Make the budget a sexy issue again (or, for once)
Last week the Congress voted to raise the debt limit for the third time in the Bush years, and to raise it by $800 billion, a sizeable chunk of change. Then, having failed to pass individual budget bills during the eleven months prior when they controlled the congressional agenda, they lumped it all together in a giant omnibus (read: hidey-hole of pork-barrel spending and other noxious provisions) bill and gave Congress less than a day to review the 3,000 page document. Friday's business section was dominated by stories about the declining dollar, our increasing trade deficit, and the warning signals Alan Greenspan shot off about the potential impact of those issues on our economic future. We know we have an "emergency spending" bill coming early next year for somewhere around $80 billion.
The greatest tragedy of the election of 2004 isn't that George Bush was re-elected (although that's really, really bad). The worst part is that Republicans, having had control of both houses of Congress and the White House for three of the last four years, should be held entirely accountable for the horrific status of our federal budget situation. Yet the Democrats managed to muster nary a peep about this travesty, and in fact lost ground both in the Congress and the presidential vote.
It's much easier to talk about fiscal restraint as the minority than the majority party, and, well, folks, we're the minority. If we don't scream to the mountaintops about this issue every time we get a chance for the next two years, it will be a political and a moral failure.
2 Comments:
I mostly agree, but I think we should keep our eye on the ball on this one: it's not just the deficit that we care about, it's how it arised (irresponsible tax cuts and irrational planning for war) and how it's going to be alleviated. What do we do when the Republicans say, "Here, here! Deficits are bad! That's why we're enacting a 25% cut in all discretionary spending."?
Absolutely--I forgot to note that in the midst of passing the omnibus, the Rs rejected a Democratic amendment to reinstate rules that required any additional spending (or tax cuts) to be offset so they were budget neutral. This is the tool used during the Clinton years to bring the budget back under control. The fact is that Rs don't want pay-go because it makes the cost of their tax cuts all too obvious--and it's our job to point that out. Frankly, I'd rather face a proposal to cut discretionary spending by 25%, as you suggest, then the slow trickle of constant 1-2% cuts that we're far more likely to face.
A good structure for putting together budget commentary is: state the problem; lay the blame for the problem where it belongs, at the feet of the Rs; state the solution. Now all the Dems need to do is come up with a solution...and a credible spokesperson to deliver it...
Post a Comment
<< Home