In what should be taken as a sign of things to come, the federal budget debate virtually disappeared last week just two days after the Clinton fiscal 2001 plan was sent to Congress.
Republican reaction to the Clinton budget was relatively low-key, and the usual week of post-release hearings were replaced with a limited number of seemingly obligatory sessions that failed to attract much media attention. And on the day before the president's budget was released, the Sunday talk shows-which usually feature the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the secretary of the Treasury and the chairs of the House and Senate Budget Committees-completely ignored the topic.
So with no major controversies to comment on, here are a few savory tidbits to tide everyone over:
You Put Your Right Foot In, You Put Your Right Foot Out
One of the gimmicks used by Congress and the Clinton administration last year to get around the tight spending caps was to delay the last federal payday of 2000 so that the outlays would not occur until 2001. According to the Clinton budget, that delay "saved" $4.3 billion. It also, of course, increased fiscal 2001 spending by that same amount. So what does the administration want to do now that Congress and the White House are focused on meeting the 2001 spending cap? Not surprisingly, the president's budget proposes that the payday occur when it was originally scheduled, that is, in fiscal 2000. The fact that this would save another $4.3 billion in 2001 is, of course, never mentioned. Instead, it is part of what the budget says is "restoring budgetary conventions."
Other Conventions The White House Wants To Restore
The delayed payday is not the only gimmick the administration wants to "restore" and, in so doing, use twice. The budget also proposes that the prohibitions provided to certain federal agencies against obligating about $1.8 billion until late in the year be reversed. This will bring the spending that would have otherwise occurred in 2001 back into fiscal 2000. The budget also proposes that $14.4 billion in advance appropriations enacted last year now occur in fiscal 2000.
Can All This Be Added Without Triggering A Sequester?
The restorations in the Clinton budget should cause the current fiscal 2000 caps on discretionary spending to be breached and, therefore, for a sequester to occur. However, the budget also proposes to increase the fiscal 2000 caps-so if Congress goes along with the cap increase, the higher spending will not violate the new limits.
If Congress does not agree to raise the 2000 cap, then it will not be able to bring the fiscal 2001 spending into 2000 as the administration is proposing. This would also mean that Congress will have $14.4 billion in additional budget authority and about $6.1 billion in additional outlays to fit under the fiscal 2001 cap. This is why the Clinton proposal-which in the past would have drawn almost immediate criticism from congressional Republicans-has gone almost without comment.
Speaking Of New Spending Caps ...
As predicted (Budget Battles, Jan. 19), the Clinton fiscal 2001 budget included a proposal to increase the existing spending caps for fiscal 2000-2002 and to extend the caps beyond 2002. What was not expected, however, was that the proposed extension would be all the way through 2010. Under the administration's plan, the caps for both budget authority and outlays would increase by slightly less than 3 percent a year, or just above the projected rate of inflation. There would not be a separate cap for military and nonmilitary programs; they would all be covered in the same "other discretionary" category.
Also under the plan, the exiting caps for highway and mass transit would expire at the end of 2003, at which point these programs would be covered under the overall cap as well. The current cap for violent crime reduction would not be extended beyond fiscal 2000. A new cap for the administration's "Lands Legacy" initiative would be created starting in 2001.
And PAYGO, Too?
The Clinton fiscal 2001 budget also proposes to extend the pay-as-you-go enforcement system for revenues and entitlement programs through 2010.
The PAYGO rules will be far more difficult to extend than the appropriations caps. Many Republicans on Capitol Hill and elsewhere view PAYGO as the principal reason there has not been a major tax cut in years and are adamant that the rules not be extended. At the very least, they will want the rules revised so that budget surpluses and discretionary spending cuts can both be used to offset the impact of a tax cut.
It is not at all clear at this early point in the year whether the caps can be extended without PAYGO, and vice versa. It is also not clear whether there is any interest in Congress in doing anything other than just raising the caps for 2000-2002. For that matter, it is also not clear whether the White House will be willing to raise the existing caps unless the caps and PAYGO are also extended. In addition, it is hard to see how these budget process changes can be enacted this year in light of the limited time that exists for legislative work.
Ever Heard Of Section 303?
The first major step in the congressional budget process is supposed to be the passage of the budget resolution conference report. This was done so that Congress could see how tax and spending changes fit within the whole budget it had promised to do for the year. Doing it any other way would mean that the budget would have to be adjusted for tax and spending initiatives already considered. To make sure that this happens, section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act creates a point of order against spending or taxing legislation that is considered before that year's budget resolution conference report is adopted.
However, neither this point of order nor the general principal stopped the House last week from passing the elimination of the so-called marriage penalty in the tax code. The House simply waived the point of order before proceeding with the tax change.
The ironic thing about the House's waiver of the Budget Act is that the move was needless. Even the biggest supporters of the marriage penalty change admit that there is little or no hope that the Senate will consider the legislation before the budget resolution conference report is adopted. The Senate will have to wait for the tax change to be considered as part of a reconciliation bill, which can only be done pursuant to a directive in a budget resolution. The reason? Reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered, while there is a virtual guarantee that the stand-alone tax bill just passed by the House will be.
Question Of The Week
Last Week's Question. Never mind the CD-ROM that is already produced by the Office of Management and Budget, last week's question asked you to come up with "... another, better way to make (the president's budget) available to the public so that more people see it." The most popular answer by far was to print it on toilet paper. A few others suggested that it be put on the Internet (Note: Take a look at http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget). The winner of an all-new "I Won A 2000 Budget Battle" T-shirt, however, is freelance writer and consultant Ned Lynch. Ned, a veteran of the House Committee on Government Reform's Civil Service Subcommittee, suggested that Oprah make the budget the February selection for her book club.
This Week's Question. Want your own "I Won A 2000 Budget Battle" T-shirt for those special moments when being a wonk impresses your friends? The last item in today's "Budget Battles" talks about reconciliation. The question: What is the limit on the number of reconciliation bills that Congress can consider each year? Send your response to scollender@nationaljournal.com by 5 p.m. EST Saturday, Feb. 19. The winner will be selected by random drawing if more than one reader provides the correct answer.
NEXT STORY: Agencies join forces to fight online fraud