Wednesday, January 28, 2004
WASHINGTON -- More and more Republicans seem to be getting nervous about the direction of their president's proposed domestic agenda, including the alarming growth of the deficit. It seems to remind them of Lyndon Johnson's guns and butter disaster of four decades ago.
GOP members of Congress have been warning that spending is out of control and Republicans throughout the nation have shown dissatisfaction with some of the president's showcase programs such as No Child Left Behind. The Republican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates recently voted a resolution asking Congress to exempt it and similar states from the key education program, which it contends is an unfounded mandate that interferes with the state's considerable efforts to improve the public school system.
General uneasiness
There is obvious merit in the concern and the White House should heed the general uneasiness caused by increased war and home security obligations and domestic needs and tax cuts that have boosted the red ink to record levels.
But equally as alarming in this presidential election year is the failure of any of the Democratic presidential "wannabes" to propose any real solution, leaving the public with the prospect of a new occupant in the White House who would do little or nothing to ameliorate the situation. At least that's the clear impression being left by those who would on the one hand reduce or eliminate the president's tax cuts while on the other spend the money on more of everything from generous prescription drug benefits for seniors to new job programs.
Missing from the equations being drafted by either side in the presidential debate is a commitment to change the basic structure of the nation's major spending programs -- the so-called entitlements that include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, veterans care and benefits and so forth.
These programs are seriously flawed, according to critics such as David M. Walker, comptroller general of the United States, who believes that there is major structural imbalance in the way the federal government tends to its economic business and unless that is corrected the next generations will sink under the weight of fiscal liabilities. The current liability, he said, is about $7 trillion or $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the country and increasing rapidly.
As far back as last September, Walker issued a "call to action" that would address the problem from a tax and spend perspective that requires fiscal discipline based on what he called a new Hippocratic oath: "Do no harm!"
Here are some of his suggestions:
UWith regard to budget measurements, it is time to ensure that the long-term cost of selected major spending and tax proposals are quantified and adequately considered before legislation is enacted into law.
UIt is time to recognize that Social Security and Medicare trust fund solvency alone is not an adequate gauge of the financial condition of these programs and, in fact, leads to a false sense of security as to their true state.
UExisting entitlement programs should be restructured to make them secure, sustainable and aligned with 21st century economic and demographic realities.
UThe federal government's organizational structure should be streamlined to make it more economically efficient, effective, flexible, responsive and accountable. This includes eliminating duplicative, overlapping, conflicting and outdated programs, policies and operations.
How difficult is all this? Enormously so, given the politics of the situation and legislative and executive branches that every two years at election time refuse to make hard choices. There is no better example than the prescription drug benefit passed only after extreme White House pressure and a bending of the rules in Congress. The cost has been projected at $395 billion over the next 10 years, but those who remember the utterly false predictions about Medicare and Medicaid when they were adopted in 1965 only shake their heads in wonder. The cost could actually approach $1 trillion.
Democrats deplore the Medicare "reform," which won't take effect until 2006 and is likely to be changed. But their worry is not that it is fiscally irresponsible because of the war and national security needs and growing deficit, but because it doesn't go far enough. In addition, nearly every candidate has a plan for universal health care that would burden taxpayers to the breaking point.
XDan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.