Budget Battles: The new politics of the budget process

My graduate school dean, Aaron Wildavsky, authored The Politics of the Budgetary Process, one of the most important books ever written about how the federal government makes its spending and taxing decisions. It has been several years since Aaron died, and many more years since his book was last updated. And with all the changes in recent years, even Wildavsky's most ardent supporters and students will admit that the specific events and procedures he wrote about now have only a passing relation to how Congress and the president put the federal budget together.

But Wildavsky's central message-that the politics of the federal budget are critical to understanding what happens, and what can happen-continues to be absolutely relevant. In fact, the theme he first presented 40 years ago will be the most important key to how the budget debate is changed when the current process, the Budget Enforcement Act, expires at the end of fiscal 2002.

Put aside the more or less mechanical issues that often dominate the headlines, such as the date by which the president must send his or her budget to Capitol Hill and the deadline for Congress to adopt the budget resolution. Those will be mere Tinker Toys compared to the far tougher questions-all of which will be completely dominated by the political needs of the people making the decisions.

For example, one of the central questions of the next decade of budget decisions-whether Social Security should be included in the budget totals-will likely be determined far less by substantive arguments and far more by the phony issue of protecting the program's proceeds from being spent on anything other than Social Security.

Whether the pay-as-you-go rules for revenues and entitlements should be revised to allow cuts in appropriations and reductions in the surplus to offset a projected increase in mandatory spending or loss of revenues is far more likely to rest on whether Congress and the administration want to make tax cuts or spending increases easier or harder. The incontrovertible fact that annual appropriations cuts and projected surpluses are far too speculative to be relied on to pay for a permanent increase in mandatory spending or cut in taxes will simply not be as powerful an argument.

Should highway and mass transit spending continue to be put in its own category so that a certain level of spending for each is virtually guaranteed each year, regardless of other needs and the overall economic situation? Should the other 100 or more programs that have their own source of funds get similar treatment, or is it only highway and mass transit (with their long list of very powerful supporters) that should be treated that way?

Is reducing federal debt as important as increasing spending or reducing taxes?

Even some of the seemingly most wonk-like issues will be decided largely for political reasons. For example, many programs currently have fees that are scored as "negative spending" and so allow more to be spent each year than seems apparent from the budget tables. Income collected by other programs in similar situations, however, is sometimes listed as a receipt, and, therefore, sent to the Treasury. The issue is more of who controls the dollars coming in (and going out) than on evenhanded treatment and distribution.

And this year's election is likely to be anything but definitive when it comes to a mandate for action on budget issues. To the contrary, most current analyses project a slim victory for whoever wins the White House, and a narrow majority in the House and Senate by possibly different parties. If that is the case, it may be far too difficult for a consensus on these and similar budget issues to be reached before the current process expires.

Like the past two years, that will lead to a situation where the budget, spending and tax decisions are made according to ad hoc accommodations rather than procedural guidelines and requirements. There would be no caps on appropriations, no PAYGO rules for taxes and entitlements, and no sequesters when the rules are violated. Of course, if that happens it may well be because that is what the new politics of the federal budget will be all about.

Question Of The Week

Last Week's Question. Last week's question asking for an appropriate title for a children's book on the federal budget brought out the child in a great many readers. There were two winners of "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirts. Previous winner Susan Friedman of the American Osteopathic Association wins for her suggestion of "a boxed set containing Harry Potter and the Vanishing Budget Surplus and Harry Potter Saves Social Security." Debi DeLoose, a 3rd and 4th grade teacher at the Lord of Life Lutheran Church in Fairfax, Va., wins for her suggestion of using Eric Carle's 1986 book, Papa, Please Get the Moon for Me without making any changes. Honorable mention (but no T-shirt) to David Kensinger of GOPAC for Where the Un-Authorized Things Are, a takeoff on the Maurice Sendak classic; Sandra Batton of the General Services Administration for her suggestion that The Never Ending Story works fine with no changes; Scott Redman of the Department of Agriculture for Old MacDonald Lost the Farm; and Bill Weber from the Washington office of Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., for Now We Are Six (Trillion Dollars in Debt), a take on the A.A. Milne classic.

This Week's Question. Oscar, Emmy, Tony, and Clio are the names of the awards given annually for the best in the movies, television, Broadway and advertising. If there were a similar award for federal budgeting, what should it be called? Send your response to scollender@nationaljournal.com by 5 p.m. EDT on Saturday, April 22, 2000, and you could win your own "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt to wear while watching the television shows the networks put on during the May ratings sweeps.