Congress Has Lips Too

By Michael Kramer

J. Bennett Johnston has a message for George Bush. Stripped of the sweet words whispered to any new President during his honeymoon, the bad news is this: Read my lips. You go first.

"The deficit is a time bomb with a lighted fuse," says Johnston, the senior Senator from Louisiana. "Bush's tendered solution, his 'flexible freeze,' is deja voodoo all over again. The idea that we can grow our way out of this mess is absolute nonsense. If Bush really believes he can do what has to be done without cutting into entitlements and defense and without raising at least some taxes, then he's smoking something. And if he thinks we Democrats are going to drag him kicking and screaming into taxland and take all the heat alone, then he's dreaming as well as smoking."

Johnston's is more than merely another voice added to an already deafening chorus. He is a leading power in a body that will be controlled by the Democrats 55 to 45, a Senate that promises Bush greater resistance than Ronald Reagan ever faced. Few if any Senators believe Bush's content-free campaign won him a mandate. And none believe Bush possesses the communications skills that permitted Reagan to pitch successful appeals beyond Congress for public support.

Johnston is also running a highly visible race for majority leader in an election to be held next Tuesday. His prospects are impossible to determine -- the ballot is secret and double crosses are common. But even if he loses to George Mitchell or Daniel Inouye, the other contenders, Johnston's opinions on a range of issues are significant. As a Southern moderate, Johnston is the kind of Senator Bush needs if his programs are to have any hope of passage. And unawed as he is by Bush, Johnston fairly reflects the mood of Congress. "Bush should consider the possibility that ((we will)) keep his promises for him," says New York Democrat Pat Moynihan, reportedly among those supporting Mitchell for majority leader. "And that would destroy his presidency."

The Democrats don't much care how Bush retreats from his no-tax, no-cuts campaign promise, as long as he does so. "The most statesmanlike thing to do in politics," says Johnston, "is to tell the truth during a campaign. After you've concluded that you can't win that way, the second most statesmanlike thing is to borrow from Earl Long and tell the people you lied." Johnston doesn't expect Bush to ape Long, but he does expect him "to set the stage and move by degrees. At some point, possibly under the cover of the National Economic Commission or an economic summit between the White House and Congress, Bush could tank his campaign dribble and say, 'Well, I thought we could do it my way, but it turns out we just can't.' "

The crunch could come in May, when Bush will be in need of Senate votes to raise the national debt ceiling above $2.8 trillion. Like a hanging, a hike in the debt ceiling concentrates the mind. The ceiling will not go up, says Johnston, unless the President "comes to us and swallows hard about raising revenues. When he does that, that's when we'll cooperate."

How could Bush not cave in? If a budget stalemate develops because both the President and Congress hang tough, mandated Gramm-Rudman reductions will force an estimated $40 billion in cuts. Defense, the area Bush most wants to protect, will take half of that blow.

Johnston scoffs at Bush's support for the Pentagon's gold-plated weapons. "The military wants 2% real growth ((above inflation))," he says. "They are likely to get zero." High on the Democrats' hit list is Midgetman, the $50 billion single-warhead missile program. "Like Bush's call for a slash in the capital-gains tax," Johnston predicts, "Midgetman is out of the question." (The MX missile is more likely to survive. Rail basing the ten- warhead MX would provide the same punch for a third the cost of Midgetman, and mobility too.)

Like many of his colleagues, Johnston is a fan of burden sharing, the notion that U.S. allies should foot more of the bill for their own protection. "That's clearly the way we're going to have to go," he says. "Or else, in places like Korea, we're going to have to cut our manpower unilaterally. Consider that our 40,000 soldiers can't do much to save South Korea if war comes, and then consider that Korea has a trade surplus with us of something like $10 billion. Either they help pay for our troops, or we should consider pulling them out."

Scaling down the American presence in Europe is trickier, "but we could at least cut the number of ((military)) dependents there," Johnston says. "They've increased under Reagan, and for what? We weren't having trouble recruiting for the Army before. I don't know exactly how much we'd save by bringing them home because the Pentagon won't come up with the figure."

Central America, already a nightmare, will only get worse. "If the ((ultraconservative)) ARENA party takes over El Salvador in March, as now seems likely, and if death-squad activity increases beyond what it is now, then our (($300 million-plus annual)) subsidy will shrivel," says Johnston. "There just wouldn't be any appetite in Congress to keep it up, no matter how vital Bush claimed our interest there to be. Combine that with an end to the contras, and the whole region could blow right in the middle of our trying to do something tough about the deficit."

Confronted with the clashes Johnston foresees, a senior Bush aide said last week, "Am I depressed? Of course I am. Our own evaluations run along many of the same lines. Johnston's not the only one who thinks the eye of the hurricane will pass fast. Boy, I'd hate to be in our shoes."