GovernmentExecutive.com

Federal program managers are warning about budget nightmares if Republican conservatives insist on a continuing resolution for the duration of the fiscal year.

Under the terms of the CR, every agency would be funded at the lower of the House or Senate-passed level or last year's enacted budget, which over the course of the year would trim up to $7 billion from available fiscal 2007 funds. It also would cut out earmarks.

Eric Ueland, chief of staff to outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said an earmark-free CR stretching into next year is "a high priority for many Republicans in the House and Senate."

A spokesman for incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called it "pathetic" that GOP leaders were punting their work to the next Congress. House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., called it a "catastrophe," while a spokeswoman for Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., said it would be "irresponsible."

With few options remaining, leaders are discussing whether to extend the CR until March 1 to give the incoming Democrats time to put the fiscal 2007 bills together -- or something shorter. A full-year CR is a long shot, as GOP leaders would have a tough time rounding up the votes.

But considering the relative ease with which Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and his allies blocked further action this year on appropriations, government agencies are already drawing up worst-case scenarios. The Social Security Administration has told congressional staff it might have to furlough every employee.

Housing and Urban Development Department funding would not keep pace with demand for low-income housing vouchers, meaning "literally thousands of people would be out in the street," one source said. School breakfast and lunch programs would face a $1 billion shortfall, cutting off 1.2 million participants. The Veterans Health Administration would have to absorb the $3 billion increase to meet this year's requirements.

The problems with a CR can start becoming acute even well before the end of the fiscal year. "If we go much past February we've got real problems," said Steven Gallagher, budget director for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Under the terms of a full-year CR it would mean a nearly 15 percent cut from NOAA's $3.9 billion fiscal 2006 budget. As many as 400 full-time employees and an equal number of contractors could be laid off, Gallagher said.

A Coburn spokesman called such concerns "absurd." Given government spending has increased 50 percent since 2001 "any agency that can't figure out how to function under a one-year CR is incompetent," he said. He noted the VA has $1.7 billion in unspent funds left over from last year. "If appropriators took this seriously they wouldn't be wasting time earmarking and putting stoplights in their districts. The hypocrisy is astounding."

A House Appropriations Committee spokesman countered that without earmarks, agencies would be able to spend the money as they see fit. "That would be unilaterally disarming Congress' power of the purse," he said.

COMMENTS

• "Housing and Urban Development Department funding would not keep pace with demand for low-income housing vouchers, meaning ‘literally thousands of people would be out in the street,’ one source said." This comes from one of the more corrupt of the agencies. The head of HUD only approves contractors that support the president's agenda! Obviously the public does not support this agenda as seen in the last election. HUD only puts poor people on the street if the agency does not put the rich people on the street (SESers and high grade personnel not needed.) Likewise, HUD has a great deal of funds wasted on worthless surveys that could be used to pay for housing for poor people. Taxpayer Posted November 29, 2006 8:01 AM
• Isn't it the responsibility of the president to furnish budget and for Congress to approve, chop, whatever, or disapprove. Why are the Republican's waiting for the incoming Democrats to draw up appropriations? The Congress is shirking its responsibility by not passing a budget. Does anyone know how many times this country has gone without a budget for the entire year? Is this a first? Steven D. Kato Posted November 22, 2006 1:33 PM
• "That would be unilaterally disarming Congress' power of the purse." What a bunch of bozos. Their role is to approve budgets, which include explanations of how the money is to be used. By approving the budget is how they control the purse strings. Earmarks are just payoffs to donors etc. In another article published on GovExec.com , a politician said how they (politicians) know better that “those in Washington” how to spend taxpayer money. You know, us bums, the useless federal workers, who don't actually live and work in D.C. But if they opened their eyes, they'd realize that most executive agency employees live in the communities our fellow ignorant citizens live in. You know -- those who voted for the politician. A taxpayer and a federal worker Posted November 22, 2006 2:41 PM