WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 (UPI) -- The current federal budget process may someday lead to the nation's bankruptcy.
Enacted while the misdeeds of the Nixon administration were imperiling the presidency itself, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is one of several laws during the period that took power and authority away from the executive branch, giving them back to Congress.
The Budget Act enhances Congress' power to spend money while avoiding actual or political responsibility. The cumbersome process does not work today and, most analysts argue, has never worked.
Up until the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the White House had no say in the budget and was not even permitted to submit suggestions unless specifically requested by Congress. The Great Depression changed everything.
With the economy in ruins, congressional leaders sought to find ways to share blame with the president. Even so, Roosevelt proposed nothing resembling a comprehensive federal budget.
The ceding of responsibility for the budget by the Congress to the White House began under FDR and was in full swing under Nixon, when Congress tried to wrench that power back in 1974. They managed to make more of a mess.
Modern-era presidential budgets typically have little in common with what the House and Senate Budget Committees -- created by the 1974 act -- eventually bring before the Congress. The new law required the president to submit a budget for the first time but included no provisions obliging the Congress to consider it.
Revenue issues are generally left to the House Ways and Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee. Spending issues are left to the House and Senate appropriations committees, which are supposed to work from the Budget Committee blueprint but often exceed its spending targets. The authorizing committees, which are supposed to deal with policy matters, have managed to elbow their way into the spending debate as well.
And any time the budget act is in the way of something Congress wants to do, it can vote to waive its provisions.
With all that, it should surprise no one that the work of Congress is frequently unfinished when the new fiscal year dawns Oct. 1. This leads to a series of "continuing resolutions" that keep the federal government running while a final package, usually called an omnibus spending bill, is pulled together.
In the omnibus, all the appropriations bills not yet passed and signed into law are lumped into one piece of legislation, typically with a generous dose of new spending Congress has never voted to approve and in many cases has not even discussed added in. If it passes, it goes to the president for his signature.
Or the government shuts down.
Either way, there is always lots of finger pointing.
Is it any wonder that federal spending is out of control and has been since the 1974 Budget Act was passed? While not the direct cause of deficit spending, the act's complexity lends political cover to individual members of Congress while giving the institution a black eye.
The current process is biased toward spending and against thrift. Time constraints, rather than keeping the number of new expenditures down, actually helps give them life as members can, by waiting until the omnibus, try to secure spending on projects that never would have made it out of committee.
In an effort to get control of the process, a coalition of conservative and moderate House Republicans has assembled a list of 12 principles for reform on which they agree, a remarkable achieve to anyone who understands the internal dynamics of the House Republican Conference.
"We all agree the current system rewards pork and encourages overspending," said U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "Now we've agreed on principles that will help us reform the process, clean up the government's books and fight wasteful spending."
These reform-minded members, of whom Ryan is a leader, begin by proposing to attach the force of law to the budget by making it a joint resolution requiring the president's signature; the current budget resolution does not.
They propose to label spending beyond the amount set by the budget as "uncontrolled debt," triggering an across-the-board reduction "for all mandatory and discretionary accounts, except Social Security."
They advocate the adoption of an enforceable "one-page budget" to take the place of 20 current separate budget functions, the establishment of an "emergency spending" budget to cover unforeseen needs and clearer identification of spending increases.
Their plan blocks spending outside the budget, enhances the president's ability to eliminate wasteful spending provided Congress gives its endorsement and calls on the federal government to present its full debts and liabilities in a clearer fashion, giving full accounting for "the accruing costs of pensions, retired pay, and retiree health benefits as they are earned by all federal civilian and military employees."
Ultimately, it is a matter of political will. The budget process cannot be reformed unless a sufficient number of members of the House and Senate decide it must be done. The consensus principles are a good indication that things are beginning to move in the right direction and may open the door to more significant reforms down the road.
--
The Peter Principles explores issues in national and local politics, American culture and the media. It is written by Peter Roff, UPI political analyst and a 20-year veteran of the Washington scene.
