- The Washington Times - Tuesday, December 25, 2001

Republicans and Democrats are bracing for an election year filled with finger-pointing as dwindling federal surpluses drain the money each party craves for its priorities.
Government and private analysts were expecting anything from a tiny surplus to a roughly $40 billion deficit for fiscal 2002, which began Oct. 1. That was an abrupt turnaround from the $313 billion surplus the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected last January.
Even worse numbers loom for next year. White House budget chief Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. has predicted deficits through at least 2004 the first since 1997.
Combined with probable gridlock between the Democrat-run Senate and President Bush and his allies in the Republican-led House, this leaves neither party with enough money or muscle to ram costly initiatives into law. Sizable tax cuts, prescription-drug benefits, expanded health care coverage for the uninsured and large new education programs all seem suddenly unachievable.
"Those are the dreams of yesteryear and the promises for the campaign, but they won't see the light of day legislatively," said Robert Reischauer, a former CBO director and president of the liberal-leaning Urban Institute.
That is not to say there won't be bipartisan pressure to drive up spending. That will be fed by a confluence of factors: the election year, the popularity of education, defense and anti-terrorism programs, a desire to spur the economy and the expiration of a decade-old budget law that helped cap spending.
Even so, eyeing November's elections that will determine control of Congress, both parties will duel over who is to blame for the worsening budget picture.
"We are headed back into deficits because of the very serious budget mistakes we made this year," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat.
His comments, a preview of next year's Democratic theme, referred to the $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut that Mr. Bush pushed through Congress last spring over most Democrats' objections.
Republicans say the culprit is the weak economy, further staggered by the September 11 attacks. But in a warm-up for next year, they spent recent weeks blaming Democrats particularly Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat for killing bill after bill for political reasons.
"We take up politics when it comes to the Senate," as opposed to policy, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, said last week.
Mr. Bush will reveal his $2 trillion-plus budget for the 2003 fiscal year by early February. Republicans expect it to propose healthy increases for defense, domestic anti-terrorism initiatives and education.
But, eager to avoid falling deeply into deficit, the administration is expected to carve savings out of lower-priority programs. Many congressional Republicans might be nervous about supporting austere cuts in an election year, forcing them and their leaders to choose between backing Mr. Bush or risking re-election and the Republican Party's drive for congressional majorities.
Democrats also face divisions. Mr. Conrad and others want to stick to the theme of fiscal prudence that the party honed under President Clinton an insistence on not spending Social Security and Medicare surpluses on other government programs.
But that means even less money available for such other Democratic priorities as health care coverage, schools and public-works construction. An election-year splurge on such programs might prove irresistible for many Democrats, especially liberals.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide