ReviewJournal.com - Opinion - EDITORIAL: Spending limits for Washington?

PRINT THIS Popular

Apr. 18, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Spending limits for Washington?

GOP House members push a national TASC

Republicans lost control of Congress because they lost their way. The Contract with America, the list of detailed policy proposals, accountability measures and limited-government promises that swept the GOP into power in 1994, was shunned at the start of this decade in favor of Rep. Tom DeLay's six-year, "everything for sale" pork fest.

That Democrats offered voters no specifics beyond "change" in 2006, but that was irrelevant to an angry electorate -- if Republicans wanted another chance at majority status, they'd have to re-embrace the philosophies of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich.

Share & Save

What is this?

Most Popular Stories

LETTERS: No school administrator left behind

LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program

LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure

FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?

EDITORIAL: The governor's e-mail

EDITORIAL: Tuition hikes

LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste

EDITORIAL: Sending the right message

EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'

So the keys to Capitol Hill were handed to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and -- to borrow the famous news conference rant of ex-football coach Dennis Green -- they are who we thought they were. The "change" promised by Democrats has been more of the same tax-hiking, big-spending, over-regulating, anti-capitalist, redistributionist, "blame America first" rhetoric from decades past.

Now, just in time for the 2008 election, they've inspired a growing band of conservatives to counterattack with fresh ideas.

On Tuesday, Reps. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and John Campbell, R-Calif., and other members of the House Republican Study Committee introduced a constitutional amendment that would prevent federal spending from growing faster than the U.S. economy. The Spending Limit Amendment would anchor a federal Taxpayer Bill of Rights aimed at controlling government growth and making it harder for Congress to raise taxes.

"The undeniable fact remains that the projected growth of federal spending across the board is at an unsustainable rate," said Rep. Campbell, who last week introduced the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" Act, which would let guilt-ridden liberals raise taxes on themselves by checking a box on their federal returns. "It will threaten the standard of living of our children and grandchildren. By the year 2040, taxes would have to double in order to pay for all the federal spending that will compound if no action is taken."

Following Colorado's approval of a Taxpayers Bill of Rights, government spending caps were proposed in a number of states. But the political establishment has succeeded in keeping similar constitutional amendments off state ballots; the Tax and Spending Control for Nevada initiative had enough signatures to qualify for the 2006 election but was thrown out by the courts.

The idea of placing firm limits on public-sector spending has widespread support among voters because they're fed up with an increasing tax burden that never provides enough loot for their legislatures. A cap on budget growth would force lawmakers to better prioritize appropriations, scrutinize every agency outlay and forsake special-interest pork. And as fat as some state governments have become, no budget needs a corset as badly as Washington's current $3 trillion monstrosity, for which Democrats and Republicans share the blame.

The Spending Limit Amendment, which caps federal spending at 20 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, has no chance of making it through the Pelosi-Reid Congress. But putting fiscally conservative policies onto paper and forcing Democrats to kill them in an election year would heighten voter awareness that Rep. Pelosi, Sen. Reid and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to blow an already-bloated federal budget through the roof.

It's not the Contract with America, but the Spending Limit Amendment is something all congressional Republican incumbents and candidates can embrace. Nevada's GOP delegation -- Sen. John Ensign and Reps. Jon Porter and Dean Heller -- should pledge support to the amendment and vow to bring it to a floor vote if Republicans are returned to power in Washington.

Leave Your Comment	9 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Dick wrote on April 18, 2008 04:50 PM: At least it is refreshing to see the R-J admit that the Republicans were the tax-hiking, big-spending, over-regulating, anti-capitalist, redistributionist, "blame America first" party from years past. Personally, I like the Bush "What? Me worry?" Economic Plan. Spend all you want, cut taxes for everyone, and borrow the difference from China. And don't worry. We don't plan on paying off the national debt anyway. aksmith wrote on April 18, 2008 04:34 PM: Yet another useless gimmick by Republicans who have proven once again that they favor big government just as much as Democrats. I'd love to see it pass. But only if they add an amendment that nothing is "off budget." No more shell games that place any pet spending off budget and therefor not subject to any caps. Games games and more games. Both parties need to shrivel up and go away. dennis1944 wrote on April 18, 2008 11:49 AM: Hey folks, How did ignorant, incompetent, people like Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi get into their positions? Don't blame them, they are what they are. Blame yourselves. After all YOU folks put them in office! Think before you vote. BR wrote on April 18, 2008 09:11 AM: Ginrich showed Republicans how to win by coming up with the Contract With America. Many new faces rode the wave with vows to serve no more than two terms. It didn't take long for them to get beltway fever. The old guard of both parties started chipping away at the reforms. Adding Clinton into the mix stirred the pot. Pretty soon the Repubs ate their own. Ginrich was run out of town on a rail with the tar & feather crowd hot on his heels. I don't personally advocate revolution, but realistically that's the only way to get things like an effective taxpayer bill of rights. Even then it would have to be repeated every few decades to get rid of entrenched incumbents including bureaucrats. Thanks to those trying this current effort anyway. timinator wrote on April 18, 2008 07:48 AM: Not to sound too dubious, but I don't trust Republicans any more than Democrats with my money. Both parties are socialist spendaholics. Republicans may pretend to be fiscally responsible while campaigning, but very few of them stay true after their heady beltway experience begins. I suspect skeletons in the mix. Russ wrote on April 18, 2008 07:41 AM: John you are absolutely right. Again this is another right wing RJ blathering that we have heard again and again. The RJ wastes way to much paper with these rambling editorals that say the same thing over and over without looking at the real problem. The George Bushwacked United Staes. John wrote on April 18, 2008 07:08 AM: It's amazing how a party finds fiscal religion on their political deathbed. Where were these calls for fiscal restraint when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Presidency? Unfortunately this is nothing more than a political stunt that is shameless in its transparency. As for its substance, holding spending at 20% of GDP would still produce deficits because current spending is at 20% but revenues are only at 18.8%. Therefore taxes would need to be raised to increase revenue to 20% of GDP or spending would have to be reduced to the amount of revenues be generated. Neither party has shown any inclination to reduce spending so taxes will have to be raised or we will continue our disgraceful policy of paying for current consumption with debt to be owed by future generations. Bobby wrote on April 18, 2008 06:59 AM: good informative article. Now.. how can we get it on? Reis is in till 2010, it may come to the point where we need to have him recalled, he can do us so much damage in 2 years. Nothing we can do about nosense peeloosly but hope californians wake up next election Helen Weils wrote on April 18, 2008 06:24 AM: AMEN!!!