Unfortunately, the moderates chose to express their disappointment by reverting to bad habits, playing old-fashioned, special-interest politics (and trying to make it sound like a high-minded Perotic purgation). All manner of magical, budget-eviscerating notions were floated. Rep. Charles Stenholm of Texas, staunch defender of the crucial mohair and honeybee subsidies, led the charge in the House for a “cap on entitlement spending.” Which could mean just about anything– but, most likely, would emerge a toothless, witless, spineless guideline like the old Gramm-Rudman budget dodge, the sort of thing Congress passes when it needs the appearance of action and lacks the courage to face down the likes of the mohair and honeybee lobbies.
“My conscience and my constituents are in the same place,” said Sen. David Boren of Oklahoma, whose own budget scheme perfectly captured the Deficista Zeitgeist, placating the home-state oil-and-gas interests (by gutting Clinton’s energy tax) while groping for the higher ground (by slashing spending). Some of his ideas made sense-like forcing the well-to-do elderly to pay for their medical insurance-and the impulse to replace taxes with spending cuts is a sound one. But Boren’s gambit reeked of the facile unreality that infects deficit mania, a movement flourishing in the vacuum of Clinton’s uncertain presidency.
Most people who say they are concerned about the budget deficit either misunderstand the issue or see it as a metaphor. Only about 30 percent, according to former Perot pollster Frank Luntz, see the deficit for what it is: “a potential source of inflation and high interest rates, an irresponsible mortgaging of the future.” The rest either confuse the deficit with the lagging economy (as did the woman in last year’s second presidential debate, who asked an uncomprehending George Bush how the debt was affecting the lives of people he knew)–or see it as a metaphor for the sloth and ineptitude of the federal government. Indeed, until very recently, the great public clamoring for deficit reduction was something of a mirage. Economic security-job creation-was a higher priority; Clinton’s most popular program was his stimulus package.
But that mood seems to have changed, grown darker over the months. People have lost faith in Clinton’s ability to invest wisely-for several reasons. First, the president hasn’t made a coherent, consistent argument in support of his new spending programs. Most people can’t even remember what his proposed “investments” are. Far more important, he hasn’t seemed personally trustworthy–hanging out with the showbiz crowd, putting more emphasis on rights than on responsibilities, paying more for a haircut ($200) than many families spend on food each week. He might have mitigated these disastrous impressions if he’d placed more emphasis on his efforts to reform-or, if you must, “reinvent”-government, a desire shared by “new” Democrats and Perot supporters alike, but he passed that over to his vice president. Reform doesn’t seem nearly so important to Bill Clinton as taxing or spending.
The centrists can help bail out this floundering presidency-but only if they drop gimmicks like “entitlement caps” and start thinking in larger terms than the fate of the oil-and-gas bidness. They should continue to insist on reductions in the budget plan-modest net reductions, lest the economy be nudged back into recessionlowering the tax burden only by taking larger bites from the estimated $30 billion in subsidies and $35 billion in tax breaks that go to favored industries each year.
And there should be more to the critique than enlightened Deficismo. One senator who may have a clue is John Breaux of Louisiana, a swing vote-along with Boren-on the Senate Finance Committee and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. Breaux quietly met with the president last Wednesday and was intending to discuss not only a reduction in the energy tax (paid for by specific spending cuts) but also a refocusing of Clinton’s agenda-away from lifestyle and entitlement liberalism; toward reform–and an increased “new” Democrat presence on the White House staff (perhaps even the addition of a senior counsel, responsible for reminding the president what he used to believe in). Breaux didn’t say much after the meeting. It’s not known whether he raised all these issues, or just those of interest to his constituents-or whether the president was ready, finally, to start listening to reason.
