“Nobody in my district is screaming for tax cuts, they are
screaming for a prescription drug benefit.” Maxine Waters? Nope,
try Republican Congressman Steven LaTourette of Ohio. “I’m
concerned. This budget is essentially $11 billion under the
president’s number.” Barney Frank? Wrong again — it comes from New
York Republican Sherwood Boehlert. “I don’t like what I see so
far.” Nancy Pelosi? Sorry, it’s House Government Reform Chairman
Tom Davis — Republican, Virginia.
The target of their sniping is Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa, chairman
of the House Budget Committee. It turns out that in writing the
FY2004 House Budget Resolution, Nussle called for a paltry 1
percent cut in non-defense discretionary and mandatory
spending.
Almost 10 years after the GOP swept into Congress, it is evident
that the self-proclaimed party of limited government has become the
party of unlimited spending. The GOP Congress has delivered three
of the top five largest spending sprees in American history — the
other two occurred during World War II.
While the Senate can be counted on to be a perpetual spending
machine regardless of the party in power, the few GOP anti-spending
hawks in the House could use some assistance from the White House.
But the leadership on spending from President Bush has been
virtually nonexistent.
In his most recent budget message, the president says, “I will
also insist on spending discipline in Washington D.C., so we can
meet our priorities.” Interesting, because in last year’s budget
message the president called for “restraint in government
spending.” And what did President Bush say in his first budget
message to the American people? “Government spending has risen too
quickly.”
Unfortunately, the president’s rhetoric has not been matched by
his deeds. Under Bush’s new budget, total spending will have risen
19.6 percent since he entered into office. However, national
defense is not responsible for all of that increase. Non-defense
spending will have jumped 18.1 percent.
Given that Congress technically controls the purse strings, it
deserves much of the blame. However, President Bush has not vetoed
a single spending bill during his three years in office. Instead,
he has agreed to sign every piece of legislation crossing his desk,
including a bloated farm bill and the recent pork-ridden FY2003
omnibus bill. To make a comparison, President Reagan had already
vetoed 22 spending bills at the same point in his
administration.
Fortunately for timid Republicans, help has arrived from the
Congressional Budget Office. The nonpartisan CBO recently released
its annual “Budget Options” publication, which offers legislators
billions of dollars’ worth of sensible spending reduction ideas.
More importantly for Republicans, traditional Democratic arguments
that the spending cut ideas are “draconian” or “extreme” would be
weakened because of the CBO’s neutral reputation.
If Congress were to heed the suggestions of the CBO, over $50
billion would be freed-up in fiscal year 2004 alone. And, projected
over the course of the next 10 years, the sum would amount to
almost $1.5 trillion. Thus, by adhering to the simple spending
ideas offered by the CBO, enough money would be available to
prosecute the war, enact the president’s tax cuts, and still
balance the budget in the near-term.
Fact is, the times we live in require that the federal
government tighten its belt. The economy is crying out for tax
reduction and regulatory rollbacks. The constant threat of
terrorism requires that scarce resources be allocated in a way to
enhance America’s security. Unless drastically reformed soon,
programs like Social Security and Medicare will wreak economic
havoc when the baby boomers start to retire. Adding a prescription
drug program to a financially troubled Medicare program — as both
the administration and congressional Republicans have proposed —
is not a step in the right direction.
President Bush has shown extreme courage in international
affairs when confronted with hostility, from friend and foe alike.
There is no doubt that he can demonstrate similar courage on the
spending front when challenged by unfriendly Democrats and fellow
Republicans that have gone wobbly. Republicans still have time to
become the party of limited government — but not much.
