GOVERNMENT CUTS

Senators and congressmen have returned to their districts during the current recess to weigh the sentiments of local folk on the pressing issues in Washington. The budget battles, government shutdowns and media hype of the last few months have left many taxpayers scratching their heads. The political rhetoric may seem like business as usual in the nation's capital.

But Sen. John Ashcroft contends the past year has been anything but politics as usual in Washington. If that were so, Ashcroft told the Southeast Missourian's editorial board this week, Congress would have folded its tents in October and given the president a blank check and sent the bill for government excess to the next generation.

Republican newcomers have also fueled congressional votes. In the early 1990s, the Senate averaged just over 300 votes a session. In 1995, that number grew to 620. To accomplish this, Congress met more days with longer hours.

Through past spending habits, Congress exercised freedom irresponsibly, but not inconsequentially. Ashcroft said this Congress has opted for painful surgery to cut reckless spending as opposed to a topical treatment. Republicans have kept faith with their Contract With America, despite election-year pressures.

Ashcroft seems to have a firm grasp of the problems in Washington. Despite the hype, the Missouri senator said Democrat and Republican spending plans are not that far off.

The real sticking point deals with the system of doling out money. Democrats want the structure to remain one of entitlements: whoever meets the conditions gets the money despite the costs. Republicans want a system of control: a finite amount of money divided among the beneficiaries.

Determining exact costs is a key consideration to balancing the budget. The current system is designed to deliver just what Americans are getting. The system needs change.

The National Governors Association, meeting in early February, overwhelmingly approved a proposal to overhaul the nation's Medicaid health system that would provide states with a set federal allocation. This allocation would be tied to matching state funds. But the governors' plan would also snip ties to federal interference, a notion that has not be well received by everyone in Washington.

Transferring entitlement spending into block grant or other similar programs would force programs to operate within limits. It is the only way a true balanced budget can be achieved.

Unfortunately, the horse race for president has refocused national media attention on mudslinging and not on issues. Preliminary figure show that Medicare took in $35.7 million less than it spent in 1995. The Medicare trust fund still has a surplus of nearly $130 billion, but the 1995 deficit wasn't expected. At this rate, the trust fund would be depleted well in advance of the 2002 forecast. This development has virtually gone unnoticed in the national press, despite the fact Medicare has been a focal point of the balanced budget debate.

For now, the government is operating on a series of continuing resolutions. Ashcroft feels that politics on both sides will drive balanced budget efforts. With a presidential race at hand, it may be difficult to reach an agreement before November.

Decades of irresponsible spending in Washington must come to a stop. It is time to examine the system and make the changes necessary so that government can serve the next generation.