GovernmentExecutive.com

Ever since federal budget deficits began to reappear with a vengeance, the White House has been saying that we can "tolerate" and "manage" them - two wonderful words with a real meaning that is almost impossible to decipher.

But let's try anyway.

One possibility is that the word usage actually relates to the budget and the economy. For example, the White House has been saying that even at their projected record nominal levels, the deficits and the level of publicly held federal debt will still be below the highs of the Reagan administration as a percentage of GDP.

The administration has also been saying that even with the dramatic increase over the past month, interest rates still are at relatively low levels; that they have not been an impediment to economic growth; and, in any case, there is no relationship between the deficit and interest rates anyway.

This is what "tolerate" might mean. In effect, the White House could be saying that even if the deficit and debt reach the lofty levels of the past, they caused little permanent damage before, and we survived then, so why worry now?

This scenario also could be what the word "manage" is about. The administration may be saying that the deficits and debt levels of the past were eventually dealt with after they occurred and will be handled again this time. Therefore, there is no reason to be concerned about them now because budget difficulties have been overcome before.

If this is the case, that means the key word the White House is not defining is neither "tolerate" nor "manage," but rather "we." When the administration says that "we" can manage the deficit, it may not necessarily mean that "it" will be the one to do so. Instead, this may be the presidential equivalent of the royal "we," and the president and his people might be applying the word to the federal government in the generic sense of the term. The White House may want us to believe that when it says, "We will manage the deficit," it means, "This administration will deal with the deficit" - but it may imply something completely different.

That means that there is another possible meaning for both "tolerate" and "manage" - that deficits can be run up now because some other administration at some other time will have to fix the problem. As was the case with the deficits that occurred during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, future presidents and Congresses could be left to deal with the budget situation that is now being created.

And that leads to the ultimate word game the administration might be playing when it comes to the budget. When the White House says that "it" can be tolerated and managed, what does "it" actually refer to?

We are being led to believe, or are assuming, that "it" is the high deficit, increased levels of government borrowing and high interest payments. But "it" might actually be something very different - the political fallout from these policies rather than the policies themselves.

The White House's own deficit estimates lend some credence to this notion. The midsession review of the budget shows the deficit never falling below $200 billion through fiscal 2008 - or through the end of a possible second term for this president. It also shows the deficit starting to rise again from 2007 to 2008.

If there is a plan for dealing with the deficit, it is not included in the budget forecasts that the administration has released so far. In fact, we know that the current annual triple-digit deficit projections probably understate the future red ink.

So taken together, all of this could mean that when the White House says the deficit is tolerable and can be managed, what it really may be saying is that the administration can convince voters to tolerate the deficit while managing the politics of the budget so that neither issue is harmful during the 2004 election cycle.

Question Of The Week

Last Week's Question. "Budget Battles" readers once again demonstrated quite clearly last week that they watch television - and not just news, either. Readers had a field day with last week's question, which asked for a possible name for a reality TV program about the federal budget.

The responses closely followed two general themes so the judges decided to award two "I Won A 2003 Budget Battle" mouse pads. The first award goes to Jon Neal, from West Lafayette, Ind., who came up with a variation on a current reality show. Jon's suggestion: "Blind Eye for the Bottom Line," a riff on Bravo's hit "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." According to Jon, the show would include a team of experts (played by OMB, CBO, and the House and Senate Budget Committees) who try to make over someone "who underfunds his retirement and needed repairs on his home, lacks health insurance, is addicted to credit card debt, (and) has an enormous appetite for entitlements and an ear for military music." The second award goes to John Ford of Maryland for an entry that is not based on a current reality show: "My Big Fat Federal Budget."

This Week's Question. The first thing Congress will have to do when it gets back to Washington after Labor Day is deal with the fiscal 2004 appropriations bills. The question: Which of the 13 regular fiscal 2004 spending bills has to be taken up first by the House and Senate each year?

Click here to send in your response. Your answer must be received by 5 p.m. PDT on Saturday, Aug. 16, 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 correct 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.

COMMENTS

• Stan is still stuck on the deficit. With all of the interesting '04 and '05 budget processes underway, fascinating developments at DHS and important changes at OMB, Stan is still stuck. This week he has realized that "we" will have to dig ourselves out of the deficit. He has come to the conclusion that that process may well outlast the current presidency. Welcome to the World of Policy, Stan, where Congress and the President routinely decide things that lock us into courses of action for years to come. Don't forget President Clinton deciding that "we" would get involved in conflicts in places unthreatening to us that will take years to dig out of, or that "we" would, together, descend into a moral swamp that will take many years to drain. So, Stan, sure enough, "we" will be dealing with the deficit for some time to come. Let's hope that for this deficit Congress shows some fiscal discipline, as it did not during the Reagan years when Congress broke the president's budgets again and again to send us into deficit spending. Stan, this administration is entitled to test its belief that the best way to fix it is to stimulate the economy. Please get off of your political high-horse and use your column to tell us something we don't know! GovExec.com reader Posted August 13, 2003 8:32 AM