 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
If the latter group had its way, the difference between Republicans and Democrats on spending would be analogous to the difference between being shot 7 times rather than 10 times. Is it abstractly better — in relative terms — to be shot 7 times rather than 10 times? Sure, one would suppose — if only for aesthetic considerations. But either way you're still dead. That's why this inside-the-Beltway battle is so important to taxpayers throughout the country. Furthermore, the outcome of this skirmish will send a significant signal to the Republican base. It will indicate where House Republican leadership stands on the issue of fiscal discipline, and it will demonstrate the president's willingness to fight for his budget. The ramifications for the Republican majority could be enormous. Midterm elections are notorious for their low turnout and the results often hinge on which party can motivate its base to turn out in the largest numbers come Election Day. If the Republican base sees little difference between their party and the Democrats, their willingness to put down the TV remote and head out to the polls may not be that great — and that could lead to Speaker Gephardt. The outcome will also help determine whether or not our economy continues to stagnate under excessive federal spending that is $141 billion higher (in inflation adjusted dollars) today than it was in 1995 when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. This fiscal civil war within the Republican party is being waged over the annual appropriations process. Consisting of 13 bills that must be passed every year, the appropriations bills serve as the vehicles for funding all discretionary spending. The conservative Republicans — consisting mainly of members of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) and led by Reps. Toomey (R., Pa.), Shadegg (R., Ariz.), Flake (R., Ariz), and Pence (R., Ind.) — want to maintain the spending levels included in President Bush's budget as passed by the House. Their opposition in the party of Lincoln want an additional "one or two billion" dollars for just one bill alone — with several more yet to be considered — according to Rep. Michael Castle (R., Del.), as cited in Congressional Quarterly. A related quarrel regards the order in which the 13 different appropriations bills will be considered. The liberal Republicans want the largest of the bills — the one that funds the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education — considered last, as is the custom of late. They wish this practice to continue because it allows them to loot funds already allocated to the Labor/HHS bill in the budget and add them to other appropriations bills under the guise that overall spending will not increase since they have reduced the spending for Labor/HHS. Then, when Labor/HHS comes to the floor at the end of the congressional session — with members anxious to go home and unwilling to cut funding for the popular spending bill — they can add back the money they pilfered by agreeing to a last-minute increase in the overall level of spending. The RSC was recently able to force the Republican leadership to change the schedule for the appropriations bills so that the Labor/HHS bill will be considered as soon as the House returns from its August recess to avoid that very gimmick. The fight is far from over, however, as liberal Republicans are complaining vigorously to Speaker Hastert. While he maintains an insistence that his budget numbers be adhered to, President Bush has not yet entered this family feud. One hopes that the White House will give its assurances to Speaker Hastert that President Bush will support fiscal discipline with vetoes of the appropriations bills that bust his budget. While Rep. Castle, et. al. may only be asking for a mere couple of billion dollars in additional spending for the Labor/HHS bill, Speaker Hastert would be wise to remember the sage words of erstwhile Senator Everett Dirksen, also of Illinois, who once famously noted that "a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." — Eric V. Schlecht is director of congressional relations for the National Taxpayers Union.
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
here is a battle brewing within the ranks of House Republicans that could
have serious ramifications for our economic well being and the prospects
for fiscal discipline in the near future — not too mention the political
fortunes of the Republican party. It is a battle between a group of conservative
Republicans who support smaller government and less federal spending (which
many people mistakenly believe all Republicans support) and a band of
liberal Republicans who differ from Democrats over spending in degree
only.
