With the Republican convention so choreographed, the fact that the federal budget was barely mentioned must be taken as an indication that it happened-or rather did not happen-by design.
Right now, the debate on the federal budget is at an absolute crossroads, where the economics, politics and processes of the past no longer match the fiscal decisions that have to be made. For the Republicans to choose not to use their national forum to engage in the debate was a huge missed opportunity.
It was the clearest sign yet that the 2000 presidential campaign will provide few, or perhaps no, real indications of the spending vs. taxing vs. debt repayment debate that has to take place over the next few years.
It will provide no guidance to policymakers on the political popularity of federal budget policies that could lead to lower interest rates compared to policies that could put pressure on them to be raised.
And it will do nothing to start preparing voters for the new and almost certainly decreased role that Congress and the White House will be playing in future national economic policy decisions, given the increasing ability of the Federal Reserve and financial markets to move quickly while Washington is usually stuck in fiscal molasses.
Of course, this is completely in keeping with the conventional wisdom that nothing positive would come from the 2000 election as far as the federal budget is concerned.
In fact, the conventional wisdom now looks somewhat timid. While "the budget" was hardly mentioned at the Republican convention, the budget issues that have so hamstrung previous debates-tax cuts, Pentagon increases, Social Security and Medicare-were discussed with the same level of sanctimony that was responsible for most of the stalemates of the past decade.
The failure of the budget to be much of an issue at the convention is also not surprising because, whether Republicans are willing to acknowledge it or not, the budget is one of the biggest success stories of the Clinton years (Budget Battles, May 30, 2000). The deficit will have fallen or surplus grown every year during the Clinton administration, the first time that will have happened during any presidency in U.S. history. It will appear to be even more of an accomplishment when compared to the record of the previous President, who just happens to be the father of this year's Republican nominee. (George Bush the elder presided over the largest deficit in U.S. history.)
This is not to say that the Democratic convention will be any less mired in the budget past, or that it will lead to more significant advances in the budget debate than occurred last week in Philadelphia. Democrats will have to do what the Republicans did-appeal to a primary base of supporters that, given the very low interest in this year's campaign, must be energized to get to the polls in November.
This means that a discussion of new and emerging federal budget issues most likely is seen by the political operatives of both parties as appealing to a group of voters so far outside their respective bases-and so unlikely to vote-that engaging them is not worth the time or effort. Even worse, it might actually be detrimental if it ended up turning off the base of voters whose participation is considered to be critical to both candidates.
At best, this situation means that the federal budget debates that follow the 2000 election will be just as stymied by the new questions and issues that must be answered as the past few years' debates have been. When the deficit unexpectedly changed into a surplus, it created a whole new world. But for now, at least, federal budget politics and policies are likely to be as conventional as ever.
Question of The Week
Previous Question. Two weeks ago "Budget Battles" readers were asked to test their culinary prowess by coming up with an entrée featuring a federal budget theme. The "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt goes to Susan Friedman of the American Osteopathic Association for suggesting a horseradish souffle-a puffed-up dish with a bitter aftertaste.
This Week's Question. Here's one for the budget history buffs who want to win their own "I Won A Budget battle" T-shirt. The Office of Management and Budget was not always an independent federal agency; it used to be part of another department. The question is, which one? Send your response to scollender@nationaljournal.com by 5 p.m. EDT on Saturday, Aug. 12. Please include your address so we can mail you the shirt if you win. If there is more than one correct response, the winner will be selected at random from all of the correct responses.
Who Is The Budget Person Of The Year?
What person or organization has had the most positive impact on this year's budget debate, and so should receive the coveted "Black Ink Award"? You get to choose. As soon as Congress adjourns for the year, readers will be asked to nominate their choice. In December they will be asked to vote for one of the top five nominees. All nominations and voting will be done online. More details will follow.
NEXT STORY: TSP's C Fund down slightly in July