Voinovich's tax-cut vote doesn't warrant criticism

Did U.S. Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, succumb to pressure from his party and vote for a tax-cut plan that violated the parameters he had set? Anyone who has followed Voinovich's public career knows that he does not take kindly to pressure -- even if it's coming from a White House that he generally supports.
And longtime Voinovich watchers will also know that he doesn't play games.
His refusal to blindly follow President George Bush and Republican leaders in the Senate had put him in the eye of a political storm -- a position he seemed to relish because it gave him the chance to talk about budget-related issues he considers important. At the top of his list is tax reform.
Thus, when he says that the $350 billion, 11-year tax-cut package passed last week by the Senate was in keeping with what he had sought, we believe him.
And when the senator insists that his vote will not be available if a House-Senate conference committee comes up with a package that adds more than $350 billion to the deficit, his Republican colleagues in Congress should pay attention.
Critics of the Senate package, including several major newspapers, contend that it's all smoke and mirrors and that the figures rely on assumptions that have no basis of fact. As for Voinovich, they contend that the package adds more than the $350 billion he had set as a ceiling.
The senator acknowledges that the price tag is actually $430 billion but notes that $80 billion will be offset by cuts in spending and closing tax loopholes.
Tax reform
In return for his vote, Voinovich was promised full-blown hearings on the contentious issue of tax reform -- he says the American people are "fed up" with the current tax laws.
But that isn't the only reason he voted for the tax-cut package. Among the provisions is one that earmarks $20 billion to help states ride out the current economic storm. Of that amount, which would be spent over two years, $5 billion would be funneled to Medicaid programs that are currently underfunded, including Ohio's. The remaining $15 billion would be sent to state and local governments under a revenue-sharing program. Sixty percent would go to the states, while 40 percent would be for local communities.
Such assistance from Washington is timely and necessary. Ohio is facing a $4 billion general fund budget shortfall for the next biennium, while many cities, townships and villages are having to deal with declining revenues and increasing costs.
A revenue-sharing plan that doles out federal funds on the basis of poverty and unemployment makes sense.
We have no doubt that Ohio's senior senator, Mike DeWine, will join his Republican colleague in making sure that the money for state and local governments is protected when members of the conference committee gather shortly.
We urge the Valley's two representatives, Tim Ryan and Ted Strickland, both Democrats, to let the House conferees know how important the revenue sharing program would be to the region's two major cities, Youngstown and Warren.