Logansport Pharos-Tribune from Logansport, Indiana • Page 57

The Indiana, PA Gazette Sunday, September 4,1994 A-9 SUBSTANTIVE HEALTH CARE STILL AN ISSUE By MARIANNE MEANS Hearst Newspapers WASHINGTON Substantive health care reform may be dead for the foreseeable future, but it is very much in President Clinton's interest to keep it alive as his favorite political issue. The president's grand concept of universal and affordable health care was simply too much for Congress, and the country, to swallow in a hurry. The system choked it ran out of time, out of ideas, out of political will. But the concept was worth trying, for the well-being of the country. And it is still worth pursuing.

Clinton's prospects for pushing sweeping reforms through a potentially more conservative Congress the next two years are dim. And voters are losing their sense of urgency about health care as the economy improves. But Clinton is stuck with the issue, no matter what. He billed it as his central bid for a place in history, and he was correct to do so. The president has hinted that he might yet go for some minor changes to correct the worst abuses of the insurance industry, for which there is considerable bipartisan consensus.

That's OK, so long as he makes it clear that such fiddling around the edges is just a down payment on a continuing campaign to pass the rest of his package. What he cannot do is to advertise marginal modifications as a victory and call it quits. To cop out, accepting cosmetic legislation that does not resolve the central structural weakness of our health care system, would merely confirm public suspicion that Clinton does not have the courage of his convictions. Nor is it clear that the incremental, voluntary bits and pieces favored by conservatives would be an improvement in any case. Budget experts recently criticized a limited, alternative GOP House plan as threatening higher costs and lower coverage standards.

The president has put the issue of sweeping reform on the public agenda and he is obliged to keep it there, so long as he is in office, until a measure that meets his test of universal coverage passes. (His definition of "universal" is a bit murky, but certain parameters are obvious.) Clinton failed to break congressional gridlock on the subject, as he had promised. But he has waged a good fight and ought to get some credit for at least addressing the problem, which is more than his GOP White House predecessors ever did. It was, in retrospect, naively ambitious of the Democrats to expect passage in less than a year of a radical measure that would affect one seventh of the economy. It was only last October that the president sent his proposed legislation to Capitol Hill.

Its format changed so many times in the ten months since that hardly anyone understood what was going on. The anti-crime bill, by contrast, had marinated in the legislative process for six years and was subjected to hearing after hearing. It addressed an issue that voters give a higher priority than health care, yet it barely squeaked through. Despite polls that show a majority of Americans favor substantive reform, the complicated health package flunked the basic test of a winning political issue. It was not simple and it was not explainable.

Opponents, deliberately or through ignorance, successfully distorted the issues involved beyond all recognition of the facts. Industry lobbyists protecting their own vested interests were not the only ones at fault. A major embarrassment was that the logical and fair way to reform the system is simply to give all Americans the same stable, comprehensive benefits plan that federal government employees enjoy. First Lady Hillary Clinton, in fact, tried to shame Congress into doing just that. But it would be very expensive and result in either new taxes or increased deficits.

The Democrats didn't want to go that route any more than the Republicans. Leading Senate health reform opponent Phil Gramm, confronted with charges of inequity and selfishness, contended his government health plan wasn't really a good deal after all. He claimed that he was as subject to marketplace forces as DIVIDED GOVERNMENT DOESN'T MEAN DISASTER By ROBERT E. THOMPSON Hearst Newspapers WASHINGTON In this city, bordered by the Potomac and fueled by hot air from Capitol Hill, the campaign season always is upon us, and political posturing is never out of fashion. The most traveled paths on Capitol Hill are those to the House and Senate radio-television studios, where members record for viewers back home their wise and witty sayings.

With congressional proceedings now covered by television, "members also fill the atmosphere of the two chambers with oratory aimed at convincing the home folks that their service is indispensable to the survival of the republic. That is the normal way of life in this citadel of democracy. But now that Labor Day is here, the process will intensify as the 1994 congressional campaign officially gets under way. Bill Clinton's low standing in public opinion surveys and predictions that the Democrats will suffer heavy losses in November raise an important question: How would we fare if Republicans were to control the House Senate during the remainder of Clinton's term? The answer is: It would be troublesome for both Clinton and the republic but not disastrous. In this century, voters repeatedly have chosen divided government, with one party prevailing in the White House while the other was calling the shots on Capitol Hill.

William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson. Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George Bush had to operate with one or both houses controlled by the opposition party. When Clinton was elected, Democrats proclaimed an end to the stalemate that frustrated action when they dominated Capitol Hill and Bush controlled the White House. But stalemate did not disappear. Republicans formed a solid phalanx against many of Clinton's proposals and with the aid of dissident Democrats were able to defeat some of them.

But it would have been worse for Clinton had the Republicans been in control of both houses. As minority strategists, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich are fierce adversaries of the president. As majority leaders, they would be even more ferocious. The most memorable periods of divided government in this century were in and 1973-75. In the first instance.

Democrat Wilson and the Republican Senate fought a historic battle over ratification of the League of Nations. While the Senate debated the issue, Wilson toured the country in the autumn of 1919 to sell the League to the people. Despite an enthusiastic response, he returned to the White House a desperately ill man who soon suffered a stroke that made it impossible for him to conduct affairs of state. He lost the battle for the League. In 1946, with Harry Truman in the White House, voters ratified that year's GOP campaign theme: Had Enough? Vote Republican.

They relieved Democrats of congressional control and made it m- possible for Truman to obtain passage of his many proposed domestic reforms. But, with bipartisan support, he gained approval for an agenda of far-reaching foreign policy initiatives. In the 1948 presidential campaign, Truman focused his "give 'ein hell" oratorical thunder on the "do- nothing 80th Congress's" opposition to his domestic program. He won a stunning upset triumph over Thorn- NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL VIEWS By The Associated Press Here are excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad. Aug.

28 Albuquerque (N.M.) Journal on Pentagon spending: The Pentagon budget is coming under increasing pressure, and among the juiciest targets are weapons programs. During the Cold War, when the Soviets could match aeronautical advances, it was mandatory that research and development be followed through on; that an F-15 fly off the drawing board, through testing and refinement to the production line. Now, without a constantly developing threat, the United States can afford to back off on new production. But even if we can get by with less muscle, we still need all our brains pushing the technological envelope. Until and unless there is an impending threat to match, or it becomes more cost-effective to produce and fly a new plane than to maintain the existing plane, prototypes would remain in the research and development bullpen.

There would be less to show for the defense dollar, both in terms of numbers of planes by which to divide the high cost of and in terms of production jobs in key congressional districts. But there would also be less of the really big budget numbers trailing along ominously behind weapons development programs: The production costs. Aug. 30 Le Monde, Paris, on the merger of Martin-Marietta and Lockheed: The merger (of) the American defense contractors Martin-Marietta and Lockheed illustrates a new wave of share-takings, alliances and buyouts unfolding in certain sectors of the American economy. These billion-dollar operations are giving the big industrial groups of the United States a world competitiveness lost over the past 20 years, notably to the These operations have nothing to do with the spectacular takeovers of the '80s.

Today's logic is no longer financial, but industrial. Groups are seeking to re-specialize in their core work and are aiming for more long-term profits. The rebound of the American economy over the past four years is The Clinton administration is taking part in these marriages and is in many cases provoking them. It's no longer the era of anti-trust policy, but of a more interventionist industrial policy. Aug.

31 The Straits Times, Singapore, on Bosnia: It may not yet be the feared clash of cultures, but the pussyfooting of the "contact group" countries the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Russia can easily convert the war between Bosnia- Herzegovina's Serbs and Muslims into a proxy conflict between the Christian West and the Islamic world. So far, however, the Muslim countries have displayed commendable restraint in the face of provocative strategies (like last weekend's farcical referendum) that seem to be designed to allow Bosnian Serbs to consolidate what they have seized through violence and But there can be no lasting peace if Bosnian Serbs can so easily outgun the government. The United States has threatened to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia. It is time to act on that. Much of the trouble can be traced to the Bosnian Serbs' conviction that the government is at their mercy, and that the Americans bluff is easily called.

Aug. 30 Al-Gomhouria, Cairo, on the latest Palestinian-Israeli agreement: The early transfer of civilian authority to Palestinians in the West Bank is a new test for peace supporters in the PLO and the Israel. It is step on the road toward the fulfil- ment of the Palestinians' legitimate demands, reflecting their eagerness to overcome the interim period and to move to the final settlement negotiations. The agreement is also evidence of the Palestinians' success in running their affairs in and Jericho. However, extremists from both sides are still threatening to destroy this agreement, whether by statements of denunciation, demonstrations or other trivial acts.

Yet, victory should come in the end for those who opted for just and comprehensive peace as the way to achieve stability and security. Israel's announcement that negotiations will continue despite recent attacks by Hamas proves'that trust as E. Dewey. Republican Richard Nixon had to deal with a Democratic Congress from the day he entered the White House in 1969 until his departure in 1974. But the Congress that wrote itself into history was the 93rd, which in 1973-75 sat in judgment of Nixon and his role in the Watergate scandal.

When it finally became clear that House Democrats, bolstered by many Republicans, would vote for articles of impeachment and that the Senate would convict him, Nixon resigned. Of all the periods of divided leadership in this century, bipartisanship fared best from 1955 to 1961 the last six years of Dwight Eisenhower's presidency. A major reason was that the Texas Democrats who presided over Congress, House Speaker Sam Rayburn and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, greatly respected the popular, Texas-born World War II hero who was president and concurred in many of his foreign and domestic policy decisions. It would take a political tidal wave for the Republicans to take control of the House hi this year's election, but a relatively small storm could give them the Senate. When Clinton finally won House passage of his anti-crime bill on Aug.

21 with the support of 46 Republicans, he said: "This is the way Washington ought to work." When the Senate passed the measure four days later with the support of seven Republicans, he said the "bipartisan spirit" that prevailed should give Americans hope "that we can come together to do the job they sent us here to do." Most of us might share that hope, but realistically we should understand that whichever party controls Congress in the next two years, politicians will not forswear partisanship. now exists between the two sides. It is also an evidence of rational thinking, recognizing the importance of the Palestinian track whose success is essential to achieve comprehensive peace in the region. Aug. 26 Korea Herald, Seoul, South Korea, on North Korea's stability: The puzzling enigma of the workings of the North Korean ruling hierarchy is deepening with each passing day as signs emerge that something may be going amiss with the vital succession process and the Stalinist monolith may be facing a major It is with mixed feelings that we watch the murky development or lack thereof, among our Northern compatriots who may be going through the calm before the storm.

These misgivings are driven by a desire to see North Korea complete a quiet political transition without an upheaval and initiate productive reforms for liberalization and opening-up in stability. We do not want the continuation of a repressive and isolationist regime in Pyongyang; at the same time, we do not want the communist system to collapse overnight with violent repercussions to upset the security of the Korean Peninsula. Aug.30 The Times, London, on the start of the German election campaign: Few imagined, only eight months ago, that the official start of the German election would see Helmut Kohl in such a commanding position. All the pollsters pointed in January to a crushing general election defeat in October. Yet this political colossus once again dominates his country.

The latest opinion poll gives his governing Christian Democratic Union coalition with the Free Democrats almost 50 percent of the vote, with the opposition Social Democrats trailing The chancellor has so often been underestimated and has so often triumphed by "sitting out" difficulties that there is a danger now of overestimating him, especially abroad, because he is so familiar. He does not make that mistake himself. The campaign is likely to be hard and rough, turning increasingly in the absence of new on a personal contest between the leaders. The odds must be on another Kohl triumph. WE MAY NEEP WE PiPN'T KEEP anyone because if he was defeated for re-election he would lose his health benefits.

This, however, is flatly untrue, as Gramm later had to admit. Unlike many Americans; members of Congress and administration officials can take their health plans with them when they leave government. House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich similarly tried to poor-mouth his own benefits! He told CNN that he paid $400 a month for his insurance package. Not true. The government, his employer, contributes $300 to his monthly premiums and he shells out only $100 as his share.

The tricky part for Clinton now in the aftermath of his health plan failure is to get what little he can without creating the impression that he is backing away from his core principles. There will be a great temptation to go on to other subjects, particularly in the festering realm of neglected foreign policy issues! Congress does not like to keep beating a dead horse. The public is easily bored. i But presidents should stand for somer thing, win or lose. I ALWAYS 5HOULP PEEP-DIKING IT THE THING TOPO BlU- IF THEUAST TRIED IN THE MEDIA By BILL THOMPSON Fort Worth Star-Telegram If the O.

J. Simpson case was ever about justice, it isn't anymore. It probably never was. Once the media latched onto this sensational double slaying and its superstar suspect, all s'emblance of legal decorum, journalistic propriety and plain old common sense was buried beneath the overwhelming avalanche of news coverage. And the media latched onto it in a hurry, faster than a scandal-craving public could say, "Did you see 'Hard Copy' yesterday?" Simpson was all but convicted in the media before he was officially named as a suspect.

And Simpson had barely been arrested before columnists and TV commentators were debating the odds that he would be sentenced to the gas cham- ber. Almost from the moment the news broke that Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend Ronald Goldman had been stabbed and slashed to death in Los Angeles and that O.J. was under organizations have been conducting polls that invite the public to vote on Simpson's guilt or innocence. Most of the polls say he is guilty. Why bother with a court trial? The state of California will bother with a trial, of course, because a trial is required, even if the media and the public consider the trial to be a formality.

And it's a good thing the state is so picky about these things; the TV networks would be beside them- selves if they were denied the opportunity to offer play-by-play coverage of the court proceedings. Can you say stupendous ratings, boys and girls? There is no denying that the Simpson case is a major news story. If people weren't reading the O.J. stories in the papers and watching the O.J. coverage on TV, the media would dump the story in a heartbeat.

And there's no reason wny the media or the public should deny their fascination with the story. The problem is that the news coverage is overshadowing the process that is being covered. The legal case isn't a legal case anymore. It's a soap opera, a miniseries, a movie of the week. The attorneys are posturing for the camera during court hearings.

When the judge isn't cracking jokes, he's being judicially harsh or lenient virtually on cue. The defendant is playing to the TV audience, using whatever acting skills he didn't exhaust in those rent-a-car commercials and "Naked Gun" movies. And lawyers who may or may not have a clue what's going on in the case have turned themselves into household names with their performances as "expert" commentators on TV. If you suddenly found yourself charged with murder, and Robert Shapiro wasn't available, wouldn't you hire Gerry Spence to head up your defense team or at least to represent you on "Larry King All this would be disturbing enough if there were nothing more at stake than justice in the Simpson; case. But the potential transcend the case at hand.

It isl possible that the Simpson case and; the hoopla surrounding it have; changed forever the way our judicial system goes about its business. i We have seen reckless leaks of; real and nonexistent evidence law enforcement officials; irrespon-' sible grandstanding by attorneys on; both sides; unrestrained trafficking 1 in rumor, half-truth and flat-out' falsehood by the media; unbridled" speculation by the public. Will this now become the acceptable standard, for high-' profile legal cases? And if the Simpson case sets the standard for big cases, won't same standard eventually apply to: every case? Won't every citizen who: has a brush with the law be just as- susceptible as O.J. Simpson to the: potential excesses of the judicial; system, the media, the public? If so, our precious constitutional; guarantee of a fair trial, our great! tradition that an individual is considered innocent until proved guilty, i could become nothing more than memory. Then again, there's at least outside chance that this might be' one of those once-in-a-lifetime situa-; tions that leaves no lasting one of those one-show-only extrava-' ganzas that will be gone and forgot-; ten the moment the curtain falls and the lights come up.

We can certainly hope so. Bill Thompson a columnist for the- Fort Worth Star-Telegram. TWO PARTY SYSTEM? I DON'T THINK SO By PAT TRULY Fort Worth Star-Telegram President Clinton, hoping to get a crime bill through the Senate recently, exhorted senators to "continue the bipartisan for an American approach to an American problem." Bipartisan? Surely he jests. Multi- partisan is more like it. In case you weren't looking, we do not really have a two-party system.

It was Will Rogers who said, "I'm not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat." Of course, Rogers also said, "It takes more humor to be a Democrat than a Republican." A sense of humor may be part of a forgiving nature. What do ultraconservative Rep. Ralph Hall, D-Texas, or Sen. Richard Shelby, have in common with very liberal Rep.

Charles Rangel, or Sen. Paul Wellstone, Virtually nothing. But "don't ask" was a principle of the Democrats long before it was applied to gays in the military. Democrats seem to figure that you must have some excellent private reason to label yourself a Democrat, and thus it's not up to them to tell you that you aren't. So Democrats range from Sen.

Howard Metzenfaaum of Ohio (as liberal as Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, is conservative) to Rep. Pete Geren, D-Texas, who in 1992 had a more conservative voting record than all but a few northern Republicans, according to Congressional Quarterly. Therefore, when House Demo- crats agree on something, it goes beyond the bipartisan to the positively miraculous. Republicans also stray, but the GOP employs its own party-purity police force.

Just before one of the House votes on the crime bill, the Republican National Committee forwarded to all House Republicans a hot note from the Alaska GOP demanding that "real Republican candidates" be found to challenge the 38 Republicans who had earlier voted for an assault rifle ban. By that standard, "real Republicans" have to be for guns, whatever else they may believe in. So guns define one species of Republican. The Democrats, not to be outgunned, have a similar shoot-'em-up segment. Then each party has a "yahoo" or anti-intellectual branch.

And there are "trickle-down" Republicans and "trickle-down" Democrats, believing that if we would just do away with taxes on rich folks, everything would work out. Obviously there are even more Democratic Parties than there are Republican. At last count there were 258 Democrats in the House, representing roughly 258 different subsets of Democrats, who occasionally agree with each other or with one bunch of Republicans or another. That's why no president of either party can count on doing much governing. He's like Chiang Kai- Shek in the old days, dealing with too many independent warlords.

It almost makes you wonder why the Republicans are eager to get control of Congress, until you think; about big campaign The health-care issue alone has been a bonanza for well-placed members of Congress. No one is better placed' than a chairman. But that's business. nation is not really divided; Democrat vs. Republican.

The; crime bill showed that the divisions are primarily North-South and Urban-Rural. Country folk have never trusted; their city cousins, even when the city cousins were of the same race, in this case, no violent-death figures' from the inner cities temper the gun; love that is traditional in rural America (rural is an attitude as well; as a locale). The North-South divisions are equally vivid. Northern and Southern Republicans seem to! have less and less in common. So do' Northern and Southern Democrats.

A bipartisan effort, brings together an honorable, conservative, white, rural, pro-gun Democrat like Rep. Charlie Sten-i holm of Stamford and an liberal, urban, nonwhite, anti-gun Democrat like Rep. John Conyers of- Michigan, who complained during; the crime debate that it was easier for his constituents to get guns than it was to get jobs. They represent two different Americas. Look at it that way, and Will Rogers' fond remark about Democrats makes a lot of sense.

Pat Truly is a columnist and editorial writer for the Fort Worth Star- Telegram..