 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
While most previous presidents had recognized the need to restrain domestic social spending during times of war in order to help fund our military endeavors, Johnson saw no need to restrain social spending while funding the war. The results of Johnson's fiscal two-timing were enormous deficits at the time and out-of-control social spending that remains with us today. To give an idea of the impact this decision had on the federal budget, consider the following: In 1963, when Johnson took over the presidency from the late John Kennedy, federal outlays were $111.3 billion and we had a budget deficit of $4.7 billion. By 1968, the last year of the Johnson presidency, total federal outlays were $178.1 billion and our federal deficit had ballooned to $25.1 billion — a 60% increase in outlays and a budget deficit that grew by 434% over 6 years. Sadly, many in Congress view our current war on terrorism as an opportunity to greatly increase social spending while simultaneously funding our military needs. For proof that Congress has adopted the guns and butter approach, one need look no further than the so-called emergency supplemental bills currently making their way through Congress. Ostensibly meant to provide emergency funds for the war on terror, they are predictably being loaded with millions upon millions in pork that has little, or nothing, to do with our fight against terrorists. While most Americans support additional federal spending to ensure the safety of American citizens and to vanquish our enemy, few would endorse the vast amount of social spending — completely unrelated to homeland security or the fight against terrorism - that has found its way into the three proposed supplemental appropriation bills (one from the Bush administration, one passed in the House, and one scheduled for the Senate floor next week — in order of least offense). See if you can determine how any of the following spending will somehow protect you from a terrorist attack or defeat our enemies:
Sadly, this list could go on at some length. Clearly, our guns are heavily buttered, and this butter isn't cheap. Don't think, however, that the emergency bills are an aberration and that Congress will get back on the fiscal wagon once the supplemental has been signed into law. The supplemental also includes spending levels for the 2003 appropriations bills (this is necessary because Congress could not agree on a budget for 2003 since the Senate never bothered to pass a budget. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle apparently believes that the federal law requiring Congress to pass a budget doesn't apply to him). While the spending increases for next year appear relatively responsible — a 2.3% increase in the House version and 3.5% increase in the Senate version — don't be fooled. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Republican leadership in the House has already assured appropriators that the spending totals would not hold up by the end of the year. In other words, "don't worry boys, if you agree to the reasonable-looking numbers now, we'll make sure you get the money you want later in the year when not as many people are paying attention." So get ready conservatives, it's going to be a long summer. But there is some hope. Conservative legislators in the House appear to be willing to oppose the fiscal free-for-all. I recently asked Republican Study Committee Chairman Representative John Shadegg (full disclosure: my old boss) how much of a fight conservatives were willing to put up this year. Said Shadegg, "The Study Committee will use every legislative mechanism available to keep this year's appropriations cycle from turning into a spending orgy. But at the end of the day, it is up to the president to set the tone of spending by either a veto threat or a veto itself." Reassuring words, but they'll need our help. Until the Congressional leadership and the White House hear from taxpayers that they won't stand for this, the politicians in Washington will have very little incentive to put a check on spending. So it's up to us. Put down that sunscreen, pick up your phone, and tell your elected officials to "hold the butter." — Eric V. Schlecht is director of congressional relations for the National Taxpayers Union.
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
on't
look now, but it seems the ghost of LBJ still haunts Washington. For it
appears that Congress is poised to make the same mistake Lyndon Johnson
made nearly 40 years ago when he refused to choose between "guns"
and "butter." At the time, America was becoming increasingly
involved militarily in Southeast Asia and Johnson was promoting his massive
social spending project, "The Great Society."
