If one is looking for campaign themes for 2024, look no further than the budget that passed the House last night, having already passed the Senate.

The budget cuts the growth of several entitlement programs and no doubt the Democrats will charge the Republicans with attacking the poor and will ratchet up the deabte over the tax cuts. By the same token, cutting spending will be approved of by the GOP base.

The NYT describes the vote as follows:

House Republicans eked out a victory on a $39.5 billion budget-cutting package on Wednesday, with a handful of skittish Republicans switching their votes at the last minute in opposition to reductions in spending on health and education programs.

The vote helped President Bush deliver on his promise to rein in federal spending while underscoring deep anxiety within his party over cutting social welfare programs in an election year.

The measure represents the first major effort by lawmakers since 1997 to cut the growth of so-called entitlement programs, including student loans, crop subsidies and Medicaid, in which spending is determined by eligibility criteria.

“So-called”? Why the editorializing? That’s what they are called. Indeed, that’s what they are: if one meets the right criteria, one is entitled the benefits in question.

Here’s the vote:

It passed 216 to 214, with 13 Republicans voting against. The Senate, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the decisive vote, approved the spending cuts in December. The bill now goes to the White House for Mr. Bush’s signature.

“Eked out” indeed.

WaPo: opnes its version of the story as follows

The House yesterday narrowly approved a contentious budget-cutting package that would save nearly $40 billion over five years by imposing substantial changes on programs including Medicaid, welfare, child support and student lending.

With its presidential signature all but assured, the bill represents the first effort in nearly a decade to try to slow the growth of entitlement programs, one that will be felt by millions of Americans.

The piece then goes on to detail a litany of consequences, several of which are modified by “could” and “likely.” While I understand that there are real consequences for such fiscal policy, but this presentation is clear editorializing. The author of the piece clearl y disapproves of the vote and he lets it be known in the write-up of the vote, and in a prominent way.

What I always find annoying about the coverage of such issues is the basic assumption that the current levels of spending on these items is sacrosanct–either at the right level or too low. It is as if it is impossible to suggest the possibility that they might be adjustable in some way.

Given the massive amount of money spend on entitlement programs (they are far and away the lion’s share of the federal budget), adjustments to those programs are inevitable.

One need only look at the trend in federel budget outlays to see that to be true:

Now, granted, what those adjustments might be or should be is an open question, but that these issues require attention is indisputible.

And yes, there is a legitimate debate over taxes that has to come as well.