May 4, 2004
FORGET DISCIPLINE, PASS A LAW:
Gramm's former student Hensarling picks up the cause (Carl P. Leubsdorf, May 4, 2004, Jewish World Review)
A quarter-century after a Texas A&M economics professor named Phil Gramm arrived in Congress and immediately declared war on federal spending, his one-time student, freshman Rep. Jeb Hensarling, is pursuing a similar course.In his first term, the Dallas Republican has become a leader in efforts to limit spending, just as Gramm did as a freshman. Given the partisan acrimony and narrow majorities in Congress, he is likely to find the task every bit as hard as Gramm, who enjoyed a mix of successes and setbacks.
Still, Hensarling seems both determined to do his part and realistic about the barriers.
It's like the time his father asked him to clean up the chicken house on the family poultry farm, the 46-year-old congressman said.
"What I discovered was one does not clean up overnight what took many years to accumulate," he explained. "And that observation ... is also valid in the United States Congress. We're not going to clean up overnight what took years and years to accumulate in this place. But we're working on it."
Last month, Hensarling waged a spirited but losing bid on the House floor to reduce spending in next year's budget. Next month, he hopes to win House passage of a measure to strengthen the budget process by making congressional budgets binding.
The only realistic way to impose budget discipline is with a four part constitutional amendment:
(1) Establishing either a flat tax or consumption tax as the source of government revenue
(2) Requiring a supermajority for subsequent hikes in the established tax rates.
(3) Requiring that the budget be balanced or that across the board cuts be imposed on every federal spending program.
(4) Providing the president with a line-item veto.
Posted by Orrin Judd at May 4, 2004 12:21 PMOr one could simply have continued the fiscal discipline achieved by Clinton and the GOP Congress before Bush became President.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at May 4, 2004 1:28 PMChris:
There was no discipline, just a peace dividend. Cut spending by 3% of GDP, as we did when we downsized the military in the '90s, and you've got a balanced budget again.
Posted by: oj at May 4, 2004 2:13 PMthe Supremes ruled that the line-item veto is unconstitutional; great idea, though; perhaps solved by appointing a "line-item special master" on the Congressional side who isn't owned by special interests to clean-up the pork before it gets to the Executive Branch?
Posted by: Jim Gooding at May 4, 2004 2:32 PMMr. Gooding:
Just amend the Constitution. Then there'd only be 3 or 4 votes saying it's unconstitutional. :)
Posted by: oj at May 4, 2004 2:36 PMI suspect that most members of Congress (Republican or Democrat) would vote against it. They know a garrote when they see it.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 4, 2004 3:10 PMOr we could just elect representatives who pursue the national interest (and obviously forego our own).
Posted by: jsmith at May 4, 2004 11:08 PMThe line item veto, might not have gone away if Clinton hadn't wasted it on Idaho potato grower
subsidies and Ny State teaching hospital funding
