Obama's Slushie

It was only after voters gave Republicans control of Congress in 1994 that President Clinton, in his 1996 State of the Union address, famously declared that "the era of big government is over" — a rhetorical nod to the changed political landscape.

President Obama isn't waiting for the results of the November midterm elections to trim his sails and perhaps forestall a repeat of '94.

Scott Brown's stunning victory in Massachusetts a week ago, coupled with Obama's declining poll numbers and his signature issue of health care "reform" on life support, has compelled the president to talk of exercising something resembling fiscal restraint. In his State of the Union address tonight, he is expected to announce a three-year freeze in discretionary, "non-security" spending.

Once you sort through all the qualifiers on what kind of spending won't be eligible, though, it's safe to say this "freeze" is more like a slushie, served in a thimble.

The freeze won't apply to entitlement spending, which constitutes nearly 60 percent of the federal budget. It won't apply to defense spending. It won't apply to economic "stimulus" spending, or homeland security or veterans programs. That leaves only about 15 percent of the total spending in fiscal year 2010 that can be touched. The White House estimates the savings could total $250 billion over the next decade — a paltry sum considering that federal deficit spending currently averages $200 billion a month.

That's akin to consuming a five-course meal with a hot-fudge sundae for dessert — but without the cherry on top.

Pat yourself on the back, Weight Watcher!

Leaving nearly 85 percent of the budget growth unchecked will have minimal redirection on Congressional Budget Office projections (released, timely enough, on Tuesday) that accumulating deficits will push the federal debt held by the public from $7.5 trillion, or 53 percent of GDP, in 2009 to $15 trillion, or 67 percent of GDP, in 2020.

Don't get us wrong — any retardation in federal spending growth would be welcome. That is, if the president's plan involves an actual freeze, and not just the usual collection of budgetary gimmicks that both parties have used over the years to hide the true cost of government.

Keep in mind: Nothing is being cut. Indeed, the freeze falls well short of Obama's campaign promise in 2008 to affect a net spending cut. Several programs eligible for the freeze just received significant funding increases. That's elevated spending that will be locked in place for three years.

So even if a genuine spending freeze is achieved, it solves nothing in regard to an oversized federal budget running massive deficits as far as the eye can see, piling up the public debt. Obama inherited the effects of the Bush spending binges and responded by significantly upping the ante.

The danger is that this is nothing more than a short-term political tool designed to stave off the angry masses. Obama is genuinely alarmed by his falling poll numbers with independent voters, the majority of whom are unhappy with Washington's spending splurge. The freeze is his acknowledgment of their concerns. It's good to see him take notice.

No one should stand pat with this idea, though. The freeze should light a fire under Congress to begin rolling back all spending and avoid driving the country off the fiscal cliff.

REPRINTED FROM THE PANAMA CITY NEWS HERALD.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM