December 24, 2005
Getting Serious About Deficit Reduction
By Jon Kyl
Last week the Senate,
with my support, passed legislation that will reduce the federal
deficit by nearly $40 billion over the next five years.
There are two ways
to look at the Deficit Reduction Act. One, $40 billion is undeniably
a great deal of money, and the vote would thus seem to indicate
a victory for the taxpayer. That’s certainly why I supported
it.
But at the same time,
compared to the size of the federal budget deficit - to say nothing
of the budget itself - it hardly heralds a widespread rediscovery
of fiscal discipline and restraint. In fact, it’s not even
a budget cut. The savings amount to a reduction in the rate of
growth of entitlement spending by about one-half of 1 percent.
And even this effort
to modestly slow the rate of government expansion succeeded by
the only slimmest of margins, on a vote of 51-50 (Vice President
Cheney had to break the tie in his constitutional role as president
of the Senate.) All 45 Senate Democrats voted against it.
To the many critics
who will say that this is hardly a sufficient spending cut when
the federal government is dealing with, for example, the cost
of Hurricane Katrina, I can only say, you’re absolutely
right. But as is evidenced by the 51-50 vote, and facing the opposition
of literally every single Democratic member of the Senate, you
can see the options were limited.
I do believe that
the bill marks an important first step toward fiscal responsibility
for its Republican supporters. It is the first time Congress has
acted to control entitlement spending since 1997, and manages
to save money while providing new funding for a handful of critical
programs.
At the same time,
the bill demonstrates that Senate Democrats’ claims to support
deficit reduction are rather hollow, and makes it hard to take
seriously their criticism of deficit spending under President
Bush. To put it simply, if you can’t find .5 percent of
waste to trim, you’re obviously not looking very hard. This
is particularly true given that the bill does not cut anyone’s
actual federal benefits - it simply makes a number of programs
more efficient.
For example, the bill
improves federal student loan programs by reducing lenders’
fees, raising borrowing limits, and expanding grant aid, while
at the same time streamlining administration procedures to make
the whole process easier for both parents and students.
It also extends and
strengthens the work requirements of the bipartisan welfare reform
that President Clinton signed into law in 1996, and fully implements
President Bush’s initiative to promote marriage.
Seniors will be relieved
to know that the bill staves off a planned cut in physician reimbursement
rates under Medicare that were widely predicted to drive many
doctors out of the program entirely.
There are also a number
of relatively arcane sounding provisions of the bill that will
actually have a significant impact on ordinary Americans’
safety and security. One sets (for the first time) a deadline
of February 17, 2009 for the transfer of analog broadcast spectrum
that television stations will no longer need as the country makes
the transition to digital television. This spectrum will be provided
to state and local governments to improve the interoperability
of “first-responder” communications systems. In plain
English, that means we’ll finally be able to solve the common
problem of police in one jurisdiction not being able to communicate
directly with their counterparts in neighboring towns.
The ability of the
federal government to help with things like the cost of Hurricane
Katrina is dependent upon the willingness of taxpayers to foot
the bill. They are very generous as long as they know their representatives
are setting priorities and finding ways to pay for such costs
without simply borrowing from future generations. This bill is
a humble but meaningful start.
Sen.
Kyl serves on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees and
chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee. Visit his website
at www.kyl.senate.gov.
