When Bill Clinton says he's going to put the country first and politics-as-usual last, that's the moment to put up your guard. His latest switch -- from deficit hawk to tax-cut dove -- is packaged with promises that his administration will pay for its largess while Republicans will merely go on piling up the national debt. Don't believe it. The president's new "middle class bill of rights" is only slightly less irresponsible than the proposals coming out of exuberant GOP ranks.
Let's look at the numbers. Mr. Clinton is promising tax cuts that will reduce revenues by $60 billion. To offset this loss, he ostensibly would curtail spending by $76 billion. Of that latter sum, $24 billion would come from consolidating programs in five government departments and selling off government assets like dams and power stations; the remaining $52 billion would be raised by extending the present freeze on non-military discretionary spending through fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Start with the selloff of government assets. Before dams and power stations go on the auction block, Congress has to give its approval. And with two Oregon Republicans in charge of the Senate Appropriations and Finance Committees, you can bet that proposals especially punishing to the Pacific Northwest will have a rough time.
Next consider the scheme to extend caps on discretionary spending through fiscal years 1999 and 2000. By then, if fate looks kindly on Mr. Clinton, he will have been re-elected in 1996 and in the final days of his presidency. Who knows if Congress will go along at that time or what his successor would do? But then, who cares? By that time the 1996 election will be history.
Now switch over to the Santa Claus part of the Clinton package. One of his ideas is to give families with incomes up to $80,000 the option of making $2,000 annual tax-deferred (but not deductible) contributions to Individual Retirement Accounts. That's double the present earnings ceiling. They could also make tax-free withdrawals from these IRAs for purchase of a first home, care of an elderly parent, education tuition, major medical expenses and long-term unemployment. This would not cost too much during the first five years, but after that the loss of revenue would run into the billions. White House chief of staff Leon Panetta, as a deficit-hawk congressman, opposed similar plans because of their long-term budgetary impact.
In criticizing these aspects of the Clinton plan, we do not mean to suggest Republican proposals are better. On the contrary, they are probably more detrimental to real as opposed to phony budget-balancing. But we find it a shame that the president can give a speech on government finances and not even mention the overwhelming problems caused by runaway entitlement programs, especially Social Security. His abandonment of his crusade against budget deficits, which are soon to be rising again, and his enlistment in the tax-cut bidding war are strictly "politics as usual."