Congressional leaders have not passed a federal budget in four years and have continued to kick the can down the road with continuing resolutions rather than solve America’s spending and debt problems. If major corporations operated in that manner, they would soon go out of business.
Unfortunately, the electorate re-elects representatives who always claim to “do more” for their constituents. The “doing more” consists of attaching as much pork barrel spending as possible to appropriations and being out front at ribbon-cuttings to show voters they are indeed accomplishing more for them.
This legislative system follows the philosophy of “you vote for my earmark (pork by another name) and I’ll vote for yours.” Thus, our federal budget gets bloated with a “bridge to nowhere” (Alaska), a ship the Navy doesn’t want built (Mississippi), or tanks the Pentagon didn’t order (Ohio). The automatic spending cuts known as sequestration, which took effect March 1, resulted from a bipartisan effort last August to force Congress and the Administration to produce a budget which would satisfy Democrats’ desires to maintain certain programs and Republican concerns about spending and the national debt. It hasn’t worked out as planned and in order to keep the government afloat, Congress is faced with the need to pass yet another continuing resolution on March 27.
Nearly every government department has complained to Congress and predicted doomsday scenarios if their budgets are cut. Transporetation¿Secretary Ray LaHood announced the furloughing of air traffic controllers and the potential closing of some airports. Department Secretary Leon Panetta testified that the military would be unable to fulfill its mission to protect the citizenry.
Rational critics might question these lobbying efforts. The cost and effectiveness of Transportation Safety Administration screening at airports has been questioned, and many think the budget-busting war in Iraq was based on a false premise of weapons of mass destruction. One could also mention a $400 million aircraft the Pentagon ordered. Too bad it was designed for the Cold War and is of little use in this age of drones against terrorists.
Our military presence in the Middle East has largely been devoted to assuring the flow of oil. Other nations benefit from this presence, yet the United States bears the costs. Achieving energy independence could reduce America’s role in stabilizing the region. Oil producing nations would be forced to cooperate with consumer nations in order to maintain a stable oil market.
One also might question the U.S. role as policeman of the world. Nearly 70 years after the conclusion of World War II, we maintain numerous bases in Western Europe. The economies in that region have long been able to support their own defense. Closing superfluous foreign bases could go a long way toward a balanced budget. Years ago, U.S. military bases in Panama and the Philippines were closed, and Leon Panetta hasn’t said these closings jeopardized America’s ability to defend the country.
A senator serving on a military appropriations subcommittee remarked during an appearance on a TV talk show recently that the Department of Defense is the nation’s number one employer. This department apparently has been transformed into the federal government’s chief job creator and conduit of stimulus money. One is reminded that General Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s warned in a presidential address about the dangers of an economy dominated by the military-industrial complex.
The defense budget is not the only bloated one, as federal government spending accounts for 25 percent of all spending in the U.S. economy. It’s also no surprise that nearly every government office operates in a wasteful manner.
At the end of the fiscal year, administrative officers in federal government offices encourage the spending of any budgetary surplus. If the surplus is not spent, then the following year’s budget (or planned budget increase) will be reduced by the amount of the unspent surplus. This end of the fiscal year splurging for the sole purpose of avoiding a budget cut is “S.O.P.” (standard operating procedure). To curtail such fiscal madness, many states have adopted balanced budget amendments to their constitutions. Senators Mark Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky have urged the nation to do likewise, and taxpayers should support this idea.
Dan Norvell learned about the “S.O.P” working on Capitol Hill in the 1960s and traveling overseas at government expense from the mid-1980s to early 2000s.
