Budget Battles: Decaf, extra skim milk, extra sugar

The current debate over the fiscal 2001 congressional budget resolution is both sad and infuriating.

The sad part is that for at least the third year in a row, the budget resolution is going to be largely meaningless. The House and Senate were unable to settle differences on a fiscal 1999 resolution so a compromise was never adopted; the fiscal 2000 resolution was passed but it included no real decisions; and now the fiscal 2001 budget resolution will not really indicate what Congress will do the rest of the year on spending and taxes but instead will reflect only what is needed at the time the legislation is debated to get a majority to vote for it.

Contrary to what budget resolutions were intended to do, the 2001 budget resolution will not be a fiscal blueprint for the rest of the year. Instead, it will be forgotten or ignored by virtually everyone on Capitol Hill within a few days of its passage. It will guide no decisions and will limit nothing.

The infuriating part is all of the time, effort and energy being wasted on this meaningless debate.

The fire and brimstone rhetoric about the almost $597 billion for discretionary spending being above a nominal freeze ignores the fact that even a freeze would be above the statutory cap. Even the supposedly arch fiscal conservatives who are angry about $597 billion are themselves arguing for more spending than current law allows, and so are not without the budget sin of which they are accusing their colleagues.

More important, however, is that virtually everyone involved in this year's budget debate understands there is no way appropriations will be held to $597 billion, regardless of what the budget resolution says. With military spending almost certain to rise to somewhere around $307 billion, it is clear that neither Republicans nor Democrats are going to support what it will take to keep nondefense spending at $290 billion.

Furthermore, with the White House proposing some $612 billion for fiscal 2001 appropriations, the president's signature needed for Congress to avoid a shutdown and adjourn for the year, and little possibility of a two-thirds vote to override a veto, it has been clear for some time that that fiscal 2001 discretionary spending would be $10 to $20 billion more than the compromise budget resolution worked out by House Budget Chairman John Kasich, R-Ohio, and Senate Budget Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M.

The level of discretionary spending included in the fiscal 2001 budget resolution will do little more than define the amount of spending that will have to be approved using the various gimmicks that have become a standard part of the budget debate in recent years. The calculation is simple: take $612 billion, subtract whatever ultimately is included in the budget resolution, and you have the answer. Whether it is the Kasich/Domenici-proposed $597 billion, the $586 billion demanded by Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, or some other number, the top line is likely to remain the same. The only question is whether the budget resolution accurately reflects this, or whether smoke, prestidigitation and silliness will be needed to get there.

The same is true on the revenue side of the budget. The Kasich-Domenici compromise already accommodates a tax cut that virtually no one thinks will actually be enacted this year. Why then is anyone demanding that the budget resolution assume that an even larger and less likely tax cut will be put in place?

And what does the column's headline have to do with any of this? When a customer asks for this type of coffee in certain establishments, the person behind the counter orders it by calling for a "Why Bother." The same could be said for this year's budget resolution debate.

Question Of The Week

Last Week's Question. On what date can the full House of Representatives start to debate the appropriations for the coming fiscal year even if the budget resolution conference report has not been adopted? According to Section 303(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, the answer is May 15. The winner of the "I Won A 2000 Budget Battle" T-shirt, who was selected at random from the correct responses, is Jim Carter, who works for the congressional Joint Economic Committee in Washington.

This Week's Question. What character from a current or previous television show might make a big difference if he or she held an official position in the federal budget debate? For example, how about Tony Soprano as director of the IRS? Send your response, which must include both the character and the budget job they should have, to scollender@nationaljournal.com by 5 p.m. EST on Saturday, April 1. You could win your own "I Won A 2000 Budget Battle" T-shirt to wear while doing the serious spring cleaning that you will no doubt be starting very soon.