Today’s House vote on the Iraq emergency supplemental money bill for 2007 shows that Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility and an end to budget gimmicks are already shattered. The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, as it is known, adds to President Bush’s requested $103 billion an extra $21 billion in discretionary spending.

For a time, it seemed that this Congress might usher in a new era of budget honesty. On January 4, the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter of New York, stated that the new House rules package “will make real fiscal responsibility a fundamental principal [sic] of the House, not a rhetorical one. It will prohibit the consideration of any legislation that would increase budget deficits without offsets.”

On January 31, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said, “During the first 100 legislative hours of our new majority, Democrats passed crucial measures designed to restore fiscal responsibility, reduce spending, and balance the budget. In addition, we have placed a moratorium on earmarks until a new, reformed process is in place to ensure the integrity of every earmark that is funded.”

But congressional rules permit funds appropriated in emergency bills to exceed the $873 billion discretionary spending limit that passed in the House January budget resolution, leaving a wide loophole in the budget process. This makes sense for national security issues, such as the war in Iraq, but not for normal budget items. So Congress allows itself to increase non-defense spending in the Iraq supplemental without finding savings to offset the spending, as would otherwise be necessary.

And increased discretionary spending is precisely what Congress has proposed in this emergency bill. An extra $21 billion is to be spent by September 30 for various projects, each designed to encourage individual representatives to abandon what few fiscally responsible principles they might have and pander to their constituents: $74 million to store peanuts, $100 million for citrus assistance, $400 million for rural schools. No Congressman Is Left Behind.

Although earmarks, line items in bills for special projects in particular states, have had much public attention, they are not the only culprit in this bill — nor in our deficit spending. True, salmon fisheries in the Klamath River regions of California and Oregon get $60 million, and $120 million goes to the shrimp and menhaden fisheries in the Gulf. But that’s “only” $180 million. The remainder is for spending for special interests that span a wider variety of states and industries.

Not only is delay over this bill’s passage slowing the war effort in Iraq, but it also is sabotaging the war on the deficit.

Congress must fight wars on two fronts. One, by far the more important, is a military war to preserve our way of life and defend us from radical Muslims who seek to destroy us.

The second is a struggle against recklessly increased government spending and rising entitlements, and the higher taxes that necessarily accompany it. Higher taxes gradually destroy our economic power at home, as they have whittled away economic power in Europe, according to Nobel laureate economist Edward Prescott of Arizona State University.

It’s significant that on March 14, the day before the House Appropriations Committee approved the Iraq supplemental funding bill, the Senate Budget Committee, led by Senator Conrad, a Democrat of North Dakota, adopted its fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. The bill would result in a tax increase of almost $400 billion over the 5-year period beginning in 2008, by failing to make permanent the temporary tax cuts enacted in the years 2001 to 2003, scheduled to expire in 2010.

This would be a huge increase, dwarfing President Clinton’s tax increases, which raised $241 billion over five years. Tax revenues would rise to 20% of the gross domestic product from 18.4% and would affect families at all income levels. The rate for those in the lowest tax bracket, now 10%, would revert back to 15%. The top rate similarly would rise to 40% from 35%. Numerous academic studies, such as those by Princeton University economics professor Harvey Rosen, show that tax increases discourage work effort, thereby reducing economic growth.

Nevertheless, the Senate Budget Committee seeks to reassure us that “Congress will take steps to counter the effects of the expiration of tax cuts in 2010 …,” specifically that “Congress will take aggressive steps to close the tax gap, the amount of taxes owed under current law but not collected.”

This is hogwash. The IRS has been trying to collect unpaid back taxes for decades. It recently estimated that the tax gap for 2001 is $345 billion, and it expects eventually to collect $55 billion of that amount. Although it could collect slightly more than that, it’s not credible that an extra $400 billion could materialize by 2012.

The Democrats’ Senate Budget Resolution also adds new spending for 2008. Children’s health insurance gets an additional $50 billion to cover 6 million children. That’s more than $8,000 a child, a lot of health insurance by any standard. The Department of Education gets an additional $6 billion, and veterans get a few more billion.

The Senate Budget Committee proudly lists dozens of programs that would get more money from Democrats than in President Bush’s budget. In many instances, the committee “rejects the President’s proposal to cut. …” As the ranking minority member, Senator Gregg, sadly observed on March 20, “there are no spending cuts. None.”

One reason Congress changed hands in January was because Americans want fiscal responsibility. But, as the voting going on today in Washington shows, it hasn’t arrived.

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.