By Stan Collender, NationalJournal.com
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2007

This is one of those weeks when there's a lot that needs to be said to the players in the federal budget debate about what they are (and mostly are not) doing. Here are three memos I'd like to send to the White House, Democrats in Congress and the House and Senate budget committees.

TO: The White House
RE: The Veto Strategy Won't Work

President Bush absolutely does not look fiscally responsible and tough on spending by threatening to veto everything that moves. Instead, he appears weak and seems to have learned nothing about governing while he's been in office.

You may pretend otherwise, but the president does not have strong budget credentials. Even highly partisan, fiscally conservative Republicans have criticized the president's record on spending. Every time he threatens to veto a bill, people are reminded that the president didn't stop one piece of spending legislation during his first six years in office -- that is, while the GOP had a majority in both houses of Congress.

Instead of looking tough, the president's veto warnings makes him sound like the kid on the playground who threatens to take his ball and go home unless someone picks him for his or her team.

This is going to get worse in the next few weeks when one of the president's vetoes is likely to be overridden. That will convince a handful of congressional Republicans that what the White House and GOP leadership have been saying isn't true: The world, the nation and the Republican Party will not be damaged if Congress overrides the president. That handful may well make the difference on subsequent veto overrides.

The strategy that would have a much longer lasting positive impact on the legacy the administration seems so desperate to establish would be to bring everyone together and work out arrangements that keep the process moving forward. As a percentage of total spending, total domestic spending and certainly the GDP, the $22 billion difference between what the president requested in his FY08 budget and what Congress wants to spend isn't even equal to a rounding error. An accommodation acceptable to both sides should be very doable and the president will get credit for making it happen if he takes the lead.

TO: Democrats on House and Senate Appropriations Committees and Congressional Leadership
RE: Get on with It!

Rather than continuing to agonize about it much longer, it's time to pick a strategy for dealing with the White House on the FY08 appropriations. The narrowest of margins -- one vote -- exists in the Senate. You likely won't get everything you want, and you may have to compromise with the administration on some issues. That may be somewhat ego deflating, but so is appearing to be paralyzed.

The president vetoing something and Congress not being able to override it may not be the worst thing that happens to you and may well be more harmful to the administration than to the Democratic majority. GOP senators and representatives supporting this president may actually suffer more than you.

It's obvious that many committee members are old school and think that getting appropriations bills enacted is their responsibility. The committees' staffs are not happy about the current situation. It's also clear that a good deal of work is going on behind the scenes, and the formal conferences on each of the bills will likely go relatively quickly once they begin.

In other words, not passing FY08 appropriations is getting old.

TO: House and Senate Budget Committees
RE: Time to Shift Your Focus

Your responsibilities for the FY08 budget debate essentially are over. You've already exceeded expectations by getting a budget resolution through this year when few thought it possible. The ongoing appropriations battle may be infuriating, but it's not really your fight at this point.

The big, longer-term budget problems we all know about -- the large and growing national debt, Medicare and a permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax -- will be more intractable next year than they have ever been because of the high-stakes presidential election. Hearings may make you feel good but won't really accomplish much.

These big issues are always politically sexy, but the committees will be more effective and credible next year and beyond if they spend time on the smaller issues that are wreaking havoc with the budget but have so far escaped attention.

For example, Blackwatergate has made it clear that the Pentagon has been forced to use contractors because it doesn't have enough active-duty troops to fulfill its mission. It looks like the decision to use contractors was made to keep spending and the deficit lower than they would otherwise have been. It also appears as if the same thing has happened with the National Guard and reserves, and that has put the military and the country in a very precarious position.

This raises several important and far-reaching budget questions. Was this, in fact, a budget-driven strategy? If so, did those who review the Pentagon's submission at the Office of Management and Budget direct and approve it? Has anyone determined what it will cost in the future in terms of pay, bonuses and living expenses to increase the number of active-duty troops so that contractors are not needed?

Most important, if deliberately underestimating the number of troops needed to fulfill the mission was indeed a Pentagon/OMB/White House-approved budget strategy, is this being done at other departments and agencies as well? For example, are FEMA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Federal Bureau of Prisons deliberately underestimating the staff they need? Are they assuming they will be able to rely on contractors to get the work done when an emergency occurs? Do contractors exist that can do this work? And does it cost more and is it at least as effective for the federal government to use contractors than to rely on federal workers?

How about requesting a GAO study on the use of contractors at all federal agencies and departments?

-- Stan Collender is a NationalJournal.com contributing editor and managing director at Qorvis Communications in Washington, D.C. A frequent speaker on the budget and the economy to audiences across the country, he is also author of "The Guide to the Federal Budget" and writes the new blog, Capital Gains and Games. His e-mail address is secollender@nationaljournal.com.

[ Budget Battles Archives ]

Need A Reprint Of This Column?
National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 877-394-7350.