Wednesday, September 27, 2000

By DAVE HAMRICK
Editor-at-large

What's the worst thing that could happen Nov. 7?

If you are a conservative and your answer is that Al Gore could be elected president, think again.

The worst thing that could happen is that Congress could change hands, yet congressional races get very little coverage and very little attention from the electorate.

People actually think it matters more who the president is.

For instance, the rap on Ronald Reagan from liberals often is that he increased federal budget deficits. When I read what I just wrote, I'm flabbergasted. After listening to liberals argue for 30 years that budget deficits don't matter and that we can't possibly fund a reasonable budget without them, I've just written about liberals loudly proclaiming that Reagan was a failure because budget deficits went up.

Only in America.

Actually, though I'm in favor of a balanced budget, tax cuts are even more important to keep the economy fueled and thus help keep that budget balanced. The other important factor is to keep spending under control. It's pretty simple.

But regardless of where you stand on supply-side economics, the fact is that no president has ever balanced, or failed to balance, a budget, at least not in the 20th century.

Yes, the president writes a budget each year. He then sends that budget to Congress and a few weeks or months later Congress passes a budget and sends it back to the president, who then signs it into law. Sometimes he negotiates some concessions to make it look like he's in charge, but he always signs it.

The budget that passes Congress usually bears little or no resemblance to the one that was submitted by the president.

During the Reagan years, Congress added billions of dollars of pork for the folks back home, increased the rate of increase on every social program and pumped the budgets up until red ink fairly exploded from them. Congress at that time was controlled by the Democratic Party.

By contrast, during the Clinton years, budgets were submitted by the president that would have added a trillion dollars to the federal debt. Congress took those budgets and trimmed a little here and a little there and reduced them to the point that, after six years of a Republican-controlled Congress, we have something we haven't had in decades... a balanced budget with projected surpluses.

The president reacted by accusing the Republicans of killing old people and putting poor people on the streets because they had "cut" his 12 and 15 percent increases for social programs down to 10 or 11 percent increases. Then he shut the government down and blamed the Republicans for that (again over a 2 percent difference in the rate of increase). Then, after all was said and done, he took credit for the economic benefits that we have enjoyed as a result of a balanced budget.

Only in America!

We now have a booming economy, and I believe having a balanced federal budget is one factor in that. At least it helps keep investors confident.

Numerous other factors are involved, including the emergence of new technologies that keep the customers coming back.

What part did Bill Clinton play in any of that? None. What part did Congress play? Not all that much, but some (see "budget surplus" and "investor confidence" above).

What can happen to bring the boom to a grinding halt?

There has already been a little erosion lately, as many of the new dotcoms have turned out to be flashes in the proverbial pan, shaking confidence on Wall Street. But in the long run, economists seem to think this will serve only to make investors a little more cautious, which is probably a good thing.

But what if Congress goes on a spending spree and erases those surpluses without ever reducing taxes, and then starts borrowing again? If on top of that we have a little bad luck another oil crisis, a big military engagement (with our military weakened by eight years of neglect), a few major industrial strikes our economy could go into the dumper faster than you can type "SELL!" on your Palm Pilot.

It looks like Gore will win, unless Bush can get his act together for the debates. But even if things remain pretty much as they are, Bush has a better chance than you're hearing about from the media.

Sure, some polls show Gore with a double-digit lead. But the Battleground Poll, conducted by Voter.com, predicted the '92 and '96 elections within 1 percent, and it shows Bush with about a 5 percent lead.

But if Gore wins and also has coattails and his party takes over Congress, we can only hope that the Democrats have learned their lesson and will now hold the line on spending.

They'll never give us a tax break, and will continue to buy votes with more increases in failed social programs, but if they'll just keep the pluses and minuses lined up, maybe there's hope the economy will continue strong in spite of the high level of taxation.

If the Democrats are going to take credit for the good economy, the least they can do is not go out of their way to screw it up again.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page