Seems Democratic Strategist David Plouffe (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/26/david.plouffe/) is already making his presence in the Obama Administration felt. In an apparent effort to re-brand himself as a fiscal conservative, President Obama yesterday proposed putting a three-year freeze on discretionary spending increases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604154.html?hpid=topnews). Whether the "Obama as budget-hawk" brand is something the American voter will buy into or not, fiscal moderates and conservatives should lead the charge to get this proposal passed as soon as possible.
I know, I know- it's a drop in the bucket. Peter Roff at U.S. News and World Report notes that, "the White House claims the freeze will reduce total spending over the next decade by $250 billion. Under current services, the federal government will be spending $42.9 trillion. Even with the freeze, Obama and the Democrats in Congress get to spend...99.42 percent of what they were planning to."
And, yes, virtually every area of the federal government has already seen massive increases in spending under the Democratic Congress. Roth points out that "non-defense discretionary spending during Obama's first year in office grew by 17.4 percent. Freezing spending at that level over the next three years would still produce an average annual increase of 5.5 percent, which is faster than both the economy and wages are expected to grow." (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/26/the-obama-spending-freeze-is-simply-not-credible.html).
OK, so the so-called "freeze" would exclude the $80 billion-dollar jobs bill currently being considered in the Senate, as well as the remaining $500-plus billion of the $787 billion stimulus which is still unspent. So John McCain called for the same freeze in 2008 and was roundly rebuffed by then-candidate Obama, who said during their first Presidential debate, "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel." Now, it seems President Obama is right there with McCain, just a year late and billions of dollars short.
And, of course, it's a far cry from the President's campaign promise that an Obama White House would "go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." (http://prasifkapolitics.typepad.com/the_politics_of_accountab/2010/01/a-head-start-or-just-another-biggovernment-boondoggle.html)
Yet as our President is fond of saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." "Drop in the bucket" or not, many political pundits have expressed skepticism that the proposed freeze will ever become reality, as it will likely be attched to a bill, much of the rest of which, Republicans will largely oppose, and will join with tax-and-spend Democrats to defeat.
That would be a mistake. The President has presented true fiscal conservatives on BOTH sides of the aisle with an opportunity to show the voters their budgetary bona fides going into the November elections. For "moderate" Democrats in red- or purple states this may be their best opportunity to assuage voters after voting for health care reform, cap-and-trade, etc; so-called RINO incumbents facing tough primary challenges can hope to shore up their conservative credentials as well.
Any Congressional Republicans and Democrats who are truly for smaller government, even if it's only a wee-bit smaller, need to do more than get on board with this proposal, they need to get out in front of it. That means immediately submitting a bill calling for the President's proposed three-year freeze. Get as many members of both parties as possible to co-sponsor the bill ON ITS OWN MERITS- no sweeteners, no earmarks, no piggy-backing onto another bill for the purpose of politiking, no additional legislation of any kind included. If it never makes it to the floor for a vote, those who obstruct it will pay a political price. If it makes it to the floor, it may become an effective barometer of where each member of Congress stands on runaway spending. As the saying goes, "You will know their names and I will make them famous."
Monetarily speaking, it isn't a substantial reduction, but that is precisely the reason only those legislators most hopelessly addicted to more-and-more spending would oppose the President's proposal.
It's more than a drop in the bucket- it's a first step in 'separating the wheat from the chaff' for the voter.
