The Public Is Fed Up With Budget Impasse : Paycheck cutoff may be what’s needed to shake up officials

No deal, no pay. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is advocating that both Congress and President Clinton be denied their paychecks until they deliver a budget. Sounds fair. They shouldn’t be paid until, at the very least, they pass a temporary spending bill so the government can resume full operations.

It is not necessary to have a complete, seven-year budget in hand to extend government funding. It’s only for political reasons that the two separate matters have been twinned by congressional Republicans.

Congress and the President need to make a reality check on how their selfish, inside-the-Beltway approach is alienating Americans, as well it should. In this season of goodwill, both sides are being mean-spirited. Maybe if they personally had to suffer the consequences of their political machinations, they would become more responsible and not allow continuation of a partial government shutdown, the second in a month.

House members have not been open to the idea of using the pocketbook to hold politicians more accountable, but the Senate has passed such a no-pay provision, now before a conference committee considering an appropriations bill for the District of Columbia.

Meanwhile, a plan by a coalition of 21 moderate-to-conservative House Democrats provides the most workable framework for a budget compromise. Back in October the coalition proposed a seven-year budget with no tax cuts in order to spare Medicare and Medicare from the Republicans’ deep spending cuts. The budget was based on economic forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office.

The one thing that the Republicans and Democrats agreed on since resolving the first partial government shutdown is balancing the budget in seven years. But they markedly differ on how much to reduce taxes and Medicare and Medicaid spending growth. They also have been basing their budgets on different assumptions about the economic future. The Republicans have been using forecasts from the CBO. The Clinton administration has relied on the Office of Management and Budget, which has projected greater economic growth and thus greater budget savings than the CBO.

Last month, both sides agreed to use CBO data in consultation with the OMB. Over the weekend, the White House huddled on the budget with the OMB and the House Democratic moderates and conservatives.

Clinton indicated Monday that the White House is willing to go with the more conservative CBO projections. That welcome decision might well force the Republicans to back away from their big entitlement and tax cuts. To balance the budget based on CBO data in seven years while cutting taxes will be tough. The GOP’s proposed entitlement cuts would endanger the nation’s safety net for the needy. The Republicans, with an eye toward aiding the wealthy, have cleverly structured their tax cuts so that the full impact on revenues would not be felt until after the year 2002, when the budget is to be balanced. The coalition’s plan to put off tax cuts, while slowing Medicare and Medicaid growth less than the Republicans propose, is better for the bottom line in the long term, meaning well beyond the seven years.

The Washington budget game has grown tiresome, indeed loathsome. Whatever political capital may have accrued during the process is quickly dwindling. So is patience. The public may carry the memory of this spectacle into the voting booths next year. Boxer: Turning to pocketbook power.