In the nearly three weeks since the first continuing resolution was enacted, Congress has developed a list of gimmicks that now combine for almost $50 billion in "savings." If implemented, these "fixes" will allow members to say that they have not breached the appropriations caps or spent more than the non-Social Security surplus.
Surprisingly, the White House was being mostly silent on the budget while all this gimmickry developed. Until this weekend (when administration officials let loose on the Sunday talk shows, and in a front-page Washington Post article Monday morning), there was growing speculation that the Clinton administration might have lost its stomach for fighting on spending and taxing issues, and that Congress might actually get away with what only a month ago would have been considered impossible. Not until Monday did Clinton call the GOP leadership to the White House for budget talks, which were held Tuesday.
Some of the theories behind the White House's silence included:
1. Why Bother? It was certainly possible that White House officials had lost interest in the budget debate, or thought they had achieved all they could. It was also possible that polls showed the president or congressional Democrats would be held as responsible as Republicans for a shutdown or showdown-and as a result, the administration thought there was little to gain from pushing the issue much further.
2. If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em. Some believed that the reason the White House was not more vocal over the past few weeks as gimmicks were incorporated into one or more appropriations was a growing realization that some of them ultimately will be needed to get the president what he wants this year. According to this theory, heavy-handed criticism of what Congress has been doing ultimately would be counterproductive because it might make it impossible for some of those gimmicks to be used later.
3. Did Not! Did Too! Congress made at least some headway recently by noting that many of the gimmicks originated in the Clinton fiscal 2000 budget sent to Congress earlier this year, and the White House might have felt it had become vulnerable on this issue. There was even some talk late last week of the House taking a vote on the package of budget offsets and tricks the president included in his budget-in hopes of highlighting the fact that much of what his administration has criticized actually started as a White House proposal.
4. The Social Security Charge Has Legs. Congressional Democrats have indicated to some in the White House that they have felt somewhat vulnerable as their Republican colleagues have pushed the Social Security "lock box" as the primary budget issue. They have also expressed some concern that the administration has not provided much political cover on this. It is possible, therefore, that the White House had been quiet because it did not want to draw attention to this issue and take the chance that it would make matters worse.
In Hindsight? A Case Of Playing Possum
In light of the stepped-up attack this past Sunday, however, the most likely reason the White House was quiet the past few weeks is that it was simply preparing to pounce. Because it is virtually inevitable that more fiscal 2000 appropriations will be vetoed (or not even sent to the White House) by the end of the day on Thursday, another continuing resolution will be needed. The second CR will run through Oct. 29. The White House appears to have waited until it would have the maximum leverage with its counteroffensive.
The president may have also preferred to make a stand on Congress' failure to complete the nation's business on time, rather than its use of complicated budget gimmicks-which is much more difficult to explain.
Clinton continues to hold almost all the political and PR cards in this year's debate. Congressional Republicans still do not have an articulate, credible, and telegenic spokesperson who can compete with the president. They still carry a great deal of heavy political baggage because of the government shutdowns that took place in 1995 and 1996. And the Senate Republican plan to cut Social Security in 1986, which many believe led to a Democratic takeover in that year's election, continues to haunt almost anything that Republicans say or do on that issue-which makes the current proposals somewhat easier to criticize.
Most importantly, as long as a two-thirds majority does not exist in either the House or Senate to override a veto, no fiscal 2000 appropriations can be enacted without the president's agreement. Ultimately, therefore, this White House can remain in the budget driver's seat for as long as the administration wants to.
Question Of The Week
Last Week's Question. There are two winners of an "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt for answers to last week's question-what would be an appropriate e-mail address for the director of the Office of Management and Budget. The first goes to Jonathan Kaplan, who works in the office of Tipper Gore, for his response, director.frugally@spendingyourin.com. The second goes to Ed Lorenzen, who covers the budget for Rep. Charles Stenholm, for my personal favorite, scollender@omb.gov.
This Week's Question. An "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt goes to Pepper Santalucia of the Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee, who suggested this week's question. The question: What would be a good name for a federal-budget oriented professional sports team? For example, several years ago a budget consulting firm in Washington had a softball team called the 'Deficits,' complete with negative numbers on the team uniforms. Send your suggestion to scollender@njdc.com and you could have an 'I Won A Budget Battle' T-shirt to wear while watching the World Series.
Nominate Your Choice For The 1999 Black Ink Award NOW!
For the second year in a row, "Budget Battles" is presenting the "Black Ink Award" to the person or organization that readers select as having the most positive impact on this year's budget debate. Nominations, which can be made only via e-mail, will be accepted through Friday, Oct. 29 (Only one nomination per person will be accepted.) Through November, readers will be given a chance to vote for one of the top five nominees. The winner of the award will be announced in the final "Budget Battles" of 1999.