By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, June 04, 2017
Members of Congress hate budget drama. But there is
budget drama coming.
Representatives and senators of both parties generally
dislike voting on budget resolutions, because doing so is an all-pain, no-gain
exercise. That is one of the reasons why, for example, the Democrats in 2010
did not pass a budget in spite of their controlling the House, the Senate, and
the presidency.
Budget resolutions are like little fiscal Paris
Agreements: non-binding statements of policy goals. Members of Congress have to
vote for or against a package of spending proposals that is bound to be
unpopular with someone, with
Democrats fearful of looking like spendthrifts and Republicans shy about
grandma-over-the-cliff ads. But budgets don’t actually have any meaningful
force of law, and they don’t control how Congress actually spends money. So
members of Congress can end up paying a fairly high political price for a vote
that in reality amounts to approximately squat.
But there is a way to use budget resolutions to limit
spending — budget reconciliation — that some congressional Republicans want to
employ in the upcoming budget negotiations.
If you’ll indulge an itty-bitty bit of budget wonkery,
here’s what’s happening:
In 1974, a Congress worried about mounting debt and
deficits passed the Congressional Budget Act, which, among other things,
created a legislative process known as “budget reconciliation,” about which you
have heard a great deal in recent years. Reconciliation can be used to expedite
certain bills involving taxes, spending, and debt limitation. Reconciliation
tends to be popular with the majority party, because reconciliation bills are
immune to filibuster. When the Democrats weren’t sure they could get the
Affordable Care Act through the Senate, they considered putting it in a
budget-reconciliation bill to expedite its passage. (Which they kinda-sorta did
and kinda-sorta didn’t.) The process is supposed to make it easier to make
Congress behave in a fiscally responsible way.
Results have been mixed at best. Congress is full of
congressmen.
There is at the moment a movement afoot among
congressional Republicans to use reconciliation in the way it is supposed to be
used. Passing a budget resolution does not force the various committees with
authority over specific spending items to adopt any particular policy, but
including reconciliation directives in the budget can force spending cuts: A
reconciliation directive can tell a committee to cut $x out of a certain spending area under its jurisdiction, and that
is binding, even if it cannot force the committee to achieve those savings in
any particular way. But if the committee’s members cannot agree on a way of
meeting their requirements under the reconciliation directive, then legislative
rules are invoked that empower the budget committee (House or Senate) to
effectively make those decisions for them. It is the only real source of power
that the budget committees have at their disposal, which is why being on Ways
and Means is a lot more prestigious than being on the House Budget Committee.
What some congressional Republicans are considering is
using reconciliation to impose $400 billion to $500 billion in spending cuts,
spread out over ten years, to so-called mandatory spending. Usually, “mandatory
spending” refers to the big-ticket entitlement programs: Social Security,
Medicare, etc. But because Washington is full of crazy people, Social Security
is specifically exempted from the reconciliation process, so that’s off the
table. But there is a lot more than the popular retirement entitlements in mandatory
spending: There’s also SNAP and TANF and other welfare programs, agriculture
subsidies, federal pension and retirement-benefit programs, some grant
programs, and much else. Those outlays together add up to an enormous bucket of
money, but each of those programs also has a built-in constituency that makes
it difficult to impose cuts. It’s the old problem of concentrated benefits vs.
dispersed costs: The few thousand people getting big farm-subsidy checks every
year will fight a lot harder to keep them than the 300 million people funding
those programs will fight to keep the few pennies a year that each of them pays
in taxes to support them. While using reconciliation to impose cuts is not
universally popular, there are some in Congress who would absolutely love to
have reconciliation force them to do the right thing that they don’t have the
huevos to do on their own initiative.
The problem is that for a gang of mindlessly conformist
right-wing automatons all taking their marching orders from the same cabal of
nefarious billionaires, congressional Republicans are an awfully
independent-minded bunch, and getting them to agree on a single approach is not
easy.
“Some have argued, rightly or wrongly, that over the past
five or six years, we haven’t got much done,” says one Hill staffer close to
the process. “But we have significantly reduced non-defense discretionary
spending.” That’s true: Non-defense discretionary spending has in real terms
been cut by about a fifth since 2010. But that category covers only about 19
percent of spending. “Other members may think we can cut further, but
discretionary spending is not the driver of the debt. Mandatory spending is.
We’ve done our job on discretionary spending, but those with jurisdiction over
mandatory spending haven’t.”
The issue is that Republican leaders are afraid that
using reconciliation to force cuts to mandatory spending will lead to an ugly
political brawl that might endanger what they really want to get done this time
around: using reconciliation for tax reform. But some deficit hawks are ready
to dig in, and they are reminding the leadership that if the budget fails to
get out of committee, then that will imperil tax reform, too. The question is
how much of a fight they are willing to put up and how far Republican leaders
are ready to go in pursuit of a united front.
On top of the mandatory-spending issue, there are live
disputes about defense and non-defense discretionary spending, too. And it will
not be easy for Republicans to work these out, because Republicans — crazy as
this may sound — simply do not all agree with one another about spending
priorities. There are defense hawks who want to increase military spending by
even more than President Trump’s proposed 10 percent hike. There are those who
want to push for even deeper cuts to non-defense discretionary spending. And
Paul Ryan insists that whatever is in the Republican budget, it will balance in
ten years.
Adding to the drama is an undercurrent of urgency:
Republicans are in the strongest political position they’ve enjoyed in a
century, but they do not expect that to last. They have what may end up being a
once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity.
All together, this should make for some fine theater. But
if Republicans can figure out a way to stand together on budget priorities, it
may amount to a great deal more than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment