
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, October 30, 1995                   TAG: 9510300029
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-6   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

MAKE THE BUDGET LESS REPULSIVE

BOTH HOUSES of Congress last week passed far-reaching budget plans that would hurt the country. Progressive and caring policy-makers need to try to assure that, after a reconciliation bill has emerged and been rightly vetoed by the president, negotiations between the White House and Congress produce a better plan.

One definition of such a plan: It won't single out for hurt the most vulnerable members of society.

As it is, to help pay for huge tax cuts largely benefiting higher-income families, the GOP proposal that passed the House, for instance, would cut Medicare spending by $270 billion over seven years and Medicaid by $182 billion. It would slash housing aid, nutrition programs, job training, funds for schools serving poor children, heating assistance, student loans, legal services.

It is Robin Hood in reverse. Notwithstanding the credit they deserve for addressing out-of-control Medicare spending and pushing the country toward deficit reduction, the Republicans' budget plan is repulsively unfair.

Fortunately, there's a practical model for a better plan - not in President Clinton's mushy wavering, but in compromise legislation crafted by a group of conservative House Democrats who call themselves the Coalition.

Like the radical GOP proposal, theirs would balance the budget in seven years and require huge cuts in federal spending. Though marred by a variety of flaws, it is a tough and credible alternative: It approximates a plan that a congressional majority and the president might endorse, and it features numerous improvements over the GOP House and Senate measures.

For one thing, it would do away with the imprudent and inequitable $245 billion tax cut skewed toward the wealthy. It also would take half a percentage point off the automatic cost-of-living increases for Social Security and other programs, including the income-tax code - a justifiable move considering that the consumer price index apparently exaggerates actual inflation by a percentage point or two.

These changes would permit smaller spending cuts while still balancing the budget. Medicare, for example, would be cut by $100 billion less over seven years in the Coalition proposal, in part by means-testing premiums to protect the poor. The earned-income tax credit, which benefits the working poor, would be preserved - in contrast with the GOP plan, which would impose a tax increase on the working poor. Student loans would be protected, too.

Not exactly the promised land. An ideal budget plan would reform entitlement spending - for example, with means testing, a higher retirement age, health-insurance reform and cost-containment. It would cut subsidies to corporations and the wealthy, phase out farm supports and cap the mortgage-interest deduction.

An ideal budget would continue to cut federal bureaucracy and eliminate unneeded programs. It would impose greater discipline on Pentagon spending. It would raise taxation of tobacco and gasoline more in line with their costs to society. It would move toward tax policies that promote savings and investment rather than consumption.

It also would shift more government spending from consumption categories into investment in the foundations of future prosperity - such as scientific research, preventive health care, infrastructure, child care, education.

Americans may not see an ideal budget anytime soon. President Clinton has yet to submit one. Surely, though, we can do better than what the House and Senate have cooked up.

by CNB