Sen. Jim Inhofe: What Real Spending Restraint Looks Like
Congressional Desk
March 18, 2010
American families and state governments across the country are cutting spending and making hard decisions about their budgets. It is time the federal government did the same.
Unfortunately, Congress has long demonstrated an innate incompetence in restraining itself. And a proposal to curb spending that is being floated by many of my colleagues-a one year moratorium on earmarks, those special provisions members insert into bills to direct funds to their districts or states - will do no good.
An earmark moratorium won't save any money. Why? Because instead of reducing the federal budget, it will empower Obama administration bureaucrats to spend the funds members of Congress would have sent home through earmarks. Also, last year's earmarks accounted for 1.5% of discretionary spending. Where's the focus on the other 98.5%? Earmarks are nothing more than a distraction from the real spending and debt crisis facing our nation.
Earlier this year, President Obama announced a three-year freeze on discretionary spending for all nonsecurity-related agencies. On the surface, that seems like a good idea. But the president's plan would freeze spending at fiscal year 2010 levels, which are 20% higher than spending levels just two years ago. In addition, the $787 billion stimulus package Mr. Obama signed into law last year provided a substantial spending cushion to nearly every federal agency, making the spending freeze largely irrelevant.
I've introduced legislation called the Honest Expenditure Limitation Program (HELP) Act. Instead of locking in the president's 20% spending increase, my plan reduces nonsecurity discretionary spending over a five-year period. Once it reaches the 2008 spending level, my bill then freezes spending there for an additional five years.
Real fiscal restraint requires cutting budgets, not locking in an artificially high spending level and then allowing spending to explode again after three years as the president's proposal does.
The American people deserve honesty about their government's spending. Repeatedly, Congress has made mostly symbolic gestures toward fiscal responsibility, such as the Democrat's current pay-go process. In theory that requires Congress to pay for any new spending, but in practice it is easily evaded.
For this reason, my spending cap comes with teeth. Typically, the Senate can sidestep spending restraints with a 60-vote majority. But to exceed my spending caps my legislation would require a super majority of 67 votes in the Senate. Furthermore, if Congress passes a spending bill that exceeds my spending caps but fails to win a super majority vote in the Senate, the Office of Management and Budget would automatically impose an across-the-board spending cut of the excess amount at the end of the year.
Currently, that's how "mandatory" spending - money spent on entitlements such as Social Security - works. My plan does allow Congress to evade the sequestration cuts if authorized to do so with legislation that gets 67 votes in the Senate in addition to a majority of votes in the House.
Howling about earmarks provides convenient political cover for big spenders who vote for budget-busting bills. At the end of the day, railing against earmarks does nothing to curb federal spending.
Republicans are on the side of the vast majority of Americans who want to cut the deficit, reduce the cost of health care, and not be saddled with an expensive cap-and-trade environmental tax. Instead of earmark reform, our country needs an approach that will return nonsecurity discretionary spending to the level we saw prior to the massive expansion of government over the past few years.
Compared to Mr. Obama's spending freeze, my plan will save an additional $600 billion and deliver an overall savings of close to $1 trillion over a 10-year period. If we do nothing to curtail skyrocketing government spending, or merely freeze it at artificially elevated levels for a few years, the country will be mired in debt for decades to come.
Unfortunately, Congress has long demonstrated an innate incompetence in restraining itself. And a proposal to curb spending that is being floated by many of my colleagues-a one year moratorium on earmarks, those special provisions members insert into bills to direct funds to their districts or states - will do no good.
An earmark moratorium won't save any money. Why? Because instead of reducing the federal budget, it will empower Obama administration bureaucrats to spend the funds members of Congress would have sent home through earmarks. Also, last year's earmarks accounted for 1.5% of discretionary spending. Where's the focus on the other 98.5%? Earmarks are nothing more than a distraction from the real spending and debt crisis facing our nation.
Earlier this year, President Obama announced a three-year freeze on discretionary spending for all nonsecurity-related agencies. On the surface, that seems like a good idea. But the president's plan would freeze spending at fiscal year 2010 levels, which are 20% higher than spending levels just two years ago. In addition, the $787 billion stimulus package Mr. Obama signed into law last year provided a substantial spending cushion to nearly every federal agency, making the spending freeze largely irrelevant.
I've introduced legislation called the Honest Expenditure Limitation Program (HELP) Act. Instead of locking in the president's 20% spending increase, my plan reduces nonsecurity discretionary spending over a five-year period. Once it reaches the 2008 spending level, my bill then freezes spending there for an additional five years.
Real fiscal restraint requires cutting budgets, not locking in an artificially high spending level and then allowing spending to explode again after three years as the president's proposal does.
The American people deserve honesty about their government's spending. Repeatedly, Congress has made mostly symbolic gestures toward fiscal responsibility, such as the Democrat's current pay-go process. In theory that requires Congress to pay for any new spending, but in practice it is easily evaded.
For this reason, my spending cap comes with teeth. Typically, the Senate can sidestep spending restraints with a 60-vote majority. But to exceed my spending caps my legislation would require a super majority of 67 votes in the Senate. Furthermore, if Congress passes a spending bill that exceeds my spending caps but fails to win a super majority vote in the Senate, the Office of Management and Budget would automatically impose an across-the-board spending cut of the excess amount at the end of the year.
Currently, that's how "mandatory" spending - money spent on entitlements such as Social Security - works. My plan does allow Congress to evade the sequestration cuts if authorized to do so with legislation that gets 67 votes in the Senate in addition to a majority of votes in the House.
Howling about earmarks provides convenient political cover for big spenders who vote for budget-busting bills. At the end of the day, railing against earmarks does nothing to curb federal spending.
Republicans are on the side of the vast majority of Americans who want to cut the deficit, reduce the cost of health care, and not be saddled with an expensive cap-and-trade environmental tax. Instead of earmark reform, our country needs an approach that will return nonsecurity discretionary spending to the level we saw prior to the massive expansion of government over the past few years.
Compared to Mr. Obama's spending freeze, my plan will save an additional $600 billion and deliver an overall savings of close to $1 trillion over a 10-year period. If we do nothing to curtail skyrocketing government spending, or merely freeze it at artificially elevated levels for a few years, the country will be mired in debt for decades to come.
Print
Email
