This is to edge ever closer to the substance of the Republican budget while also condemning it in ever-harsher language. The ultimate aim is to reach an agreement with Congress but to do so in such a way that Clinton can claim credit both for balancing the budget and for protecting programs that people don’t want cut (but which will have to be cut). Only someone with Clinton’s indifference toward the truth could even attempt this maneuver.
His widely expected veto of the Republican budget- slightly different House and Senate versions must be reconciled–will start the final chapter of this charade. There will be plenty of political theatrics. Sounding reasonable, Clinton will continue to portray the Republicans as heartless lackeys of the rich. Tense negotiations will ensue, with the odds favoring a “compromise” closer to the Republican budget than any of Clinton’s. The president will then hail this as a defeat of “extremists.”
The reason Clinton can’t balance the budget without aping the Republicans is arithmetic. Consider. No one pushes a tax increase. So spending must be sliced. Well. In 1995 interest on the federal debt is 15 percent of outlays; that can’t be cut. Defense (18 percent of outlays) is already dropping in inflation-adjusted terms. Social Security (22 percent) is thought untouchable. What’s left? Medicare (12 percent), Medicaid (6 percent) and other domestic spending.
The point is not that the Republican budget is perfect. It isn’t. Some defects are shared with the White House (e.g., tax cuts before the budget is balanced), and some White House criticisms are legitimate. The curbs on Medicaid–health insurance for the poor–look too tight; the rollback of the Earned Income Tax Cred-it-tax relief for the working poor–is undesirable. Haggling ought to occur over details. The real point is that the main outlines of a balanced budget have been set and that the process has occurred with no presidential leadership.
Clinton’s behavior is defined only by the constant pursuit of personal political advantage. His first instinct was to hope that the Republicans’ budget-balancing exercise would fail. Then they’d look inept and untrustworthy. When that didn’t happen, he moved toward their position rather than defend perpetual deficits. Recall the chronology:
Clinton submits a budget with unending deficits. The White House puts the deficit at $194 billion in 2000. Using less optimistic economic assumptions, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the deficit at $276 billion in 2000.
The White House criticizes proposed Republican spending cuts as cruel and characterizes the plan to balance the budget in seven years as arbitrar.
In late May the president suggests the budget might be balanced in 10 years. In mid-June he puts forth a skeletal plan. It would reduce projected Medicare spending by $124 billion between 1996 and 2002 (and an additional $165 billion by 2005) and projected Medicaid spending by $54 billion (and $51 billion more by 2005). By its assumptions, the CBO estimates that there would still be a budget deficit ($201 billion) in 2005.
Clinton budget officials say better economic conditions mean the budget can be balanced in nine years.
The president tentatively suggests that balancing the budget in seven years might be acceptable.
The simple truth is that budget balancing requires either raising taxes or cutting spending. Cultivating public opinion that accepts this would make the politics of choosing easier. In part, that is the president’s job, if he means what he says. But Clinton’s whole strategy has been, as much as possible, to avoid the necessity of choice and to excite public anxieties about any choices that might actually be made. The audacity of his political posturing (and its essential dishonesty) is now to project himself as an eager proponent of a balanced budget.
In this, he has been helped by the press, which has poorly exposed his contradictions. Here he is at an Oct. 19 press briefing. He opens by denouncing the Republican budget. “I will not let you destroy Medicare,” he says, “and I will veto this bill.” Great sound bite: crisp, contentious. But he closes by sounding conciliatory: “We can both meet our objectives.”
But wait. If Republicans are destroying Medicare, how can Clinton envision compromise? And the answer is: the Republicans aren’t destroying Medicare. Under their budget, spending on Medicare would total $1.6 trillion between 1996 and 2002; that’s $270 billion less than under today’s program. Clinton is proposing $124 billion less. A group of conservative House Democrats is proposing $170 billion less. Though real, these are differences of degree and not of principle.
It is too easy to dismiss Clinton’s misstatements as routine rhetorical excesses. Of course, there’s a political rationale. He’s trying to navigate the inconsistencies of public opinion and Democratic constituencies. So. This is an explanation, not a justification. The harm exists on two levels. The first is in the budget debate itself. Clinton’s deceptive rhetoric might frustrate a compromise, when one ought to be within reach, by hardening positions.
The larger danger of his situational speech-designing fictions to fit the moment–is that it vindicates public cynicism of political leadership. Clinton’s conceit is that people never notice the untruths. But of course, they ultimately do, and in the long run, this makes effective governing harder. Trust diminishes, as it has. A wiser president than Clinton once warned against trying to fool all the people all the time. It’s still good advice.