Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, June 8, 1995 TAG: 9506080051
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
John Goolrick, an able journalist of the old school of fair-minded reporting, more recently an aide to Republican congressmen, took up his pen to praise the extent to which Sen. Charles Robb's voting record in the new Congress was pleasing to conservatives. You can certainly point to his vote for the line-item veto, the balanced-budget amendment and the Republican plan to bring the budget into balance by 2002 as evidence of that. On the last question, Robb was one of only three Democrats voting yes.
But this only confirms a longstanding Robb ploy of voting with conservatives on high-profile fiscal issues and siding with liberals on most everything else. For connoisseurs of the drab art of listening to what officeholders say and then checking to see how they actually voted, it is fascinating to watch the senator tack back and forth. Of course, he must also keep peace at home, honoring as best he can the legacy of Daddy Lyndon as chief progenitor of the welfare state and begetter of the great bounty of the Johnson-Robb family.
Assuming we want a balanced budget, there are obvious flaws in the measures the Senate has thus far addressed to do it. The line-item veto, which has yet to pass in a form acceptable to both houses, would certainly give a strong president a powerful tool. But presidents must also get along with Congress and please voters. It's doubtful the use of the line-item veto will ever be much more than token.
The balanced-budget amendment, even if ratified by 38 states, could be set aside by a three-fifths vote in Congress. Since intervention by the courts was specifically forbidden, there was no enforcement mechanism other than the ballot box, which hasn't given us a balanced budget in 25 years.
The plan advanced by the New Mexico Republican, Sen. Pete Domenici, to balance the budget over seven years while allowing spending to rise by $500 billion was a bold notion. But it's only a blueprint for getting us from here to there, similar to those we saw in 1986, 1991 and 1993. The painful cuts always fall in the "out" years, two elections away.
Democrats played all sorts of games with the Domenici plan and the $170 billion in tax cuts promised when the Congressional Budget Office certifies the budget is about to be balanced. The idea of debating in 1995 what to do with a tax cut which might take effect after the turn of the century is straight from cloudland. But Democrats had a practical goal in mind: force Republicans to go on record opposing more money for senior citizens, students, veterans, etc. This was the same game the Democrats played in the early Reagan years that got the Senate back for them in 1986.
What did Robb do after supporting the balanced-budget amendment (which failed by one vote) and the Domenici plan? The answer is he did just about all he could to spend more money.
On the amendment offered by Sen. Jay Rockefeller to restore $100 billion of the $256 billion that was to be saved by slowing the growth of Medicare spending, Robb voted yes. On an amendment by Sen. James Exon to restore $40 billion to education, Robb again said yes. He also went along with Sen. Bill Bradley's amendment to transfer $17 billion to allow the earned-income tax credit for low-income families to grow at its current rapid rate.
That brings us to those great and wonderful uses that could be made of that mythical $170 billion in tax relief when we come in merciful sight of a balanced budget. Sen. Exon proposed an amendment directing that $100 billion go to Medicare, $30 billion to education, $17 billion for the earned-income credit, $10 billion for agriculture, $3 billion for veterans and a munificent $10 billion for deficit reduction. Robb voted for it.
Sen. Daniel Moynihan then offered an amendment to retain welfare as a federal entitlement and reducing the tax-cut money by an estimated $55 billion to allow for increased spending on welfare over seven years. Robb supported it.
In all of the above, Sen. John Warner was on the other side. But he and Robb came together to oppose a mandate to reduce federal civilian employment by 150,000 over seven years. They also opposed further cuts in defense and the Appalachian Regional Commission. These might be filed under the heading of political obligations to powerful state interests.
In the current Congress, Robb has been hostile to all proposals to cut taxes and has voted to raise corporate taxes to get more money for popular programs. In fairness, the senator has never promised to cut taxes and has seldom met a tax increase he didn't like.
You can make a case that the projected cuts in spending are impractical, though Robb has never had the courage to do that. But you can't hold that view and honorably posture as the best friend a balanced budget ever had.
Undoubtedly, Robb has taken the politically safer course. When those who bemoan a lack of money come to him, he can say he voted to give them more. When those who complain of deficit spending knock at his door, he can wave his vote for the balanced-budget amendment in their face. Of course, when it came to an immediate reducion of $16 billion in this year's deficit, Robb voted no.
But it's away from fiscal issues that Robb's devotion to the ruling passions of his party can be seen most clearly. For example, he voted to uphold President Clinton's executive order that firms which did not give striking workers their jobs back could not do business with the federal government. This was an end run around the refusal of the previous Congress to approve a bill requiring employers to rehire striking workers. Robb would never say how he stood on this bill, but he voted to end the filibuster that stood in the way of its passage.
Those Republicans who gave the senator Oliver North as an opponent in 1994 might see cause to take stock of their political judgment. Given the extreme cleverness of Robb's voting record, he may be with us awhile.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
by CNB