Liberals and progressives argue that Republicans have replaced boasting about eliminating the Department of Education and ending the "welfare state" with reducing taxes to the point that there is essentially no choice but to make draconian cuts in the future. Privately, many conservatives have quietly agreed that cutting taxes now will eventually force major spending cuts and rein in big government.
Ironically, while even the most radical spending cuts wouldn't balance the 2006 budget, Congress isn't likely to pass even the relatively small cuts Bush has proposed. Members of both political parties have made it clear that many of the president's proposed cuts are dead on arrival.
For instance, Sen. Thad Cochran, a conservative Mississippi Republican who has supported all of the president's tax cuts, told reporters this week that he would fight the president's proposal to trim farm subsidies.
I called the senator and asked why.
"The budget suggests changes that would unfairly impose cuts on ag producers in the Southeast, leaving those from other regions virtually unscathed," he said. "It would reduce the payment to cotton and rice farmers and not reduce payment to others."
So I asked Cochran whether his resistance was indicative of the problem in Washington, where politicians seek tax cuts because they're popular, but refuse to bear any of the pain for doing so.
"No, you're wrong about that," he said.
Why?
Because, he said, he and other members of the Senate Agriculture Committee will certainly try to find the same amount to cut out of other programs.
Of course, someone will be there protecting those other programs as well.
"That's a very large problem," said the Heritage Foundation's Riedl. "Congress supports reducing federal spending in theory. But every member of Congress that I read in the newspapers says we should exempt my favorite program."
