Less of the same? - federal budget debate - Editorial

National Review, Jan 29, 1996

Editors

President Clinton's ability to wriggle out of his political chains in the current budget battle approaches the magical. He took what seemed an impossible dilemma -- either alienating his base or alienating the country -- and turned it to his advantage. He successfully portrayed the Republicans' agenda as heartless and their tactics as extreme, and now he has given himself the crucial cover of a budget that seems actually to balance over seven years. A bravura performance. But his escape is far from complete.

The Republicans' difficulties can be traced directly to their decision to pursue the seven-year balanced budget without the discipline of the Balanced Budget Amendment or support from a Republican White House. That meant taking on Medicare, which in turn shaped their only message in recent months: reducing the rate of growth of government programs. This rhetorical nervousness has infected everything; even at briefings on welfare, a clear GOP plus, Republicans hand out graphs showing how their spending increases are just a notch below those proposed by the Democrats. After an election that was supposed to herald a re-alignment, the GOP seems trapped in a rhetoric that harks back to the bad old days of me-too Republicans: "We want to do everything the Democrats do, only cheaper."

Republicans compounded the anemic rhetoric with a series of tactical mis-steps. First, there was the initial, bungled federal shutdown in November: Republicans mistakenly thought that not extending the debt limit would be the vise that would squeeze Clinton into submission. The GOP put a deadly Medicare premium increase in its first continuing resolution (a temporary funding measure). And Newt Gingrich's back-of-the-plane comment made the GOP look peevish and vindictive. Republicans only managed to squeeze from the President a promise -- which he immediately broke -- to produce a Congressional Budget Office - scored seven-year balanced budget. Then came the second shutdown, also a tactical fiasco, for which Bob Dole deserves almost all the blame. He unilaterally abandoned the GOP commitment to keep the government closed until Clinton blinked, disastrously and perhaps deliberately undercutting House Republicans. (Democrats immediately took to the House floor with blow-ups of Dole quotes, like "Enough is enough.") Faced with losing 25 to 30 votes, the House leadership was forced to cave too. (So much for the idea that Newt Gingrich and the GOP Congress could "control" a President Dole.)

After all this President Clinton did finally put on the table a CBO-scored balanced budget. That is a testament to his fear of being branded a defender of traditional Washington spending. But it also poses a risk for Republicans. For weeks they have been suggesting that the only criterion for a budget is that it be balanced with CBO numbers. But this is secondary. What really matters is the fundamental changes in law that will shape a different Federal Government seven years from now, when all the CBO projections have been made into hash. By this standard, the Clinton budget fails. It retains federal control over the welfare system, makes no provision for free-market-based reforms of Medicare, and takes no steps toward devolution of federal programs in general. It contains $400 billion more in spending than the Republican budget, and $60 billion more in loophole closing -- i.e., tax hikes.

We have always argued that Republicans could be flexible on the numbers in their budget, as long as they preserved their entitlement reforms (bringing the free market to Medicare, ending the entitlement status of Medicaid and AFDC). They have now reached the limits of flexibility by making the President one more offer based on bi-partisan numbers for Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare savings. The most painful item in the compromise was reducing the tax cuts to $180 billion from $245 billion, itself already a compromise. But this must be the final offer -- hereafter, no more negotiating, no more efforts to exert leverage, no more flexibility: any deal must preserve the family tax credit, making it available this year, and some capital-gains relief.

If Clinton goes along after his initial rejection -- he just might if he feels enough pressure from defecting conservative Democrats -- fine. The GOP has made appreciable progress, and House freshmen have their balanced budget to take back to the voters in November. If he doesn't, that should trigger a year-long full-court press against the do-nothing President who not only fought a balanced budget but refused to leave more dollars in the hands of families, send power back to the states, or reform welfare.

Now that the GOP has been "bold," "historic," and "responsible" for a year, it's time to take a page from President Clinton's book, emphasizing the themes that will win in November. That means returning to issues that won't get gentle treatment in the Washington Post -- as the GOP Medicare plan did -- but that will mobilize the Republican base and highlight the difference between the two parties. English as the official language, immigration reform, an end to affirmative action, specific abortion restrictions (such as on partial-birth abortions) -- all point the way to a successful campaign against Clinton and the liberalism that offends the common moral sense of most Americans. The Republicans can continue to assail the perversity of selected government programs -- from the National Endowment for the Arts to welfare. If they succeed in electing a President and "preserving and protecting" their congressional majorities, they will be able to do more than balance the budget -- and live to tell of it.