Posted on 08/29/2005 9:43:20 AM PDT by jmc813
When Congress returns to Washington in September, final touches in the form of last-minute pork will be added to the enormous 2006 federal budget. Rosy predictions about a balanced budget in five years will be made, and both parties will pat themselves on the back for crafting another budget agreement. There will be little partisan acrimony, and the media scarcely will report the results of the vote. Congressional spending, which dramatically affects every American, never generates much public interest-- while distractions like Terri Schiavo and Michael Jackson occupy the nation’s attention for months.
Congressional budget agreements really don’t mean much. A congressional budget passed in 2005 has absolutely no impact on spending decisions in the future, and will be quickly forgotten as all past budgets have been. No politician or government official in 2010 will be heard to say, “Gee, we promised back in 2005 to spend less than this, so we better stick to that pledge.” Only a fool can believe that Congress will consider itself bound by past budgets, and constitutionally the budget is passed one year at a time. Anything else is just talk. Congress can make all the deals it wants, but it can only implement a budget for the coming fiscal year.
What is being called a "balanced budget" by 2010 is merely a hopeful projection of spending, matched with projected, hypothetical economic forecasts. To say the federal government can correctly predict exactly how the economy-- which is the sum total of the spending and savings habits of everyone in the nation-- will behave five years from now is ludicrous.
For more than 25 years there have been promises about balancing the budget five years out using government forecasts. It’s always the same story: "Just give us a little more time, and we promise we’ll stop spending so much. We just have to fix X, Y, and Z first." Congress is like the drunk who promises to sober up tomorrow, without the slightest intention of doing so. The voting public is like the battered wife who somehow keeps believing the promises.
We will never have a balanced budget until Congress either raises taxes or cuts spending. It's really that simple. I support balancing the budget by cutting the budget, but most people in Washington abhor that option. They abhor making real cuts to the budget because it means cutting the sacred cows of modern American politics. If we cut spending, we cut the power of Congress. Most people do not realize it, but absolutely no major program has been cut one cent in many, many years.
What programs can we cut? What agencies and departments should go? A better question is: What should stay on a permanent basis? That's easy: only those functions specifically outlined in the Constitution. Is foreign aid allowed by the Constitution? No. Is public housing in the Constitution? No. Is federal involvement in education? No. Are the EPA, OSHA, and the BATF? No. Is protecting our borders? Yes.
The bottom line is that everyone in Washington says they oppose pork and want government to spend less, but few in Congress actually vote that way. Most DC politicians are far too dependent on special interest money to make any waves. “Go along to get along” is the creed of the political class, and nothing will change unless and until the American public stops electing and re-electing the big spenders to office.
Great analysis from one of the best in Congress. And this is exactly the problem. Neither party is willing to cut spending, esepcially that spending that is clearly not authorized by the Constitution. We need to elect those who will, whatever their party label.
The best in this Congress and probably any other. Ron Paul is a American hero of the first order.
Fiscal conservatism means to cut spending and cut taxes. Better yet, overhaul the entire US tax code.
The voting public is more like the bar owner who curses out the drunk on the corner drinking out of the paper bag from the liquor store but loves the drunk who gets loaded in his bar every night.
Double check your image link. Do you agree with the general premise of this article or are current spending levels OK with you?
Uh Ron Paul decided to get in bed with enemies of America(i.e the terrorists and their lackeys, socialist democrats(i.e kuccinich and abercrombie)).
Nobody put a gun to his head to have that photo-op.
JMO, Ron Paul and his allies were the precursor of cindy sheehan.
My point is that your image link is bad. It shows up as a red X. It looks like you only copied what was viewable in the address bar of your browser (upgrade to FireFox and you won't have these problems.)
Do you agree with the premise of this particular article? The great majority of freepers such as myself disagree with Paul on the Iraq war but consider him to be spot on when it comes to domestic affairs.
Too bad the mainstream GOP voter considers Ron Paul and Tancredo out of the mainstream.
Today's Republicans would probably consider the policies of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson "out of the mainstream" if they were elaborated anonymously.
Can't help it if your Microsoft Internet Explorer browser can't take a Yahoo/ap image and blocks that image
Still the fact remains that Ron Paul is on the side of cindy sheehan.
Are we Republicans or sheep? Are we not allowed to disagree from the policies laid forth by our President?
I know he drives you batty but Ron Paul doesn't care what anyone thinks. He believes in principles (unlike the rest of the GOP). He not only has opposed the Iraq quagmire from the beginning but he opposed Clinton's Kosovo quagmire.
We used to call people like that the "sheeple." Those were the days!
Ans where did I put up a gun to Ron Paul's head, to get in bed with socialist lefty kooks, abercrombie and kookcinich.
Psst, I didn't, Ron Paul did it all by himself.
If you go to the image properties and copy and paste the image URL into the address bar you get a 404 error. Your link is bad. Perhaps the image has moved and you have a cached version on your PC. If you'd like, I can dig up the Paul/Kucinich picture (that's the one you're tying to post, right?) and post it myself. All I ask is your opinion of the article at the beginning of this thread. I really hope you're not one of these Christie Whitman Republicans who like big domestic spending.
Dude, your image link is bad.
Certainly not, lest you be labelled a "Friend of Hillary".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.