Such cavalier dismissals of Bill Clinton are commonplace on Capitol Hill these days. After the election last November, many Democrats saw Clinton heralding a new era for their party. Now they’re not so sure. The failure of his stimulus package, the muddle over Bosnia policy, the confusion over the direction of health-care reform have all eroded confidence in Clinton’s leadership. Now he faces a revolt from Hill Democrats on his economic plan. As they lose faith in the president’s ability to define a winning agenda, some senators and congressmen are focusing more on their own survival. On Capitol Hill, where the Me Decade never ends and elections are always just around the corner, a growing number of Democrats are scrambling to put daylight between themselves and the president.
For Clinton, the insurrection comes at a time when he badly needs to demonstrate that he still has clout. The House is expected to vote on his deficit-reduction package this week; the Senate takes it up in early June. Republicans have already said they will vote as a bloc against the plan, which calls for nearly $100 billion in benefit cuts and $246 billion in new taxes-including an unpopular energy tax that has Democrats scurrying for cover. This is a fight that Clinton must win, and win on his terms. He cannot afford to compromise away the basic elements, however unpalatable they are to Democrats worried about re-election. “We understand the stakes,” says Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg. “Good intentions are not enough. He has to pass an economic plan that’s very close to what he proposed.”
Clinton’s relationship with Congress hasn’t been helped by the nettlesome presence of Ross Perot. In the numbers game on Capitol Hill, Clinton got a lower percentage of the vote than every Democrat in Congress; Perot is a constant reminder that this is a 43 percent presidency. At the same time, the Texan is making the undermining of his former opponent’s economic plan a favorite pastime. Clinton originally pushed his plan as an investment in the future, a way to create jobs and retrain workers. Deficit reduction was only a secondary goal. Lately, the president has tried to make his peace with Perot by embracing deficit reduction as his first priority. Yet voters don’t believe Clinton is serious, in part because Perot tells them he isn’t. And Congress is listening.
That’s bad news for Clinton, since deficit reduction is now all the rage on Capitol Hill. Last week’s revolt among House Democrats was spurred by the fear that a vote for Clinton’s budget–despite its high tax bite-would not result in a reduced deficit. “The worst nightmare for people like me,” says Rep. Jim Slattery of Kansas, “is we vote for tax increases, and then see entitlements explode and gobble up all the savings.” A group of House Democrats, led by Oklahoma Rep. Dave McCurdy, proposed capping entitlements, a move that is anathema to most liberals because benefits for the poor are generally the first to be squeezed. That presents Clinton with a dilemma: If he accepts the caps to gain the votes of some 40 moderate Democrats, he could lose the support of twice as many liberals, including 38 members of the Black Caucus. In an effort to placate both wings of the party, entitlement caps are likely to be included in Clinton’s budget-but without any mechanism to force cuts if the caps are exceeded. House Democrats also sought guarantees from the White House that if they swallowed hard and voted for an energy tax, Clinton wouldn’t cut and run in the Senate, where there is stiff opposition. “There’s nothing worse than voting for a big tax increase other than voting for a big tax increase that doesn’t pass,” says Slattery.
Clinton visited Capitol Hill last week to personally assure House Democrats of his resolve, a laying-on of hands that seemed to work. But the Senate is dicier. The fate of Clinton’s package could hinge on one man, Oklahoma Sen. David Boren. Faithful to his home-state oil interests, Boren has announced he will not support Clinton’s energy tax and has proposed an alternative deficit-reduction plan. Oklahoma is true Perot country, so he has nothing to lose by holding out for more budget cuts. Boren is one of 11 Democrats and nine Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, which must pass Clinton’s package before it can be voted on by the full Senate. If all nine Republicans vote against Clinton as expected, a “no” vote by Boren would create a stalemate that could ultimately kill Clinton’s budget in committee.
The story of Bill Clinton’s life is replete with rebounds; time and again, just when things look bleak, he has managed to turn things around. An aide to House Speaker Tom Foley described the congressional uprisings as “a moment of Irishness when everything is very black before the dawn.” Congress is sensitive to the argument that Clinton’s failure is their failure, that November’s election was a joint pact with the voters to end gridlock. White House aides lobbying lawmakers might do better to recast their plea: don’t do this to yourselves.
< b>REBELS WITH A CAUSE
Oklahoma Democrat Wants to kill Clinton’s energy tax and substitute more spending cuts-including cuts In cost-of-living Increases on social-security benefits. Holds pivotal vote on Senate Finance Committee; has some Republican support.
Oklahoma Democrat He supported Clinton early in the campaign but thinks Clinton as president hasn’t been enough of a “New” Democrat. Wants more emphasis on spending cuts and less reliance on taxes. Spearheaded drive in House last week to substitute a cap on entitlement spending for energy tax.
Louisiana Democrat Another key oilstate vote on the Finance Committee. Will probably back Clinton–but he doesn’t come cheap. After a meeting in the Oval Office last week, Breaux won a tax exemption for exported petrochemicals, a boon for his state.
