Clash Ahead on Federal Spending Priorities

The US Federal government is likely to spend almost $3 trillion (that’s $3,000,000,000,000) in the fiscal year that starts on Monday. With so much money floating around, one would think that there’s more than enough for everyone. Clearly, Washington big shots don’t agree because the Congress and the White House are about to have a major fight over spending.

As usual, it comes down to guns versus butter -- or more precisely, mine-resistant vehicles versus children’s healthcare. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked for an extra $42 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq-Nam (he’s already spent $147 billion this year). The Democrats in Congress have passed legislation that would expand funding for State Children’s Health Insurance Programs by $35 billion over the next 5 years. President Bush has vowed to give the troops whatever they need (thus far, he’s not done too well, such as body armor and time at home), while vowing to prevent children from slipping into government-controlled healthcare (apparently, none at all is better than CHIP to his mind).

Theoretically, Congress is supposed to pass something like 13 appropriations bills before October 1 of each year. In practice, they haven’t done that in ages, muddling along with a continuing spending resolution (which keeps spending going at existing levels) followed by an omnibus spending bill (all funding in one bill that no one has read in its entirety). This year, not a single spending bill has gone to the president, and this fight could go on for a long time because of the political posturing the situation allows.

Mr. Bush needs to keep his surge in Iraq-Nam going for a while yet, and the rallying cry is “give the troops the tools they need.” A vote against the money is taken to be a vote against the troops. This is, of course, complete nonsense. The spending the Pentagon wants for the war is over and above its budget. Emergency spending is not on the books, which means Mr. Bush can claim his budget deficit is shrinking, when in fact, the wars have added $750 billion to it. No Democrat will point it out, and very few will vote against the money. Yet, the Pentagon budget has sufficient funds for these wars as well as some (not all) of the new weapons projects near and dear to the general’s hearts. This extra money is not needed, is merely profligate.

Meanwhile, the Democrats can, and do, say that they think kids without healthcare insurance should have it provided by the government if their parents can’t afford it. The White House is resisting the creep toward “socialized” medicine with a veto threat, but the Senate passed it with a veto-proof majority. The House will probably sustain the veto, and the Democrats will have a huge stick to beat the GOP with – “$42 billion more for war, nothing more for kids.” And the chattering classes wonder why so many Americans say they hate politicians; rather than solve any problems, the candidates want to make the other side look bad to garner votes.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home