The Political Interest He's No George Bush

By Michael Kramer

AFTER MONTHS OF FRETTING THAT BILL CLINTON ISN'T A NEW DEMOCRAT after all, that he's an unreconstructed liberal masquerading as a centrist, many pundits have changed their mind. Clinton, they now argue, is little different from George Bush. Recalling a litany of unfulfilled campaign pledges and a budget heavy on deficit reduction, the New York Times complains that Clinton "promised voters more than a rehash." That's right, and only the President's fabulists would deny that the rhetoric of 1992 rings a bit hollow in 1993. But overall, the rap is bum. America isn't close to beginning "a great national journey" (as Clinton grandly advertised his proposed departures last February), but the budgetary road about to be taken is nothing like any Bush would have traveled.

For openers, Clinton deserves considerable praise for having pushed so vigorously for an honest whack at the nation's deficit. The infamous 1990 budget agreement, to which the current plan is so often falsely compared, was dishonest in almost every key respect, primarily because its assumptions were bogus. With Bush's agreement, Congress blithely adopted a set of pie-chart-in- the-sky economic projections almost double the average predicted by private forecasters. When the revenues did not match expectations -- and health-care expenses soared -- the deficit exploded. Clinton, by contrast, has embraced decidedly conservative growth estimates (lower, in fact, than most private economists foresee) and has forthrightly admitted that the entire enterprise will fail if health reform isn't implemented.

If the emphasis on debt taming is neo-Republican -- an accommodation to Ross Perot and the financial establishment's doomsayers -- the methodology of Clinton's deficit reduction is very much his own. Tax "fairness" (to use the President's word) is real. Nearly 80% of the increases fall on the top 1.2% of taxpayers, a refutation of supply-side theory. The 4.3 cents-per-gal. hike in gasoline taxes can be criticized as a broken promise since it hits the middle class hardest, but given that the typical driver will pay only about $33 more , a year, the burden is hardly staggering. The tax-rate increase on Social Security benefits for the wealthiest recipients (from 50% to 85%) is not onerous; in fact, it should be welcomed as a long-overdue step toward means- testing entitlement programs, which drive up the deficit more than anything else.

Only some of Clinton's social programs will survive Congress (and most at levels far below the President's initial proposals), but the earned income tax credit will rise dramatically, a significant promise conspicuously kept. The EITC supplements the pay of those whose earnings fall below the poverty line, a full 18% of the work force, but it has never closed the gap completely. Clinton pledged to do just that ("If you work 40 hours a week you ((should)) no longer be in poverty"). By delivering, says Senator Bill Bradley, the President has fashioned "the most important antipoverty program in 20 years." The five-year, approximately $21 billion EITC increase shows that Clinton is willing to back rhetoric with money and not simply deliver homilies about a "thousand points of light."

If Congress approves the deal its leaders are crafting, the President will take what one of his aides calls "a victory lap around the country to make sure he gets some credit." All but the most cynical (and those with a personal agenda) should applaud -- and Clinton will deserve it.