|
Friday, October 19, 2007
Discretionary Budget Caps: Who Needs 'Em?
After yesterday's post on the budget process, I got to thinking: what's the point of the Congressional Budget Resolution (see this Powerpoint for budget process basics)?
Budget process experts will tell you that it brings order and coordination to the annual budget. But it also puts pressure to keep discretionary spending low.
I'm talking about the cap on discretionary spending. Once it's set, it's rarely exceeded. In fact, its purpose is to make sure that spending does not go above a certain level. That is anti-spending.
And is it even necessary? I can imagine a budget resolution without a cap that still helped coordinate the efforts of the two Houses. It could set goals for each appropriations bill and give reconciliation instructions. It could even set a topline goal. But it wouldn't have to make it enforceable.
If there isn't a cap, groups won't be fighting each other as much for funding. It'd be easier to add funding once the bills were on the floor. And it'd be even easier to readjust the appropriations bills for surprises. Supplementals wouldn't be as common, I'd imagine.
In fact, if we really wanted to facilitate discretionary spending, we could make it a funding "floor" instead of a cap, i.e. funding couldn't be any lower than X. That could improve coordination at the same time.
The fact of the matter is that the annual budget process is broken. We've now got supplemental appropriations bills that have almost reached $200 billion. Increased discretionary spending is a high priority, it seems, but the budget process might be thwarting or distorting its expression.
Posted by Matt Lewis
|