|
In 1992,
President Bill
Clinton
campaigned on
promises to
increase federal
domestic
spending,
provide middle
class tax cuts,
and still reduce
the deficit by
50 percent in
his first term.
He arrived in
Washington only
to discover
that, even with
a “peace
dividend” made
possible by the
end of the Cold
War, he could
not keep his
domestic
spending
promises and
also reduce the
deficit – unless
he reneged on
his promise to
cut taxes. The
budget realities
he faced once in
office (huge and
growing
deficits)
required a
different
approach than
the rhetoric of
his campaign.
Like Clinton in
1992,
congressional
Democrats today
face a similar
dilemma. In
short, Democrats
must feel like
the dog that
finally caught
the tire. After
sweeping to
victory in
nearly every
closely fought
congressional
race, they now
have a majority
in both
congressional
chambers. From
the war in Iraq,
to ethics, to
deficits, the
Democrats spent
the election
season
criticizing
Republican
mismanagement of
the people’s
business – while
seldom offering
a coherent
alternative of
their own. Now
they are in
charge of
Congress and
must deliver.
What will they
do? What can
Democrats agree
upon?
Thankfully, the
new majority
will be led by
two experienced
and respected
Budget Committee
chairmen, John
Spratt (SC) in
the House and
Kent Conrad (ND)
in the Senate,
both of whom are
serious about
reducing
deficits. Spratt
has recently
gone on record
calling for a
balanced budget
within five
years. To reach
that goal, they
might start by
looking to the
Blue Dog caucus
– comprised of
44 moderate and
fiscally
conservative
members (nine of
whom were newly
elected this
fall). In the
immediate
aftermath of the
election, a key
Blue Dog had
this to say:
“We’re not going
to be a rubber
stamp for
anyone. We’re
going to help
bring our party
back to the
middle. We have
a lot to say
about what
passes or
doesn’t pass
when it reaches
the floor.”
And, the Blue
Dogs do have a
lot to say about
how to handle
the federal
budget and
reduce the
deficit. Their
prescription for
fixing the
budget morass
created in
recent years by
Republicans is
worth a serious
look. Blue Dogs
have proposed
the following:
• a
constitutional
amendment
mandating a
balanced budget;
• restoration of
“Pay-as-yougo”
budget
guidelines
through 2010;
• implementation
of new rules
requiring roll
call votes for
spending bills
with more than
$50 million in
new spending;
• establishment
of strict rules
on emergency
spending, as
well as
establishing a
“rainy day” fund
for those funds;
• subjecting any
increase in the
debt limit to a
roll call vote;
• implementing
new rules
requiring all
Congressional
earmarks to
include publicly
accessible
justifications;
• creating new
guidelines
requiring a
three-day
minimum for
Members to
review
legislation
before a
scheduled vote;
and,
• enacting new
guidelines
requiring House
committees to
detail their
oversight
efforts in
biannual
reports.
From the Blue
Dog list,
Democratic party
leaders have
only embraced
the re-enactment
of
“Pay-as-you-go”
budget rules.
That would make
imminent sense
given the
success of these
rules in the
decade of the
1990s when
budget surpluses
reappeared for
the first time
since 1969.
Pay-go policies
serve to hold
the line on new
entitlement
spending and new
tax cuts
(requiring that
any such
measures be
honestly offset
with other cuts
or revenue
increases so as
to result in no
net increase in
the deficit).
Regrettably,
Republicans
allowed these
Pay-go rules to
lapse in 2002 –
and large
deficits have
returned in the
ensuing years.
Restoration of
Pay-go would
hamper any
proposed
expansion of
entitlement
spending – and
would make
extension of tax
cuts beyond
their expiration
date in 2010
more difficult
to achieve. But,
for the most
part, Pay-go
simply preserves
the status quo.
Sadly, not even
the Blue Dogs
have proposed
taking a serious
look at reducing
entitlement
spending. Yet,
with the
retirement of
the Baby Boom
generation just
a few short
years away, the
cost of Social
Security,
Medicare and
Medicaid will
soon skyrocket.
Medicare is
already in
fiscal straits
and Social
Security will be
in a cash flow
crunch by the
year 2017
(according to
the Government
Accountability
Office). Whether
through a “blue
ribbon”
entitlement
commission – or
some other means
– it would make
sense for
Democrats to
deal with these
issues now.
Delaying action
only makes the
solutions more
costly and
painful.
President Bush
now seems
willing to work
with Democrats
to create a
truly bipartisan
commission.
Democrats would
be wise to
accept his offer
– unless they
want the next
President (who
they obviously
hope will be a
Democrat) to
inherit an even
greater budget
challenge than
Clinton faced in
1992.
Restoring fiscal
responsibility
in Washington
also makes the
remaining items
on the Blue Dog
agenda
critically
important. If
Democrats want
to prove to
skeptical voters
that they can be
careful with the
public purse,
they must act
quickly to
reverse the
explosion in
pork barrel
spending that
occurred while
Republicans
controlled
Congress. They
must once again
assure that only
true emergencies
are funded in
emergency
spending
legislation.
With a
Democratic party
majority of less
than twenty
seats, clearly,
the 44 member
Blue Dog caucus
could be the
margin of
victory on any
budget measures
brought before
Congress. Rather
than simply
listening to the
Blue Dog caucus,
Democratic
leaders should
place the Blue
Dog budget
agenda at the
top of this
Congress’s “to
do” list.
RF
Timothy J.
Penny
represented
Minnesota’s
First
Congressional
District from
1982 through
1994. While in
Congress, he
founded and
co-chaired the
Democratic
Budget Group and
drafted
deficit-cutting
initiatives. He
is currently a
senior fellow at
the University
of Minnesota’s
Hubert H.
Humphrey
Institute of
Public Affairs.
He is also a
Board Member of
the Concord
Coalition. |
