The last Budget Battles (May 12) ended by asking the following question:
If the two parties are closer now on the budget than they have been in a few decades, why is it proving so difficult for Congress and the White House to come up with anything that even remotely looks like a budget deal?
If the Republicans and Democrats were both pursuing tax and spend policies, why isn't a deal in the works this year that would add more for what each side wanted?
The answer is that this is one of the big differences between the politics of the deficit and the politics of the surplus.
With a surplus, it simply is no longer as important as it used to be for there to be a budget deal each year. Doing nothing means the surplus will be larger than it was the previous year, something that the political system, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve Board are still defining as positive. Not producing a budget deal in this situation is not the immediate sign of a political breakdown that it was when the deficit was not reduced.
In this new environment, other political factors tend to have a bigger influence on what happens. The need to agree on a budget deal no longer can be counted on to overwhelm every other political pressure, as was the case through much of the past two decades when the deficit was so enduring. Regardless of whatever else was happening politically in those years, the need to agree on a deficit reduction plan, or at least to not be seen as preventing it from happening, was usually the political bottom line. Now, however, with doing nothing on the budget each year an acceptable option, other political factors are much more important.
And for now, none of those other factors make a deal this year seem likely.
For example, with regaining control of the House a real possibility in their minds, congressional Democrats are not interested in doing much that will make the Republican majority appear to be successfully managing either the nation's affairs or congressional business. A budget deal not only would do this but would also allow Republicans to reinforce their base level of supporters and neutralize some Democratic constituencies.
The White House, which feels that it owes a great deal to congressional Democrats because of their support during the impeachment process, is not about to start negotiating with Republicans and undercut its supporters. This "triangulation" on the budget frequently infuriated congressional Democrats early after the Republican's won the majority in 1995, but it is not likely to be repeated now. In fact, there has been no indication that the administration has begun even private discussions with House and Senate Republican leaders on a budget deal.
Congressional Republicans are in a far different and much more difficult political situation. If they deal with the White House they take the risk of again infuriating their political base, which passionately dislikes both President Clinton and the higher spending that he would demand for some of his priorities.
The problem is that the president has proven repeatedly that he will have the upper hand if a stalemate develops and some type of last minute accommodation is needed to avoid a government shutdown or allow Congress to adjourn for the year. This is why congressional Republicans cannot pursue a budget deal but cannot afford to refuse it if one somehow becomes available on their terms. Of course, with congressional Democrats and the White House not needing a deal because of the surplus, the likelihood of that happening is far lower than it has been in recent years.
So, with apologies to Bob Dylan, the surplus means the budget times and politics have indeed been a-changing. Or with apologies to Oldsmobile, this is clearly is not your father's budget process. Or, with apologies to Dorothy, we definitely are no longer in budget Kansas anymore.
Fiscal Y2K Countdown
Including today, there are 57 potential legislative days before fiscal 2000 begins. Not including Mondays and Fridays, when Congress frequently does not conduct legislative business, there are only 36 days left.
None of the 13 fiscal 2000 appropriations bills have yet been passed by the House or Senate.
Question Of The Week
Last Week's Question. I have to admit that I was overwhelmed by both the quantity and quality of the responses to the last question of the week, which asked you for a quote from Shakespeare or the Bible that would somehow be appropriate for the federal budget debate. Budget Battles readers are obviously far more literate and religious than I imagined. Of course, they might just have far better Internet search skills than I thought possible. Either way, the responses were spectacular.
"I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirts are being awarded to separate winners in the Shakespeare and Bible categories. The Shakespeare winner is David DelQuadro of the Congressional Budget Office, who suggested a quote from "MacBeth" that might easily be used by a budget committee chairman in a letter to CBO Director Dan Crippen: "If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow, speak to me."
The Bible winner is Pat McMurray of MSNBC, who suggested this all-encompassing quote from the book of Timothy: "The love of money is the root of all evil."
This Week's Question. George Hager of The Washington Post e-mailed Budget Battles to say that last week's question should have been broadened to include literature in general. So if you want your own "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt to wear while waiting in line for "The Phantom Menace," just come up with a quote from any other classic novel or play other than Shakespeare that somehow describes part of the federal budget debate. Send your responses to scollender@njdc.com.
NEXT STORY: McCain, Levin renew base-closing fight