In what may be a foretaste of a Bush Presidency, some Congressional Republicans are taking a hard line on an overdue budget agreement with President Clinton. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) has suggested his party should force President Clinton to choose between freezing spending increases for a number of agencies or shutting down the government. The implication: We'll hold out until Bush takes office.
The sentiment has been echoed by both House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), who favors deeper spending reductions than Clinton has offered so far, and Rep. Nick Smith (R-Michigan) who was quoted by CNN as saying, "I think we've got the upper hand, and I don't think we're going to give in."
It should be noted that DeLay's comments are markedly different from those of other Republicans involved in the budget negotiations with the White House earlier in the week. House Speaker Denny Hastert (R-Illinois) and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) have both indicated a desire to work out a compromise on the four remaining spending bills.
Among the most contentious issues are increases in spending contained in a $350 billion measure financing health, education and labor programs (H.R. 4577). The bill includes an $18 billion increase that bipartisan negotiators tentatively agreed to last month. The education increases include funds for reducing class sizes, upgrading teacher skills and grants for school renovations. Also at issue are increased Medicare payments to health care providers, a phased in $1 per hour increase in the minimum wage, and $240 billion, 10-year tax cut for many small businesses, people with various pensions and some families with health care costs.
On the Senate side, Republicans have their own case of "Bush anticipation" in the struggle over committee composition and legislative agenda-setting. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) has called for a "power sharing" arrangement, to reflect the 50-50 tie in the Senate. Majority Leader Lott has responded that Republicans will remain in control of the Senate - either because a Republican Vice President will cast the tie-breaking vote, or a Vice President Lieberman will have to give up his Senate seat. Connecticut's Republican Governor can be expected to appoint a Republican to fill the seat. Either way, Lott insists, committee composition and legislative agenda authority will remain under Republican control.
It appears more and more likely that, for the first time in 45 years, both the Congress and the White House will be under Republican control. And if you extend the logic of the Republican complaints about the "Democratic" Florida Supreme Court (all seven justices were appointed by Democrats), it could be argued that the U.S. Supreme Court, too, is under "Republican" control, since seven Justices were appointed by Republicans. Many Republicans are figuratively drooling at the prospect of enacting the conservative policies so long denied to them by President Clinton.
Yes, this election may have put the government under Republican control. But women have delivered a word of warning, too: The "gender gap" for Gore in 2000 was as large as Clinton's record-breaker in 1996. Regardless of age, education, economic status or party affiliation, women delivered a resounding "no" to anti-choice, anti-affirmative action, anti-woman policies in the Presidential election. Those conservative Republicans who think that this year's election is a signal to press ahead with that agenda might do well to take note of that.
And women might do well to take note of the difference between the inclusive rhetoric of the Bush campaign and the actual policies proposed by Republicans in the coming two years. As Star Trek's immortal "Scotty" once said: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
~Karen~
