Over the past 15 years or so, the phrase "dead on arrival" has been so frequently used by representatives and senators immediately after the president submitted his budget to Congress that it has almost become a regular part of the budget process.
The president sends his budget to Capitol Hill, Congress declares it to be unacceptable, and the debate begins in earnest. In the background you could almost hear the faint cry of "tally ho" and a cavalry charge being sounded as this annual ritual took place.
This year, though, it seems to be different.
It is not that the Clinton budget is any less dead than many of its predecessors. Although representatives and senators have been extremely careful to avoid the phrase because of the negative political implications for those who utter it too fast or too loudly, there is little doubt that much of what the president proposed will not be considered seriously.
The difference is that this year's presidential budget may not have even been intended to be the official beginning of the debate that it generally has been (and that various budget laws imply it should be). Instead, the president's budget seems to have been designed largely for the public relations value of the moment. As a result, much of it seems destined to be forgotten or ignored.
This is not to say that the administration would not want Congress to approve everything it proposed, or that there would not be a huge celebration at the White House if both houses agree to the president's plans by unanimous consent later this week. But overall, Clinton's fiscal 2000 budget seems to have been sent to Capitol Hill with the administration knowing that what it was proposing would never see the light of day.
Every president's budget is, of course, at least partly designed with public relations in mind. After all, it gives the president an extraordinary opportunity to offer in one place and at one time what appears to be a coherent plan. Nothing Congress does on spending and taxes the rest of the year will be as detailed or will garner as much attention as the five documents the president submits.
Normally, though, the secrecy surrounding what would be proposed was so great that the release of the budget was a big news event. This year, the Clinton administration released the details of a different proposal almost daily. These were not the leaks of various budget items that in the past were given to friendly reporters to create a "buzz" about what was coming, but a carefully choreographed process that left few doubts about what was included in the budget and why.
Because there was little mystery surrounding the Clinton fiscal 2000 budget, most major newspapers even declined to run the usual front page picture of the director of the Office of Management and Budget watching the budget roll off the presses at the Government Printing Office.
All of this means four things as far as the fiscal 2000 budget debate is concerned:
First, much of the public debate that in previous years has usually taken place in the days and weeks immediately following the formal submission of the president's budget instead occurred before the budget even reached the Capitol. Key members of the House and Senate had denounced or dismissed many or most of the proposals before the budget was submitted. There will still have to be committee votes, of course, and more-formal rejections as the process continues. But there should be little surprise if Congress moves from considering the president's proposals to the next stage of what members want to do more quickly than previous years.
Second, the Clinton fiscal 2000 budget will make the next stage much more difficult. The budget is so heavily weighted toward public relations that House and Senate budgeteers will find they have very little to work with as they start to develop their own plans. Not unlike the situation with Social Security, where the president lets Congress go first in coming up with the details, this lack of substance will make the process much longer and tougher.
Third, the budget resolution-if Congress is able to agree on one this year-will not be a road map to where this year's debate on taxes and spending will end up. Instead, the resolution is far more likely to be just as much a public relations document as the White House's budget, and will mean just as little.
Fourth, the real decisions about what the fiscal 2000 budget will look like will not be made until much later in the year, when negotiation takes place between the White House and Congress. That mostly behind-the-scenes negotiation will start from scratch, as the White House and Congress drop most of what is in their public proposals and focus on only their most important priorities. This will probably occur in conjunction with some type of big budget bill, such as reconciliation or an omnibus appropriation.
In recent years the administration has excelled in similar situations, when deals cut just as the fiscal year was about to start or a continuing resolution was about to expire gave it the leverage it needed to force Congress to accept things that otherwise might not pass. Surely the White House knows this as well as everyone else-the administration may very well have put together its budget in hopes of recreating the same political environment again this year.
So in spite of a lack of a formal declaration, the Clinton fiscal 2000 budget is already dead. The only question is whether the White House actually planned its demise.
Question Of The Week
Unfinished Business. A late entry for the question from two weeks ago about an appropriate federal budget ride in a theme park is just too good to pass up. So a special judges' discretionary award and an "I Won A 1999 Budget Battle" T-shirt goes to Michael George of the ANSER Congressional Analysis Team for his suggestion of "Surplus Mountain" with what he says are apologies to the Space Mountain ride at Disney World and Disneyland.
Last Week's Question. There were two winners of last week's contest, which asked you to name the last year that Congress passed two budget resolutions. Congratulations to Jim Blum, who has just retired after a long and very distinguished career as deputy budget director of the Congressional Budget Office. Jim also owns the record for the most correct answers to Budget Battles' questions of the week. Congratulations also go to Paul Van de Water of the CBO. Both knew that the fiscal 1981 second budget resolution conference report was the last one ever adopted, and that was in 1980.
This Week's Question. This week's question was suggested by an anonymous reader who complained that Budget Battles questions were too wonkish for all but three or four people in the entire country. The question: Describe a federal budget sandwich that you might see on the menu of a Washington restaurant. For example, the "10-Year Forecast" sandwich would be nothing but-you guessed it-baloney. Send your responses to scollender@njdc.com and you too could be wearing an "I Won A 1999 Budget Battle" T-shirt while reducing your waistline at your local heath club at the same time Congress and the president try to reduce the national debt. (Also, don't forget that you can also get a T-shirt if you suggest a question that is used.)
NEXT STORY: House GOP wants spending disputes settled early