Senate Starts Daunting Job of Writing a Spending Plan

Cutting the federal budget is like punishing your children, a task no one enjoys, Sen. Lawton Chiles (D-Fla.) said Monday as the Senate began the daunting job of writing its budget resolution.

At the same time, President Reagan compared members of Congress to problem drinkers who swear “off the bottle of spending only to take a nip the next morning.”

The exaggerated rhetoric set the tone for a week of highly partisan debate over federal spending in the 1988 fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1.

Disagree on Taxes

National defense and taxes are the topics of greatest disagreement between the Republican Administration and the Democratic Senate. The Senate Budget Committee has endorsed a plan that would cut defense outlays $7 billion below current levels. President Reagan, in sharp contrast, wants an $8-billion increase. Tax revenue would be increased by $12 billion under the plan prepared by Budget Committee Chairman Chiles, compared to $5 billion in the President’s budget.

Neither side has shown any willingness to compromise, with the President vowing to veto any bills calling for higher income tax rates.

The budget resolution sets the overall spending limit for the federal government in 12 broad categories, with appropriations committees deciding later on the details of spending on specific programs.

The House passed its version of the plan earlier this month, calling for significant tax increases and substantial reductions in defense and domestic spending. When the Senate completes its resolution, the two houses will hammer out a compromise measure.

“Everyone believes we need to reduce this terrible debt we have, now over $1 trillion, but somehow when it comes to specifics, there are always some programs we find sacrosanct,” said Chiles, speaking to an empty Senate chamber as the debate began.

‘Like Our Children’

For each senator, some favorite federal spending programs are “like our children--somehow we don’t want to discipline them,” Chiles said. “Other programs we’re willing to cut, but they turn out to be someone else’s children. It’s easier to shoot a budget resolution than to make one.”

The Senate will consider at least four separate budget proposals, with other amendments and substitutes likely to emerge as the process unfolds. Under the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction measure, the spending plan is not supposed to produce a deficit greater than $108 billion for 1988, but there is no penalty for exceeding the limit and Congress appears likely to do so.

The plan backed by Chiles provides for outlays of $1.053 trillion and revenue of $919 billion for a deficit of $133.4 billion.

President Reagan said Monday that the budget system is “out of control. Missed deadlines, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings targets that get ignored--now they want a budget summit with the White House,” he said in a speech at the 75th anniversary celebration of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

As long as Congress is pushing for higher tax rates, Administration officials have said, the President sees no reason for a bipartisan budget conference. Also, the Administration has complained that any agreements subsequently could be ignored when Democratic-controlled committees decide on appropriations and taxes.

‘No Back-Door Spending’

“Congress needs to change the way it does business on the budget,” Reagan said. “They need ways of ensuring that they will stick to budget decisions once they’re made--no back-door spending, no missed targets, no swearing off the bottle of spending only to take a nip the next morning.”

The President called once again for Congress to give him the power to veto individual items in the budget, rather than being forced to consider vetoing massive spending bills that combine items he favors with projects he opposes.

“Give me what 43 governors have, a line-item veto so I can cut wasteful projects, and we’ll have that deficit coming down in no time,” he said. “If some President abuses the use of that veto, the Congress has the power to override his veto. Truth is, they don’t want to have to vote on some of those pure pork items when they are out in the open and not buried in a budget bill.”

However, adoption of a line-item veto would require a constitutional amendment, legal scholars believe.