Massachusetts voters sent Washington a clear message this week that they want members of Congress to change their behavior today – not after the next election, but today. Also, the election was not a referendum on President Obama, health care, or any single issue per se, but on the size and scope of government.With the Senate set to vote once again to raise the debt limit – the amount the government can borrow – I intend to give my colleagues a chance to change their behavior by forcing the Senate to choose between raising the debt limit and cutting spending. The logic of the choice is simple: Millions of families in America have to make hard choices. So should Congress. As a nation we face fiscal ruin if we continue on our present course of borrow and spend.
Specifically, my amendment would rescind at least $120 billion by consolidating more than 640 duplicative government programs, cutting wasteful Washington spending, and returning billions of dollars of unspent money from agency coffers. If enacted, this would be the first serious step toward cutting spending in Congress in 15 years.
Controlling domestic discretionary spending alone won’t be enough, of course, to put our nation on a sustainable fiscal path. Congress must also reform entitlements. Controlling domestic discretionary spending should be the easy part, though. Doing nothing will cause the size of government to double over the next five years at current spending levels, which could lead to an economic perfect storm of a devalued dollar, high interest rates and high inflation.
As a candidate for president in 2008, Obama pledged to do what I am now proposing. His pledge said, “Obama will conduct an immediate and periodic public inventory of administrative offices and functions and require agency leaders to work together to root out redundancy. Where consolidation is not the right strategy to improve efficiency, Obama will improve information sharing and use of common assets to minimize wasteful duplication.”
I intend to help the president achieve this important campaign pledge. Examples of duplication aren’t hard to find. For instance, our government funds:
· 105 federal programs to encourage students to enter the fields of math and science. Thirteen different federal agencies spend more $3 billion each year to fund these programs;
· 44 job training programs administered by nine different federal agencies across the federal bureaucracy for $30 billion;
· 69 early education programs administered by nine different agencies;
· 23 federal housing programs that target or have special features for the elderly; and
· 21 federal programs for childhood obesity.
The list goes on and many of these programs are well-intended. Yet, if we really want to encourage math and science education, for instance, why not have one outstanding program instead of 105 overlapping and mediocre programs?
Unfortunately, Congress will likely resist any move toward restraint. Many in Congress who understand that voters are upset about spending but lack the courage to consolidate programs will argue that we need to look to the debt commission sponsored by Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) for leadership.
Yet, the 34 senators who support the commission fail to acknowledge that we already have a commission to set budget priorities. It’s called the United States Congress. If Congress lacks the political will to set priorities, we don’t need a new commission, we need a new Congress.
Evaluating programs and making tough budget choices is the most basic responsibility of every member of Congress. If members find that job too hard, they should resign.
The American people are speaking loudly and clearly if we would only listen. Polls continue to show that America is still a center-right country in search of center-right leadership. In September of 2009, a Gallup poll found that 57 percent of Americans believe “the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to businesses and individuals.”
An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken last week found that 58 percent of Americans favored “smaller government with fewer services” while only 38 percent said they wanted “larger government with more services.”
My amendment would give members of Congress a chance to exercise the kind of leadership the American people are seeking – a move away from borrowing and toward common sense and responsible government. Instead of increasing the debt limit or establishing a new commission to examine Washington spending, Congress should immediately start eliminating wasteful, ineffective and outdated programs and consolidate duplicative programs.
The stakes could not be higher. If members of Congress don’t change their behavior soon, they will lose not only elections, but our nation as well. The people of Massachusetts have given us a wake-up call. Now is the time for Congress to listen and change.
