Opinions for September 4, 2000: How will the next President affect the budget process?
- I believe it is time to speculate about how budget and appropriations will change with a new President. Although neither of the two major candidates has stated what they would do as far as process is concerned, we can make some guesses as to what may happen.
- As far as having an overall Federal budget is concerned, I don't think that either of the two candidates will do much, or care much, about it. A budget that actually sets how much is spent and how much is collected (in taxes and other revenues) will continue to be an irrelevancy, as it has been this year. Neither candidate is likely to want to tangle with a process and system that is widely perceived as unnecessary when there is no deficit. Why enforce procedures and requirements that are painful when there is no gain? Work will go on using whatever numbers are convenient. Whatever can be safely ignored will be ignored, and most overarching issues will not be addressed. This is not to mean that there will not be calculations made as to the overall effect of various proposals - they will simply be glossed over and de-emphasized except when focusing on them would serve a policy priority.
- Without the need for and desire to focus on a Federal budget, the action will be on appropriations. I expect that there will be some differences in this regard between a President Bush and a President Gore.
- I would expect that biennial budgeting could get a new life under President Bush. This has been mostly a Republican issue. Texas has a biennial system with which Governor Bush is familiar. He may also appoint to his administration people with a background in Texas budgeting, which would result in a climate more favorable to a biennial appropriations process. President Gore would be less inclined to a biennial budget, both for practical and policy reasons. Some of the staunchest defenders of Congressional power and prerogatives, including not yielding the annual review of appropriations, are Democrats. It would not be in the interests of a Democratic President to antagonize these people. Furthermore, an activist President such as Gore would need an annual process for reviewing and approving resource allocations - new policy priorities need to be funded, and annual appropriations best serve the needs of new policies and priorities.
- Under President Bush the appropriations process would be less active than under President Gore. With little emphasis on domestic programs that require Federal activity, and with a focus on large tax cuts that imply reduced Federal spending, a Bush Presidency will result in agency budgets that may, at best, keep up with inflation. There would be little new programmatic emphasis associated with the appropriations process, and little incentive to do much as part of appropriations. Under President Gore we should expect more action on appropriations - his policy initiatives would be reflected in major changes in agency budgets, resulting in greater appropriations interest and activity. There would also exist greater opportunities for policy protagonists to attempt to influence outcomes through appropriations.
- These general trends would heighten if Congressional majority is the same party as the President's party. An interesting situation would develop if Congress is controlled by the opposition party. President Bush with a Democratic Congress or President Gore with a Republican Congress would result in fireworks - an interesting but cruel outcome for agency budgets.
If you have thoughts on these matters that you would like to share, please write me at Laszlo@budgetanalyst.com.
| Click for list of other opinions: | - from 2000 | ||
| - from 1999 | |||