Budget battles

Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, have thus far refused to meet the president’s demands for tax and spending restraint. They view his sorry approval ratings in opinion polls as evidence that their ideas have more public support. Meanwhile, the Bush administration views Congress’ abysmal approval ratings — worse than the president’s in some polls — as proof that his plans have popular backing.

You’d think Washington was bracing itself for a budget battle between “Great Society” Democrats and Reagan Republicans, or at least a reprise of the spending showdown between President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, which resulted in partial shutdowns of the federal government more than a decade ago. After all, congressional Democrats want huge tax increases on oil companies and smokers to help pay for alternative-energy boondoggles, agricultural handouts and taxpayer-subsidized health insurance for the middle class. And President Bush is waving his veto pen, warning against “irresponsible and excessive” spending.

Although the two sides have policy differences, they’re quite close in actual dollars. You see, President Bush and minority Republicans aren’t clamoring for an overall reduction in the size and cost of government. They just want slightly smaller overall budget increases than the Democrats.

That, plus the fact that President Bush has signed off on unprecedented federal spending increases over the past six years, has made him an easy mark for the left. The budget has grown nearly 50 percent since 2001, from $1.86 trillion to a projected $2.78 trillion in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

“It is truly remarkable that President Bush presumes to lecture Democrats in Congress — or anyone for that matter — on the subject of fiscal restraint,” said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.

Forget for a minute that Sen. Byrd, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is the undisputed champion of earmark largess. And forget that Democrats campaigned vigorously last year on the promise that they would be better stewards of the federal treasury than President Bush.

All this partisan posturing is playing out over a difference of between $22 billion and $23 billion in discretionary spending as part of an overall $3 trillion budget. “That amounts to less than eight-tenths of 1 percent of total projected federal outlays in 2008,” The Washington Times notes.

President Bush wants to increase federal spending by 6.8 percent. Democrats want to increase spending about 7 percent.

Mr. Bush wants to double the capacity of the nation’s emergency oil reserves but trim grants to local law enforcement agencies. Democrats want to guarantee loans to U.S. steelmakers and expand utility bill subsidies to the lower-middle class. The president wants to eliminate funding that reimburses local and state governments the costs of incarcerating criminal illegal immigrants and use the money on border security. Democrats want to expand that program, as well as one that aims to boost water clarity through activities such as beach cleanups.

We certainly wish Mr. Bush had been more willing to fight budget battles when he first took office in 2001. The spending-restraint bandwagon always has room for one more person — even a lame-duck president. He should follow through on his promise to veto these bills if they come to him with excessive allocations.

Democrats can howl all they want about President Bush’s own spending habits. Would they really have us believe the federal budget would be smaller if Al Gore had been elected president in 2000? Can we look forward to smaller government in 2009 if a Democrat wins the White House?

Please.

All the name-calling and threats that we’ll hear over the next month in Washington will do nothing to change the big picture. Federal spending is unsustainable over the long term, and regardless of how this year’s horse trading plays out, it will be bad news for taxpayers.