It is hard not to be impressed by the many ironies of this year's budget debate. The surplus has made budget politics harder rather than easier. Paying down the debt has become more popular than tax cuts. And policies that lower interest rates seem to be at least as politically potent as those that create jobs.
The latest irony is congressional Republicans effectively abandoning one of the most successful budget-related charges ever leveled against Democrats-that they were "Tax and Spend"-and at the same time making themselves vulnerable to something possibly far worse.
The "Tax and Spend" label from the 1980s was simple: Democrats stood for higher taxes and increased spending. It slammed the Democrats twice because they were said to be both taxers and spenders.
Democrats tried to hit back by calling Republicans "borrow and spend," saying that Republicans were supporting policies that were putting the government deeply into debt by cutting taxes without supporting offsetting spending cuts. But whether it was too difficult to explain in a sound bite world, raised before the impact of government borrowing on interest rates was commonly accepted, tried before interest rates became politically important, or simply because Democrats had too little credibility on the issue, the countercharge never stuck. In the meantime, the Republican slogan became the federal budget equivalent of "Where's the beef."
The irony of the current situation is that, from a budget perspective, congressional Republicans are supporting something far less responsible than what they have been charging Democrats with all these years. Last week's almost straight party line vote in both the House and Senate in favor of a $792 billion tax cut at the same time that they were pushing on a number of fronts to spend more federal dollars makes Republicans vulnerable to being labeled not as "Tax and Spend" but as "Less Tax and Spend."
How else can the combination of the tax cut and the extraordinary reliance on gimmicks being used to circumvent the cap on appropriations be characterized? On the one hand Congress is voting for a tax cut based in large part on a surplus that is projected to occur only if the appropriations caps are maintained. On the other hand, Congress seems to be going out of its way to use whatever loopholes are available to make sure that spending exceeds those same limits.
Republicans will protest that they have pledged not to raise the caps and that the fiscal 2000 budget resolution affirms their commitment to maintaining the current limits. But while the caps may not actually be increased, spending is being approved in excess of what the caps allow. Just add the $7 billion in routine military spending that was labeled an "emergency" and added to the Kosovo supplemental, the $4.5 billion for the 2000 census that was also labeled an emergency, the $2.5 billion for ongoing veterans health care that at one point was considered an emergency, and the $7 billion disaster assistance for farmers that will be classified as an emergency, and the total is $21 billion in higher spending. This is on top of another $21 billion in highly questionable emergencies and the big increase for highway spending that Congress approved in 1998.
(The fact that the emergency designation was eventually removed from the veterans' health care spending is largely irrelevant. That it was even considered seriously makes the whole effort rather sordid.)
Whether the "Less Tax and Spend" charge can be made to stick is anything but clear. Thanks in large part to the Republicans' success with the "tax and spend" charge, Democrats still do not have a great deal of credibility on the issue. We are still in a sound bite world and explaining this may take more than five to eight seconds. And with the economy in such good shape there may not be enough concern about what Washington is doing to generate strong protests.
Nevertheless, the irony would be extremely amusing if it were not so biting at the same time.
Budget Battles Fiscal Y2K Countdown
With Congress having recessed through Labor Day, there are now only 17 legislative days left before the start of fiscal 2000. Congress typically conducts legislative business on Mondays and Fridays in September, so for now the assumption should be that all days left are available for votes on appropriations.
Question Of The Week
First, some unfinished business from several weeks ago. The question of the week from July 6 asked, "How many fiscal 2000 appropriations conference reports will be passed by both the House and Senate by the start of the August-Labor Day recess?" Now that Congress has left town for the summer we know that the answer was two: Legislative Branch and Military Construction. The winner of an "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt, who was selected at random from the handful of correct answers, is Ali Weise, from the office of Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash.
Last Week's Question. Under current budget process rules, what happens if Congress and the president agree to a tax cut without also agreeing to an equal amount of mandatory spending reductions and revenue increases? The answer is a pay-as-you-go sequester, which first reduces several programs according to a variety of special rules and then reduces a select group of mandatory programs. The "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt goes to Richard Kogan of the House Budget Committee, who was selected at random from the correct responses. FYI, Richard should know-he helped draft the PAYGO legislative language in a previous life.
This Week's Question. Rock and roll bands have wonderful names. If there were a band with a federal budget-related name, what would it be? For example, how about "The Designated Emergencies," "The Delayed Appropriations," or "The Temptations"? Send your response to scollender@njdc.com and you could have your own "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt to wear at an outdoor concert this summer.
NEXT STORY: TSP's C Fund slides