GovernmentExecutive.com

Stop the presses. A group of Republicans and Democrats talked about the federal budget on the House floor last week.

The discussion took place during a "special order," a period at the end of the day after legislative business has been completed. It wasn't related to a specific initiative or proposal, and there was no vote on anything. The White House was not involved. And despite excellent work by the communications staffers for some of the representatives who took part in the debate, the effort garnered virtually no press coverage.

Nevertheless, after months of the budget not making it on the policy radar screen in Washington, some members of Congress thought it was important enough to discuss for an hour.

A discussion on the federal budget during a 60-minute special order the week after the Independence Day congressional recess is about as inconsequential a debate as you can have in the House of Representatives. Even the most devoted political junkie and C-SPAN watcher likely found this to be too boring to watch.

But the fact that a bipartisan group of representatives thought the federal deficit, which essentially has been ignored all year, was now important enough to be debated for an hour should not go unnoticed. It might be a sign that the budget is re-emerging as an issue - and that it could be a more prominent part of the upcoming election season than seemed likely just a few months ago. At the very least, these members wanted to go on record now.

Which leads to an almost inevitable question: Even though the deficit has been soaring since January, why haven't more people been talking about the budget in Washington?

The reason repeated most often is that none of the shifts in the budget outlook have been so important that they have merited much discussion. All of the changes - from projected surpluses to deficits, from paying off to increasing the federal debt, from cyclical to structural deficits, and from double-digit to record-high triple-digit deficits - have been said to be either inconsequential, tolerable, the result of things beyond our control or temporary hitches will correct themselves when the economy starts to grow again. Why worry about the budget when the problems, if they really are problems, are going to solve themselves anyway?

The second reason is that those with budget responsibilities have not wanted to talk - either because they couldn't do much to fix them or the policies they were promoting were actually making the situation worse. For example, recently departed Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels was not seen or heard much over the past year, even though the budget was his responsibility. Even on the weekends before and after the president's budget was sent to Capitol Hill, when most budget directors in recent history have been interviewed on the Sunday talk shows to promote the president's program, Daniels and the other members of the Bush economic team were nowhere to be found. In fact, the word from several of the bookers for these shows was that the White House refused to make any member of its team available because it did not want to raise the visibility of the budget.

Congressional budget leaders have also been remarkably silent on the budget. Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, and Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., the respective chairs of the House and Senate Budget committees, have barely been talking since the budget resolution was adopted earlier in the year - even though the deficit picture has gotten dramatically worse since then.

A third reason is that other issues have diverted time and attention from the economy. The war with Iraq and continuing Homeland Security questions have dominated the news. This has made it difficult for any other issues - even those that have been so salient in the past - to break through the clutter.

The fourth reason the budget debate has been absent is that up to now the average person has not seemed to want to hear about it. The budget has seldom been an issue on its own because it is hard for voters to make a direct and immediate connection between the government's bottom line and their own economic well-being. It is only when something bad has happened in the economy and the budget has been at least partly blamed that the issue has risen to the forefront.

For example, the House and Senate were in the midst of budget negotiations that were going nowhere in 1987 when the Dow Jones Industrials fell by 508 points. Even though Congress' failure to reduce a relatively small deficit was hardly the reason the market crashed, somehow the lack of progress was at least partially blamed for what happened. As a result, the negotiations suddenly got kick-started, and a deficit-reduction deal that seemed all but impossible a few days earlier was put together and adopted.

This year's political calculation has been complicated by interest rates that have been falling because of continued economic weakness, a slow economy that was blamed on the war rather than anything happening at home, and a promise that it would all be better as soon as the "geopolitical" problems abated. The budget has also not been seen as a problem because many people seem to believe that, even though it happened almost two years ago, continuing fallout from the events of Sept. 11 is the real reason the economy continues to be sluggish.

It may be a change in these factors that caused the handful of House members to talk about the budget last week. Interest rates have started to rise. The economy is not rallying as many had predicted. In fact, unemployment is higher than many had expected, and hiring plans by major employers do not appear likely to change much in at least the next few months. Postwar gasoline prices are not falling as rapidly as some had predicted, while natural gas prices are rising. In addition, state and local taxes in many places are rising in response to the economy and the changes in federal tax laws.

It is still not clear, though, whether these changes will be enough to get people outside of Washington to pay attention to the budget. In other words, will the debate be heard if no one is there to listen?

Question of the Week

Last Week's Question. What's the last day a supplemental appropriation for the current fiscal year can be adopted by Congress? The answer is Sept. 30 - that is, on the last day of the fiscal year. On Oct. 1, that same legislation could provide the same additional funds, but they would supplement the regular appropriation for that year instead. The "I Won A 2003 Budget Battle" mouse pad goes to Dorothy Winchell, a program analyst with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Texas. Dorothy was selected at random from all of those who submitted the correct response.

This Week's Question. You get a mouse pad just for answering a question correctly? Doesn't it somehow seem so passé, so retro, so... last week? But admit it, isn't also the reason you really want to send in a response to this week's question?

The question: If Sept. 30 is the last day a supplemental appropriation for a fiscal year can be enacted, what is the first day that any of the 13 regular appropriations can be enacted?

Click here to send in your response. Your answer must be received by 5 p.m. PDT on Saturday, July 19, 2003. If there are similar winning answers, the "I Won A 2003 Budget Battle" mouse pad will go to the person selected at random from all those who submit the same response. You must include your mailing address so the mouse pad can be sent if you are the winner.

Note to government employees: Because of security procedures at many offices and facilities, your home address will be the best way to make sure the mouse pad actually gets to you.

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.