THE ROOT OF THE BUDGET FIGHT : How Much Government Can an Affluent Society Afford?

The situation in Bosnia is serious but not hopeless. The situation in Washington is hopeless but not serious.

At least that’s the way most Americans feel. Which is one reason why the Republicans’ budget strategy didn’t work. The idea was that the partial government shutdown would put a gun to President Bill Clinton’s head and force him to sign a seven-year balanced-budget deal--the jewel in the crown of the GOP’s “contract with America.”

The problem is, Clinton did what a lot of people didn’t expect him to do. He stood firm. “It is wrong--deeply wrong--to shut the government down while we negotiate under the illusion that somehow that will affect the decisions I make,” the president said on Wednesday.

The GOP strategy didn’t work for another reason. There was no overwhelming sense of public urgency. People were certainly upset over what they saw in Washington. But in polls taken last week, only 12% to 14% of Americans said they were personally affected. Almost 90% said the shutdown did not inconvenience them. Most Americans rejected the notion this was a “crisis.”

The shutdown produced just enough exasperation over the mess in Washington to make politicians look bad. But it did not hurt enough Americans for the public to demand that Clinton do something--anything--to get the government back open.

Remember, there are two different issues: the government shutdown and the budget deal. The shutdown was the “crisis” of the moment. But it was the much smaller issue. Until last week, House Republicans, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), had been calling the shots. Last week, the momentum shifted. Two other players seized the initiative. House Republicans became increasingly isolated. By Friday, the House voted overwhelmingly to send the 780,000 furloughed employees back to work, though many government functions were still unfounded.

The first step came Tuesday, when Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) broke with Gingrich and pushed a resolution through the Senate to reopen the government. “I think we made our point,” Dole said. “People have been gone from their jobs long enough. Enough is enough.”

The entire political world gasped. What was Dole doing? Giving the Democrats ammunition?

Dole had decided he could earn more points by trying to clean up the mess in Washington than by falling in line with House Republicans. He simply bailed out of a strategy that wasn’t working. “It’s not as though Clinton is wincing every day because the government is shut down,” Dole said. “It’s not having any impact.”

Moreover, Republicans were getting most of the blame. In an ABC News poll taken Wednesday night, 44% of Americans said the government shutdown was the GOP’s fault. Only 25% blamed the president.

Remember Clinton’s strategy of “triangulation”? Dole’s trying it, too. Dole has always been at a distance from Clinton, whose political values he doesn’t share. Now he’s positioning himself at a distance from Gingrich, whose tactics he believes are counterproductive. Dole wants to be the grown-up, a clear contrast to the baby boomers in chief: the unfocused, undisciplined president, and the headstrong, impulsive speaker.

Triangulation carries a big risk for Dole, just as it does for Clinton. You get hammered by your base--in Dole’s case, conservatives such as freshman John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), who called Dole’s move “an act of betrayal,” adding, “This guy has been in Washington so long and made so many deals, he thinks the way to solve a problem is to do a deal.” (Earth to Shadegg: It is.)

But Dole’s biggest problem isn’t proving he’s a conservative. It’s proving he’s a leader who can rise above Washington politics. So far, the public is impressed. Last week’s CBS News poll shows Dole’s job approval soaring to 63%, up 11 points in the past month. Clinton’s rating is stable, at 50%. Gingrich? A miserable 33%. If Dole’s aim is to triangulate, it’s working. He’s at the top of the triangle.

The government shutdown was just a diversion, however. There was a much bigger issue behind all the partisan squabbling: balancing the budget. House Republicans expected the shutdown to focus attention on the budget deal. It had the opposite effect.

Behind all the name-calling, an important debate was not happening. As frustrated House Republican Conference chairman John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said last week, “This crisis is not really about today. It’s about . . . what the role of the federal government ought to be in our society.”

Boehner added, “It’s a fight that politicians in this town have walked away from for 30 years whenever it got tough. This is tough. This is difficult on the members. It’s difficult on the American people. And certainly difficult on government workers. But we need to have this conversation with the American people--and we need to make some decisions.”

Exactly what’s at stake? The differences between Clinton and the GOP Congress don’t look all that big. Clinton has endorsed the Republican goal of balancing the budget in seven years. He supports tax cuts, welfare reform and cuts in projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid. And last week, The Times reported that Clinton will accept a capital-gains tax cut as part of a budget deal. That’s a big concession on an issue Democrats and Republicans have been fighting about for the last decade.

Having made all those concessions, the president is making a last-ditch stand on the issue of entitlements. He wants to protect the core Democratic principle that people can make claims on government as a matter of right. Retired workers and their dependents have a right to Social Security. Elderly, poor and disabled people have a right to health-care subsidies. Poor families have a right to food stamps and welfare. The working poor have a right to tax credits.

Basically, the New Deal and the Great Society were about establishing and expanding those social rights. Some of them, like Social Security, became extremely expensive. Some, like welfare and food stamps, became extremely controversial. And all of them, Republicans believe, represent an unwarranted expansion of government.

The main objective of the GOP budget plan is to curtail entitlements. How? By changing them to discretionary programs. People would no longer have a right to claim government benefits. Instead, benefits would become a decision. The government--mostly state governments--would decide who is eligible and how much money they get on a year-by-year basis. Total spending would no longer be open-ended, determined by the number of claims. Spending would be limited, determined by the funds available.

Even Democrats, alarmed by the public outcry over the deficit, have been moving toward entitlement reform. They’re talking about caps on the growth in spending for each individual. Incentives to make health care more efficient. Limits on benefits high-income individuals can claim.

But Democrats, led by a lately decisive president, have drawn a line in the sand: They are determined to protect the principle of entitlements. Democrats are willing to reform entitlements but not end them. Clinton has even promised to veto welfare reform if it cuts off entitlements for children born into poverty.

This is a basic philosophical conflict, and it’s at the heart of the balanced-budget debate. As society becomes more affluent, should the role of government shrink? Or should people be able to make more claims on “the common wealth”?

The squabble over the government shutdown was a distraction. Everyone said they wanted to settle it in order to resolve the larger issue. But do they?

If Clinton signs a balanced-budget deal, Democrats will lose their ability to run against the GOP budget proposals. Democrats may not want to do that now that they feel they have the GOP on the run. Republicans would also lose their best issue--balancing the budget. If Clinton refuses to make a deal, Republicans can claim the only thing standing in the way of a balanced budget is a Democratic president.

If we’re lucky, both parties may decide it’s in their best interest to fight the issue at the polls this year. That would give the country the great debate Boehner was talking about. For once, we’d be better off if the politicians do not resolve the issue. Let the people decide how much government they want. That’s what elections are for.