creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Deb Saunders
Debra J. Saunders
14 Feb 2012
Obama Imposes Will in Contraception Compromise

From San Francisco, where I live, the controversy over the White House decision to require church-affiliated … Read More.

12 Feb 2012
To Make Women Safe, We Treat Them Like Children

The domestic-violence case against San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi did not start with a call from wife … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Shaky Grounds for Prop. 8 Ruling

Two of three judges on a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Tuesday found Proposition 8 unconstitutional.… Read More.

Go-cart, No Brakes

Share Comment

D.C. Democrats are now pushing for a new $300 billion stimulus package. Earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had been talking up a $150 billion stimulus package. Apparently the cost of stimulation is rising, and fast.

Do I hear $450 billion?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's rescue plan also grew from $60 billion to $175 billion. Republican presidential candidate John McCain's stimulus package is holding steady at $52 billion — which makes it seem, well, almost quaint.

If passed, the new Son of Stimulus package will follow on the heels of the $700 billion bank bailout, $110 billion of sweeteners added onto the first bailout, and February's $168 billion stimulus package, which did not deliver much hoped-for stimulus.

Is there an end in sight, or will Washington continue this spending spree well into the next administration? If you are looking for an inkling that fiscal restraint is out there somewhere, the signs are not good, friend.

You may recall, two short years ago, Democrats promised that if they were in charge of Congress, they would restore pay-as-you-go (also known as PAYGO) budget rules, which require Congress to pay for new spending either by cutting other spending or increasing taxes. In January, newly installed Speaker Pelosi proudly trumpeted new PAYGO rules in the House.

PAYGO is still on the books, but the rule has become more of a fictional device than accounting tool.

The Senate vote to add $110 billion in tax cuts to the Bush-proposed $700 billion bailout plan bypassed PAYGO. The more profligate Senate has arm-twisted until fiscally conservative House Blue Dog Democrats caved and supported PAYGO-lite bills before. As Taxpayers for Common Sense spokesman Steve Ellis noted, the House Blue Dogs are "getting rolled on a regular basis."

Together both Houses have gimmicks and trickery to bypass PAYGO to pass a measure to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from dinging middle-class taxpayers, to approve a pork-fest of a farm bill, to push through the energy bill, and more.

According to Ellis, Democrats don't like the fact that PAYGO makes it harder for them to propose new spending, while Republicans like the idea of PAYGO — until they're asked to forgo tax cuts.

So both parties have a stake in ditching PAYGO.

Brian M. Riedl, an economist with the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, agrees. As he sees it, PAYGO makes Congress offset tax cuts, if they are extended, but not spending programs that are extended. "The idea that PAYGO means fiscal responsibility is ridiculous."

In that Washington's spending spree has continued unabated under PAYGO, Riedl has a point.

Democrats can argue — rightly — that the binge started before Democrats took over Congress. As Riedl noted in a Heritage backgrounder last October, "non-defense discretionary spending has expanded nearly twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton." But by last October, Democratic leaders had "used their majority to increase discretionary spending even faster."

And that was before the bailout.

Maybe PAYGO isn't such a great deal for conservatives, who see it as a trigger for raising taxes, but not cutting spending. On the other hand, if Congress cannot find ways to offset new spending in a $3 trillion budget, then there is no ceiling on what Washington will spend.

Ellis noted, "Every time you ignore PAYGO, or you do an end run around it, you reduce its credibility and effectiveness in the future. Eventually, it will become a laughing stock. It's getting close."

Surely it must be better to have the semblance of restraint than no pretense whatsoever.

In that sense, PAYGO may be similar to earmarks. At the last presidential debate, Obama pointed out that, "Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget" — or $18.3 billion in 2008, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Ergo, Obama argued, eliminating earmarks is "not going to solve the problem."

But if Washington can't cut fat targets like earmarks, then Washington will never get a hold on runaway spending. And if Congress can't legislate within the PAYGO rules, then it's a go-cart with no brakes.

Do I hear $450 billion?

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
Ma'am;... How would you classify the problem??? Is it a moral problem??? Is it an economic problem??? A government problem???. I think the problem is simple enough on its face, and only slightly more complex upon examination... Republics are very often defined as commonwealths... Why??? Historically people realized that what they took from others they needed common defense for...We took this whole land from king and natives... We all support the rights of wealth in private hands; but there is no fairness to the system of taxes, and no sense...Sure, the problem is systemic... The house for its ease joined the Senate in being less democratic... Where the house once held a ratio of one to every thirty thousands citizens, now it is one representative for every six hundred thousand... Considering that districts are deliberately divided to assure a certain party's election, and to deny representation to vast numbers; could THAT be the cause of the problem??? Could the solution be constitutional??? Is the problem that the government cares nothing for the contitution??? So long as property has power and privilage, but refuses to support with money what others must support with blood- because they have no money, the weight of the present will hang on the future... I do not believe it can continue as it has... Those who seek absolute rights for property so it must bear no burden or show no redeeming social value must realize that only the absolute control of society will protect their rights indefinetely... Property owns the government, and the government protects property; but that situation is a draw unless the support of society can be thrown completely onto labor...Property has done much to siddle off from under its burden... Now, Property finds that labor alone, deprived of rights, and deprived of wages cannot support the government, and can barely support itself... It is afraid for the future.. It tries to scare the populations with the scarecrow of communism...Do you believe this will work??? When it is clear that government and business are coupled in an unholy marriage, do you think the people can be scared more, motivated by fear, and made to vote their fears??? What ever you think...What ever the rich are paying you to think... It does not matter, because the rich know it does not work.. Sure, many poor blame themselves, but that it hard to do when you look around and see others just like you in the same straits... I mean, property is a wonderful thing, but it is ours, and private property is ultimately the property of the people... And propaganda is a wonderful thing too, mysterious in its actions, much like capital; but it does not work unless people work... Everyone needs enough from life, and if they have enough they are more inclined to see others like the rich or the government having more than enough... No one has to support a right they benefit not at all from.... To me; that is the problem... Because if we all don't get what we need from this society we can watch it go to hell without lifting a finger... You forget that your wealth means something for you because it means something to all of us... We all have to benefit from it in some fashion... If it only works for you it loses value for us... So it does not matter to us how many numbers the government throws at the rich to fix a problem made by the rich... The more people are cut out of the good of this country the less good it becomes... The place is good because it is good for many... Kill that fact and you have ruined your own good...There is your problem...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:17 AM
Saunders, you understand the subject about which you write about as much as an ant understands nuclear physics. There are hundreds of trillions of dollars at stake in the world economy that is melting down right now, and a few billion to fix it is a very small price to pay if it works. The question to ask is how to do that, not whether. And you don't have a clue.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:55 PM
Re: Masako;... Sir, don't you think it is funny that they can find this money when they think they need to avoid complete destruction; but they can never find the nads to take back the wealth that has been taken from us by the rich. Look at all our goverment was constituted for... Is there anything there about standing back while one part of the population exploits the other part of the people into the poor house, or into no house??? They have an idea of Capitalism that works... Sure it works if you can feed it credit until it is big enough to eat the whole government... So what is it eating now???The government is throwing numbers at it... Lots and lots of numbers... Can we spend the numbers they give to us??? I hope so, but it will be at the price of less later, and it is only value working people have created. And does it not seem strange that no one can put the claim of a redistribution of wealth together with the thought that the rich don't create any value, and that wealth distribution up is the same as poverty distribution down... You know, it is just a game... The rich take it and we are supposed to take it back, and then they are supposed to take it and we are supposed to take it back. It could work fine if no body gets too greedy... I know; fat chance of that... But what offends me is not the greed, but the extent to which they go to paint a vice like a virtue... They call the democrats communists...Well they're not... But if the rich do not realize that law, and property rights, and economies, and profits and interests are only forms of relationship they are in for more trouble than communism... If they have all the wealth, then wealth will mean nothing to us, and why should anyone show deference to a form of relationship that is meaningless???...If they have all the law then law will mean nothing to us... If they own the government or pervert the government beyond this worst of all possible governments then government will have no meaning... We have to share some wealth, some opportunity, some liberty and law before America will mean the same for each of us....I can understand if they do not want to be taxed because government does too little for them...What do they want??? It does nothing for us but expedite our exploitation... I hope it gives us money, and as soon goes belly up. Then we can take back the country and start over again with the rich taking it back...Doesn't that sound like fun??? Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:26 PM
Re: James A, Sweeney: Yup, there could be an opportunity here. It could be that our collective human subconscience is melting down our economy just as our conscious actions are melting down the polar ice caps. What we do in the midst of all this, whether it's spreading around the wealth, or just figuring out how to use it for greater mutual benefit and sanity, will surely figure decisively in determining the survival of the planet and the future of its great experiment with species homo sapiens. Here's to winters that continue to bless us with snow and ice. Cheers.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Masako
Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:35 PM
Oops, that's "subconscious."
Comment: #5
Posted by: Masako
Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:57 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Debra J. Saunders
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012

20 Oct 2011 Gilad Schalit Versus the Freed Hikers

18 Dec 2011 Driving to Distraction on Information Superhighway

3 Mar 2011 Who Wants To Be Charlie Sheen?