The assault on government.

Governor Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey scored big when she delivered the Republican rebuttal to the State of the Union address in January. Whitman was interrupted by applause over and over again as she repeated the words "reduce spending" and "cut taxes" no less than twenty-three times.

If there was any doubt what the Republicans stand for, Whitman got the message across: ask not what government can do for you (or for anyone else for that matter), ask what dismantling government can do for your wallet.

The Republicans are taking us on a short ride to economic and social disaster. Yet so far, at both the state and federal levels, they have been able to sell their cynicism and shortsightedness as some sort of populist uprising.

"In November, the revolution came to Washington," Whitman said. "People want results."

The results, of course, are exactly what Whitman will avoid in New Jersey if she manages to make her move to national office before the bill for her own taxi-cutting spree comes due. Likewise, the other Republican governors she credits with leading America's tax revolt are embarking upon slash-and-burn campaigns in their home states that will leave behind a trail of destruction long after they march on to the next stage in their political careers.

The assault on government is being waged on two fronts. First, the Republicans are intent on defunding government at both the state and federal levels. Second, they are taking a blowtorch to legislation and regulatory agencies that protect citizens and the environment.

Under their proposed balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, the Republicans in Congress would slash $1.3 trillion out of the federal budget over the next seven years. In order to fulfill their promise to balance the budget without cutting defense spending, Social Security, or Medicaid, they will have to do away with 30 to 50 percent of current funding for domestic programs.

How much can government hack away before society collapses? The states on the cutting edge of the Republican "revolution" provide an example.

The day before she took the podium as the spokeswoman for the Republican tax revolt, Governor Whitman announced a new round of income-tax cuts for New Jersey, bringing the total cuts under her administration to 30 percent. Columnist Bob Herbert described Whitman's cuts in The New York Times as a "shell game," pointing out that the property tax in New Jersey is soaring as a result of income-tax relief. The net result for taxpayers is no savings at all.

And although Whitman likes to claim that cutting the income tax caused economic growth in New Jersey, "There is no evidence that Whitman's tax cuts had any effect on the state's comparative rate of growth," according to an otherwise adulatory profile by John Judis in The New Republic.

Meanwhile, Whitman's cuts are doing serious damage. One of the ways she has financed her tax-cutting scheme is to raid public employee pension funds-tinkering with an essential public trust and creating a mess for pensioners and the state to deal with down the road. Then there are the public schools, which will take the brunt of Whitman's regressive tax cuts. In 1974, the state supreme court ruled that New Jersey would have to adopt an income tax to help fund impoverished urban school districts. As Whitman has set about dismantling the income tax, the schools are in worse shape than ever, and the pool of resources is drying up.

"I don't know how you take cities with crumbling infrastructure, roads, sewers, toxic factories, and do anything about that without dollars," New Jersey Assemblyman Wayne Bryant told The New Republic.

There's something obviously suspicious about the claim that we can improve our communities by spending less on them. Yet many politicians have made exactly that argument simply by slapping the "reform" label on their efforts to destroy public programs.

Governors William Weld of Massachusetts, Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, and Pete Wilson of California have all championed the idea that the best way to serve the poor is to cut Aid to Families with Dependent Children, thereby instilling a work ethic. This sort of scapegoating has been successful for years. But it's a whole different matter for politicians to argue for cuts that hurt the middle class. That's why many state lawmakers are worried about the balanced-budget amendment. The cuts in education, health care, and other public services would be felt by everyone but the very rich.

The Republicans have also set about dismantling the whole system of regulations and protections that government was once required to uphold regardless of business cycles.

The Republicans have rushed legislation through both houses of Congress that attacks regulations--ranging from the Civil Rights Act to laws concerning child protection, fair labor standards, and safe drinking water--that are not fully funded by the federal government. By barring such "unfunded mandates," Congress can kill any new legislation that would cost all the states and localities in America an aggregate total of $50 million in any given year. Laws that come up for periodic reauthorization, such as the Endangered Species Act, and laws requiring an update or change, would also be subject to instant death as "unfunded mandates."

The most cynical aspect of the unfunded-mandate bill is that it shifts money away from enforcing regulations and into minute and costly budget analysis. Agencies will be required to assess how much each regulation costs states and localities--an accounting feat that will tie up staff and cost a great deal of money. "We call it paralysis by analysis," says Suellen Lowry of Sierra Club Legal Defense. "The interests who just don't want laws enforced have figured out a very clever way to do it."

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are boldly waging war on federal regulatory agencies. Calling the Food and Drug Administration "the leading job-killer in America," House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a six-month moratorium on all federal regulation by the FDA, and is seeking to significantly weaken the agency's regulatory powers. The House and Senate are also drawing up new Superfund legislation that would dilute the law on toxic dumps.

We've been here before. Much of the Republican agenda is warmed-over Reaganomics. And despite Ronald Reagan's skillful salesmanship, trickle-down economics is no populist coup. Reagan-era deregulation and cuts in social services have done nothing to build a better nation for most Americans. Now we're hearing the same old voodoo economics promoted by the Republicans again. It's not "morning in America" this time, it's "revolution." Unlike the wishful optimism of the Reagan years, though, the Republicans today are cashing in on an angry and vengeful mood in the electorate. Beneath the knee-jerk attacks on liberals, bureaucrats, and welfare recipients, the essence of conservative economic policy is the same--clear a path for big business and roll over working people and the poor.

But the assault on government can only go on so long. Eventually, if we don't invest in public services, life will become intolerable for most of us, not just the unfortunate few.

It is morally repugnant to give up on the idea of a greater social good. The Republicans are telling us it's every taxpayer for himself. But we'd better remember that those of us who live in cities and towns instead of isolated mansions and gated communities are in this together.

White Flag White House

Watching Bill Clinton's State of the Union speech was not a pleasant experience. He conceded so much ground to the Republicans he may as well have been waving a white flag.

It was bad almost from the start. In the first minutes of the speech, when Clinton praised Ronald Reagan for his Cold War policies, you knew it was going to be a long night. He kissed Reagan's ring not once but twice, the second time to laud Reagan for his welfare policies--the same Reagan who ridiculed "welfare queens."

Clinton gave away the store at the beginning by criticizing, not defending, the role of government. He sounded the retreat from the New Deal in language straight out of the Republican prayer book.

When he talked of having the government "get out of the way," he could have been Reagan or Gingrich. When he said we need "to cut yesterday's government to help solve tomorrow's problems," he could have been George Bush (or at least Peggy Noonan).

He genuflected at the altar of the private sector, never explaining how corporations can solve the problems of health care, the environment, the crisis of the inner city, the unjustness of our economy when, in fact, they helped create these problems in the first place.

The government is the only thing that stands between exploitative companies and American citizens, a fact that Clinton only waved at as he turned tail and ran. Nor did Clinton bother to mention the government's role in combating the plague of AIDS; he didn't even utter the disease's name. Nor did Clinton mention abortion, and the horrifying violence that right-wing fanatics are perpetrating against those who work at abortion clinics.

Two other issues were particularly annoying. First, Clinton's pandering to the anti-immigration crowd showed real, genuine cowardice. Second, he also played to the anti-welfare crowd. It is just not true that "nothing has done more to undermine our sense of common responsibility than our failed welfare system." By using such rhetoric, Clinton fuels the base prejudices and misconceptions that are making our society so uncivil today. Welfare is the only safety net available for poor mothers and their children. Clinton is yanking that net away, and the Republicans are cheering him on. Clinton ladled in some rhetoric about not punishing poor children in the process, but that is impossible under the very programs he proposes.

Sure, he took a few pleasing positions, like the defense of the assault-weapons ban, child immunization, and Head Start. But this was mostly dross to mollify liberals.

For left-wingers, Clinton is a disaster. To fend off the vicious assault of the right-wing Republicans, we need someone who will stand up and fight for all we hold dear. As he demonstrated in his State of the Union speech and in the days that followed, Clinton is not up to that job. He'd rather switch than fight.