Controlling Federal Spending
By Paul M. Weyrich
February 28, 2005
President Bush's 2006 budget proposed 154 targets for cuts. All told he is seeking to reduce non-security, domestic discretionary spending by one percent. This represents the first time since Ronald Reagan's presidency that a budget seeks an actual reduction in discretionary domestic spending.
One area in which the federal government has no business but spends plenty of money is education. The Bush budget would eliminate 48 Department of Education programs with a price tag of $4.3 billion.
Should the federal government be the Dutch uncle of the high technology industry? President Bush wants to slice $136 million in federal government subsidies for high technology research.
Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua B. Bolten made clear in a recent briefing that the Administration is counting on a changed mood among the Republican members of Congress.
The only thing that I've sensed that's changed is the mood in the Republican Caucus, which I was able to gauge at their retreat a week ago, was of being supportive of the president's message of the necessity of setting priorities and exercising fiscal restraint. I think, even though individual members will be disappointed about -- every individual member will be disappointed about something in this budget, I am sure; overall, I think they understand in the aggregate the need to restrain the federal government spending appetite, and I'm hopeful we're going to get some good support.
The Republican Study Committee's 100 House members by and large are committed to seeking a somewhat smaller federal government.
Not surprisingly, a wall of opposition to the President's budget is being erected. Expect virtually all Democrats in Congress to do the heavy lifting required to thwart President Bush. However, they will have some help. There will be some Republican members of Congress who also will be working to circumvent the President's budget request particularly when their states are beneficiaries of federal largesse.
House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) told Reuters that he had concerns about some of the budget cuts, particularly those related to agriculture, that President Bush had proposed. However, he made it clear that members of his committee were not to simply oppose budget cuts. They needed to seek out other savings because merely complaining about proposed budget expenditures would not suffice.
We can hope that the conservatives in Congress will force the GOP to show some backbone and support the President's budget cuts. Many people, including yours truly, want to see stronger reductions in non-security-related domestic spending and a reordering of the federal government's entitlement programs. Experience convinces me that the changes we really want will not come quickly. We conservatives have to start thinking beyond just paring down budgetary requests. We have to start thinking in terms of strong programmatic reforms that can promote fiscal integrity in the budget and appropriations processes.
A recent monograph that I wrote, Controlling Federal Spending: Three Modest Proposals, offers several ideas to start reordering the way Washington does business. (The monograph is available upon our receipt of a written request with a fully addressed return label or a fully addressed return envelope at least 6″ x 91/2″ in size.)
It is time to start having government operate more like a business. My first suggestion calls for auditing government departments based on standard business practices. This would provide for a more accurate tracking of department spending and management practices. Given that OMB has evaluated 607 federal programs and assigned 33% grades of "effective" and "results not demonstrated" this should provide compelling reason for more scrutiny. But it is only a first step.
Each department should create a permanent board of businessmen to investigate where the department is mismanaged and to recommend management changes to department programs or when advisable their reduction or elimination. To ensure the recommendations do not get lost in the blizzard of blue papers that regularly deluge federal departments the proposals would be presented to Congress and be subject to an up-or-down vote. There would be no passing of the buck. Congress would vote either to improve the operations of a federal department or agency or else members who voted against the recommendations had better be prepared to offer a convincing explanation for their opposition.
The board of volunteer overseers would have regular input about the department they monitor and its activities from an Independent Auditor. The IA would be able to investigate the department and the volunteer board's ideas and suggestions.
Grassroots conservatives have a real role to play in the battle to have our federal government demonstrate greater fiscal restraint. You must keep the pressure on your Congressman and Senators to put the national interest ahead of pork-barrel interest. More importantly, you have to let them know the system is broke. It needs fixing.
Too often legislators are fiscal conservatives in election season and spendaholics after Congress convenes. Presidents will come and go, but the basic appropriations and budgeting processes remain without any systematic demand for strong oversight and accountability. There has been plenty of big talk about stopping runaway spending, but it sure hasn't meant much measured in real cuts to the federal budget. It's time for a different approach, one with more modest steps but which have the potential to start drawing attention to the fraud, waste, mismanagement and duplication that exists within the federal government's agencies and departments.
------------
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.