GOP wary of plan to move up deferred pay checks

President Clinton's proposal to move back into fiscal 2000 the $10 billion in deferred funding obligations that were put off into fiscal 2001 in last fall's omnibus appropriations bill-including the paychecks of thousands of military personnel and government workers-is being viewed suspiciously by many of the same Republican budget hawks who only months ago criticized the deferred funding idea as a blatant budget gimmick.

Because the Congressional Budget Office last year was projecting an on- budget deficit for fiscal 2000, GOP leaders and the Clinton administration used a number of accounting devices to push some expenses from fiscal 2000 into fiscal 2001-so they could make good on their pledges not to use any of the Social Security surplus to cover annual appropriations.

But with the CBO now forecasting a $23 billion on-budget surplus in fiscal 2000-and the OMB projecting an even larger $32 billion-the administration now says the federal government should have a large enough surplus outside of Social Security to pay for these expenses in the current fiscal year, rather than waiting until fiscal 2001.

Clinton's fiscal 2001 budget now advocates paying in fiscal 2000 $6 billion in discretionary outlays and $4 billion in mandatory outlays currently deferred until fiscal 2001. That includes $3.5 billion in military paychecks and another $800 million in federal workers' pay now slated to go out the first Monday in fiscal 2001 instead of the regular Friday payday, which falls in fiscal 2000. Other components include $1.3 billion in other deferred defense expenses, primarily in payments to contractors, as well as $1.8 billion in veterans compensation and $2.2 billion in Supplemental Security Income payments.

Clinton's plan sounds like good government-but a leading fiscal conservative, Rep. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said, "It wasn't good government when we did it before, and it isn't good government now." Coburn added the entire projected FY2001 surplus of $23 billion is being generated by Medicare Part A payroll taxes, and if Congress refused to spend Social Security surpluses for anything other than Social Security, "We certainly should do the same thing with Medicare."

Rep. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who sits on the House Budget Committee, called Clinton's proposal "a device designed to facilitate more spending in fiscal 2001," because shifting the $10 billion from fiscal 2001 back into the current fiscal year would have the effect of increasing the projected on-budget surplus for fiscal 2001 by $10 billion-and, in the opinion of fiscal conservatives, give the administration and Congress another $10 billion to spend. Toomey plans to introduce legislation creating a budget point of order against any bill that would use the fiscal 2000 on-budget surplus for anything other than paying down debt.