|
| |
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.
|
