GOP House votes historic downsizing Republican majority cuts taxes, spending to balance the budget

Capital gains tax halved

Reductions to affect elderly, disabled, poor, veterans, farm

October 27, 1995|By Karen Hosler | Karen Hosler,Washington BureauSUN NATIONAL STAFF

WASHINGTON -- The House took a major step last night toward completing the Republicans' revolutionary drive to balance the federal budget by voting to shrink benefit programs that have been in place for decades.

Led by Republican freshmen who had made belt-tightening a top priority in their campaigns last year, the House voted 227-203 in favor of a bill that would scale back programs for the poor, elderly, disabled, students, federal workers, farmers and veterans to help balance the federal budget by 2002.

The House also voted to give $245 billion of the savings back to taxpayers, most of it in a $500-per-child tax credit and a 50 percent cut in the tax on capital gains.

Only 10 of the 233 Republicans defected from party ranks, including Rep. Constance A. Morella of Montgomery County. She said she thought the tax cuts were too large and the plan to squeeze Medicaid, which serves the poor and disabled, by $182 billion is too harsh.

All but four of the 198 House Democrats, and the one independent, voted against the proposal.

Although many Republicans were sobered by the political gamble of taking on such sacred cows as Medicare, Medicaid and agriculture subsidies, they claimed a historic victory over what they described as big-government policies that were ripe for reform.

"We promised that this day would come," Rep. John R. Kasich of Ohio, the chairman of the Budget Committee, said in a closing speech that drew three ovations for his efforts in crafting the proposal. "We said we would finally once and for all end the smoke and mirrors, end the gimmicks, stop the delays and balance the federal budget."

"We've had to walk across some very hot coals," Mr. Kasich added, referring to months of attacks from Democrats and organizations representing groups that were targeted by the spending cuts. "But we've had the courage to do it."

Democrats said there was nothing to celebrate about the GOP proposals, which they say would hurt programs that serve the disadvantaged and the middle class while giving tax breaks to the rich.

"Entire communities will be decimated by crime, abuse and poverty," said Rep. Kweisi Mfume of Baltimore, who joined the three other Maryland Democrats in voting against the measure. "With this bill, we are saying that the Congress has new priorities and that the American people are not one of those priorities."

Yesterday's vote, expected to be followed today by Senate approval of its version of the budget "reconciliation" bill, will set the stage for House-Senate negotiations starting next week. A combined measure will then be sent to President Clinton for a likely veto sometime before Thanksgiving.

After that, the Republican focus will be on finding a compromise with the White House. Mr. Clinton has proposed his own 10-year budget-balancing plan that would also shrink benefit programs and provide tax relief, though less than the Republican seven-year plan.

The final budget will surely be a reversal of the past six decades of Democratic-led policies that have expanded the federal government.

Last night's outcome was not in doubt, but House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his lieutenants spent much of the last week lining up their votes by making adjustments in the bill to satisfy parochial concerns.

Even so, many Republicans voted for the measure after swallowing some major objections. Among the objectors was Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett of Western Maryland, who said he was unhappy because the bill would lift the current limit on how much money the federal government can borrow to pay its bills.

"I wish we could have at least looked into the possibility of what would happen if we did not increase the debt," Mr. Bartlett said. "I think people want us to have the courage to bite the bullet and put our own house in order."

Other Republicans raised complaints about issues they feared would hurt their constituents, such as the method for determining milk subsidies and a proposal to allow oil drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

By contrast, some of the conservative Republican freshmen who were elected on promises to achieve revolutionary change in Washington said they were disappointed that the proposal approved by the House last night did not go far enough.

"We have left some room for improvement in the future," said one of them, Rep. Mark W. Neumann of Wisconsin. "But if we don't get started whittling this government down, it's going to get 10 times harder."

All but four of the 73 GOP freshman voted for the measure that would have been once unthinkable for lawmakers in their first term.

"We were sent here to get the federal government out of our faces -- to stop trying to be America's mother, America's father, America's pastor and America's employer," said Rep. George P. Radanovich, a freshman Republican from California. "We're giving freedom back to the American people to live their own lives," he said.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.