Don't Forget About Budget Restraint

LaCrosse Tribune

April 10, 2002

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, and with the U.S. troops fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, the Philippines and elsewhere, few people are talking about federal budget restraint.

That's why it was so interesting to hear U.S Sen. Russ Feingold raise some fiscal concerns during a service club talk last week.

Speaking to the La Crosse Rotary Club, Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, made the case for budget restraint - even during a time of increased military activity.

Feingold favors extending the life of the federal Budget Enforcement Act, which expires this year. That law, passed in 1992, has two important features: an overall spending limit that Congress may exceed only with a "supermajority" (60 votes in the Senate), and a "pay as you go" provision that requires Congress to fully fund new discretionary domestic programs with cuts elsewhere in the budget.

Without the extension of that law, Feingold said, "Congress is about to give itself free reign to spend as much as it wants."

Feingold's warning makes sense. Before the international terrorism crisis led to vastly increased defense spending, Congress had actually balanced the budget. Rather than the average $340 billion a year in deficit spending, there was actually a budget surplus.

Two factors have coincided to eliminate that budget surplus. One is the downturn in the economy, which results in lower revenue from taxes, and the other is the additional defense spending needed to fight the war on terrorism.

The country will have to work itself out of both concerns. But this is a good time to be taking longer on federal spending and budget issues. As Feingold pointed out, now that spending is up again, the real effect is that Congress is once again borrowing from Social Security.

Feingold is right to be raising these alarms now. The Budget Enforcement Act deserves to be extended.