[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2188-E2189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FINALLY, BUSINESS AS UN-USUAL

                                 ______


                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 15, 1995

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let's cut right through the political fog 
and rhetoric and take a good, objective look at what is actually 
driving the budget impasse and showdown we are currently embroiled in 
with President Clinton. The heart of the debate boils down to ideology 
and principles. Are we going to reign in the role of the Federal 
Government or not? It has been 40 long years of Democrat rule in the 
House of Representatives. In that time, the welfare state has ballooned 
out of control because the answer to all the societal problems is to 
spend more, more, more.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, all we need to do is look at the indisputable 
facts. As Federal spending skyrocketed, so too has crime and violent 
crime, drug use, illegitimate children, fatherless homes, and the 
number of welfare recipients. These trends are indicative of the degree 
to which the very fabric of American ideals have been shredded. But 
what was it that actually ripped and tore at the core principles and 
values upon which this Nation was founded? Clearly, the policies of the 
welfare state are at the root of this destruction. Now, the only 
questions that remain are what made the welfare state such a failure 
and how do we fix it.
  This is the crux of the current debate and what makes this moment 
truly historic. The overwhelming majority of the American public can 
tell you that the root cause is the inherent message of the welfare 
state that people not only can get, but deserve, something for nothing. 
Even President Clinton knows this is the popular opinion. He campaigned 
on real welfare reform and being tough on crime and drugs yet this week 
he has said he will veto the Republican proposal to bring real reform 
to the welfare state and the facts show that drug use is on an 
undeniable upswing. He has said he is for a balanced budget but now he 
refuses to even commit to one, yet alone act on it. Why? Because in 
reality, he is entrenched in this failed ideology along with all the 
leftist leaders of the Democrat Party. He is entrenched in this 
bureaucratic mindset which resists change at all costs, even when the 
American public recognizes and has demanded such change. That's why 
people are leaving the party in droves.
  Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that political pandering, class 
warfare and outright scare tactics are the only responses they have 
left because their only core principles are tax and spend. However, I 
would like to submit to the Record an editorial from the Wall Street 
Journal of November 13, 1995, which cuts right to the chase. I hope we 
can all take their lead and keep an eye on the real debate because it 
is a truly momentous period in American history.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 13, 1995]

                 Review and Outlook--At Last, a Choice

       So President Clinton vows to shut down the federal 
     government tomorrow if Republican majorities in Congress 
     don't bow to his budget will. Well, be our guest. By all 
     means, let's shut down ``non-essential'' parts of the 
     government and see if anyone cares.
       At least a shutdown might focus Americans, and maybe even a 
     bored media, on the 

[[Page E2189]]
     real stakes in this year's budget debate: Is the United States, for the 
     first time since the 1920s, going to rein in the federal 
     government, or not? This is the heart of the matter. The rest 
     is political fog.
       Republicans are close to putting on Mr. Clinton's desk a 
     bill that does more or less what they promised to do last 
     November. For the first time in decades, Congress would 
     actually cut some spending. A few parts of Leviathan would 
     even go out of business. The tax burden would ease. Welfare 
     policy would be opened up to 50 state experiments. And so on.
       Readers of these columns know we've criticized some parts 
     of this GOP budget. We wish it cut more spending, especially 
     on pet Congressional fiefs, and that it cut taxes in a way 
     that better promoted economic growth. We wish a lot of 
     things, But if this effort fails, the alternative isn't a 
     better budget. The alternative is a victory for the Beltway 
     status quo. That's why this budget fight really is a seminal 
     moment in American politics.
       Precisely because Bill Clinton knows this, he wants to 
     delay or obfuscate the real choice. They very last thing he 
     wants is to have to decide whether to sign or veto this 
     budget. For months, ever since Dick Morris came back as his 
     strategist, Mr. Clinton has had it both ways. He claims to be 
     for all of the things the public wants--tax cuts, a balanced 
     budget, welfare reform--but he hasn't had to do anything to 
     prove it.
       Meanwhile, his left wing has come down on him with a wrath 
     usually reserved for Republicans. Marian Wright Edelman, 
     Hillary Clinton's mentor and mother superior of the welfare 
     state, wrote an open letter all but accusing Mr. Clinton of 
     child abuse for endorsing a welfare bill that got 35 
     Democratic votes in the Senate.
       So Mr. Clinton has, for now, dropped his compromise budget 
     zig and adopted an opposition zag. His advisers are openly 
     bragging that this will help him on the ``character'' issue. 
     If he vetoes the budget, he'll lose his reputation for flip-
     flopping! At least, we suppose, until the Dec. 15 filing 
     deadline for the New Hampshire primary, after which the left 
     won't be able to field a challenger against him.
       Which brings us back to the real issue of reining in 
     government. On this score the GOP budget is hardly radical. 
     Over seven years, it would shrink federal spending's share of 
     the economy only slightly--to 18.5% of GDP in fiscal 2002, 
     from 21.7% in 1995, says the Congressional Budget Office. 
     Total federal spending would continue to rise.
       We repeat: Total spending would rise--to $1.844 trillion in 
     2002 from $1.530 trillion.
       Tax revenues would climb even faster--to $1.853 trillion 
     from $1.355 trillion in 1995. As a share of the economy, 
     taxes would fall only slightly--to 18.6% of GDP in 2002 from 
     19.3% this year. Taxation's share of GDP has stayed 
     remarkably near 19% for 20 years now, so this is no great 
     change either. Congress is merely bringing its spending into 
     line with the maximum tax burden Americans seem willing to 
     pay.
       It's hard to know what Mr. Clinton means whey he says this 
     budget is ``extreme.'' Does he want Congress to spend $1.9 
     trillion a year, or $2 trillion, or what? How much is enough?
       The president has been most shameless on Medicare and 
     Medicaid, which are growing by 10% a year. Under current law 
     these and other entitlements plus interest are growing so 
     fast they will consume all federal tax revenues by 2012. 
     Every dime. There'll be nothing left for defense or education 
     or anything else Mr. Clinton claims to value.
       The logic of Mr. Clinton's demagoguery is that taxes will 
     have to go up, sooner or later. Medicare is financed in part 
     by a payroll tax that in 1937 was 2% on incomes up to $3,000. 
     Today it is 15.3% on $62,600 of income. How high does Mr. 
     Clinton want the payroll tax to go if he doesn't want to 
     accept Republican reforms? And by the way, where are the 
     budget scolds (Warren Rudman, Pete Peterson. David Broder) 
     who've griped for years that politicians lack the courage to 
     tackle middle-class entitlements? When Republicans finally do 
     it, they temporize.
       These are the real stakes in this budget debate. They have 
     been obscured by a president who wants to change the subject. 
     And by a media class which decries political ``bickering'' 
     while ignoring the substance of the debate. The shouting is 
     so loud inside Washington this year precisely because this is 
     the first budget in years that is not business as usual. Mr. 
     President, it's time to choose.

                          ____________________