|
 on't
look now, but with the budget agreement reached this week, it now
appears that federal spending is going to
end up growing
at about seven percent this year — or about twice the spending rate
under Bill Clinton. Good thing we've got Republicans in charge to
keep government as small and confined as possible.
George W. Bush started the budget process with a reasonable, but
slightly overweight budget. He called for four percent growth in
spending. (Inflation, correctly measured, is running at about maybe
one percent.)
The budget deal struck this week between the Congress and the White
House ratchets that spending number up to near five percent. Some
of this extra spending, of course, was due to demands by those dirty-rotten-Democratic
spendaholics up on Capitol Hill. But a lot of it was a result of
demands by those no-good-spendaholic Republicans that seem to be
dominating the GOP agenda these days in Congress. Many Hill Republicans,
who pontificate against big government, were quietly breathing a
sigh of relief over the new inflated baseline in federal spending.
Now a five percent growth rate of the federal budget may not seem
like the end of the world — and it isn't. But here's the problem.
We're not even going to end up within spitting distance of five
percent expenditure growth. History teaches us that the spending
levels set by the budget resolution in the spring become floors
on allowable expenditures. Once the congressional appropriators
start mending together the actual budget bills, in the summer and
fall spending inevitably gets ratcheted up.
My prediction of seven percent spending growth this year is based
on several fiscal reality checks. First, expect to see about $5
to $10 billion in "emergency spending" for victims of
drought, floods, hurricanes, meteors, and the like. My estimate
for emergency spending is conservative and falls somewhat below
than the average for the past four years.
The budget will grow faster this summer and fall than currently
advertised for two other reasons. First, Republicans will surely
cave in to Democratic demands for Medicare coverage of prescription
drugs. Figure that will add at the very least another $10 to $15
billion a year to spending. Second, the Rumsfeld Commission on military
restructuring will almost certainly call for more dollars into the
defense budget. I'll sidestep the issue of whether the $300-billion-a-year
Pentagon actually needs more money, because that's beside the point.
The point is there will be more money for defense that isn't now
accounted for in the current budget estimates.
Finally, there is our friend (or do I mean enemy?) the budget surplus.
This year's surplus is on tap to exceed $200 billion, depending
on whether Congress passes a $100 billion tax rebate. Regardless,
we now know the kind of pro-spending impulse that surpluses now
elicit from members of Congress in both parties. Put a fat budget
surplus estimate in front of appropriators and they start drooling
uncontrollably like Pavlov's dog.
Now some in Washington are already making excuses for the coming
shopping spree. They say that some extra spending this year is justified
to make up for some years of excessively tight budgets. We need
to start making some "investments" in federal programs
to make up for the years of neglect. What neglect? Federal spending
hasn't been held under tight reigns in recent years. In fact, just
the opposite is true. The federal budget for discretionary spending
has risen from $534 billion in 1996 to $646 billion this year. Nondefense
discretionary spending has risen by 25 percent over this five-year
period.
The bottom line here is that someone has to start holding the line
on spending. If Republicans allow the budget to grow at twice the
rate it did under Clinton, many conservatives are going to start
asking the legitimate question: what are Republicans good for? Of
course, if the GOP can deliver the crown jewel of their economic
program, the trillion-and-a-half-dollar tax cut, this could excuse
some excessive celebratory spending this year. But a seven percent
increase?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: Washington already
has one party of big government. We surely don't need two.
|
