EDITORIAL: Spending freezes over

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

President Obama is finally - sort of - pointing in the right direction. His call for a three-year freeze on non-security discretionary federal spending represents a minor triumph for fiscal conservatives. Even if the president doesn’t mean it, public opposition to his expansion of government is so strong that he at least has to pretend to want to slow down bureaucratic growth. Conservatives now have an opportunity to challenge Mr. Obama not only to make good on the freeze, but also to limit the size and scope of government more broadly.

Before anyone gets too excited, Mr. Obama still is protecting far too much federal spending. Reports say no cuts will come from the $787 billion stimulus package passed last year. The freeze will not apply to a new jobs bill the president is proposing under the illusion that government can actually create jobs. It won’t apply to any health bill Democrats try to save from the wreckage of Obamacare. It won’t apply to purely local projects, such as museums, annually snuck into defense appropriations bills that have nothing to do with defense. And, of course, it won’t apply to entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.

That said, Mr. Obama explicitly campaigned against a spending freeze, and he has presided over the largest one-year expansion of government in U.S. history outside of World War II. For Mr. Obama to call for a freeze of any sort is an important pivot that reminds of former President Bill Clinton’s political concession to conservatives that “the era of big government is over.” The $15 billion in purported savings from a freeze is a mere four-hundredths of one percentage point of estimated federal outlays. With a one-year deficit projected to exceed $1 trillion, $15 billion is small change, but it’s better than no change at all.

Congress should see the president’s “savings” and raise them. Any stimulus funds still unspent should be rescinded or reduced. An absolute ban should be enforced on all new local earmarks, in law and in bill report language, for the same three-year period, and those savings applied (above the savings from the “freeze”) to debt reduction. Any talk of new spending for so-called jobs programs should be nixed. And all that’s just a start.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts