As anyone who watched it well knows, "Seinfeld" was a television show about "nothing." And if you have any doubt that this year's budget debate was worthy of a Seinfeld episode, consider the following:
1. The final five fiscal 2000 appropriations were delayed for more than six weeks over about $6 billion, or approximately three-tenths of one percent of the total budget. If only discretionary spending is considered, the $6 billion was little more than one percent of everything that had to be approved.
2. The fact that the president would ultimately get much of what he wanted in the end was generally assumed when the budget process began, yet it still took more than six weeks after the fiscal year started to get everything done. With no prospect of getting a two-thirds vote on most issues, many budget analysts assumed the House and Senate were going to have to work with the White House or risk a politically disastrous government shutdown. But Congress stubbornly refused to admit its lack of leverage until late September.
3. Congressional Republicans ended up claiming the minuscule 0.38 percent across-the-board spending cut as a major victory that demonstrates their continued devotion to keeping spending under control, even though it reduced spending by just slightly more than $1 billion.
4. The GOP claim of keeping spending under control via a virtually insignificant across-the-board spending cut somehow ignores the fact that it was only needed because of other spending increases to which they previous agreed.
5. In spite of the hype surrounding the final pact this past week, there was no budget agreement between the White House and Congress; it was only an agreement on small parts of five fiscal 2000 appropriations. There was absolutely no agreement on taxes, entitlements or any of the larger issues, such as what to do with the surplus.
6. Both Democrats and Republicans are taking a great deal of credit for a budget that reduces the national debt by more than $100 billion in fiscal 2000. But the debt reduction was not done intentionally; it was the result of a lack of an agreement. (Unless legislation is passed to boost spending or cut taxes, any surplus automatically goes to pay down the debt.)
7. The caps on appropriations that have played a role in keeping the lid on spending, and therefore in creating the surplus, were more or less ignored as the fiscal 2000 appropriations were enacted. In fact, Congress and the administration essentially stopped talking about them in September. This probably signifies the end of their importance in the federal budget process.
8. Not "spending" the Social Security surplus somehow became one of the key budget issues this year, even though there was no serious discussion about whether that policy is fiscally good or bad or whether the program will be harmed if the overall budget surplus is less than the surplus in the Social Security trust fund.
9. Two weeks after the congressional leadership's claim that they had succeeded in balancing the 1999 budget without relying on Social Security, the Treasury's final numbers proved this to be false. The current claim-that the fiscal 2000 budget was balanced without relying on Social Security-is expected to be proved untrue when the Congressional Budget Office completes its final sequester report in the next two weeks.
10. The White House and Congress both relied on the biggest list of highly questionable gimmicks ever used in any budget debate to obtain most or all of the successes they claimed this year. Delayed paydays for some federal employees, delayed payments to some contractors, delayed obligations by some agencies, and extensive advance appropriations will push perhaps as much as $30 billion in fiscal 2000 outlays into fiscal 2001. In addition, the most audacious expansion of the "emergency" exception to the budget process spending limits ever considered means that fiscal 2000 spending will actually be much higher than anyone is admitting-even though the official numbers may not show it.
This "Seinfeld budget" debate was about nothing, and nothing much got done.
And while the television show ended its long run at the end of last year, the "Seinfeld" budget will probably show up again when the fiscal 2001 debate takes place. Unlike its namesake, however, this "Seinfeld" will likely not get any Emmys or other awards for excellence.
Have You Voted Yet?
For the second year in a row, "Budget Battles" is asking readers to help select the one person or organization that has had the most positive impact on this year's budget debate. Votes will only be accepted by e-mail through Dec. 14, 1999, and the winner will be announced in the last "Budget Battles" of the year. Only one vote will be accepted per person.
As selected by the readers, the five nominees for the 1999 Black Ink Award are (in alphabetical order) Rep. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; the Congressional Budget Office; House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.; Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan; and Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. Click here to vote for your choice.
Question Of The Week
Last Week's Question. The answer to last week's question-including everything labeled as emergency spending, how much over the fiscal 2000 cap will the Congressional Budget Office estimate that outlays will be?-will not be known for another week or so. The winner of the "I Won A Budget Battle" t-shirt will be announced as soon as possible. To be fair to those who have already responded, no further answers to this question will be accepted.
This Week's Question. Seven continuing resolutions were needed to keep all federal departments and agencies operating while Congress and the president worked out their differences on all fiscal 2000 appropriations. What is the highest number of CRs ever enacted in any one fiscal year? Answer correctly and you could win one of the last 1999 "I Won A Budget Battle" t-shirts that will ever be awarded. Send your response to scollender@njdc.com no later than Nov. 28, 1999.