Most elected officials view carefully scrutinizing the budget proposal as a primary job requirement, and though charging for copies doesn’t prevent them from doing so, one could argue that the practice could make the search for unpopular items a more difficult task.
Lawmakers say that paper budgets are easier to read for several reasons: They can hold open multiple copies to compare different sections; they can attach easy-to-see bookmarks to the pages; and they can distribute them to staff for close review.
Some Democrats raised the question of whether the administration may be obscuring the controversial details of its budget proposal by making hardcopies tougher to obtain. “It makes it easier for them to hide the details,” griped a Democratic aide.
A number of lawmakers were not even aware that they are to be charged this year for the budget. They responded to the news with frowns, knitted eyebrows and expressions of disbelief.
Etheridge said he was “all for being frugal and saving money” but questioned whether requiring members to pay for their own copies would do much to improve relations between the branches.
“I would certainly think they would want members of Congress who are voting on it to get a look at it,” he said, questioning who in the administration would receive free copies.
Other Democrats scoffed at the administration’s avowed concern for saving taxpayer money, not to mention the environment.
“It’s Mickey Mouse,” said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), a senior member of the Budget Committee. “Bush has never submitted a balanced budget to Congress in his entire presidency, and he’s playing Mickey Mouse with Congress.”
Kaptur cited a litany of examples she said showed the president’s lack of concern for fiscal responsibility.
“America is importing a billion more barrels of petroleum a year, 80 percent of our treasury securities are bought by foreign interests,” she said.
Even Republicans grumbled about the prospect of having to read online a document exceeding 2,000 pages.
|
