GovernmentExecutive.com

Back when it was still in the tire business, B.F. Goodrich ran ads that asked viewers to think of Goodrich whenever they saw the Goodyear blimp. "We're the other guy," the Goodrich commercials urged people to remember when presented with Goodyear's far more aggressive promotional campaigns.

Today, even though the budget is the issue with blimp-like qualities (big, cumbersome, slow, full of hot air, etc.), it remains the political "other guy." You have to make yourself think about the federal budget because all of the other issues are being promoted much more aggressively. And while Goodrich at least ran a few ads of its own, these days there are few people exhorting anyone to think about the budget when another issue flies overhead.

Take the Democratic presidential candidates. The budget is a difficult issue for them because they have a hard time raising it without being asked for their solution to the problem. Even if their goal is to blame the Bush administration for the still-deteriorating deficit and ballooning federal debt, few of the hopefuls so far seem prepared to give in-depth responses to the inevitable follow-up questions.

So the federal budget, which has been one of the biggest issues in previous campaigns when the situation was not even close to being as dire, continues to languish this year.

And it's not as though Democrats have tiptoed around the budget because the White House is talking about its performance loudly or proudly, either. To the contrary, all of the administration's chief economic policy-makers, including or especially those with specific fiscal policy responsibilities, have been largely AWOL on this issue when it comes to public discourse.

Office of Management and Budget Director Josh Bolten has been flying under the radar on the budget and deficit since he took over for Mitch Daniels. Except for the administration's recent attempt to spin the $374 billion 2003 deficit as an improvement (see "Budget Battles" from Oct. 15), Bolten has been nearly invisible - and he has taken the budget issue with him.

And Bolten is not alone. In recent weeks the president's two other principal economic cabinet members - Treasury Secretary John Snow and Commerce Secretary Don Evans - have seemed eager to talk about any issue except the budget. As two of the administration's chief economic spokespersons, the budget clearly falls within their purview, but Snow and Evans seem completely unwilling to engage unless they are specifically asked about it. Even then, in what PR professionals call "blocking and bridging," their responses have been designed to move to another issue as quickly as possible.

It is only when you realize that Snow would rather talk about the declining value of the U.S. dollar and Evans the trade deficit - two very difficult and largely no-win issues - that you realize how far the Bush administration is willing to go to avoid discussing the budget.

This lack of any direct budget discussion is manifesting itself in a variety of ways. For example:

• The $20 billion of President Bush's $87 billion request that is not military-related was not called "foreign aid" because that would make the politics far more difficult and turn the supplemental funding into a budget issue.
• Despite the deficit, Congress is considering a $60 billion corporate tax cut because of the need to deal with unfair trade practices overseas. Practically no one is talking about such a cut's budget impact.
• House Democrats felt the need last week to call on the White House to include the likely additional costs of reconstruction and military operations in Iraq in next year's budget, something that should be automatic.

All of this makes you wonder if we shouldn't just adopt a Goodrich-like approach for the next year or so. Whenever anyone talks about another issue, we should all remember to ask about the fiscal "other guy."

Question Of The Week

Last Week's Question. When is the Congressional Budget Office required to release the next official budget update? It's included in CBO's annual economic and budget update, which Section 202 (e) of the Congressional Budget Act requires be sent to the House and Senate budget committees on or before Feb. 15 of each year. The winner of the "I Won A 2003 Budget Battle" mouse pad is Carolyn Zavadil, who works for the Air Force in the Pentagon.

This Week's Question. As you see the leaves falling near your home this week, try to imagine that they are really "I Won A 2003 Budget Battle" mouse pads and that you can just go outside and grab one before it hits the ground. Then realize that mouse pads don't grow on trees, and that the only way to get one is to answer the weekly question and have your response selected.

The question: What is the limit on the number of supplemental appropriations that can be enacted in any fiscal year?

Click here to send in your response, which must be received by 5 p.m. PST on Saturday, Nov. 8, 2003. You must include a mailing address so we can send you the mouse pad if you win. 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.

VIEW ALL COMMENTS POST COMMENT

COMMENTS

• In this column, Stan is pushing on the Democrats, too, for a change. I appreciate the effort at political balance in this column and hope Stan continues it. Ben Lesser Posted November 5, 2003 5:24 PM

VIEW ALL COMMENTS