Budget Battles: Compromising positions

In recent years, the president's budget has been called everything from "dead on arrival" to the proverbial bold new initiative that will change the world. But the Clinton fiscal 2001 budget, which was sent to Congress Monday, should be referred to as an invoice-the "exit fee" presented to Congress that will allow members to leave Washington at the end of the session to go home and campaign.

This year, the only things that have to get done are the 13 fiscal 2001 appropriation bills, and each one will require either a presidential signature or a two-thirds majority in both houses willing to override a veto. But with a two-thirds majority on even insignificant legislation all but impossible in today's post-impeachment/pre-election political environment, the only way Congress is going to get out of town is to give the President much of what he wants. This means that the Clinton 2001 budget provides a map of where Congress will have to go to get going.

This is not all that different from what happened last year when, under similar circumstances, White House officials were able to wait for congressional Republicans to come to them rather than entering into early negotiations. Although many of the reports at the end of last session were that the President had not gotten as much as might have been expected, the truth was that by the time the negotiations took place, Congress had already realized what had to be done on many issues to get the President to sign the bills and had adopted some of those policies as its own. Take education, for example. Several years ago, congressional Republicans talked about eliminating the Department of Education; last year they were adamant about increasing education funding above what the President proposed. That left less for the White House to demand.

Last year's budget journey was very painful for Congress. The reason it took so long to get to the negotiation stage was that the Republican leadership first had to convince its members that compromising with the White House was necessary. This year begins with Congress already having that experience under its belt and admitting that is the case.

So regardless of some of the criticism the Clinton fiscal 2001 budget has already received and the negative things that may be said about it over the next few days, the reality is that congressional Republicans will have little choice but to take much of it-especially the appropriations proposals-seriously. If they do not, this session of Congress might last much longer than many members can stomach.

This is one of the biggest reasons the White House has upped the ante in this year's budget debate. Although the common assumption has been that the large number of new proposals in the Clinton budget are primarily designed to establish the President's legacy, the signs are clear that they were also included to provide the administration with the best possible bargaining position.

The White House's calculation seems to be as follows:

1. Congress cannot enact the appropriations without the President's signature.
2. Last year congressional Republicans needed months to realize that they had to work with the administration; this year they know it going in.
3. This year Congress has less time to negotiate because it wants to get home to campaign full-time as early as possible in the fall, so the president will have even more leverage.
4. Under similar circumstances last year, Congress ended up giving the president much of what he wanted-in some cases even before he asked for it.
5. This means that this year the White House should be proposing more. Even if Congress only meets the administration half way, the White House will achieve a substantial part of what it wants.

When viewed in this light, the White House proposal to revise the Budget Enforcement Act caps on appropriations appears to be part of the grand strategy. Although it is definitely an attempt at more honest budgeting, it is also a way to make it politically and procedurally easier for Congress to give the administration what it wants.

This is not to say that the White House will get everything it wants. The proposals for entitlements and taxes seem to be particularly problematic. It does mean, however, that the general priorities expressed in the president's budget should be taken as a strong indication of where Congress will have to put serious money to complete this year's debate.

Question Of The Week

First some unfinished business from two weeks ago, when you were asked to guess the color of the Clinton fiscal 2001 budget. It is white and black, and the winner of the all new "I Won A 2000 Budget Battle" T-shirt is Bruce Brown, who works at the State Department in Washington, D.C. Although many people guessed black, Bruce was the only one to include white as the primary color to go along with the black highlights.

Last Week's Question. The question was, "Never mind what color the Clinton budget really is, what color would you pick if you were director of the Office of Management and Budget?" The winner of the "I Won A 2000 Budget Battle" T-shirt asked not to be mentioned by name. The winning entry was:

1. If I wanted to help my chances of serving in a Gore administration-earth tone, the color of choice for the alpha budget;
2. If I wanted to help my chances of serving in a Bush administration-stained blue;
3. If I wanted to help my chances of serving in a Bradley administration-the Knicks colors;
4. If I wanted to help my chances of serving in a McCain administration-Naval white;
5. If I wanted to highlight the bold realism of taking the first step in ditching the spending caps-clear;
6. If I wanted to cynically signal the continuance of purely politically driven proposals that have no chance of being enacted-smoky mirrored; and,
7. If I wanted to dramatically demonstrate the first budget of the new millennium and the digital age-the four colors of the Microsoft Windows logo.

Last Chance! Sign Up Now For "Budget Disco"

Want to find out more about what the fiscal 2001 federal budget debate will mean for you and your company, agency or association without your falling asleep during some really boring presentation?

Click here to request details about "Budget Disco," a half-day executive briefing on Feb. 16 in Washington, D.C., conducted by yours truly and sponsored jointly by the National Journal Group and Fleishman-Hillard. The latest in computer presentation techniques-including sound and visual effects that will bring back memories of your nights on the disco dance floor-make this the most fun and useful briefing you will attend all year. Special discounts are available for groups of four or more. Breakfast, a briefing book and materials are included.