(3 of 4)
Sitting in the VIP gallery near Nancy Reagan, White House Congressional Liaison Max Friedersdorf thought he counted some 70 Democrats standing up too. Said he jokingly to an aide: "Can't we count this as our vote and pack up and go home?" Friedersdorf was referring to the fact that Reagan needs up to 40 Democrats to join the Republicans, minus a small number of defectors, in order to carry his program through the Democratic-controlled House. Behind Reagan at the Speaker's desk, Democrat Tip O'Neill noted the applauding members of his party, turned to Vice President George Bush beside him and conceded: "Here's your 40 votes."
Reagan's plan, virtually intact, was approved last week by the Senate Budget Committee. Three conservative Republican Senators, who had revolted against the large budget deficits it would produce, rejoined their party ranks. They did so after New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici, chairman of the committee, agreed to a revised set of estimates projecting that the Reagan plan would produce a balanced budget by 1984 instead of a $44.7 billion deficit. The plan assumes that there will be an additional but unspecified $22.7 billion in budget cuts by 1984, that $7.7 billion will be saved by reducing waste and fraud by then, and that the Defense Department will finance 40% of scheduled pay raises by attrition and freezing civilian employment. Complained Ohio Democrat Howard Metzenbaum: "I don't think the way to balance the budget is by gimmicking up the figures." Still, this plan should gain easy approval in the Republican-controlled Senate this week.
The real fight will be in the House.
For the first time, Reagan in his speech endorsed what he termed a "bipartisan substitute" for his own proposals, claiming that it "will achieve all the essential aims" of his program. Indeed, it would, since it calls for even deeper budget cuts than did his original package and includes the 10%-a-year, three-year Kemp-Roth reduction in individual tax rates. Sponsored by two conservatives, Republican Delbert Latta of Ohio and Democrat Phil Gramm of Texas, it was worked out with David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director. But it is bipartisan only in the sense that an unknown—and ardently courted —number of conservative Democrats may support it.
Reagan, on the other hand, sharply attacked the House Budget Committee resolution, which is supported by most Democrats. Cleverly devised by Oklahoma Democrat James Jones, chairman of the committee, it would cut the budget almost as sharply as the Gramm-Latta substitute. But it would provide more funds for many social programs. The lure for conservative Democrats is that Jones' proposal includes only a one-year tax cut and projects a much smaller budget deficit of $24.7 billion for 1982. Reagan, however, insisted that this plan was just "an echo of the past rather than a benchmark for the future."
As a final ovation for Reagan's speech rolled through the great hall, another intriguing colloquy took place above and behind the President. Bush turned to O'Neill and asked with a grin: "Wasn't that wonderful?" Growled the Speaker: "Was it?
To me, it's the same voodoo economics you were reporting [in the Republican presidential primaries] a year ago."