The Federal Budget, Pork, and Things YOU Can Do

The WaPo reports, in a Page One story this morning, that the Senate approved the "budget cuts" that were on the table. The budget issue isn't resolved, however:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) sent a letter to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), asking that the House pass the new version of the budget by unanimous consent, ending the need to summon lawmakers back to Washington.

But even before the request, Pelosi had promised to force another vote.

"Democrats believe this Republican bill has the wrong priorities," she said in a statement. "That is why we will request a recorded vote where all members return to Washington to make clear their values to the American people."

A coalition of labor unions and liberal interest groups immediately swung back into gear, drafting a list of 18 House Republicans in hopes of persuading eight to change their vote.

{sigh} Where to begin? I've not seen any counter-proposals (other than repealing tax cuts) from the Democrats on how to rein in federal spending. Instead we have "a coalition of labor unions and liberal interest groups" who seem to be driving the Democrats. But, what's new? The interesting thing about these so-called budget cuts is the "cuts" reduce the growth of spending over the next few years, rather than implement actual spending reductions. And these proposed cuts are modest, at best.

A $40 billion spending cut, spread out over five years, ain't a lot. The federal budget could be reduced by $72 billion immediately simply by abolishing the Department of Education, an agency that's only been in existence for 25 years. We got along fine without this bureaucracy before 1980; I submit we could muddle through without it in the future and go a helluva long way towards financing the Katrina recovery, just to cite one example, by using its money. But I digress, as usual.

There are a number of other approaches to reducing federal spending. How about a one percent across the board budget cut for ALL federal agencies, with the exception of the Department of Defense and (possibly) the Department of Homeland Security? How about cancelling all the earmarks in the recently passed and pork-laden Transportation Bill? How about delaying the Medicare prescription drug benefit for a year or two? Any one of these options would yield more savings in the first year than the "cuts" just passed by the Senate.

I know. I'm dreaming.

There are some things we, as individual citizens, can do about runaway federal spending.

First of all, you can help identify and eliminate budget fat by joining the Pork Busters movement. The Bear's site has a (House) district-by-district accounting of pork in the federal budget, and it's a real eye-opener. If you have a blog, include the following statement in your blog to identify yourself as a supporter of the PorkBuster movement: I support the Fiscal Watch Team Offset Package. Contacting your Representative and your Senators and making your feelings known on the subject is another step you should take.

You could also join Citizens Against Government Waste. They have a fine web site and conduct worthwhile campaigns against waste.

The Heritage Foundation is another organization with good information on spending excess.

OK, that's it for starters. I wish we could "earmark" our tax dollars, i.e., instruct the Feds on how to spend our money. I'd designate my taxes be used to buy JP-4 for the Air Force and the Navy, and a couple of cases of M-16 ammunition for the Army and Marines. But that's just me.