Even this small savings hits a wall

A majority of Americans know what needs to be done. The new House GOP majority in Washington merely needs to roll up its sleeves and start slashing government expenditures until Washington is again living within its means.

Even President Obama, in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, paid lip service to the vital need to do this before our accumulated debt leads us to financial ruin.

So what's the delay?

Well, let's look at one example of what happens when just the tiniest pruning of the deficit is proposed -- not chain saw work, you understand; rose-clipper stuff.

A system that's been in effect for more than 30 years -- put into place in reaction to the Watergate scandals of the Nixon years -- allows Americans to check a box on their tax returns, applying $3 of their federal income tax payments (it started out as $1) to public financing of presidential elections.

The money is supposed to be divided evenly between "established" Republicans and Democrats -- though somehow fringe candidates such as Lyndon LaRouche have managed to collect millions of taxpayer dollars by qualifying for the matching funds.

It was hoped this would eventually lead to federal elections being entirely funded with tax money, but that never happened. Over the years, fewer and fewer filers have checked the box -- just 7.3 percent volunteered their money in 2010, down from a high of 28.7 percent in 1980.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says: "I'm a former FEC commissioner. I've never contributed to it because I don't like the idea, and I think this is the problem most members of the public have -- of my tax money going to candidates whose views I disagree with."

Opponents say getting rid of the check-off -- and especially the need to supervise use of those funds -- would reduce federal spending by $617 million over a decade. So this week, the Republican-dominated House voted to get rid of it, 239-160.

Finally, no matter how small and symbolic, the budget cutting has begun. Right?

Well ... no.

Democrats generally oppose the bill. It faces an uncertain future in the Senate. And the White House has announced its opposition -- despite the fact Mr. Obama himself opted out of the federal financing scheme in his 2008 campaign, rather than abide by the spending limits.

This attempt to save a paltry $617 million is likely to go nowhere.

Now, shall we tackle Medicare?