Instead of appropriately prioritizing within the means of the federal budget, the politicians of the 1980s told everyone that they could have more– more military spending, more transportation spending, more social spending– and still cut taxes.  This delighted defense contractors, the transportation industry and the recipients of the tax cuts.  Furthermore, politicians made heroic budget assumptions to justify th out-of-control spending.

Who suffered?  Future generations.  

I call this a “divide-and-pander” strategy.  Instead of prioritizing federal spending, making tough choices and telling special interest groups “no,” the 1980s politicians put everything on a credit card.

Our credit card bill, to the tune of a $5 trillion national debt, has arrived.  Last year, we finally passed a balanced budget plan which cut spending by $267 billion.  In fact, this year we are projected to have the first budget surplus in a generation.  We are definitely on the right track toward fiscal responsibility.

Or at least, we were.  To my immense frustration, Congress still doesn’t get it.  Last week, we passed a $216 billion transportation bill that illustrated Congress’ continued willingness to pander to an isolated interest group and use questionable budget numbers to justify it.

Congress completely ignored the Balanced Budget Act passed last year that set aside $184 billion for transportation.  Once agin, Congress failed to look at the big budget picture and ask whether or not we could afford the increased spending.  In the “divide-and-pander” fashion of the 1980s, Congress told transportation interests they could have more and increased transportation funding by $32 billion, completely failing the first test of the Balanced Budget Act.

Furthermore, the bill’s authors used questionable numbers and budget gimmickry to justify the spending increase.  For starters, the bill’s authors cut a veteran’s health-care benefit that earlier this year was estimated to cost $10 billion.  Not only do I find it unconscionable to cut veterans’ health-care benefits, but in order to make the numbers come out right, the bill’s authors now say the program costs $17 billion to give them an extra $7 billion to spend.
 

The sponsors of the bill also abandoned a longstanding practice of using the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office numbers and instead used numbers that were more favorable to their plan.

Furthermore, the legislation authorizes transportation spending that is $32 billion over budget but only provides $20 billion in cuts to pay for the increase.  Once again, they are leaving the tough budget cuts to future generations.  

The transportation interests argued that voting against this bill meant that you don’t support transportation.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Believe me, I am fully aware of the transportation problems our nation and our region face (after all, I do live in South King County).  The Balanced Budget Act allocated $184 billion for transportation, which is a 16-percent increase over the $155 billion level of the last major transportation bill passed in 1991.  This is a substantial increase.  

Do I think we could spend more on transportation?  Absolutely.  We could probably double the transportation budget and still not meet every single need around the nation.  However, the defense interests, education interests, senior citizens advocates, you name it, can argue the same case.  They all want more, and like a parent afraid to say no to a spoiled child, Congress consistently pulls out its credit card without thinking of the consequences.

Although transportation is essential and a worthwhile investment of our federal dollars, I just couldn’t vote for a bill that overspent, used questionable budget numbers, and took away needed funds from other programs.  For me, this transportation bill is too reminiscent of the flawed budget process of the past which we are still paying for today.