By Jerry Burke
There was a time, not so long ago, when the words "balanced budget" meant something. It was a reality, a thing of beauty that the entire country could be proud of. And while Bill Clinton was the president at the time, the credit had to be extended to the successful implementation of checks and balances, namely the 1995 Republican "revolution" in Congress.
For years, the Republican agenda of getting government off the backs of the little guy (you and me) was stalled despite 12 years of GOP control of the executive branch. They blamed the Democratic-controlled Congress for adding pork to local programs and making the budget a total joke, sinking us deeper and deeper into debt.
But once Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" posse rolled into town, things were going to be different. And they were: Through compromise and hard work, the budget was finally balanced. And there was much rejoicing.
Ten years later, we're in even worse shape than we were in the 1980s. What changed? While security spending had to increase in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, the only other factor in flux is the man in the White House. Could President Bush be the only reason we now have a record $2.57 trillion budget (not including another $82 billion supplemental request for spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, including $400 million in kickbacks for the "coalition of the willing") for 2006?
The answers is no. Bush isn't the only reason. A big reason, oh yes. But many Republicans are becoming what only 10 years ago they accused Democrats of being: tax-and-spend liberals.
Only, take the "liberal" part out, because that would imply they're giving the money to "social handouts" like health care and school lunches. Oh, and thanks to the effort to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, take out the "tax" part as well.
Which leaves us with "spend." And this Congress knows how to play that game very well. Remember that groovy Medicare prescription drug benefit package, projected at $400 billion over 10 years, that would make the hassle of medicating the populace a snap? Well, funny thing: By the White House's own numbers, the cost is now up to $724 billion. And a year later, you still need a master's in accounting to figure out what plan is best for you.
The good news is that some Republicans who actually remember their smaller-government maxim are ready to scale it back. The bad news is that Bush, whose campaign promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009 would now only be realized if we sold off three states and the Pacific fleet, promises to veto any attempts at change.
And while billions of dollars go missing in Iraq, and millions are spent on programs that don't work ($206 million for abstinence-only education, which in four years has resulted in a nationwide increase in abortions as well as the numbers of sexually active teens and cases of syphilis), we still fund a missile-defense system that couldn't shoot down a hot-air balloon, let alone an incoming warhead.
In the 2006 budget, Bush is proposing cuts to more than 100 programs that do work, like health care for veterans and vocational training. He's also cutting farm subsidies, which even I'm no big fan of. But if you think for a second that the representatives of the red states are going to stand for losing that cash, chances are you're drunk on ethanol.
Enough already. The shared sacrifice of the masses, especially during a time of war, has always been good for this country. Tightening our belts would be a lot easier to bear if we knew our country's finances were even remotely manageable.
Right now, the fed is spending $20,000 per household and only collecting $17,000. That means we're borrowing $3,000 per family. No more Coast Guard funds in Kansas, kids! Stop paying corporations for profiting on American soil! And for the love of all that is holy, cancel "Joey." Know when to say enough is enough.
