Faced with the daunting task of approving the spending bills for the fiscal year that began last October as well as beginning work on the president’s tax package, the Senate remains locked in debates over federal spending. The President has urged the new majority to pass an omnibus spending bill swiftly for the 2003 budget, but Democrats (and many Republicans) continue to seek opportunities to expand federal spending, which explains some of the hostility towards tax relief. In recent years Congress has developed a healthy appetite for spending, and returning money to taxpayers is like saying no to a second helping of desert.

Last week, members of the Senate leadership from both sides of the aisle finally agreed to a reorganization plan for the chamber. Though the funding levels and the makeup of the committees are resolved, Democrats led by Senator Daschle achieved their aim to slow the Republican momentum gained by the November election.

Massive Spending Bill Rolling Your Way The Pittsburgh Steelers made the playoffs this year behind massive running back Jerome “The Bus” Bettis, but they’ve got nothing on Congress. The folks up on Capitol Hill are preparing an “Ominbus” Appropriations bill for nearly all 2003 discretionary spending. The Omnibus will roll through town carrying all 11 Appropriations bills that the 107th Congress didn’t finish—a total of $385 billion in spending. Despite the bill’s huge size, Senate Democrats are preparing an arsenal of amendments to add even more spending. The Omnibus may also attract a number of legislative “riders” from both Republicans and Democrats that attempt to make changes in non-spending laws like the Clean Air Act and the Energy Regulatory Commission.

This op-ed originally appeared in Investor's Business Daily on January 3, 2003 State budgets have rarely, if ever, been in worse condition than they are today. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, the total deficit for state budgets nationwide stands at $40 billion in this fiscal year, with another $40 billion shortfall expected for 2003. Such a glaring disparity between revenues and outlays has led legislatures and governors across the nation to retrench and meet for special sessions to address the problem.

The Senate gave educators and economic development experts an opportunity Monday to plead for no more budget cuts in the next two years, but they had to share the floor with about 60 people from an anti-tax group who showed up to oppose any tax hikes. Senate budget writers allowed several members from North Carolina Citizens for a Sound Economy to make their case that the state should rein in spending, instead of adopting a lottery or raising taxes.

Fiscal policy is making a comeback in Washington. President Bush underscored this point with a recent economic policy shake-up that included replacing the Treasury Secretary and the White House economic adviser. With a sluggish economy and the return of deficit spending, Republican Washington realizes that remaining in power will require an agenda broader than war in Iraq. Democrats, on the other hand, accuse the president of irresponsible tax cuts and a weak domestic policy agenda.

Governor Rowland, who is scheduled to receive a 96 percent pay raise in January, and the spend-happy Democrats in Hartford all want to increase taxes on Connecticut citizens. Facing a $500 million deficit, the governor has proposed raising $200 million in taxes. The lame duck governor has suggested a "millionaires" tax for Connecticut citizens who make over 1 million dollars a year and a 40 cent cigarette tax increase which would make Connecticut's tobacco tax the largest in the nation.

Heeding the President’s wish for fiscal discipline, this week leaders of the House of Representatives announced a change in the way things are done in their chamber of Congress. House leaders have finally decided to reign in the free-spending “Cardinals” of the House Appropriations Committee. Mostly unknown outside of Washington Beltway, these “Cardinals” control the flow of hundreds of billions of dollars, which makes them some of the most powerful men in America.

Recently, the president released a proposal that would require federal agencies to rely on the private sector rather than the bureaucracy for many of the routine functions of government. All told, up 850,000 federal jobs—roughly half the federal workforce—could be shifted to the private sector. While the administration hails the proposal as an efficiency measure, unions and Democrats have decried the measure as "union busting" and an unnecessary attempt to downsize government. Yet, coupled with retirement trends in the federal workforce, the proposal offers an opportunity to streamline government while creating more manageable federal agencies.