The Washington Budget Box
The New York Times
Editorial
April 22, 2002
President Bush has been
asserting lately that the
budget is so tight there is barely
enough money to pay for
anything new besides the war on
terrorism. He has begun issuing
veto threats if Congress tries to
defy his spending priorities. How
bizarre it is, then, for him to
contend at the same time that the nation needs another
tax cut. Last week, the House went along, making
permanent the ill-advised 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax
reduction enacted last year. The Bush proposal would
drain nearly $400 billion more over the next 10 years and
cost at least $4 trillion in the decade after that. A more
irresponsible position would be hard to imagine.
The sad truth about budget politics this year is that
Congress and the Bush administration have gotten
themselves into such a box that irresponsible posturing
becomes the easiest recourse. The tax cut of last year,
along with the recent mild economic downturn, vaporized
the revenues needed to deal with anything outside
military and homeland defenses. Yet the Democrats who
would like to spend more money on education, health and
other areas are too nervous to repeal the tax cut in an
election year. As a result, the Senate, which is controlled
by Democrats, may be unable to pass any budget
resolution this year.
The reason for the Democrats' failure is simple. Earlier
this year, the Senate Budget Committee approved a
sensible resolution calling for some restraint on military
spending, no new tax cuts and more paying down of the
federal debt. But conservative Democrats want less
domestic spending and more tax cuts, and some liberals
want more domestic spending. Republicans are not ready
to supply the votes for the Democratic budget resolution.
When it comes to facing up to reality, the Republicans are
being no less irresponsible. The House, where the
Republicans are in control, is unable to pass a vital
measure sought by the Bush administration to increase
the federal debt limit. Most Republicans don't want to
admit that their own policies have returned the nation to
the days of racking up more deficits and debts.
Budget resolutions were designed to place ceilings on
overall spending and force Congress to write
appropriations bills that live with them. There was no
resolution in 1998 because at that time the House and
Senate could not agree on one. Still, the resolutions are
often useful because they can help control Congress's
tendency to embark on pork-barrel spending. Without any
specific spending limits, Congress needs to exercise some
discipline while making sure that essential needs are met
- an unlikely scenario in an election year.
Mr. Bush needs to get off his veto-threat strategy and
work with the lawmakers on finding money to sustain
investments in the right areas. If the nation is to meet its
domestic needs, and protect the next generation of
retirees, the tax cut should not be made permanent.
Instead, large parts of it, especially those benefiting the
wealthiest, should be rescinded - the sooner the better.
nytimes.com |
