Tripod Home | New | TriTeca | Work/Money | Politics/Community | Living/Travel | Planet T | Daily Scoop
|
POLITICAL PLAYBOOK 
In This Corner: The President's Proposed 1997 Federal Budget In This Corner: The Republican-led House Budget Committee Proposal The Bottom Line on GOP and Medicare, according to Democrats. Republicans Respond to Medicare Questions "President Clinton's 1997 Budget is Solid and Fair" -- Some Praise for Clinton's Budget
ABCDEFG
Why Balance the Federal Budget? A different point of view from an opinion article of "The Written Word".
Memory Lane: Take a look at Tripod's initial coverage of the
FY 1996 Budget Debacle.
|
Posted June 18, 1996
Congress was months late in passing much of its 1996 federal budget. Perhaps you remember some of the budget shortfall results. Well, lawmakers are battling again over legislation to fund government agencies for the 1997 fiscal year, which begins in October. In addition to the long-term budget plan, some key appropriations bills funding specific agencies are taking shape. Following tradition, Congressional Republicans and President Clinton are already clashing over which way spending should go. And within Congress, budgeteers are trying to incorporate the ideological interests of their fellow members into the deficit-cutting mania that has defined the GOP since 1994. Making matters all the more difficult is their awareness that these decisions will resonate throughout the 1996 Congressional and Presidential campaigns. Here's a look at how some of these major spending bills are taking shape:
Nuts and Bolts: Although President Clinton has vetoed several of its past budget proposals, Congress has passed another version of a plan to balance the federal budget by 2002. For 1997, Congress is settling on the tidy sum of $1.6 trillion in spending. Under their plan, Republicans forecast a $5 billion budget surplus by 2002. As in previous budgets vetoed by President Clinton, the plan provides for billions in savings from social programs: $158B from Medicare, $72B from Medicaid, and $70B from welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit. President Clinton has proposed $87B more in spending in these areas. Status: On June 13, the Senate passed a final version of the bill, 53-46. The day before, the House passed the bill by just five votes. President Clinton is certain to veto it. Inside Scoop: Primarily an exercise in political maneuvering for the 1996 campaigns, Republicans are under no illusions that this bill will escape the Clinton veto. What is notable is the way successive Republican budget plans have toned down; tax cuts shrink while they soften their blows against programs like Medicare and Welfare. In a related aside, the Republican leadership narrowly averted a humiliating defeat in the House, when budget hard-liners within the GOP balked at the news that the plan would allow the deficit to balloon in 1997 and 1998 before balancing in 2002. The escape was due in part to the efforts of moderate Senate Republicans, who have all along acted as a bulkhead against the more extreme elements of the House GOP, especially the freshman class, and who were instrumental in adding $4B in social spending to the budget resolution. Last-minute switchers who saved the House vote included Republican Reps. Wes Cooley, OR, Wayne Allard, CO, Barbara Cubin, WY, and Jack Metcalf, WA.
Nuts and Bolts: The Pentagon's annual budget has been shrinking in the years since the Cold War, but the Republican majority in Congress is seeking to change that. For the second year in a row, Congress is fighting to give the Defense Department more than it and President Clinton have requested. The House bill would give the Pentagon $245.2B to play with in 1997: $10.6B more than Clinton's request, and $1.8B more than last year's appropriation. Republicans charge that money has been diverted from weapons systems and research to fund a variety of peacekeeping missions, threatening the military's "readiness." About $10B of the funding goes toward buying and developing new weapons like the F-22 fighter jet. Status: The House Appropriations Committee approved the bill on June 5, and the full House passed it on June 13, 278-126. The bill will now be considered by the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. The White House has indicated that the bill "is not affordable", and will likely draw a veto. Inside Scoop: The bill has encountered stiff resistance from Republican "deficit hawks," led by Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL, and Scott Klug, R-WI, who believe that billions can be diverted from the Pentagon to shrink the budget deficit. They sought unsuccessfully to "freeze" defense spending at its 1996 level. The battle between deficit hawks and defense hawks has divided the party from the earliest days of the GOP Congress, when the deficit-obsessed House Budget Committee chairman, John Kasich, R-OH, tried in vain to block massive spending on B-2 bombers just as he was trying to forge a balanced budget bill. With defense spending serving as a traditional source of dispute between Republicans and Democrats, and a likely veto on the way, the bill may be setting the stage for summer campaign clashes between President Clinton and Bob Dole.
Nuts and Bolts: How much money should the U.S. send to its allies around the globe? That is the question Congress has been debating this month, and it looks certain the answer will be: much less. The $11.9B foreign aid bill moving through Congress would be $460M less than 1996 levels, and $1B below President Clinton's request. Much of the cutting comes from international aid organizations. Specifically, the bill would trim by $175M the U.S. donation to a World Bank program that gives interest-free loans to poor countries, to $525M, or less than half of what Clinton requested. The bill also imposing new conditions on aid to Turkey, tied to that country's treatment of its Armenian citizens. In addition, a particularly controversial provision would cut by half funding for family planning groups unless they promised not to perform abortions in other countries. Status: The House passed the bill on June 11, 366-57. It will likely be taken up by the Senate this week. Inside Scoop: Deep cuts in foreign aid result from a convergence between deficit hawks, who look to trim federal spending at every turn, and increasing discontent inside the GOP with America's international commitments and obligations. This trend is raising high alarm in the diplomatic community, whose members argue that foreign aid makes up just a small fraction of the federal budget, and is a vital and high-yielding investment in an uncertain world. Diplomacy advocates, however, are not as likely to slow the bill as much as opponents of its abortion language, who held the 1996 version up in the Senate for months.
|
Map | Search | Help | Send Us Comments