PAYGO = Political "Play-Dough"
By William Bailey (12/15/07)
“Play-Dough” is a great toy for keeping young folks occupied and challenging their creativity. As many of you, I’ve watched my children, grandchildren, great grand-children mould and make some pretty interesting things using that product. Their creativity is almost mind-boggling.
To me, the Congressional “dictum” of PAYGO requires a challenge and creativity far below that to be found in the minds of children using “Play-Dough”.
First, you have to understand that PAYGO is NOT what the term implies. I would guess that most people believe that PAYGO means, before Congress can appropriate funds for any purpose, the appropriation has to be paid for . . . either by reduction in other areas or an increase in taxes. On the surface, it would appear that it is an “across the board” application. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
There are two types of spending . . . mandatory and discretionary. PAYGO applies only to the mandatory side of spending. According to the Office of Management & Budget, PAYGO does not prohibit mandatory spending or tax cuts. It only ensures that those costs are paid for. If they are not paid for, PAYGO requires that they have broad support in Congress. When you hear a politician refer to PAYGO, you’re about to be “had”. At best, it’s a confidence game and one of the neatest shams ever created in the history of governmental budgeting. For you see, the politicians would have you believe that if something is in the budget, the revenues are there to pay for it. Not so . . .
Remember this statement ? “Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of compiling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore pay-as-you-go budget discipline.” The person making the statement was none other than the current Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, on December 12, 2006. Without meaning any disrespect to the office of Speaker . . . anyone making such a statement must be guilty of having the “mouth in motion before the brain is put into gear”.
Since PAYGO doesn’t apply to domestic discretionary spending, it won’t constrain spending increases under present law in entitlement programs such as MediCare and Medicaid. One of the goals behind PAYGO is to make tax cuts virtually impossible.
An editorial from the Wall Street Journal (December 10, 2007) shares the following:
“In fact, the paygo farce has been unfolding all year. Since the day they took the
gavel, Democrats have been using gimmick after gimmick to evade it. The SCHIP
bill for health care, for example, includes a spending ‘cliff’ that disguises its actual
cost. It assumes spending would rise to $14 billion in 2012, but then pretends the
costs would fall to less than half that level in 2013---which just so happens to fall
outside the five-year budget scoring window. Some $60 billion in spending over
the next 10 years were hidden through this ploy.
Then there is the House farm bill awaiting action in the Senate. That
spending marathon includes between $5 billion and $10 billion in fictitious paygo
savings by shifting the date of farm aid payments from one year to another. If a
Fortune 500 CEO did that sort of thing, he’d be indicted.”
It should also be understood that each House of Congress has its own set of PAYGO rules and, what applies in the House doesn’t apply in the Senate. So, when you hear reference made to PAYGO, you have to know which set of PAYGO rules are being claimed.
PAYGO rules do not have the force of law, are not self-enforcing, and cannot sequester funding. They establish parliamentary points of order that must be raised by a Member to take effect. They are binding only in the chamber that created them. To suspend them, only the chamber to which they apply must approve. In the House, the Rules Committee (controlled by the majority party) must make a rule that exempts a piece of legislation from PAYGO. In the Senate, 60 Senators must vote affirmatively to overturn a PAYGO point of order. (Information acquired from the Office of Management & Budget). Only in Washington . . . rule making with “built-in” provisions for getting around them.
As you can easily see, it’s a rule that’s a rule only when it’s convenient for Congress to say it’s a rule. In other words . . . it’s a budget gimmick. Unfortunately, it has gotten to the point that that’s what is expected from the Congress when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Gimmicks aren’t going to solve what’s wrong with Federal budgeting. The only principle that will is obvious on its face . . . you don’t spend more than you take in. Ask anyone who is responsible for running a household or a business and find out what they say about trying to operate outside the boundaries of income.
Much is made about the drug problem we have in this country and rightfully so. However, there is another addiction that gets very little coverage. That’s the addiction of elected officials to spend, spend, spend . . . all for the end result of getting votes which relates to political power. The other part of the addiction equation is that a large part of our society has come to expect the Federal government to take care of all of their needs. In other words, they believe that government should be “all things to all people”. That approach might work for a while, but sooner or later somebody has got to “pay the piper” or put a “nickel in the jukebox”. And, we all know who will have to pick up the tab . . . our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. They didn’t create the mess, but they’ll have to clean it up.
According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, 44 of the 50 states require the Governor to submit a balanced budget; 40 require Legislatures to pass a balanced budget; and, 38 do not allow deficits to be carried from one year to the next. It’s a shame that the Federal government cannot and will not exercise the same level of discipline when it comes to the Federal budget.
You will hear blame placed at the feet of the President for the deficit . . . for the dire fiscal condition of the Nation. However, you seldom hear one irrefutable fact talked about: the President does NOT approve a budget. The Congress has that power. Yes, the President can submit a budget . . . yes, the President can veto spending bills that, in his opinion, are excessive, but the fact remains that the Constitution grants that power to the Congress. Too many times we hear reference made to the fact that the Congress controls the “purse strings”. And, that’s true. But, almost in the same breath, blame is placed on the President for the budget mess. Can’t have it both ways. If Congress has accepted the Constitutional provision, then they must accept the responsibility.
The Democrats keep “bally-hooing” that they took control in 2006 because the electorate wanted change. Maybe the change that Americans want is a Congress that will accept the responsibility for fiscal discipline and just plain common sense when it comes to running the Federal government.
So, the Congress keeps playing with “play-dough” instead of doing what they know will correct the situation . . . balance the budget. Structure outgo so that it does not exceed income. You want to get rid of the deficit and reduce the National debt ? That’s the only way it will happen. It won’t be done with gimmicks. And, unfortunately, it may have gone so far it may be an unsolveable puzzle.
It’s really laughable (in sense), Congress isn’t as creative as the kids trying to play with “play-dough”.
William D. Bailey
(Printer friendly version) Email: William Bailey
