(3 of 4)
Debate on the budget proposals opened in the House with Democrat Obey trying a classic parliamentary ploy. He offered a relatively liberal substitute to the Jones budget that would have kept most social programs intact. Obey's purpose was to give moderate Republicans and Democrats from conservative districts a proposal to vote against—after which they could in good conscience vote for the far tougher Jones budget. But Republican Jeffords ruined the maneuver. He announced that he liked the Obey package and would vote for it. Knowing that it would fail, he would then vote for the Reagan-endorsed substitute, a "bipartisan" proposal sponsored by Republican Delbert Latta of Ohio and conservative Democrat Phil Gramm of Texas.
Obey's proposal was crushed, 303-119. The next step was the vote to replace the Jones resolution with the Gramm-Latta substitute. Shortly before the roll call, O'Neill admitted that the outcome was clear. "I'm not trying to change any votes out there," he said with a shrug. As for the Republicans his party needed for any chance to win, O'Neill observed: "They're kind of running for the woods."
During the debate on Gramm-Latta, Republican Robert Michel of Illinois, the minority leader, argued that Reagan's budget was "a small step for Congress but a giant leap for the country." He placed it in a long-term perspective, declaring: "Let history show that we provided the margin of difference that changed the course of American government." O'Neill roused himself to deliver a stirring, if melancholy, defense of the social action programs he had helped shape during 28 years in Congress. "Do you want to meat-ax the programs that have made America great?" he asked. "You close the door on America in the Latta bill." Referring to Reagan's claim that his budget provided a "safety net" for the needy, O'Neill scoffed: "A safety net? It is a trap, not a safety net."
As O'Neill well knew, his plea was much too late: the roll call, when it finally came, contained no suspense. The Senate is expected to pass a similar Reagan budget this week with even greater ease. Responding to the new frugal mood, the Senate last week reversed an earlier vote and approved a $7.9 billion reduction in cost of living increases for retired federal employees and Social Security recipients in fiscal 1982. After the two budgets have been passed, minor differences between the resolutions will have to be resolved in a conference committee. And then, unless the whole budget process later goes off its planned track, a radical reversal of federal economic policy will be enacted into law.