Earlier this year, speaking at the Acton Institute in Michigan, I presented an optimistic case for spending restraint.
My premise was very simple, summarized in four sentences.
- Spending restraint is desperately needed.
- Spending restraint is impossible without entitlement reform.
- Republicans used to be good on entitlement reform.
- Republicans can be good once again on the issue.
My left-leaning friends disagree about the first point, as you might expect.
My right-leaning friends, meanwhile, are skeptical about the fourth point. And I understand why since Republicans have a less-than-impressive track record on fiscal policy. Heck, they are often even worse than Democrats.
But as I explained at the Acton Institute, Republicans occasionally decide to push for good policy.
For what it’s worth, I think we may be on the verge of another one of these moments. Let’s look at the Senate, where Rand Paul has a budget plan based on spending restraint.
Here are some excerpts from a report in the Washington Examiner.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has presented an alternative plan to the recent Fiscal Responsibility Act introduced by President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). Paul’s proposal comes as the agreement from McCarthy and Biden has drawn discontent among some Republican lawmakers, who are refusing to vote for the deal. Under Paul’s plan, the debt ceiling would be given a $500 billion increase to encourage Congress to take action on the nation’s debt sooner. Paul’s proposal also includes caps on both the sums of discretionary and mandatory spending, which would cut 5% spent every year.
That’s the good news.
The bad news is that only 21 Senators voted for Paul’s proposal.
Nonetheless, that’s a base of support for sensible policy.
Now consider this story from the Hill about a budget plan by some House Republicans.
The Republican Study Committee (RSC), the largest conservative caucus in the House, …would balance the federal budget in seven years, …while also cutting spending by $16.3 trillion and taxes by $5 trillion over a decade. …It does not include any age increases for Medicare eligibility, but does include some “modest adjustments to the retirement age.” …Leaders of the caucus stressed that the proposed entitlement reforms will require bipartisan cooperation, since Social Security is set to be insolvent in 2033 and Medicare is set to be insolvent in 2031.
Does this mean every House Republican is ready to support needed spending reforms? Or that any Democrats will join them to do the right thing?
Of course not.
But, as is the case in the Senate, there is a base of support for good policy.
The bottom line is that there is zero chance of good budget policy happening while Biden is in the White House. As such, I mostly view Senator Paul’s plan, as well as the RSC plan, as opportunities for fiscally sensible lawmakers to lay the groundwork for future reform.
Which means the real issue is whether the next president prefers spending restraint or massive tax increases. And, if the next president wants to do the right thing, then we will see if the base of support in the House and Senate can be expanded to a majority.
———
Image credit: Bjoertvedt | CC BY-SA 3.
