While we here in the Budget Brigade are thankful that our respective alma mates are poised to clinch BCS bowl berths (hook 'em, Horns!), we are even more thankful that President Elect Obama has serious concerns about the current BCS system. That's change we can believe in!

The Budget Brigade will return to the BudgetBlog on Monday.

Have a great Thanksgiving and enjoy the day.

Image by Flickr user Jennifer13 used under a Creative Commons license.

The National Journal has been reporting this week that current Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Peter Orszag is in line to head up the Office of Management and Budget in the upcoming Obama administration. Orszag formerly served as a senior economic adviser during the Clinton administration and held a post in the economics studies program at the Brookings Institution.

Orszag has been impressive in his two year stint as the head of the CBO, which he began in January, 2007 and I think he would be an excellent choice to run the OMB for Obama. BudgetBlog readers will certainly know that we have high esteem for Dr. Orszag.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said Monday that he hopes to make sure a health care overhaul proposal he released last week is paid for over a 10-year period. But he left open the possibility that it would not comply with pay-as-you-go budget rules over five years, or perhaps at all.

"There are going to be some upfront costs, but they'll be investments," Baucus said after speaking at a Brookings Institution seminar on health care reform. "Over 10 years, some of the bulk of the upfront investments will be offset by cost reductions. But that's over a 10-year period."

The budget rules, which Democrats adopted at the beginning of the 110th Congress, generally require legislation authorizing new spending to be offset with spending decreases elsewhere or with tax increases. Democrats have often pointed to the budget rules as evidence of their fiscal discipline.

I've got a bit of an issue with that last sentence - or perhaps my issue is with the Democrats. They do like to cite PAYGO rules as evidence of their fiscal discipline. And it is good they voted to reinstate those rules in early 2007. But to be fiscally responsible, they actually need to follow the rules rather than waiving them whenever they please. Unfortunately, their commitment to PAYGO has been much more rhetorical than real over the last two years. The CQ article goes on to state that Democrats will feel pressure from their supporters, particularly labor unions, to pass health care reform regardless of costs. That's comforting. Who is steering this ship anyway?

The Republicans have been no better. In the same article, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Republican Charles Grassley (R-IA) states that "paying for health care reform needs to be done in an intellectually honest way for the fiscal health of our country." Is Grassley serious? I almost fell out of my chair when I read that. It leaves me wondering why Grassley hasn't had any problems with eight years of irresponsible, reckless, and downright stupid justifications for passing budget-busting tax cuts at any cost?

He hasn't seem too concerned with the fiscal health of our country when he has repeatedly advocated that since the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was never intended to impact millions of Americans, we might as well not pay for repealing it. That's what fiscal responsibility is about - intentions.

Grassley can't even be honest about the money-suck that is the IRS's private tax collection program, which has repeatedly been shown to cost the government more money than it brings in. Now he's seen the light and wants to be intellectually honest about budgeting and being fiscally responsible? That's not change we can believe in.

Image by Flickr user PhotoJonny used under a Creative Commons license.

The Bush administration is continuing its push to finalize hundreds of new regulations in an effort to cement its legacy before the new administration takes power on Jan. 20 next year. Also called "midnight regulations," these rules tend to get rammed through the regulatory review process before the lights go out on an administration, regardless of process violations or self-imposed cutoffs.

The Reg team here at OMB Watch is doing a fantastic job tracking these regulations, the vast majority of which benefit industries and corporations by relaxing or eliminating economic, environmental, health, and safety rules.

Yet another example appeared in the New York Times on Friday, this time targeting health care for low-income Americans. Robert Pear reports:

WASHINGTON — In the first of an expected avalanche of post-election regulations, the Bush administration on Friday narrowed the scope of services that can be provided to poor people under Medicaid's outpatient hospital benefit.

Public hospitals and state officials immediately protested the action, saying it would reduce Medicaid payments to many hospitals at a time of growing need.

The new rule conflicts with efforts by Congressional leaders and governors to increase federal aid to the states for Medicaid as part of a new economic action plan.

The Bush administration claims it is just trying to pay for services "more accurately and appropriately," while others say this is significant change to a long established Medicaid policy - that states get to define hospital outpatient services. Even if the Bush administration claim is true (and I've got my doubts), the practical effect is going to be fewer services for low-income folks covered through Medicaid. That's a shame.