ourselves elected."

In reviewing his Senate career, Rudman recalled that one of the first votes he cast in 1981 was on raising the national debt to just over $1 trillion. "That was the debt accumulated from time of the forming of the republic until 1981," he said. As he nears the end of his second term, Rudman noted that "the deficit for fiscal year 1992 alone will approach $400 billion. And the national debt will rise to over $4 trillion."

In 1980, Rudman continued, federally financed payments to individuals totaled $278 billion. They will total$730 billion this year and exceed $1 trillion in 1997. These amounts are spent for Social Security Medicare, Medicaid, federal civilian and military retirement, and other entitlement programs.

They bear that label because the law says that all applicants who met eligibility requirements are automatically entitled to the programs' benefits without regard to overall costs.

Danforth put it this way: "The problem is that we have hurt America-quite intentionally we have hurt America for the purpose of getting ourselves elected. We have told Americans that...we can reduce taxes and we can increase benefits."

Although "the numbers do not add up," Danforth continued, "people want to believe that this is not a real problem."

The two senators are challenging not only their fellow members of Congress but also the American people.

The fundamental problem results from the idea, fostered by politicians and accepted by voters, that high benefits, low taxes, and deficit reduction are compatible.

The inherent conflicts are ignored: Continuing escalation of benefits means higher taxes or higher deficits. Curbing deficit spending or avoiding tax increases means restrictions on spending.

As Rudman says: "In what I regret to call a conspiracy of silence among all of the presidential candidates and most members of Congress, few of us are willing to talk about the real problem. Why/ Because of the fear that, if you address the issues honestly, you will lose votes and possibly the elections."

Danforth expresses hope that "there will be a few of us who will be willing to tell the truth"and to force Congress into hard decisions, "even if we lose." He then poses the basic question that every member of Congress should answer this year and in future years:

"If we cannot get re-elected on such a basis, what is the point of serving?"