ShareThis Page
News Columnists

Do your job, Congress

| Friday, May 28, 2010

Funny how much a plan can change on its way from drawing board to reality. Look no further than the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Lawmakers passed the bill because it would, supposedly, help them control spending and even put our country on a glide path to a balanced budget. It set a spending limit and identified the minimum amount the federal government would collect in taxes, thus allowing policymakers to see at a glance whether they were spending more than the IRS took in.

The bill was also designed to give lawmakers more control over entitlement spending such as Social Security and Medicare, which is on automatic pilot and not part of the regular budgeting process. And it created the Congressional Budget Office, whose mission is to provide nonpartisan information about the budget and make forecasts about the economy and the cost of proposed bills.

Those well-laid plans have gone far astray.

In 1974, the federal government spent about $269 billion, while taking in some $263 billion. That's a shortfall of about $6 billion, back when a billion really meant something. By the end of 2007 the feds were spending $2.7 trillion annually, while pocketing less than $2.6 trillion. The shortfall: $162 billion.

This is a bipartisan problem, of course.

Annual spending increased by a trillion dollars during the George W. Bush years (under a Republican Congress and Republican president), jumping from $1.7 trillion in 2000 to $2.7 trillion in 2007. It has soared even further under a Democrat Congress and Democrat president. The Obama administration submitted a $3.83 trillion budget for 2010.

So much for fiscal responsibility. Every year we spend more. Every year we owe more. And there's no end in sight.

In fact this year, Congress will dispense with what's become a formality. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer recently announced that it won't bother even passing a budget resolution this year. "It's difficult to pass budgets in election years, because they reflect what the (nation's fiscal) status is," Hoyer told Fox News last month.

But isn't that exactly the point• Americans elect lawmakers to make the spending decisions for the government. We deserve to know what those decisions are before we go to the polls to elect the folks who will make those decisions for the next two or six years.

"It's difficult to pass budgets"• Tough. That's your job. If you can't do it, don't seek office. Unless House leadership changes course, this would be the first time since 1973 that the House won't pass a budget, and it would set a terrible precedent.

As Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., points out, Congress hasn't had any trouble spending money lately: "What we're basically saying is after just raising taxes $670 billion this session, after raising spending $1.8 trillion this session, after creating a whole new health care entitlement this session, we're not even going to budget?"

Lawmakers realize they've already overspent. As federal revenues tumbled, the Obama administration pushed through an $862 billion "stimulus" bill, an 8 percent hike in discretionary spending, another unpaid-for Medicare "doc fix," and a trillion-dollar health care expansion.

Members of Congress ought to start pushing back by passing a budget -- one that begins to roll back spending and decrease our soaring national debt. They owe taxpayers at least that much.

Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me