GovernmentExecutive.com

There were as many theories as there were pundits last week as to the timing of Treasury Secretary Paul's O'Neill's forced resignation.

But while most people focused on the increasingly worrisome state of the economy as the reason for the seemingly sudden request, the truth is that the federal budget process may be the real reason O'Neill was asked to step aside.

The Bush administration is at the point in its drafting of the fiscal 2004 budget when at least the outline of what will be proposed to Congress next year is relatively certain. There will continue to be changes almost until the moment the budget is sent to the Government Printing Office next month, but the basics have already been decided.

This especially includes the size of the tax cut the White House has been talking about since election night. Once that figure was put in place, the politics of the tax cut - including the process the White House will use to try to get it enacted and the type of effort that will require - started to come into focus.

O'Neill has never been on the same page as this White House when it came to tax cuts. During the 2001 and 2002 tax cut debates, the Treasury secretary repeatedly said negative things about the changes being considered - only to backtrack or have someone else in the administration "clarify" his comments almost immediately.

Since Election Day, the need for another tax cut has become a mantra for virtually every senior member of the Bush administration... except for O'Neill. Over the past month he publicly voiced his doubts about the need to stimulate the economy at all - let alone about whether a permanent tax cut would be the right way to do so.

The White House clearly did not want this questioning to continue. Given the expedited process the administration plans to use to enact this tax cut, it could not afford to have O'Neill off message.

The White House wants to accelerate the tax cut debate by using the reconciliation procedures of the congressional budget process. The administration also wants to move the budget process along at breakneck speed, at least by congressional standards.

Even though the president's budget is not expected to be sent to Congress until Feb. 3, and despite the scheduled President's Day recess that occurs in February, the administration is going to push Congress to complete work on a budget resolution by the first week in March.

The budget resolution conference report will then include reconciliation instructions to the two tax-writing committees - House Ways and Means and Senate Finance - to produce legislation by early April that cuts taxes as outlined in the budget resolution. If everything works as planned, this could produce a tax bill in early May.

This extraordinary schedule cannot happen, however, unless the administration has one or more people in key economic positions who are able to create the public environment needed for Congress to act quickly. The president needs people with excellent communications skills - and without the tarnish of previous statements or economic results.

Clearly the White House political apparatus thought it did not have the team it would need to make the case forcefully and convincingly that the president's proposed tax cut should be enacted as quickly as the administration wants. As a result, O'Neill and National Economic Council Director Larry Lindsey had to go.

It happened so quickly because the administration will need virtually every minute between now and Feb. 3 to get a new team in place. With Congress not convening until Jan. 7, and not doing much after that until the president delivers his State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, the White House simply could not wait another few weeks to replace O'Neill.

This also explains why the White House moved so quickly to name the replacements for O'Neill and Lindsey. Any delay would have slowed down the tax cut juggernaut just getting underway.

In selecting its next team, the White House was looking for people who would boast instant credibly with key economic constituencies, especially Wall Street and big business, and who have outstanding communications skills. This means that the next economic team was far more likely to appear to come from Central Casting than from the center of the political or economic spectrum. And at first glance, John Snow, Bush's pick for Treasury secretary, and Steve Friedman, the leading contender for White House economic chief, seem to fit that mold.

The quick move to the new team also indicates that the 2003 Bush tax cut most likely will be far larger - and its impact on the deficit far greater - than had been anticipated. If it were not, O'Neill might have been able to stay.

Question Of The Week

Last Week's Question. This question fooled lots of people, many of whom should have known better. Congress is not required to wait for the president to submit something before it begins to debate the budget for the coming year. As a result, the earliest Congress can begin to debate the fiscal 2004 budget is the first day it will be in session next year - which is Jan. 7.

The winner of the still amazing and much desired "I Won A 2002 Budget Battle" coffee/tea/hot chocolate mug is Rex Simmons, who works in the Office of Inspector General of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in Washington.

This Week's Question. Because of the holiday publication schedule, you have only two more chances to win one of these incredible "I Won A 2002 Budget Battle" mugs. And next year's prize will not be a mug. So if you haven't won this year, you should not wait much longer to try.

The question: What is the most appropriate thing to wish someone involved in the federal budget process at this time of year? For example, how about, "May all your Christmases be black (ink)"?

Send your response to scollender@nationaljournal.com by 5 p.m. PST on Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002. You must include your mailing address so the mug can be sent if you win. If there are similar winning responses, the winner will be selected at random from that group.

Only Two More Weeks To Save $100

You can only qualify for the special $100 discount for "Houston, We Have A Budget," the special executive briefing on next year's budget debate presented by "Budget Battles" columnist Stan Collender on Jan. 28 if you register by Jan. 1, 2003.

The budget briefing will be held at the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, near two Metro stops, just seven blocks from the U.S. Capitol, and a short cab ride from Reagan National Airport and Union Station. In just three hours, you will learn everything you need to know about what's likely to happen as Congress debates the fiscal 2004 budget, spending and tax bills and what it means for your company, association, department, agency or clients. Click here for the full agenda.

The briefing will be from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., and the cost is the same as last year - $299 per person for registrations received by Jan. 1, 2003, and $399 per person for registrations received after that date. Group discounts also are available.

For more information or to register online, click here. You can also register or receive more information by contacting Beverly Campbell (campbelb@fleishman.com or 202-828-9712).

Why is the briefing called "Houston, We Have A Budget"? Because next year's budget debate could be out of this world.

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.