GovernmentExecutive.com

Regardless of what budget, tax and spending legislation actually gets enacted this year, it will be hard to say that it represents a long-lasting policy change.

I don't mean the budget process, which several years ago lost all semblance of importance when the deficit it was designed to reduce was replaced by a surplus.

I'm talking about the budget debate itself, which this year is closer to an abuse of power than any debate on any issue that has taken place in Washington over the past decade.

Consider the following:

1. The debate in the House on the Bush administration's tax cut took place months before the details of the President's program were revealed. House members had to vote on a tax cut before either they or their constituents understood the full impact of what they were considering.
2. The debate in the House on the tax cut also took place before the Congressional Budget Office did its annual analysis of the President's budget and the Joint Tax Committee did its own annual assessment of the proposed revenue package. This meant that, in an absolute throwback to the debates that took place before the 1970s, House members had to rely on biased information provided by the President to analyze his proposal rather than having the benefit of independent data. This is important because CBO's analysis often has shown the White House's assumptions, estimates, projections, forecasts and opinions to be incorrect or at least controvertible.
3. The Senate Budget Committee, which has the specific responsibility to draft a budget for the full Senate to consider, was never given a chance to do its work. Because the Senate Republican leadership thought that it would be impossible to get a budget out of the committee that included the President's tax cuts, the committee was bypassed entirely using a questionable procedure. It's not that a debate was started in committee that proved to be impossible to complete but instead that the debate was never even allowed to take place.
4. The bypass strategy clearly disenfranchised the members of the Budget Committee. More important, however, it also disenfranchised half the voters in this country. Whether the leadership or White House like it, an equal number of Democrats and Republicans were elected to the Senate this past November, and their representatives should have been given the ability to express their views on the budget rather than be ignored.
5. Senate Democrats and their constituents were further disenfranchised when the members of the budget conference committee were selected in an unusual procedure that further took away the minority's ability to express its views. At precisely the time when the Senate has never been more evenly divided, the safeguards that have been used almost since Congress began to guarantee that all senators are heard were trampled.
6. In the latest example of an abuse of power, last week House and Senate Democrats were told that they would not be included in the negotiations that will be taking place between the House and Senate on the competing versions of the budget. Even though Republicans will have a majority of votes in the conference and will be able to control the final outcome, the Democrats on the conference committee will not even be given a chance to express their views or offer amendments.
7. The vote on the final budget package and the tax bills that are assumed in it will probably occur long before anyone has any idea whether the surplus projections on which it is based are even close to being realistic. This is in spite of the fact that the preliminary numbers are causing some federal budget watchers to have serious concerns about what they see as overly optimistic forecasts.

Think about the big picture all of these points paint. Congress has already been--and seems likely to continue--voting on the federal budget before it knows whether the numbers on which it is based are accurate and, therefore, what that vote will truly mean for every area of federal activity. Equally as important, the leadership at literally every step along the way has stifled the debate that might have raised these and other issues that should have been part of the decision making process.

As a result, regardless of what budget, tax and spending legislation actually gets enacted this year, it will be hard to say that it represents a long-lasting policy change. Indeed, given the ad hoc procedures being used to put it in place, anything done this year is far more likely to be changed in the future if the current majorities change than some of the other budget policies adopted in recent years.

Question Of The Week

Last Week's Question. There were a remarkably small number of takers for last week's relatively easy question, which asked you to name the person or organization the White House has to get permission from to submit its midsession review after the July 15 deadline. The answer is no one. Although Congress can complain when an administration has released its midsession review late, there is no approval process when the White House decides for some reason to do that. As a result, no one has to give her or his permission. David Whalin, who works for the Social Security Administration and was selected at random from the handful of people who responded with this correct answer, wins this week's "I Won A 2001 Budget Battle" T-shirt.

This Week's Question. Like the moon, stars and planets aligning properly, there might be nothing more satisfying for someone interested in the federal budget than being able to wear his or her own "I Won A 2001 Budget Battle" T-shirt while watching the House and Senate vote on this year's budget resolution conference report on C-SPAN. To be eligible to win one of these much-desired black and silver shirts in time for this to happen, just answer this week's question correctly.

The question: At some point over the next few weeks, the House and Senate are expected to vote on the conference report to the fiscal 2002 budget resolution. How many votes will it take in the Senate this year for the budget resolution conference report to be adopted? Send your response to scollender@nationaljournal.com by 5 p.m. EDT on Saturday, May 5. You must include your mailing address so we can send the T-shirt if you win. If there is more than one correct response, then the winner will be selected at random from all of the correct responses.

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.