CSM on Fiscal Sanity
I'm on a fiscal responsibility kick at the moment, but apparently so lots of other folks are too so I'll stick with it for a bit longer. The Christian Science Monitor today editorializes on the excessive spending in the recent highway and energy bills. The editorial focuses way too much on Republican irresponsibility here, forgetting that both the highway and energy bills passed with significant Democratic support in both the House and Senate. Seventy-five Democrats voted for the energy bill in the House (31 Republicans voted no), and 25 Democrats voted for it in the Senate (6 Republicans voted no). On the highway bill the bipartisan pork-fest was even more apparent: all but 8 representatives (all Republicans) voted in favor, and all but 4 senators (again, all Republicans).
Sure, you can argue that the Republicans control the agenda, so they set the bills up, etc. But I didn't see very many Democrats standing up and arguing against the highway bill - because none did. I'm not making excuses for Republicans, I'm just saying this is not a partisan issue. There is a niche to be filled by advocating fiscal responsibility, and the Democrats could have capitalized on that and railed against the overspending nature of both the energy and highway bills. They didn't; they voted for them without even a peep of displeasure.
Why? Because Democratic incumbents want to get reelected just like Republican incumbents. They aren't ready to face questions from just-as-fiscally-irresponsible Republican opponents in '06 saying "Congressman X, you voted against funding projects in our communities. If I'm elected, I will bring home the bacon," etc. etc.
Once the CSM gets over blaming the whole problem on Republicans (I guess maybe they just already expect budget profligacy from the Democrats?), the editorial ends on a good note:
"Saying no to more government spending takes courage. Standing up to lobbyists and local activist groups who want a piece of the federal pie requires lawmakers who can point out that the pie should not spill over the pie pan.
With federal spending about to increase as baby boomers retire, Congress needs to start now to have government live within its means and not pile up debt for future generations to pay. And President Bush should wield his veto pen like a green-shaded accountant to force lawmakers to act like leaders, not followers of interest groups."
posted by JBD @ 9:02 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
True "pork is not a partisan issue," but Republicans are in control and have gotten there on the claim of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. The same cannot be said for most Democrats. Republicans can correct the problem but do not and Democrats, even if they wanted to, cannot.
Both Republican and Democratic members of Congress are clearly to blame for the hideously bloated spending bills passed this week.
Still, while we can all be armchair fiscal hawks, I'm not sure if I, as a Congressman, could have resisted the lure of copious amounts of local bacon. Members of Congress have constituencies, after all, and it is only natural that each would want to have his or her fair slice of the federal spending pie.
That's why there is only one person who truly can put a stop to this without excessive political risk - the President. He has no local constituency that he must placate. He must set a spending limit and (here's the tricky part) he must veto any bill that exceeds the limit.
In other words, excessive pork is not a partisan issue. It is a legislative branch issue. By neglecting his Constitutional duty to ensure that federal spending is kept under control, the President is making it an executive branch issue as well.
He is the one who deserves the lion's share of blame.
Post a Comment
<< Home