Republican congressional leaders today responded to President Clinton's fiscal 1999 budget request by continuing the criticism they leveled at his State of the Union address last week, objecting to what they consider the irresponsible number of new programs it proposes.
Senate Majority Leader Lott called it a "lollipop budget--one that's got a lollipop for everyone," although he did say it "will have some things in there that deserve serious consideration"--such as paying down the national debt and shoring up Social Security.
Lott said while Republicans "shouldn't disregard" the president's budget submission, "neither should we say we'll take all of it." Lott also told reporters, "We're not going to have another big budget deal like we had last year--that was a one-shot deal."
"This is a budget only a liberal could love. ... This is a far cry from the 'leaner, more flexible' government that the president promised in his State of the Union address," House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said: "We can't go back to the days of skyrocketing government spending. But that's exactly what the president has proposed." Armey said the projected surplus, instead of financing new government spending, "must be rebated back to the American people, in tax cuts or debt reduction."
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, added, "This is not the time to increase taxes. This is the time to cut taxes. ... The president's budget is a disappointment but not a surprise." And House Republican Conference Chairman John Boehner of Ohio said, "While we may now have the opportunity to balance the budget this year, we intend to remain true to the principles laid out in the Balanced Budget Act of 1998--limited government and fiscal discipline."
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., emphasized that, like the president, congressional Democrats "want to be clear and unequivocal as well that any new investment must be paid for every step of the way." Amid proposals by numerous Republicans to use the projected surplus to cut taxes, Daschle said, "The president and some Democrats would support targeted tax cuts, so long as they're paid for."
Daschle also said if tobacco settlement legislation is not enacted, "there are an array of offsets we can look at" to pay for programs Clinton proposes to finance with a projected $65 billion in tobacco-related revenues over five years. However, Lott said, "We have some other ideas of better ways to spend that [offset] money."
Meanwhile, House Budget ranking member John Spratt, D-S.C.--while calling the budget proposal "fiscally responsible"--today cast doubt on the prospect of Clinton obtaining funds for new initiatives from the tobacco deal. Spratt said the tobacco agreement is "losing rather than gaining ground in the Congress," and questioned the White House's approach to the deal. "The president is going to have to embrace some particular proposal. He's going to have to take a more positive position on the agreement," Spratt said. "And whether ... we will get the revenues the administration anticipates is still a big question. We have to be candid and say, without that, some if these initiatives are going to be hard to do."
NEXT STORY: Why People Give Their Time