Federal Debt Impacts Families
By Paul M. Weyrich

Back in the days before CD-ROMs, the Budget of the United States, if tossed even lightly onto a desk, landed with a huge thud because it was so heavy. Now, in its thoroughly modern packaging, the document is much lighter, but its impact this year will be crushing for American families.

As a leader of the conservative movement, I worked during the 1970s and 1980s to shore up the traditional values that were under assault by entrenched liberal politicians and special interest groups. Often the economic conservatives and the social conservatives were pursuing different issues, agendas and interests. But we both shared an interest in a limited Federal Government. Social conservatives realized that a smaller government meant less meddling by bureaucrats and politicians. Economic conservatives understood the onerous economic burden posed by expensive government programs. Both disliked the impact of soaring inflation. We could make common cause around the election of Ronald Reagan.

There are more recent examples in which we have worked together to great effect; one is the successful effort to provide relief from the marriage penalty tax.

Now, once again, that same kind of union is desperately needed. The Republicans hold control of the White House and the Congress. However, they are like a drunken sailor with a fistful of cash at a well-stocked bar, engaged in a spending spree that needs to be brought under control or else disastrous consequences will ensue.

The tragedy of 9/11 cannot serve as an excuse for our legislators and policymakers. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation, through an exhaustive statistical analysis, has shown that 85% of the discretionary spending increases voted on during the 107th Congress (2001-02) were unrelated to anti-terrorism measures.

Right now, it must be said that the White House and the Congress are certainly more "pro-family" and "pro-traditional values" than any of the Democrat Party's presidential candidates or their leadership and most members of Congress. Indeed, while the issue of opposing homosexual marriage is a sticking point and many conservatives want a greater commitment from President Bush, there is no doubt that he has taken many stands that reflect his own inner belief in traditional values.

The Administration, in fact, intends to do more to promote marriage and ownership of home ownership, acknowledging the importance of both to a stable, well-functioning society and family life.

But the current spending spree in Washington is not without consequences and threatens to undermine both.

Here's how:

The spending Washington does have a hometown appeal. Your senator and congressman will use their tax dollar-subsidized newsletter to glorify themselves as nice, compassionate guys and gals for having voted in support of measures such as the prescription drug bill. Stuffing appropriations bills with funding for youth centers and museums and studies of all kinds allows your senator and representatives to proclaim that they are hard at work for the folks back home.

Forgotten is the fact that our Founding Fathers envisioned a government with much more limited responsibilities; defending our nation, conducting foreign affairs, regulating interstate commerce. Education, for instance, had pretty much been the exclusive purview of state and local governments until fifty years ago.

However, today's goodie-bag spending on the government "credit card" masquerades as "progress" and "compassion", but it comes with significant baggage. The accumulation of federal debt, just like the payments you could make on a car or a house, is debt. And the interest just keeps growing on that debt as we blindly go along spending on every whim. That is the case now.

Even the International Monetary Fund has felt compelled to issue a warning that our government's spending is taking us down a perilous path that will lead to "an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial economy." This can hike interest rates (worldwide), leading to the danger of a significant economic slowdown.

Higher interest rates will make home ownership more difficult, particularly for young families who have lower incomes. And heaven help the people who have taken "adjustable" loans.

The FY 2004 deficit is estimated to be over $400 billion and while there are those in power who predict that it will decline, my years in Washington watching how politicians operate suggest something quite different will occur unless both the economic and social conservatives start making it clear to our nation's leaders that they must exercise a much tighter grip on spending.

Young couples marry for many reasons, but an unsettled economy may cause them to delay marriage or help contribute to the breakup of their union in an era when "till death do us part" has lost its meaning. In fact, the easy credit card prosperity economy is often detrimental to a rewarding family life. Today, material desires often overtake the importance of the personal relationships between a husband, his wife and their children. When tougher times come, the union does not hold. A stable economy will not guarantee that couples stay together, but it certainly can help to eliminate one of the most important reasons for marital discord.

On the other hand, there is a direct relationship between lower interest rates and suitable conditions to promote home ownership, another important goal of Washington. If Washington means what it says about promoting greater home ownership, particularly among those with lower incomes, to make them real stakeholders in the American economy, then spending needs to be brought under control to ensure soaring interest rates do not price them out of the market.

A return to first principles can only help the Washington policymakers in Congress and the administration to achieve their objectives.

Conservatism in the United States is based on belief in a limited federal government. In part, this idea is to prevent a centralized power from exerting too much control over our lives in the way that governments did in Europe or Asia. Our citizens have the freedom to live their lives and - through their own innovation and creativity channeled through voluntary institutions, to find solutions to their problems at the local level. Citizens also can exercise more control over their government at the local level. It is easier to buttonhole the mayor than a faceless bureaucrat thousands of miles away who probably cannot spell the name of your hometown.

Lots of politicians running for Congress and the Presidency will be making all kinds of promises this year to help families. Most will come with some significant price tags attached. Indeed, the National Taxpayers Union in analyzing the proposals of the candidates seeking the Democrat Party's presidential nomination found each and every one want to hike spending by the hundreds of billions of dollars despite their complaints about the GOP's own record of overspending. If they do cut spending, it will be at the expense of a legitimate responsibility of the Federal Government: our national defense.

Voters need to realize that the best program that Washington can offer to aid young families is to get debt under control ASAP. There has only ever been one way to do that: cut spending.

So, this year, before politicians tell you they want to balance the budget, ask them to cut pork barrel spending.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.