GovernmentExecutive.com

As far as the budget is concerned, the "honeymoon" that newly elected presidents supposedly get during their first few months in office should really be called a "blame break."

This is the period before the White House is held responsible for the economy. Even if times are tough, there is some period during which everyone agrees the incoming administration cannot be held responsible for what is happening.

At some point, however, the blame break ends and the president has to be ready to do what is necessary to fix the problem. At that point, rightfully or not, anything bad that happens on the economy becomes the president's fault.

This is similar to what happens when it snows. Everyone agrees that the mayor cannot be held responsible for the weather. But as has happened in New York (ask John Lindsay), Washington, D.C. (check with Marion Barry), and many other places, it is the mayor's responsibility if the city does not get the snow plowed properly and she or he usually suffers politically when that happens.

The federal budget process provides a built-in blame break for a new president. The details of the president's budget usually are not sent to Congress until March or April, and the budget resolution often is not agreed to until late April or early May. Even if, as is the case this year, the process is accelerated, the president's budget usually has little or no immediate impact because it is for the fiscal year that begins in October. As a result, for at least several months the new president usually is not blamed for what is happening on the budget and economy.

Some administrations try to take advantage of this built-in blame break by insisting that they should not be held responsible for any current economic difficulties because their preferred policies have not yet taken effect. For example, Treasury Secretary Donald Regan was especially adamant that the Reagan administration not be blamed for the economic downturn in 1981 because, even though its tax and spending plan had been adopted relatively quickly, it would not start to have an impact until the fiscal year began months later.

Similarly, in 1993 congressional Republicans claimed that the new Clinton White House could not be given credit for the economic good times because none of its policies had yet been enacted, let alone implemented.

Neither of these worked very well. President Reagan was blamed when the economy turned south and the administration did not suggest changes to fix it. And President Clinton did get credit for the improving economic picture even though the change started to happen before he got in office.

This points directly to what now must be dawning on the White House: For a number of reasons, George W. Bush's blame break is about to end.

First, Congress is on the verge of adopting most of the president's economic program. Once that happens, it will be the Bush economic program that gets scrutinized, even if the plan does not start to be implemented for several months.

Second, the Bush plan is considered to be a big departure from existing policy. Once it is in place, the Clinton program will be considered by many voters either to be less important or totally superceded by what the new president proposed.

Third, White House officials have gone out of their way to indicate that the tax cuts will have an instant impact on the economy because of what they say is a clear psychological effect on taxpayers. In response to criticism that the vast majority of the tax cut would take place five years from now and so would have little or no current effect, the administration has said repeatedly that consumers will immediately start to spend more and spur economic growth.

Fourth, the White House's refusal to compromise with congressional Democrats on the budget eliminates its ability to shift whatever blame may occur to somewhere else. In addition, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate will make it hard for the administration to blame Congress in general.

Finally, the most important reason is the simple fact that President Bush is in the White House and it is now his responsibility to deal with what is happening. He will not be able to wait until next October if the economy continues to be slow. That would be like a mayor deciding not to plow the snow because it will eventually melt when the weather gets warmer.

Last Week's Question. What is the deadline set in the congressional budget process for Congress to vote on the president's budget? The answer is that Congress never has to vote on the president's budget, which is really nothing more than a proposal that can be (and often is) completely ignored. Congress is supposed to adopt its budget resolution for the coming year by April 15, but it does not have to vote on the president's proposal as part of that process.

The winner of the "I Won A 2001 Budget Battle" T-shirt is Joyce Rice-Saunders, who works at the Department of Education in Washington, D.C., and was selected at random from the surprisingly limited number of people who were correct.

This Week's Question. If you have always wanted to write for David Letterman or Jay Leno, or if you've always thought you could do as well as the stand-ups on Comedy Central, here's your chance to show what you've got. The question: Why did the federal budget analyst cross the road? Send your response to scollender@nationaljournal.com by 5 p.m. on Saturday, April 21, and you might win an "I Won A 2001 Budget Battle" T-shirt to wear during your audition at an open-mike night. You must include your mailing address so we can send you the shirt if you win.

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.