The presidential campaign, already under way, will undoubtedly see fierce debates on the federal budget between Senator McCain, who advocates lower spending, and Senator Obama, who has laid out detailed plans to increase domestic spending for education, healthcare, energy, and the environment, among others.

But even though Senator McCain may convince Americans of the theoretical merits of frugality, Republicans, while managing to cut taxes, have been unsuccessful at reducing how much Washington spends. From 2002 to 2006, when Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, all spending increased.

Even during the halcyon days of Ronald Reagan, from 1980 to 1988, when the highest income tax rate declined to 28% from 50%, and when the president took the bully pulpit to argue for less waste, domestic spending grew. President Reagan could not cut spending, although he did slow its growth.

In his insightful new book, “Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives,” Americans for Tax Reform president and leading conservative Grover Norquist explains why this is and how to fix it. Although some may call his proposals utopian, at one time the fall of the Soviet Union and the passage of the 1996 welfare reform legislation were also considered impossible.

The coalition that elected President Reagan and the Republican Senate in 1980 and the Republican congressional majorities in 1994 are termed by Mr. Norquist the “Leave Us Alone Coalition.” Members of the coalition want less government in their lives.

They include taxpayers, who want to keep more of their paychecks; businessmen, who don’t want regulation; gun owners, who want to defend themselves; property owners, who don’t want land expropriated; and homeschoolers, who “have declined the kind offer of the state to ‘educate’ their children for free.”

These groups have few shared interests. Some homeschoolers don’t care about taxes and don’t want to own guns. Gun owners might not want to home-school their children and certainly “do not insist that fourth graders in public schools be taught books entitled ‘Heather Has Two Hunters.’ ” In either case, they vote Republican not because they care about other members of the coalition, but because Republicans are advocates of their cause.

These coalition members regard overspending as a secondary issue. When Presidents Reagan or George W. Bush failed to cut spending, Republicans didn’t switch parties. Yet, when President George H.W. Bush raised taxes in 1990, betraying taxpayers and his 1988 campaign pledge of “No New Taxes,” voters responded by voting for independent Ross Perot, therefore sending President Clinton to the Oval Office.

How can voters force politicians to cut spending? Every spending program has its industry advocates, whereas there is no lobby against spending generally. Mr. Norquist’s five-point prescription focuses on earmarks and transparency, which make spending clearer and easier to understand.

First, transform Social Security, the largest government program, into personal accounts for all Americans, thereby increasing their stockholdings, wealth, and sense of ownership.

Mr. Norquist notes that President Bush’s proposal to do this went nowhere, and acknowledges that it will take 60 Republican senators to accomplish this. Yet he thinks one day it will happen. He reports that 27 years after such accounts were established in Chile, they are so popular that Chile’s socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, cannot dismantle them.

Second, cut healthcare costs, the second largest area of government spending, by allowing personal tax-free healthcare savings accounts that go beyond the present limited variety. At retirement, these accounts would be used to purchase an annuity for health insurance, instead of Medicare, which would be gradually terminated.

Third, allow parents to choose their children’s schools by having education dollars follow children’s choices of schools, rather than giving the education dollars to schools and requiring children to follow the dollars. This, it should be noted, is a matter of state and local government, and is already happening with the voucher programs now offered in many jurisdictions.

Fourth, contract out any government services that can be performed by private businesses, and make them compete for the contracts.

Finally, encourage federal, state, and local governments to publish all spending on the Internet so that taxpayers can see where their dollars are going. As of December 31, 2007, most federal contracts could be seen at www.usaspending.gov.

States such as Texas, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Hawaii, among others, already post spending on the Internet by executive order or by legislation. Now 26 states have legislation pending that would increase transparency according to the Americans for Tax Reform Web site, which tracks this issue.

Transparency has soared in state capitals because it has bipartisan support, for opposing reasons. Republicans hope that if voters see the itemized spending they will press for spending cuts, and Democrats believe that better knowledge of spending will cause voters to demand more programs.

In either case, if transparency is good for corporations, unions, and taxpayers, governments shouldn’t be left behind. With the accounts in full view, Senators McCain and Obama can debate spending levels. Then, let voters decide.

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. She can be reached at dfr@hudson.org.