Spending Limit Amendment would build ‘fence line’ around government

By Kay B. Day

During a phone conference with bloggers on Thursday, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) started his remarks with what at first glance might seem an acceptance of defeat. Hensarling briefed bloggers about the new Spending Limit Amendment he worked on with Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) The amendment would limit federal spending to levels equaling one-fifth of the US economy, the average for actual spending since World War II. Hensarling acknowledged the challenges in pushing the amendment through—historically more than 5,000 have been offered but only 27 have actually been enacted.

But the fiscal situation is critical. The Texas congressman said Congress was already headed towards the cliff on spending. “Now Pelosi and Obama are pressing on the accelerator.”

Graph shows spending as a percentage of GDP. The red line shows where our current course of federal spending will take us. [From backgrounder on Spending Limit Amendment.]

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have set records for federal spending.

The challenge isn’t the language of the Spending Limit Amendment—it’s pretty straightforward and allows some flexibility for times of war or circumstances agreed to by a two-thirds vote in Congress.

The challenge lies in changing the mindset of Congress, but there’s an additional challenge in getting larger number of  Americans to realize the consequences of unbridled and often irresponsible federal spending. “As government expands, freedom contracts,” said Pence, who joined the phone conference after managing to juggle a meeting with the foreign affairs committee.

An example of that contraction might be expanding the powers of the Internal Revenue Service to enforce the mandate Democrats want in place for health insurance. Those who don’t purchase it would be penalized.

“Governments that grow spending see less economic growth,” Pence said. He also pointed out a result many overlook. The deeper in debt we are, the less ability we have to provide for the national security.

American voters have traditionally viewed congressmen who bring home the pork as savvy, responsible public servants. But few would disagree Congress has taken that attribute to foolish heights as government has become mired in the mortgage lending, banking and auto industry.

While most voters understand the need for federal subsidies on infrastructure and even Medicaid, most voters might not believe it’s a federal matter to fund institutes dedicated to Democrat senators as one of the earmarks President Obama sponsored as a senator does. Or, in the case of one Republican senator, building a ‘bridge to nowhere,’ as funding for a suspect Alaska bridge was dubbed. Another example: using Stimulus funds to build a skateboard park in Rhode Island.

Hensarling sees the Spending Limit Amendment in one regard as a means of starting “a national debate on whether there should be a limit to the size of the federal government.”

Pence sees the amendment as a means of building a “fence line around our national government.” He believes it’s important to establish the idea of “giving the national government boundary lines, as to what it can take from the American economy.”

After all, everyone has a budget or limits on what he or she can spend—“Everywhere but in Washington, D. C.,” Pence said.

Is the amendment a long shot—a theme for the 2010 elections? Pay-go hasn’t worked; nor have other caps on spending. The president’s pledge to go “line-by-line” through the federal budget to eliminate waste is a promise unkept.

Hensarling said it’s time to “change the culture of spending.” And while the amendment won’t likely be one the president will push for fast tracking, it’s a significant step towards changing the psyche of both Washington and Main Street with an end goal of protecting liberty for future generations.

“Regardless of what the probabilities of our success may be,” Hensarling said, “we feel a moral obligation to do this.”

Pence pointed out, “If we don’t bring the force of the American people through their national charter into this battle, by mid-century, we’ll be less free, less prosperous and less secure.”