OCR Text |
Show Friday, February Clinton plan is challenge to all p arise By CARL P. LEUBSDORF Dallas Morning News There's little doubt that the outcome of the battle over the economic program President Clinton presented Wednesday night will go a long way toward determining the direction of his administration or lack of it. But it's also likely to have a significant impact on the futures of the Democratic and Republican parties and of the man who helped to elevate the federal deficit to the top of the political agenda, Dallas billionaire Ross Perot. ; Indeed, the next few months shape up as a crucial test for the entire political system. To a substantial degree, what happens will determine whether it is capable of facing a problem that both parties have heretofore failed to confront: Those most on the spot are clearly Clinton and the Democrats. After all, he won the presidency because he convinced Americans ; that he could succeed in revitalizing the economy where George Bush had failed. But the pressure is equally on Clinton's party. After a dozen years in which it could blame the nation's problems on a Republican White House or the gridlock stemming from divided government, it now has the power to produce some results. "We've been talking about wanting to end deadlock and show we're capable of making tough choices," noted Stuart Eizenstat, who supervised domestic policy in the Jimmy Carter White House. . "This is the litmus test." Indeed, the widespread view within the Democratic Party that it must now put up or shut up could be a powerful force in behalf of the Clinton program and one that will be a crucial part of the White House sales pitch to Democratic lawmakers. Already, the White House has made what appears to be a correct determination that it will Koiitical count primarily on House and Senate Democrats to carry the day. And it already has started to counter criticisms of specific provisions in the president's program by stressing the importance of action over inaction and of passing the total Clinton package. It's a recognition that the whole will be easier to sell than some of its parts. The Republicans, meanwhile, did not even wait until Clinton had unveiled his plan to begin a drumbeat of criticism against its heavy reliance on tax increases. The GOP stance appears to depend on an economic judgment that tax hikes are bad for the economy and a political one that they will be unpopular. There is some validity to both calculations. But the GOP faces a challenge in persuading the public that its position is based on sincere Elected officials shouldn't just count phone calls and cave in By MYRNE ROE ; Knight-Ridde- r Newspapers For many years I worked in a congressional office where I saw the ebb and flow of telephoned public opinion up close and pere sonal. My first experience centered on opposition to Jimmy Carter's intent to turn over the Panama Canal to Panama. There were hundreds of calls, day in and day out, for weeks. Through my years as a congressional aide, whether the president was Carter, Reagan or Bush, I became pretty adept at figuring out what Washington actions would push emotional hot buttons that got the office phones ringing. Any talk about gun legislation? The National Rifle Association would get the word out to everyone on its call lists in an NRA minute. Anything that might cost senior citizens a nickel? The AARP and groups whipped their memberships into a Congress-callin- g frenzy. Some talk about subsicuts or foreign aid increases? dy here come the The ultras callers. on the right started dialing en masse. Now that President Clinton has outlined his economic plan, which includes something to upset every group and hot head in America, the phone lines must be really buzzing. Unfortunately, too many of our nation's leaders succumb to government by phone hysteria. It's one of the big reasons Tor congressional gridlock. Too many legislators mistake lots of telephone calls and their communication twin post politics-by-phon- -. like-mind- ed g, Flag-burnin- special-intere- g? st pre-print- cards for thoughtful and informed voter sentiment. It's not. One thing I learned listening to all those congressional callers for so many years was that those who talk the loudest and meanest are more likely to call than are reasoned sorts. It's just one of those facts of life that those who are against something will vent their feelings while those who support it keep quiet. Yet another truism about gang telephoners is that they are generally motivated by feelings of fear, anger andor distrust, which aren't exactly emotions associated with clear thinking and the public good. In 1941, Winston Churchill told members of the House of Commons that he didn't believe leaders should necessarily act on what they heard when they kept their ears to the ground: "All I can say is that the British nation will find it very hard to look up to leaders who are detected in that somewhat ungainly position." Mr. Churchill was not saying that public opinion was irrelevant in a democracy. He was explaining that there just are times when elected officials should ask themselves if the public sentiment they are hearing is from an isolated group of grumpy citizens. He was pointing out that bad attitude is not necessarily the basis for good government. In doing so, Churchill raised some questions about the very nature of democracy: Could there be information about specific issues which the general public doesn't have that might sway it to think differently? Shouldn't leaders attempt to change public opinion , when as is the case with the majority of calls opposing homosexuals in the military it is steeped in Should lead conleaders bigotry? stituents to accept shared sacrifice for the economic good of the nation, or acquiesce to those who want everyone to share but themselves? Should they educate rather By CRAIG STOCK er Newspapers search and development, Clinton is hoping for a bigger, more effig cient, economy in years to come. Those are all good investments, ones that are often shortchanged because their pay- -' offs take years. PROGRESSIVITY. The Clinton plan would make the tax system more progressive. Appropriately, those with higher incomes will pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes. There is, however, a price to pay for lowering deficits, discouraging consumption and soaking the rich. That price is slower economic growth than could otherwise have been expected in the next few years. Clinton's plan attempts to inoculate the economy from a slump by pushing much of the tax cuts, spending increases and investment incentives in the first year or two of the plan, before all the tax increases kick in. But the reaction of financial markets so far suggests that the smart money thinks the economy is likely to slow down. Clinton hopes that the promise of deficit reduction will cause interest rates to fall, helping to spur the economy and offset the drag of higher taxes. There is little economic evidence, however, to suggest that lower interest rates can have so powerful an effect. TIMIDITY. Clinton would have gained more credibility as a deficit-cuttif his plan had used reductions to close more spending of the gap. He took a penknife to federal spending, not an ax. Granted, Clinton has pledged to have a plan for controlling the rise costs later this year. in health-car- e But his other proposals do not dent Social Security costs or other faster-growin- ' r " ; ' President Clinton wants us to consider his economicplan in its entirety. ' OK. On the whole, it's a move in the right direction. The president says we shouldn't pick at the parts of the plan. So, sue me. Although there's much to commend in the program, it has some shortcomings and some downright dumb elements. And some of the stuff is still too murky to judge. . Since it's the guy's first eco- nomic plan, let's go first to the praiseworthy parts, then to the dumb stuff. THE DEFICIT. The plan does take a good whack out of the federal gummint's big deficits. That's the plan's strongest point. Even if the Clinton plan does as promised and cuts $496 billion over four years from projected deficits, the national debt would .still rise from today's $4.2 trillion to nearly $5 trillion by autumn ' 1997. Absent any action, the national debt would rise to $5.5 trillion by then. Lord knows what the actual deficit reduction will be, since budget estimates are always wrong. But the Clinton camp deserves credit for not relying on wildly optimistic projections for interest rates, economic growth and inflation. The biggest fudge factor in the plan appears to be the savings it estimates from various administrative cuts and "efficiencies." A NEW MIX. Clinton proposes a stiff new energy tax, along with shifts in the mix of federal spending and some token incentives for business investment. All that should tilt the economy slightly consumpaway from short-tertion and toward savings and investment. By spending more on education, job training, public work and re m - Page B5 Perot inclyded differences with the Clinton plan, rather than a desire for political Perot helped to elevate last year would appear to put some pressure on him to support the administragain. Republicans also face another tion's program. If Perot decides instead to focus potential problem. While both Ronald Reagan and Bush had to on its individual shortcomings, deal with Democrats in Congress, rather than its overall value and the the fact is that the GOP had charge need to act, he may rouse suspiof the national government for the cions he is less interested in propast dozen years. moting a solution to the nation's That enables Clinton and his al- economic woes than in promoting lies to argue that the Democrats are his own role. A dozen years ago, Ronald Reatrying to clean up the problems failfrom Republican resulting gan succeeded in portraying his ures. The GOP stance may further economic program as the sole way suffer if the Democrats can portray to meet the nation's woes and in the Republican position as an efconsigning critics to the role of fort to prevent the wealthiest naysayers who favored the special Americans from paying more taxinterests and opposed the public es. good. He was also helped by a split Perot, meanwhile, has made it quite clear that he intends to be a among Democrats over whether to player in the debate. But Clinton's oppose him totally or accept parts program confronts Perot with an of his agenda. Once Reagan passed his program and surmounted the interesting dilemma. 1981-8- 2 The fact that the president is serecession, he was able to the issue hold that the political high ground for riously addressing most of the rest of his tenure. In this year's battle, Clinton does stand to pick up some GOP support. But his overall problem is more difficult because his prescription is more painful for middle-class Americans than the tax cuts Reagan offered. Still, public opinion polls this week show that many Americans are receptive to the idea of paying more to get the economy back on track. If the new president can sell his program as the cure for what ails the nation and can bring along enough fellow Democrats to pass it, he could gain the same ultimate benefit as Reagan assuming, of course, that the program produces the deficit cuts and economic gains that Clinton is promising. Carl P. Leubsdorf is Washington bureau chief of The Dallas Morning News. WE'RE PREPARED TO SEND AMERICAN TROOPS AS PEACEKEEPERS TO CAN'T YOU THINK OF A BETTER WAY TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE MILITARY? BOSNIA-HERZEGOVIN- A. Senators, representatives and presidents should certainly listen to their constituents, but they shouldn't kowtow to their biases. They should encourage all of them to speak up so that they don't hear just one organized and angry side of any issue. And they should do use what they are elected to do their own judgment. They should not pander to the selfish whims of the few, and they should not posture before those who loudly complain without caring for how having their way will hurt others. Elected officials should not simply count calls and cave in. It's one thing to listen to the collective wisdom of the people at the ballot box saying that they want congressional reform, an end to government-by-deb- t, health-car- e reform and other objectives that positively affect this nation. It is quite another to zero in on the relatively few in number who just want to have their own selfish notions verified and selfish interests protected. One is for the collective good of America. The other is for the vog few. cal, editorial writer is an Roe Myrne for the Wichita (Kan.) Eagle. phone-callin- Many of the items counted as spending cuts are actually tax increases in the form of user fees higher charges for government permits, meat inspections and so on. By shying away from bigger cuts in spending, Clinton's only recourse is to cut the deficit Most don't understand sacrifice By MIKE BARNICLE Boston Globe Columnist Because we live in a nation where history is often forgotten and memory has been stolen by TV, the word "sacrifice" has lost its meaning. Now it's used to describe the "pain" we must endure in order to balance the books by paying more taxes. However, a lot of people today simply have no idea what real sacrifice actually means. Is it an extra two cents a gallon for fuel? Is it going without $100 sneakers with a pump? Does it mean some of us have to give up the health club or won't be able to pay our greens fees because of Clinton's new taxes? No taking the kids skiing or even the movies this Saturday? There is no denying that we do not get the best bang for our buck out of government. And you'd have to be a complete moron not to realize that the growth of foolish and expensive programs staffed by even more foolish nitwits has been allowed to explode in the past 20 years. But you'd also have to have a few shingles missing from your roof if you think a tax increase will ruin the Republic. We're already headed in that direction; not because of the economy but because of a collective case of amnesia and a spine that resembles Sixty years ago this week, the United States was an economic basket case. Banks were closing and family after family lost homes as well as hope. Fifty years ago, millions of Americans were in uniform as we war against the fought a Japanese and Germans. Without missing a beat, we drew the shades at night, rationed food and gas by day and endured years of hardship. Why, you don't even have to qualify for Medicare to recall what America once was: The Russians shocked us awake when they flung Sputnik into the heavens. That was 1957; even the yupsters can recall through tax increases. The investment and job growth Clinton wants for the economy will be hampered by the sharp increases in tax rates levied on the affluent. BIG IS BAD. The daffiest part of the plan is the distinction Clinton draws between big business and small business when it comes to investment incentives. Clinton offers a permanent tax incentive for investment only to those companies with revenue of less than $5 million. Those are the majority of businesses, but they do a tiny part of total investment in new machinery and equipment. Likewise, the Clinton plan's reduction in capital gains taxes applies only to small companies. "I know of no economic evidence that suggests that a dollar of investment in small business is better than a dollar of investment in big business," said Russ DeVol, director of U.S. forecasting for Wefa Group, the Bala Cynwyd, that moment in time. Pa., consulting firm that did some It's clear that our parents and work for the Clinton administrabuilt more than lives. grandparents tion. They built the whole country, with COMPLEXITY. The new en- blood, pain, callouses and the deergy tax, the mix of tax increases termination that their children's and limited incentives for business lives would be a bit better than and the new, higher tax rates on theirs. individuals add to the complexity Imagine if they had been like so of the tax system. Regrettably, this many seem to be today: frightreverses the attempt to ened, bitter and cynical about the tax none of us taxes simplify system. something Of course, that could be the gen- like but all of us have to put up with g programs. Farm ius of the Clinton plan. Think of all if the wheel is going to keep movsubsidies are largely untouched the jobs that will be created in tax ing forward. law and tax accounting. (beekeepers must have no clout They didn't quit during a decolStock is economic the is comCraig only agricultural honey pression. They didn't stay in bed umnist for the is whose out Philadelphia subsidy wiped modity after Pearl Harbor. They didn't in Clinton's plan). roll ever and die when they saw Silly-Putt- two-fro- er budget-bustin- THE HERALD, Provo, Utah, than placate? Guide rather than give in? Encourage discussion rather than diatribe? Economic plan has serious shortcomings Knight-Ridd- 19, 1993 mid-198- y. and heard Hitler on the movie newsreels. They didn't surrender when a satellite proved we had a lot to learn. But times are different. We're different. It's 1993 so you hear, "Eeek. Another tax. I quit. Count me out." Sacrifice. It's a fairly common word that is being severely abused by a whole host of politicians, media types and, sadly, even ordinary citizens. And as long as we're talking about it while peeking into the time capsule, let's recall wjiat occurred 25 years ago thif very moment. It was something called the Tet Offensive in a country called Vietnam involving thousands of men now called dead. George Gottwald Jr. was among the victims. He was 20 years old when he was killed in February 1968. He grew up in Roslindale, Mass., son of a firefighter, one of eight kids. He was in the Army, drafted there by his country. He died trying to rescue his platoon's wounded medic, another young guy named Peter Heissenbuttel from New York. George Gottwald crawled about 250 yards, through withering machine gun fire, to get to Heissenbuttel. He put him on his back and began crawling toward his own line when a rocket hit both men. They live together today on a wall in Washington, one name right above the other. Tommy Gill was also in Vietnam 25 years ago, briefly. He was from South Boston, joined the Marine Corps with several of his pals. A few good men involved in a long, sad time. only a Tommy was few weeks when he was badly wounded at a violent little village named Dong Ha. He spent months in a veterans' hospital and lived with pain. He got out, joined the Boston Police Department, served with pride, was a great friend, wonderful fellow and terrific husband and father. Five years ago last week, he was killed while chasing a couple of kids who had stolen some guns. He was struck by a train. After his death, a scholarship was started in his name. In five students years, 17 Boston-are- a have received more than $24,000 in aid, the money contributed by people with memories. I bet George Gottwald Jr. and Tommy Gill would love to be able to pay a piece any piece at all of these new taxes that have a lot of people swooning in anger and disbelief. Naturally, they can't because they symbolize the single reason why ail of us the survivors are around to moan and complain. Sacrifice. It means that so many gave the ultimate for a country filled with chronic malcontents. Presidential Cabinet listed nt Secretary of State Warren Christopher 2201CSI.N.W. Washington, D.C. 20520 Secretary of Defense Les Aspin The Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301 Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala 200 Indpendence Ave. S. W. Washington, D.C. 20201 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros 4517thSt.S.W. Washington, D.C. 20410 Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy 14th and Independence Ave. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250 Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown 15th and Constitution Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230 Secretary of Labor Robert Reich 200 Constitution Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 Secretary of Interior Bruce 1849 CSt. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Secretary of Education Richard W.Riley 400 Maryland Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20202 Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary 1000 Independence Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown 810 Vermont Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20420 Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington. D.C. 20500 U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor 600 17th St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20506 Attorney General (Not |