Last of a Series
Two attitudes obviously must change if the United States government is to end deficit spending and control the national debt, now approaching a trillion dollars.
First, Congress must reverse excessive-spending notions and recognize that the fount of federal funds has its limitations.
And secondly, Americans in general and special interest groups particular must ease their demands on the public largesse.
Recently a coalition of 157 national organizations – ranging from consumer to labor groups – joined in opposition to many of President Reagan’s proposed budget cuts.
Whatever justice their position has, the use illustrates the problem Washington faces in balancing the budget – something achieved only eight times in the past 51 years. Reagan’s goal is to eliminate deficit spending, he hopes by 1983.
Jim Brady, his press secretary, defined the situation realistically in a March statement: “Everybody is for smaller government and less spending. Show anybody a list of 20 programs and they’ll tell you to cut 19 – all except the one dear to each of them.”
November’s election results have been interpreted widely as a mandate to control inflation, end deficit spending, and spur the economy. The suggestions and proposals to accomplish that goal vary among members of Congress.
Sen. Jake Garn, R-Utah, noting that Congress doesn’t respect its own debt ceilings, favors eliminating “meaningless debt limits” and focusing seriously on balancing the federal budgets.
The “permanent” debt ceiling of $400 billion was decreed March 17. 1971. Since then, Congress has raised the “temporary” limit at least twice a year, bringing the over-all ceiling to $985 billion.
Garn considers this hypocritical – “a ruse to convince taxpayers Congress is concerned about holding the line, even while it authorizes spending programs that force increases in the debt limit.”
Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis. advocates a tight lid on the debt limit and a responsible “pay-as-you-go” program. “We have refused to increase the debt ceiling during this entire period of runaway inflation, double digit interest rates, and hemorrhaging of the federal budget…”
How about budget control by statute? Congress tried this with a 1978 law requiring a balanced budget starting with fiscal 1981 it didn’t work because Congress and President Carter didn’t honor their own law. Massive deficits are programmed both for fiscal 1981 and 1982.
Such lack of discipline feeds the mood evident in many states for a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget. Congress has before it a number of amendment proposals, including a fairly-flexible version that would require a two-thirds vote of each house to adopt any budget that calls for red-ink spending.
Sen. William Armstrong. R-Colo. claimed Congress weakened budget control by restricting presidential powers for rescission of spending in a provision of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. He said the provision was passed as a retaliation to a move by then President Richard Nixon in 1971 imposing a moratorium on funding a housing program Congress had authorized.
Voters mandate the President to get federal spending under control; yet Congress has tied his hands, said Armstrong. “Our chief executive presides over the largest budget in the world and yet he has little actual management control over it.”
Sen. Orrin G Hatch, R-Utah backed that view during February congressional debate on the debt limit. He proposed strengthening the presidents budgetary authority and right of impoundment as one of several reforms he presented.
Other reforms would make debt and budget ceilings more effective, tighten borrowing regulations, require consideration of an amendment for a balanced budget, improve relationships between executive and legislative branches on budgetary matters, and place off-budget items on-budget “so the pubic will know exactly what the deficits are.”
Hatch said off-budget items have jumped from $9 billion in fiscal 1976 to $23 billion in fiscal 1981.
Over-all, the key words seem to he “fiscal discipline.” Republicans, with considerable Democratic help are pressing for early approval of the basic Reagan economic program, but many demands for changes and refinements are being debated.
Sen. William Roth, R-Del. cautioned it will take time to reverse long-time spending practices and commented: “The federal budget is like a runaway locomotive – it cannot be stopped on a dime.”
In his day, Thomas Jefferson warned against the servitude heavy taxation can bring and said no generation has a right “to bind the succeeding generation” with a vast debt.
Modern-day America has been slow to heed that counsel – but in the light of the experience of recent decades, Jefferson’s wisdom comes through loud and clear.