"Congress is poised to consider a budget bill this week in a vote both parties consider critical, but in reality the bill is nothing more than a political exercise by congressional leaders designed to convince voters that something is being done about runaway federal spending. Having spent the last five years out-pandering the Democrats by spending money to buy off various voting constituencies, congressional Republicans now find themselves forced to appeal to their unhappy conservative base by applying window dressing to the bloated 2006 federal budget.- Ron Paul Too Little Too Late
Ignore the talk about Congress "slashing" vital government programs in this budget bill, which is just nonsense. This Congress couldn't slash spending if the members' lives depended on it.
...
Congress is running out of options in its game of buy now, pay later. Foreign central banks are less interested in loaning us money. Treasury printing presses are worn out from the unprecedented increase in dollars ordered by the Federal Reserve Bank over the past 15 years. Taxpayers are tapped out. Where will the money for Big Government conservatism come from?
Congressional Republicans and Democrats can posture until doomsday, but the needed course of action is clear. Declare an across-the-board ten percent cut for the federal 2006 budget, and focus spending on domestic priorities. If congressional leaders cannot take this simple step toward balancing the 2006 budget, they should at least not attempt to delude the American people that serious spending cuts are being made."
Ron Paul is makes the valid point that the majority in Congress, and maybe even the majority of the American public, are unrealistic about the deficit.
He is certainly right to say that we should move to balancing the budget in 2006; phasing the return of domestic policy to the states or to the people, slashing pork barrel programs and deferring other highway spending for a year, beginning to withdraw our troops from Iraq following the December election, opening up the development of resources on federal land and offshore, and perhaps even considering a one-year tax surchange. This would demonstrate real commitment and would be tremendous for our economy.
However, I disagree with him as to whether a small step in the right direction is bad. We don't have the votes to balance the budget, but we do have the votes (even without Ron Paul) to take another step to balancing the budget over a period of time.
The bill achieves its savings, mostly, by tinkering with eligibility and copayments and overhead in a variety of entitlement programs. It doesn't open up ANWR or off-shore drilling. And, it doesn't make permanent the Bush tax cuts. It's like kissing your cousin.