House Budget Chairman Wants to Rewrite 1974 Budgeting Law

The 42-year-old law laying out the congressional budget process needs serious reform, Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the House Budget Committee, said on Wednesday.

“The Congressional Budget Office should be a lot more transparent and responsive to members” because the baselines it uses in its scoring of legislation “is now gamed for predetermined outcomes,” Price said on a panel at the Brookings Institution.

“The budget process is broken—in the end we came together for a last-minute deal” this fall, Price noted, “but that’s not the way a family or a business does budgeting.”

Price, who said his north Atlanta district is “filled with great people who want government to stay out of their lives and pocketbooks,” allowed that the House did a good job last year moving spending bills and writing a budget that would balance over 10 years. “And for the first time in 14 years, the House and Senate came together on a budget. But that’s nothing to celebrate because the people of this great country ought to expect that,” he said.

The budget panel is already at work on reforms that, while aimed at reducing the size of government, would “afford each member of Congress the opportunity to engage, then force them to come together,” said Price, who plans to draft such a bill after the fiscal 2016 appropriations bills are complete, in time for a new president in 2017. Democrats would be welcome as partners, he said, but “so far they haven’t shown interest.”

Answering questions from Brookings policy experts, Price said President Obama’s Tuesday State of the Union address provided no common ground for the two parties. “I am continually disappointed,” he said, calling the speech “terribly political” for the president’s final such address. “Obama has probably completely alienated all on our side of the aisle,” and the president’s pleas for a more civil political process “ring hollow,” he said, citing a negative experience working with the administration on the Affordable Care Act. “Yes, there is enough blame to go around,” but easing the polarization would “take a certain style of leadership.”

Price initially balked when asked to imagine common ground that could be found between the parties if Hillary Clinton is the next president and Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin remains the House speaker. But when pressed, he said, “My responsibility is to define what can be done”—citing, in rank order, tax reform, regulatory reform and entitlement reform.

The Republicans’ pledge never to raise taxes applies only to tax rates, not to all revenue raisers, Price clarified. Entitlement reform would mean raising the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare and offering a “voluntary opportunity to use one’s own resources for investments, which saves money,” he said. “Medicare can no longer provide what’s promised, so the idea is not to make it more oppressive and prescriptive.”

Like many in his caucus, Price dubbed Obamacare an embarrassing “failure,” saying it still leaves 25 million uninsured while the exchanges and co-ops experience problems. “Millions have coverage but no care,” he said, adding that fellow doctors (he’s an orthopedic surgeon) tell him that their patients can’t afford the deductibles. “The majority of the American people oppose it and they know in their gut something is wrong,” Price said.

He said his own alternative, H.R. 2300, would cover all Americans, not raise taxes and cost less than the Affordable Care Act, while allowing states to experiment with more efficient healthcare approaches.

“Nice work if you can get it,” responded moderator David Wessel, a Brookings fiscal and monetary policy specialist.

Under prodding, Price said the government should spend more on defense. But he stressed the need to let Congress’s specialized committees determine how much. “Defining resources before defining the mission and goals leads to folly,” Price said. Another area that needs more dollars is infrastructure, he agreed, “but that doesn’t seem to get any traction.”

He recommended cuts in commerce and education, saying the federal government could spend less money on schools “if it were less prescriptive.” Overall, Congress has done “a terrible job” of setting priorities, Price said.

Asked by Government Executive whether Republicans on the budget and appropriations panels consider the possibility of a presidential veto when they set spending levels, Price implied they did not, noting that a budget resolution does not require the president’s signature. Nor should it, he added.