TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/101590/1015105.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 6.0 KB | 118 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 46

COVER STORIES

Who Deserves the Blame?


By STANLEY W. CLOUD/WASHINGTON


    Among the members of Congress raising the greatest ruckus
as Washington descended into budgetary chaos were those most
responsible for creating the mess in the first place. There
were Reaganite conservatives like Newt Gingrich of Georgia for
whom vote-winning formulas -- including the infamous "Read my
lips, no new taxes" -- are more important than the national
interest. There were Democratic liberals like Henry Waxman of
California, whose vision of the government as a cash cow for
special interests helped spawn taxpayer revolts and voodoo
economics. And there were the special-interest lobbyists whose
phone-bank politics stampeded Congress into yet another crazed
dash to the precipice.

    But Congress is not solely -- or even primarily -- to blame.
For a decade the Reagan and Bush administrations have been
submitting fraudulent, free-lunch budgets that promised huge
tax cuts, a social "safety net," a "kinder, gentler" nation,
improved education, a war on drugs, the greatest military
buildup in peacetime history and -- most fraudulent of all --
a balanced budget. Bush's OMB director, Richard Darman, who
played a crucial role in negotiating the budget compromise that
was at the center of last week's maelstrom, was himself guilty
of preparing a budget that was a monument to Reaganite wishful
thinking. Bush's nationally televised paean to the homely
virtues of a balanced checkbook might have carried a lot more
weight in both the country and in Congress had he not won
office two years ago with a promise to reduce the deficit
without raising taxes. It was precisely such claims -- that
there is a free lunch after all -- that got the U.S. into its
fiscal mess.

    Some analysts think they have detected a bipartisan "throw
the bums out" mood building among the electorate this year. If
so, it is a mood to be encouraged. Elections for the House and
a third of the Senate will be held in less than a month, and
the voters, having witnessed the spectacle in Washington, could
do worse than simply elect challengers across the board. They
could, as a matter of fact, do a lot worse; they could return
all the incumbents for another term of madness. And if, two
years hence, the voters are no longer willing to tolerate
presidential candidates who run for office with the kind of
flag-draped, meanspirited and economically illiterate campaign
that propelled Bush to the White House in 1988, so much the
better.

    For it is axiomatic that in the end the American people must
accept responsibility for what is happening inside the beltway.
Too many voters have allowed themselves to be seduced by the
notion that they can have their goodies from government with
no increase in price. A mighty military, Social Security,
Medicare, farm subsidies, poverty programs, housing, highways,
bridges, clean air, clean water, veterans' benefits -- the
whole great panoply of federal involvement in American life --
must, like everything else, be paid for. Today, it is not being
paid for. The federal deficit, now nearly $300 billion if
various "off-budget" items like the S&L bailout are counted,
is testimony to Americans' failure to meet their obligations.
So is the stark fact that every citizen's share of the national
debt has more than tripled in the past 11 years. A debt of such
enormity simply cannot be paid off without sacrifice. Paying
it off will mean higher taxes and reduced spending over many
years. Anyone who thinks -- or promises -- otherwise is either
a dupe or a snake-oil salesman.

    Just how bad have things become? Liberals hoping that the
deficit might be erased by cutting defense should be aware that
eliminating the entire $289 billion defense allocation would
not balance the budget. Conservatives who want to focus on
slashing domestic programs should understand that such
discretionary spending now represents about $183 billion, less
than two-thirds of the deficit. Thus, the budget-balancing
burden must be shared. So must the tax burden. President Bush,
his aides and the congressional leaders who worked out the
budget compromise deserve full credit for facing that fact.

    There are certainly fairer ways to spread around the cost
than those in the budget compromise. The emphasis on raising
regressive excise taxes, instead of the more progressive income
tax, means that the middle class will, as usual, carry a
disproportionate burden. The increases are not huge -- ten
cents on gasoline for two years, eight cents on a pack of
cigarettes within three years for example -- but, with the
economy heading into a recession, they will certainly be felt
by those whose incomes are already being pinched. Similarly,
the plan's proposed Medicare cuts will push some of the elderly
poor into state-run Medicaid programs, even as many states see
their revenues shrink. Indeed, among the plan's critics are
Governors who fear that higher excise taxes will cut further
into states' incomes, with estimated losses in the larger
states running to hundreds of millions of dollars. Some of
these inequities could be fine-tuned out of the plan later, but
the fact remains that, after weeks of heated negotiations, the
bipartisan summiteers who put the deal together were unable
to find another approach that was politically feasible. The
onus is on those who criticize their work to show exactly how
they would do a better job of reducing the deficit without
resorting to the phony figures and rosy forecasts they're
accustomed to using.

    One year ago this month, in the midst of a similar budget
crisis, TIME's cover, featuring a portrait of George Washington
with a large tear running down his cheek, asked the question
"Is Government Dead?" The answer was: Very nearly. Twelve
months later, if a long-term deficit-reduction package is not
put into effect, the answer may be yes.