It's October now, autumn, and the fourth quarter of the year. Leaves are falling, and the air is crisp as the globe cools. But there are other, not altogether seasonal, changes in the air.
The Forbes 500 has been reduced to 400 in order, it seems, to establish a minimum wealth of $1 billion and eliminate anyone who is not a billionaire. The Federal minimum wage, though, remains at the same level ($5.15 per hour) for the ninth straight year, despite continuing inflation and six pay raises for Congress during that period. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has just released a report noting that the median earnings of full-time workers declined in 2005 by 1.8% ($774) for men and 1.3% ($427) for women. The Budget Center also reports that wages accounted for the smallest share of income since 1929 while corporate profits reached their highest level since 1950.
We have just entered a new fiscal year without a Federal budget and without a good deal of other legislation. Some things do not change, however; there is a kind of annual ritual with Congress scrambling to pass a ”continuing resolution” permitting government to spend in fiscal year 2007 at fiscal year 2006’s levels, but avoiding the appropriation of money to fund a new budget for the new fiscal year. And all this happens against the background of highly vocal devotion to fiscal responsibility, which everybody claims, but nobody has.
The Constitution vested the power to raise and spend money in the Congress, which was thought to be more representative of the people than the Executive Branch and more likely to act as a brake on the fiscal desires of executives and bureaucrats. As the years went by, however, and political parties became stronger, these relationships grew more and more complex and the problems more difficult to resolve. The inevitable pressure for reform and against deficits led eventually to passage of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which now theoretically governs the process and the timetable for adopting the federal budget. (These three
senators are no longer in the Congress.)
Theoretically, because the budget timetable seems to work as long as the legislative action deals with the budget as a whole, as in passing the required budget resolution; but when money is to be made available, the required action becomes an appropriations bill which generally is far more controversial and vigorously argued than the overall budget. There are thirteen of these appropriations bills, which must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law before money can be spent. Each such bill is considered by a different committee of the House and the Senate; varying versions are passed by the two houses and must be reconciled before going to the White House.
When Congress adjourned on September 30, the House had passed twelve appropriations (all except Labor/HHS), but the Senate had passed only two (Defense and Homeland Security).; consequently, a continuing resolution was passed September 30, because no one wants to repeat the pain of September 1995, when Clinton let the executive agency doors close briefly.
When Congress reconvenes in a “Lame Duck” session on November 13, it will have to complete action on the budget, before its term ends, but will also have on its plate such matters as minimum wage increase, estate tax reduction, immigration reform, rescission powers to the President (like a line-item veto), offshore oil drilling, reforming lobbying practices, tightening port security, warrantless wiretaps, tax breaks for business, possible trade legislation, Defense policy, the fate of UN Ambassador John R. Bolton, exporting nuclear technology to India, and cuts in Medicare payments to doctors.
How any of these matters will be handled is unknown; possibly the only major step will be the annual “omnibus bill,” which includes everything not passed separately, plus the “pet projects” (like the famous Bridge to nowhere of last year) that the final tradeoffs include in a bill that everybody supports, but nobody reads.
The upcoming limping session also presents some unusual problems. During the final frenetic couple of weeks of the legislative session the more disciplined House of Representatives, having passed all but one of its appropriations bills, used the time to pass a flood of local legislation designed to give a boost to dozens of Republican Representatives who seem to be in danger of losing their seats. Did I mention this is campaign season?
Thus many voters can reward their members for such low-cost items as providing protection for Native American languages, preserving open space and farmland, and water planning. There are 165 of such bills to tug at the heartstrings of voters who my not realize that no money has been appropriated for any of them. They are on the books, however, in case there is a significant shift in the Congressional power structure as a result of the November 7 elections. After all, this is politics.
Fiscal responsibility, however, has to consider not only whether there is a budget, but also what is in it and whether it is in deficit. The U.S. national debt, whose ceiling was recently raised by Congress, is now $8.5 trillion; the estimate for the FY 2006 deficit (reduced from an earlier inflated OMB estimate) is just under $300 billion, which would be added to that total. There will be a strong push to bring in this budget with a surplus, but without affecting funds for the Iraq operation or rescinding or reducing any of the tax breaks for the wealthy that the Bush administration has already pushed through.
Clearly it is better to live within our means and not to have deficits; but the moral question is, who pays? It depends on what stays in the budget and what gets cut. Should we be spending $500 billion so more Americans die in an unjust war in Iraq than died on 9/11, and sacrificing even more revenues to the majority party’s rich friends and supporters while the minimum wage remains static, the welfare rolls steadily increase, and the percentage of the population covered by health care decreases? Should we hide our trade-offs and pet projects for local constituents in omnibus bills or Christmas trees?
That is another, more complex matter. Meanwhile, it should be clear that neither the federal budget process nor its outcome promotes the common good of poor people here or elsewhere.
Posted by Martin McLaughlin
Adjunct Associate, Agribusiness Accountability Initiative
Author of the book World Food Security.
