Posted by: Jon Henke on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 Yesterday, I wrote about Democratic Virginia Governor Mark Warner legislating through the budget, and Republican pique at his end-around. Commenters generally agreed that the budget should not be used as a tool of policy creation. (though I wish some liberal commenters would have weighed in) I brought that up because, while Virginia Republicans decry legislating-by-budget, Washington Republicans are somewhat less opposed to it. [Republican Alaska Senator Ted] Stevens has tucked [drilling for oil in ANWR] into a bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.And while Virginia Democrats slip policy legislation into the budget, Washington Democrats don't seem to have gotten the memo... Angry Democrats say the effort to push ANWR through as part of the defense bill will break the rules and set a horrible precedent. "It shows that ... if the rules are inconvenient, then just overrule them," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. The Parties have each failed to coordinate their principles on legislating-via-budget because they don't actually have any principles on legislating-via-budget. Their position on the process is entirely dependent upon the outcome. They have no Original Position. While calculations of power and interest might lead one to conclude that this process-pervesion will ultimately be productive, this is not a promising way to organize government. The tables will turn, the majority will be the minority and the precedent will have been set. Republicans often complain that the judicial branch has become "activist", but the budget can just as easily become an instrument of new policy creation rather than extant policy implementation. In politics, precedent is prophecy. If we'd like to restrain the growth of government—or, to be bipartisan about it, to restrain the undue activism of politicians—the only solution is to enact structural changes in the way the budget is made. A Line Item Budget would break down each earmark, rider and spending category into what amounts to a unique bill. Instead of forcing Congressmen to choose between voting for a $50 million indoor rainforest in Iowa or rejecting the Transportation bill in toto, they would be forced to vote for the $50 million indoor rainforest on its merits alone. And on the merits of highway repair, Alaskan bridges, cricket research, etc. Let every item get a majority vote on its own merits, or let it fail. The Line Item Veto has already been ruled unconstitutional and, while it might make a more constitutionally tolerable comeback, it doesn't really deal with the Congressional incentive to play Calvinball with the budget. Line Item Budgeting, on the other hand, would force Representatives and Senators to be personally accountable for every single earmark, rider and expenditure in each bill. If the Republican Party wants the ongoing support of fiscal conservatives and libertarians, structural change like Line Item Budgeting would go a very long way towards gaining it. And if the Republican Party isn't interested, the Democrats are always welcome to make their own bid for the support of libertarians and limited government proponents. If Democrats made Line Item Budgeting a real part of their policy agenda, I suspect that libertarians and fiscal conservatives would abandon the Republican Party en masse. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
