Turns out there as much as a farce as I told you they were months ago.  The “pay go” rules are in play, but they haven’t done a thing to put Democrat spending in check.

The new Democratic majority in Congress is already compiling a troubling record of excessive spending. In the past few weeks, both the House and the Senate have voted on legislation to determine how much money to spend on domestic programs: First, on the legislation to fund the war, and second, on the federal budget plan for the next five years. On both fronts, the new majority has chosen to add billions of dollars in domestic spending.

The war funding debate is over the president’s 2007 emergency supplemental request for urgently needed funds to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the interest of getting these resources to our troops as quickly as possible, the president submitted the request more than 70 days ago, earlier than in previous years, and with more detail and justifications. The military has made it clear these funds are needed now, and that delay affects readiness and the quality of life of our troops.

While the debate over the war funding bill has largely focused on micromanagement of military decisions and mandated withdrawal from Iraq, Congress has also tacked on billions of dollars of unrelated, nonemergency domestic spending to this must-pass emergency war supplemental. It is hard to understand how domestic spending like $74 million for peanut storage, $389 million for highway projects or $25 million for spinach growers relates to the war effort or qualifies as an emergency. And because billions of dollars of add-ons would be deemed for “emergencies,” they are not paid for; they just add to the deficit. Even Democratic leaders have acknowledged that some of these unrelated spending items were included to find sufficient votes to pass a war funding bill with restrictions.

At the same time, the new congressional majority is moving to finalize a federal budget that adds billions more in new domestic spending. The Senate-passed budget would add $145 billion in new domestic discretionary spending over the next five years—$18 billion more than the president’s proposed budget for the next year alone. The House-passed budget goes even further, adding $213 billion in spending over five years—$24 billion for 2008.

And it may surprise people to learn that none of this new spending is subject to the new majority’s highly touted pay-as-you-go (pay-go) rule; a loophole applies that provision only to tax relief and expansions in entitlement spending. This exempts spending in the budget that Congress appropriates every year.

As I’ve said before, paygo is a charade.  A smoke screen issued by spend- and tax-happy Democrats looking to appear fiscally conservative and responsible without actually having to be that way.  When most Americans hear of paygo they think of it as a responsible way to budget, but in practice paygo is so fraught with loopholes and hindrances to tax relief that all it will really result in is increased spending and little tax relief.

It’s a bad idea, and anyone truly concerned about this country’s financial situation should oppose it.  Oppose it, at least, as the Democrats want it.  Paygo wouldn’t be such a bad thing if some of the loopholes for spending increases were closed and if it were adhered to as an actual governing principle instead of a symbolic gesture to the American people meant to be skirted when convenient.