|
Reining in the Budget Process
Friday, February 13, 2004
By: Tom Schatz
Commentary
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are reviving budget reform discussions that in the past have led nowhere. But now that President Bush has presented a fiscal 2005 budget to Congress with a $521 billion deficit, talk may turn to action. The budget system needs immediate surgery to hasten the process and reduce wasteful spending, including: term limiting appropriators, enforcing procedural rules, restricting pork, and a biennial budget.
Term limiting appropriators: Members of the appropriations committees are some of the most powerful members of Congress. In fact, the 13 subcommittee chairs are referred to as "Cardinals." Having a seat on the committee makes it easier for a member to insert pork for their home states. In fiscal 2003, pork reached record levels of 9,362 projects and cost $22.5 billion. In an effort to curb the power of appropriators, the 104th Congress placed six-year term limits on House committee chairmen. The same should be done for all members of the Appropriations Committee. This would help reduce overall government spending and make the appropriations process fair for all taxpayers, instead of disproportionately rewarding the representatives who sit on the Appropriations Committee.
Enforcing procedural rules: Congress has a set of rules governing the budget process, but each year most are waived. For example, Senate Rule 28 and House Rule 22 forbid any new provisions to be added in conference that were not included in either the House or Senate bills. When the rule was waived for the fiscal 2003 appropriations bills, 2,856 pork-projects were added in conference, costing taxpayers $2.6 billion. Senate Rule 16 and House Rule 21 state that appropriations bills are for funding purposes only and should not include any legislation. However, the fiscal 2004 omnibus spending bill included language limiting media ownership, rules on overtime regulations, guidelines on food labeling, and other legislation. Democrats threatened to filibuster the bill--not because these issues were included, but only because they disagreed with them. Congress needs to police itself more effectively and make it more difficult to waive the rules.
Restricting pork: Earmarking was originally intended to give Congress the opportunity to add necessary items to the budget or if an emergency arose after the budget was submitted. Today, earmarks are abused to direct pork back to members' home states or as a political weapon. In one prominent example, House Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) stripped all earmarks belonging to Democrats who voted against the appropriations bill from the legislation and gave them to Republicans. Last year, in an effort to pare back the pork, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced S. Res. 173, which would allow senators to raise a point of order against any earmark in an appropriations bill. It would then require 60 votes for the project to remain. Not surprisingly, the Senate has not taken action on the resolution. Fortunately, President Bush just announced another solution: plans for a line-item veto that would allow him to "reject new appropriations, new mandatory spending, or limited grants of tax benefits." If Congress grants that power, the president could cut the fat out of the appropriations bills.
Biennial budget: Twenty-three states have biennial budgets. A two-year budget saves time and would allow Congress to devote more resources to oversight. It would also require more careful planning and scrutiny of programs receiving money, making it more difficult to sneak funding of a program into the budget. In fiscal 2003, representatives and senators were given only hours to read the 3,000 page Omnibus spending bill before voting. House and Senate rules require three days before a vote is scheduled, but the rules were waived. As a result, hundreds of pork projects were inserted without some members' knowledge. Having a biennial budget would prevent such an occurrence in the future, as there would not be as much pressure on lawmakers to pass the bill quickly.
Enacting these reforms will require substantial public support, since they require Congress to relinquish power. With $2.4 trillion being added to the national debt over the next 10 years, bringing the total to $9.4 trillion, taxpayers' only hope is for Congress to act in a fiscally responsible manner--something it has yet to do.
|
