Granted, in the summer of 1995 Clinton did introduce a 10-year balanced- budget plan, apparently chastened by the previous year's election results. Unfortunately, the plan was based on spending and revenue estimates developed by his own economists at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and not by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). When CBO re-estimated the Clinton budget they found it produced cumulative deficits of nearly $2 trillion over 10 years. This put the president in a difficult spot. He had pledged to use CBO numbers in his 1993 State of the Union address, proclaiming them more accurate and less politically tainted than those from OMB. But if he used CBO's estimates he would have to come up with an additional $2 trillion in spending cuts. Naturally, Clinton professed renewed faith in OMB's numbers.
The president kept up this rosy-scenario charade during the rest of the summer, into the fall, and even into January of this year. He continued to use the suspect OMB numbers in assorted revised budgets, even though the CBO routinely pronounced those budgets hundreds of billions of dollars short of balance. As he ran this racket he also began to berate Republicans for wanting to "decimate" Medicare, "destroy" Medicaid, and generally make life hell for widows, orphans, and the disabled. Republicans denied this, pointing out for example that there was only a 1% difference between their seven-year Medicare totals and the president's. They also begged Clinton for an honest budget based on real numbers. But the president saw the poll numbers moving his way and so continued to declare his commitment to balance on his (bogus) terms, and continued to cast himself as the protector of cherished programs.
Finally, in the first week of January of this year, Clinton proposed a seven- year balanced budget based on CBO numbers. The plan avoided any meaningful entitlement reform, however, ensuring that the budget would reach balance only in year seven and then drift back into deficit (unlike the Republican plan, which achieved surpluses after year seven). It also delayed the bulk of deficit reduction until 2001 and 2002, the last two years of the plan, by which time the cuts required to achieve balance would be drastic and Clinton would no longer be president. Plainly, the president's commitment to a balanced budget remained about as meaningful as his commitment to Lani Guinier.
In spite of all his duplicity, public opinion polls show the budget battle to have been a big political boost for Clinton, who gets credit for wanting to balance the budget and for fending off the fanatics in Congress. The Republicans, trying to do the right thing, have paid a heavy price. And for all their trouble they still do not have a budget agreement.
To paraphrase the only inspiring thing George Bush ever said, this cannot stand. Fortunately, Republicans still have time to bounce back, balance the budget, and suck the wind out of Clinton's sails. Their first move should be to convene one final set of budget meetings with the president. When Clinton displays his typical indifference to a meaningful agreement, the Republicans can adjourn the meetings, very publicly stating that the president appears not to want a balanced budget. Republicans then should go to the Congress and strike whatever deal they have to with moderate and conservative Democrats to achieve a veto-proof majority for a seven-year budget plan. The only non-negotiable portions of that plan should be these: the plan must include some sort of family tax cut; it cannot include any tax increases; and it must protect national defense.
But wouldn't such a deal violate the terms of the Contract with America? No, the Contract only promises a balanced budget, lower taxes, and a strong defense. It says almost nothing about specific spending or tax cuts. But might not Republicans end up with a deal laden with concessions to Congressional Democrats? Yes, they might. And isn't that worse than no deal at all? Not on your life. With no deal the Republicans will be making excuses to voters in the fall: "Sorry we couldn't balance the budget as we promised. And by the way we're not extremists, no matter what the president says." With a budget deal the Republicans will be making this case: "We balanced the budget just as we said we would, and we did it without gutting defense and without raising taxes. In fact, we even managed to provide some pretty meaningful tax relief. And now that the budget is in place you can see we're not the 'extremists' the president said we were. Do you see any widows or orphans or toxic waste out in the streets? Of course not. Are you still getting your Medicare and school lunches and Medicaid and student loans like we said you would? Of course you are." And here's the best part: "We did this ourselves. The president didn't want to balance the budget. He was standing in the way of the change you voted for in 1994, so we took it upon ourselves to deliver. And we did." Of course Clinton will try to co-opt the deal, claim it reflects a movement toward his priorities, and so on. But Republicans will be able to argue quite accurately that his only role was to block progress for more than three years, and then attach his signature, reluctantly, to legislation for which Congress was responsible. That is a message that will keep Republicans in control of Congress and propel them back into the White House in the coming elections. With that done they can do the budget right - next year.