How Jim DeMint Would Save Taxpayers $31 Billion
A Sound Strategy for Fiscal Restraint
By Bluey Posted in Congress — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sen. Jim DeMint is as frustrated as anyone on Capitol Hill about the failure of Democrats to wrap up work on the federal budget. With 11 of the 12 appropriations bill unfinished and U.S. troops in need of funding, DeMint sees the next couple weeks as the GOP's best opportunity to stand firm on fiscal restraint. Rather than adopting a massive omnibus spending bill, DeMint has a simple plan to save taxpayers $31 billion by passing a continuing resolution instead.
DeMint’s idea goes back to the end-game strategy that Republicans successfully employed last year after November’s disastrous elections. Rather than try to push through appropriations bills in a hostile Congress, the GOP instead reauthorized funding at fiscal 2006 levels. That meant spending was held in check and pork-barrel projects were cut dramatically.
Following that same strategy this year would save taxpayers $31 billion -- the amount of new Democrat spending and earmarks. Here's how DeMint described it during a meeting with conservative bloggers at the Heritage Foundation earlier this week:
Last year we were able to stop the omnibus and get a continuing resolution, which meant the government is operating on Republican priorities. We didn't change social policies, we didn't fund new Democrat programs last year. And if we had another continuing resolution this year, we would, in effect, go into our second year of not shifting a lot of this funding toward Democrat priorities.
There's only one problem. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a veteran appropriator, is likely to stand in the way. McConnell told National Journal's CongressDaily earlier this week, "Given the lack of time available, the best way to deal with the troop funding issue would be in the context of some kind of settlement on an overall omnibus appropriation bill."
That's exactly what has DeMint worried. He fears that his Republican colleagues, after fighting for fiscal responsibility throughout much of 2007, might be tempted to take the Democrats' bait and vote for the massive omnibus and troop funding bill as the year draws to a close.
When you see any of us [Republicans] talking about merging troop funding with an omnibus, you know we're losing. And you know that [Democrats are] going to use that human sheild -- those troops -- as hostage to get through something that should not pass this Congress.
DeMint's idea should appeal to conservatives for several reasons. First of all, it locks in spending that was set by Republicans when they controlled Congress. Secondly, it prevents the Democrats from realigning the federal government to suit their interests through the creation of new programs and additional funding. And finally, it would constrain earmarks, which would grow substantially in an omnibus.
On his Senate blog, DeMint has posted a graph (pictured above) that shows the dramatic drop in earmarks last year. Although both Republicans and Democrats promised to trim that number in half, it's unclear what they're using as a baseline. Even so, a massive omnibus would likely challenge the all-time record for earmarks of 13,997. Congress is already on pace to have 12,000.
Republicans have witnessed firsthand the corrupting influence of earmarks and voters' anger over fiscal restraint. It helped cost them Congress in 2006. The question before the GOP today is whether Republicans will once again return to the favor factory -- now controlled by Democrats -- or instead fight for American taxpayers who are fed with up this behavior.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Three weeks until Christmas, and guess what Harry Reid's giving away? — Comments (10) »
How Jim DeMint Would Save Taxpayers $31 Billion 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
all this would have more credibility if the graph didn't show clearly the growth in earmarks has occurred during largely Republican control. To "lock in" already outrageous levels of spending doesn't seem to be fiscal restraint.
Do yourself a favor and look up what earmarks are. Here's a hint: They don't change spending levels.
why are fiscal conservatives against them?
I was quite under the impression there were two arguments against earmarks:
1) They are a "legalized" form of "graft."
2) They unnecessarily increase federal spending.
and that as far as most people are concerned, #2 is more important than #1 because Mark Twain was correct in his observation about Congress.
If you are trying to say it isn't fair to blame Republicans for it, say so. But please don't post something blatantly as false as the previous post. I know you can do better than this, I've read many of your posts.
Some are, to be sure. But if we were as strongly against them as we are against, say, higher taxes, we wouldn't see so many Republicans doing them would we?
I can buy the argument that they make corruption too easy, yes, but that's an entirely different argument from the one made in the comment I replied to above.
jkern Earmarks are the specific designation of funding to a specific entity or project. If you are proposing that the increase in # of earmarks was simply further dividing the allocated sums to each department/budget category your snide comment would be correct. However, the allocations or budgeted amounts have ballooned, presumably due in part to all the specified required funding beyond the mandatory costs of any particular area.
The omnibus bill will be a disaster for the American economy. Unfortunately, the CR isn't really any better. The government certainly has areas where new funding has to be approved. I know there are new projects for the military that can't start under a CR. They might be covered under the one bill that passed, but I don't think so, because I know somebody who works in military R&D that is waiting for budget info. It also has areas that certainly need to be reduced. The CR doesn't do that either. Congress needs to pass actual budget resolutions that reflect the priorities of the people and which the Constitution permits Congress to do. Neither a CR nor an omnibus bill will do that.
Hopefully he can continue to fight for us in the US Senate for a long time!