Congress should be using the lame-duck session to do meaningful work. Unfortunately, it’s doing the opposite: seeking to cut its future workload while leaving long-term problems unresolved.
On Wednesday, the Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform unveiled draft legislation designed to change the way Congress exercises its constitutionally-granted power of the purse. The bill would do very little of substance and its core proposal, “biennial budgeting,” would lead Congress to pass two-year budgets instead of annual budgets.
When the Joint Select Committee was created as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, the underlying reasoning for budget process reform was undeniable. Since the current process began with the Budget Act of 1974, Congress has been serially unable to meet basic deadlines for passing budget resolutions and spending measures. This problem has been evident during divided and unified government alike, and there is more than enough blame to spread among both political parties.
Compounding this problem is the fact that the portion of spending controlled through the annual process has been declining, as spending on mandatory programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security has continued to grow on autopilot.
The end result is that Congress has not been properly managing its power of the purse.
Recognizing this problem has rarely been at issue. Budget analysts of every political and ideological stripe have bemoaned late and/or nonexistent budget resolutions, Congress’ perpetual reliance on “continuing resolutions” and “omnibus” bills to fund the federal government, and the exploding national debt.
A stumbling block has been a lack of consensus on how to fix these problems, and yet the work of the Joint Select Committee shows that merely reaching “consensus” is insufficient.
The most commonly cited budget reform idea—and the basis for the Joint Select Committee’s new proposal—is biennial budgeting. Under this model, rather than producing a budget every year, Congress would only produce a budget every two years, or once for every session of Congress.
Proponents of biennial budgeting say it would reduce the amount of time both Congress and federal agencies would need to manage the spending process during the second year, freeing up time for other work. In reality, it would further reduce the opportunities for Congress to exercise its constitutional responsibility to oversee and control federal spending.
Continuing resolutions and sky-high deficit spending would almost certainly continue under biennial budgeting. In fact, spending would likely increase, since Congress would pass more supplemental appropriations and lobbyists would have an added incentive to put extra effort into influencing a two-year spending package.
Moreover, by reducing opportunities for the Senate to pursue budget reconciliation, Congress would neglect a key fiscal tool to adjust mandatory spending, which is the key driver of debt.
It comes as no surprise that under the proposal, Congress would be relieved from having to produce a budget during an election year. Legislators are not shy about wanting to avoid the most important part of their jobs when that very job is at stake. Instead of calling this proposal “The Bipartisan Budget and Appropriations Reform Act,” legislators would be more honest if they had called it “The Congressional Workload and Responsibility Reduction Act.”
The best evidence against biennial budgeting is already staring us in the face: Congress has essentially been operating on a biannual budget cycle for the last several years. Ever since passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011, bipartisan budget deals have been made on a two-year basis. Yet where have these biennial deals gotten us?
The national debt is rapidly approaching $22 trillion. Annual deficits are projected to exceed $1 trillion in the very near future, likely as soon as the 2019 fiscal year. Since fiscal reforms rarely happen, Congress should not bother to spend political capital on legislation unless it would have a meaningful impact, and legislators should certainly stay away from policy changes that are likely to do more harm than good.
[…click here to read the rest of the piece, which states points Congress should be addressing…]
They only work 3-1/2 days a week as it is, so wanting more free time is a con job on the American people.