TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/092589/09258900.051

Text File | 1990-09-17 | 6KB | 110 lines

NATION, Page 23

. . . And on Capitol Hill

What do Democrats stand for?

By Hays Gorey


    In his pre-presidential incarnation, George Bush was the
Democrats' juiciest target: the perennial preppy, the suspect wimp,
the Vice President who was always off at a ball game or a funeral
when weighty affairs of state were being decided. But after eight
months in the Oval Office, Bush tops even Ronald Reagan in
popularity (70% approval), a reversal of fortune that has plunged
the out party into another of its periodic identity crises. Last
week, in an orgy of finger pointing, party stalwarts from New York
Governor Mario Cuomo to national chairman Ron Brown asked, in
effect, Where are the Democrats?

    Although the party retained two House seats in special
elections in Texas and California last week, the Democrats have no
clearly enunciated national agenda and, perhaps worse, no one to
enunciate it. To a notable lack of enthusiasm, Brown nominated
himself for the role. More logical choices are House Speaker Tom
Foley and Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, since the
Democrat-controlled Congress is where differences between the
parties can be most sharply defined. But both leaders are cautious
and, to their critics, the kind of nice guys who don't win
pennants. Last week showed why:

    CAPITAL GAINS

    Foley and the once powerful chairman of the House Ways and
Means Committee, Illinois' Dan Rostenkowski, suffered a stinging
setback when six committee Democrats joined all 13 Republicans to
help Bush redeem a campaign pledge to reduce this tax. Although
Democrats denounced the idea in last year's presidential campaign
as a giveaway to the rich (60% of its benefits will go to people
with incomes of more than $200,000), the measure is expected to
pass in the House. Mitchell vows to try to derail it in the Senate,
but he is without the support of Texas' Lloyd Bentsen, who as
chairman of the Finance Committee could be his most powerful ally.

    Bentsen won acclaim for an alternative proposal: encourage
savings by expanding the deduction for contributions to Individual
Retirement Accounts. This would provide tax benefits mostly to the
middle class while simultaneously creating a pool of investment
funds, a goal of the capital-gains reduction. Before IRA deductions
were restricted in 1986, however, they cost the Treasury $16
billion a year in lost taxes. Bentsen's proposal is unlikely to
stop the stampede to cut capital gains, and it could become the
next giveaway that Congress and the President will seize upon. But
the prospect of a huge loss in revenue at a time of record deficits
will probably prove unacceptable.

    The capital-gains tax cut (from 33% to 19.6% for 2 1/2 years)
illustrates the "babble of voices" that plagues Democratic efforts
to unite on an issue. Critics say Foley and Rostenkowski threw in
the towel too early; Mitchell girded his loins too late; and
Bentsen, who delivered the party's response to Bush's economic
message last winter, favors a lower rate.

    CATASTROPHIC ILLNESS

    Democrats and Republicans alike are in full retreat from ired
elders who awakened belatedly to the fact that they are going to
have to pay hefty premiums if catastrophic-illness coverage remains
a part of Medicare. Congress and the White House will probably
agree to cut back on some benefits, such as payment for
prescription drugs, to lower premiums that could amount to $1,600
a year for a couple.

    DRUGS

    When Delaware Senator Joe Biden delivered the Democratic
response to Bush's "War on Drugs" speech, only one network carried
it live. What stuck in the public's mind -- and Ron Brown's craw
-- was the image of New York Congressman Charles Rangel facing the
cameras after a White House conference and urging a tax hike to
wage the war. Moaned Brown: "You can hear America sigh, `The
tax-and-spend Democrats.'"

    Congress always wages an uneven battle with the President, but
Democratic political consultant Ted Van Dyk declares, "The troops
are starting to get restless. There have been no clear alternatives
and damn little criticism. Foley and Mitchell should be out front."
Yet the Democrats have been mired in troubles of their own: the
convoluted agony of the pay raise, the forced resignations of
Speaker Jim Wright and whip Tony Coelho, and now the sex scandal
involving Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. Nor is the
climate right for combat, with the economy perking along and the
President enjoying an extended honeymoon. Grouses former party
chairman Bob Strauss: "This is not the time to take on George Bush
head on."

    For his part, Foley notes that the Speaker no longer has the
power exercised by the legendary Sam Rayburn: "The hierarchical
society is gone, in the country and in the Congress. The idea of
government is to govern. There will be enough fights." Observes
Mitchell: "There will be both confrontation and cooperation. There
will not be confrontation for the sake of confrontation."

    Expectably, the White House is delighted with Democratic
frustrations. Political operatives believe Bush has stolen the
opposition's best issues: the environment, education, child care,
the minimum wage (where Bush's veto of a Democratic bill will force
a compromise to the President's liking). "We have co-opted them in
areas that have traditionally been their strength. They don't know
what to do," gloats a senior Administration official.

    He may have a point. With the President barely settled into
the White House, a few Democrats are already conceding his
re-election in 1992 and training their sights on 1996, when Bush
will be gone and the G.O.P. nominee could be Vice President Dan
Quayle. The Democrats should be so lucky.