Ramblings

Allan C. Brownfeld

      Allan C. Brownfeld covers Washington, D.C.

Government Spending Is Out of Control and Few in Washington Seem to Notice or Care

      Ten years ago Newt Gingrich declared that, “We Republicans will make government smaller and smarter.” It has not turned out that way. The 2005 budget proposed by President Bush is nearly $1 trillion larger than when the Republican revolution was launched.

      Not only is the budget growing each year, whichever party is in power, but it is not being paid for. The Congressional Budget Office released its new deficit projections late in January. Its forecast is that the deficit will total nearly $2.4 trillion over the next decade, almost $1 trillion more than the estimate only five months earlier. The real prognosis is actually much worse because creative government accounting ignores some likely costs. It is more realistic to anticipate that the federal government will spend about $5 trillion more over the next ten years than it takes in.

      Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth and senior fellow in economics at the Cato Institute, notes that:

. . . in recent decades, neither political party has been a particularly good steward of taxpayer resources. Government ingests about 4 times to 5 times more of America’s national output today than in 1990. The government’s share of everything we produce and earn has about doubled since the end World War II. . . . President Bush has allowed the budget to grow by 8 percent per year after inflation in his first three budgets. What’s worse, many in Washington want government to grow a lot more in a hurry. Most of the Democrats running for president, and even some Republicans in Congress yearn for the day when government entirely takes over the health-care industry.

      In his proposed 2005 budget, Moore reports that President Bush

 

Seeks to keep marriages intact, to prevent overeating, to encourage teenagers not to have sex, and to help give Americans the willpower to stop smoking. Should it bother us that both parties now have bought into the belief government now has a federal program, bureau, agency or grant contract to deal with every conceivable need: an indoor rain forest in Iowa, an arts festival in Alaska, and swimming pools in New York—and, what’s next, relief from the acne on my teenager’s right cheek. . . . Our out-of-control budget . . . erodes personal freedom. When government grows, as Thomas Jefferson once famously put it, “liberty yields.” Dollar by trillions of dollars, we are voluntarily giving up our liberties for a government that promises us in return a blanket of protection from cradle to coffin. Republicans are steering us in the direction of the “workers paradise” of a European socialist welfare state, and the reply from the Democrats is faster, faster.

 

      In the chapter of the Bush budget called “Stewardship,” it is shown the federal spending will rise from about 20 percent of the gross domestic product this year to 53 percent in 2080. Much of this comes from interest on the debt, which rises by 20 percent of GDP. Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, argues that,

 

The addition of an expensive new unfunded benefit to Medicare for prescription drugs means future spending will be much, much greater than projected. When people are given something that is heavily subsidized, they use much more of it. Consequently, we can expect drug spending by the elderly to rise very rapidly, especially since drug prices are also likely to rise as demand outstrips supply. The budget itself admits these trends are “unsustainable.”

      When the administration pushed its Medicare bill through Congress, it knew that Congress’ budget resolution provided only $400 billion over ten years to pay for the drug benefit. Anything higher would have delayed—or prevented—passage. Thus, the administration did not tell Congress that its own estimate showed the plan would cost at least $134 billion more. That fact became known after the bill was passed.

      Peter Peterson, the former Nixon commerce secretary and a long-time advocate of fiscal responsibility, writes in his forthcoming book Running On Empty:

In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan galvanized the American electorate with that riff: “I want to ask every American: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Perhaps some future-oriented presidential candidate should rephrase this line as follows: “I want to ask every American, young people especially: Is your future better off now than it was four years ago—now that you are saddled with this large new liabilities and the higher taxes that must eventually accompany them?”

      Peterson indicts Republicans and Democrats as co-conspirators in our fiscal crisis. Looking to the future, he writes:

Quite simply, those bell-bottomed young boomers of the late 1960s have fully matured. The oldest of them, born in 1946, are only six years away from the median age of retirement on Social Security (63). As a result, our large pension and health care benefit programs will soon experience rapidly accelerating benefit outlays. . . . Thus, at a time when the federal government should be building up surpluses to prepare for the aging of the baby boom generation, it is engaged in another reckless experiment with large and permanent tax cuts. America cannot grow its way out of the kinds of long-term deficits we now face. . . . The odds are growing that today’s ballooning trade and fiscal deficits, the so-called twin deficits, will someday trigger an explosion that causes the economy to sink—not rise.

      Some in the administration tell us that deficits no longer matter. “During the Vietnam War,” notes Peterson,

 . . . conservatives relentlessly pilloried Lyndon Johnson for his fiscal irresponsibility. But he only wanted guns and butter. Today, so-called conservatives are out pandering L. B. J. They must have it all: guns, butter and tax cuts.

      Finally, some conservatives are speaking up—and are applying the same principles to the current administration that they have traditionally applied to those of the other party.

      Former Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio), former chairman of the House Budget Committee, recalls that

Back in 2001, when I left Congress . . . the budget was balanced. . . . $453 billion of debt had been paid down, and there were future surpluses amounting to $5.6 trillion that could be used to save and reform Social Security. These accomplishments were possible because a committed team of public servants made huge political sacrifices for the benefit of their children. It took a government shutdown (show-down) to make it clear to President Bill Clinton that I and others in Congress would stop at nothing less than fiscal responsibility. . . . We balanced the first budget since man walked on the moon because we were able to beat back the big-government, business-as-usual politicians.

      That achievement did not last very long. States Kasich:

Unfortunately, our success was short-lived. . . . Since 2001 government spending has grown almost 20 per cent, from $1.96 trillion then to the more than $2.3 trillion contained in . . . the Bush budget. . . . Some blame President Bush’s tax cuts, some blame the war on terrorism, but it all comes down to one simple reason: a lack of political will to curtail the rise and growth of government spending. An example of this is the bloated budget bill. It provides money for a birthday party for Hawaii and the study of fruit flies in France. Who is to blame? Everyone who has participated in the process, which means both Republicans and Democrats.

      To his former Republican colleagues, Kasich declares:

Please don’t argue that deficit spending and big government don’t matter. They are a claim on future income either through higher taxes, or inflation and higher interest rates.

      To his Democratic friends, Kasich says:

Deficits are not caused by taxes being too low, but by spending being too high. Your solution of raising taxes will lead only to slower economic growth and even more spending in the future.

      Discussing President Bush’s State of the Union message, Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that

The president used the State of the Union to defend past spending increases, and he made eight specific calls for new spending increases. But he made zero calls for spending cuts. He merely said focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending and be wise with the people’s money. That’s not specific enough.

      An indication of growing dismay with the administration on the part of conservatives came at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held in Washington January. Rep. Mike Spence (R-Indiana) addressed the group:

. . . the ship of conservative governance has gone off course. . . . Many who call themselves conservatives see government increasingly as the solution to every social ill and—let us be clear on this point—this is a historic departure from the limited-government traditions of our party and millions of its first ardent supporters. . . . A decade ago when I first ran for Congress, Republicans dreamed of eliminating the federal Department of Education and returning control of our schools to parents, communities and states. Ten years later we get the “No Child Left Behind Act.”. . . Our Reaganite beliefs that education was a local function were labeled “far right” by Republicans and the president signed the bill into law with Ted Kennedy at his side.

      The notion that “party loyalty” demands that Republicans support whatever a Republican president may do is, fortunately, in retreat. Rep. Spence declared that to ask the hard questions he and others have been asking “is not a sign of disloyalty, but of true loyalty to principle.”

      Conservative columnist Cal Thomas asked:

Are they listening at the White House? Perhaps they think they can dismiss conservatives with the familiar, “Where else can conservatives go?” They can “go” into inaction or they can stay home and not vote. It has happened before. Ask President Bush No. 41, who raised taxes after promising he wouldn’t. He later said it was a major mistake, but too late to win him reelection. In a close election people of principle can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

      For most Democrats and Republicans in Washington, however, their basic principle seems to be the one F. D. R.’s aide Harry Hopkins proclaimed: “Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect,” although Republicans have altered the formula with tax cuts and deficits as the centerpiece of their handiwork.

Needed: An Immigration Policy for the 21th Century

      At the present time, the U.S. has no real immigration policy. There are, of course, laws on the books. But they are violated daily as men and women cross the border in increasing numbers. There are now between 8 and 14 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S.

      In response to this widespread and casual violation of the law, President Bush, in January, proposed an ambitious plan that would allow undocumented workers to remain in the U.S. and legally hold jobs. This has led to an increasingly heated debate over the merits of rewarding illegal behavior—as well as over the changing nature of our demography as a result of what some have called “open borders.”

      The number of illegal aliens caught crossing into the U.S. increased dramatically just days after President Bush proposed his amnesty program, according to the union that represents the Border Patrol’s 9,000 field agents. The National Border Patrol Council said in February that apprehension totals increased threefold in the San Diego area alone, adding that the vast majority of aliens detained along the border told arresting agents that they had come to the U.S. seeking amnesty.

      A report issued in December by the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) details how net immigration to the U.S. rose dramatically by 1.4 million in each of the past two years, about a half-million being illegal aliens. If these trends continue, the first decade of the 21st century will mark the most massive wave of immigration in American history. By 2010, a total of 45 million immigrants, both legal and illegal, will reside in the U.S., constituting about 14 percent of the projected population.

      For many years, both Democrats and Republicans have decided not to enforce our immigration laws. Republicans are often motivated by the pressure of business, which seeks cheap labor. Democrats succumb to pressure from various ethnic groups which seek to expand their numbers and influence through immigration.

      Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center of Immigration Studies, notes that,

The starting point of immigration policy must be adequate capacity, and a willingness actually to enforce the law, whatever the content of the law happens to be. Lack of enforcement has been the central problem of immigration policy. Congress can design the most elegant legal and administrative framework imaginable, but it won’t matter if the immigration authorities are not permitted to use it to enforce the law. . . . The chief reason for the lack of enforcement of our immigration law is not incompetence or malfeasance on the part of the immigration bureaucracy, though there is surely plenty of that to go around. The real problem is the firm determination of Congress and successive administrations that the law not be enforced. For instance, when the INS conducted raids during Georgia’s Vidalia onion harvest in 1998, thousands of illegal aliens—knowingly hired by farmers—abandoned the fields to avoid arrest. By the end of the week, both of the state’s senators and three congressmen had sent an outraged letter to Washington complaining that the INS “. . . does not understand the needs of America’s farmers” and that was the end of that.

      Despite a weak American economy, rising unemployment, and the loss of jobs since 2000, immigration has significantly outpaced the 1990s. Dan Stein, executive director of FAIR, argues that

. . . the advocates of mass immigration who justified the record-breaking immigration levels of the 1990s on labor-market demands during the high-tech, bubble-driven economy of that era . . .

were totally wrong. When the bubble burst, he declares, the people just keep coming:

The past two years prove conclusively that immigration today is wholly unrelated to economic needs and conditions in this country.

      Aside from the fact that our virtually open borders make it possible for terrorists, narcotics traffickers and others to easily enter the country, there are other concerns being expressed about our current massive and uncontrolled immigration.

      In a report issued by the Hoover Institution, “Making and Remaking America: Immigration into the United States,” Philip Martin and Peter Duignan write that,

Immigration has numerous unintended social consequences. The old-style immigrant was usually a European. The new-style immigrant mostly comes from Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, countries whose political and social traditions greatly differ from those of the United States. Moreover, as in previous waves of immigration, the new immigrants have higher birthrates than the natives, which increases the effects of immigration on population growth. The old immigrants, however diverse, all derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition, whereas new immigrants include Muslims, Confucians, Buddhists, and adherents of Shinto. Such cultural multiplicity . . . may split the U.S. linguistically and spiritually in the future.

      Today’s immigrants come at a time when the older “melting pot” philosophy is under increasing attack. In many instances, immigrants promote bilingual education programs, maintain citizenship in their native countries, and resist assimilation. Political scientist Peter Skerry notes that Mexican-Americans, for example,

. . . are being seduced by the new American political systems into adopting the not entirely appropriate, divisive, and counterproductive stance of a racial minority group.

Indeed, the Census Bureau forecasts that, by 2050, Caucasians will barely form a majority of the population and Hispanics will be the largest minority in the country, exceeding black Americans.

      How can we truly make the newer, legal immigrants into Americans—as we assimilated past waves of immigrants? Martin and Duigman express the view that,

If it is the United States’ political aim to assimilate immigrants into a single nation, annual immigration must be kept in bounds. We suggest not more than two per thousand of population during any one year. This would reduce the current level of immigration to about 500,000 annually, not including refugees and skilled immigrants—still a generous quota. For political reasons, the U.S. should also ensure a diversity of immigrants, not allowing too many (perhaps not more than 10 percent of the total) from any one country in every single year.

      Beyond this, write Martin and Duignan,

Amnesties for illegal immigrants need to be halted to make clear that this is not a viable route to U.S. citizenship. Affirmative action programs should be terminated. Census categories such as “Hispanic” and “Asian” should be replaced by national origin classifications. English only should be required in the law, government, schools, and the political system. No long-term bilingual education programs should be mandated. A transition year or two can be provided for those who do not speak English; then English only must be required in all academic courses, but training in foreign languages as a second language should also be encouraged. . . . For the foreseeable future, America seems likely to remain the world’s major destination for immigrants. Our history and traditions suggest that, within a few decades, most of today’s immigrants will be an integral part of a revised American community. But past success does not guarantee that history will repeat itself. There are concerns about the size and nature of today’s immigration, especially about arrivals through the side and backdoors. As the nation searches for an immigration policy for the 21st century, America—and the immigrants who are on the way—are embarked on a journey to an uncertain destination.

      Neither Republicans or Democrats, however, appear ready to confront this serious question, or even to discuss it seriously. President Bush’s “amnesty” program is not a policy. The National Border Patrol council, which represents all of the Border Patrol’s non-supervisory agents, has told its members to challenge the President’s program as a “slap in the face to anyone who has ever tried to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.”

       Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of The Washington Times, writes that

What might not have been predicted is the Republican Party’s passivity—now complicity—in abandoning a defense of our borders against illegal entry. As the law and order, strong on defense, traditional values party, one would have expected the Republican Party to have been the champion of secure borders. But political, cultural and interest group factors have deflected the GOP from its natural position. Because, due to changing demographics, the GOP must increase its share of the Hispanic vote to at least 40 percent over the next generation, the GOP’s leadership is afraid to risk antagonizing such votes by a secure borders policy. . . . Neither party is currently disposed to fight hard for a maximum effort to secure our borders from illegal entry. . . . Such a condition is unhealthy for both the country in general and specifically our democratic political process.

         Immigrants, of course, have always been a key element in our dynamic society. That our society attracts men and women from around the world who have the ambition to improve their lives and live in freedom is a great compliment. Still, under international as well as domestic law, the U.S., as a sovereign state, has the right and responsibility to control who enters and settles in the country. Every sovereign state claims the right to control its own borders—including Mexico, which often treats illegal migrants from Central America harshly.

      George Vernez, in a 1996 report of the Rand Corporation, “National Security Migrating: How Strong the Link?” argues that there are two immigration-related threats to national security. One is potential loss of credibility in the federal government’s ability to protect its citizens from such unwanted elements as illegal immigrants, drug traffickers and terrorists. Inaction in reestablishing and maintaining this credibility could become a serious threat to internal stability and confidence in government.

      Too often, the debate over immigration runs to extremes. On one side, there are those who seek to dramatically reduce or stop immigration. On the other side are those who urge “open borders.” The real answer lies between these two. But the law must be enforced, whatever it is. Today’s immigration law—and the amnesty which has been proposed for those who have violated it—is no policy at all. It will be too bad if the coming presidential campaign does not confront and address this issue.     Ω

“To hell with the news! I’m no longer interested in news. I’m interested in causes. We don’t print the truth. We don’t pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us. It’s up to the public to decide what’s true.” —Ben Bradlee, when Editor of the Washington Post, quoted from the book, Trashing the Planet, by Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, p. 76