“You can tell the ideals of a nation by its advertisements”
Norman Douglas
In a parting shot, before deserting the nation’s Capitol for their summer vacations, members of the House (by a two vote margin) and Senate (by a single vote) passed the president’s fiscal 1994 budget. Promoted as a bold new attack on the irresponsible deficit spending of the 1980s, the American public was promised this budget was to be the initial step in a five year program to reduce the federal budget deficit by more than $500 billion.
Yet, no sooner had the nation’s lawmakers had made their escape from inside the beltway than the promised “savings” were adjusted (downward) to $496 billion. Meanwhile, a few budget-insiders were hinting their estimates on the projected growth of the economy might have been overstated. If so, the actual savings will shrink once again, perhaps dramatically.
In retrospect, there remains something deeply troubling about the Administration’s sales pitch for the budget. Touted as a budget deficit “reduction” package, one could only draw a comparison with a family on an income of $50,000 a year who decides they’ll only spend $59,000 instead of the $60,000 they planned on shelling out. They simply went broke at a slower rate … but went broke nevertheless!
Consistently, the systemic problem of our national debt (now standing at some $4.1 trillion) was, and continues to be discounted by the press and pols alike, like some crazy aunt in the attic. Unfortunately, even if President Clinton’s most optimistic estimates are ultimately realized, America’s indebtedness will grow to close to $5,500,000,000,000 in that same five year period.
Meanwhile, there will be some early indicators as to Congress’ commitment to follow through on the process it purports to have started. Bill Zeliff and other members of House and Senate have called for a special sessions of Congress to address additional spending cuts. If convened, it must adopt the same process used for military base closings. Committees, free from the political pressures of Senator Byrd and his ilk, should be charged to identify a wide variety of cuts, including as much pork can be identified.
Their recommendations should then be voted on as a package, up-or-down, with a caveat that any spending thus eliminated can not be reintroduced by this Congress. Otherwise, meaningful spending cuts will prove elusive and deficits will return to pre-Clinton levels. If, however, the leadership in Congress ignores or stonewalls request for such a session the public ought to become highly concerned and grab their wallets.
Meantime, with the budget battle temporarily over, the White House has begun an all out offensive to gain support for its most ambitious project, overhauling the nation’s health care system.
As with the deficit, it’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t believe the current system is in trouble and needs prompt and credible attention. The vast majority of Americans agree no citizen should be denied basic health care simply because they are poor and lack health insurance. They also share the view health care costs are out-of-control, although the causes of such runaway costs are varied and everyone has their own whipping boy.
While any number of trial balloons have been floated during the past seven months, specifics of the president’s plan remain shrouded. Nevertheless, the sales campaign is underway … and legions of White House loyalists have fanned out across the country, armed with carefully selected statistics, personal tales of where the current system failed, packaged speeches and one-liners targeted for evening newscasts.
As the Administration continues to market the need for change without providing details, its strategy suggests it will present a broad outline of desired goals, and then dump the chore of defining the details on Congress. It’s clever, and lets the president and first lady remain above any partisan fray and provides them an “out” should the final program fall short of its advertised objectives.
Yet, this game plan risks Congressional fights over the type of program to be mandated, its costs and savings, who will pay for it, and its ancillary economic costs may destroy any hopes of bipartisan cooperation. And, as with the budget … accountability in the event of failure will be nonexistent.
Given Washington’s long record of bureaucratic inefficiency and its predictable inability to project anything resembling realistic long term budgets, the public must remain vigilant and this time demand Congress and the Administration be held accountable for promised results.
