|
|
Who is winning the battle over the ORNSTEIN BALANCES QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET
January 18, 1996:federal budget, the Democrats or the Republicans? Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute inWashington, D.C., takes questions on the budget negotiations on Capitol Hill.For background, read comments from his last appearance on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on January 17, 1996 or January 8, 1996.
A question from Phil Sexton:
...The President was correct when he characterized the "Budget Battle" as not being a difference of opinion over the budget, but rather a difference of opinion over the proper role of the Federal government. Not enough has been said about that issue. Please pursue it with Mr. Ornstein.
Mr. Ornstein replies to Phil Sexton:
Here is one example: on Medicare, the Administration believes that Medical Savings Accounts, as designed by the GOP in the congressional budget, will in effect be a giveaway to richer, healthier elderly people. The Republicans believe that they are the foundation of a move from a bureaucratic Medicare system to a market-based one. Their cost, over the seven years, is trivial in the context of the overall differences. But they could stymie a deal.
An even bigger example is in Medicaid. The Republicans want a pure block grant, giving complete freedom to governors and their states to design Medicaid and determine beneficiaries and benefits. The Democrats insist on preserving the basic entitlement nature of the program, as a safety net to the poor elderly blind and disabled people who now are on the program. You could agree on dollar savings over seven years, and still fail to agree because of the basic ideological differences here. Of course, more money would help resolve these differences, and as I noted in my conversation with Jim Lehrer last night, there are middle grounds here, as in other areas, but the differences in vision and approach are there, and are now more significant than dollar differences.
A question for Joseph A. McDonald:
Is it possible for the Congress not to finalize a budget until after the next election, by just passing individual appropriations?
... How would the President respond to this? It seems he would have to sign the appropriation bills or risk shutting down the government again. But if he signs the bills he is letting the Republicans have their way, and he won't be able to pass funding for his projects. What options does the President have?
Mr. Ornstein replies to Joseph McDonald:
If there is no budget deal, the president would be satisfied with passage of the remaining appropriations bills, even at sharply reduced funding levels, as long as they did not include mischievous riders, on abortion or the like. That is not likely to be acceptable to Republicans, however, especially if there is considerable acrimony with the breakdown in the negotiations. They have talked openly of a strategy of "targeted appropriations," where they would cut drastically back, or eliminate all funding for selected programs that are near and dear to the president's heart, like Americorps or the Commerce Department.
In theory, they could do this by breaking down appropriations into dozens of separate bills, passing them in chunks including uncontroversial items-- for example, a bill just for the Justice Dept-- and leaving out the small items all together. If the Republicans could hold their troops together in the House and Senate, they could make the president's life miserable for 1996, probably without the huge political backlash that came when they closed most of the government down.
But it is hard to see what they could gain from this in a larger sense, except some payback satisfaction. Chances are they would succeed on little things like Americorps and not succeed with bigger things like Commerce. But this strategy, which builds in more conflict and disruption, would likely make Americans even more unhappy with Congress and Washington.
A question from Leo Dymkoski :
Throughout the Budget debate the Republican leaders were insisting that until President Clinton submitted a budget balanced in 7 years and scored by the CBO that they would not negotiate. Well...the President has a balanced budget in 7 years scored by the CBO on the table. Yesterday the Republicans said no...they would not go to the White House, as agreed, to resume negotiations until the President moved further in their direction. Is this tactic going to fly? After all, the President already met their demands. What do you think?
Mr. Ornstein replies to Leo Dymkoski:
The Republicans have now lost their major weapon to bludgeon the president and force him to come closer to them at the bargaining table. Now they are trying to find a way to compromise on priorities without looking as if they are declaring defeat, while also trying to keep the president from capturing the high ground in the dialogue (he's the compromiser, they're the intransigents) and mulling over their strategies if things completely fall apart. Meeting with him yesterday, without any likelihood of some real movement, enabling him to look open and flexible, would not have served their interests. We won't get a meeting until Republicans can say to their troops and the public that they are bringing the president their way, taking some of the sting out of their embarrassment since the president came up with a CBO-certified budget.
A question from John Banville:
Isn't about time for Congress to prepare the 1997 budget?! And how does the current impasse impact other deadlines?
Mr. Ornstein replies to John Banville:
You are absolutely right, John. The 1997 budget should be in its final stages of preparation, with release set for early February. Forget that; the planning goes on, but any real decisions are on hold until after the State of the Union and/or some definitive signal on the future of the talks.
A question from Pat Lee:
Do you see the debate over the flat tax and the balanced budget at the same time as possibly leading to a conflict within the Republican Party?
These two proposals seem to be working against each other, the flat tax simplifies the system, but probably lowers government revenues. The balanced budget requires enormous revenues to cover the current deficit. How can Bob Dole and the others in the GOP rectify this difference? Or is the difference between these two ideas not that big?
Mr. Ornstein replies to Pat Lee:
This is an interesting question; the probable answer is that the two ideas go together more than you might think, in the same way that the tax cut and the balanced budget plan go together. If your ultimate goal is to shrink the federal government and its role dramatically, the balanced budget is not an end, but a means to that goal. Thus, shrinking the tax base and pushing for a balanced budget means you have to cut spending-- and programs, and the government's role-- even more. To be sure some Republicans, like Pete Domenici, want first and foremost to balance the budget. That is probably what Bob Dole believes too. But the majority of House Republicans, at least, want most of all to erase the welfare state and bring in the Gingrich-type opportunity society, and less revenues may contribute to that goal.
Additional Thoughts
Selected comments from our visitors, in addition to those answered by Mr. Ornstein:
Ed Wingham
A comment: I hope the Republicans can garner enough support from the moderate and conservative Democrats to potentially override a veto. I fully support the Republicans attempt to "rewrite" a budget that makes at least some attempt to be fiscally responsible.
Thank you!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Black
Now that President Clinton has laid out a plan to balance the budget in 7 years based on CBO numbers, the Republicans will make it clear that their priority is their social policies, not balancing the budget, if they keep throwing mudballs instead of debating the merits of Clinton's plan.
The Republicans appear to me to be uninterested in responsible government. They appear to be only interested in partisan advantage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Block
Why is there such strong political pressure in favor of a balanced budget? Isn't there strong historical evidence that a balanced budget will actually do greater harm to the economy than a moderate deficit. I understand there was a recent article in The Nation about this. When has the Federal government had a balanced budget before, and what was the economy like in five-year period following a balanced budget?
 |
    
|
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
