Don't Spend, Amend (Time to write budgetary discipline into the Constitution)

Wall Street Journal ^ | October 24, 2005 | Pete du Pont

[RWR8189]

How big, how expensive and how fiscally generous to industries and local communities should America's national government be?

The spending policies of the current administration have made this the central domestic public policy question, for government has substantially grown under the leadership of a political party that for many decades has claimed to be the party of smaller government.

The real annual growth rate of federal government outlays is nearly at its highest modern percentage. Under President Clinton it was only 1.5%, under Ronald Reagan 2.6% and under Lyndon Johnson 5.7%. Spending has grown 5.6% a year since George W. Bush took office, and it seems likely to keep rising. Of course the war in Iraq is a part of it, but the current administration's domestic spending increase is 7.1% a year, the highest since the 1960s.

Nor has the Republican Congress been of any help. When Bill Clinton was president and the GOP controlled the House, congressionally approved nondefense spending was $57 billion less than the president requested; under Mr. Bush the Republican Congress has spent a total of $91 billion more than he requested.

The president has signed on to whatever spending increases Congress has chosen to enact. He promised to veto the transportation bill if it contained more than $256 billion in spending. It contained $295 billion, and he signed it anyway.

[RWR8189]

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting's $400 billion annual federal subsidy is unnecessary as well. America has 15,000 radio and television stations; why does the federal government need to support the 1,000 that are PBS and NPR stations when interested foundations, corporations and individuals could--and would--do so?

I hope he meant $400 million...

It can't cost 4 Iraq Wars a year to pay for PBS....lol

[goldstategop]

That wasn't a misprint. Its interesting to see liberals defend what amounts to a welfare subsidy for well-heeled aging public TV watchers. What's inexcusable is Republican support for PBS. The government has no business running a TV network.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[RWR8189]

Out of a little more than $2 trillion budget $400 billion goes to public broadcasting??????

[Tzimisce]

Cut PBS? How else is the American left going to get out its unbiased propaganda?

[goldstategop]

An entitlement and entitlement there and pretty soon we'll have our first quadrillion budget. I wonder how long it'll take to set a new record.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[Between the Lines]

If this constitutional amendment were enacted before 9-11-01, would we have had a super-majority in both houses that would have approved spending for the War on Terror?

[flashbunny]

It's a misprint - it's million.

[flashbunny]

1. If spending for the year increases by more than the rate of inflation over last year, congress and the president don't get paid.

2. Any overages are deducted out of the campaign funds of all senators, congressmen, and the president in order to make up the difference.

We'd see spending brought under control so fast it would make your head spin.

[Cobra64]

I'm with you on that. If these "Servents of The American People were serious about their roles and responsibilities, they should work for free, and be BONUSED for CUTTING EXPENSES (spending).

Simple logic is not friggin' brain surgery. Why do so few folks, even here, haven't a clue of Economics, Accounting, and Marketing?