Vital debate on spending, aid

Sending two senators from one party to Washington doesn't guarantee that they'll speak with one voice. Nor should they. But the occasional differences that arise between fellow Upstate Republicans Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint do draw considerable attention.

The latest case of conflicting opinions from our senators hinges on how much money the United States should spend on foreign aid -- and how that funding should be determined.

Sen. DeMint recently helped block a $53.3 billion foreign-aid appropriations amendment attached to other spending measures, insisting that it be considered on its own merits.

Sen. Graham, the senior GOP member of the appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, is pushing that foreign-aid package. He argues that the money is crucial in keeping America safe, telling McClatchy Newspapers: "Increasingly, United States assistance, which accounts for about 1 percent of federal spending, is national security-related. And the assistance provided in the bill reflects our national security priorities."

Sen. Graham also pointed out: "The biggest supporters of these programs are our military leaders. They realize this is an essential piece in protecting our own nation."

Sen. DeMint countered: "I respect and work well with Lindsey, and I share his goal to secure our homeland and advance America's interests abroad. But I will continue to object to out-of-control spending and insist we have a full debate on every spending bill."

Both senators are right -- to a degree. Sen. DeMint is correct in demanding more detailed congressional oversight on all Washington spending, including foreign aid.

However, Sen. Graham is correct to warn that slashing foreign aid would undermine national security.

This isn't the first time -- and likely won't be the last -- that Sens. DeMint and Graham have been on opposing sides. Sen. DeMint, a committed fiscal hawk, is far less prone to compromise than Sen. Graham, whose willingness to move toward the middle often draws the ire of conservatives who unfairly condemn him as a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only).

Yet though Sen. Graham remains intent on preserving an ample foreign aid budget, he also sounds inclined to improve spending oversight, explaining: "Jim and I are both frustrated about the way the Senate is doing its business. These are tough fiscal times. We ought to be looking for areas of the government we can cut back and duplicative programs we could consolidate. But the process we're using right now has no rhyme or reason outside of allowing members of the Senate to duck taking tough votes."

Both of our state's senators should work toward strengthening congressional scrutiny over America's foreign aid budget -- while maintaining it at a sufficient level.