-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/d8fae1b35693a618b9876127c5f377b4.pdf
a734b65214869bb7bced650954a96b80
PDF Text
Text
F O I A Number:
2006-0465-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
David Kusnet; Liz Bowyer
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
4520
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
[Press Clips] Friday, July 30, 1993 [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
91
5
11
1
�A Week in Review.
By Sign* WHUnson. PWI«d*pM. D*ly Naws. Canoonistt & Wrttars Syndlcata
Friday, July 30, 1993
Morning Edition
Produced by the News Analysis Staff
Room 160, OEOB (Ext. 7151)
THE WHITE HOUSE NEWS REPORT IS PREPARED BY THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE TO BRING
NEWS
ITEMS
OFFICIAL
OF INTEREST
CAPACITIES.
PERIODICALS
NEWS
ENDORSEMENT.
INTENDED
A S A MEANS O F K E E P I N G
DEVELOPMENTS.J
ORIGINAL
TO T H E A T T E N T I O N O F K E Y PERSONNEL
I T I S NOT
U S E OF THESE
FURTHER
COPYRIGHT,
REPRODUCTION
RESTRICTIONS.
INFORMED
ARTICLES
TO S U B S T I T U T E
FOR U S E I N THEIR
F O R NEWSPAPERS AND
ABOUT T H E M E A N I N G AND
DOES
FOR P R I V A T E
IMPACT O F
NOT R E F L E C T
OFFICIAL
U S E OR G A I N
I S SUBJECT
TO
��1
m'
m
mE5
'
%
JUST SHUTUP
AND DO ,
YOUR j o e /
�r
GROT HEN*!... I'VE
�SSE9XDtR
m MY D T TO B OH
UY
C
JUSTfeilUDOGHTl
LOCK.TW DSFIOT...
m MUCH. MUCH
TMBt..
DEFICIT?
BIHOCUUkRi
™
kBG
��DRAWINGBOARD /CONRAD
Congressic Park.
ZslciW w a v u c n
ht e a
tbfer y u c u ty rate,
o r o ni ,
m ar s Clinton...
b ra s
�MARLETTE'S VIEW
" I JUST WANT TO BE LIKBDf "
A SIX-MONTH BEVIEW
•
�j The C h h s t i a n S d c n c e M o n i t o r
Los Anqeles Times S v n d j c a t o
The middle ofthe road
�By Pat McCarthy. Amarillo Glot»-News. Creators Syndicate
*
f
^
�[
MO, I WiU 0
"WA'iT A m*j
��PERFECT!
A ACTIVIST
N
JUPSE W O
H
PUT* E E Y N .
VRO E
1 SLEEP. /
&
�THEH^5IN& M R E
AKT
IS STILL A B I T
SLU^rlSH...
V.iillli:
A u s t n A m v i c a t v S u i a v n a n / BEN SARGENT
��Neither snow, nor rain, nor another congressional scandal stays Congressman A
from cashing in hvs stamp vouchers.
�DEORE'S WORLD
Bill DeOrt/The Dtiltt Homing News "
f
SUSPICIOUS P^KACE
TOR D. ROSTENKOWSKI,
CUM. «OOS£ WAMJ
/->
AMD MEAWS COMA1. ^ * '
�STlU-MyKEVPlA/BKlU
G T I G CX)R BCDHOAIC
E TN -
f
�PKVffilS A E G I G
R O
N
O R (DUESIVt
U
�Tke otWDbrft ask. c i ^ t tell/
mr9 9 ^
-WL-ii
iJ
�TE
H
OFFICIAL
'POKTASK,
MUlNtt
�CONTEWPORABV
THREATS
Dan!iAsk-DontTell
�Reality check 1 ime in tbe milMaiy
titMEMLS.. A SHOW OF WWS Pl£ASf
HO* MAtff CF XXI VVOULD ORJKT TO H6HriM6 I f e = A MWOSOUM. w OOMWVT?
WtXILD OBJECT, IF A HOMOSEXUAL
SAVED ytXIK UFE IN COMBAT?
H
" jeSbwed i tte ,
n
^onfAonday§,Vfednesda^
ridays-
�MR. PRESIDENT, W W
W
D YOOTHIUK IT WlLL
O
O T E CLOSET" ?
P H
\
AS S O ASTHeGAVS
ON
A D JOINT CHIEFS M l
N
LEFT THE BUILDING.
�11
,., . . . . I , , . . . . . . "
SIR,
PERMISSION
T C M OUT,
O OE
SIR.
1
CP E
IS T
�TWTS W E E Ut B D G V AU!
HR
A US
TWSOURO&ECnVE!
THATS W E E ^QOirte!
HR
�mm
i,K..
U F0
N 0D
..
S ML
O AI
A
M
D
AD R
IE
ADE
1E
AI
ID
D
�I TWISTED HIS ,
HAVE TD FIRE HIM
H O W BILL SESSIONS REALLY
B R O K E HIS A R M A N D L O S T HIS J O B
XHE iNpaES OF
YJILLIAM SESSIONS..
MISSING
BROKEN
HEAP
TWISTED
�-iweuwc Max*
aem&ei*-
DEORE'S WORLD
^
?;!/ DeOre The Dallas Mornmr .Vf ws
�„
I WILL NOT ANTA^NIZE UNCLE SAfA
I WILL NOT ANTAGONIZE UNCLE 5A/A
I WILL NOT ANTAGONIZE UNCLE SAM
U N C L E
5 A M
&
A
F l N
^ t ^ ^ V I L L NOT ANTAGONIZE
^i
UNCLE
5AM
�r.ANDN BOOK.
TA
PT
�\
"I thmk you may be getting them mixed up—P^rof z
>
one
zvith charts, and Perdue is the one ujith chickens."
�6RaMPc«iLT>RRN..-TiM«
To CATcft uf o
N
�e n A M AO A*-
"Ram«mb«r. « wa'ra ttoppMl by th« Coast Guard, your oniy chanc* ol gatdng In (a If
you all posa aa radical Muslim ciarica who want to bomb Naw Vork.''
' A E A NICE VISIT, REVEREND. '
HW
�Berry's World
RAISE TAXES
ANP STIR
RESENTMENT
AGAINST THE
utwovom* SU K
TC
�^L*RsliREi£S5LV
THE S T ^ D E D .
f H p^ST fiepD^
s
HL ^ I .
EP
M
SPHEDOB) FAMILY
fo®m%.
« TM NOT BL>JA1M(5 VIOLENCE OM meVlSION, ^UT I THINK HE'S STICKING US UP
^
, H tKTV RENlOTBf"
u
W T
�White House
News Report
F r i d a y J u l y 30,
1993
Weekly E d i t o r i a l C o m p i l a t i o n
P r o d u c e d b y t h e News A n a l y s i s S t a f f
Room 1 6 2 , OEOB ( E x t . 7151)
THE WHITE HOUSE NEWS REPORT I S PREPARED BY THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE TO BRING
NEWS I T E M S OF I N T E R E S T TO THE A T T E N T I O N OF KEY PERSONNEL FOR USE I N T H E I R
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES.
I T I S NOT INTENDED TO S U B S T I T U T E FOR NEWSPAPERS AND
P E R I O D I C A L S AS A MEANS OF K E E P I N G INFORMED ABOUT THE MEANING AND I M P A C T OF
NEWS D E V E L O P M E N T S .
U S E OF THESE A R T I C L E S DOES NOT REFLECT O F F I C I A L
ENDORSEMENT.
FURTHER REPRODUCTION FOR P R I V A T E USE OR G A I N I S SUBJECT TO
O R I G I N A L COPYRIGHT R E S T R I C T I O N S .
�INDEX OF EDITORIALS JULY 23-30
TOPICS:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
Budget
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
New York Times
Washington Post
Star Tribune
D a l l a s Morning News
Chicago T r i b u n e
P l a i n Dealer
D e t r o i t Free Press
D e t r o i t News
Atlanta Constitution
Washington Times
USA Today
C h r i s t i a n Science M o n i t o r
Chattanooga News-Free Press
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ruth Bader G i n s b u r g
A. Los Angeles Times
B. B a l t i m o r e Sun
C. S t a r T r i b u n e
D. Washington Times
E. D a l l a s Morning News
F. P l a i n D e a l e r
G. Newsday
H. S t . L o u i s P o s t - D i s p a t c h
I . USA Today
11
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
Joycelyn Elders
A. A t l a n t a C o n s t i t u t i o n
B. D a l l a s Morning News
C. Los Angeles Times
D. S t . L o u i s P o s t - D i s p a t c h
E. S t a r T r i b u n e
F. Chattanooga News Free Press
G. D e t r o i t News
H. D e t r o i t Free Press
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
22
National Service
A. New York Times
B. Washington Post
C. Los Angeles Times
D. S t . L o u i s Post D i s p a t c h
E. W a l l S t r e e t J o u r n a l
23
23
24
24
25
Former
A.
B.
C.
D.
Yugoslavia
Washington Post
Chicago T r i b u n e
Richmond Times D i s p a t c h
USA Today
26
26
27
28
Gays i
A.
B.
C.
n the M i l i t a r y
D e t r o i t Free Press
C h r i s t i a n Science M o n i t o r
D a i l y Press
29
29
30
Warren
A.
B.
C.
C h r i s t o p h e r & The M i d d l e East
New York Times
Washington Post
Boston H e r a l d
31
31
32
Immigration Policy
A. U n i o n - T r i b u n e
B. D a l l a s Morning News
33
34
A l Gore
A. S t a r T r i b u n e
B. Richmond Times D i s p a t c h
35
35
�X.
XI.
XII.
N a t i o n a l Conunission f o r A i r l i n e s
A. Chicago T r i b u n e
B. P l a i n Dealer
36
36
Gridlock
A. Richmond Times D i s p a t c h
B. B a l t i m o r e Sun
37
38
W i l l i a m Sessions
A. P l a i n Dealer
B. S t . L o u i s Post D i s p a t c h
39
39
X I I I . Miscellaneous
A. New York Times ( 2 )
B. Washington Post ( 2 )
C. A t l a n t a C o n s t i t u t i o n
D. B a l t i m o r e Sun
E. Chicago T r i b u n e
F. S t . L o u i s Post D i s p a t c h
G. W a l l S t r e e t J o u r n a l
H. Chattanooga News Free Press
I . Wall Street Journal
40
41
42
42
43
43
44
45
46
Analysis:
I.
Budget
A l l the e d i t o r i a l s stress t h e high stakes i n passing the
budget. A c c o r d i n g t o most e d i t o r i a l s , t h e budget w i l l h e l p
d e t e r m i n e t h e f u t u r e o f t h e C l i n t o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t h e economy
and even t h e s t a b i l i t y o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l f i n a n c i a l m a r k e t s . Many
e d i t o r i a l s urge f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y from Washington and m e n t i o n
Greenspan's s u p p o r t o f t h e budget p r o p o s a l . The C l e v e l a n d P l a i n
D e a l e r says, " C l i n t o n ' s p l a n d r o v e l o n g - t e r m i n t e r e s t r a t e s down
t o t h e i r l o w e s t l e v e l i n more t h a n t w e n t y y e a r s . " Many
e d i t o r i a l s s t a t e t h a t t h e budget p r o p o s a l r e p r e s e n t s a s e r i o u s
a t t e m p t t o reduce t h e d e f i c i t b u t f i n d t h a t an economic slump may
threaten t h i s e f f o r t .
Some commentators b e l i e v e t h a t t h e t h i n v o t e margins i n
Congress may f o r c e t h e C l i n t o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t o agree t o t h e
e x p e n s i v e demands o f i n d i v i d u a l members. Others a t t a c k s u b s i d i e s
f o r s m a l l - b u s i n e s s e s and e n t i t l e m e n t spending. The New York
Times says, "The C l i n t o n budget l o o k s almost t h e same as t h e one
Bush asked f o r . "
Most a r t i c l e s f i n d t h a t t h e budget p r o p o s a l
d i s t r i b u t e s t h e t a x burden e q u i t a b l y .
E d i t o r i a l w r i t e r s widely praised the increase of the
g a s o l i n e t a x f o r s e v e r a l reasons. G a s o l i n e remains a t t h e l o w e s t
p r i c e i n a h a l f - c e n t u r y . The gas t a x encourages c o n s e r v a t i o n o f
energy and f o r c e s t h e a u t o - i n d u s t r y t o produce more f u e l
e f f i c i e n t c a r s . S e v e r a l e d i t o r i a l s accuse Senator Boren o f
p u t t i n g s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s ahead o f t h e n a t i o n ' s w e l f a r e . Many
e d i t o r i a l s viewed Boren's s u g g e s t i o n o f h o l d i n g a budget summit
as n o t c o n s t r u c t i v e o r r e a l i s t i c .
II.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
E d i t o r i a l s c o n c e r n i n g t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s Supreme C o u r t nominee
were o v e r w h e l m i n g l y p o s i t i v e . Ginsburg's w i d e s p r e a d s u p p o r t
prompted newspapers t o c a l l f o r h e r r a p i d c o n f i r m a t i o n . Many
e d i t o r i a l s echoed t h e s e n t i m e n t o f t h e LA Times t h a t she i s
n e i t h e r l i b e r a l nor conservative, but a believer i n i d e a l s t h a t
are " e s s e n t i a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s t o o u r s o c i e t y . " The B a l t i m o r e Sun
s a i d , "Our view i s t h a t hers i s a s u b s t a n t i v e l i b e r a l i s m , b u t i n
terms o f process she i s v e r y much a j u d i c i a l moderate."
The
D a l l a s Morning News s u p p o r t e d Ginsburg's v i e w o f j u d i c i a l
r e s t r a i n t when i t s a i d , "While Ruth Bader Ginsburg's views may be
l i b e r a l , her approach on t h e bench has been one o f c a u t i o n . "
The
P l a i n D e a l e r a l s o weighed i n on t h i s s u b j e c t : "Using h e r
�conservative methods, she seems i n c l i n e d t o reach moderate-tol i b e r a l conclusions."
E d i t o r i a l s also praised Ginsburg's openness w i t h regard t o
a b o r t i o n compared t o Reagan-Bush nominees who seemed i n t e n t on
obfuscating t h e i r p o s i t i o n on the c o n t r o v e r s i a l s u b j e c t . The
Baltimore Sun, The Star-Tribune, Newsday, and The St. Louis PostDispatch a l l commended Ginsburg's unequivocal support o f a
woman's r i g h t t o an a b o r t i o n .
I I I . Joycelyn Elders
Just as most newspapers praised President C l i n t o n ' s choice
f o r Supreme Court nominee, the m a j o r i t y also supported h i s
nomination o f Joycelyn Elders as surgeon general. The A t l a n t a
C o n s t i t u t i o n declared Elders "an e x c e l l e n t choice," and the
D e t r o i t Press admired her d e d i c a t i o n t o the " h e a l t h and welfare
of the young and the poor." The Dallas Morning News commented
t h a t "President C l i n t o n has stood by her" despite attempts made
by conservatives t o " d i s c r e d i t her and embarrass the president."
Several e d i t o r i a l s c r i t i c i z e Elder's opponents f o r t r y i n g
t o s h i f t the focus from her outstanding record and her ideas t o
unproven a l l e g a t i o n s o f "double-dipping" and f a i l i n g t o r e c a l l a
f a u l t y condom supply. The Star Tribune and the LA Times both
noted t h a t Elders's ideas are s i m i l a r t o those o f the h i g h l y
respected former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, and question
why her ideas a r e portrayed as r a d i c a l while h i s were not.
The D e t r o i t News and the Chattanooga Free Press were the
only d e t r a c t o r s . The D e t r o i t News argued t h a t they "don't agree
w i t h almost any o f her p u b l i c p o l i c y decisions," y e t praised
Elders f o r "speaking her mind." The Chattanooga Free Press was
the sole opponent o f the nomination; the e d i t o r i a l described her
as "tart-tongued" and lambasted her f o r "having a long record o f
bad judgment i n promoting a b o r t i o n and j u v e n i l e sexual a c t i v i t y . "
With the exception o f these two opinions, the m a j o r i t y o f the
e d i t o r i a l s responded w i t h unequivocal support.
IV.
National Service:
Except f o r the Wall S t r e e t Journal, a l l o f the e d i t o r i a l s
supported the Presidents proposed National Service plan. The
e d i t o r i a l s c h a r a c t e r i z e d Robert Dole and other Republican
senators as doing anything t o make President C l i n t o n look bad.
The New York Times s t a t e d t h a t "Robert Dole seems t o be
marshaling a f i l i b u s t e r t o deny President C l i n t o n a major
l e g i s l a t i v e v i c t o r y a t any cost." The L.A. Times described
N a t i o n a l Service as "a c o s t - e f f e c t i v e way t o help Americans help
themselves."
The Wall S t r e e t Journal was the only e d i t o r i a l which
c r i t i c i z e d the N a t i o n a l Service plan. The Wall S t r e e t Journal
describes N a t i o n a l Service as "growing i n t o a middle class
e n t i t l e m e n t . " I t also s t a t e d t h a t the plan w i l l "put k i d s t o
work a t jobs t h a t everybody agrees aren't worth doing."
�A Budget Worthy of Mr. Bush
raise $70 billion from an energy tax. The House
would use the extra revenue to subsidize low-paid
workers, create enterprise zones in depressed areas
and spur investment in small businesses.
The small-business subsidies are ill-designed
and not worth preserving. But the enterprise zones,
though modest, are an important symbolic gesture
to ailing cities — the only aid they'll see m the
budget package — and are important to winning
support among the Congressional Black Caucus and
House liberals.
Tax credits to the working poor and higher food
stamp allowances for beleaguered families are
more than symbolic. These programs lie at the
heart of Mr. Clinton's pledge to lift families with at
least one full-time worker above poverty. The
House delivered on this pledge by providing large
tax credits to low-wage workers, enhanced food
stamp allotments and money for innovative programs to help distressed families.
However, the Senate had to reduce or eliminate
There's nothing wrong with the overall target each of these programs once it cut the House's
The conferees appear headed for a package that energy tax by $50 billion. Under the Senate plan,
would reduce the deficit by the fifth year to about many poor families, for example workers without
$200 billion — a prudent target because at that level children, would suffer because they would get no
the nation's debt would grow no faster than the offset to the higher gas tax.
The conferees must decide first the size of the
economy. And the mix of taxes is about right.
Following Mr. Clinton's lead. Congress would raise gas tax If they settle on less than around 8 cents a
taxes on the rich by about SlOO billion and impose a gallon — which would raise about $20 bilUon more
gas tax that would likely cost a middle-class family than the Senate bill — then there will not be enough
money to elevate the working poor above poverty
less than $50 a year.
But what about investment? Congress knocked and fund urban enterprise zones.
Some Westem senators oppose gas taxes above
tens of billions from discretionary spending that
Mr. Clinton proposed. And it seems unprepared to the Senate level of 4 cents because, they claim, it
prune old programs to make way for Mr. Clinton's hits hard at their rural constituents. They exaggerinitiatives. That probably means that most of his ate Regional disparities in the gas tax are small
plans to hike spending on worker training, educa- and, besides, the income tax hikes hit hard at East
tion, mass transit and technological research will Coast cities. Overall, a package with an 9 cent gas
be slashed. He'll be lucky to save a third of his tax would be fair.
investment program.
Congress is moving to hand Mr. Clinton a
This week the budget conferees will turn to budget But if it shortchanges the gas tax or the
energy taxes and entitlements. The disagreements President's spending initiatives, it won't be a budgare narrowing, but still important The Senate et that invests in the future and it won't be a victory
would impose a $20 billion gas tax; the House would for those who voted for an economic turnabout
If the conferees who will meet this week to
finish a budget stick to their present path, they'll
likely hand President Clinton a package much like
the one George Bush signed three years ago. Is that
what America voted for?
The conferees are about to recommend chopping deficits by about $500 billion over five years,
primarily by cutting defense, trimming Medicare,
raising income taxes and imposing a gasoline tax.
But that's exactly what Congress did under President Bush three years ago.
Mr. Clinton promised voters more than a rehash. He pledged to end the consumption frenzy of
the igso's by turning the Federal budget toward
investments in infrastructure, children and training. But Congress is veering in a different direction.
Unless it turns around, and fast, Mr. Clinton's
victory in getting a deficit-reduction package
through Congress will be hollow.
Budget Time
^ f T I H E SHAKIES rule the day." Thafs
I how Sen. John Breaux was quoted as
X describing the budget situation yesterday. No one understands better than he; it was
Mr. Breaux who suggested only a few days ago
that the budget conferees solve their problem of
how to reduce the deficit while minimizing both
tax increases and spending cuts by . . . doing less
deficit reduction. But Mr. Breaux. to judge by his
performance so far, will be the good soldier in the
end. The worst of the wavering Democrats are
not those like him, who cheerfully suggest doing
less. They are the sanctimonious ones who say
they'd love to vote for this deficit reduction plan
except that it doesn't do more.
The current chief practitioner of this ploy is
Sen. David Boren, but he is hardly the only
member of the school. The great problem with the
president's proposal, he said again the other day,
was that "it does not do enough." You hear the
same argument from others, and you wonder
where they all were the past 12 years as the
deficit widened, the national debt quadrupled and
interest on the debt rose to a seventh of the
budget, crowding out much else. Were these
incipient heroes not in Congress all that while?
And now that they have the opportunity to begin
to reverse that crippling course, their claim is that
the reversal is incomplete. What transparency.
The budget conference is hung up on the issue
of an energy tax. The president proposed a
strong one; Mr. Boren and others from energy
states were able to weaken it. It is now essentially a gasoline tax increase of about a nickel a
gallon. The conferees need a couple of extra
pennies a gallon both to meet and to marshal the
votes for the president's objectives of cutting the
budget deficit without ignoring the social deficit
over the next five years. The pennies are insignificant; the estunated cost of the gasoline to
drive 100 miles in this country has fallen in real
terms from $8.65 in 1976 to less than $4.25
today. The people who have to drive the most
have gained the most; can they not afford to give
back a dime? Nor is the total revenue involved
that great—some $3 billion or $4 billion a year
over five years. Mr. Boren and other such
preachers would have you believe that a great
principle is at stake in this—tax increases vs.
spending cuts. The money is less than half of a
percent of federal revenues or federal spending.
The president s plan would reduce the hkeiy
deficit sane 40 percent five years from now. It is
balanced in the way it spreads the burden across
the society; those who would pay most are those
with the greatest ability to pay. There is no
alternative in play. Mr. Boren calls for a "summit,''
but there has been a summit—the kind called for in
the Constitution. A newly elected president made a
proposal to a new elected Congress, which worked
its will and now must do so a final time. No more
backing or filling or dodging; there'll be another
chance another year. The choice is yes or oa Do
the Democrats govern or duck?
1
�Star Tribune
Established 1867
Joel R. Kramer Publisher and President
Tim J. McGuire Executive Editor
Susan J. Albright Editor of the Editorial Pages
Wednesday/July 28/1993
18A
Congress: Pass the budget, puhleeze
President Clinton's economic recipe for the nation, now stewing in the unholy cauldron of a
House-Senate conference committee, is so badly
mixed up u is difficult to recognize the original
ingredients. But it's palatable: It offers reasonably
nutritious job creation, deficit reduction and resource, reallocation: it trims the deficit to about
$200 billion over time without crippling the economy; it makes specific program cuts, and it helps
hold down long-term interest rates. Struggling
Democrats should join to overcome the nattering
negativism of solid Republican opposition, maintain as much of the House plan as possible, and
pass it.
bate has narrowed to a tax of between 6 cents and
9 cents a gallon. What timidity; we remind Congress that Ross Perot urged a gasoline-tax increase
of a dime a year. 50 cents over five years. The key
isn't the size of the gasoline tax but what the
money goes for.
The Clinton plan rightly invests the proceeds in
neglected cities, infrastructure, technology, education, job training and crucial tax credits that lift
the working poor out of poverty. Conferees should
maintain what remains of Clinton's future-oriented focus by passing the highest gas tax possible
while gasoline remains at the lowest price, adjusted for inflation, in a half-century. Legislators
Vice President Al Gore was cautiously optimistic needn't be concerned with scare stones about
about passage Monday during his Twin Cities regional disparities in the effect of the gas-tax
visit. But congressional vote margins are so razor increase. What minor disparities there are — $20
thin that conference committee members can be to $50 a year — would be offset by income-tax
forced to indulge the expensive demands of indi- disparities that go the other way.
vidual legislators. The last-minute effort to increase the subsidy for business meals is a distaste- With the GOP (Gridlock on Progress) smirking on
ful example; it should be rejected.
the sidelines, congressional Democrats need to
show the nation that they and their administration
The superior House version would raise $72 bil- can work together to provide, at least in part, the
lion over five years with a broad-based energy tax. change that voters sought last November. Before
Thc Senate passed a pathetic 4.3-cent gasoline tax they take a summer break, they need to pass what
that would raise $22 biiiion. The conference de- remains of the Clinton economic plan.
fW/«5
JHC-WS
7/27
CLINTONOMICS
Budget should include entitlement caps
After his first six months in office. Bill
Clinton must have certainly learned, as Sidney Blumenthal of the New Yorker wrote
recently, "There appears to be no place he
can stand outside the deficit's shadow." The
national debt Bill Clinton inherited will
indeed affect every domestic decision he
makes as president.
Of course. House and Senate budget conferees now are trying to finalize a deficit
reduction plan the president presented earlier this year. A key difference between the
House and Senate is over whether to cap
spending on so-called entitlement programs,
such as Medicare and farm price supports.
After much work by Rep. Charles Stenholm, D-Stamford, the House approved a
mechanism by which the growth in entitlement spending can be controlled. In early
June, the House approved a budget plan that
allows for entitlement increases over the
next five years. Yet any spending over the
approved levels would have to be financed
through reducing spending elsewhere, or
through a vote to change the levels.
The Senate included no such mechanism
in the budget plan it recently approved.
While the Senate plan, like the House's, does
cap growth in discretionary spending
(roads, parks, housing, etc.), it does not take
on entitlement spending.
Yet that budget component is driving the
budget's growth, and thus the deficit's rise.
Consider that nearly 50 percent of all federal spending is related to direct payments
to individuals.
If Democratic senators are interested in
giving their party's leader some domestic
breathing room, they will agree in the budget conference to a cap in entitlement
spending. Only by controlling mandatory
spending will they allow Bill Clinton a
moment's reprieve from the deficit's shadow. That's not an unreasonable request.
�7/-ifl
Brass-knuckles time on the budget
From the start it promised to be a squeaker, but ponents, but he must do more. He must be a persualawmakers still were expected to pass a compromise sive, forceful proponent, letting the American people
version of President Clinton's economic plan before and lawmakers like Boren know in no uncertain
they left for their August recess next week.
terms what the consequences will be if his plan fails.
Now, however, rebellious Democrats are threaten- Although there are some key differences yet to be
ing to pull their support, a move that could sink the resolved in conference, the elements of the plan jure
Clinton deficit-reduction package. With Republicans clear. It will reduce deficits by about $500 billion
refusing to cooperate at all, Clinton can't afford over five years, primarily by raising taxes on the
Democratic defections. He needs to dig in and play wealthy, cutting defense spending, curbing Medicare
hardball with the recalcitrants.
and boosting gasoline taxes by some amount.
Oklahoma Sen. David Boren, for one, warned he It's not a perfect package; it's too heavily weighted
would switch sides if "dramatic" changes weren't toward tax increases and it leaves too many spendmade in the developing conference committee plan. ing cuts for later. But it's a first step by a DemocratThis past spring, Boren led a gang of maverick sena- ic administration and a Democrat-controlled Contors who wanted to substitute more spending cuts gress to bring down the deficit and stop America
for the president's proposed broad-based energy tax. from continually borrowing against its future.
They managed to get that tax killed. Now, Boren In a speech Monday in Chicago, Clinton admitted
says, the conference committee plan doesn't do his plan is only a start. Reducing the deficit, improvenough to control entitlement spending. He wants to ing education, rewarding work, reforming welfare
scrap it all and hold a bipartisan summit.
and cutting health spending are related, he said, but
In his earlier mutiny, Boren raised legitimate, "we must begin by bringing the deficit down."
constructive questions. Now he comes across as a He's right. And it would only add to the uncertainnarrow-minded, oil-state senator more interested in ty to drop everything now and begin a new, biparfighting fuel taxes and protecting special friends tisan budget summit that would be contentious and
than in serving the nation.
time-consuming. And other than sticking to their
If Boren were but one defector, Clinton might ig- pledge of no new taxes, the Republicans haven't ofnore him. But because the margin for victory is so fered any credible deficit-reduction alternatives.
thin and tenuous and because Boren could swing The nation has decided that Washington must
other Democratic votes, the president should pull no begin to demonstrate fiscal responsibility. Clinton
punches to get him, and his ilk, back in line.
has offered a first step. He must get tough and make
Clinton has been working quietly to convert op- sure he gets it. It's time to play hardball.
Greenspan's plea, Clinton's plan
hen Alan Greenspan speaks, the financial their balance sheets, and businesses pick up the
markets listen - and so should anyone who pace of job creation. But if Congress thwarts deficit
hopes that the U.S. economy will soon pull out of reduction, jittery financiers could send interest
its slow-growth stall. The chairman of the Federal rates upward again — thus choking off the recovReserve svstem bluntly warned Congress last week ery.
that, if lawmakers fail to approve a deficit reducHouse and Senate negotiators seem headed totion package, mtemational money markets may go ward a compromise that, in most respects, resemhsvwirc
bles Clinton s original outline. The final bill will
Hard bargaining is under way in a House-Senate likelv resemble the Senate's idea of a tax on only
conference committee, which must reconcile the transportation fuels, shunning the House-passed
two chambers' differing budget plans before Con- tax on all energy sources. But House touches disgress begins its summer recess in early August. It carded by the Senate, that should be retained in
the negotiators falter. Greenspan warned, a budget the final bill include: a more generous investment
failure could have a rumous impact on the finan- incentive for small business, a cut in the capitalcial markets. "If you [lawmakers] appear to be gains tax for new investments, an increased
backing o f f from deficit reduction, said the Fed Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor
chief " I think the markets would react, appropri- and an imaginative federal '-empowerment zone
ately, negativelv. I think we have run out ot time. initiative for distressed inner cities.
if we don't come to gnps with this [deficit] issue now. we'll alwaysfindthe means not to do it.'
Greenspan predicted that enactment of deficit
Anticioating the approval of a version of Presi- restraints and a workable health-care plan could
• dent Bill Clinton's plan, the markets have already eventually leave "the U.S. economy ... healthier
driven long-term interest rates down to their low- and more vibrant than in decades." That is all the
est levels in more than 20 years, he said. Low inter- more reason for Congress to devise a plan that atest rates have sent a surge of low-cost capital into tacks the deficit and trims wasteful government
the economv: That has helped homeowners refinance their mortgages, corporations restructure spending.
W
�I O R OI I N
N U P O frtss
N
BUDGET FAIRNESS ^
Clintons basic principles should guide final choices
s thefinalversions of President ment program that rewards the poor for
Bill Clinton's budget and defidt- working, especially at wage levels so low
reduction plans are hammered that the incentive could otherwise be great
out in conference between the to sit back and rake in a bit less.
House and Senate, the key principles of
There has been more disagreement
what the nation's chief executive is trying over whether the economic stimulus the
to accomplish should guide the decisions. president thinks is needed in fact is. The
One of those principles is fairness of package he sought, induding other tax
taxation, which during the Reagan years relief for business, was scaled back greatly.
moved away from the valuablefiscaland What remains is the minimum chance he
social doctrine that the amount paid should should be given to tackle recovery.
be tied to the ability to pay. As the nation Mr. Clinton's national service plan
struggles to come up with revenues to places a new emphasis on instilling in young
reduce the budget deficit and begin to slowpeople a sense of responsibility for sodety,
down the growth of the debt run up during and an obligation to help improve our life in
the past two administrations, tax rates for common. Those values played no small part
those with the highest incomes should rise. the nation's past prosperity, and have a
in
The president sought a corporate in- role to play in national renewal.
It is similarly good pubbc policy to raise
come tax rate of 36 percent, which more
nearly corresponds to the new top personal the federal tax on gasoline by what probably
rates, but the 35 percent approved by the will be about 4.6 cents a gallon. The tax
House and the Senate is defensible. Eitherwould yidd badly needed revenue, while
rate serves to recognize the importance of encouraging energy conservation and enkeeping taxation below levels that drain hancing the incentive for automakers to
investment and depress production, but improve fuel effidency further.
Mr. Clinton, like any other president,
high enough to pay for programs that
benefit all Americans, induding spending to gets oniy tofiddleat the margins of national
develop and maintain the nation's physical spending. For the sake of his having the
chance to do what he, as the people's chief
and human infrastructure.
In that context, the value of the eamed- elected official, believes should be done, it is
income tax credit for the working poor important that his prindples and priorities
should be obvious. It is the main govern- carry the day.
A
�IOA
THE D E T R O I T NEWS
FRIDAY.
JULY
23.
1993
lhe Detroit News
FOUNDED AUG. 25. 1873
ROBERT H. GILES
EDITOR AND P U B L I S H E R
T H O M A S J . BRAY
E D I T O R I A L PAGE E D I T O R
CHRISTINA BRADFORD
MANAGING EDITOR
JAMES L. GATTI
DEPUTY M A N A G I N G EDITOR
J U L I A S.
HEABERLIN
DEPUTY MANAGING
EDITOR/FEATURES
3
FRANK L O V I N S K I
DEPUTY M A N A G I N G
EDITOR/NEWS
A GANNETT NEWSPAPER
P U B L I S H E D D A I L Y . SATURDAY A N D S U N D A Y M O R N I N G S
Riegle vs. the Clinton Budget?
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan appeared before the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, triggering the usual admonitions from
Committee Chairman
Donald Riegle and his
fellow
Democrats
about the need for an
easier grip on the money supply. In making a
case for monetary
stimulus, however,
Sen. Riegle inadvertently seemed to be admitting that the Clinton administration's
fiscal plan is contractionary.
As indeed it is.
The Clinton budget
plan calls for a $500billion reduction in the Sen. Donald Riegle
deficit over five years,
with roughly half of the money to be raised through
tax increases — the biggest tax increase in American history — and the rest from spending cuts that
will probably never materialize. If anything like
this package goes into effect, the result is likely to
be exactly the same as in 1990: stagnation as far as
the eye can see, accompanied by even bigger deficits.
Sen. Riegie asserted that Mr. Greenspan's fight
against inflation "threatens to choke off a recovery. Other panel members urged Mr. Greenspan to
pump more money into the economy to stimulate
business activity.
But not even a Federal Reserve chairman can
make the sun come up in the west. Any effort to use
monetary policy to goose the economy would cause
a major meltdown in the financial markets. Investors learned the hard way during the 1970s that too
much money in the economy means inflation, not
economic growth. If the public gets the feeling that
Congress and the administration can bludgeon the
Fed into a replay of the Carter era, anybody with
$10 in his or her pocket will head for the exits.
Sen. Riegle and his colleagues should instead be
thinking about ways to rescue the president from
his budget mess. The gridlock in the House-Senate
conference committee suggests that the Hill knows
there is something fundamentally wrong with the
approach being taken by the administration and
the Democratic leadership.
As Alan Greenspan himself noted the other day
— though this aspect of his testimony was ignored,
as usual, by the deficit-fixated media — more taxes
will do nothing for growth. "All taxation suppresses
economic activity" to some extent, he noted. He
then made a quiet but forceful pitch for a cut in the
most job-depressing tax of all: capital gains. "Risktaking is crucial in the process that leads to a vital
and progressive economy. Indeed, it is a necessary
condition for wealth creation."
That's especially true for suffering cities such as
Detroit, which is why one of the leaders of the
Black Caucus, New York's Rep. Charles Rangel,
has been tiying to work out a deal with some Republicans that would include a major capital gains
cut.
Sen. Riegle, who is a member ofthe House-Senate conference committee, should discourage the
Fed-bashing and take another look at the capital
gains issue. Tinkering with holding periods, as
Sen. Riegle has proposed, isn't good enough.
What's needed is a deep cut that would stimulate
the economy and actually gain revenue for the government, as the capital gains cut of 1978 did. Otherwise Mr. Riegle and others will be facing re-election next year as political insiders who engineered
yet more pain for Michigan and the entire country.
5
�A I 4 Thursday. July 29. 1993
THE ATLANTA CONSTITUTION
For 125 Years the South's Standard Newspaper
RON
DENNIS
BERRY
Publisher
• JOHN C.
MELLOTT
Vue president and general manager
JAMES
M. COX.
Chairman
MARTIN
Eduor
J O H N W . WALTER JR.
Managing Editor
1950-57
— JAMES
C Y N T H I A TUCKER
Editonal Page Editor
M. COX JR., Chairman
1957-74
The cowards are winning
The stakes in this game couldn't be clearer
or higher: This country is about to decide
whether it wants to remain an economic superpower or allow itself to degenerate into a
second-class debtor nation.
For six months, Congress has been trying to
hammer out a budget that will reduce the
nation's enormous deficit by about $500 billion
over five years. Now, just as Washington
should be putting the
finishing touches on this
vital legislation, the
whole process is in dangerof slipping into chaos. A CNN poll says that
51 senators now oppose
the budget.
In the next few days,
the vote will be taken.
Failure to pass a
credible d e f i c i t reduction package
would be a devastating
blow to the economy
now that hopes have
been raised. In recent
months, interest rates
have been falling and
the dollar has been
strengthening because it
appeared that fiscal san.
ity was about to retum.
After two decades of spending more and taxing
less, Washington was promising to do better.
In February, President Clinton presented
Congress with a blueprint for reform, a budget
that actually made sense. Mr. Clinton asked
legislators to reduce the deficit with a reasonable mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. Alan
Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve,
praised the pian.
Now, six months later, Congress stands on
the threshold of a new era. Both the Senate and
the House have approved deficit-reducing budgets. All that remains is for a conference committee to clean up differences between the two
versions and for Congress to pass thefinalbudget.
But just as the deal should be sealed, key
members of Congress are caving in to the oil
industry and other special interests. The spineless politicians don't have the courage to raise
the gasoline tax, even though most Americans
understand that this small sacrifice is necessary to put a dent in the deficit.
The weak senators
know perfectly well that
gasoline has never —
never in history — been
cheaper than it is today,
after adjusting for inflation. At about $16 a barrel, oil is a fantastic bargain. The country can
afford to tax it a bit more
to curb the deficit without jolting consumers.
The politicians know
that two weeks ago, the
United States imported
an average of 7.9 million
barrels of oil a day — the
highest level of imports
for any week on record.
This country is becoming more and more
dependent on foreigners
and less and less in control of its fiscal destiny because the spineless
members of Congress don't want to pass a reasonable gas tax and anger their friends in the
oil industry.
Meanwhile, they are only too eager to take
away earned income tax credits for the working
poor — the people struggling to stay off
welfare.
The Democrats and Republicans who are
abandoning Mr. Clinton in these final days of
budget negotiations are selling out the country.
If Congress fails to significantly reduce the
budget deficit this year, history will remember
them as the cowards they are.
Just as the
deficit-reduction
deal should he
sealed, key
members of
Congress are caving
in to the oil
industry and other
special interests.
�MONDAY, JULY 26,1993 *
Where are the budget numbers?
P
resident Clinton's quick-draw response to Re- though they are in possession of all the data needed to
publican jeers had congressional Democrats project the impact of the new economic figures.
cheering back dunng the president's triumThe most curious explanation for this stonewalling
phant February budget speech. Mr. Clinton on budget base-line figures comes from CBO spokeshad said that his budget would be more honest than man Mark Desautels, who says, "We only do base-lines
those prepared by the "decade of greed" crowd. And twice a year, so it would be stuuid to do it now when
to prove it, Mr. Clinton said that his budget would be what will really change the base-line are the policy
based on the nonpartisan economic estimates pre- changes," not the changes in the economicforecast.In
pared by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Of- other words, the budget deal will change most of the
fice. Republicans, who know firsthand that there is no inputs in the spreadsheet, so it would be a waste of time
such thing as a nonpartisan outfit on Capitol Hill, to run the numbers before all the inputs change.
groaned and laughed, mocking the president for his
This explanation is curious because it begs the quesfaux-naivete. Well, at least the CBO was always more tion of why the CBO makes projections in the first
accurate than the president's Office of Management place. Isn't the very idea of having a Congressional
and Budget in the bad old 1980s, Mr. Clinton re- Budget Office that lawmakers need timely and accusponded. Cheers, huzzahs and triumph for Mr. Clinton.
rate information to deliberate? Why have an expensive
But the Republicans' groans are proving to have CBO at all if it cant or wont come up with budget
been prophetic. The CBO may have been in the ball- figures to be used by Congress hammering out a multipark with its economic estimates when it was in the year budget plan? The CBO figures done now may have
business of trying to expose the rosy scenarios of the a short shelf life, but they would be of cmdal use.
Reagan Bush OMB. But now the CBO is in cahoots Figures cranked out once the budget deal is done may
with the Clinton OMB, and not only are we not getting be validfora little while longec but what use will they
accurate economic estimates, we're not getting any be? The decisions will already have been made.
economic estimates at all.
Barry Tbiv, spokesman for the Office of ManageIt is past time for midyear budget reviews from both ment and Budget, makes the same curious argument
the CBO and the OMB. and yet neither has coughed up to explain why OMB is sitting on its midyear economic
the figures yet. Nor is either outfit going to come up review (which it was required by law to have issued in
with figures until after the budget deal is done, spokes- the middle of July). Why go to the trouble of running
men tor the CBO and the OMB told the editorial page budget numbers that are only going to change with the
ut" The Washington Times. This, despite the fact that new budget law? Not that Mr. Tbiv thinks any changes
House and Senate Republicans have been complaining in the economic outlook change how the budget deal
that without the new budget figures any budget deal should be approached: "The bottom line is that we need
will be built on false pretenses. Unfortunately, that to do this defidtreduction,"says Mr. Tbiv. "Nothing has
seems to be just what the CBO and OMB have in mind. changed that."
If anything, revised economic figures will argue for
Several weeks ago the head of the Council of Economic Advisors. Laura Tyson, admitted that the ad- even more efforts at defidt reduction, because they
ministration's projections for short-term economic will show that the current deal wont even get dose to
growth had fallen from a little over 3 percent to about the $500 billion target set by the president. So why not
2.5 percent. The job of the OMB is to take the economic issue the revisions (which for all their protests about
growth estimates made by Mrs. Tyson and put them extra work, the CBO and OMB have, and could readily
into the federal government's budget spreadsheet release)? There are two main reasons fbr this silence.
More growth means more tax revenue; less growth First, if economic stagnation is seen to be driving up
means less money for federal coffers and bigger defi- the defidt, new taxes (which will only further hurt the
cits. For example, if you assume 3 percent economic economy) will no longer look like such a shiny solution
growth a year over the life of a deal and real growth is to growing deficits. And second, the mott imponant
only 2 percent, thenrauchof the "deficit reduction" reason is that the new numbers would show that ME
disappears. In 1993 the 1 percent drop in growth would Clinton will only be able to expect $400 billion or $300
mean about S10 billion more in deficits. In 1994 the 2 billion in deficitreduction.The president would no
percent cumulative drop would mean S2S billion less longer be able to make graudiuae daims about his
deficit reduction. In 1995 the extra deficit would be $47 deficit-figfatmg reaohe.
The administration and Congress know that the
billion. In the out years the totals get higher, and soon
half or more of isay) $500 billion in deficit reduction defidt projections coming out of the House-Senate
budget conference are phony, based on outdated ecois gone.
One would think that new projections based on the nomic assumptions. By using January economic data
changing economic climate would be crucial to the and putting an embargo on the new budget cateuiacoogresaonal alfies haw
decisions being made by the House^Senate budget con* nons, ME Ointon and
ferees meeting again this week. All the squabbles over perpetrated the very kind of rosy scenarioforwhich
a billion in deficit reduction here and a billion there they condemned RepubUcan presidents. The real scemay not mean a whole lot, after all, if an economic - nario is thomy. and likdy to get thornier when new
slump threatens to wipe out hundreds of billions of taxes kick in. But instead of owning up to the changed
dollars in deficit reduction. But CBO and OMB haw circumstances, OMB and CBO haw decided to i
refused to give out their new budget estimates, even the right to remain silent
7
�USA TODAY • WEDNESDAY, JULT
^O, I
aao
Today's detate is on HIGHER GAS TAXES
and whether they're needed to helpreducethe deficit
Hike gas tax; deficit-cut
choices are running lo^
A gas-tax boost can
OUR VIEW throttle down the
nation's staggering deficit without hurting the economy.
Tax writers for House Democrats
want to pump some Ufe into defidt reduction. But President Clinton and
some nervous
senators are slapping them down.
They're rebuffing a proposal to
hike the gas tax 9
^mi
cents a gallon to
raise $9 billion a
'-ijayyear, indicating
it's "high."
High to whom?
Clinton's own
defunct energytax proposal,
aimed at raising
$22 billion a year
for defidt reduction by 1998, would
have increased gas taxes 7.5 cents. Another cent and a half won't kill anyone.
Even if oil and gasoline pnees remained unchanged, the average house:
hold would pay only $8 a month more
to cover a 9-cent higher tax.
That's about a fifth of the monthly
savings the average homeowner might
gain if defidtreductionknocks another
point off mortgage rates.
Meanwhile, oil and gasoline prices are
falling In May, the Senate could have
imposed its proposed 4.3 cents-a-gallon
tax increase, and motorists wouldn't
have felt a thing; gas prices dropped that
much. Indeed, after accounting for inflation, gasoline prices today are at their
lowest level since World War II.
That's led to Americans losing the
conservation habit Surveys of new car
buyers show, for example, that fuel efficiency is only their sixth priority.
Other major nations are much more
forceful in encouraging conservation.
Gas taxes in Japan and Europe are 10
times the levels here. Even Canada and
Mexico, despite more ample energy supplies, tax gas more than the USA does.
So, the House's proposed 9 cents-agallon increase is hardly "high." What's
high is a federal defidt that now equals
$3,000 per household a year. And higher
gas taxes are vital to bringing that dowa
Don't raise gas taxesJ
also be penalized.
But hardest hit would be the trucking
industry — the industry which is fighting to create and preserve jobs. Trucking
accounts for one out of every 12 privateTrucking is the engine of the U.S. sector jobs in the economy, and a taa
economy. We are the conveyor belt that that falls so disproportionately on truefcr
links factories to raw materials, to distri- ing will displace many of those worken^
The administration's economic probution centers and to
gram should address the defidt by first
the stores in your
reducing spending and only then
ndghborhood. A fuelthrough tax increases that are broadly
tax hike would inbased and fairly allocated. Unfortunatecrease the cost of proly, fewer andfewertaxpayers are being
duction, distribution
asked to share in the burden, leaving the
and the nation's justtrucking industry — with a profit marin-time delivery sysgin of less than 2%—to payfora deficit
tem — all of which
ByThomnJ.
would add to the OonohM, preai- that everyone created. Tliis situation is
not just unfeir to trucking, but it wiU
price of U.S. products dent and chtof
hurt all Americans — shippers and conhere at home and in axacutivaof
worldwide markets, AmericanTruck- sumer —and the fragile US. economy.
ing
If Qmgress is willing to make the poresulting in the loss of AaaoclaBona.
htkally hard dedsiops to cut spending
thousands of U.S. jobs.
Increasing the fuel tax also would put before seeking more tajes, we will do
a massive, regressive tax burden on low- our part However, the tmrking indutUy
er- and middk-income families and and its 7.8 million employees will opsmall businesses. And Americans who pose congressional approval of a deftdfdrive long distances, and do not have ac- reduction package that leaves ushoidm^
cess to subsidized mass transit, would thebag.
Taxing transOPPOSING VIEW ponanon n
regressive and a burden on the
entire economy.
�13
Tint tlie ba e t e t e ear, t e tte fhD grain in t e e r
ld, hn h
hn
h a?
(Innit/** Scent
'/JcfiiTvr
Budget Squeeze Plays
B
UDGET brinksmanship is un- ministration and budget negotiators
der way again in Washington. can ill afford to ignore his vote. The
House Budget Committee budget resolution that passed the Senchairman Dan Rostenkowski (D) of ate did so by one vote - Vice President
Illinois and Senate Finance Committee AlGoreJr's.
chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Given the drastic impact Mr.
CD) of New York are ironing out the Boren's proposal for a summit would
remaining differences between their have on the process at this stage, the
respective budgetresolutions,a task net effect may be to force negotiators
they hope to finish this week. This to make more concessions to their
would pave the way for a
conservative Senate colvote on the budget reconcilE I O I L leaguesin order to might othDT RA S erwise than they offset any
iation package next week
before the August recess.
Boren defection.
Negotiators already have
Everyone
involved
senses that failure to pass the budget been working on Sen. Richard Bryan
would be a serious blow to the Clinton (D) of Nevada by reducing Mr.
presidency, which is why lawmakers Clinton's proposed cut in tax deducas politically diverse as Senate Major- tions for meals and entertainment - a
ity leader George Mitchell (D) of potential lure given Nevada's convenMaine and Rep. Newt Gingrich (R) of tion business.
Georgia maintain that, in the end, the
Entitlements, as well as the propackage that emerges from the posed gasoline tax increase, trouble
House-Senate conference will pass. many House Democrats as well. There
This makes some of the 1 Ith-hour the budget passed by only six votes.
No one expects unanimity on
political theatrics all the more tedious.
Sen. David Boren (D) of Oklahoma, budget matters among Democrats.
who led a successful revolt against the And entitlements remain a serious
proposed Btu tax, now says he is budge problem. But no Republican is
leaning against budget plan because it expected, given earlier votes, to back
doesn't adequately address entitle- the reconciliation package - itself an
ments and it lacks bipartisan support. unusual situation. With the HouseHe called on President Clinton to halt Senate negotiations so delicate, the
the reconciliation process and con- president himself does no one any
vene a budget summit with Republi- favor by reverting to bashing
Congress, as he did in a speech in
cans.
Although some of his colleagues Chicago earlier this week. The time
dismiss this as grandstanding, the ad- for closing ranks is here.
�C A T N O A NEWS-FREE PRESS
H TA O G
ROY MCDONALD
Founder and Publisher
13-90
9 61 9
FRANK MCDONALD
Chairman of the Board
and President
LEE ANDERSON
Publisher
and Editor
Saturday, July 24,1993
Tax Ant, Pay Grasshopper
Who wants failure? Nobody! Work
is stimulated by the hope of success.
But if you penalize success and
reward failure, you are likely to get
less success and more failure.
Almost everyone will agree with
that proposition — until it comes to
taxing. Then we do the wrong things.
President Bill Clinton is currently
asking for higher taxes on everyone,
but some more than others. He plans
to "soak the rich," making them pay
their "fair share." The truth is that
"the rich" have been paying higher
tax rates for a long time. But if we
confiscated everything they have, it
wouldn't be enough to offset the deficits that Mr. Clinton and the spenders
in Congress are thrusting upon us.
When the 16th Amendment to the
Constitution was being proposed (it
was ratified in 1913) to permit the progressive income tax, the pitch was that
only "a few" (the rich) would pay and
the rate would be "low." Some
warned that approval of the income
tax would mean that "some day the
income tax may take as much as 10
percent of a person's income." Income-tax proponents sneered. Mr.
Clinton's current proposal seeks a top
individual rate of 39.6 percent
But forget "the rich," and consider a little "parable" by Joe Cobb of
the Heritage Foundation:
"To understand what's really
going on here, picture the situation of
two twins, age 21. Both get good jobs
and eam satisfying incomes throughout their lives. But one is frugal and
thrifty, saving and investing in quality
stocks and bonds. The other lives for
the day, taking expensive vacations,
eating in fancy restaurants and lavishing friends with expensive gifts.
"When these twins reach retire-
ment age, the one who lived a frugal
and thrifty life will possess a substantial investment portfolio. His 'provisional income' will be an easy target
for the Clinton tax scheme. On the
other hand, the one who did not save
for retirement probably will depend
on Social Security, and perhaps Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to
make ends meet He won't have much
'provisional income,' and the IRS
won't be neariy as interested.
"Is it 'fair* to make the individual
who planned ahead, and saved for old
age, pay a higher tax rate?
"The apparent reason for increasing the surtax on 'provisional income'
of elderly Americans is because some
senior citizens — heaven forbid —
have accumulated savings during their
lifetimes. If 'ability to pay' is all we
care about our tax strategy is no different from that of the 1930s bank
robber Willie Sutton, who robbed
banks because, he said, that's where
the money is.'
"This is where the Clinton administration's notion of 'tax fairness'
leads: to punishing those senior citizens who work the hardest and successfully pian for their futures. As a
strategy against the rich, the politics
of envy usually works. But this time,
with the elderly as the target, it may
backfire. Clearly, the Clinton administration's idea of 'tax fairness' is unfair
to the elderly."
Do you remember when your
teacher in elementary school read you
Aesop's fable about the grasshopper
who loafed and the ant who worked?
Well, the Clinton view is to reward the
loafer, who is a loser, and penalize
the worker, who achieves success.
Mr. Clinton needs to be introduced
to Mr. Aesop.
�A Superb Pick by the 'resic ent
Enthusiastic support forjudge Ruth Bader Ginsburg
In nominating Ruth Bader
Ginsburg for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Clinton has made an extremely
good choice. Perhaps the
strongest testament to her
qualifications is that, aside
from Democratic delight with
her performance in Senate
Judiciary Committee hearings
last week, even conservative
Republicans have been moved
to concede an easy confirmation. The Senate panel plans
to vote on her nomination
Thursday and send it to the
Senatefloorfor final approval
in early August.
Ginsburg indeed has impressive credentials. Her
background includes 13 years
as an appellate judge, eight
years as a nationally prominent litigator for women's
rights and 18 years as a law
professor. In answering the
questions of the Judiciary
Committee she displayed an
impressive grasp of the law
and an ability to articulate and
defend the sort of precise
distinctions that the high
court frequently must make.
Some on the left have criticized her as an "incrementalist" and some on the right
have been displeased by what
they call her liberal views.
But complaints like these are
far outweighed by the fact
that in the hearings as well as
in her long and distinguished
career she has demonstrated a
sense of compassion and devotion to ideals such as equal
protection for women and for
homosexuals. Neither inherently liberal nor conservative,
such ideals are essential underpinnings to our society.
As the first Democratic
nominee in 26 years, Ginsburg
will join a court that in recent
times has been characterized
by a rightward tilt, particularly in the areas of criminal
justice and civil rights. The
five justices appointed by
Presidents Ronald Reagan
and George Bush now constitute a majority on the court,
albeit a majority of shifting
alliances and often acrimonious opinions. Ginsburg alone
may not be able to move the
court's centrists on most issues, but she might restore
some much-needed ideological balance.
As her hearings concluded
last Friday, Sen. Joseph R.
Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman
of the Judiciary Committee,
said, "1 can unabashedly and
without reservation support
the nomination of Ruth Bader
Ginsburg to the Supreme
Court." So can we.
Judge Ginsburg's Jurisprudence
Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg
, was as vague as possible in answering pdlnted
questions in her conflnnatlon hearing before the
Senate Judiciary Committee. Some members of the
committee chided her. But her refusal to hint how
she might vote in particular cases was as traditional as some of the senators' attempts at entrapment.
Judge Ginsburg explained what the senators already knew: Without reading the briefs, listening to
the oral arguments, researching precedents, conferring with colleagues, a Justice cannot — or at
least should not — have an opinion on a case.
But in one way the discreet Mrs. Ginsburg was
more forthcoming than previous Supreme Court
nominees. She said that she found a right to an
abortion in the Constitution. No nominee since Roe
vs. Wade was decided 20 years ago has said that.
Specific issues aside. Judge Ginsburg's testimony differed from recent nominees In enunciating a
philosophy. The choices of Ronald Reagan and
George Bush who were willing to discuss their
ideas of Jurisprudence at all said or implied they
took a narrow and historical view of the Constitution. Some called this "original intent." Judge Ginsburg said she took an "expansive" view of constitutional rights, and that these rights "evolve" as
societv evolves. She has been labeled a moderate.
1
even a conservative, but that was an answer former Justice William Brennan and the late Justice
Thuigood Marshal] would applaud.
Sen. William Cohen told Judge Ginsburg many
suspected she was "basically a political activist hiding in the robes of an appellate Judge." Our view,
reinforced by her performance at the hearings. Is
that hers is a substantive literalism, but in terms
of process she is very much a judicial moderate.
Passive rather than active. She will defer to popularly elected presidents and legislators whenever
she can justify It. She will rule cautiously in specific
cases, even while reading the Constitution broadly,
and she probably will not enunciate any sweeping
legal theory in her decisions. Her judicial views will
emerge cumulatively. She will be what one observer has called "a case by case justice."
Yet a Justice's robe is quite a different garment
from even an appellate judge's. The wearer often
changes. "Clothes make the man" has a special
meaning in the world of the law. It is certain the
Judiciary Committee will approve Judge Ginsburg
next Thursday, as it should. It can also be said with
certainty, based on her history and her appearance
before the committee, that she has the experience,
intelligence and self-confidence to be a major figure
on the Supreme Court.
�A nominee who says what she thinks
When Supreme Coun nominees show up for confirmation hearings, the Senate Judiciary Committee typically asks their views on abonion. When
they're asked, nominees usually hem and haw.
Until this week, when nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg did something almosi unthinkable: She said
what she thinks. Her candor revealed much that is
comfoning about the up-and-coming justice.
"This is something central to a woman's life, to
her dignity," Ginsburg explained Wednesday. "It's
a decision that she must make for herself. And
when government controls that decision for her.
she"S'being treated as less than a fully adult human
responsible for her own choices." Thus did the
nominee express her belief that a woman has a
constitutional right to end a pregnancy. And Ginsburg ventured a mildly unconventional basis for
her outlook: In her eyes, the abonion nght is
secnred not just by the Constitution's implicit
privacy guarantee — but aiso by its explicit equalprotection promise.
Ginsburg's opinion is hardly as stanling as its
disclosure. For years, high-court nominees have
guarded their thoughts about Roe vs. Wade like
trade secrets — declining to answer even the most
general inquiries about the 1973 ruling's constitutional underpinnings. Most have insisted it would
be improper to speak up on any matter likely to
come beiore the court. But that coy claim has
often been used to keep Amencans in the dark
about a nominee's judicial philosophy. It's certainly proper ior nominees to shy away from forecasting their votes on specific cases. But it's utterly
wrong for them to conceal their long-standing
ideas about what the Constitution means.
Ginsburg's unexpected openness on Roe vs. Wade
offers assurance that she shares the widespread
view that decisions about pregnancy should be
made by the peopie who must live with them. It
grants Amencans a clearer sense of the mind and
manner of a high-court contender. Before senators
empower a judge to reshape the legal landscape,
they at least deserve to know how she or he sees it.
Now that they know, they need not hesitate to
confirm this uncommonly candid junst.
Judge Ginsburg's employment practices
Suppose a small busmess in a major city that
was majonry black had never hired a black
person, even though that busmess in over a
decade had hired more than 50 people. Further suppose that a disappointed black job applicant
filed a discrimination suit, but he or she was unable to
provide any direct evidence of intennonal discrimination by the employer.
"Would such statistics, standing alone, in your view
justify an inference of racial discrimination by the
employer, and would that employer, in your view, to
avoid an expensive and protracted lawsuit that could
cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, be justified in
using quotas or other forms of racial preferences to
eliminate the 'manifest unbalance'?"
So wondered Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch last week during confirmation hearings fbr Supreme Court nominee
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It's an important question, and
for lots of small businesses, more than a hypothetical
one. Mr. Hatch explained that he knew of a lot of cases
of small businesses "suffering the stings of these employment discrimination cases."
The average cost of defending a business in such
cases is $80,000. said Mr. Hatch, and that was poor to
the passage of the 1991 civil nghts act The cost is
probably even higher now, he suggested.
Judge Ginsburg did not respond directly to the
question, but referred to a case involving a California
highway department and its hiring of a woman instead
of a man who scored higher than she did on an application test The nominee made two mam points: first, that
the department had no women in its 238 positions and
second, that the test on which the male applicant
scored higher was based m part on a subjective interview, one that would allow for "unconscious bias"
against women A 238-person department without any
women made Judge Ginsburg wonder "whether the
employer wasn't in fact engaged unconsciously in de-
""
S
nying full and equal treatment to the women."
How then to account for Judge Ginsburg's own hiring practices? It turns out that the hypothetical small
business to which Mr. Hatch referred was her own. In
a majority black city — Washington, D.C. — she hired
not one black applicant to serve as law clerk during a
penod of 13 years. All 57 of her law clerks were white.
Was she guilty of unconscious bias and a whites-only
hiring practice?
" I do want to say that I have tried.... And I am going
to try harder, and if you confirm me for this job, my
attractiveness to black canriiriaips is going to unprove,"
Judge Ginsburgrespooded.Mr Hatch consoled hei;
and his colleagues hurriedly dnnged the subject
Lots of busmesses "try" not to discrnninate. Lots of
businesses promise ta do better in the future. But they
still end up having to spend rhmisnnds of doUars defending themselves in court, and tbey still have to pay
penalties — both in cash and reputation, if tbey cant
do better than Judge Ginsburg.
Had, say, Robert Bait been accused of similar hiring practices, one can just imagine the editorial-page
smirking, the Judiciary Committee accusations and
the special-interest outrage over a claim that he had
"tried." But never mind. There is oo reason to doubt
that Judge Ginsburg has tried to hire and would
warmly welcome black clerks. Howwer; tbe absolute
number of black iaw school graduates with qualifications appropriatefora clerkship on the most important
appeals court in the nation and a desire to begin their
law careers with such a detkship is probably DM large.
And that pool is not in the least related to the racial
composmoo of tbe dty in which the court sits.
This is not a problem only judges haw, honever
When she joins the high cant, ben's hoping Judge
Ginsburg wantforgether own experience in tins area
and that she wont hold other anpioyers mtinscountry
to a standard she herself couldnt meet
g^cBfag^timtong5nteg
.TUESDAY,JUUTI?,
1993
�SUPREME COURT
Ginsburg's testimony lives up to expectations
Anyone who followed last week's confirmation hearings on Ruth Bader Ginsburg
•had to be impressed with the jurist's intellect and philosophy.
From the moment President Clinton
named her to be the 107th justice of the U.S.
.Supreme Court last month, people have
. tossed labels in Judge Ginsburg's direction.
,-Some have called her a "liberal," citing her
.-vork as an attorney for the American Civil
Liberties Union in the 1970s. Others have
•called her a "conservative" of sorts, pointing
out that as a judge she has sided with Republican appointees more often than with her
'fellow Democrats. Who's for real — Ruth
.'Bader Ginsburg the advocate or Judge Gins"burg the judicial conservative? Last week's
hearings provided the answer: Both.
j The passion that markesd her earlier life
as a courtroom advocate for women's rights
' came through loud and clear as the nominee
•'forcefully expressed her personal support
for abortion rights. But she also took pains
• to distinguish between her former role as a
lawyer and her present position as a judge:
"We must always remember that we live in a
democracy that can be destroyed if judges
take it upon themselves to rule as Platonic
guardians" who impose their own vision of
government upon society. While Ruth Bader
Ginsburg's views may be "liberal," her
approach on the bench has been one of
caution.
In both her opening remarks and in
responses to senators' questions, the nominee emphasized the importance of judicial
restraint. "A judge should decide the case
before her without reaching out to cover
cases not yet seen," she declared. While conservatives on the Judiciary Committee
sometimes were frustrated in their attempts
to find out Judge Ginsburg's views on issues
other than abortion, her overall respect for
judicial limits should provide some reassurance that she will be appropriately cautious
about legislating from the bench. Her philosophy is likely to be quite compatible with
that of the court's centrist members.
Despite the fact that Judge Ginsburg was
not President Clinton's first choice for the
job, she has withstood the intense scrutiny
that surrounds court nominations and has
proved herself to be eminently qualified.
The Senate Judiciary Committee should
have no difficulty recommending her confirmation when it votes this week.
�6-B
THE PLAIN DEALER
7/-^
Our 152nd Year
ALEX MACHASKEE
President and Publisher
DAVID HALL
Editor
ROBERT M. LONG
Executive Vice President
BRENT W. LARKIN
Director ofthe Editonal Page
THOMAS H. GREER
Vice President. Senior Editor
Ginsburg: Supremely qualified
her
testimony last week beW ith courtwell-reasoned Bader Ginsburg federal
fore the Senate Judiciary Committee,
appeals
Judge Ruth
proved
that she fulfills the high standards for a Supreme
Court appointee.
When the Judiciary Committee votes on her
nomination tomorrow, the lawmakers should recommend Ginsburg's speedy confirmation by the
full Senate. Her addition to the Rehnquist Court,
replacing retiring Justice Byron R. White, should
be a welcome moderating influence that helps
keep justice balanced in America's traditional legal
center.
Ginsburg. who has served for 13 years on the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
used the Senate hearings to articulate her respect
for settled legal precedent. The first Supreme
Court nominee by a Democratic president since
1967. Ginsburg used reasoning that seemed to impress even the skeptics among the Judiciary panel's conservative Republicans: She carefully
weighs each case's facts before reaching her legal
conclusions, rather than imposing any preordained
theory of constitutional law onto the case.
Using conservative methods, she seems inclined
to reach moderate-to-liberal conclusions. Her re-
strained legal style was evident in her answers to
the most sensitive line of senators' questioning:
She is a strong supporter of abortion rights, yet
she also sees room to differ with some of the logic
in Justice Harry A Blackmun s privacy-rights
precedent in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. Her
reliance on the 14th Amendment's "equal protection clause." distinct from Blackmun's focus on its
"liberty clause," is typical of the discerning style
she has used on the federal appeals bench.
Given her willingness to explore her legal reasoning on abortion rights, it was somewhat disappointing that Ginsburg declined several Republican senators' invitation to discuss other unsettled
areas of constitutional law — notably, whether the
Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" should cover the modern-day
death penalty. Yet Ginsburg (like other recent Supreme Court nominees) correctly insisted that a
prospective justice must not foreshadow his or her
position on any specific issue that might reach the
court.
Ginsburg's intellect and balanced style give her
the potential to be an outstanding justice. President Bill Clinton's first appointment to the Supreme Court merits confirmation.
I
H
�Ruth's Truths
Farewell, stealth candidates. At last, a Supreme Court nominee backs abortion rights.
What a refreshing change.
Rutli Bader Ginsburg's sweeping assertion
that a woman's riRht to choose abortion is
essential to a woman's equality is the first defense of this crucial constitutional right that
Americans have heard from a Supreme Court
La.
nominee since the high court handed down
Roo vs. Wade in 1973.
Abortion is a decision that a woman must
make for herself, Ginsburg told the Senate
Judiciary Committee: "And when government controls that decision for her, she's be-
ing treated as less than a fully adult human
responsible for her own choices."
Ginsburg's clarity comes in contrast to Lhe
cautious fuzzlness of her predecessors in the
20 years since Roe. While one nominee (John
Paul Stevens in 1975) was never asked about
abortion, all his successors have hemmed and
hawed — or zipped their lips — on this watershed issue of our time — until Ginsburg. Even
Sandra Day O'Connor, who came to her confirmation hearing with a mildly pro-abortionrights record, left the senators and the public
baffled about her views on abortion.
As it has turned out, when Roe has been
challenged, some of the stealth nominees
have gone one way, some another. O'Connor,
for example, wrote the Supreme Court's rule
that the state cannot place an "undue burden" on a woman seeking an abortion, a standard less sweeping than Roe but still
underlining the basic right.
Ginsburg's candor gratifies in two ways.
First, it marks an end to that exasperating
era of confirmation coyness when nominees
of Republican anti-abortion presidents faced
confirmation by hostile Democratic senators
and so retreated Into silence or obfuscation
on abortion. Second, it makes clear that
Ginsburg's earlier complaints about the
sweep of Roe vs. Wade had been more technical than substantive. That ruling struck
down abortion bans solely on the grounds of
due process, she explained, while In her view
the Constitution protects abortion rights
through both its due process cmd its equal
protection clauses.
Great. Now, how about equal candor on
other crucial Issues, like the death penalty?
�Judicious Testimony From Judge Ginsburg
If a Supreme Court nominee's confirmation hearing is a preview of performance on the bench, then
Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be a thoughtful, patient,
confident yet cautious justice, respectful of Congress but not afraid to assert judicial prerogatives
when they are appropriate. For the newest member
of a Supreme Court heading into a new era, those
.'qualities would be nice ones to have.
Judge Ginsburg's three days of testimony before
the Senate Judiciary Committee last week were so
.lacking in fireworks that eyen C-Span didn't carry
them live. But the relative dullness of the proceed... ings certainly didn't upset members of the commit. ..tee, still gunshy after the Clarence Thomas-Anita
'•^Hill showdown. Even though her not-ready-for-C^ Span answers did not make splashy headlines, and
^even though senators were at times frustrated with
-iier guarded responses, Judge Ginsburg did open a
^"'limited window, in to how she might approach her
--jresponsibility on the nation's highest court.
X. The fact that she would sit on the court of last
resort is a key point. In her current position on the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Judge Ginsburg knows there is always another
avenue of appeal, another layer with the final say, so
jhe can let Supreme Court precedent rule. As one of
• the nine members on that court, however, her word
hterally could become law, to the extent that she
would be able to build a consensus and persuade her
Colleagues to her way of thinking.
, She took great pains to tell the senators that she
; prefers consensus to confrontation, that she values
collegiality and would think twice before writing
' strident opinions that criticize fellow justices. At the
same time, she stressed that " I am a judge. I am not
.. an advocate," and would rule according to the law,
not her personal biases. Still, in most cases that
reach the Supreme Court, precisely what the law
means is far from clear. Interpreting the law is a
ustice's job. and those interpretations inevitably are
colored by a justice's beliefs and experiences.
c
Wade. Her denunciation of bias, for any reason, was
forceful and eloquent: " I think rank discrimination
against anyone is against the tradition of the United
States and is to be deplored." Her view of the right
of privacy was reassuring: "The government shall
not make my decisions for me. I shall make as an
individual, uninhibited, uncontrolled by my government, the decisions that affect my life's course."
Ideally, she would have Congress pass laws that
protect these rights. But Judge Ginsburg also made
clear that while judges should not get too far ahead
of society in ordering sweeping social change, they
cannot let the legislative branch delay justice too
long either . "When political avenues become deadend streets," she told the senators, "judicial intervention in the politics of the people may be essential
in order to have effective politics."
Barring any unforeseen obstacles, Judge Ginsburg's confirmation appears assured. Her choice by
President Bill Clinton was an inspired one. She
combines a reasoned, measured approach toward
change with an expansive attitude toward the rights
that all Americans should enjoy. If she is as adroit on
the Supreme Court as she was in her testimony
before the Judiciary Committee, the nation should
benefit greatly from her service.
The beliefs that Judge Ginsburg expressed in her
. testimony should hearten anyone who has seen the
: , Supreme Court of recent years rely too much on
cold legalisms and too little on the effects that the
' law has on real human beings. Her support for
^abortion rights was strong and unequivocal, even
~ though she criticized the reasoning behind Roe vs.
6
�Today dabatoison
TH BADER GINSBURG
and whether she should be confirmed to the Supreme Court,
/
y
Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
A mainstream justice
Judge Ginsburg
OUR VIEW brings competence,
integrity, experience and a reasoned voice to the court.
If equal treatment under the law is
controversial. Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
President Clinton's first nominee to the
Supreme Court, would be in big trouble.
But it isn't. And that's why today the
Senate Judiciary Committee is expected
to recommend overwhelmingly that the
60-year-old former civil liberties lawyer
be confirmed and why the Senate should
quickly follow that recommendation.
No one questions the competence,
character or experience of the 13-year
federal appeals court judge.
But her few critics claim she is out of
the mainstream because of her support
for abortion nghts and advocacy of
women's rights in the 1970s.
Ginsburg's support of abortion rights
is hardly unusual. Even with five Reagan and Bush appointees, the high court
still upholds a woman's right to abortion.
And as for her record as an advocate
of gender equahty, it mirrors thefightfor
racial equality by the late Thurgood
Marshall in the 1950s before he became
a justice. Both upheld the idea — common now, not so common at the time
— that the Constitution exists to protect
the nghts of everyone.
For Ginsburg, that meantfightingto
get a New Jersey widower the same
benefits from Social Security that a widow would receive. It meant getting the
same protection for a sexually abused
boy under statutory rape laws as for a
girl of the same age.
In short, as an advocate, she fought
for fairness and equaUty in the laws.
As a judge, she has sought to be fairminded. She has sided as often with conservative Reagan and Bush appointees
as with more liberal Carter appointees.
Jurists, she believes, should be "independent-thinking individuals with open,
but not drafty, minds" who are "willing
to Usten and... to leam" and "re-examine their own premises, liberal or conservative, as thoroughly as those of others."
Their job isn't to create law, she says, but
they must apply it to the circumstances
of the day and fill in any gaps so everyone'srightsare protected.
That's notradical.That's what judges
and courts are all about
o
<
CO
tr>
i
Ginsburg is too radical
Based on her
OPPOSING VIEW written record, tliose who vote to confirm
her wiB regret It.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be the
mostradicalideologue ever nominated
to the U.S. Supreme Court She is eager
to cleanse our laws of
everything that could
remotely be called
"sex discrimination"
in order to write in
what she calls the
"equahty principle."
She would require
women to be drafted
just like men and as- By Ptiytta
signed to combat un- Schtafty, an AlIL, lawyer
der affirmative ac- ton, president of
and
tion, force sex Eagte Forum.
integration of prisons
andreformatoriesand even require the
Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts to change
their names and become sex-integrated.
These and other radical notions are in
Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, which she
wrote for 1977 publication by the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights and for
which she was paid by the taxpayers.
Her off-the-wall demands indude declaring unconstitutional all laws against
sututory rape and prostitution, lowering
the age of consent for sex acts to 12, providing comprehensive government-financed child care and federalizing nofault divorce. Her animus against the
role of mother/homemaker was expressed like this: "This concept (husband as breadwinner, wife as homemaker) must be eliminated fiom the code if
it is toreflectthe equality principle."
Ginsburg even called in the 1974 report of the Columbia Law School Equal
Rights Advocacy Project for "replacing
Mother's Day and Father's Day with
Parents' Day." And in a speech published by the Phi Beta Kappa Key Reporter in 1974, she called for affirmative
action hiring quotas fbr career women.
When the Supreme Court upheld the
ban on taxpayer funding of abortions,
Ginsburg wrote that this was a "stunning curtailment" of women's rights. If
she gets a chance, it's goodbye to the
Hyde AmendmentT
She will prove an embarrassment to
all those who vote to confirm her.
>
>
oo
or
X
1
7
�Elders's record survives scrutiny
Conservative critics have left no trick to her nomination as surgeon general. On those
untried in their effort to block the appointment subjects, she was clear and focused: She
of Arkansas pediatrician Joycelyn Elders as remains a staunch supporter of abortion rights
surgeon general, and they still have not suc- and family planning, and she remains firm in
ceeded in making a case against her her conviction that the pubhc schools must be
confirmation.
used to teach youngsters the basics of sexual
Dr. Elders remains an excellent choice to health.
lead the battle against adolescent pregnancy
Parental guidance is appropriate, she noted,
and sexually transmitted diseases, two of the as is rehgious instruction. But there can be no
nation's most alarming public health problems. substitute for sex education in the schools
In confirmation hearings Friday afternoon, because of the schools' influence in the lives of
Dr. Elders was questioned on all the issues that most youngsters.
her critics have attempted to use against her.
Dr. Elders was as straightforward in defendShe was questioned extensively about her ing what may have been her most difficult decihusband's admitted failure to withhold federal sion in her tenure as director of the Arkansas
taxes from the wages of a private nurse hired Department of Pubhc Health. Notified that a
to care for his ailing mother. That issue had batch of condoms her department had distriblittle to do with Dr. Elders and less to do with uted had a higher-than-normal failure rate, she
She was asked about receiving pay for work approved the decision to withhold that informaduring recent weeks as a consultant for the fed- tion from the pubhc. Just as there are strong
eral government, when she was also continuing arguments for her decision — avoiding wideto draw pay as head of the Arkansas Depart- spread pubhc panic, among them — there are
ment of PubUc Health. Dr. Elders rephed that equally strong arguments against it.
she would have taken a leave of absence from
She acknowledged that gracefully, adding
her Arkansas job, but she was required to take that difficult decisions go with the territory in
her accumulated vacation time first.
any position of leadership. Indeed. And Dr.
And she was asked about her support for Elders can be counted on to make them with
reproductive rights, contraception and early wisdom, courage and good judgment. She
sex education, issues that are indeed germaine should be confirmed.
PalL
M>
SURGEON GENERAL
Dr. Elders deserves a fair hearing
It's one thing to disagree with the views
of President Clinton's nominee for surgeon
general, Joycelyn Elders. It's quite another
to pull procedural pranks in an attempt to
discredit her and embarrass the president
the way Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., did during the beginning of Dr. Elders' confirmation hearing Friday.
Dr. Elders' positions on abortion rights,
sex education in schools, distribution of
condoms and availability of contraception
have raised red flags with conservatives.
And her tendency to be rather sharptongued with detractors doesn't make her
nomination any less controversial. But that
hardly disqualifies her for the job of surgeon general, whose role has taken on
added relevance given the AIDS crisis and
the growing problem of teen pregnancy.
Dr. Elders, like any other presidential
nominee, deserves a fair hearing to defend
her views and her qualifications. She had
barely begun to do that in her nomination
hearing before the Labor and Human
Resources Committee when Sen. Nickles
invoked a rarely used procedural maneuver
— objecting to the meeting taking place
while the Senate is in session — that
brought the hearing to an abrupt stop. That
tactic comes on the heels of conservative
senators acting to postpone the confirmation hearing for a week. Dr. Elders deserves
better treatment.
Because of her views, opponents had
sought to discredit her by raising issues concerning a lawsuit brought against her and
other former members of the board of directors of the National Bank of Arkansas; her
receipt of pay from the state as the Arkansas
health director while also being paid as a
consultant to the Clinton administration;
and her personal finances that involved
unpaid Social Security taxes for a nurse
hired to care for her mother-in-law. The suit
was settled. There was nothing illegal about
collecting her state salary and consultant
fees from the government, although she
resigned from her state job. Her "Zoe Baird
problem" was resolved by paying the taxes.
Only Dr. Elders' record as a public health
official should determine whether she
should be confirmed. President Clinton has
stood by Dr. Elders, enabling her to defend
her record and respond to questions. The
Senate should now afford her that opportunity without further delay.
�WASHINGTON EDITION / LOS ANGELES TIMES S
of THE TIMES
A Fine Doctor for the Nation
Joycelyn Elders may be very outspoken, but her prescriptions are sensible and wise
It's now clear that the political
enenues of Dr. Joycelyn Elders. President Clinton's nominee for surgeon
general, have run short of solid
reasons to oppose her. Not that they
didn't try hard. But in the end none of
their objections held up, so they were
left with only ideological arguments:
They just don't agree with Elders'
philosophies.
That, in fact, is fair politics. But the
near-hysterical tone of the political
opposition to her is odd, considering
that Elders' views about preventive
health care, sex education and AIDS
arerightin line with another respected doctor hardly known for radicalism—former Surgeon General C.
Everett Koop. Koop supports Elders,
as does the American Medical Assn.,
also not exactly revolutionary.
What peculiar, radical ideas has
Elders promoted? How about her idea
that "the best way to stop abortion is
to stop an unplanned pregnancy"? Or
how about the rabble-rousing idea
Dr. Elders: A plain-speaking nominee.
that " I want to change the way we
think about health, by putting prevention first"?
Now there's no question that Elders
was controversial in Arkansas, where
she was state health director from
1987 until she resigned last week. The
plain-speaking Elders, 59, raised
hackles with her support of abortion
rights and her advocacy of schoolbased health educational programs
for teen-agers that include the avail-
ST.
ability of condoms and other contraceptives. And she has confirmed'she
made the often-quoted remark, that
"we've taught [youngsters) what to
do in the front seat of the car, but not
what to do in the back seat"
" I believe in abstinence," she explained last week at the opening of
her Senate confirmation hearing.
"What I was really trying to say is if
you can't be abstinent, I want you to
be responsible. I'm about preventing
unplanned pregnancies."
Elders' strong commitment to disease prevention merited her a special
award three years ago from the AMA,
which cited her for promoting programs in Arkansas that resulted in
"greater immunization rates in preschool children, expanded services
for pregnant women, increased AIDS
testing and counseling, and improved
access to health care providers in
niral and underserved areas.;' lv>V
Sounds like a fine national agenda
for America's top doctor, doesn't it?
7
Uon is
Post.
Dr. Elders Scales A Hurdle
A breath of fresh air is how one member of the
Senate Labor Committee describes Dr. Joycelyn
Elders, President Bill Clinton's nominee for surgeon
general. The assessment showed how the Arkansas
physician had won over a majority of the panel
members during four hours of testimony Friday.
She satisfied the panel's questions on a range of
issues, including her role as a former board member
of the National Bank of Arkansas. She and other
board members had been accused of negligent mismanagement and sued for $1.5 million. The suit has
been settled and the panel seemed satisfied that the
board had not committed any criminal offenses.
And she succeeded in untangling the far right's
mean-spirited distortions of her views on health
matters. Rather than concede even an inch to her
detractors, Dr. Elders used the Senate forum to
reaffirm her advocacy for programs ranging from
sex education in schools to condom availability.
When she finished, she bore no resemblance to the
woman fundamentalists have tried to discredit by
labeling her the "condom queen."
The reference was supposed to be a rerun of the
right's tactics against another Clinton nominee —
Lani Guinier. She was erroneously branded the
"quota queen." Her nomination to head the Justice
Department's Civil Rights Division became so controversial that President Clinton withdrew it before
Ms. Guinier had an opportunity to respond to the
charges. Fortunately, the administration didn't
make the same mistake with the Elders nomination.
She made her case for prevention and for more
health education programs, from kindergarten
through 12th grade, to tackle issues ranging from
teen pregnancy to AIDS.
Her basic message was this: " I want to change
the way we think about health — by putting prevention first. I want to change the behaviors and attitudes of Americans by promoting programs and
policies which will enable us to be responsible for
our own health."
If the full Senate listens to her diagnosis of health
conditions in Amenca and her remedies, rather than
to the far right's distortions of her views, then Dr.
Elders should have no trouble being confirmed as
the next surgeon general.
ff
�Star Tribune
Joel R. Kramer Publisher and President
Tim J. McGuire Executive Editor
Susan J. Albright Editor of the Editorial Pages
Established 1867
Tuesday/July 27/1993
8A
The senator and the next surgeon general
The opponents' ire is as irrational as it is intemperate. Few doctors would deny that abstinence is
the surest defense against teen pregnancy and
disease. Few thoughtful educators would oppose
teaching the virtues of celibacy. But as Elders
argued last week, no sensible public-health expert
can rely on sermonizing as an antidote to the
pressures teens face. "1 have seen bright young
people all over this country in an ocean surrounded by the sharks of alcohol, violence, homicide,
Dh Joycelyn Elders. President Clinton's choice for suicide, AIDS and teenage pregnancy." Elders latop health official, is hardly a white-bread candi- mented Friday, "while we argue about values."
date.-Dunng her tenure as director of the Arkansas
Health Department, the pediatrician pushed con- However colorfully expressed. Elders' views differ
dom' distribution and sex education in public little from those of a much-admired former surschools. Her sharp-tongued defense of the strategy geon general. Dr. C. Everett Koop. During his
did little to soothe her critics: "We've taught them tenure as President Reagan's health czar. Koop
what to do in the front seat of the car," Elders promoted condom use as a shield against AIDS
and teen pregnancy. There's no sense in sinking
explained, "but not what to do in the back seat."
Elders for traveling further down that path.
Those sound like fighting words to the conservative fringe, which used last Friday's hearing before The parallel with Koop wasn't lost on Durenberthe Senate Labor and Human Resources Commit- ger, who noted a surgeon general's duty to broach
tee to impugn Elders. Questions were raised, and delicate health topics. As Durenberger suggested,
resolved, about the nominee's family taxes, her that mission can't be fulfilled if the confirmation
role on an Arkansas bank board and her alleged process gives way to character assassination. Memdouble-dipping. But detractors held fast in assail- bers of the- Senate committee should remember
ing Elders for her ideas, insisting that public-health that when Elders' nomination comes up for a vote
efforts should focus solely on sexual abstinence.
this Friday.
As Sen. Dave Durenberger waved his way through
Saturday's Aquatenmai parade, he heard more
than applause and a smattering of catcalls. One
curb-sitter sprang to her feet and bellowed at the
top of her lungs: "Don't confirm the surgeon
general!" That's advice Durenberger. a member of
the committee considering the nomination, says
he's heard a lot from constituents. Fortunately, it's
advitc he seems wisely inclined to resist.
It's A Matter of Judgment
Ci
N
Tart-tongued, outspoken, confron\J;ational Dr. Joycelyn Elders, who
(>- served as Arkansas health commis,
sioner under Gov. Bill Clinton, has
., come under heavy criticism since she
i/S was nominated by President Clinton to
be U.S. surgeon general.
^
There have been several charges.
^ The latest says that she promoted the
^passing out of a million condoms to
"-^Arkansas school children and others
, — but withheld information that some
ailed leakage and breakage tests.
^
Also, while drawing pay for her
^5 job in Arkansas, she was picking up
-^$550 a day, two davs a week, as a
" consultant" to the U.S. Department
|of Health and Human Services in
Washington. Does anyone really doubt
that the Washington job was contrived
to pay her a little extra, at taxpayers'
expense, perhaps to cover her expenses while she was in the capital in
connection with her nomination?
Another question involves her
being on the board of a bank that was
sued for negligent mismanagement.
While these things are worth noting, the basic reason Dr. Elders ought
to be rejected is simply that she has a
long record of bad judgment in promoting abortion, juvenile sexual activity and other such indiscretions. She
should be put aside for that big central reason that is so clear in her
record, not for any peripheral reason.
2o
�Elders: No Stealth Liberal
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat: We
don't agree with almost any of the public policy positions taken by Dr. Joycelyn Elders, President
Clinton's nominee to be
surgeon general of the
United States. In her favor, however, is one inescapable fact: Unlike a
number of President
Clinton's nominees (indeed, unlike the president himself in many
ways) she is no "stealth"
liberal, feigning moderation to win high office.
She is a full-throated
left-liberal on social issues. America should
take this opportunity to
get a good ook.
! Dr. Elders is nothing Joycelyn Elders
if not forthright, speaking her mind in ways many
people have found offensive. She does not deny she
has made such statements as "we teach teen-agers
what to do in the front seats of cars, and now
should teach them what to do in the back seats."
She admits criticizing the pro-life movement for
being "very religious but non-Christian" and "having a love affair with the fetus." The latter two remarks, she says, were made in reference to what
she claims are pro-life groups that don't fayor provdding welfare for children after they are bom.
I Dr. Elders, a pediatrician, was appointed by
then-Gov. Clinton to be director ofthe Arkansas
Health Department in 1987. She moved aggressively to expand the availability of sex education
ahd birth control information and devices with the
goal of cutting the state's teen pregnancy rate by 50
percent. Today, as Dr. Elders prepares to move on
to Washington, Arkansas has nearly one-eighth of
the school-based health clinics in the entire country.
More disturbing was Dr. Elders' refusal in 1991
to make a public announcement when condoms her
office had distributed were found to be defective.
Dr. Elders claims it was only a small number, but no dbubt she feared that a public recall would have
undermined faith in the entire program.
The record of this program, however, has not
been encouraging. The pregnancy rate among
teen-agers, which had been in decline in the five
years before Dr. Elders took office, rose dramatically during her tenure. In 11 of the 12 counties
where school-based health clinics were established
under Dr. Elders' guidance, the pregnancy rate
went up 12 percent.
It seems likely, therefore, that Dr. Elders will
seek to take her campaign national, usurping parental prerogatives and deciding what kind of sex
education children should have from sea to shining
sea. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what
form that curriculum is likely to take.
One thing Dr. Elders certainly is not doing is
trimming her sails to win Senate approval. The
same might not be said for Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who evaded questions concerning the constitutionality of the death penalty for criminals even
as she spoke in great detail of her support for abortion.
Dr. Elders, assuming she is confirmed by the
Senate, could serve as a useful marker for most
Americans about where the "mainstream" of liberal opinion is located these days. The evidence is
that ordinary Americans tend to have a different
view of the mainstream. Ask New York Schools
Chancellor Joseph Fernandez, who was overthrown by a coalition of middle-class parents when
he began handing out condoms in high schools.
At the time of Clarence Thomas' nomination to
the Supreme Court, we said it was a mistake for
him to avoid controversial issues. The American
voters have a right to know the beliefs ofthe appointees of the people they voted for in the last
election. Bill Clinton ran as a "new" Democrat,
supposedly chastened by the failures of liberalism.
If Dr. Elders' views really represent his own, then
no one should be surprised if the American people
conclude he is himself a "stealth liberal."
2\
�JOYCELYN ELDERS
Nominee has shown she is mrthy of confirmation
ust as C. Everett Koop, Ronald to try to deal, as any good public health
Reagan's surgeon general, over- officer must, with the realities of human
came the stereotyping that greeted behavior, as well as with how we wish
hus nommation in the early 1980s, people would behave.
Joycelyn Elders went a long way last week She has a tart tongue, and Mr. Clinton
toward showing that her critics had her can expect it to get her and him into trouble
pegged all wrong.
from time to time. But besides being a
Dr. Elders is passionate about the health physician with a passion to be a healer, she
and welfare of the young and the poor. She is a highly trained, highly professional,
intensely practical public ofhas been and is a good, plainficial.
talking, activist official —
exactly what Dr. Koop
She is interested not in
proved to be, despite attacks
corrupting the morals of
on him by liberals concerned
children, but in trying to
about his views on abortion.
help minimize the threat of
sexually transmitted disease
Unlike the unfortunate
to those who are inclined to
Lani Guinier, whose nomiput themselves at risk. She
nation for a top post in the
is not some stereotypical
Justice Department was
double-dipper, taking advanwithdrawn by President Bill
tage of the overiapping of
Clinton before she had a
her state job with her prochance to make a case for
spective job and interim arherself. Dr. Elders got her
rangements with the federal
day before a Senate commitgovernment; she is followtee. She made a strong brief Joycelyn Elders
ing the law and common
for herself, answering questions and criticisms, and showing that she is practice.
more complex and appealing than the cari- From what we have seen, Dr. Elders
cature that has been sketched of her.
deserves enthusiastic support, not rejecDr. Elders' passion about the need to tion. Like Dr. Koop, she should be seen as a
improve the health of the poor and to whole person, with a multifaceted view of
address the health needs of the country is the world and characteristics that make her
far more understandable to anyone who a potentially worthy surgeon general.
The Senate should move with reasonwatched her opening statement. The country needs her fervor, along with the training able dispatch to give Dr. Elders the endorsement she has earned, both by her
and intelligence she also represents.
Dr. Elders is not the radical described by career and by her plainspoken response to
some of her critics. She is simply prepared the criticisms heaped upon her.
J
22
�Petty Politics on National Service
Two years or three? It's a trivial difference, but They agreed to spend less than $400 million in the
Senate Republicans think President Clinton's na- first year, enrolling only about 20,000 participants.
tional service initiative is worth scuttling for the . But Republicans objected that costs in later years
sake of knocking a year off the life of the program. weren't specified. So the Democrats proposed to
But what is really at issue is not the length of cap annual spending at $300 million in the first year,
the program, or even its cost. The Senate minority $500 million in the second and $700 million in the
leader, Robert Dole, seems to be marshaling .a third. They also agreed — as a way of targeting
filibuster to deny President Clinton a major legisla-" benefits on the needy — to tax the education grants.
tive victory at any cost. The Senate will vote tomor- But these concessions weren't enough for the Rerow on breaking the filibuster; there's a chance publicans. They wanted a two-year program, after
enough Republicans will rise above partisan politics which Congress would decide if the program was
worth continuing.
to support the worthy bill.
On the merits, the Democrats are right. Two
The Administration proposes to provide volunteers with minimum-wage salaries and up to $10,000 years is barely enough time to get the administrain grants for higher education in exchange for two tive machinery in place and insufficient time to
years of tutoring students or other public service. learn if the program works. Besides, it's hard to
Many Republicans support the idea; several, like swallow the Republicans' tax-and-spend comArlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Chafee of plaints: Congress would be in complete control of
the costs year by year.
Rhode Island, are co-sponsors.
National service could eventually draw hunBut to Mr. Dole, no idea is too good to escape
use as political fodder. So he has applied the all- ' dreds of thousands of Americans into serving needy
purpose pejorative "tax and spend" and marshaled communities and give participants the means to
a filibuster. The ostensible reason was the possibili- pay for higher education. Mr. Dole's just-say-no
strategy may make for shrewd politics, but it
ty that costs would skyrocket.
The Democrats have tried to accommodate. renders poor public — and national — service.
A Chance for National Service
S
OMETIMES it's hard to distinguish between narrow, partisan obstructionism and
hard bargaining in the pursuit of a fair
compromise. T.ike the battle over President Clinton's national service program. It's dear to Mr.
Clinton, who harbors memones of how creation of
the Peace Corps in the Kennedy administration sent
a message of service and sacrifice to a whole
generation. The Clinton program would encourage
young people to give a year or two for law enforcement, education, the environment and assistance to
poor neighborhoods. Volunteers would receive living
stipends of about $7,000 a year and then a $5,000
award for each year in—to be used to pay off student
loans.
Until last week, the proposal seemed set for
passage with bipartisan support. But in what is fast
becoming a ntual. Senate Republicans objected to
the program as too expensive and threatened a
filibuster. To block afilibuster,the Democrats need
60 votes, but hold only 56 seats in the Senate.
Democrats have picked up support from two Republicans to block the filibuster—Sens. James Jeffords
and David Durenberger—but that still left them two
votes short yesterday. So the administration went
negotiating.
It's important to distinguish between two groups
of Republican holdouts. One group that notably
includes Sen. Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas seems
genuinely interested in passing a service program,
but womes about the expense of the Clinton plan
and wants more experimentation before a full-scale
program is launched. These are fair concerns. But
many other Republicans seem mostly interested in
blocking any initiative that might make Mr. Clinton
look good, and are in the position of being able to use
Sen. Kassebaum as a front.
To its credit, the administration has been willing
to scale back its plans to win a bill. Having once
talked of spending as much as $7.4 billion on the
program over four years, it is now willing to back a
$1.5 billion plan over three. Republicans proposed
$800 million over two, which the Democrats rejected as providing insufficient time to test the program.
With an earlier version of the bill set to pass the
House today, negotiations with Senate Republicans
will continue.
Getting pushed by Senate Republicans to cut back
his program may not have been the worst thing for
Mr. Clinton. A scaled-back program may have a
better chance of working, and it can be built upon.
But the administration has gone a long way toward
accommodating Republican concerns. Now it's time
for moderate Republicans who say they support
national service (among them Sens. John Chafee and
Arlen Specter) to demonstrate that they're willing to
break with pure partisanship in the interest of a
worthy program. Agreement is well within reach.
�y
In peril'i g a an to Harness Idealism
National service bill deserves to be passed; end the Senate filibuster
In what is threatening to become a
trademark display of obstructionism.
Senate Republicans last week mounted their fourth major filibuster of the
year, this time to block scheduling of.
a vote on President Clinton's national
service plan. And in the overall effort
to block the program, some Republicans are engaging in deception about
the popular bill. Their critical statements about the long-term costs and
benefits of this plan, which offers
educational grants in exchange for
public service, verge on the ludicrous.
Let's set the record straight.
The national service measure is
based on a simple idea. It would
authorize educational grants of up to
$5,000 a year each for the participants, numbering 150,000 by 1997, in
exchange for their agreement to tutor
grade school students, help senior
citizens or perform other public services.
•.••?;«?i:.c»-<S#*j-,'.v;fc
Clinton sold the idea during his
campaign last fall as a way to kindle
anew a sense of public spirit as well as
to help students struggling with high
college tuition costs.
Clinton originally intended the initiative to begin last month. But the
program has been delayed—and significantly scaled back—as Congress
has wrangled over the President's
budget package.
Clinton hoped to involve millions of
participants and to provide grants
larger than the $5,000 in this bill.
Under the current version, only
20,000 to 25.000 persons would partic ipate the first year, at a cost of $394
million. Nonetheless, even the attenuated plan is worth doing.
The program has a good deal of
popular support. Its virtue lies in its
promise to tap the creative energy of
young people, to reward them for
serving their country and communi-
ties and to help them finance their
education.
Yet to Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas,
Republican leader of the Senate, the
legislation is another example of
"willy-nilly mortgaging of. our future." Come again? National service
is not another government handout.
Indeed, it is a cost-effective way to
help Americans help themselves
while providing necessary services to
communities that government might
otherwise have to fund.
Opponents have fought the measure with increasing vigor since last
Tuesday. Supporters insist that a fair
compromise is possible. A vote to end
the filibuster is scheduled for today.
The Senate should stop the games
and pass this bill. Clinton isn't going
to get very much of his original
budget proposal out of this deficitoriented Congress, but the national
service ide"! deserves a try.
>~g
^
. ....
(
. * * . .-H-f •••.
; 1
.111'
^ ^ ^ ^ T f t e Price Of National Service
So far, Democrats have been able to scuttle most
GOP efforts to scale back President Bill Clinton's
admirable plans for national service by America's
young people. Their success should continue. Even
in the face of continuing deficits, the federal government should be able to find money for worthwhile
programs that can make fundamental changes in the
way the nation runs itself. Underwriting a spirit of
national service is an ideal place to start.
^-The administration's plan would create the Corporation for National Service, which would grant
money to states, to colleges and universities and to
public and non-profit organizations. Those groups
Would either establish service programs on their
6\)W or award money to other programs. That
money would go to help pay young people who work
ih"national service jobs for at least 1,700 hours a
yearl The workers would receive living allowances
ranging from $7,400 a year — about minimum
wage — up to $14,800 a year. They would also
receive $5,000 a year toward college tuition, up to a
total of $10,000, to be used within five years.
The program would serve several purposes. Too
many teen-agers find the costs of higher education
staggering and are discouraged from even starting
to earn a college degree; the tuition credits would
^/o^i
help ease that burden. At the same time, the nation
would benefit from the services of eager, idealistic
young people whose talents would be well-used in
health care, child care and a range of other community services that are now understaffed. That spirit
has been shown on sandbag crews and other humanitarian efforts to combat high water in recent
weeks. Best of all, many of those who at first take
such jobs mainly for the tuition aid will no doubt find
deeper fulfillment and turn what had been a temporary job into a full-time career, serving others.
Who could quarrel with that outcome? Senate
Republicans did. They wanted to cut tuition allowances to $1,500 a year for two years and eliminate
the government-subsidized pay. Doing so would
keep most people from being able to afford to join
the program. House Republicans wanted to limit
participation to students who qualify for financial
aid; that, too, would change the program drastically
and undercut its basic purpose of engendering a
sense of service among young people. Luckily, Democrats have prevailed, though the bill bogged down
Thursday on unrelated matters.
Can the United States afford $9.5 billion over five
years to build that base of community caring for the
future? A better question is: Can ifcafford not to?
5^
�K//
Street "JT^.W
7/^
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Newest Entitlement
With one hand Congress is getting
ready to sock us all with new taxes to
"reduce the deficit." With the other
hand, it's oozing sanctimony to enact
new spending programs, not much
worrying that they'll increase the
deficit.
Under the rubric of "national service, '• for example, the Senate is on
the verge of enacting what will inevitably grow into a big new middleclass entitlement. Technically, national service will be funded annually
like other discretionary programs.
-But if Mr. Clinton keeps his promise
to make room for everybody who
wants in. the program becomes a de
facto entitlement.
It would create a bunch of new federally funded jobs for kids 1 and
7
older. They'd get a paycheck, health
benefits and tuition vouchers worth
upward of $20,000 a year. It looks to us
as if seducing kids away from classrooms and real jobs would serve
mostly to rope them into a codependency relationship with Washington,
but it has a warm and fuzzy appeal to
some voters and Senators.
Bob Dole and the Senate Republicans are playing Hamlet over
whether to filibuster this new entitlement. Little details such as costs get
lost even on the Republican side of
the aisle, let alone among Democrats
panting at more tax revenue.
National service is targeted directly at kids who are nervously
scanning the want-ads for that first
job: what Mr. Clinton is dangling
sounds like pretty good pay to a 17year-old. He speaks airily of sending
the kids out to "help the police" and
"combat homelessness." In reality,
this means whatever work the national service bureaucrats can scare
up. after first making sure not to step
on the toes of organized labor or trespass on the turf of 19 million federal,
state and local employees. In other
words, the kids will be put to work
doing jobs that everybody agrees
aren't worth doing.
The sorry record of previous federal make-work programs doesn't
permit much optimism. Before it was
zeroed-out by Ronald Reagan, CETA
paid teenagers to attend picnics and
meet society's unmet need for nude
sculpture classes. It's well known that
many CETA offices saw their charges
only when it was time to hand out the
paychecks. The kids, in tum. learned
contempt for productive work and
cynicism about government.
Mr. Clinton would recreate CETA
on a grand scale, cycling 150.000
youngsters a year through national
service by 1997. There'd be jobs for an
army of bureaucrats to ride herd on
them, and for another army of outside
lobbyists to explain why ever greater
federal funding is essential. You can
bet that 535 Members of Congress
would also be getting into the act,
making sure the kids are deployed in
their home districts to improve their
re-election chances.
Once set in motion, this machinery makes sure that any federal program enjoys eternal life. You can
read this in the relentless, upward
trajectory of federal spending and
deficits since Congress absconded
with the President's budgetary authority during the wounded days of
the Nixon administration.
There's something especially egregious about re-enacting this history
with young folks as fodder. No doubt
many of the kids who are drawn to national service are genuinely idealistic.
And true, there's a slight "New Democratic" twist because at least this entitlement for the unneedy comes with a
measure of reciprocal obligation. But
kids taking their first steps toward
self-reliance don't need Big Government offering itself in loco parentis.
The bureaucracy is shilling for itself
with the idea that work in the public
sector is "service" while supporting
yourself and paying taxes in the private sector is merely self-indulgent.
Such philosophy aside, what about
the money? Yes, the program starts
small, as runaway entitlements always do. Clearly its pork-barrel dynamic spells growth. And it already
carries the same heart-tugging packaging that just led 400 members of the
House to vote for flood relief, including $100 a week for job-training recipients. Because spending can't be cut,
they keep telling us, taxes have to be
higher regardless of damage to the
economy.
How can Mr. Clinton and the Democrats keep a straight face while pontificating about the urgency of raising
taxes to close the deficit and at the
same time peddle the notion that the
government should hire the nation's
kids? The only way to cut the deficit is
to reduce spending. And before you
can start cutting old spending, you
have to keep yourself from creating
new spending. The government will
never cut its deficit if it keeps assuming vast new responsibilities.
�W^/,^
p.
0 t
7
/
n
'Our Part'
P
RESIDENT CLINTON had promised to
protect besieged United Nations peacekeepers in Bosnia, if asked, and so he could
not possibiy say no when the request came.
French ground troops have been under hostile
Serb tire at Sarajevo, one of six U.N.-designated
"safe areas" for Muslims, and Amencan aircraft
assigned to NATO now will be dispatched to
defend them. Some important particulars of planning and consultation evidently remain to be
done, but it is expected that the United States
will start providing air cover in Sarajevo within
the next several days. This is not the solution to
every problem of American policy in the Balkans,
but it is a right and necessary thing to do.
Mr. Clinton said yesterday that he didn't know
whether American intervention would be enough
to deter aggression, save Sarajevo and bnng the
parties to the table—actually, they're already at
the table—but that we in the United States would
do "our part." It has never been entirely clear just
what he considered "our part" to be. and is not
now. In any event, the evidence of the past few
days is that it may be a somewhat changeable and
flexible thing. The entry of American forces into
battle, under whatever terms, is bound to be an
event in the Yugoslav wars. It compels all the local
parties to recalculate their policies in light of what
they think the Amencans might do next. In
particular, the Serb attackers, who are in their
second year of murdering the people of Sarajevo,
must now decide whether they wish to add Amencans to their list of targets.
To send Amencans into combat, even on a
restncted mission, is always a grave decision for
an American commander in chief, and it is a
particularly delicate one for this president. He
must deal with a public numbed by the death and
suffering in Bosnia but uncertain about its impact
on the American national interest and wary of
being drawn into a deeper engagement.
The dispatch of air cover for U.N. peace-keepers, however, does meet the principal criteria
that Mr. Clinton laid down for a military role: a
limited and purposeful mission undertaken under
U.N. resolutions and in full consultation with the
alhes; presumably there will also be full consultation with Congress and the American people as
well. By helping to firm up the "safe areas" for
Bosma's Muslims, the United States can
strengthen their negotiating position and save
lives. Most of all, it can demonstrate that it has
not turned its back on the Balkan agony.
The U.S. is doing all it can
The United States isn't about to do now what it
has refrained from doing for a year or more—take
decisive action to save Bosnia as a nation.
Secretary of State Warren Christopher made the
U.S. position abundantly clear Wednesday, teUing reporters that the "United States is doing all that it
can. consistent with our national interest."
The message was no revelation. For practical purposes, the U.S. has given up on Bosnia, despite President Clinton's insistence to the contrary. "We're continuing to work" for a solution, he said Thursday.
But the president, like everyone else, is operating
within the context of Bosnia's imminent military de, feat. There's no thought of turning the tide.
Christopher's statement was prompted by the worsening plight of Bosnia's Muslim-led government
. and of the people of besieged Sarajevo. The city has
come under renewed bombardment from Serb forces
in what may be the final phase of the 16-month war.
Serbs have had the upper hand for some time, and
are increasingly allied with Croat fighters in
battling for towns and territory to claim for their
own ethnic groups—and to "cleanse" of Muslims.
The only future for Muslim communities would
^appear to lie in a plan to partition Bosnia along
•ethnic lines. It has been advanced by the Croat and
Serb sides but so far rejected by the Muslims.
Clinton took a stab at effecting a different outcome, dispatching Christopher to Europe to talk up
a plan for lifting the weapons embargo to help the
Muslims. When the Europeans disagreed, Christopher backed off and Clinton soon turned to other
matters while putting the onus on Europe.
Still, the appearance of weak leadership notwithstanding, Clinton kept the U.S. about where it
should be: on the sidelines. Washington shouldered
humanitarian-relief duties but wisely resisted
engaging troops in a foreign military venture with
dangerously hazy objectives and no visible endpoint.
Government decision-makers never identified a
vital national interest to justify greater American
involvement in Bosnia. This goes for the present administration and George Bush's.
In any case, common sense says that the Bosnian
war should be Europe's problem. Yet the members
of the European Community haven't been able to
agree to do anything except contribute UN
peacekeepers. This is true despite the Balkan
refugees spilling Europe's way.
Whether a similar scenario, one full of highsounding and hope-filling rhetoric ultimately unsupported by meaningful action, will play out in the
next Bosnia-like crisis—and there will be more of
them—ought to be under consideration already in
European capitals, at the UN and in Washington.
Bosnia can be a valuable learning experience if
international leaders, rather than indulging in wholost-Bosnia recriminations, dig out the lessons it
holds. With effort and luck, they might learn to do
more than brace for a sad endgame.
�Lurching Again r
Earlier this year the U.S. lurched toward direct military involvement in the
shattered remnants of Yugoslavia. President Clinton rattled sabres. After several
weeks of hints of U.S. force to come, he prudently took no unilateral action. Has the
lurching resumed?
"I'm very upset by the shelling in Sarajevo," said Clinton yesterday. He also
said if asked by the United Nations he would commit U.S. air power to protect UN
forces in Sarajevo from Serbian shelling. France, whose troops have come under
fire, would like to see air cover begin "as rapidly as possible." Indeed, by now allied
pilanes could be strafing Serbian positions.
About the situation in Bosnia, some thoughts:
— U.S. military involvement in this war of European making always has
seemed a problematic proposition. When the U.S. employs force, it must do so
decisively from the moment intervention begins. Gradualism would doom efforts in
the Balkans as surely as it doomed U.S.
efforts in Vietnam. Decisiveness does
not, characterize current (or past)
policy.
> — If the window for U.S. inter>
•
vention ever stood open, circumstances long since have slammed it
shut. Each succeeding "peace" plan
merely validates each succeeding Serbia (and Croatian) advance.
' ; — When the UN deploys force in
eombat zones, it has a duty to defend the troops on the scene. If Sebian artillery
targets French positions, then air attacks should strike at the shelling's source. The
distressing suspicion is that while air strikes might temper Serbian behavior, any
positive results seem unlikely to endure.
— Regarding all uses of U.S. force, the inevitable question asks: "What if?"
What if the Serbs shot down a U.S. plane? What if they shot down several? What if
France (or the UN) asked the U.S. to contribute ground forces? No administration
— Republican or Democrat — has arightto place the military on the firing line until
it answers such questions, and until it explains to the citizenry its goals and the
possible consequences of its actions.
Westem policy toward Bosnia is more confusing than the map of the mosaic
that was Yugoslavia. The UN apparently believes the situation is sufficiently grave
to send peacekeepers (whose job is to keep the Serbians in check), but not so
sufficiently grave to lift the embargo on arms sales to the Bosnian Muslims. It
makes no sense.
y
�Todays debate is on the
I
BOSNIA
and whether the U.S. can help bring it to a halt
USA can still help Bosnia
— and future Bosnias
agreement to partition Bosnia. The odds
are long against it though, so Washington and its alhes must push for acceptance of something less: the havens
scheme. And once accepted, WashingTwo months ago. the U.N. Security ton must bereadyto lead the deployCouncil voted to create six Muslim "safe ment of a U.N. sanctuary-defense force.
havens" in war-banered Bosnia. Now,
Why us? Because no other source of
Serb marauders are closing in on Saraje- true leadership has yet arisen — not in
vo, and Westem govemments. includ- Europe, where the diplomatic mood has
ing our own. continue tofretand dither, attimesbeen an ugly conglomeration of
squandering one of the few remaining bluster and appeasement; and not in the
-opportunities to curtail thefightingin United Nations, which seems to want to
that pathetic country.
act but which is constrained by the abWhat to do? Some say ignore it all. sence of strong leadership.
Let Bosnia be Bosnia, they say.
So it's up to President Ointon. And
But that's no solution. Abandonment regardless of the various pohtical obstawould doom thousands of Bosnian cles, he must not fail If the administraMuslims torapeand murder as more tion does not make a forceful gesture
powerful Serb and Croat factions carve now — even one thatrequiresa comup the country. Worse, abandonment mitment of troops to an international
would embolden every genocidal thug ground force — it will doubtless surrenon the planet If the champions of collec- der Bosnia to a hideous fete.
tive security — the USA, Europe, the
Worse, it will undercut the promise of
United Nations — can't do any better collective security upon which the worid
than mutter about what a good thing now depends. Once that message is sent
peace is, few despots will be deterred. and heard, Bosnia may well be just the
Fortunately, useful intervention still is terrible beginning of a terrible age.
possible. The warring parties are set to
meet in Geneva Tuesday to work on an • U.N. basefiredon, 7A
As a matter at leadOUR VIEW ership and security,
the United States must engage
itself on the ground in Bosnia.
Avoid messes like Bosnia
lives and treasure in a multitude of parochial conflicts that have httle or no relevance to the security of the USA
There will be many Bosnias in the
post-Cold War era. Indeed, there are
As Bosnia enters the final throes of more than 30 civil wars or cross-border
disintegration, armchair interventionists conflicts at the moment Fighting rages
stillrefusetorecognizethe limits of in Afghanistan, Angola, Azerbaijan,
Geoigia, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan,
American power. Not
to mention only the bloodiest examples.
only would they enMost of those struggles reflect ancient
tangle the USA in imethnic or religious hatreds or territorial
practical schemes to
grievances. Bosnia, for example, was
provide "safe hanever a viable country, merely a battlevens" for the defeated
ground where Serbs, Croats and MusMuslims, but they
lims periodically slaughtered one anothcourt involvement in
er for centuries. The notion that the
future Bosnias,
By T*d Oaten
Advocates of a hy- Cmpmrtm, direc- USA, acting alone or through the United
peractivist policy in- tor of foreign pol- Nations, can impose order on such a turbulent worid is infantile arrogance.
sist that if Washing- icy studies at
Policymakers should insist that US.
ton had intervened Cato Institute.
armed forces be used solely to defend
early and decisively
in Bosnia, that country could have been the vital security interests of the Ameripreserved as a stable multiethnic state. can people. A high threshold ought to be
They conclude that the USAmust exert required before a conflict is deemed serigreater leadership, induding a willing- ous enough to warrant intervention by
ness to use force, when similar problems the USA. Most Bosnia-styte struggles,
however tragic they may befixthe pararise elsewhere.
That is a blueprint for squandering tidpants, will neverreachthat threshold.
|U.&
OPPOSING VIEW I forcas
should bo used solely to defend
the sacurtty Interests of tha USA.
�2 8.
9
3
1 C
O 3
GAYS IN MILITAR
New policyfaces appropriate constitutiona
ust as President Bill Qintsa tries tooak are t b e t d to no such reanaiuu.
u p ce
dose the doset d o oo the ime cf US. Attaney General Janet Reno I
or
gays in the nattary, iawyen repre-aanred tbe presdent and the Defense
senong seven hnmoMgtal icrvice- Deuutiueut dot the new p b y can b
oc
e
bave asserted a stubborn reality: defended agunst mmtmnvnal chaUenge.
By
My e
a e
Socle denying gayi therightto be judged a b ifae'arigttf,but it m y w n be tha
on the baau of tlieir conduct and its comeoneither the old nor the new p Uy can stand
oc
tion with miliary service, the govasmeat to «xh a review. Thrf• w y w have a
h e
is d n m equal protection oi the Inn on aattetkn and court*.
ey g
the bass of sexual onentttm.
Interpreted sensibly! judging people o
n
0 * PnrriraHtiai <i writaig
the ban of conduct — hetrroefxial or hw, aoaetsnM jodgee lare to sort
h m M u l —»ia a more dfltaMbte WIIWIMI they've ben true tottehighest
o o Ka
standod than t^nng tofigureoift theasiBl pondpiee ot ov Ccodtutkn andtew. Our
o e H o of suii&sy penoanaL But the tyttemii butt en protecting iodhriduale
nn D n
J m Quefa of Stafl a d CoogreH best that e u o m g deoocntic rub.
o t
n
wB
standard as they persuaded Mr. CSaton be TTM debete cwr hoppeeoBty and the
could g n further than "dont aak, don't
o o
mffitary haa to ba beeed on uaiKlimimal
tell" as a way o handling the qosbcn. priadpiet Hut teat is appropriate a d
f
n
Speechrestricuanafor military peopie notMceaaary aa the ndecy tries to work
on duty look questionable when beterowx*
j
S
0
1
tlMM^fc
Chnitiin
Sc/erict
SjoAiivr
0 0 1
A l l
it. . ^.
7/23
Access to Military Service
1 HE policy on homosexuals and
the military announced by
President Clmton this week
was based on his notion that individuals have a right to an opportunity to
serve in the armed forces if, given the
military's unique needs and demands,
that is where their sense of service
and talents leads them. At the same
time he affirmed "the individual's responsibility to conform to the high
standards of military conduct."
A key issue has been whether those
who identify themselves as homosexuals can be compatible with military
service. The political process is an unsatisfactory
forum for weighing the
social, moral, and spiritual
issues implicit in that question. The policy debate will go on with
the recognition that while many have
been dismissed from the service for
homosexual behavior many others
have served and are serving with distinction. That the Pentagon elected to
stop
administrative
discharges,
including those for alleged homosexuals, during the Gulf war suggests that
the current debate may be one the
country can afford only in peacetime.
Yet the unit cohesion that serves
the military in combat is built in
peacetime. Now that the president has
set the policy, with the support of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and presuming
Congress does not alter it, the Pentagon must implement it in ways that
protect the dignity of all concerned.
This will be difficult, given the strong
T
feeling expressed over the last sue
months as the policy took shape, but
not impossible.
Mr. Clinton s changes appropriately focus on conduct. But they do so
in ways sufficiently contradictory that
the policy is vulnerable to constitutional challenges on free-speech and
equal-protection grounds. For example, if a homosexual publicly announces he or she is gay, the policy
states that this action carries a "rebuttable presumption" of homosexual
conduct, which is prohibited. Yet that
same individual can participate out of
uniform in a gay parade or
spend off-duty time at a gay
bar - both public activities without this initiating official inquiries about homosexual activity. The American Civil
Liberties Union is already set to test
the new policy in court, although the
White House and Pentagon claim that
the changes will stand up.
The policy's inconsistencies reflect
society's grappling with the larger issues of privacy, identity, and individual
rights in a democratic society rooted
ui the Judeo-Christian tradition. Seen
in that context, it is important that all
those who continue to engage the
issue inside and outside the military
do so without rancor or condemnation. For those who. like us, find scriptural guidance sufficient on the larger
moral questions involved, there
remains in that guide no support for
bigotry, intolerance, or disrespect of
the individual.
E IO I L
DT RA S
J .
�J — THE DAILY PRESS — Ashland. WI -
Friday, July 23. 1993
OPINION
In Our Opinion
Gay rights
In recent decisions, both were correct
ithin
major decisions were handed
W downdays, two equal rights for homosexuals.
regarding
First, President Clinton issued an executive order
modifying the military's ban on homosexuals. The second involved a state Supreme Court ruling in Colorado
striking down an anti-gay rights referendum.
Both decisions, though not identical, were correct.
The referendum approved in Colorado was nothing
short of a license to practice discrimination. It does not
matter if the group singled out was homosexuals, blacks,
Mexican-Americans or left-handed people. It opened
the door to isolating an identifiable group and permiting
anyone to create hardship. Once open, the door remains
open for any such group.
We suspect that the referendum was fueled by AIDS
hysteria. But the voters in Colorado didn't just identify
homosexuals with AIDS, they blamed them for it. Perhaps they felt if gays were isolated they could contain the
disease.
That's wishful thinking. AIDS is not exclusively a
homosexual illness.
linton's decision to modify the military's ban on
homosexual enlistment was not purely a legal decision. Politics played into it, and in this case rightfully.
Gay rights activists complained that at best Clinton's
decision did not truly end the ban. At worst, they say, it
changes nothing.
There is political reality to consider. That reality
indicated that an outright end to the ban would not pass
Congress. Sometimes you take what you can get.
An outright end to the ban would have also created
turbulance within the ranks of the military. That's a
legitimate consideration. Effectiveness of fighting forces
is a concern and exceptions to the rules more severe
than a ban on homosexuals have withstood legal challenges in the past.
At the same time, Clinton's decision brought the
question into play and focused a spotlight on military
policy. The true test will come when the next time a
military recruit takes his hatred out on a homosexual
recruit. The question is not how the policy is worded, but
how it is enforced.
C
?0
�War and Peace inthe Middle East/
With luck, the deadly exchanges of bombs and
rockets now raining down on civilian populations on
both sides of the Israeli-Lebanese border won't blow
up the Middle East peace talks. Stopping the negotiations would perversely reward the very group that
triggered the latest cycle of violence — the radical
Lebanese Party of God, whose guerrillas killed
seven Israeli soldiers stationed on Lebanese soil
earlier this month in a calculated effort to undermine the talks.
With that danger in mind, Damascus has prudently restrained its own forces in Lebanon even
though Syrian soldiers have been killed in the
fighting. Showing less restraint, Israel is deliberately trying to force tens of thousands of Lebanese
civilians to flee northward, in the hope this will
somehow pressure Beirut and Damascus to crack
down on the Party of God.
But violence, particularly on such a large scale,
can develop its own terrible momentum. Twice
before, in 1978 and 1982, Israeli retaliatory raids on
Lebanon escalated into bigger battles, with unhappy consequences all around.
Washington is thus right to Uke this latest
crisis extremely seriously, rushing Secretary of
State Christopher back from Asia for urgent consultations with President Clinton before he sets off for
the Middle East this weekend.
Mr. Christopher's original goal of revitalizing
the peace ulks suddenly takes on new urgency. The
Israeli, Lebanese, Syrian and Jordanian Governments, along with the Palestinian negotiators, all
THE NEW VORK TIMES
feel they have a suke in keeping the talks going. But
that may not be enough.
With radical Islamic rejectionists like the Party of God and Hamas working to raise the level of
violence and with the ulks sulemated over core
issues like Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, pohtical support for peace in the region could begin to
melt away before year's end.
Mr. Christopher faces a formidable challenge.
He has no magic powers to create a negotiating
breakthrough. Only the Middle Eastern parties
directly concerned can do that Yet he, and his boss,
BUI Clinton, will be held politically accounuble if
the ulks break down.
What former Secreury of Sute James Baker
put together with the smoke and mirrors he called
"constructive ambiguity" must now be sustained
through grit and hard work. Perhaps Mr. Christopher can help Israelis and Palestinians find a way
to ulk about self-government in the West Bank and
Gaza without tripping over final territorial definitions. Maybe he can unlock Israel and Syria from
their mutual insistence that the other go first in
spelling out a Golan Heights deal Even better
would be a recharging of the will to compromise,
worn down by months of interruptions and delay.
The only alternative to negotiated peace is now
specucularly on view on both sides of the IsraeliLebanese frontier. The grim horror of that alternative has properly concentrated the minds of American sutesmen. May it do the same for their Arab
and Israeli counterparts, before it is too late.
1
WEDNESDAY,
JULY 28. 1993
z
•AW. *:
Hezbollah's Conceit
I
T IS THE conceit of Hezbollah (Tarty of
God"), the Iran-aided terrorist group, that by
provoking Israel it can derail the Arab-Israeli
peace talks. This is foohsh. Hezbollah's opposition to
the talks is not in doubt Bat on both sides, these
talks express a larger official and popular commitment that is beyond the easy reach of terrorist upset
Still, once military forces wheel into action in the
Middle East, no one can be entirely sanguine about
what might ensue. That is reason enough for concern about the week's violence. From their sanctuary in Syria-dominated Lebanon, Hezbollah guerrillas
had recendy killed seven Israeli soldiers in the slice
of the country that Israel controls, and had rocketed
border settlements in Israel proper. Israelis responded with powerful assaults aimed at punishing the
guerrillas and raising the costs to Lebanon of failing
to keep its territory guerriHa-free. North and south
of the border, civilian casualties have been recorded
and several hundred thousand villagers displaced
from their homes.
A. familiar pattern is evident here. Lebanon's
government, weakened by dvil war and foreign
intervention, cannot perform the first function of
sovereignty of controlling its own territory. If it
could, there is every reason to think that Lebanon,
desperately tiying to rebuild, would leash the guerrillas Iran and Syria sponsor, in their respective
fashions, on its territory.
*" '
. • '•
Israel is then led to protect its; borders, as any
nation would. But by taking over a sSce of Lebanon
for its own strategic purposes, JsraeT inflicts one
blow on its neighbor, and by its hot and heavy pursuit
of guerrillas well beyond that slice, it inflicts another
blow. Israelis of the right tend to see Lebanon as
Israel's to make over. Israelis of the left recall earlier
wars, especially the one in 1981, and see a quagmire.
But both Israeli factions support a negotiated peace.
It was helpful to have President Clmton reassert
the priority of the diplomatic track yesterday. It had
already been announced that Secretary of State
Warren Christopher was heading to the Middle East
next week; Mr. Clinton had the secretary cut short
an Asia trip to retum to Washington first. The
United States, eager for progress in the stalled talks,
wants to maintain its standing with'all the parties.
But was it necessary for the president to laud the
"commendable restraint" of Syria, which, though it
seems to have acted soberly with its own forces, has
a measure of responsibility for the guerrilla marauders who touched off this dangerous episode?
l,
iti
v
:
:
3
�_
'
Baft" Hv-ti - „
m
Ready for peace? Not Syria
Many public officials are
practiced in the art of talking
without saying anything, but
Secretary of State Warren
Christopher truly haa the act
down pat. Asked to comment
on Sunday's battle between Israeli forces and Arab radicals
in Lebanon, Christopher
came up with this:
"The violence is clearly
counterproductive as far as
the peace talks are concerned.
At the same time, I want to
emphasize that it is precisely
because of violence such as
that, that we are caused as the
co-sponsors, Russia and the
United States, to pursue very
urgently and aggressively
the peace process, because
the underlying problems"
and so forth and so on.
Most illuminating.
Just what does Christopher
mean by "the peace process,"
anyway? A government (or
other fighting force) is either
ready to make peace or it
isn't Until enemies agree that
their goal is to make peace
with each other — as the Nationalist Party and the African National Congress
agreed in South Africa, or the
FMLN communists and the
Cristiani government in E l
Salvador — talk of a peace
"process" is empty. Only after
the threshold decision to end
the enmity is locked in can
patient negotiators craft the
rules under which the former
enemies will live together.
It doesn't work in the other
direction. Ten rounds of the
Arab-Israeli "peace process,"
and Christopher is no closer
to announcing a peace treaty
than James Baker ever was.
And behind the crossborder raids on Sunday lies
part of the reason why: Syria.
Israel's raids were a response to weeks of rocket attacks from the other direction. The attacks have come
from Hezbollah's religious
terrorists and Ahmed Jibril's
Palestinian terror cadre.
Both seek to wipe Israel off
the map. Both vow to sabotage the "peace process." And
both operate in Lebanon with
Syria's support — for nothing
happens in Lebanon unless
Damascus approves.
Yet Syria is a full partner in
the negotiations with Israel.
Whatever its reasons for joining the peace talks, making
peace isn't among them. So
why does Christopher pretend it is? If he wants to incubate a real peace process,
turning off the fog and telling
the truth about Syria would be
a step in the right direction.
�jr-J I C.N-~R I SU € MEi-iSPOCM
TO
UHITE HOUSE
Controlling immigration
Clinton plan should discourage almses
r isicent Clinton ; immiprration
reform package strikes a p-oper balance between the need
to crack down on growing
s buses and the funaamental
Amencan tradition of ah open door for
legal immigrants.
A key element of the administraticn's
plan is aimed at eliminating illegal cargoes of Chinese workers who are crueliy
exploited by employers in this country
and by organized smuggling gangs
abrotd. But the biggest impact in San
Diego- will tome from the president's
endorsement of 600 additional Border
Patrol agents along the Southwest
border.
About half of 'Jie illegal immigrants
apprehended by the Border Patrol each
year enter through Sin Diego County.
But there are only 1.000 agents assigned
td the sprawling San Diego sector today,
including 200 new agents added in the
last year.
This force is stretched far too thin to
contain the tens of thousands of undocumented migrants who cross the border
here eich month.
Clinton's acknowledgement that the
Border Patrol is "breathtakingly understaffed" marks an accomplishment of
sorts for members of San Diego s congre*s:onal delegation, who Jong have
pressed for increased Border Patrol
funding.
Even before the Clinton plan was announced, th* House had approved an
amendment to boost.the Border Patrol's
P
staff by 600. The administration's original budget for nest year actually called
for a decrease in the Border Patrol's
force of 3,500 agents.
At least half of the new agents are
expected to be assigned to theSaii Diego
sector. That will amount to a pertonneJ
increase of nearly one-third at a time
'A-hen apprehensions in San Diego County
are running 5 percent below last year.
Local agents consider that encouraging
progress, particularly in light of dcubkP
digit increases in apprehensions record*.
ed along the Arizona and Ttocas border in
1993.
The administration's reform package
includes balanced proposals to stream- line the processing of political asylum
claims and to weed out the gtowing num^
ber of frivolous and fraudutent'claims.-'
Among the measures are-increased penalties for smugglers and the extension of
anti-racketeering laws to immigration violations, ' thefeby giving prosecutors
more tools to go after organized cartels
that .traffic in illegal workers. '
None of these changes would infringe
on therightsof immigrants who enter
the United States legally. Nor would they-x
dimihisK this country's noble commjt*
ment to providing a safe refuge lot legitimate victims of political persecution around the globe.
;v
Clintoa's constructive leadership. on .
this politically volatiie issue ought to hedp^
defuse the troubling rise in aflttfmmigt%*
tion sentiment — in San Diego; ahd elsewhere .
v. . - ...
. ,-rw..
P.C2
�FROM DMN
EDITORIRL
27.28.1993
18 180
P. 2
•dltoriil29 •Compotlt* Proof 7/28/93 2:33 0:18
BURL OUORNI. hiM$b$r tnd tuner
JBRIMY L. HALBRUCM. Prmtoni
tnd Otatftl hUntpr
IMJH LANOSR. Stnior Viet mudini/Xjfoutiv* Sdiior
WILUAM W. KVANI Uttout/rt MtBtglai Sditor
RMKRT W. MONO JR. Muutj/n* Uiror
RTNA PBOMJON, V/ct Prttidtnt/XdHoriil Pag* gdlw
Swlor Viet Prtttdtittt
J. WILUAM COX. Optrtuoai tad Admtnittntitm
Thursday, July 29,1993
arouitMoa
•
V/ct Pntldtms
RJCHARO STAAXI, Advtmtln$
BARRY PKKHAM. CtreuUUoD
PRANK MCKNIOKT.
BARBARA VAM PB.T. UvlnUas
RBOINALD K. BROWN, FiLtact
i AMB M. CORWU. Production
OROVIR D. UvwirroN. ia/or««UM Mauf«a«ni
BLLBN SILVA WnJON. Miunaa Kwoarott
DtAN H. BLYTKK, Spocitl Pn>j*aM
NANCY BARRY. CommonltrStmet
EDITORIALS
IMMIGRATION
Clinton plan a solid first step, but only that
With undocumenud newcomen coniinu- authorize use of wiretaps In alien smuggling
ing to crash U.S. borden and fanatical new- investigations, and expand the authority to
comer! abuiing genaroui immigration and seise the assets of smuggltn
aiylum laws, President CUnton i plan to
* Expand cotnputerited Information gathshore up immigration law enforcement It ering at UJ. embassies and consulates, and
prudent and welcome. But the prasldent and expand cooperative programs with foreign
Congress must also move swiftly to plug thagovernments and airline companies to preloopholes In existing laws to discourage ille- vent improperly documented passengers
gal immigration In the workplace.
from boarding aircraft headed for the
In tht rush to confront a deadly triad United States.
comprised of terrorists, ocean-bound alien
Mr. Clinton's comments reflect a keener
smugglers called 'snakeheads' and border understanding of the problems and prosmuggltrs called "coyotts,* Americans cesses facing the federal immigration
should also be concernad about the danger authorities than any previous president In
of a reaction against Immigrants them- memory. But the White Houae and Congresa
selves. Mr. Clinton struck Just the right note should now follow through In a bipartisan
when he noted that " e must say no to ille- spirit to craft entirely new legislation
W
gal immigration so we can continue to say daaigned to eliminate gimmicks in current
yes to legal immigration.'
asylum law.
The presldent'i plan calls for Congresa to
Even though the Border Patrol must be
appropriate S172.5 million in 1994 so that the beefed up, plugging fraudulent document
following measures can be taken:
loopholes tn the existing employer sanc• Hire up to 600 new agents for the Border tions law would be even more effective. Mr.
Patrol and purchase needed equipment and Clinton knows immigration control is a longtechnology.
term process; there is no 'magic bullet."
• Double the prison sentences for alien Employers and Illegal job seekers should be
smugglers convicted under the Racketeer- sent a message that the laws will be
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, enforced.
34
�Wonking away with Al Gore
firing a federal employee. They'd cover a large
conference table "to the ceiling," Gore said, "and
they weigh 1.088 pounds. The comparable volume
of material at the Saturn plant in my state is about
20 pages." That sort of regulatory overkill, he says,
adds tremendously to the cost of government
while dragging down its efficiency.
There*s a kindly rumor around that when Tipper
Gore wants Vice President Al Gore's attention, the
sweet nothings she whispers have to do with
"performance review." "government decentralization." "employee empowerment" and "culture
change." The rumor could be true: During a conversation with Gore Monday afternoon, he was
most expressive on the subject of making government work better. Listen for a while, and you
come away impressed that if anyone can make
government work better, maybe he's the one.
His effort will be different from those failed previous attempts at reform, Gore says, because he's
working "from the inside," unleashing the creative
power of federal employees themselves to redesign
At President Clinton's request. Gore is leading the how they work, and avoiding the antagonism
National Performance Review, an "intensive, six- directed at preachy outside consultants.
month study" to make government "work better
and cost less." This isn't the first such effort, Gore Gore has a point: The current quality movement
acknowledges. He admits to looking over the fruits that underlies his effort is different from previous
of 500 similar.studies, most of which have had reform theologies. It emphasizes reform that flows
zero lasting impact. Gore thinks he can do better, up, is flexible and respects common sense. It
and he builds a potent argument that the country doesn't impose answers; it empowers employees to
develop their own — and to keep improving on
badly needs him to do better.
them. That creates an unusual chance for success
Gore tells, for example, of assembling a copy of which Gore recognizes and is eager to exploit. He
every federal regulation that bears on hiring or may not succeed, but don't bet against him.
Learning Experience
« * P J ^ •J™*"*"
Washington's likely has vowed to streamline
S E T S ; ^
, .
^Paign to make the federales more
efficient. Who does not wish him well?
G o r e
h e a d
f
1 3 8
l
s
t h e
c u r r e n t
l
t 0
q U e s t i o n
co
rL» ^ L ^ f i
f ^
ngressional intrusion into mundane
^e^™
iw
S
^ Washington Post,
•Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, for example, has found to his surprise that he
is under orders from Congress to maintain 23 positions in the Wilkes-Barre
t 0
B n m C h
AcCOrdin
t 0
$,100,000 this year training beagles in Hawaii to sniff out brown tree snakes ''
Gore says, "Micromanagement is a very serious problem." When Congress
compels the Interior Department to train snake-sniffing beagles, it limits the
department s manuervability elsewhere - thereby encouraging inefficiencies
By the way, before ascending to the vice presidency. Gore served 10 years in
toe House and eight m the Senate. And even he admits that "it's amazing what a
difference six months makes in one's perspective." Presidents Reagan and Bush
thank him very much.
�^
k i Oct
Where the best help is self-help
When President Clinton last spring appointed a
national commission to assess how Washington
.might help the ailing airline industry, there were
fears the panel wonld be tempted to launch a retum
to government control of routes and fares.
In a recent preliminary report, however, the National Commission to Ensure a Strong, Competitive
Airline Industry wisely resisted the temptation to
reregulation. It offered instead a menu of more
modest suggestions to help an industry that has lost
more than $10 billion in the past three years.
The commission wisely observed that the airlines
will be aided most by a stronger economic recovery
" and their own cost-cutting and debt reduction.
But it added that Washington can lend a hand by
easing some regulations, encouraging increased foreign investment and reforming bankruptcy laws to
speed the reorganization of failed airlines. More dubiously, the panel also called for tax relief and some
tightening of government oversight.
The recommendations aimed at helping airlines
help themselves make sense, but special tax treatment for the industry is another matter. The fact is
that there is no evidence that taxes have caused the
industry's financial swoon and no reason to think
easing taxes will revive it.
A rollback of the federal ticket tax might be justified as, at best, a temporary cash-boosting measure.
But tax credits or fuel-tax exemptions likely would
become merely permanent, unjustified subsidies.
-; Subsidies, of course, never come without a price.
Led by New York investment banker Felix Rohatyn,
a subcommittee of the airlines commission explored
giving the government, more power to inquire into
and affect airline financial decisions. In the end,
however, the commission suggested only the creation of a financial advisory committee to help the
secretary of transportation review the financial status of airlines and evaluate proposed mergers.
Some worried that this committee would be the
first step down the slippery slope to reregulation.
But the advisory group would have no enforcement
powers and the secretary no new controls. "We're
trying to do something about the industry's unsatifactory financial condition without getting into reregulation," explained Rohatyn.
Indeed, the commission, to its credit, explicitly recognized the benefits of deregulation and refused to
pin the industry's woes on it.
It did, however, cite many other contributing factors—rising costs, overly optimistic expansion plans;
insolvent airlines that linger in bankruptcy and distort competition; rumous fare wars and too many
seats chasing too few passengers.
But the panel correctly noted that the industry
"must bear its fair share of the burden f o r its current" plight. And, in fact, most of that litany of factors qualify more as challenges to management than
as arguments for new governmental policies.
Washington can be of help to the airline industry.
But for the most part, this is a case where the best
help is self-help.
Clinton panel's ideas take flight
more passengers than in pre-deregulation days,
while piling up heavy losses. The impact of price
wars, economic recession and soaring fuel costs,
try that can't be fixed by government intervention. among other contributing factors, was measured.
But, as if to reassure those who believe deregu- The commission should not be faulted because it
lation must not be made the scapegoat for the air- took its job seriously.
lines' financial woes, the commission declined
Nor should its proposals be disregarded merely
even to consider recommending a return to govbecause they might be considered controversial.
emment controls on fares and routes.
One that is sure to inspire debate — and some
But for true free marketeers, there is reason to philosophical hostility on Capitol Hill — would pry
question, if not oppose, some remedies suggested the nation's air traffic control system out of the
in the commission's preliminary report issued last clutches of the Federal Aviation Administration
week. Various forms of tax relief, for instance, and hand it to a self-financed, independent corcould be construed as federal subsidies for private poration. It's an idea that should be thoroughly excorporations that have made bad commercial deci- plored.
sions. And a proposal that the government set up a
special advisory committee to peer into carriers' fiIndeed, the commission has produced an interim
nancial restructurings, mergers and acquisitions — report that is sound in its assessment of the scope
possibly an indirect form of regulation — should of the industry's problems, and hardly outrageous
be viewed with reserve.
in its recommendations for change. Some of its
Realistically, however, the commission could be findings have more merit than others, but all desaid to have addressed fairly the very issues that serve careful consideration by the administration
haw reshaped U.S. airlines into entities that carry and Congress.
Bill Clinton's commission to rescue
P residenttherestruggling airlines appears toindusthe nation's
have
concluded
is nothing wrong with the
�A8- WEDNESDAY, JULY 28. 1993
iRicl)inonb Cimcs-Dispaklj
VIRGINIA'S NEWS LEADER
f
No Gridlocksmith
It is now clear that Bill Clinton is no good at picking gridlocks. During his
campaign for the presidency, he vowed that he and his fellow Democrats who
control Congress would cooperate to achieve legislative progress that had been
stymied by friction between Congress and Republican President George Bush. But
by Clinton's own admission, gridlock is still there, blocking movement on his major
programs.
Congress has been tinkering with the President's economic plan for what, to
him, seems like an eternity. It is not acting with enthusiastic speed on his proposal
for a national service plan. And it is moving too slowly to
suit him to confirm the appointment of his SurgeonGeneral.
"This institutional delay and gridlock," he complained to a conference in Chicago, "is bad for America."
Well, exactly who's to blame? A heckler in the
audience had itright:Bill Clinton is at fault
"How can you talk about gridlock," the heckler
asked, "when the Democrats have control of Congress?
Why don't you take some leadership?"
Clinton's programs have encountered time-consuming resistance in Congress primarily because they
were so defective when they arrived that not even the
dtntttn
.
Democrats could accept them. This is especially true of
thr Prfesident's budget and tax proposals, which are fraught with potentially
daip^gyig implications for the nation's economy. The fear of higher taxes already
h4»had a chilling effect on businesses and consumers alike. Congress is not finding
itieasy to transform the Clinton plan into an acceptable program.
-Since the Democrats possess the numerical strength to approve any and
ever^ pleasure the Democratic President proposes, the persistence of gridlock
must be a reflection of their own lack of confidence in the leadership of a man who
has shown poor judgment on issue after issue. It is also a reflection of the public's
lack of confidence in Clinton. If he were more popular with the people, he would
have more clout with Congress, which is always conscious of the opinion polls.
Buck-passing won't work for Bill Clinton. His programs are in trouble
because, simply put, he has failed as a gridlocksmith.
f
�It Need Not Be This Way
Suddenly It's no longer "Hallelujah- time for the
CUnton White House. Instead, the president is reduced to George Bush's old plaint of "gridlock and
delay" up on Capitol Hill, currently the scene of
another tawdry exercise in mal-govemment or mlsgovemment or non-government, take your pick.
By the end of this week, operating all alone, the
Democrats in control of both the executive and
legislative branches hope to conjure a budget bill
out of a hopelessly over-lobbied conference committee. Then, they plan to pass the measure next
week and race off to an August recess.
Nothing much new there, to be sure, and no
miracles in sight in the legislation that will finally
emerge. Defldt spending will be pared all of $100
billion a year on average, from $300 billion to $200
bilUon by the end of the next half-decade, which
wiU add another $1 trihlon to the national debt.
And whUe the country adjusts to new taxes and
spending cuts, the uncertainty that has plagued
business and discouraged new hiring wiU remain.
Why? Because health care reform, which will require new revenues from somewhere, will hang out
there as next year's fiscal question mark.
All this adds up to a vast letdown from the
heady hyperbole of the Clinton campaign. The
over-promiser of 1992 has become the over-compromiser of 1993, a leader either unable or unwilling to make things palpably better. His economic
package. If It actually redistributes wealth more
fairly, restores part of the revenue base and pro-
vides some "Investments" In the country's future,
will do so only marginally and with unpredictable
effects on the nation's economic growth.
How did this happen? Where lies the blame?
Because they are In charge, the Democrats have
much to answer for. Right at the start of the new
admmistration they spumed the Republicans, saying they didn't need them. Since then they have
been mainly negotiating among themselves, a
spectacle that exposes a badly fragmented party.
But if matters have reached a pretty low point
for Democrats, consider the depths to which the
Republicans have sunk. Instead of being the loyal
opposition, they are a negative apparition, a political force that has opted out of the game of mapping
the nation's fiscal policy. Not a single GOP legislator voted for the budget plans that squeaked
through the House and Senate. The Ironic result:
pending legislation is a lot more liberal than if It
had some Republican fingerprints. So what goes on
the law books at the end of this sad tale will be a
Democrats-only bill. That or a patched-up continuation of the status quo as a crippled administration
contemplates Its next three years In office.
It need not be like this. The Founding Fathers
did not plan it to be like this. American voters have
signaled again and again that they don't want it to
be Uke this. Meanwhile, the estabhshed American
political parties Invite the kind ofrepudiationthat
threatens their counterparts In other industrial democracies. And Ross Perot waits in the wings.
3?
�Sessions adjourned
tional banking scandal. Sessions rightly insisted
on an FBI probe into Justice's mishandling of the
money-laundering! conspiracy at the Banco NaFreeh as Sessions' successor, should begin to re- tional de Lavoro j — the Atlanta subsidiary of an
store the self-confidence of the leading federal law- Italy-based bank that secretly lent money to Iraq's
Saddam Hussein. Llustice has never explained how
enforcement agency.
Sessions had to depart. For six months, since he it mishandled that case so badly.
was charged with ethical misconduct by the JusRegrettably, Sessions declined Attorney General
tice Department's Office of Professional Responsi- Janet Reno's repeated efforts to let him resign
bility, Sessions had clung to power. During those gracefully. Sessions stood, with more personal demonths, the embattled Sessions lost the credibility fiance than pohtical decorum, on the principle that
to lead his agency.
only a president could fire an FBI director in the
The ethics report, issued by the Bush adminis- middle of his 10-year term. Reno, after months of
tration's departing Attorney General William Barr, needless delay, rightly urged Clinton to end the
included sharply worded charges of Sessions' ex- controversy.
travagance in- handling FBI money and in taking
Sessions' stint at the FBI was not without signifiimproper junkets. Sessions never persuasively recant accomplishments, especially his efforts to
futed any of Barr's allegations.
Granted, the timing and severity of Barr's ethics open the agency l!o women and minorities. It falls
investigation was suspicious: It began only after to Freeh to continue that progress — and to add a
Sessions had embarrassed the Bush administra- renewed sense of] purpose to a bureau of law-ention, in the middle ofthe 1992 campaign, by object- forcement professionals who still enjoy and deing to Justice's botched inquiry into an interna- serve the public's confidence.
resident Bill Clinton's dismissal this week of
FBI
and
P William S. Sessions asfederaldirector, Louisthe
nomination of respected
Judge
J.
1
Or. LO^AS % V -
J ^ ^ / i
Judge Freeh, At Last
Even taking into account the normal dose of
euphoria that accompanies a major nomination and
the sense of relief that the protracted saga of
William S. Sessions had finally ended, President Bill
Clinton's choice to head the Federal Bureau of
Investigation appears impressive. The combination
of Louis J. Freeh's experience as an FBI agent, a
federal prosecutor and, currently, a federal judge
should allow him to command the respect necessary
to restore the bureau to the prominence it needs.
Praising Judge Freeh as "street-smart," the president predicted that his selection will be "good and
tough — good for the FBI and tough on criminals."
Whoever takes over the bureau at this point in its
history will have to be both. As Mr. Sessions doggedly refused to step down in the wake of questions
about his financial dealings, leadership at the FBI
suffered, even as it achieved success in combating
domestic terrorism. Though Judge Freeh's scant
management experience may be the weakest aspect
of his background, his supporters say he will be able
to set the right tone because he was an agent
himself for six years and can identify with the
concerns of those under his direction.
As far as being tough on criminals, Mr. Clinton
and everyone else pointed to the prosecution of the
so-called "Pizza Connection" case, which Judge
Freeh handled when he was an assistant U.S. attorney in New York CityJ He won praise for his skill and
tenacity in breaking up the billion-dollar heroin ring,
yet also won grudging admiration from one of the
defense lawyers in the case for scrupulous attention
to the civil liberties of the defendants when questionable searches were involved.
Judge Freeh's selection should allow the FBI to
concentrate on its future. How can it best pursue
white-collar crime? Will it be able to fight terrorism
by operating in what the director-designate called
the "global village" of law enforcement? Can it help
balance the war on drugs between prosecution and
prevention? What police functions are best handled
at the federal level and which are best left to state
and local authorities? Will it erase past problems of
discrimination, to create a bureau that looks like
America and wins thej nation's confidence?
"Our country must be made safe again," Judge
Freeh declared in the White House Rose Garden
Tuesday. If he can reach that goal and still stay
within the rules, he will live up to Mr. Clinton's
description of him as a "law-enforcement legend."
�Fix, but Don't Kill, the N.E.D.
In a surprising turnabout in June, the House of
Representatives voted to kill funding for the NaUonal Endowment for Democracy. By Washington
standards, the money is trivial — $48 million — but
the principle is scarcely petty. Unless the Senate
decides otherwise this week, it will mark the end of
the N.E.D., which was established during the Reagan years to promote democracy abroad and is now
supported by President Clinton.
Opponents charge that the endowment is a
cold-war fossil whose mission has been compromised by its peculiar status as a private foundation
using public funds. They point with alarm to dubious
grants to right-wing trade unions or exile groups
favored by one or another of four "core" intermedianes who make the grants — the Republican and
Democratic parties, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. But one can acknowledge
the point and still wonder if the right remedy is to
scuttle the program rather than repair i t
Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, who led the
Houserebellion,called the endowment "an insult to
the Constitution" because it has provided tax mon-
ey to private groups to carry on foreign affairs. But
there has long been a workable partnership in
disaster relief, without anyone perceiving an insult
And the same House voted $127 million to subsidize
the overseas marketing of prunes, whisky, candy
and fruit juice, a form of private sector partnership
it found less offensive than helping democrats in
post-Communist and third-world countries.
It is nevertheless true that the endowment
needs a different strucmre. Mr. Clinton has defined
promotion of democracy as one of the pillars of U.S.
foreign policy. It is far better for both recipient and
donor if American help is openly provided. Those
aims could be achieved, and constitutional qualms
met, if the N.E.D. was reborn as a fully public
institution answerable to taxpayers through Congress or the President
Why not give the N.E.D. a fresh charter under a
blue-ribbon, pubhcly appointed board directly empowered to approve grants, thus removing private
groups from the scene? That's a more promising
approach than abandoning the field just when democrats elsewhere desperately need support
THB NEW YORK TIMES, TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1993
From Whom the Cuban Bell Tolls
The Clinton Administration has wisely relaxed
the economic embargo of Cuba to allow U.S. telephone companies to share toll revenues with the
Castro regime. This could end a cruel and senseless
game that has compelled Cuban-Americans in Miami to speak to relatives 90 miles away by routing
calls through Canada, which shares tolls with Havana. Yet there is another hurdle before the lines
open: Fidel Castro has to agree.
In complying with the embargo, American telephone companies have placed in escrow $80 million
owed to Cuba. Havana insists this money has to be
handed over before direct calls from Florida are
permitted. But one good turn deserves another:
Cuba can reciprocate Washington's gesture by
putting the escrow issue on hold. It could earn as
much as $15 million in the first year of the new
telephone operation and gain good will among exiles
who are eager to speak with cooped-up kinfolk.
The Clinton initiative is bound to draw fire from
hard-liners, who oppose letting the Castro regime
earn a nickel in hard currency. But now that Cuba
offers no security threat, why make life there even
harder? More openness, more contacts, more visits
would improve the chances for a peaceful transformation within Cuba — just as it did in Germany,
where the Bonn Government eased restrictions on
contacts with Communist East Germany. For the
first time in years, influential Cuban exiles are
saying just that.
If Fidel Castro rejects the Clinton overture, the
onus will be on him for refusing to open the windows
in fortress Cuba. Even that would be a welcome
change. Past policies have enabled Mr. Castro to
blame America for the miseries wrought by his own
dictatorial follies.
�A Good Idea in Hoiising
T
HE CLINTON administration is proposing a
The effect of these and other rules meant to
major change in tbe public bousing rent serve the poorestfirstwas to change the nature of
structure. It would ease the relatiooship public bousing. The median income of the nabooal
between rent and income. Under current rules, tenant population has declined. Increasmgiy the
whenever a tenant's income goes up, the govern- projects have become home to the poorest of the
ment consumes 30 percent ci the increase in rent poor, who are isolated there; cntics say they are
The "rent tax" atop all other taxes becomes a warehoused. The accompanying social prohlems
disincentive either to work or to get a better job or, have been a farther deterrent to tenants with a
if the tenant has such a job, to remain in public choice. Particulariy in the Reagan-Bosh years,
housing. The idea is to reduce the disincentive. pobcy makere were woot to deplore a problem that
Officials believe that, in the long run, tenants, policy had helped produce.
projects and the govenunent all wiO be better off.
The Clinton people propose two changes. One is
The public housing program dates from the an 18-moijth grace period if a tenant goes to work;
1930s. For years the standard in setting rents was the iDcrcsscd DCODC woukfa'tffmntio itptynp ^
that they should cover operating costs. Tbe federal rent The other woold give local offidals new authorgovernment had already paid the cost cf construc- ity to set ceffing rents. Rents woold oatfiuie to me
tion: the rental income would pay the rest The with income up to a point Beyond that the rent tax
problem was that the subsidy wasn't deep enough. would be smpmted. Hie theory is that tcnuts
Rents pegged to operating costs were higher than would bave a greater incentive to week, and mdmtria lot of poor people could afford.
ous tenants would have a greater incentive to ttatf.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the government bent to The social structure within the projects wodd be
need and began to set rents as a percentage of stronger, and in the end, the tenant population woold
tenant income instead. The originalfigure(tf 25 have more income on wfakfa the authurity coold
percent was raised to 30 percent by the Reagan draw. That beats the present ae&defcstmg aod
administration in 1981. Even so, the income-based defeatist pohcy; if it worio, it's a winner al
rents weren't enough to cover rising energy and As it is, the coontry has too iew sobadind
other operating costs, and the government has also units. The govennnent needs, if it can, to [
been giving local housing authorities operating the viabttty (tf the limited supply. TUi is a ^
subsidies since the mid-1970s.
step in the right direction.
,nu>
vAii^foi
Post
7/
Who Will Aid Foreign Aid?
1 HIS WAS supposed to be the year in which
America's foreign aid program expen_ enced the comprehensive restructuring
long sought bv supporters and opponents alike. It
was also to be the year in which a new administration committed to sustainable economic development and the eradication of poverty would
provide leadership in targeting aid money on
poorer nations that are taking the right measures
to raise living standards. Unfortunately, the opportunity for achieving both ends is fading fast. If
the moment is lost, the Clinton administration
will have itself to blame.
The time was ripe for addressing the host of
aid reform issues when the House Foreign Affairs Committee considered the foreign assistance authorizing legislation earlier this year.
Chairman Lee Hamilton and his Republican counterpart. Benjamin Oilman, had produced a firstrate reform package four years ago and were
eagerly awaiting an administration that had a
genuine interest in fixing foreign aid. But the
Clinton administration was unprepared to engage
the House in a senous discussion, despite earlier
pledges to have a restructuring plan ready for
Congress in the spring. The Senate Foreign
Relations Committee is faced with a similar
1
dilemma; it's ready to tackle the problems as
well. But the Hill has been stymied by interminable executive branch reviews and turf battles that
have left the reform plan languishing in the
in-boxes of senior bureaucrats.
Meanwhile, it's close to business as usual with
the foreign aid appropriations bill. As the administration meanders, the House has sent to the
Senate a spending bill that chops away at what is
already a tight aid request. The bill's huge
engines—aid to Russia, Israel and Egypt—almost guarantee that most of the administration's
money requests will safely pass through Congress in spite of overall budget constraints. But a
temble price is being paid as a result To make
room for these politically inviolable items, programs that serve the poorest of the poor—the
World Bank's International Development Association, AID'S Development Fund for Africa—had
to take serious hits in the House-passed bill.
What's worse, people in the world's poorest
nations must bear the burden of cuts in order to
fund aid to the International Fund for Ireland,
Portugal, Greece, Turkey and—unkindest of
all—$7 million for African elephant conservation.
Where is the administration?
U
�Clinton moves gingerly on Vietnam
The Clinton administration is being unnecessarily defensive about its recent openings
toward Vietnam. It has done nothing that
requires an apology to those Americans who,
justified or not, bear a grudge against Hanoi. If
anything, it is being too deferential to them.
There's no particular reason to think Warren
Christopher bas a hidden agenda in meeting
with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen
Manh Cam in Singapore on Sunday. After all,
Mr. Christopher's two predecessors as secretary of state both met with ranking Vietnamese
to no special effect.
The plan to station State Department personnel in Hanoi hardly means normalization is
imminent. They'll see to the interests of the
growing number of U.S. visitors to Vietnam
and allow the U.S. military people already
there to concentrate on MIA inqmries.
The release last week of a portion of captured Vietnamese documents to the Hanoi
regime was long overdue. The documents provide clues to the burial places of as many as
300,000 Vietnamese soldiers. It hardly seems
fair to berate Hanoi for a lack of cooperation
while holding back this information. The
Vietnamese cherish their fallen young men just
as we do ours.
And as for the recent White House decision
to end U.S. opposition to Hanoi's applications
for loans from die International Monetary Fund
and World Bank, that was merely in recognition that our alhes, impatient with our longstanding animus toward Viemam, were about
to outvote us on the issue.
Truth be told, U.S. pohcy toward Vietnam
seems hardly changed from the hard-nosed
attitudes of the Reagan-Bush years. Washington still insists on the "fullest possible accounting" of our MIAs — an arbitrary, easily manipulated standard if there ever was one — before
it considers ending Vietnam's economic and
diplomatic quarantine.
Washington continues to treat the Hanoi
regime like a Marxist monolith when in fact it
is sharply divided between hard-liners, who
may resent U.S. prying, and pragmatists who
yearn for decent relations, trade and aid. The
best strategy for achieving U.S. ends in East
Asia lies in strengthening the hand of the latter
with our understanding, not playing into the
hands of the former with our obstinacy.
Bali'Mo
J- 6
Warning Signs for the Jobs Summit
President Clinton's "Jobs summit" — a Camp
David gathering this fall of finance and labor ministers from the Group of Seven advanced industrial
countries — may provide some awkward moments
for administration advocates of higher minimum
wages, open-ended extension of Jobless benefits
and increased payroll taxes to pay for health care.
All increase the cost of labor and discourage new
hiring. On a scale much higher than that found in
the United States, they have long been a feature of
the European labor scene. Now the 24-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has come out with a report linking Europe's
double-digit unemployment rates with similar policies on the CUnton social agenda.
The OECD said long-term unemployment,
which has reached plague proportions in Europe, is
an outgrowth ofrigidlabor laws that discourage job
creation and of generous unemployment benefits
that gave the jobless scant Incentive to look for
work. Job growth in Europe, primarily in the public sector, has been slow to non-existent for a long
time. In the U.S.. in contrast, non-farm employment rose from 71 million in 1971 to 110 million
this year, a private-sector record attained, however,
at the cost of stagnant real wages,risingInequality
in income distribution and diminished Job security.
There wiU be little incentive at the >bs summit"
to trade negatives back and forth across the Atlantic. But fortunately, the organization has a few
positive suggestions that seem to find favor in U.S.
and European policy circles. One would be to
switch from the passive to the active in helping the
unemployed. Instead of putting so much stress on
Jobless benefits, govemments could require counseling, interviews and assistance in job searches.
They would put greater emphasis on education. Job
training, apprenticeships and longer-range employment — afieldin which Europe often excels.
The OECD figures, which show European unemployment climbing from 9.9 percent in 1992 to
11.9 percent In 1994, are the mirror image of a
U.S. Jobless rate going from 7.4 percent In 1992 to
6.5 percent in 1994 (and perhaps as low as 5.5
percent in Mr. Clinton's re-election campaign year,
1996). Japan with unemployment in the 2 percent
range would seem to be much better off. but only
last week a Japanese think tank figured that "real"
unemployment (counting those doing virtually
nothing on the job) is in the 6 percent range.
Because all the advanced countries obviously
have serious problems with unemployment, Mr.
Clinton's call for a "Jobs summit" when he was in
Tokyo was more than just a public relations gimmick to tie foreign and domestic policy together for
the benefit of voters back home. It could lead to
serious discussions comparable to the "economic
summit" he staged in Little Rock before his inauguration. But administration promoters of liberal social policies had better be forewarned that some of
their favorite remedies might get sour billing from
European officials who have to live with them.
�A baffling resistance onfloodaid
One hesitates ever to suggest that Congress be less
than deliberate and punctilious in spending public
money. Sad experience teaches that the slightest
excuse can divert the lawmakers from the path of
fiscal responsibility into a swamp of red ink.
But if ever a situation justified departing from the
straight and narrow, the flooding throughout the
upper Mississippi River basin and along its tributaries is that situation.
Yet Republican members of the House of Representatives, clutching the rulebook as if it were a life raft
and chanting "offset" as if it were a mantra, had to
be steamrolled Tuesday before the House could vote
to approve $3 billion in emergency flood relief.
Logic says there must have been some powerful
issue of principle involved, because surely no one
could have supposed there was political mileage to
be made in delaying relief for the battered flood
victims and their devastated region. Could they?
On the other hand, the GOP has been the minority
party in the House for most of the past 50 years, and
this kind of political behavior may explain why.
Congress in recent years has followed a fairly
standard procedure in providing aid in disasters
like the Midwest floods. It appropriates the needed
money right away and later, after the emergency is
V^u
A
T e s t
met, goes back and decides how to pay for it—by
spending cuts, tax increases or adding to the deficit.
When the Clinton administration sent its flood
relief request up to Capitol Hill, it had no reason to
think that general procedure wouldn't be followed.
But it didn't reckon, apparently, with the House
GOP's zeal for fiscal rectitude.
Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). explaining why the
minority party blocked a vote on the bill last week,
said it was "just one more example of borrowing on
our children, borrowing on our grandchildren."
Well, he may turn out to be right. President Clinton, citing recent deficit estimates $50 billion lower
than had been projected for this fiscal year, said
adding flood relief to the deficit would be justified.
Not necessarily. The GOP ought to hold his and
Congress' feet to" the fire to find offsetting spending
cuts—after the emergency is met. But to hold up aid
while Congress dickers over offsets is heartless and
mindless. It substitutes ideological reflexiveness for
intelligent lawmaking.
Even Bob Dole, the Senate majority leader, seemed
to find the House GOP stance baffling. "This is an
emergency and it's provided for by law," Dole said.
"Now that doesn't mean we can't change that policy
maybe next year. But how do you do it now?"
Qf Wills 7L 3-7
Just as surprisingly as when it resisted several
weeks ago, the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein now has agreed to allow U.N. inspectors to
place monitoring cameras on missile test sites. This
placement is designed to make Iraq comply with
U.N. inspections as set forth in the 1991 cease-fire
that ended the Persian Gulf War.
There is one condition, however: The cameras
are not to be turned on for several weeks, while Iraq
is to report any tests to the U.N. authorities. Is this
agreement good enough?
It certainly avoids direct confrontation and conflict as the U.N. Security Council-directed efforts to
require Iraqi compliance continue to unfold. It
avoids more deaths, and surely in the mind of
Saddam Hussein it is connected in some way to
President Bill Clinton's decision to send cruise missiles against Iraq's military intelligence headquarters in retaliation for Iraq's alleged attempt on the
life of former President George Bush. The Iraqi
dictator seems determined to continue probing for
weaknesses in the U.N.-Western opposition to his
developing offensive military weapons.
The best one can make of Iraq's latest decision to
.
allow the U.N. inspectors to do their job is that it is a
temporary respite from Iraqi efforts to defy the
world organization. And in Saddam's mind, the United Nations and the United States are virtually one
and the same. Without the power of the United
States to make it tough, what would the U.N.
Security Council be saying and doing regarding
Iraq?
This means that the contest of wills between
Saddam Hussein on the one hand and, essentially,
President Clinton on the other, probably will continue indefinitely. Sometimes Iraq will take a stand
against the U.N. inspections, other times it will not.
Always, though, Iraq will continue to test, to pressure, to see when the other party in this protracted
war of nerves will blink, give in and possibly decide
to go home.
As long as this attitude is apparent in Baghdad,
the U.N. Security Council has no reason to lift the
embargo on Iraqi oil sales, nor should it lift the
embargo on materials flowing into Iraq. Only when
Iraqi leaders clearly and continuously display a conciliatory attitude should the Security Council consider ending the embargoes.
u3
�srr„,-
JSV^M /
Bill's Backyard
President Clinton's tax increases
ran into more turbulence this week,
with Democratic Senator David Boren
urging him to withdraw his budget
and start over. CNN polled the six Democratic Senators who voted no on
the Clinton budget the first time and
found all were still leaning against it.
Even Senators who voted with Mr.
Clinton worry about the political fallout. They should. This week, the President's home state of Arkansas sent
Washington a powerful message
when it voted for an anti-tax Republican over a former top Clinton aide.
Only two Republicans have been
elected statewide
in Arkansas in the
past 24 years. Bill
Clinton is responsible for both victories. Frank White
defeated Governor
Clinton in 1980 after he appointed a
crew of liberal advisers and raised
fees. This week. Mike Huckabee
Republican Mike Huckabee won a
high-turnout election for Lt. Governor.
Even Democrats agree that Mr.
Huckabee's win is significant. Mr.
Huckabee's 51% victory over Democrat Nate Coulter was close enough that
voters who wanted to express their
concern with the Clinton administration clearly made the difference. Bill
Paschall. a Coulter political consul-,
tant, warned last week that a GOP victory could give President Clinton "a
black eye." He told the Arkansas Democrat: "This is a race with national
implications, like the Texas Senate
race." He'sright:voters in both states
have made it clear they aren't happy
with what's going on in Washington.
Mr. Huckabee ran against a Democratic machine that pulled out all the
stops against him. Mr. Coulter, a 33year-old Clinton wannabee, had
served as legal counsel to Governor
Clinton. He also represented the
League of Women Voters in its attempt
to block term limits in Arkansas.
Mr. Huckabee, on the other hand,
is a broadcasting executive and former president of the Arkansas Baptist
Convention. The 37-year-old Mr.
Huckabee was, like President Clinton,
born in a place called Hope, Ark. He
jokes that his politics are different because he actually grew up there and
didn't move to "a big city" as the
young Bill Clinton did.
The campaign was a classic liberal-conservative confrontation. Mr.
Huckabee opposed a tax on soda pop
passed this year to fund a Medicaid
deficit that was discovered after Bill
Clinton left for Washington. Mr.
Huckabee favored full choice in education and attacked the state's condom distribution program run by
Joycelyn Elders, Bill Clinton's nominee for Surgeon General.
Mr. Huckabee says that evenwhere he went he met voters "who
wanted an opportunity to express
their anger at the tax increases coming out of Washington." Mr. Coulter,
on the other hand, touted his connections to the Clinton administration
and warned of ••gridlock" if the governor and lieutenant governor were of
different parties.
The voters weren't impressed by
Mr. Coulter's arguments, and his ties
to the President didn't help. Bill Clinton's popularity in his home state has
taken a tumble since last year, when
Arkansas was the only state in the nation to give him a majority of the
vote. A new Mason-Dixon poll out this
week notes that only 36% of Arkansas
voters think Mr. Clinton is doing an
excellent or good job, while 63% rate
him only fair or poor.
Mr. Huckabee's surprising victory
should increase the anxiety level of
Democrats up for re-election next
year. They now fret about the shortterm embarrassment to their party if
they defeat President Clinton's budget. Perhaps they should worn' more
about the long-term electoral damage
they may suffer should they bear sole
responsibility for the largest tax increase in American histon".
�The Odd Confirmation Process
The Constitution and laws of our dicial usurpation and violation of the
land provide that certain federal gov- Constitution in that the cpurt unconernment officials may be appointed by stitutionally "wrote its own law," and
the president — "with the Advice and promulgated it by judicial order.
Consent of the Senate." That accounts
Sen. Hatch compared that wrongfor the "confirmation process" which ful process with the pre-Civil War
the American people have been view- Dred Scott case. In the earlier ining in recent weeks following numer- stance, the Supreme Court ruled that
ous appointments by President Bill Scott, a slave, did not become free
Clinton.
when he moved to a free state. The
The president nominates, but the senator's point was that Supreme
Courts have on occasion made deciSenate must give its consent.
The process is a spotty one. Some sions "created out of thin air" rather
officials selected for major office liter- than based upon law. He wanted to
ally fly through confirmation with rel- know Judge Ginsburg's view of that
atively little examination. History procedure.
shows that some have been asked no
But instead getting a clear answer,
questions at all. Others are pilloried he became the object of an attack by
for days and days by sometimes perti- Sen. Moseley-Braun: "This line of
nent, sometimes hostile, sometimes in- questioning I find to be personally ofane questioning.
fensive. I find it very difficult to sit
The nomination of U.S. District here as the only descendant of a slave
N Judge Louis Freeh to be FBI director (and listen to Sen. Hatch) analogize
'^^Js currently being speeded. Mean- Dred Scott and Roe vs. Wade."
l
while, days of questioning, mostly
There was, of course, nothing rafriendly, have been devoted to Appeals cially offensive about what Sen. Hatch
Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg's nomina- said, except that Sen. Moseley-Braun
. ^ tion to the Supreme Court.
chose to take offense. Sen. Hatch and
Judge Ginsburg is being easily let others, scurrying to be "politically cor\^off the hook on touchy questions of rect" when a racial issue was unjustly
Nthe kind that brought now-Justice raised, responded obsequiously to Sen.
^-Clarence Thomas under severe criti- Moseley-Braun. And Judge Ginsburg
cism. And sometimes hearings get never provided a clear answer.
sidetracked, as the Ginsburg one did
All of this illustrates the point
briefly when a black woman senator, that the confirmation process is a disCarol Moseley-Braun, D-Ill, attacked tinctly uneven one, sometimes informfellow Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, for ative, sometimes pointed, sometimes
jringing up the 1857 Dred Scott deci- offhand, sometimes ridiculous. But it
sion, that had to do with slavery.
is significant that a number of nomiIt may be proper for judicial nom- nations — those of Zoe Baird, Lani
inees to avoid making statements that Guinier, Webster Hubbell, Roberta
might indicate prejudgment of sub- Achtenberg, Sheldon Hackney, William
jects that might come before them in Gould, Joycelyn Elders — have
>the form of cases they would have to brought to public attention some sigdecide. On that ground, Judge nificant matters that otherwise would
Ginsburg, who has not hesitated to have received little attention.
show her favor for abortion by choice,
Some nominees have been apdanced nimbly to avoid a specific an- proved — and some rejected — after
swer regarding her view of the death disclosure of major flaws. In other
penalty. She got away with it. By con- cases, some have been rejected — and
trast, Justice Thomas was broadly crit- some approved — after disclosure of
icized when he dodged questions oniy minor faults.
about his views on abortion.
The president nominates, the SenSen. Hatch referred to the Su- ate gives "Advice and Consent," and
preme Court's 1973 ruling for abortion the ship of state sails on, often on an
in the controversial Roe vs. Wade erratic course. No one ever said our
case. That was a clear example of ju- form of government is "neat."
1
]
�Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
In our initial comments on the
death of Vincent Foster, we remarked
that ' the death by gunshot of a high
White House official is bound to be
troubling" and commended the announced Justice Department investigation. We added, "A direct appointment such as special counsel within
Justice would make clear who is in
charge and directly responsible."
No such appointment was made, of
course, and it now seems the investigation has fizzled out for want of direction and responsibility. "There is
no investigation being conducted by
the Justice Department." spokesman
Garl Stern said Monday. Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann, previously announced as the official coordinating the effort, says only that he's
receiving "regular reports" from the
federal Park Police, who discovered
the body in Fort Marcy Park on the
Virginia side of the Potomac. This is
quite a change from the earlier state
ment of another Justice spokesman
that the probe would seek "tofindout
what the factors were-if it was a suicide-that led to him killing himself.'
Now, Mr. Foster was a member of
the inner circle of the President of the
United States. In his eulogy for his
boyhood friend, the President said
Mr. Foster s friends found him a
"great protector." The White House
counsel's office handles sensitive
presidential issues, for example the
still-uncompleted blind trust for the
first couple's financial assets.
Mr. Foster, a first-rate lawyer and
steeled litigator, was suddenly found
dead, apparently killed with an antique handgun. He left no suicide
note. His Arkansas friends do not consider him a likely suicide. Since his
death there have been reports that he
was dispirited in his last few weeks.
But the Washington Times reported
that one anonymous source told it
he'd discussed depression with bis
brother-in-law. former Rep. Beryl Antjtony: and that Mr. Anthony responded, "There's not a damn thinf'
to it. That's a bunch of crap."
"He was not chewed up" by Wash-
ington." Doug Buford, a Little Rock
lawyer friend of Mr. Foster, told The
Washington Post. " I resent that suggestion. Vince was such an able man.
I think maybe the incredible pressure, the workload, exhausted him,
and that was part of it. But ultimately, something was badly askew,
something so wrong it could make
him think his three kids could be better off without him."
These circumstances call for a serious investigation, going well beyond
the Park Police's "routine" handling
of a corpse. At least so it seems to us,
and at least some others. In a column
concentrating on the personal aspects
of the suicide, the Post's Meg Greenfield took pains to observe* " I think it
is both necessary and right that the
death be investigated vigorously by
police and Justice Department officials, as is being done, and also that
the press not ignore the questions
raised by the unaccountable violent
death or tum away from the pursuit
of the answers to them. For there are
clearly identifiable public questions
yet to be answered, one hopes in a
way that will not needlessly or clumsily intensify public grief."
The vigorous investigation has not
taken place, and apparently will not.
White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum sorted through Mr. Foster's papers, removing any that fell under attorney-client privilege with the President, and gave us his word that nothing shed light on the suicide. So
nothing will be done to tell the public
why so sensitive an official took his
own life, or for that matter, reassure
us that he indeed did. The mystery,
we suspect, will haunt the White
House as further scandals pop up, as
they do in most administrations.
But in most administrations Presidents do have their way. President
Clinton's first reaction to the suicide
was, "WeU Just have to Uve with
something else we can't understand."
Despite second thoughts at Justice, it
seems that the President's view will
not only prevail, but become a selffulfilling prophecy.
/
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
David Kusnet
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
David Kusnet
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1994
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36196">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431944">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0465-F
Description
An account of the resource
This collection contains the files of David Kusnet, Presidential Speechwriter and includes some papers of Liz Bowyer, Staff Assistant. The collections consists of drafts of the 1993 inaugural address, speeches on health care, economics, and other speeches from early in the Administration. The combined files of Kusnet and Bowyer are largely administrative in nature. A large portion of this collection consists of daily news reports, dated April 1, 1993 to February 17, 1994, compiled by the White House Office of News Analysis.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
269 folders in 26 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[Press Clips] Friday, July 30, 1993 [1]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
David Kusnet
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0465-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 17
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36196">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/20759820">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
5/19/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7431944-20060465F-017-007-2015
7431944
20759820