One of the prime reasons the Congressional Budget Act was passed in 1974 was that Congress constantly had trouble getting all of the appropriations enacted by the start of the fiscal year and routinely had to rely on continuing resolutions to keep the government operating. In addition to imposing what were thought to be strict deadlines, the act changed the start of the federal fiscal year from July 1 to Oct. 1 to provide more time for the work to be completed. The hope was that these three months would turn continuing resolutions into a thing of the past.
That fact that this has not happened must be considered one of the biggest failures of the Congressional Budget Act. In what has once again become an annual ritual, Congress and President Clinton last week agreed to the fifth continuing resolution for fiscal 2000 because, in spite of the deadlines and the three extra months, there still is not enough time for all work to be completed by the start of the fiscal year.
In the wake of this situation, some analysts of and participants in the federal budget debate have been asking whether there is a way to fix the process and prevent the problems from happening again.
The answer is probably no.
One suggestion, for example, is to change the start of the fiscal year again, this time from Oct. 1 to Jan. 1. But this proposal ignores a very basic congressional fact of life: Congress usually comes to an agreement on big controversial issues like the budget only when the work must be completed before a recess or adjournment can begin. Changing the start of the fiscal year is likely to do little more than allow Congress and the White House to put off until late December what it otherwise would have tried to do by the end of September.
Equally as important, the Oct. 1-Dec. 31 period would not provide much additional time for legislative work. In a non-election year, the recesses around Columbus Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas would reduce the three months to at most six weeks of potential legislative time. This period would be shortened by another four weeks or so in an election year, when representatives and senators running for reelection would want to get back to their districts or states and campaign.
Besides, would any member of either house want to vote on appropriations before Election Day (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November) if the deadline for their enactment was seven weeks later on Dec. 31?
A second talked-about procedural fix is tighter deadlines that actually force Congress and the president to do something. But it is hard to conceive of anything that could force Congress and the White House to act if they do not want to, or can't get enough votes either to pass the budget initially or to override a veto. And the only real sanction-voter retribution-usually occurs long after the action (or lack of action in this case) takes place.
In recent years some members of Congress have pushed the concept of a two-year budget and appropriations as a way out of the annual problem of not getting the work done by the start of the fiscal year. But while that may eliminate the annual end-of-year problem, it would do so by creating an every-other-year problem that would be at least as difficult. It is even likely that two-year appropriations would be even harder to enact on time than annual spending bills, because the stakes would be that much higher. As a result, the problem might only occur half as often, but could easily be at least twice as hard to solve.
Vote Now For The 1999 Black Ink Award
In alphabetical order, the five nominees for the 1999 Black Ink Award are... 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 e-mail your choice for the person or organization that has had the most positive impact on this year's federal 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.
Question Of The Week
Previous Question. Some unfinished business from the question of the week of Oct. 26, which asked readers to specify the two ways that an across-the-board cut could be enacted for all fiscal 2000 appropriations even though a number of bills had already been signed into law. Most readers answered with rescissions and a sequester. But a sequester-an across-the-board cut that occurs when Congress and the president agree on appropriations that breach the Budget Enforcement Act cap for that year-is not correct for two reasons. First, it is imposed administratively rather than legislatively. Second, a number of programs are not covered.
The correct answer is that an across-the-board cut in all programs can be enacted either with rescissions for the bills already signed or by Congress and the president reenacting the previously adopted bills at the lower levels. No one got this right, so sadly, no one wins an "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt.
This Week's Question. Here is a question that everyone can take a stab at-even if they know nothing about the federal budget! Including everything labeled as "emergency spending," how much over the fiscal 2000 cap will the Congressional Budget Office estimate that outlays will be? Send your guess to scollender@njdc.com by Nov. 21, 1999. The answer closest to the CBO estimate wins an "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt to wear while watching the U.S. Mint's float in the Macy's parade on Thanksgiving.
NEXT STORY: Federal Y2K center almost ready for prime time