It could be worse.

President Bill Clinton went to Washington promising "change," but it is doubtful that the majority of American voters are ready for the kind of change Clinton represents. The tortuous and histrionic politicking surrounding the passage last month of his $496-billion deficit reduction and tax bill was manifest evidence of that political reality. Elected with only 43 percent of the popular vote, the president remains politically vulnerable. The near failure of the budget--even after being stripped of its stimulus package and energy tax--was a vivid sign of the Democratic coalition's fragility. Moreover, the budget's failure to attract even one Republican vote in either the House or the Senate was a sober reminder of the continuing strength of antitax sentiment nationwide.

Ross Perot's folksy, demagogic campaign against the budget bill obviously took its toll. In the present knee-jerk antigovernment atmosphere, Clinton can expect no help from Republicans eager to piggyback on the Perot phenomenon. To be sure, the administration allowed the Republicans to define the budget as a "tax and spend" issue and failed to build bridges to moderate Republicans. Neither were the Democrats above gerrymandering the truth when it came to what was a tax increase or a spending cut. But the Republicans, especially Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kans.), seemed to relish the prospect of further legislative stalemate in Washington.

Not a pretty picture. Still, even this budget is a step in the right direction. Based on realistic assumptions about economic growth, it should lower the annual deficit from this year's $300 billion to $200 billion by 1997, or from 4.3 percent of GNP to 2.7 percent. That should introduce a measure of stability to government spending. Despite these efforts, however, the deficit is expected to start climbing again in 1997 as the U.S. population ages and entitlement spending, especially health care, rises. Thus Clinton is right to insist that the nation now turn its attention to healthcare reform.

Despite cries about how the Clinton budget surreptitiously taxes the middle class, almost all the money to finance deficit reduction will come from the wealthiest Americans. A greater progressivity has been reintroduced into the tax code, raising the marginal rate of income tax for the top 2 percent of wage earners from 31 to 39 percent. Arguments about the economic efficiency of such taxes, especially in a weak economy, are complex and largely inconclusive. Politically most Americans agree that the wealthy, who by any measure did extremely well thanks to the policies of two Republican presidents responsible for quadrupling the national debt, are in the best position to help put the nation's public finances in order.

Among the budget's more enlightened programs are the increase in funding for the earned-income tax credit and the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax. The earned-income tax credit will supplement the income of working poor people, counteracting incentives in the current welfare system that discourage people from working. The gas tax, though small, is a step toward a broader-based energy tax. Energy taxes, used throughout the rest of the industrialized world, are a spur to economic efficicency and an obvious benefit to the environment.

It is safe to say that the Republican charge that the budget's tax increases will derail the recovery are spurious. For better or for worse, the budget's effect on the $6-trillion-a-year U.S. economy will be small. Advocates of increased spending for social programs will have little to cheer about. Shrewdly sabotaged by the Reagan administration's military and deficit spending, any expansion of domestic programs will be held hostage to the deficit debate for the foreseeable future. That future must somehow foster a growing awareness among the middle class that the problems facing American society--problems of structural unemployment and widespread economic insecurity, of crime, race, drugs, and health care--will not be solved through narrow interest-group politics, even if that interest group is the populous middle class. Expanding opportunity for all Americans requires an expanding economy, and an expanding economy requires public investment in education, job training, and infrastructure. Eventually the need for "sacrifice," a concept Clinton broached in his inaugural address but subsequently abandoned for fear of its political costs, will have to be faced. For now, Clinton must build on the modest step his budget victory embodies. Educating the public is the task of every president, and this president has yet to master that skill. Meanwhile, those who are running out of patience with the pace of change should consider how much worse things might be. All you have to do to envision the alternative is to take a long hard look at Mr. Perot.

About this issue:

Once again Commonweal devotes an entire September issue to he current status and future prospects of the laity. Reflecting the vibrant and sprawling reality of the laity, we have chosen a vibrant and sprawling graphic layout to match. Here's the roster: Commonweal Editor Margaret O'Brien Steinfels leads off, and with Chicago-bred frankness issues marching orders to the troops (begin on page 8 and jump obediently to page 16 and on and on...). Frank Macchiarola, jogging from page 9 to page 10, 11, and 12, sees something in campus ministry he'd like to bring home to residential parishes. Bud Johnson remembers his loyal Catholic grandfather (page 9 and then on to pages 13 and 14), while Brian Doyle reports on the physical and spiritual findings of his annual self check-up (start on page 9 and skip to 15 and 16). Finally, Regina Plunkett Dowling (page 11) gives the phrase "cafeteria Catholic" a whole new meaning, and manages to do it in just one page! In the book section, where the layout is more continuous, Dennis O'Brien, John B. Breslin, and Dennis M. Doyle bring us up to speed on the supernatural, college Catholics, and lay ministry, respectively. And if you think Catholics have to worry only about the four last things, check out Adrian J. Reimers's piece on page 22. Enjoy, but don't put too much on your cafeteria tray at once.