Dec. 17, 2014 SIGN IN | REGISTER
Download CQ Roll Call's Definitive Guide to the 114th Congress | Sign Up for Roll Call Newsletters | Get the Latest on the Roll Call App

Change the Budget Process? Give Us All a Break

You would think that the deficit and national debt that many in Congress keep telling us are way too big would prompt a serious discussion about what should be done that has at least some prospect of actually succeeding.

But what instead is being proposed as salvation from our devil-sent combination of fiscal afflictions and budget transgressions? Apparently, all we have to do to be delivered is to change the Congressional budget process.

And for some reason, putting the country on the path to economic good health and righteousness once again includes the perennially proposed change from a one- to a two-year federal budget, even though that has never been proved to have any value whatsoever and could actually make things much worse.

Thats not to say this is unexpected. Blaming the process is a mainstay of the budget debate in Washington, D.C. Congress typically proposes to do something about the budget process when it cant or wont do anything about spending and revenues. This has been observed so often over the years that its now a basic fact of life among budget insiders.

So its not at all surprising that, given Congress continuing inability to agree on the deficit reduction proposal so many say is needed, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) last week pushed his committee to approve legislation that would change the budget process.

It was, however, very disappointing.

It was also just the latest sign that theres going to be little progress on the federal budget this year.

Im hardly the first person to insist that changing the budget process is just a cover for not dealing with the real issues. Although its repeated often, its been more than a quarter-century since Congressional Budget Office Director Rudolph Penner provided one of the most famous quotes in federal budget history when he said that the budget process is not the problem; the problem is the problem. Penner also told a House Rules subcommittee reviewing the budget process in 1984: A process, no matter how well designed, cannot make difficult problems easy.

The truth is that even if there was no process change at all, let alone the changes Ryan thinks are needed, Congress already has all the power and procedures it needs to deal with the budget. In fact, the process barely matters.

As weve learned repeatedly from the debates of the past few decades when the House, Senate and White House didnt implement some part of the supposedly required budget procedures, no rules force Members of Congress or the president to cut spending or increase revenues if they dont want to do so.

Thats why having joint instead of concurrent budget resolutions, requiring that the CBO provide dynamic scoring cost estimates for proposals, and changing the way baselines are calculated, all of which are required by the legislation approved by the House Budget Committee last week, wont make a dimes (let alone a trillion dollars) worth of difference.

But another proposed change that Ryan and others are pushing biennial budgeting is the biggest fraud of all.

comments powered by Disqus

SIGN IN




OR

SUBSCRIBE

Want Roll Call on your doorstep?