If the details of the proposed Republican federal budget were widely known and understood, it is hard to believe that even one American in ten would vote to keep the GOP in control of Congress. Thankfully, few or none of the abominations that Congress proposes will actually survive a veto--the Republicans' political feebleness is their most endearing attribute. And yet the budgetary machinations in Congress offer a telling demonstration of the moral and intellectual decrepitude of the present Republican view of government.

Perhaps the most objectionable scheme currently under consideration is a cut in the Earned Income Tax Credit. The eitc is a subsidy for the working poor that is designed to offset regressive taxes. One might suppose that conservatives would approve of this program--freeing the poor from the burdens of taxation is a staple of Republican rhetoric. Yet, since taking control of Congress in 1995, the GOP majority has repeatedly sought to scale back the eitc.

This time, House Republicans have proposed to delay the payment of the credit. As it currently stands, eitc recipients get their credit, in the form of a check from the IRS, in one lump sum at the end of a year's work. The GOP leadership intends to stretch the eitc out over twelve monthly installments, which would make things easier for Congressional budgeteers by pushing some of the payments into the next fiscal year.

What makes this example particularly instructive is not the proposal itself, which is only mildly repellent by recent Congressional standards, but the phony arguments that have been put forth to justify it. As always, Republicans trotted out their familiar line that eitc recipients "pay no income taxes" and hence are not worthy of support. The eitc is designed mainly to offset not income taxes but Social Security payroll taxes, of which eitc beneficiaries pay a disproportionate share. House Speaker Dennis Hastert's spokesman asserted that the plan "doesn't hurt anybody. It's just spreading out the payments." This is ludicrous. Studies of the eitc show that its recipients use the checks for expenses such as repairing a car or paying off debt. Delaying the payments would force them to carry debt longer and, hence, pay more interest.

Majority Leader Dick Armey mushed together the "undeserving poor" and the " it's not a cut" arguments, commenting, "I would say it is denying them the lump-sum acceptance of my money." Since Armey has broached the topic of his money, we wonder whether he believes delaying his recently voted pay increase for a year would make him any worse off. The Republicans' best argument thus far is that spreading out the payments would actually aid the poor by helping them manage their money. What a touching display of concern for the providence of the impoverished! But whatever happened to keeping the government out of people's personal financial affairs?

Congress has also singled out other programs that aid the poor, proposing to slash the Social Services Block Grant, which allows states to provide various kinds of assistance to the poor and disabled, as well as day care for children and similar programs. But the Republican majority's stinginess is not limited to an indifference to the poor; it is an all-encompassing obtuseness about the general interest and America's role in the world. Congress has zeroed out funding for peacekeeping in Kosovo and implementation of the Wye accord. It has cut federal support for basic science. Meanwhile, at the behest of the restaurant lobby, it has sought to expand the infamous tax deduction for business meals. What America needs, Congress seems to believe, is less scientific research and more three-martini lunches.

If the Republicans are going to wantonly hack away at the federal leviathan, you would think their cuts would at least have the benefit of reducing pork and waste. But, when it comes to these least justifiable of expenditures, Congress has been spending money like a dying tycoon. Members of both parties are engaged in a competition to prop up the most veterans hospitals, which are notorious for their inefficiency. Congress also threw billions of dollars at agricultural assistance--a boondoggle that primarily benefits agribusiness at the expense of consumers and goes against the sound free-market principle that government should not subsidize selected industries.

All this is happening at a time when leading figures in the Republican Party are trying to set out a new, more moderate policy vision. As GOP front- runner George W. Bush puts it, "Government must be carefully limited--but strong and active and respected within those bounds." The Republicans in Congress have made their philosophy in this regard abundantly clear. If Bush disagrees with that vision, he ought to say so.