The Blade at Our Necks

President Reagan held a ceremony Wednesday to commemorate his earlier private signing of the Gramm-Rudman deficit-reduction bill. He then went on to talk about the next federal budget as if Gramm-Rudman never existed. Don’t talk to me about defense cuts, he said. And if anyone dares propose a tax increase, I’ve got my veto pen ready. The President even commented that it would violate the spirit of Gramm-Rudman to use the bill as an excuse for infringing on the projected military buildup.

So where will he find as much as $50 billion to meet the arbitrary demand in Gramm-Rudman that the budget deficit be reduced to $144 billion in fiscal 1987? By cutting back on “runaway domestic spending,” he said, and by “cutting and eliminating wasteful and unnecessary programs.”

The Office of Management and Budget already has assembled the outline of a 1987 budget that would make its previous budgets look Santa Clausian. The new plan would, for instance, eliminate the Interstate Commerce Commission, end federal participation in the Agricultural Extension Service, further shrink Medicare and terminate highway-safety grants. Reagan even expressed confidence that all this could be achieved without the sort of deadlock between the Administration and Congress that triggers Gramm-Rudman’s automatic, across-the-board spending cuts.

It is voodoo economics all over again, or else the President really believes that Gramm-Rudman is the weapon he needs to finally dismantle the domestic federal establishment.

In fact, Congress--including Reagan’s own party --should not, and will not, accept such brutish reductions. Protect the defense budget, interest on the debt, Social Security and other programs exempted from Gramm-Rudman and you would have to carve $50 billion out of less than $300 billion in basic programs. It just cannot be done, no matter how intensely you dislike government. The President will submit his budget on Feb. 5, and there will be deadlock all over again by Feb. 6 if defense and taxes are kept off limits.

Gramm-Rudman, of course, calls for its automatic cuts to bite equally out of defense and domestic programs, except for those such as Social Security that are exempted. Many within the Administration, and even some Democrats, had warned of the dire effect that this could have on national security, but the President embraced Gramm-Rudman anyway.

There are reductions that should be made in domestic spending by intelligent pruning and paring. But the guillotine approach of Gramm-Rudman is all wrong. Congress should make the President feel the heat and see the light: There is no room left for massive domestic budget cuts, and the only way to make a significant dent in the deficit and protect the defense program is to adopt a tax increase. Let’s do it soon, before the Gramm-Rudman blade falls.