Two Big Wins for GOP

The Senate Republicans can claim two more big victories today, as the Senate passed a law that allows for drilling in Alaska's wildlife refuge and defeated a pay-as-you-go bill that would make it nearly impossible to renew Bush's tax cuts or enact future cuts. The drilling provision passed 51-49, while the "PAYGO" law was defeated on a 50-50 vote.

Bush has been trying to pass an energy bill which would open a small portion of Alaska for oil drilling since 2001, but Democrats have blocked its passage. By including it as a provision in this year's budget, the provision could not be filibustered but instead was granted an up-or-down vote.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation has a great post on the problems with the proposed PAYGO bill, which narrowly failed and has generally received less attention. PAYGO would require that any new tax cuts or mandatory expansions be balanced by equal tax increases or mandatory spending cuts, which would not address overall federal spending while increasing the likelihood of future tax increases (and almost make it impossible to renew Bush's tax cuts when they expire in 2009). Riedl summarizes the problems with PAYGO:

1) PAYGO rules are not designed to reduce federal spending. They only limit the creation of new entitlement programs above the baseline. In fact, mandatory spending grew faster under PAYGO rules in the 1990s than without them.

2) PAYGO does not affect current entitlement programs, which includes today's largest problems: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the new prescription drug bill, etc.

3) While PAYGO allows current entitlement programs to grow on autopilot, it would likely lead to the expiration of the current tax cuts. Merely retaining the tax relief that Americans now enjoy would, under PAYGO, require 60 votes in the Senate and a waiver in the House. To avoid this supermajority requirement, lawmakers seeking to prevent tax increases would have to either: A) raise other taxes; or B) reduce mandatory spending by a larger amount than has ever been enacted.

Instead, Riedl suggests mandatory spending caps, which would confront the true problem: out-of-control spending growth.