The White House has let it be known that President Clinton will propose that the tight caps on appropriations be raised as part of his fiscal 2001 budget that will be sent to Congress on Feb. 7.
When the word about this plan was leaked by the administration last week, many of the federal budgeteers on Capitol Hill started to breathe a deep sigh of relief. After all, this means that the laundry list of gimmicks, tricks and swift maneuvers that Congress had to come up with last year to get through the budget process will not be needed this year-at least not to the same extent. That, in turn, probably means that the budget process can be completed more quickly, that the chances of the phrase "government shutdown" being voiced in the months before the 2000 election have fallen considerably, and that the political flak Congress receives from doing ridiculous things like declaring the census an "emergency" will be far less.
But the apparent decision by the Clinton Administration to take the lead in proposing that the caps be raised is neither as much of a gift to congressional Republicans nor as politically altruistic as it might seem at first glance.
First, higher budget caps mean the president can propose increases for his high priority programs above what would be allowed by the current appropriations limits.
Second, unlike Congress, the president does not have to worry about whether the caps actually will be raised. By including them in his budget, he can assume that they will be enacted and so can develop his spending plans as if they already have been signed into law.
Third, the president's proposal puts Congress in a very tough spot. Either it decides to go along with the plan, resorts to the same mix of highly questionable offsets and gimmicks used in the past, or must agree on spending reductions that are bigger than both what the president proposed and what was actually appropriated in fiscal 2000.
Fourth, the president has already been labeled by Republicans as being a big spender, so there will be little political damage if the charge is raised again during the fiscal 2001 budget debate.
Fifth, if Congress decides to go along with the president's proposal to raise the caps (as now appears to be very likely), it will eliminate much of the sting of the big spender label because Hill leaders will have agreed to the same increase as the administration.
The most impressive part of the proposal, however, is that the cap increase will allow the president to claim that he and the Democrats are the ones who are the most fiscally disciplined. While increasing the caps, the administration is also highly likely to propose that these limits, which currently are in place only through the end of fiscal 2002, be extended through the end of fiscal 2007. This will enable the White House to say that spending limits should be continued for an additional five years while at the same time proposing to increase spending above what would otherwise be allowed.
This raises a number of interesting questions. While Congress will probably be willing to raise the caps for 2001 and 2002, will it also be willing to extend them for an additional five years? How will the new caps be set if spending does not have to be cut by a certain amount to eliminate the deficit? Will there be separate caps for military and domestic spending, or for the categories established for highway and mass transit programs? Can the caps be extended through 2007 without also extending the pay-as-you-go rules for revenue and entitlements at the same time? And is there enough time to do any of this given the lack of consensus about the budget process, the very narrow majorities, and the election year-shortened session of Congress?
While all this is being decided, the Clinton administration will have proposed the additional fiscal 2001-2002 spending it wants without having to come up with its own set of highly questionable offsets, and will be putting Congress in a difficult position at the same time. That makes this strategy one of the most impressive budget tactics and best gimmicks ever conceived.
Question Of The Week
Unfinished Business. Two of the responses to the question from two weeks ago were inadvertently lost in the e-mail ether and, as seems inevitable, both responses were more accurate than the one that was eventually chosen as the winner. As a result, Richard Kogan of the House Budget Committee and Kei Koizumi of the American Association for the Advancement of Science have been awarded "I Won A 2000 Budget Battle" T-shirts retroactively. My apologies.
Last Week's Question. What law requires the president to submit a budget to Congress each year? The answer is "The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921," and almost every one of the very large number of responses got it right. The winner of the all new "I Won A 2000 Budget Battle" T-shirt, who was selected at random from all the correct entries, is Scott Frisch, an assistant professor of political science at East Carolina University. Honorable mention and extra credit (but no T-shirt) to Sarah Ducich of Sallie Mae, Olivia Soto of NavAir, Cordell Smith of the Senate Committee on Small Business, and Lisa Cash Driskill of the Congressional Budget Office for providing substantial additional information about the history of the 1921 act.
This Week's Question. The U.S. Mint is about to release a new golden-colored dollar coin to replace the Susan B. Anthony. (Full Disclosure: Marketing for this new coin's rollout is being handled by my firm, Fleishman-Hillard.) The Mint says that U.S. taxpayers pay nothing when it makes coins because the manufacturing costs are far less than the face value of each coin. For example, each of the new 50-state quarters costs about four cents to manufacture but sells for 25 cents. The question: What is the name used in the federal budget process to describe the difference between the cost of making a coin and the amount the government collects? Send your responses to scollender@njdc.com by 5 p.m. on Saturday, Jan. 22, 2000, and you could win your own "I Won A 2000 Budget Battle" T-shirt. The winner will be selected by random drawing if there is more than one correct entry.
Coming Soon: Budget Disco
Want to find out more about what the fiscal 2001 federal budget debate will mean for you without falling asleep during some really boring presentation?
Click here to request details about "Budget Disco," a half-day executive briefing on Feb. 16 in Washington, D.C., conducted by yours truly and sponsored jointly by the National Journal Group and Fleishman-Hillard. The latest in computer presentation techniques, including sound and visual effects that will bring back memories of your nights on the disco dance floor, will make this the most fun and useful briefing you attend all year. Special discounts are available for groups of four or more.
NEXT STORY: Feeling the consequences of procurement reform