President Bush's FY2006 budget is being widely derided in the media and across the political landscape. The newswires are alive with dramatic claims of "deep cuts" and "scores" of programs being axed. The New York Times has taken umbrage with what it refers to as "the cruelest cuts." The Washington Post labeled proposed cuts "draconian" and counseled lawmakers to "remember the poor." All lament the President's "tax cuts for the rich" and obsess over the deficit.
The usual suspects in Congress typically reacted as if the administration had just ushered in the apocalypse. Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said the administration wants to cut "critical investments" in order to pay for "tax cuts and costly new proposals." Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Senior Senate Appropriations Committee member, declared that "these cuts are unacceptable."
With all of this dire rhetoric one could be forgiven for concluding that widows and children will be starving in the street. But while the Beltway intelligentsia is wailing and gnashing its teeth, the administration is painting the budget as a primrose picture of fiscal austerity.
The President's budget message states that "This Budget builds on the budget restraint we have achieved." In fact, the two-page Budget Overview that follows mentions "restraint" eight more times. As was the case last year, the White House points to declining annual rates of increase in non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary appropriations as proof of this "fiscal restraint." But it is impossible to take this claim at face value when such a category only represents one-sixth of the total federal budget. Moreover, the numbers the administration cites are misleading because they exclude supplemental appropriations and are not actual outlays.
The fact is this administration has presided over federal budget growth unseen since the days of Lyndon Johnson. Since President Bush came into office four years ago, the federal budget has grown 33%, and will begin approaching 40% next year. Although Congress deserves much of the blame for promoting this rampant largesse, the Bush administration has yet to veto a single bill and has rarely made a serious effort to limit spending--let alone cut it.
Bearing all of this in mind, it is almost amusing that the administration's latest budget proposal is generating so much vitriol from statists on the Hill and in the press. While it is true that the President's fifth budget submission is the tightest, it is not a model of Jeffersonian ideals.
Yes, Amtrak subsidies are targeted for deletion, farm subsidy payment limits would be reduced, and out-of-control Medicaid expenditures would be challenged. And yes, the administration is proposing to eliminate or cut 150 programs in areas ranging from education to housing. Praise the Lord and keep it coming.
But while 150 programs sounds like a lot, the combined savings would amount to peanuts in a $2.57 trillion budget riddled with thousands of programs. To pick out one or two and claim that the President intends to "slash" education spending or "endanger" the health of our "neediest citizens" is plain nonsense. Spending at the Department of Education rose an astounding 98.6% in the President's first term while health care expenditures--even with Medicare excluded--jumped 49.5%.
It's amazing how Congressional spendthrifts and their sympathizers in the media never forget about the tax cuts, but suddenly develop a case of amnesia when minor spending reductions are proposed. Talk about selective memory.
This latest budget may be a step in the right direction, but a much stronger stance against runaway entitlement spending is required. While the President is to be applauded for his willingness to address Social Security, Medicare remains the biggest long-term budget liability. Wednesday's news that the Medicare prescription drug benefit is projected to cost taxpayers an astounding $724 billion over the next ten years proves that its creation was a mistake that needs quick correcting. But instead of reaching out to folks on the Hill like Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), who have publicly entertained the possibility of scaling back the drug add-on, the President immediately threatened to veto any such attempts to do so.
The fact is Congress has a spending addiction, and appears to be incapable of curbing its appetite regardless of which party is in the majority. And, the mainstream media continues to poison the public discourse with its unrelenting attacks on even modest proposals to cut spending. At the same time, the administration has done itself no favors by failing to make a serious attempt at controlling spending. Social Security reform, overhaul of the tax code, and even the permanence of the President's previous tax cuts are in jeopardy as a result.
Tad DeHaven is an Economic Policy Analyst with the National Taxpayers Union. Veronique de Rugy is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute.