BUDGET STRUGGLE

The budget struggle under way in Washington is an incredible spectacle and certainly not an edifying one. What the struggle has done, however, is to illuminate for all to see those who are serious about addressing the nation's serious, long-term budgetary problems, and those who aren't. Keep in mind that the federal budget was last balanced in 1969 and that we have piled up nearly $5 trillion in national debt.

On one side is the congressional majority elected one year ago this month in a historic landslide that restored Republican control after 40 years in the minority. A key plank in the Republican campaign endorsed so overwhelmingly last fall by the voters was their pledge to work toward a balanced budget within seven years. It is fair to say that the Republicans have fought to make good on that commitment, at no small political risk, even if there can be honest quibbles about this or that detail of their program.

On the other side is a president and Democratic congressional minority that basically refuses to engage congressional leaders on a serious level. This is in spite of President Clinton's repeated lip service to the notion of a balanced budget, saying he only disagrees with the GOP's means to that end. The president, who clearly wants to have it both ways, is being disingenuous in the extreme. The president is said to be advised, by such partisan pit bulls as James Carville, that he should want this impasse continued indefinitely, so much is it to his advantage. This is disreputable nonsense from people who can't see past the end of their noses where political considerations enter in.

Another observation shouldn't go unmade. For years certain pious, deficit-obsessed voices within and without the national government have unceasingly lectured Americans about the need to take serious action on the national debt. Where are these voices now that one of our political parties has taken on the difficult task -- to repeat, at tremendous political risk -- and made this heavy lifting its own work?

Where is Ross Perot, who founded a presidential campaign relying heavily on this issue? Where are former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman and former Democratic Sen. Paul Tsongas of the deficit-obsessed Concord Coalition? Where is former Republican commerce secretary, Pete Peterson, so given to delivering dolorous lectures on how we're mortgaging our grandchildren's futures? Where are pundits such as the estimable David Broder, who has repeatedly lamented the lack of resolve within either party for tackling the tough issues of middle class entitlements? Where, for that matter, is former Missouri Sen. Jack Danforth, a statesman often heard from on these issues? It is true that some of these leaders have retired to private life, but surely they didn't spend so much of their productive years fighting for fiscal responsibility only to abandon the effort just when serious and responsible action is within reach.

Learned commentators have remarked that democracy will survive until the people discover that they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury. Egged on by liberal Democrats who told us we can have it all, Americans embarked on this course more than 30 years ago. Congressional Republicans are fighting to put the nation on track toward a balanced budget in seven years, with federal spending continuing to grow, albeit at a slower rate. Theirs is -- all the hysterical rhetoric aside -- a reasonable position. And if this effort fails, who among us thinks any other group of vulnerable politicians will be so bold as to undertake the effort again?

America is at an historic turning point in what can only be described as the budgetary wars. Republicans must ignore the polls and have it out with an irresponsible president and congressional minority.