By ROBERT MACUM

Michel's frustration

PRESIDENT Reagan's budget and tax cut victories of last year were engineered in part by House GOP leader Bob Michel, who kept his own Republican members in line and who helped persuade a group of conservative Democrats nicknamed the "Boll Weevils" to join them in supporting Reaganomics.

But that was when the supply-side theory of economics, as sold by the Reagan administration, was new and untested. Now that a year has passed without a discernible improvement in the economy (with the exception of inflation), and all House members up for reelection, Michel is in a vastly different position.

The Boll Weevil coalition began to crumble as soon as the president presented his fiscal 1983 budget proposal to Congress that projected a deficit of $91.5 billion — later revised upward to $132 billion by the Congressional Budget Office — and that did nothing to try to lower interest rates. A few Boll Weevils vowed to stick with the president, but others refused.

In addition, Michel saw his once-solid Republican ranks split into separate camps. He was left somewhere in the middle.

A group of moderate House Republicans from the Northeast and Midwest nicknamed the "Gypsy Moths" let it be known they thought Reagan's budget from last year cut too deeply into the social programs and they would oppose any further spending cuts in social programs while Reagan continued his massive military buildup — a five-year, $1.5 trillion program.

In the other camp were the conservative Republicans, who refused to sway from the president's economic recovery program or his supply-side theory, described as the old "trickle-down" theory by budget director David Stockman in the now-famous Atlantic interview. That theory holds that if the rich are given enough tax breaks, the money will eventually trickle down to those on the lower end of the economic ladder.

The more conservative Republicans — the true "supply-siders" — insisted on protecting the three-year income tax cut program enacted last year, and refused to accept any new taxes to raise revenue and reduce the staggering deficits.

"I'm glad I don't have to work with that group over there [in the House]," Senate GOP leader Howard Baker of Tennessee sighed one day following budget compromise negotiations.

Michel's predicament of trying to hold his unruly troops together — a source of pride to the Peoria native who considers his ability to bring people together one of his strengths — became clear during budget compromise talks at the White House in April.

There, in GOP strategy discussions with the president and others, Michel's attempts to find a budget compromise both conservatives and moderates could accept were being undercut by House GOP Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi and, to a lesser degree, Congressman Jack Kemp of New York, according to GOP sources.

Ignoring Michel's plea to find a middle ground on which to base another coalition in the House, Lott urged Reagan to remain firm on taxes and defense spending and to try to lower the deficit by cutting even more from nondefense programs. The supply-siders wanted to fight, not compromise.

"Bob Michel has a constituency of one," lamented one Republican, following a weekly GOP leadership meeting at the White House that centered on the budget impasse.

The undercutting by Lott sent signals to the White House that Michel was not in control of his troops and that he was exaggerating the disarray among the Republicans in the House.

Michel's frustration grew when the White House began claiming they would take the Senate GOP budga plan, which originally called for $95 billion in new taxes and cutting $40 billion from Social Security costs, and push it through the House.

In a message directed to the president, Michel held an informal news conference and told reporters the Senate GOP plan would never pass the House, because only a few Republicans would vote for it. When asked about Michel's rejection the next day, Reagan said, "Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper." But Michel held another meeting with the press to again stress the plan would never pass the House.

While Michel was reiterating his views to the press, Lott was at the White House meeting with Reagan.

In a somewhat related development, the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rated members of Congress on their performance on spending issues. Overall, the Illinois congressional delegation was rated average among the other state delegations.

The biggest spenders in the delegation were Democratic Reps. Melvin Price, Frank Annunzio, John Fary, Dan Rostenkowski, Gus Savage and Paul Simon.

The biggest skinflints were Republican Reps. Phil Crane, Dan Crane and Ed Derwinski.

The following are their scores, with 99 being the best and 0 the worst. The NTU said anyone above 57 was good; anyone below 31 was a "big spender."

Sens. Dixon, 43, and Percy, 62.

(In order by their congressional districts) Reps. Washington 35, Savage 29, Russo 50, Derwinski 58, Fary 22, Hyde 45, Collins 34, Rostenkowski 23, Yates 36, Porter 48, Annunzio 20, Crane P. 75, McClory 45, Erlenborn 48, Corcoran 51, Martin 54, O'Brien 39, Michel 50, Railsback 39, Findle) 53, Madigan 48, Crane D. 75, Price 17, Simon 23.

42 | July 1982 | Illinois Issues