|
| |
January 31, 2000 Opinion: Stable Process?
 | Recent developments that affect the FY 2001 budget process will lead to a less unstable
process than the ones since 1995. There is now less need for grandstanding on the
budget numbers. The action will be focused on the election process and jockeying for
position for the elections rather than the budget numbers:
 | There is now widespread acceptance of the unreal nature of the 1997
budget agreement caps for programs and the inability and undesirability of meeting these
numbers. (For example, see today's
Washington Post report on the House Speaker's position.)
[Note: The original reference is no longer available for free on the
web.] |
| The CBO has helped by providing alternative surplus numbers. Now,
you can take your pick. You are not stuck with one number which takes on a life of its own
regardless of what it means. It is your choice which number you want to use to make
your political point. Those who want to push for large tax cuts can continue to
assume the 1997 budget agreement and its cuts in programs; the surplus to match this
position is available from CBO. Those who don't think that there is room for a tax
cut are also served by CBO's numbers; you simply use the next alternative. At last
there are numbers spelled out that do not mask an unrealistic level for Federal programs. |
|
| If the numbers will not be the focus, then what will be? It will
be agency performance. This can be readily tied to
allegations of "waste." There are many reasons to focus on this
issue. These can be related to furthering the agenda of those who want to reduce the
Federal government as a matter of political principle, and they can be related to genuine
concerns about efficiency and effectiveness:
| If there is no longer reason to cut agency budgets on the basis of the
need to reduce the overall budget deficit, then agency failure to perform (i.e,
"waste and fraud") can be claimed as the basis for cutting the budget.
 | The additional benefit of this approach for those set on cutting budgets
is that it is difficult for the champions of programs to defend or justify "waste and
fraud."
|
|
| A focus on failed performance makes it easier for the budget cutters
(which still includes the majority in Congress) to cut specific agency budgets. This
can readily lead to overall cuts in the Federal budget, even absent an overall budget
deficit control imperative. (For the effects
that this type of mindless cutting can have, see my opinion
on "waste" of November 15, 1999 and what waste really is. In a
nutshell, I state: "Funding a large number of unneeded projects
that are viewed as the prerogative of Members of Congress does have an adverse effect on
agencies. Year after year the political leadership ignores the "nuts and
bolts" of government for political gain (and the Executive is also guilty of this),
directly resulting in wasting the taxpayers' money.)"
|
| There are also many who have concerns related to agency efficiency and
effectiveness, the slowness with which some agencies have adopted modern methods for doing
business, and the extent to which there is miscommunication in the government about what
is to be achieved by agencies, what can be achieved, and what has been achieved.
(For example, see today's Government
Executive Magazine web site, on the need to improve performance measurement and
communication related to it.)
|
| And in March the first agency annual reports on performance are due, as
required by GPRA. This will provide additional opportunities to focus on
performance, and to schedule hearings on how an agency has done and how the Administration
at large has done. Good ammunition in an election year, regardless
of your position on any program or budget issue.
|
|
| The bottom line on all this for agencies and those working on budgets
for agencies is that performance management, and the use of system requirements in
this regard, is the best defense in the budget process, whether it is focused on
"waste" to cut the budget or in meeting some lower number to cut a deficit.
I have stated this in the past. I suspect I will be repeating myself in the
future - the world is focused on performance. Those who show they are
performing will thrive. (For a prior opinion related to
performance, see the January 10 opinion.)
|
Back to top
|
