Spending limits for Washington?

Republicans lost control of Congress because they lost their way. The Contract with America, the list of detailed policy proposals, accountability measures and limited-government promises that swept the GOP into power in 1994, was shunned at the start of this decade in favor of Rep. Tom DeLay's six-year, "everything for sale" pork fest.

That Democrats offered voters no specifics beyond "change" in 2006, but that was irrelevant to an angry electorate -- if Republicans wanted another chance at majority status, they'd have to re-embrace the philosophies of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich.

So the keys to Capitol Hill were handed to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and -- to borrow the famous news conference rant of ex-football coach Dennis Green -- they are who we thought they were. The "change" promised by Democrats has been more of the same tax-hiking, big-spending, over-regulating, anti-capitalist, redistributionist, "blame America first" rhetoric from decades past.

Now, just in time for the 2008 election, they've inspired a growing band of conservatives to counterattack with fresh ideas.

On Tuesday, Reps. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and John Campbell, R-Calif., and other members of the House Republican Study Committee introduced a constitutional amendment that would prevent federal spending from growing faster than the U.S. economy. The Spending Limit Amendment would anchor a federal Taxpayer Bill of Rights aimed at controlling government growth and making it harder for Congress to raise taxes.

"The undeniable fact remains that the projected growth of federal spending across the board is at an unsustainable rate," said Rep. Campbell, who last week introduced the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" Act, which would let guilt-ridden liberals raise taxes on themselves by checking a box on their federal returns. "It will threaten the standard of living of our children and grandchildren. By the year 2040, taxes would have to double in order to pay for all the federal spending that will compound if no action is taken."

Following Colorado's approval of a Taxpayers Bill of Rights, government spending caps were proposed in a number of states. But the political establishment has succeeded in keeping similar constitutional amendments off state ballots; the Tax and Spending Control for Nevada initiative had enough signatures to qualify for the 2006 election but was thrown out by the courts.

The idea of placing firm limits on public-sector spending has widespread support among voters because they're fed up with an increasing tax burden that never provides enough loot for their legislatures. A cap on budget growth would force lawmakers to better prioritize appropriations, scrutinize every agency outlay and forsake special-interest pork. And as fat as some state governments have become, no budget needs a corset as badly as Washington's current $3 trillion monstrosity, for which Democrats and Republicans share the blame.

The Spending Limit Amendment, which caps federal spending at 20 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, has no chance of making it through the Pelosi-Reid Congress. But putting fiscally conservative policies onto paper and forcing Democrats to kill them in an election year would heighten voter awareness that Rep. Pelosi, Sen. Reid and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to blow an already-bloated federal budget through the roof.

It's not the Contract with America, but the Spending Limit Amendment is something all congressional Republican incumbents and candidates can embrace. Nevada's GOP delegation -- Sen. John Ensign and Reps. Jon Porter and Dean Heller -- should pledge support to the amendment and vow to bring it to a floor vote if Republicans are returned to power in Washington.