Party On!

Who's spending big now? The 'party of small government' Tue Feb 21, 7:19 AM ET

Say you're in a financial hole. You're spending more money than you're taking in - $4,000 this year alone. After much effort, you figure out ways to save $400 in the next five years. Would you then turn around, spend double that amount and put yourself deeper in debt?

Probably not - unless, that is, you were a member of Congress running for re-election this year and you get to spend other people's money. Add eight zeros to the numbers in the example above, and you'll get an idea of the shell game going on in Washington.

The federal budget deficit will be in the range of $400 billion this year. That means roughly $1 in every $6 spent by the government will be borrowed money. So a few weeks ago, with great self-congratulatory fanfare, Congress passed and the president signed what was billed as a $40 billion, five-year deficit reduction. Now Congress is weighing tax-cut packages that would wipe out those projected savings almost twice over.

The House of Representatives already has passed a five-year, $70 billion package of goodies that focuses on extending reduced rates for those taxpayers who have dividend and capital-gain income. The Senate pushed through a similarly unaffordable plan. President Bush is seeking to make permanent all of his 2001 tax cuts, some of which are set to expire.

In truth, Uncle Sam doesn't have the money to do any of this...Full text

Following the logic of the example at the beginning of this article you would then be $19,600 in debt after five years assuming that your income neither increases nor decreases.

Regardless, of your opinions about where government money should be spent and how much the point of this is that you either spend borrowed money like a drunken sailor or you don't. You can't claim to be the party of small government and fiscal conservancy and spend money like this.

I think it is time we bring back some good old fashioned gridlock to Washington. Bill Clinton gets a lot of credit for running a balanced budget during his tenure. But some of that credit goes to the fact that he had a Republican Congress for the last 6 years. Everyone was forced to make choices. We don't need a Constitutionally questionable line item veto to balance the budget. We need Congress and the President to actually not be so in love with one another that everything is rubbered stamped and damn the cost.

People think that gridlock in Washington is bad. They are wrong. Red tape is bad. But gridlock is not red tape. Gridlock means the next President might not have to raise taxes.