Where's the Budget Outrage?" is a question asked by columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. in an op-ed in today's Washington Post. In it he discusses the "cut-the-poor, help-the-big-interests federal budget," and the vote on the budget reconciliation bill that is taking place in the House tomorrow. This op-ed is a good read, especially as we prepare to hear President Bush outline his agenda on budget, tax, and health care issues in tonight's State of the Union.

Despite the plethora of issues Congress will be addressing this legislative year, the leadership has created a compressed election-year schedule, allowing very little time for actual work to be done. Congress will devote 72 days this year to work on legislative business. (Remeber: votes are generally only held Tuesday - Thursday of any given week). They are scheduled to recess for the year on October 6 in order to give lawmakers up for re-election a full month in which to campaign back in their districts.

When Mondays and Fridays are included, Congress will be in session for 125 days; the lowest number of days in any legislative session in the past 20 years. In fact, since 1985 Congress has averaged 151.8 legislative days per year. The extremely brief schedule for 2006 may make it difficult for Congress to finish any of its appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year on October 1 - a task they struggle with even with significantly more time. It will most likely result in a number of the bills being rolled into an omnibus, a bad legislative practice that reduces oversite and accountability in the appropriations process.

Stan Collender, contributing editor of the National Journal, makes two excellent points calling out the White House for their faulty and ideological budget projections in his January 17 column Wolf! (subscription only). Collender has previously called attention to the misleading projections being churned out by OMB during the Bush administration and recommended a very high dose of skepticism when considering OMB budget forecasts (an issue OMB Watch has also highlighted frequently).

In his column, Collender states the White House has almost zero credibility on budget projections and writes there is more to the recent White House's release of the estimated budget deficit than meets the eye:

The White House's announcement of a possible $400 billion deficit estimate was for the current fiscal year -- 2006 -- rather than for the 2007 budget it will send to Congress in early February. That makes it possible, perhaps even likely, that the administration is trying to set us up for a 2007 budget proposal that will show a deficit higher than the $319 billion recorded in 2005 but lower than the new estimate of $400 billion in 2006. That would allow the president and his economic team once again to claim credit for making progress even though 2007 would actually be a retreat from 2005 results.

In addition, the White House has begun to try and blame increased spending for hurricane relief as the main culprit in the increasing deficit in order to deflect attention from the huge cost of additional tax cuts, another round of funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, and the first year of the new prescription drug benefit.

The continued use of smoke and mirrors around the administration's federal budget forecasts is a shame. President Bush has shrifted responsibility and side-stepped addressing the serious long-term fiscal problem the country faces by putting political considerations above honest analysis with regard to America's finances. We all deserve better.

With lobbying and ethics reform proposals starting to abound in Washington, additional details are continuing to emerge about the real difference it makes to have powerful lobbyists with access to unscrupulous lawmakers, particularly at the last minute.

The Washington Post ran a front page story today noting that a provision that would save private HMOs $22 billion over the next decade was dropped at the last minute from a budget bill in late 2005. According to the story:

That change was made in mid-December during private negotiations involving House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) and the staffs of those committees as well as the House Energy and Commerce Committee. House and Senate Democrats were excluded from the meeting.

This instance is simply one more example of why any lobbying and ethics reform must also address the budget and appropriations processes. Simply limiting gifts and changing the rules for lobbyists will not close the opportunities to secretly alter major legislation at the whim of a few powerful interests.

House Democrats David Obey (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), David Price (D-NC), and Tom Allen (D-ME) have produced a 14-point package to reform House rules. The package is cosponsored by 120 House Democrats, including Minority Leader Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Whip Hoyer (D-MD).

The package, according to Obey's office, "is designed to weaken lobbyist influence, strengthen fiscal discipline, curb abuses of power, outlaw the use of earmarks to buy votes for questionable legislation, create more time for serious Congressional oversight and prevent last minute legislative items from being slipped into conference reports between the House and Senate without a full public vote by the conference committee."

Specifically regarding fiscal responsibility, the package would put in place the following:

• A reconciliation measure shall not be in order if it would increase the size of the budget deficit compared to the CBO baseline for the coming or subsequent fiscal years. This rule may be waived only with the consent of the majority and minority leaders and if the House agrees to consider the rule by a 2/3 vote of the House.
  
  
• It would close the loophole in current rules under which Budget Act points of order do not apply to unreported legislation. Under present rules, amendments to an unreported measure are subject to Budget Act restrictions but the underlying bill is not.