The Budget Deal...Good Or Bad?

The Budget Deal…Good Or Bad?  Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray, each representing their respective parties and the leaders from the respective legislative bodies they control, announced this week a two-year budget deal.  I think the two most important immediate indications regarding the quality of the deal is (1) Most good compromises leave both sides unhappy and complaining and there are several on each side of the political spectrum doing just that, and (2) It would appear that the vocal detractors on each side considered, there are sufficient votes in both bodies and both parties to pass the budget agreement.  I reluctantly endorse this agreement and here is why.

My biggest objection to the deal is that it expands federal spending beyond the already agreed to, already established in law figure of $967 billion that was the result of the sequester agreement.  This budget will expand 2014 spending to $1.012 trillion and 2015 spending to $1.014 trillion.  Time after time, I have watched Republicans deal away a bird in the hand for two in the bush and end up bird-less; I fear this may be occurring once again.  I feel the sequester level of $967B should have been chiseled in stone and not open to negotiation; that battle had already been won and it was hard-earned.  Ryan indicates that at the end of two years, thanks to increased or revised fees and various other cuts in spending, we will realize the same spending level as dictated by the sequester. Perhaps we will, perhaps we won’t.  To a common person like myself, an increased or revised-upward fee looks a whole lot like a tax; which Ryan repeatedly claimed there was none of in this deal.  The new cuts are supposed to amount to about $85B, are supposed to target some heretofore untouchable programs, and are to be mandated by baseline spending levels in each body.  We’ll see if those birds end up back in the nest.

On the positive side, it is apparently obvious, based on complaints from both sides of the aisle, that the $20B in 2013 defense cuts were far too great and this agreement essentially replaces them, bringing 2014 and 2015 pentagon spending up to pre-cut 2013 levels.  I am no expert in defense matters, but this seems reasonable to me and apparently has wide, bipartisan support.  It is also true that although the sequester deal could be celebrated for its achievement of spending cuts, it is without debate that those cuts, due to their arbitrary “across the board” nature, were not distributed across the government in an intelligent fashion.  This deal supposedly brings a bit more reason to the cuts in spending, whatever they may be. 

If Ryan is correct that at the end of 2015, government spending with this deal will be at the same level as it would have been with the sequester in force, then his arguments hold water.  If, on the other hand, the promised spending cuts that have not yet been passed into law and the new fee revenues do not meet expectations, he has been hornswoggled.   Being somewhat a fan of Ryan’s past pragmatic approach to government budgeting and spending, I am disappointed to hear him using loose language to disguise mandatory increased consumer spending as fees.  It smacks of that old Washington argument that a cut is not necessarily a cut in this year’s spending level over last year’s spending level, but simply a decrease in the anticipated increase in this year’s spending level over last year’s spending level.  Lipstick on a pig is still bacon and ham.

The one aspect of this deal that makes it palatable to me is the fact that we could now have not one, but two fiscal year budgets on paper.  It has been years since we’ve had a single year’s budget, not to mention two.  The government has lurched from one budget crisis to the next, continuing resolution after continuing resolution, with each side posturing and playing their cards for the most political gain.  This has adversely affected the efficiency of our government, the credibility of our elected leaders, all of our federal employees who have no clear direction on the programs they administer, and the people who rely on those programs to get by on a daily basis.  There will be plenty of battles between the Democrats and the Republicans over the next two years regarding spending and how to split up the whole pie, but the overall size of the pie has now been determined in this agreement and that has always been the single biggest bone of contention.  It is hard to imagine, and perhaps wishful thinking, but this agreement offers the real possibility that Senate and House Committees can get back to actually legislating spending guidelines for their respective areas of responsibility.  The prospect, however great or small you may see it, for a better functioning government might be improved.  That, my friends, is a reason to celebrate and reason enough to support this budget agreement.