After several possibilities were rejected before they could even be formally proposed, an across-the-board spending cut has emerged as the alternative now being considered (apparently very seriously) by congressional Republicans as the way out of the budget/appropriations morass in which they still find themselves.
Unlike many of the other proposals that have been considered in recent weeks, this one should be thought of as real rather than as a gimmick. It would do something other than push fiscal 2000 spending into a future fiscal year (as both advance appropriations and the Earned Income Tax Credit monthly payments would have done), and would not label an ongoing activity as an emergency.
But because it would actually cut spending, an across-the-board cut might also be far more difficult to get enacted than some of the gimmicks that have been discussed up to now.
The big question is: "What does the leadership really mean by "across the board?"
Immediately after it became clear that an across-the-board cut was being considered seriously, the assumption was that all appropriations would be affected. With a base approaching $600 billion in fiscal 2000, cutting across all programs would make the percentage reduction relatively small and more politically palatable.
It has become clear, however, that "across the board" does not mean the same thing to everyone.
For example, there is a great deal of confusion as to whether the handful of fiscal 2000 appropriations bills that have already been enacted would be included. Some are saying that it would be silly to revisit the appropriations that, because they were noncontroversial or because a deal was possible, have already managed to get through both houses of Congress and be signed by the president. Any changes in these bills might eliminate the coalitions that got them approved in the first place, and actually set the process back rather than allowing it to move forward.
Others, however, argue that exempting the appropriations already enacted would show preferential treatment for these programs and make the percentage reduction in all other programs larger because the base from which the across-the-board cut would have to be taken would be smaller.
There is also a serious question as to how cuts in enacted bills could be adopted. Would the appropriations be completely redone or would Congress consider a package of rescissions (that is, "unappropriate") for what was recently provided?
Second, it became increasingly obvious last week that what at least some members of the leadership had in mind was a highly selective across-the-board cut that would exempt certain programs. There is some discussion, for example, about not including Pentagon operations and maintenance, Defense Department salaries for uniformed personnel, and at least some veterans' programs.
This would obviously not be the same across-the-board cut that most people think of when the phrase is used. Instead, it would be a percentage reduction in some programs that would be used to pay for spending in other areas. This would be an across-the-board cut in name only.
This approach is unlikely to be successful. Some representatives and senators will vote against the plan because their favorite programs will get cut while others retain full funding. Others will vote against it because of the long laundry list of spending reductions that they would have to go on record supporting. Still others, like appropriations committee members, will vote against it because of the process imposed by the leadership and the general notion of across-the-board cuts as an acceptable policy.
Finally, a representative or senator whose program would be cut by a larger percentage because others have been exempted might realize that the across-the-board reduction would be smaller if they just allowed sequestration to happen at the end of the year. The across-the-board cut that would occur if a Budget Enforcement Act discretionary spending sequester happened would exempt fewer programs, so the base would be much larger. Equally as important, the sequester would happen with no votes-so no one would have to go on record supporting the reductions. To the contrary, everyone could vote to support the programs fully and then watch as the sequester took care of their budget/appropriations problem with a real across-the-board cut.
Question Of The Week
Last Week's Question. You would have heard a steady series of loud laughs coming from the judges this week as the many, many responses to last week's question of the week showed up on my computer screen. The most popular answer to the question, "What sign are you most likely to see on a road called Federal Budget Boulevard?" was "Slow, Children Playing" (with and without the comma). But this week's "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirts go to Paul Hrosch and Peggy Walkowiak for their separate entries of "Do Not Pass," which seemed amazingly appropriate this year.
This Week's Question. Here's another chance for the creative types out there in budget land to get your very own "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt. What would be the most appropriate e-mail address for the director of the Office of Management and Budget? Send your response to scollender@njdc.com.
Nominated Anyone For The 1999 "Black Ink Award" Yet?
For the second year in a row, "Budget Battles" is presenting the "Black Ink Award" to the person or organization that readers select as having the most positive impact on this year's budget debate. Nominations, which can be made only via e-mail, will be accepted through Friday, Oct. 29 (Only one nomination per person will be accepted.)
Through November, readers will be given a chance to vote for one of the top five nominees. The winner of the award will be announced in the final Budget Battles of 1999.
NEXT STORY: TSP's C Fund slides for third month