[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 94 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8124-S8125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       TAKE THE LEAD, MR. CLINTON

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, Matthew Miller, a former 
senior adviser to the Office of Management and Budget, had an op-ed 
piece about the budget.
  It says precisely what I believe: that the Administration should have 
provided Congress with a better budget, that the Republicans should be 
applauded for trying to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002, but 
that the priorities in the Republican budget are all wrong, even though 
the goal is a proper one.
  I know the budget has already passed the Senate and the House, and we 
will be facing it shortly in conference, but in the belief that telling 
the truth always has some virtue, I ask that the Matthew Miller piece 
be printed in the Record.
  The article follows:

                [From the New York Times, May 16, 1995]

                       Take the Lead, Mr. Clinton

                          (By Matthew Miller)

       Washington.--I left the Clinton Administration in January 
     when the White House issued a budget that I felt turned away 
     from [[Page S8125]] its previous commitment to deficit 
     reduction and sensible public investment.
       Today, while supporting President Clinton in opposing the 
     cruel and counterproductive Republican budget resolutions in 
     the House and Senate, I also wonder why the White House has 
     let the Republicans seize this issue.
       Though the Administration is right to criticize plans that 
     would cut spending for the most vulnerable Americans to help 
     finance tax breaks for the well-off, it will not rally much 
     support by hypocritically attacking cutbacks in Medicare and 
     Medicaid or by resisting the idea of balancing the budget 
     altogether.
       Last week, the White House chief of staff, Leon Panetta, 
     said that the Republicans would ``make Medicare a second-
     class health care system for our seniors.'' The 
     Administration's 1993 economic plan, ``A Vision of Change for 
     America,'' struck a different note. In it, the Administration 
     hoped to ``control the growth of Medicare and Medicaid 
     spending in the long term, and thereby supplement the deficit 
     reduction in this economic program.''
       Assuming ``health care controls,'' the plan estimated that 
     the deficit would decline to $87 billion in the year 2003--
     from what otherwise would have been $399 billion. Bringing 
     down the combined annual growth rate of Medicare and Medicaid 
     was the single most important factor in the reduction.
       This slower growth would have meant saving about $66 
     billion yearly on average over a 10-year period. The 
     Republican Senate budget resolution, by contrast, calls for 
     savings that average $65 billion yearly over seven years, 
     while the House resolution calls for $69 billion yearly over 
     the same period.
       It's hard to understand how a goal the Administration 
     considered reasonable only two years ago can seem unthinkably 
     draconian today.
       Nor is the Republicans' aim of balancing the budget by 2002 
     as dangerous for the economy as the Administration suggests. 
     Mainstream economists generally agree that reducing the 
     deficit by the equivalent of 0.5 percent of the gross 
     domestic product per year can be reliably offset by the 
     Federal Reserve (for example, by lowering interest rates). 
     With the Congressional Budget Office forecasting the deficit 
     at 2.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 1995, that 
     would mean a five-year path to a balanced budget by 2000 
     would be reasonable.
       In any event, it would be far better policy and better 
     politics for Mr. Clinton to take the lead by offering his own 
     plan to balance the budget rather than merely sniping at the 
     Republicans.
       The GOP resolutions would slash basic research, investment 
     in infrastructure and in education, while leaving untouched 
     most of the welfare for the well-off that permeates the 
     budget. While families struggling on $35,000 a year would 
     continue to bear a disproportionate tax burden, for example, 
     $30 billion in health and pension benefits would still go 
     every year to senior citizens who have incomes above 
     $100,000--giving these retirees far more back than they paid 
     into the system.
       Yet all of the Administration's well-taken criticisms will 
     be ignored if President Clinton does not renew his commitment 
     to addressing the problem of the deficit. The Republicans' 
     methods may be misguided, but the goal they have embraced is 
     the right one. Mr. Clinton should waste no time in taking 
     back an issue he claimed as his own from his first days in 
     office.
     

                          ____________________