The current struggle between the White House and Congress over spending bills has once again raised a question of spending priorities. Bush's veto in October, 2007 of the $35 billion State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) came while Bush signed a $471 spending bill for the military. The military bill includes a 9.5% increase in military spending and does not include the additional 'off the books' spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as the most recent White House request for $196.4 billion for fiscal year 2008. Furthermore, of the twelve funding bills that provide the funding for the government's operations each year, one has been vetoed, the Military Bill passed, and ten haven't gotten out of Congress.

Anyone who has been through an Economics 101 class has heard the classic question: guns or butter? The question asks: What does a society with limited resources produce? In theory, Republicans believe in strong national defense, limited government, and reduced taxes and Democrats believe in a paternalistic society, one where the government has a responsibility to ensure that all its citizens receive a certain quality of life. Unfortunately, the Republicans and Democrats have taken these believes to the extreme. We need to build both guns and butter, not by spending more, but by spending more responsibly.

In the case of the SCHIP program, Bush claimed to standing on ideological grounds, claiming that expanding the program to cover an additional 10 million children represented wasteful spending and a dangerous expansion into socialized medicine. He's threatening to veto the Energy bill and other spending bills because of other ideological grounds and wasteful spending.

Were the democrats playing politics by sending SCHIP to the President? Certainly. By forcing the President to veto a popular program that helps poor kids, the Democrats wanted to rally public opinion against the President. However, is the President credible in his calls to reduce government spending? The President didn't exercise a single spending bill veto while there was a Republican controlled congress, including one that included the so-called Bridge to Nowhere (actually connected Gravina Island with a 2000 US census population of 50 people with the mainline city and borough of Ketchikan, Alaska). In fact, when Bush took over the deficit stood at $5.7 trillion, today it stands at $9.1 trillion, an increase of 60 percent under the president's watch. Certainly, the credibility of reduced spending doesn't exist.

Here at The Party of Common Sense, we believe there is middle ground. We do need to be strong on National Defense and we expect the government to provide basic services. In the 1800's we saw the results of unfettered capitalism, and it wasn't pretty. The owner of a factory had no economic incentive not to dump waste in the river (in fact, the cheapest solution was to dump, providing economic disincentive to proper disposal). Yet, the societal and economic impact on the downstream towns and fishermen is tremendous. So, society ultimately stepped in and set standards for things like working conditions, pollution standards, and truth in advertising. I think most of us would agree that these are good and important functions for the government and to the benefit of societal as a whole.

The steps to better government spending:

First, stop undermining the important regulatory functions of our government. The people expect that the FDA, the EPA, the FAA, and other government watchdog groups are doing their job. We expect that our food is safe, our toys are safe, and that our planes are safe. These aren't unreasonable expectations. Yet the Republicans, in the name of political righteousness, seem intent on gutting these oversight functions.

A rash of food and drug scares, along with toy recalls have focused attention on the agencies. Since the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) began in 1974, its staff has been halved, imports have quadrupled, and now the CPSC has only one employee that tests for toy safety. Acting Chairwoman Nancy Nord had resisted bipartisan congressional efforts to give the CPSC more authority and money. It what appears to be an obvious conflict of interest, the Washington Post revealed that she, and her predecessor, Hal Stratton, took trips paid for by the industry they are supposed to regulate. In May, the administration withdrew the nomination of manufacturing lobbyist Michael Baroody to chair the commission. Agencies should not be industry cheerleaders, rather their function should be to provide necessary oversight.

The administration's war against big government has included the pro-business gutting of legislation. It has gotten so bad at the EPA, in November, 2007 eleven states filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. government in an attempt to get the government to do their job. The suit accuses environmental regulators of relaxing rules that require industry to report toxic pollution. The suit contends the new rules violate the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, which requires the EPA to collect information on the release of toxic chemicals. Businesses must disclose the quantities of chemicals, and how and where they dispose of them. Ironically, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act was signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan.

We believe that it's important to have proper regulatory oversight. The people expect it, and the government should demand it. Put competent and unbiased people as the heads of these organizations, provide reasonable funding, and allow them to do their job. Republican or Democrat, any politician that follows these Common-Sense rules will reap political rewards.

Second, balance spending priorities. 40 days of the Iraq war, $46 billion would pay for 10 million children's healthcare for a year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the future additional costs of these wars over the next 10 years at between at between $481 billion to $1.01 trillion, depending on how fast the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wound down. This optimistic assessment doesn't include any other military engagements that may arise. The budget to build high tech weaponry has increased 40 percent, in spite of the evidence that majority of our recent conflicts have not been facing enemy lines, rather nation building, peace keeping, and counter-insurgency.

Although the exact population of Iraq is unknown, the UN estimated it to be around 27 million prior to the war, and accounting for the war deaths and refugee exodus, is now being widely reported to be around 25 million. In comparison to US states, this would put Iraq as the second largest state population - between California (33 million) and Texas (22 million). Using Texas, the closest state in size for comparison, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in 2005, the last year available, Texas received $148m in federal tax dollars, or approximately $6,500 per person. This is compared to $10.2 billion in US Aid provided to Iraq citizens. The US taxpayer is paying a shocking average of $408,000 per Iraqi citizen - almost 63 times the value of what the average American taxpaying Texan receives.

Why are we rebuilding Iraq while New Orleans is still struggling to rebuild? Although America is notoriously stingy when it comes to international aid, our priorities abroad have overshadowed our responsibilities at home. We need to make sure we put Mississippi before Mosul.

Third, put America, not special interests first. The term "Pork Barrel Spending" originally referred to the sale of rotten barrels of pork to the US Government by connected businessmen during American Civil War. Often called patronage in other countries, it refers to government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in campaign contributions or votes. Whatever you call it, Pork Barrel spending has ballooned out of control and it seems that every Congressman and Congresswomen is putting their own re-election above what is in America's and Americans' best interests. So while America is building bridges to nowhere, our existing bridges are literally falling apart.

An analysis by Department of Transportation (DOT) of the 2006 Transportation bill, just one of the 12 major funding bills, found that of the $4.2 billion in 7,760 earmarks that it reviewed, 7,724 (99.5 percent) either were not subject to the transportation agencies' authority to review and selected based on merit, or they bypassed the states' normal planning and programming processes. DOT had a total of 8,056 earmarks (all sources) in fiscal year 2006 valued at more than $8.5 billion, which was almost 14 percent of its total appropriation.

Congress is debating the $288 billion farm bill, which, according to an in depth series published in the Washington Post, includes $15 billion of waste. Typical of the waste is a ten year $1 billion subsidy for the U.S. sugar industry. In an attempt to protect American growers from Latin American sugar growers from free market competition required by North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the program would provide price support for sugar by requiring the Agriculture Department to buy up excess production and resell it to ethanol producers at a deep discount. The net effect is to raise prices for every food that contains sugar. This illogical and wasteful plan was passed in the house in part due to $1.5 million in campaign contributions from nine sugar farm or refinery groups.

According to the non-partisan watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, members of Congress have tucked money into massive spending bills, directed more funding to their home states and districts each year, reaching $29 billion in 2006. That's 10 times the amount from 15 years ago. Whatever you call it, it is about time we demand that our politicians start looking out for the best interests of America, not their own re-election campaign funds.

Here at The Party of Common Sense we believe that can build both guns and butter, and save money. It s a matter of will and accountability. According to the Harris Poll, only 23% of Americans think Congress is doing a good job, while only 31% believe President Bush is doing a good job. These low ratings maybe in part caused by external factors, but clearly the people are tired of the "business as usual" politics. We've outlined three simple rules for spending: first, make sure the government is effective and delivers the goods and services expected by people; second, balance spending priorities; and third, put the people above special interests. We believe if politicians make sure that our government is doing the right things right, voters will recognize their contribution and reelect them. It's time to break the cycle of corruption.